DOCSLIB.ORG

Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee VMOCC Meeting Packet MEETING OF THE Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee MEETING DATE January 27, 2009 TIME 1:00 p.m. LOCATION MAG Saguaro Room 302 N. 1st Avenue Suite 200 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411 January 20, 2009 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) MAG – Saguaro Room 302 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 200 Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:00 p.m. Action Recommended 1. Summary Minutes 1. For action Summary minutes from the December 16, 2008 VMOCC meeting are presented for approval. 2. Regional Fare Policy Program 2. For information Mario Diaz, Chief Marketing Officer, will present a summary of the existing Fare Policy Program and potential changes thereto, along with preliminary input from the fare policy public hearings. 3. 2007 Origins and Destinations Study 3. For action Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, will request the VMOCC accept the 2007 Origins and Destinations Study and forward it to the TMC for consideration. 4. Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System for East Valley 4. For action Dial-a-Ride Contract Award Jim Wright, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations, will request the VMOCC to forward to the TMC the recommendation to award a contract to Trapeze for an IVR System in an amount not to exceed $142,616. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at 1 www.ValleyMetro.org. 5. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Policy Issues and 5. For information Recommendations and possible action Paul Hodgins, Manager of Capital Programming, will lead a discussion with the VMOCC on the TLCP policy issues and recommendations and solicit the VMOCC comments that will be forwarded to the TMC and Budget and Finance Subcommittee (BFS) for consideration. 6. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Fund Utilization 6. For information and discussion Jim Book, Project Manager, will lead a discussion of prioritized ITS projects that could be brought forward for RPTA Board of Directors approval and programming into the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). 7. Regional Operations Technical Advisory 7. For information Committee (TAC) and discussion Chairman Greg Jordan will lead a discussion on the potential formation of a TAC of the VMOCC to address Regional Operations. 8. Valley Metro Planning Studies Overview Update, 4th 8. For information Quarter 2008 Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, will provide a report on the ongoing studies in the Planning department. 9. Future VMOCC Agenda Items 9. For information Chairman Greg Jordan will request future VMOCC agenda items from the committee members. The attached matrix illustrates past and pending agenda items of the VMOCC. 10. Member Agency Updates 10. For information An opportunity will be provided for VMOCC members to provide an update on projects in their jurisdictions. 11. Public Comment 11. For information An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at 2 www.ValleyMetro.org. 12. Next Meeting 12. For information The next meeting of the VMOCC is scheduled for February 17, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at MAG in the Saguaro Room. To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez for the dial-in information. Qualified sign language interpreters are available with 72 hours notice. Materials in alternative formats (large print, audio cassette or computer diskette) are available upon request. For further information, please call Nichole Myers, Valley Metro at 602-262-7433 or TDD at 602-495-0936. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at 3 www.ValleyMetro.org. Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Agenda Item #1 Date January 20, 2009 Subject Summary Minutes Summary Summary minutes from the December 16, 2008 meeting of the VMOCC are presented for review and approval. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation Approve the summary meeting minutes from the December 16, 2008 meeting of the VMOCC. Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Chief of Staff 602-534-1803 Attachments Summary Minutes 1 Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411 Summary Meeting Minutes of the Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) December 16, 2008 MAG Saguaro Room Phoenix, AZ 10:00 a.m. VMOCC Members Present Greg Jordan, City of Tempe, Chair – via teleconference Cathy Colbath, City of Glendale, Vice Chair Kristen Taylor, City of Avondale Mike Normand, City of Chandler Rick Becker, City of Chandler Ken Maruyama, Town of Gilbert Terry Johnson, City of Glendale Christine McMurdy, City of Goodyear Jim Hash, City of Mesa Julie Howard, City of Mesa Randy Roberts, City of Peoria Reed Caldwell, City of Phoenix Al Villaverde, City of Phoenix Madeline Clemann, City of Scottsdale John Kelley, City of Scottsdale Dave Golder, City of Surprise Norma Mancini, City of Surprise Jason Hartong, City of Tempe Marc Pearsall, City of Tempe Arleen Schenck, Maricopa County Members Not Present City of El Mirage Town of Queen Creek Vice-Chair Cathy Colbath called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Mario Diaz, Senior Marketing Manager, informed the committee there will be a Fare Policy Committee meeting on Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 1:00 pm at the Valley Metro Offices. 2 1. Summary Minutes Summary minutes from the following meetings were presented for review and approval. A. October 21, 2008 joint FOAC and VMOCC Meeting B. November 18, 2008 VMOCC Meeting C. December 8, 2008 Special VMOCC Meeting for the Bus Stop Improvement Program Funding Allocation IT WAS MOVED BY MIKE NORMAND, SECONDED BY ARLEEN SCHENCK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY MINUTES FROM THE THREE MEETINGS PRESENTED. 2. Annual Transit Performance Report (TPR) Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, gave a brief overview of the annual TPR. She said staff relies on the data submitted by the contracting agencies to develop the TPR and it is used as a tool for the five-year performance audit for Proposition 400 funded projects. She said detailed information for route- by-route data is available upon request. Ms. Ketcherside said there is a correction on page 11 of the draft TPR – under system summary, operating cost per boarding for paratransit; it should read $35.33, not $31.33. The correction will be made going forward. Mr. Caldwell said the City of Phoenix does not support the annual TPR in its current version. He asked about the purpose of the annual TPR. Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, said the State Auditor General does performance audits of the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Prop. 400 funding, every five years. He said staff hired Booz Allen Hamilton with Board approval to do a Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study (SEES) on measures of performance to monitor the transit system. He said it is something that has to be completed on an annual basis. Mr. Caldwell requested a copy of the entire report before moving forward with the recommended changes before the City of Phoenix will support the TPR. Ms. Ketcherside said the TPR is a report of data and it is a tool for our policy makers to use in analyzing and making decisions about what service changes they might like to make. Ms. Howard asked for clarification on the text under the Farebox Recovery Ratio section on page 5 of the report. Ms. Ketcherside said Valley Metro introduced a lot of new service and the passenger per mile ridership on brand new service is not going to be necessarily as high as the established service. She said because it is new service, the farebox recovery is expected to be lower on that service and some of the new routes are circulators with no fare that’s also going to contribute to the calculation of the farebox recovery. 3 The committee suggested the following items be included in the FY08 TPR: A table showing regional vs. local funding by jurisdiction A table of local contributions Acknowledge the agencies who contributed information and funding IT WAS MOVED BY MIKE NORMAND AND SECONDED BY JULIE HOWARD TO ACCEPT THE DRAFT FY 2008 ANNUAL TRANSIT PERFORMANCE REPORT WITH THE ABOVE CHANGES AND FORWARD IT TO THE TMC FOR CONSIDERATION. The committee suggested in the future that all the data tables be reviewed by all the jurisdictions. They also suggested prior to the TMC meeting, providing the data tables on the Valley Metro website. Mr. Caldwell said City of Phoenix would like recognition for the funds contributed to the data in the TPR. THE MOTION CARRIED. THE CITIES OF PHOENIX AND TEMPE VOTED NO. 3. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Ms. Ketcherside introduced Scott Miller, consultant with HDR, to address the committee. Ms. Clemann suggested the following: ¾ Referring to the Table ES-1: Transit Services in the Region on page 2 of the draft SRTP Executive Summary – she requested for service improvements, to include the paratransit and vanpool information into the summary. ¾ Referring to the Table ES-2: Express & RAPID Routes Map on page 4 of the draft SRTP Executive Summary – she asked if the missing numbers will be included. ¾ She said to make certain that if the data isn’t included, somehow in the text address the fact when that data will be available so that it shows a history of the progress.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • June 14, 2019 Capital Projects Standing Committee Meeting Agenda
    SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT (METRO) CAPITAL PROJECTS STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA REGULAR MEETING JUNE 14, 2019 – 1:00PM METRO ADMIN OFFICES 110 VERNON STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 The Capital Projects Standing Committee Meeting Agenda Packet can be found online at www.SCMTD.com and is available for inspection at Santa Cruz Metro’s Administrative offices at 110 Vernon Street, Santa Cruz, California. This document has been created with accessibility in mind. With the exception of certain 3rd party and other attachments, it passes the Adobe Acrobat XI Accessibility Full Check. If you have any questions about the accessibility of this document, please email your inquiry to [email protected] The committee may take action on each item on the agenda. The action may consist of the recommended action, a related action or no action. Staff recommendations are subject to action and/or change by the Board of Directors. COMMITTEE ROSTER Director Ed Bottorff City of Capitola Director Cynthia Mathews City of Santa Cruz Director Bruce McPherson County of Santa Cruz Alex Clifford METRO CEO/General Manager Julie Sherman METRO General Counsel AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT METRO does not discriminate on the basis of disability. Any person who requires an accommodation or an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting, or to access the agenda and the agenda packet, should contact the Executive Assistant, at 831-426-6080 as soon as possible in advance of the Committee meeting. Hearing impaired individuals should call 711 for assistance in contacting Santa Cruz METRO regarding special requirements to participate in the Committee meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Transportation RFP 2021
    Newmarket School District -Transportation Services RFP Newmarket School District 186A Main Street Newmarket, NH 03857 603-659-5020 Request for Proposals School Bus Transportation Services Sealed proposals marked “Sealed Transportation Proposal” must be submitted no later than Friday, March 26, 2021 at 3:00 pm to the SAU Office, 186A Main Street, Newmarket, NH 03857. The Newmarket School District reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids or proposals received or any parts thereof for any reason whatsoever, to waive any informalities in any bid or proposal or in any provision in the request for bids or proposals, to negotiate with any or all proposers, to require a modification of the RFP at any time, and to select the proposer whom, the District, in its sole discretion determines is in the best interests of the District even though the proposer may not submit the lowest bid or proposal. Under no circumstances will the District be responsible for the cost of preparing any bid or proposal. All bids are governmental records subject to public disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law. The District will not accept bids marked confidential in whole or in part. Proposals will be publicly opened at the School Administration Office located at 186A Main Street, Newmarket, New Hampshire. The contents of all proposals will be open to inspection by interested parties at the time of opening or by appointment thereafter. 1 Newmarket School District -Transportation Services RFP Newmarket School District Request for Proposals The Newmarket School District (the “District”) is soliciting proposals from qualified Carriers to provide daily school bus transportation, and transportation for extracurricular activities, through a contract for services with an initial term of five years commencing on July 1, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Buses That We Don't Have Current Details For
    Check List - buses that we don't have current details for The main lists on our website show the details of the many thousands of open top buses that currently exist throughout the world, and those that are listed as either scrapped or for scrap. However, there are a number of buses in our database that we don’t have current details for, that could still exist or have been scrapped. The buses listed on this page are those that we need to confirm the location and status of. These buses do not appear on any of our other lists, so if you're looking for a particular vehicle, it could be here. Please have a look at this page and if you can update any of it, even if only a small piece of information that helps to determine where a bus is now, then please contact us using the link button on the Front Page. The buses are divided into lists in Chassis manufacturer order. ? REG NO / LICENCE PLATE CHASSIS BODY STATUS/LAST KNOWN OWNER J2374 ? ? Last reported with JMT in 1960s, no further trace AEC Regent REG NO / LICENCE PLATE CHASSIS BODY STATUS/LAST KNOWN OWNER AUO 90 AEC Regent Unidentified Devon General AUO 91 AEC Regent Unidentified Devon General GW 6276 AEC Regent Brighton & Hove Acquired by Southern Vectis (903) from Brighton Hove and District in 1955. Sold, 1960, not traced further. GW 6277 AEC Regent Brighton & Hove Acquired by Southern Vectis (902) from Brighton Hove and District in 1955, never entered service, disposed of in 1957.
    [Show full text]
  • FY2020 Contractors Manual Section 7 Satisfactory Continuing Control
    7. SATISFACTORY CONTINUING CONTROL PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW AREA The recipient must ensure that Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-funded property will remain available to be used for its originally authorized purpose throughout its useful life until disposition. QUESTIONS TO BE EXAMINED 1. For FTA-funded real property purchased under an award made on or after December 26, 2014, does the recipient maintain adequate records on the status of real property and submit required reports to FTA? 2. For FTA-funded excess real property purchased under an award made before December 26, 2014, did the recipient prepare and update an excess property inventory and utilization plan? 3. Did the recipient follow FTA requirements for incidental use of real property? 4. Has the recipient made appropriate efforts to use, lease, or dispose of idle facilities? 5. Is FTA-funded real property used solely for its originally authorized purpose? 6. If the recipient disposed of FTA-funded real property since the last Comprehensive Review, were FTA requirements followed? 7. Does the recipient have flood insurance for any FTA-funded buildings located in areas that has been identified as having special flood hazards and in which the sale of flood insurance has been made available under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968? 8. Does the recipient maintain control over FTA-funded equipment? 9. Was equipment withdrawn from use and disposed of in accordance with 2 CFR 200 and FTA requirements? 10. Are bus fleets managed in accordance with FTA requirements for spare ratios and contingency fleets? 11. Does the rail fleet management plan meet FTA requirements? 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (Part 2)
    77 CHAPTER 5 LESSONS LEARNED FROM SUCCESSFUL RAIL SYSTEMS OVERVIEW FOUR ELEMENTS IN A SUCCESSFUL AIRPORT RAIL SYSTEM Chapter 4 summarized the results of a review of 14 suc- cessful airport ground access systems, each of which was able This chapter will focus on the rail projects that form the to capture more than 20 percent of the market of air travelers principal mode of most of the successful systems described to public transportation. Chapter 5 examines the attributes in Chapter 4 by describing the characteristics associated with achieved in the implementation of the successful system that the success of these rail projects. This chapter will explore can be of use to the U.S. practitioner considering the develop- the importance of four elements of a total strategy, drawing ment of systems with both rail and bus services. This chapter examples from the systems described in Chapter 4. These four examines the characteristics of the rail component of the total elements are: ground access strategies used in the 14 successful systems. The focus of the chapter is on the attributes of rail service that are 1. Service to downtown and the metropolitan area; associated with high mode shares to rail systems. The actual 2. Service to national destinations beyond the metropoli- method by which these attributes can be achieved in the U.S. tan area; experience may be different from the methods used in Europe 3. Quality of the rail connection at the airport, or the and Asia. airport–railway interface; and 4. Baggage-handling strategies and off-site facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Mountain Transit Board of Commissioners Meeting February 16, 2021 - 7:30 A.M
    Green Mountain Transit Board of Commissioners Meeting February 16, 2021 - 7:30 a.m. 101 Queen City Road, Burlington VT 05401 The mission of GMT is to promote and operate safe, convenient, accessible, innovative, and sustainable public transportation services in northwest and central Vermont that reduce congestion and pollution, encourage transit oriented development, and enhance the quality of life for all. Due to current social distancing measures, this meeting will be held entirely virtually. To join the meeting via Zoom: Video Conferencing: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89305968523 Audio Only: (646)-558-8656 Meeting ID: 893 0596 8523 7:30 a.m. 1. Open Meeting 7:31 a.m. 2. Adjustment of the Agenda 7:33 a.m. 3. Public Comment 7:35 a.m. 4. Consent Agenda (Action Item) Pages 4-40 a. January 19, 2021 Board Meeting Minutes b. Check Register c. Finance Report d. Maintenance Report e. Planning, Marketing and Public Affairs Report f. IT Support, Administrative Support, Training and HR Report g. Ridership Reports 7:40 a.m. 5. VTrans Update 7:50 a.m. 6. General Manager Report – Updates and Opportunity for Questions on the Report Pages 41-45 101 Queen City Park Rd, Burlington, VT 05401 | T: 802-540-2468 F: 802-864-5564 6088 VT Route 12, Berlin, VT 05602 | T: 802-223-7287 F: 802-223-6236 375 Lake Road, Suite 5, St. Albans, VT 05478 | T: 802-527-2181 F: 802-527-5302 1 8:00 a.m. 7. Board Committee Reports 8:10 a.m. 8. Justice, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (JEDI) Standing Committee Policy (Action Item) Pages 46-47 8:20 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Buses Scrapped, Or Sold for Scrap AEC Regent II
    Buses scrapped, or sold for scrap This is our list of buses that have been scrapped, sold for scrap, or are thought to no longer exist. These buses can be considered to fall into two categories. Buses scrapped In most cases, these buses will have been sold to a vehicle dismantler or scrap dealer, where they would be stripped of any useful parts and the remains cut up, so that the vehicle no longer exists. In some cases the dismantling or cutting up has been done by the bus owner and the remains sold to a scrap dealer. Buses sold for scrap When buses are sold for scrap, it is probably the intention of the seller that the vehicle should be dismantled. Many of our records are conclusive, in that we record that the buses no longer exist. However, other buses are shown as ‘scrapped’, but it is possible that while we believe they were sold for dismantling, the physical destruction process may not yet have happened, and the buses may still exist on the dealer’s premises in either complete form or in a delapitated condition. We will update the records on this list in due course to identify any buses that we thought had been destroyed that perhaps do still exist in ‘sold for scrap’ condition. The buses are grouped into ‘Chassis Make’ lists, in registration/licence plate order. As always, if you can update or correct anything on this list, please contact us. Please note that there may be some conflicts with buses listed on the ‘To Check’ page, where this page has been updated and the To Check page has still to be updated.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Commission on October 30, 2003, and Was Made Pursuant to the Provisions of NRS 218.737 to 218.893
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AUTHORITY AUDIT REPORT Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7 Background......................................................................................................... 7 Scope and Objective ........................................................................................... 9 Findings and Recommendations............................................................................. 10 Vehicle Safety Inspections Not Performed.......................................................... 10 Limousine and Taxicab Safety Inspections Not Performed as Required ...... 10 Limousines and Taxicabs Not Inspected Before Placed in Service.............. 11 Process to Identify Buses Requiring Inspection Has Not Been Established............................................................................................... 12 Better Oversight of Carrier Operations Is Needed............................................... 13 On-Site Inspection Process Needs Improvement......................................... 13 Carriers Did Not Always Meet Minimum Financial Requirements................. 14 Taxicabs Not Taken Out of Service When Required .................................... 15 Carrier Lease Agreements With Taxicab Drivers Are Outdated ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making February 2009
    United States Federal Transit Administration Department of Transportation Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation Characteristics of BUS RAPID TRANSIT for Decision-Making Project No. FTA-FL-26-7109.2009.1 February 2009 Photo courtesy of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Characteristics of BUS RAPID TRANSIT for Decision-Making funded by the Federal Transit Administration FTA Project Manager: Helen M. Tann Transportation Program Specialist Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Principal Investigator: Dennis Hinebaugh Director, National BRT Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida (USF) 4202 E. Fowler Ave, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620 © February 2009 Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 20 Sb392etal./1516 LIMOUSINE, TAXICAB, & TNC
    LIMOUSINE, TAXICAB, & TNC REGS S.B. 392 & H.B. 4637 & 4639-4641: SUMMARY AS ENACTED Senate Bill 392 (as enacted) PUBLIC ACT 349 of 2016 House Bills 4637, 4639, 4640, and 4641 (as enacted) PUBLIC ACTS 345-348 of 2016 Sponsor: Senator Rick Jones (S.B. 392) Representative Tim Kelly (H.B. 4637) Representative Brandt Iden (H.B. 4639) Representative Tom Barrett (H.B. 4640) Representative Phil Phelps (H.B. 4641) Senate Committee: Regulatory Reform House Committee: Commerce and Trade Date Completed: 1-12-17 CONTENT The bills amend several statutes, and create a new statute, to revise regulations that apply to motor carriers of passengers (buses), limousines, and taxicabs, and establish new requirements applicable to transportation network companies (operations that use a digital network to connect riders to drivers who provide prearranged rides). Senate Bill 392 amends the Motor Bus Transportation Act to do the following: -- Delete references to limousines throughout the Act. -- Revise and expand the list of motor carriers that are exempt from the Act. -- Require a motor carrier to register its roster of buses with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). -- Require a motor carrier to obtain an "authority" rather than a "certificate of authority" in order to operate on a public highway, and specify that an authority covers a motor carrier and the authorized vehicles listed on its roster. -- Increase the per-vehicle fee payable for an original authority and for a renewal, and for the authorization of additional vehicles. -- Require at least one vehicle on a roster to remain in good standing during the time period covered by the authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Ticketing and User Information Systems in Public Transport in Thessaloniki Area
    Ticketing and user information systems in Public Transport in Thessaloniki area Chrysa Vizmpa, Transport Planner Engineer Thessaloniki Public Transport Authority «Technology, Mobility governance and Public Transport for Mediterranean Smart Cities» Arezzo,Italy, 1st December 2014 Demographic characteristics Thessaloniki 2nd largest city in Greece Population of the Regional Unity of Thessaloniki is: 1,104,460 inhabitants 14 municipalities compose the Regional Unity of Thessaloniki Existing mobility facts 2.2 million passengers daily trips by all modes with a PT share of 27% Underground Metro line is expected in mid- 2018 78 bus lines (urban & suburban), 622 buses fleet, annual 42 million vehicle-kms by OASTh Low fare box recovery ration, State compensation 68% of the total expenses in 2012 (OASTh 2013) Existing mobility facts Over 500.000 trips daily by PT Car ownership: approximately 450 vehicles per 1.000 residents 140.000 vehicles during peak hours use the city network The mean speed per vehicle is 14 km/hour in peak periods at city center Total network length exceeding 970 km 5,800 daily trips Annual production (2011): ~42,000,000 vehicle-kilometers Annual system capacity: 422,000,000 passengers Annual patronage: 177,000,000 passengers – an average occupancy of 42% What THEPTA is… Role of THEPTA today According to ThePTA’s founding of the Law is responsible for: • Planning Network of Public Transport • Specify stops, routes, frequency of bus routes (OASTH) • Decides for the type of passengers facilities for (shelters, stations etc.) • Improving passenger service (bus lanes, terminals, passenger information) • Award urban transport in to the Municipalities Planning and Integration – Thessaloniki SUMP Development Planning and Integration – Thessaloniki SUMP Development 1.
    [Show full text]
  • September 2019
    News No. 6 - SEPTEMBER 2019 At the close of a variable summer, here is a view of a former War Department Bedford QL of Southport Corporation Transport, as the display says running between Victoria Park, the Promenade and the Pier. There was also a service onto the beach, which of course is very large in Southport. These services were introduced in 1946, and there were 12 of these buses in total: one bodied by the operator itself, the remainder by Rimmer, Harrison and Sutherland. Withdrawals began as soon as 1951, apparently due to high levels of corrosion from the sea salt but four remained until the end of the services in 1966. (continued on page 2) HIGHLIGHTS IN THIS ISSUE incorporating The ACME Thunderer • VIP Corner Pieces of the Jigsaw • The “Indiaman” East Anglia Interlude • Duple Annuals Ribble Conductor Training Page 1 Southport (continued) The ACME Thunderer Here is publicity for the Promenade Circular Tour – and the Last month we were delighted to cover of the 1948 summer edition of the timetable, with the accept a mixed collection of material name of the General Manager prominent. Jackson Hoggard from Thomas W W Knowles, an (b. 1918) served in this capacity from 1946 to 1974 when the industry stalwart and probably still undertaking was absorbed into Merseyside PTE. Hoggard’s best remembered as a leading father had also been a municipal GM, at Lincoln (1921-29) municipal General Manager with and Chesterfield (1929-49). Lancaster. Thomas is a long-time supporter of the Archive and on this visit he donated more papers from ALBUM (the Association of Local Bus Undertaking Managers, for whom we are the official archive), and more photographs and records from his career.
    [Show full text]