w /  /  /  { í Ç   {

Appendix A: Project Advisory Committee

Project Advisory Committee

City of Rochester • Erik Frisch, DES/Engineering Bureau (Project Manager) • Jim McIntosh, City Engineer • Susan Lindsay, Neighborhood and Business Development • Doug Benson, Neighborhood and Business Development • Susan Olley, Parking Director • Tony Hubbard, Finance/Parking Admisitration

Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) • Rich Perrin, Executive Director

Rochester Downtown Development Corporation (RDDC) • Heidi Zimmer-Meyer, President

Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) • Chuck Switzer, Vice President

Monroe County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) • Scott Leathersich, Sr. Physical Services Planner

City of Rochester Center City Circulator Study Meeting Minutes Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 December 7, 2009

Project: Center City Circulator Study

Date: December 21, 2009

Prepared by: Michael Nicolls, C&S Companies

File: I93.001.001

Attendees: Erik Frisch (City of Rochester, Bureau of Arch. and Eng.) Jim McIntosh (City of Rochester, Bureau of Arch. and Eng.) Susan Lindsay (City of Rochester, Economic Development) Susan Olley (City of Rochester, Bureau of Parking) Bob Torzynski (Genesee Transportation Council) Chuck Switzer (RGRTA) Scott Leathersich (Monroe County DOT) Heidi Zimmer-Meyer, (Rochester Downtown Development Corp.) Aileen Maguire Meyer (C&S Companies, Project Manager) Michael Nicolls (C&S Companies)

The kick-off and first Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting was held for the City of Rochester - Center City Circulator Study on December 7, 2009. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the project team to the PAC and to review the project background, scope and schedule. Following is a summary of items discussed during that meeting as understood by the preparer. These draft minutes are open for comment and revision by attendees until January 15, 2010 after which they will be considered final and will be filed for the record.

1. Introductions

Erik Frisch, City of Rochester, opened the meeting with introductions and a review of the purpose of the meeting. He then turned the meeting over to the project manager for this study, Aileen Maguire Meyer, C&S Companies. Aileen briefly discussed the purpose and goals of the PAC and the project team. a. Project Advisory Committee (PAC) • Identified meeting attendees and informed committee of their oversight role for this project. A handout with a preliminary scope and schedule was given to all in attendance.

b. Project Team • C&S Companies will lead project and will coordinate with PAC and team for meetings and tasks. (Aileen Maguire Meyer and Michael Nicolls in attendance) • Resource Systems Group (RSG) will be handling the Workforce Transportation Survey (Task 3). (Not in attendance) • Martin/Alexiou/Bryson (MAB) will be conducting the Circulator Feasibility study (Task 4). (Not in attendance)

2. Best Practices As part of the Background exploration, current circulator systems for cities with comparable needs were discussed. A list of best practices in six cities is presented in handout. The PAC also identified additional cities: • Des Moines, IA • West Palm Beach, FL • Buffalo, NY

As a result of the discussion of Best Practices, a number of questions were brought up with regard to project scope, these include: • What type of circulator vehicles are being looked at versus the type of route these vehicles will traverse? • Who will operate system and what type of operating costs should be expected? • What are the potential funding sources and user costs? • Are there any businesses or agencies that can subsidize operating costs? • What types of advertising will be acceptable and what kind of financial model will be followed? • What type/size of Vehicle will be used? Are there preferences for engine type? How many seats will be required? • How should the climate of Rochester affect the type of vehicle and service? • How will the users be identified? • What are the potential hours of operation and will this include late-night hours to support bar/entertainment venues? • What accommodations may be made for handicapped access?

The review of Best Practices should document how the circulator systems being evaluated addressed these issues.

3. Project Scope The project scope was discussed and summarized below:

Task 1: Project Management C&S Companies, as the prime consultant, will serve as project manager and will be the point of contact between the project team and the PAC including the City of Rochester project manager, Erik Frisch. Task 2: Background/Study Area Definition C&S Companies will gather background information and determine the study area to be considered. It was noted that the RFP assumes potential routes would be exclusively within the Inner Loop and extend beyond in a few areas (A study area map was provided).

As part of the background definition, existing downtown parking conditions were discussed. Sue Olley (City – Parking Bureau) provided a brief update of City parking:

2

• As a result of past issues with parking enforcement, the existing parking system is undergoing consolidation. This has led to increased activity in enforcement including an increased action of the Warning Policy. • The current meter-bagging system including night-bagging is now being coordinated with the Parking office. • The Parking office has hired an engineering consultant to produce a baseline assessment of existing public parking garages. • The rate system is being re-evaluated with a comparison of user occupancy vs. sales and adjustment of rates is being assessed as well. The Mortimer Street Garage is one such garage that has reassessed rates and lowered them accordingly. • It was noted that the “First Hour Free” policy was not working as expected. • Existing public parking garages throughout downtown are being looked at for City operation. • In addition, the elimination of private contracts at surface lots and garages are being considered.

The discussion of background information also included any changes to parking facilities since the Walker Parking study (2005) was completed. The following are some notable changes: • With the closure of the Midtown Garage, there has been a significant decrease in available parking spaces in that vicinity. It was noted that the Midtown parking garage will reopen with significantly less available spaces due to new development on-site. • The construction of the ESL building and adjoining parking lot will result in additional spaces for downtown, but until the project is complete, it has eliminated spaces. • The construction of the Monroe County Crime Lab has also eliminated spaces in a former surface parking lot. • It was noted that existing parking at the proposed Block F development will be lost once construction on the site begins. • The City is currently seeking development proposals for a public surface parking lot at the corner of West Main Street and Plymouth Avenue. Development of this site would remove hundreds of spaces. • The City of Rochester Parking Bureau is seeking additional on-street parking. It was noted that over 100 metered parking spots have been added downtown over the past six months. • Heidi Zimmer-Meyer explained that she is part of a RDDC task force that is studying occupancy versus usage to translate into parking demand. Data from this task force is being utilized to develop a downtown parking demand map. This group utilized a Downtown business database that she said could be available to the project team.

Erik Frisch will document any additional changes and forward those to the project team.

3

The Study Area was also discussed. An aerial map was provided to all in attendance. Some areas, beyond the original Parking Study limits, were considered: • Corn Hill District • Susan B. Anthony Neighborhood • surface lots adjacent to and Kodak headquarters • Marina Auto Stadium • Amtrak Train Station • Church Parking Lots • /Rochester Auditorium Center surface lots

During the discussion it was determined that most of the additional sites, with the exception of the Kodak surface lots, would be pushing the limits of a circulator system and therefore would not be feasible to include.

The Market was identified as the Downtown workforce. Some additional markets were suggested: • , Rochester Institute of Technology and (with potential for MCC Downtown campus) • SUNY- Brockport Shuttle • Visitor Service Parking – considering peripheral service • Juror Service • Entertainment Venues/Bars & Restaurants (service extending to 2:30am) • Special Events (Jazz Festival) • RTS Transfers

Task 3: Workforce Transportation Survey This phase of the project will require a survey of the Downtown workforce. Resource Systems Group (RSG) will administer the survey. Aileen Maguire Meyer (C&S) provided an initial draft copy of the survey to all attendees with a goal of obtaining feedback for the final draft. The following are some initial comments: • The survey should acknowledge parking security/safety features including lighting issues. • The survey should also attempt to identify the meaning of downtown so as to help shape the study area.

Heidi Zimmer-Meyer (RDDC) requested an electronic file of the survey draft. Erik Frisch distributed this to attendees subsequent to the meeting.

Task 4: Circulator Feasibility Study It was noted that this project task involves the feasibility study for implementing a Downtown Circulator System. Martin/Alexiou/Bryson (MAB) will handle this phase of the project.

Task 5: Transportation Demand Management and Final Report The final phase of this project will be administered by C&S Companies. Upcoming PAC meetings will detail findings and delivery methods.

4

4. Project Schedule The project schedule was provided in the given handout. Dates for the next PAC meeting and both Public Information meetings were discussed in more detail:

• The next PAC Meeting (#2) will be conducted in mid-January and will involve discussion on the survey content and how to implement it. • It is anticipated that the survey will either straddle February school recess or be initiated after the schools reopen. The first Public Information Meeting will follow the administration of the survey. • PAC Meeting #3 will focus on Best Practices. • The second and last Public Information Meeting will present preliminary findings and will be conducted during the first or second week of June.

Subsequent to the meeting, Erik Frisch noted that the Bus Fareness Coalition, a public bus rider advocacy organization, has requested representation on the PAC. It was determined that their participation on the PAC would not be appropriate at this time. There will be multiple opportunities for public involvement in the project and they should be encouraged to participate at those times.

END OF MEETING MINUTES cc: Attendees

5

City of Rochester Center City Circulator Study Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Project Advisory Committee Meeting #2 January 21, 2010

Project: Center City Circulator Study

Date: January 21, 2010

Prepared by: Michael Nicolls, C&S Companies

File: I93.001.001

Attendees: Erik Frisch (City of Rochester, Bureau of Arch. and Eng.) Jim McIntosh (City of Rochester, Bureau of Arch. and Eng.) Susan Lindsay (City of Rochester, Neighborhood & Business Development) Tony Hubbard (City of Rochester, Bureau of Parking) Richard Perrin (Genesee Transportation Council) Chuck Switzer (RGRTA) Scott Leathersich (Monroe County DOT) Heidi Zimmer-Meyer, (Rochester Downtown Development Corp.) Brett Goldstein (Rochester Downtown Development Corp.) Aileen Maguire Meyer (C&S Companies, Project Manager) Michael Nicolls (C&S Companies) Elizabeth Greene (Resource Systems Group, Inc. – via phone) Jeffrey Dumont (Resource Systems Group, Inc. – via phone)

The second Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting was held for the City of Rochester - Center City Circulator Study on January 21, 2010. The purpose of the meeting was to review the schedule, implementation and content of the Workforce Transportation Survey. Following is a summary of items discussed during that meeting as understood by the preparer. These draft minutes are open for comment and revision by attendees until February 21, 2010 after which they will be considered final and will be filed for the record.

1. Agenda All attendees were presented with a second draft copy of the Survey, a map of the Study area and a copy of the presentation slides. Aileen Maguire Meyer, C&S Companies, opened the meeting with a review of the agenda. The agenda items included the review of the schedule, a discussion of the implementation plan for distributing the survey and an in-depth discussion of the survey content. The plan and schedule for the first Public Meeting was also discussed.

2. Schedule The schedule was discussed as it pertains to the timeframe for sending out the survey, receiving results and reviewing the results while avoiding the mid-winter vacation - the week of February 15, 2010. Another potential conflict is a RDDC Downtown Safety Services (Red Shirts) survey. Heidi Zimmer-Meyer, RDDC, explained that the Red Shirts survey will be out within the next 30 days.

The launch date for the Workforce survey was discussed and is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, February 23, 2010 with a completion date of Monday, March 15, 2010.

3. Survey Implementation Plan A cover e-mail with a link to the survey will be distributed. Comments on the cover letter include:

• remove negative overtones such as tight parking or parking dilemma, • use wording such as commuting options, and • a request was made for the signature of Mayor Robert Duffy.

The main method to deliver the survey will be via email to the RDDC database of building managers and members, the City’s parking permit database and potentially Rochester Business Association members. Flyers will also be provided in parking garages.

In addition, Heidi Zimmer-Meyer (RDDC) noted that an email and perhaps a front-end meeting with building managers would be helpful prior to implementing the survey.

4. Survey Content A second draft copy of the survey was provided to all in attendance and a fairly thorough review was done as most of the questions were discussed. The following is a list of comments associated with specific survey questions:

Background Questions • Question 3; there is a reference to view the downtown map. It was noted that a street map similar to a Google map without aerial views would be sufficient. It was also mentioned that should be referred to as “Downtown” rather than “Center City”. • Question 6; in the list of modes of transportation, an additional mode should be added as “Liftline/RTS-Paratransit” and the Carpooled option should be worded as “Carpooled / Vanpooled”. • Question 9; in the question regarding the use of the RTS bus system, it was noted that including bus transfers was not necessary. It was also noted that Paratransit should also be added to these modes. • Question 10; this question asks for trip distance from home to workplace. A comment was made that the home zip code and workplace location (question 11) could also be used to determine mileage. • Questions 12 & 13; these questions ask arrival and departure times of the day for a workday “yesterday”. Elizabeth Greene, RSG, noted that this word usage makes it easier for the user to specify the time of day for “yesterday” for better accuracy. • Question 15; this question asks travel time from home to work and it was noted that the travel time should refer to an average day. • Question 16; this question asks for additional modes used in the last six months and it was noted that Paratransit should be added as a mode.

2

• Question 18; this question asks where one parks on a usual day. For consistency with other questions, it was suggested that this should be worded: “Where did you park yesterday in downtown Rochester?” • Questions 19 & 20; this question asks if you parked in a garage which one did you park in and it gives the option to choose from a list of 8 garages. Referring to the rochesterdowntown.com map, it was noted that the list includes 8 city garages but there are a few additional privately-owned garages along with a number of city-operated and private surface lots not on the map that should be listed as well. Another comment was to add a good quality image of this downtown map for reference. • Question 22; this question asks for the cost of parking downtown. The comment was to include an option to choose “Employer paid parking”. Also it was noted that if you enter a dollar amount and choose per day, the survey can calculate the per month or per hour amounts with the monthly cost considered as 4 work weeks or 20 days. • Question 23; this question asks if whether or not your employer pays for parking. The first comment is to add the word “all” to the first answer: “No, I pay for all of my parking costs”. In addition, there was a comment to underline “my employer” in the two remaining answer options.

Additionally, it was noted that the order of questions 22 & 23 should actually be switched for clarity.

• Question 24; this question asks about subsidies provided by employers for carpools or transit. There was a suggestion to add the question of whether or not employers allow pre-tax dollars to go towards transit.

Stated Preferences • Question 25; this statement introduces the following 8 questions in order to get hypothetical responses as to how one travels to work given choices to choose from. The main comment was to make this statement more theoretical so there is no confusion as to why certain bus fares are listed higher than current fares. It was noted that the context of these questions represents a single trip. • Question 26; this stated preference question includes an option for taking the RTS bus system. It was noted there should be a monthly cost presented as well.

Under attribute levels - Drive & Park, a comment by Richard Perrin, GTC, pointed out the fact that the daily rate for city garages is $6.75. The cost range given in the parking fee row should be adjusted to $7-$12 because the choices given should be equal or higher than the current costs. Also, it was noted under the RTS Bus column the current $1.00 one way fare should be added to the parking fee row.

Debrief • Question 27; this question is dependent on if you chose “none of these” in the stated preferences questions. The comment was made to add an option statement to ‘select all that apply” after the question (similar to question 28). • Question 29; this question should be slightly adjusted to communicate the use of carpooling to work rather than just “commuting”. Also, it was noted that the option of choosing a company fleet vehicle or car share vehicle should be added. • Question 30; this question asks hypothetical questions about commuting preferences and willingness to take alternate modes to work. It was suggested to add the following: “I would be willing to drive to an alternate lot and take a shuttle to work.

Demographics

3

• Question 33; this question asks for home zip code. It was noted that street address or nearest intersection may be considered too personal; zip code is adequate for purposes of this survey.

5. Public Meeting #1 The first of two public information meetings was discussed briefly. The first public information meeting will follow the administration of the survey. It was tentatively agreed that the format will be an early evening open house (approximately 4:30pm-6:00pm).

Ideas of how to present information were discussed. It is anticipated that stations would be used to break up the attendees into small group discussion. These stations would be staffed by PAC members and the project team. It was suggested that a continuous PowerPoint presentation be developed in lieu of making periodic announcements. In addition, it was suggested that the presentation would be more powerful if Mayor Robert Duffy could make an introduction highlighting the importance of the project.

A staffed welcome table will ensure that all attendees sign-in and are given some general instruction on the format of the meeting. It was noted a one page handout with survey information would be given to people at the meeting.

6. Project Schedule The project schedule was briefly discussed. Dates for the next PAC meeting and both Public Information meetings were discussed in more detail:

• The next PAC Meeting (#3) will be conducted in mid-March and will involve discussion on the Best Practices. • The second and last Public Information Meeting will present preliminary findings and will be conducted during the first or second week of June.

Following the meeting, Erik Frisch announced that the Bus Fareness Coalition, a public bus rider advocacy organization, has requested representation on the PAC. It was determined that their participation on the PAC would not be appropriate at this time. There will be multiple opportunities for public involvement in the project and they should be encouraged to participate at those times.

END OF MEETING MINUTES cc: Attendees cc: Susan Olley (City of Rochester, Bureau of Parking) cc: Doug Benson (City of Rochester, Neighborhood & Business Development)

4