TRANSIT ON THE MOVE LIAISON GROUP MEETING #4
May 19, 2005,
5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
University of Arizona University Services Annex Building, 220 West 6th Street
Meeting Summary
1. Introductions
Shellie Ginn, Project Manager, City of Tucson, welcomed everyone. Liaison Group members, staff, consultants and observers introduced themselves.
2. RTA Update
Freda Johnson, meeting moderator, introduced Tim Ahrens, Regional Transportation Authority Manager, who reviewed RTA proposed projects. The list of proposed project was distributed to the liaison group. Tim reported that the RTA review committee is working on the final draft of projects to get ready for the May 2006 election. Observer Joyce Schumann, Tri Delta House Corporation, asked how much of the construction funds for this project are under the auspices of the University of Arizona. Tim noted that the funds for this project fall under the auspices of the City of Tucson. Marc Soronson, SRBA, Consultant Project Manager, reported that in-kind costs, joint construction activities, etc. have not been agreed upon by the UA and the City of Tucson.
3. On-Board Survey Results
Marc Soronson introduced Linda Cherrington of the Texas Transportation Institute. Linda presented the results of the On Board Origin and Destination Survey. A copy of the PowerPoint Presentation and Executive Summary were distributed to the Liaison Group.
The survey, conducted in October 2004, included Sun Tran, Cat Tran and TICET. The objective of the survey was to collect information and data regarding regional transit travel patterns, to gather information about ridership demographics and to collect market research information on the opinions of riders about the transit services provided. Linda reviewed the methodology for determining the sample size and described the process of developing the survey. She noted that the development of the survey was a collaborative process that included various agencies and groups. The survey methodology was to sample data by several strata (provider, route type, route, direction and time of day) to represent the whole system. Linda noted that in order to have an adequate sample size to obtain a 95 % confidence level for each stratum, 16,775 passengers would need to be greeted and 2, 875 of those would have to complete a survey. The survey actually achieved a much higher survey response rate of 5,197. These surveys were verified and determined valid. Linda reported that this data can be used to look at different markets, customer satisfaction and for detailed service planning. In addition, the OD survey data will be used in the PAG Travel Demand Model and the Mode Choice Model.
Steve Farley, Blenman Elm Neighborhood Association, asked what percentage of responses was in Spanish. Linda said that 5 percent of the surveys were returned in Spanish. Tina Bailey, Campbell Avenue Business Partnership, Inc, asked what made a survey invalid. Linda answered that questions about trip purpose, access/egress modes, auto availability had to be answered for a survey to be valid and also the origin and destination addresses given by the respondents had to be geo-coded. If a survey could not be geo-coded it was determined invalid although other information from the survey could be used. Marc noted that questions about mode choice were at the beginning of the survey and market questions were at the end. Ross Bryant, Campbell-Grant Neighborhood Association, asked if the survey was done to determine why people use or do not use the transit system. Marc answered that this survey was designed to collect data for the mode choice model from current users of transit not on attitudes about transit from non-users. He noted that he will report more on the results of the mode choice model during the next meeting in late summer. Linda reported that the survey took about three weeks to conduct in the field. Steve asked if data could be extrapolated from the mode choice model to provide information about express modes. Marc said that the data will not need to be extrapolated as the express mode stands on its own. Results (the GIS points) from the mode choice model will be plotted on a map similar to the TAZ map. Shellie reported that the On Board Survey results were provided to the media on May 19. Observer Dick Basey asked why Old Pueblo Trolley was not included in the survey. Marc answered that the survey was conducted during the week when the trolley is not in operation.
4. Conceptual Alternative and Proposed Station Locations
Marc Soronson provided a report on the station locations and operational issues with the two alignments. Marc reminded everyone of the goals of this project which includes keeping the cost down. Each alignment north of downtown was reviewed in detail. Marc described how the streetcar would operate along Campbell to 6th Street, he detailed the turning issues at 6th Street and explained how the platforms would fit along 6th Street. Overall, Marc said that the 6th Street Option would require right of way acquisitions along the west side of Campbell Avenue and at the Campbell Avenue and 6th Street corner. Marc noted that although the 6th Street Option appears to be more direct, it misses half of 4th Avenue and the Main Gate area. Ellen Adelstein noted that the Anshei Israel property at Campbell Avenue and 6th Street may have historic value even though the building has been torn down. Marc said it was unclear how this historic property would affect right of way acquisition at Campbell Avenue and 6th Street. Steve Farley asked if there is discussion about using Enke Drive and weaving through the campus to avoid the Campbell Avenue and 6th Street intersection. Marc answered not at this time but it may be considered in the future. Marc stated that the proposed maintenance facilities on 7th and 8th Streets area are good locations but he does not have information on property costs.
The UA Alignment also terminates at Helen Street. Marc reported that no right of way would need to be acquired along Helen Street and the turning movement at Cherry would operate smoothly. John Sedwick, Fourth Avenue Merchants Association, asked about the decision to end at Helen Street and not continue to UMC. Marc responded that the development and construction north of Helen Street precluded the streetcar from entering that area. However, Marc said that a station on Helen Street near the new pedestrian plaza would facilitate access to the Health Science Center. The streetcar would turn west off Cherry on 2nd Street. Marc noted that 2nd Street might be downscaled for traffic providing more pedestrian facilities and landscaping. A suggestion was made at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting to move the stop on 2nd Street away from the garage to avoid possible ingress and egress conflicts. Marc said at this time it is not known if the streetcar will be able to use the Bank One property at Park and Tyndall. For this presentation the alignment continues through Park and University. Joyce Schumann asked about the number and location of tracks on 2nd Street. Marc responded that the dual tracks would be in the through lanes. Joyce commented that Stop #24 is located at the entrance to an alley that is used for garbage pick up and deliveries. Marc responded that this stop could be shifted to the north or south. Marc stated that bicycle lanes and parking would be maintained along University Avenue. The stations would be located in the middle of the street. Pat Dunford, Old Pueblo Trolley, asked if there would be one or two tracks and how the older tracks would be handled. Marc said he was not sure what would happen with the old tracks but two new tracks would be put in the through lanes for the streetcar. John Sedwick commented that 4th Avenue already has mid block cut outs. Marc answered that additional cut outs would match the existing ones as much as possible.
Marc reviewed the downtown portion of the system which assumes the use of a two-way 4th Avenue underpass. Along Congress there would be one track in either direction in the through lane with side platforms. The stations would be small and simple in order to keep as much parking as possible. The double track would then turn south on Church ending at the Samaniego House. Until Rio Nuevo finalizes plans, the alignment ends at this point just south of Broadway on Church but final plans will show the alignment crossing the river to Rio Nuevo. Marc said that he needs to know more about what Rio Nuevo is planning before he can evaluate alignment options through the civic plaza and across the river. John Sedwick asked if the maintenance facility located within the 4th Avenue area could be two story and multi-use with parking on top. Marc answered that the facility is quite small and he did not currently see any problem with it being two story. This would be a design issue that would be considered in later phases of the project. David Bachman-Williams, Tucson/Pima Bicycle Advisory Committee, stressed the need to maintain bicycles lanes along University. He also noted that 4 th Avenue is heavily used by bicyclists. David suggested “cheating” the tracks a bit to the left to allow for more space between parking and cyclists. Mike Barton, HDR, said that the stations would have to come out to meet the tracks. John Zukas asked if funding limits options. Marc responded that the 6th Street Option is better for bus rapid transit because of the right of way needed for the streetcar. The 6th Street Option might lose the UA ridership needed to make it a viable option. Joe LaMantia, Grant Rd. Neighborhood Association/Iron Horse Neighborhood Association, commented that this project needs to be bicycle friendly everywhere. Steve Farley suggested installing bicycle racks in the street cars similar to Portland. Marc said the streetcars can easily accommodate bicycles. David Walker, Menlo Park Neighborhood Association, asked about the cross section of the tracks. Marc answered that the tracks are not high but the flange might cause some problems with bicycles turning. David Bachman-Williams said that bicyclists are in favor of mass transit because they favor fewer cars. Steve Farley asked about the importance of the time savings of each option. Marc said that the FTA does look at time savings for the New Start Program.
5. Feeder Bus Network
Marc reported that the City is considering reducing the number of buses terminating at the Ronstadt Center downtown. To this end, the consultant studied the possibility of terminating Route 9 at the McKale transit stop and transferring riders to the streetcar to continue downtown. The On Board Survey database will provide the project data to determine options for reducing the pressure on the downtown transit center. Tina Bailey asked what riders would think of having to transfer at McKale to go downtown. Marc said that the On Board survey contains data regarding the number of people on Route #9 that terminate their trip at the University and how many continue downtown.
6. Next Steps
Marc reported that the next meeting will include construction, operational, maintenance and other costs of the options. In addition, ridership, bus options and economic gains will be presented. A question was asked about who would operate the system and who would determine the fare structure. Marc said it is too early to determine who would operate the system and the fare structure. Joe LaMantia stated that he hoped this project would bring character and positive activities to Tucson. David Bachman-Williams asked for speakers to present to local groups. Joan said the next Liaison Group meeting would be in September after Labor Day. A straw poll was taken with regards to the options. There were a few in favor of the 6th Street Option and more in favor of the UA Alignment Option. Marc said that both options should continue to be evaluated. Joyce Schumann asked if the Scoping Reports were almost finished. Marc answered that the information has been analyzed and is about to be published.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm.
top ^
