DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ROCHESTER-GENESEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES June 23, 2016 A. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum The meeting was called to order at 12:16pm by Chairman James Redmond who determined that a quorum was present. Present on Roll Call: County of Monroe Bill Faber = 4 votes CountyofMonroe DonJeffries = 4votes County of Monroe Kelli O’Connor = 4 votes County of Monroe James H. Redmond = 4 votes City of Rochester Thomas R. Argust = 2 votes City of Rochester Barbara Jones = 2 votes City of Rochester Karen Pryor = 2 votes County of Genesee Paul Battaglia* = 2 votes County of Livingston Milo I. Turner = 2 votes County of Ontario Geoff Astles = 3 vote County of Orleans Henry Smith = 1 vote County of Seneca Edward W. White = 1 vote County of Wayne Michael P. Jankowski = 3 votes CountyofWyoming RichKosmerl = 1vote Amalgamated Transit Union Tracie Green = 0 votes Total Votes Possible 35 Total Votes Present 33 Votes Needed for Quorum 18 *Commissioner Battaglia was present by phone for a portion of the meeting. Others Present: Scott Adair, Chief Financial Officer Jason Barnett, Junior Systems Administrator David Belaskas, Deputy Director of Engineering Ken Boasi, Director of Scheduling Tom Brede, Public Information Officer Michael Burns, Director of Accounting & Payroll Michael Capadano, Director of RTS Bus Operations Bill Carpenter, Chief Executive Officer Mark Contestable, Senior Project Manager Myriam Contiguglia, Engineering & Facilities Management Coordinator David Cook, VP of Procurement 1 Daniel DeLaus, General Counsel Michael DeRaddo, Director of Regionals Christopher Dobson, VP of Finance Justin Feasel, Purchasing Manager Amy Gould, VP of People Reggie Hill, Manager of Field Operations Steve Kubiak, Director of Analytics Rachel LaBruzzo, Granicus, Inc. Chris Mahood, Director of Information Technology Scott Masucci, Inventory & Warranty Manager Megan Morsch, Vice President of Marketing & Customer Service Sharon Muir-Eddy, Manager of Budget Analysis Jim Ramos, Director of Transit Center & Field Operations Kelly Schmidt, Executive Assistant to the CEO James Stack, Executive Director, GTCS Chuck Switzer, Service Quality & Efficiency Director Julie Tolar, Director of Service Planning Miguel Velazquez, Chief Operating Officer B. Adoption of the Agenda On motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner White, the Agenda was unanimously adopted. Chairman Redmond recognized former Commissioner Fischer and presented him with a plaque for his service representing Monroe County as a member of the Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority Board of Commissioners 2012-2016. C. Approval of Minutes On motion of Commissioner Jankowski, seconded by Commissioner O’Connor, the following minutes were approved. Quarterly Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2016 Chairman Redmond welcomed the new Commissioners to the Board. Commissioner Kelli O’Connor for Monroe County, Commissioner Rich Kosmerl from Wyoming County, Commissioner Don Jeffries who will be joining later and Commissioner Bill Faber who was unable to attend this meeting. He also thanked former Commissioner Robert Fischer for his service to the Authority since 2012. D. CEO Report Bill Carpenter, Chief Executive Officer, presented the monthly CEO Report as reflected in the power point presentation, a copy of which shall be attached to these Minutes. 2 Regarding the presentation on On-Time Performance: Chairman Redmond asked about the lates and if steps are being taken to rectify those since they are going in the wrong direction. Chris Dobson, VP of Finance, responded that the analytics group looks at the OTP data at the route level and by day type. With our wealth of information captured through our technology systems, we communicate with the cross functional on-time performance committee, they take a look at the performance of each driver, and through the operator coaches contact the frontline bus operators, so really all those facets kind of get deployed to move the bar in the right direction. We are expecting that incrementally we will tighten that window and get to the ideal performance. Commissioner Kosmerl asked if the data collected shows the different types of root causes that operators can work on improving. Chris Dobson, VP of Finance, responded that through the technology system it records the on-time performance to the granular level. We can get to specific routes, blocks, and operators. That is the information that we gather by day, type, where performance is lacking. Lots of factors can effect on-time performance such as special events, the number of boarding on wheelchairs, etc. Commissioner Pryor expressed her appreciation for all the data. We’ve come to take for granted that we can drill down to such a granular level, to compare last year results with this year’s goal and this year’s data, it really makes it a pleasure and easy for us to understand and it obviously has an impact on the outcome. Regarding the presentation on Smart Cards: Commissioner Green asked if the tap-on pass is laminated enough where the chip won’t get destroyed. Chris Mahood, Director of Information Technology, responded that is correct, we had an individual here that took one of the cards and put it in his wallet for 30 days, put it through the washer a number of times, and it still works today. Commissioner Argust asked what the rewards are that we anticipate offering. Chris Mahood, Director of Information Technology, responded that we have discussed free rides based on the number of times you ride or how many passes you have purchased, similar to what a lot of retailers offer for rewards but nothing has been finalized. Chairman Redmond asked what the cost per card is. Chris Mahood, Director of Information Technology responded 26 cents, versus 9 cents for the paper cards. Commissioner White asked if the cards were reloadable. Chris Mahood, Director of Information Technology, responded the way that we’re starting out with cards that are non-reloadable. We have the capability to do reloadable cards but first we want to learn using these cards. Commissioner White wanted to know if there is potential for a fraud issue. Chris Mahood, responded that the cards are not reloadable by the customer. Regarding the presentation on RTS Ontario route changes: Commissioner White asked where the transfer between RTS Seneca and RTS Ontario is located and will people coming from Seneca County be able to get to Guardian Glass. Mike DeRaddo, Director of Regional Operations, responded that the transfer is at the Geneva Transit Hub and yes the Seneca residents have access to Guardian Glass. Chairman Redmond asked if the buses are only going in one direction. Mike DeRaddo, Director of Regional Operations, responded there are two buses, one bus will be in the 3 south and one in the north, they will operate in a figure 8 and they will travel in one direction. Commissioner White stated that he appreciated what was done to accommodate not only Ontario County but customers in the other counties who also work at the big employers like Guardian Glass and the Hospital. This change was well thought out and will be a good change. Commissioner Jankowski asked what the ridership is on the route. Mike DeRaddo, Director of Regional Operations, responded the northern piece is around 55 per day on the route 1. Commissioner Astles commented that he heard from the college (FLCC) and they are very enthusiastic about the changes. Regarding the presentation on changes to the Route 47 Monroe: Commissioner Astles asked if the frequency of the service is relatively the same. Julie Tolar, Director of Service Planning, responded Jewish Home is a business partner and they pay for some trips so those we definitely are going to keep at the correct times.We also know that we have a lot of ridership going out there so it’s the right thing for us to keep going there. We made sure we have at least all of the same times that were covered before covered now on the route 23. Commissioner Astles asked if we have planned on any reserve capacity in the system on Monroe Avenue to accommodate for economic development. Julie Tolar, Director of Service Planning, responded these changes will address what is going on now as far as needed ridership capacity, and we will keep an eye on this. If we start to see issues with overcrowding or with pass ups we would do another analysis on the route. Commissioner Pryor asked if by adding Winton Rd. to the route 23, do we make that route too complex and create some of the same problems we were seeing on the route 47. Julie Tolar, Director of Service Planning, responded it could possibly create issues. For this project we were fixing serious issues on the route 47, we don’t want to create problems on another route at the same time, but the route 23 is new. It has only been around since September and customers are still getting used to it. We are putting a lot of stuff on the route 23 right now because it is new and we will see how it plays out. Commissioner Jankowski asked how holding the public information sessions at the Transit Center are working. Julie Tolar, Director of Service Planning, responded we are getting a lot of good information. It seems to be going really well, and people can’t really say that they can’t get to the customer information sessions because every bus goes there, so it makes it easier for people. We have gone back and forth from holding them at the actual gate or in the center near the customer center desk. We gain information from both locations. On motion of Commissioner Jeffries, seconded by Commissioner Kosmerl, the CEO Report was accepted by unanimous vote.
Recommended publications
  • Field Trips Guide Book for Photographers Revised 2008 a Publication of the Northern Virginia Alliance of Camera Clubs

    Field Trips Guide Book for Photographers Revised 2008 a Publication of the Northern Virginia Alliance of Camera Clubs

    Field Trips Guide Book for Photographers Revised 2008 A publication of the Northern Virginia Alliance of Camera Clubs Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or copied in any manner whatsoever. 1 Preface This field trips guide book has been written by Dave Carter and Ed Funk of the Northern Virginia Photographic Society, NVPS. Both are experienced and successful field trip organizers. Joseph Miller, NVPS, coordinated the printing and production of this guide book. In our view, field trips can provide an excellent opportunity for camera club members to find new subject matter to photograph, and perhaps even more important, to share with others the love of making pictures. Photography, after all, should be enjoyable. The pleasant experience of an outing together with other photographers in a picturesque setting can be stimulating as well as educational. It is difficullt to consistently arrange successful field trips, particularly if the club's membership is small. We hope this guide book will allow camera club members to become more active and involved in field trip activities. There are four camera clubs that make up the Northern Virginia Alliance of Camera Clubs McLean, Manassas-Warrenton, Northern Virginia and Vienna. All of these clubs are located within 45 minutes or less from each other. It is hoped that each club will be receptive to working together to plan and conduct field trip activities. There is an enormous amount of work to properly arrange and organize many field trips, and we encourage the field trips coordinator at each club to maintain close contact with the coordinators at the other clubs in the Alliance and to invite members of other clubs to join in the field trip.
  • Resolution #20-9

    Resolution #20-9

    BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BALTIMORE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION #20-9 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE UPDATED BALTIMORE REGION COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Baltimore region, encompassing the Baltimore Urbanized Area, and includes official representatives of the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore; the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s; and representatives of the Maryland Departments of Transportation, the Environment, Planning, the Maryland Transit Administration, Harford Transit; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region, has responsibility under the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act for developing and carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration, a modal division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, requires under FAST Act the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Previously, under MAP-21, legislation combined the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program into a new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, better known as Section 5310. Guidance on the new program was provided in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1G released on June 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration requires a plan to be developed and periodically updated by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.
  • Part 1: Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle

    Part 1: Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle

    Howard Research and Development Corporation Downtown Columbia Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study: Part 1 - Downtown Transit Center & Downtown Circulator Shuttle (Part of CEPPA #5) DRAFTDecember 2011 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1. Downtown Columbia Transit Center ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Downtown Columbia Circulator Shuttle ............................................................................................... 12 Appendix A. Regional Transit System Evaluation .............................................................................................. 21 Appendix B. Regional Transit Market Analysis .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix C. Transit Circulator Design ................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix D. Transit Center Site Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 764 Appendix E. Transit Development Plan ............................................................................................................... 79 DRAFT Page i• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Figures Figure 1 Existing
  • Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present

    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present

    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.
  • A Graph Theoretic Approach for Public Transit Connectivity in Multi-Modal 2 Transportation Networks 3 4

    A Graph Theoretic Approach for Public Transit Connectivity in Multi-Modal 2 Transportation Networks 3 4

    1 A Graph Theoretic Approach for Public Transit Connectivity in Multi-Modal 2 Transportation Networks 3 4 5 By 6 Sabyasachee Mishra, Ph.D., P.E. 7 Research Assistant Professor 8 National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education 9 University of Maryland 10 College Park, MD 20742 11 Phone: (301) 405-9424 12 Email: [email protected] 13 14 15 Timothy F. Welch, JD, LL.B 16 PhD Research Assistant 17 National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education 18 University of Maryland 19 College Park, MD 20742 20 Phone: (301) 405-4481 21 Email: [email protected] 22 23 and 24 25 Manoj K. Jha, Ph.D., P.E. 26 Professor 27 Department of Civil Engineering 28 Morgan State University 29 1700 East Cold Spring Lane 30 Baltimore, MD 21251 31 Phone: (443) 885-1446 32 Email: [email protected] 33 34 35 36 Total Word Count: Words (4,986) + Number of Tables and Figures (10x250) =7,486 37 Date Submitted: August 1, 2012 38 39 40 41 42 Paper Submitted for presentation at the 2013 TRB 92nd Annual Meeting and publication in Transportation 43 Research Record Mishra et al. 1 1 Abstract 2 Connectivity plays a crucial role as agencies at the federal and state level focus on expanding the public 3 transit system to meet the demands of a multimodal transportation system. Transit agencies have a need to 4 explore mechanisms to improve connectivity by improving transit service. This requires a systemic 5 approach to develop measures that can prioritize the allocation of funding to locations that provide greater 6 connectivity, or in some cases direct funding towards underperforming areas.
  • A Historic Context for the Archaeology of Industrial Labor in the State Of

    A Historic Context for the Archaeology of Industrial Labor in the State Of

    A Historic Context for the Archaeology of Industrial Labor in the State of Maryland Robert C. Chidester Masters of Applied Anthropology Program Department of Anthropology University of Maryland at College Park Submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust In Partial Fulfillment of a Maryland Heritage Internship Grant December 2003 Revised Version, March 2004 Abstract This report presents a historic context for industrial labor in the state of Maryland. Industrial labor is defined as the socially-governed activity of transforming nature for the purpose of the efficient processing and manufacture of commercial goods. Labor’s heritage as represented in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, the Maryland Archaeological Site Records, and selected secondary sources is surveyed following the geographical and chronological guidelines presented in the Maryland Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan (Weissman 1986). Types of industry and labor, class relations, the labor movement and the social and domestic lives of industrial laborers are all considered; additionally, industrialization in Maryland is linked to other important themes in the state’s history. An overview of the archaeology of industrial labor is given for each of Maryland’s 23 counties and Baltimore City, emphasizing important excavations. An analysis of the state of labor archaeology in Maryland is given, along with suggestions for important research themes that have been thus far unaddressed or poorly addressed by Maryland archaeologists. i Table of Contents Abstract.....................................................................................i
  • Transitcenter Equity Dashboard: Technical Documentation

    Transitcenter Equity Dashboard: Technical Documentation

    TransitCenter Equity Dashboard: Technical Documentation June 2021 Prepared for: TransitCenter Prepared by: Sustainable Systems Research, LLC SF2 Enterprises Inc Klumpentown Consulting University of Vermont Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Dashboard overview 2 3. Data and analysis 4 3.1. Scope 4 3.1.1. Spatial areas 4 3.1.2. Time periods 5 3.2. Accessibility 5 3.2.1. Time periods 5 3.2.2. Transit travel times 5 3.2.3. Automobile travel times 6 3.2.4. Destinations 7 3.2.5. Fare data, fare rules and fare analysis 8 3.2.6. Evaluating accessibility 11 3.3. Transit service analysis 14 3.3.1. Transit service intensity 14 3.3.2. Transit reliability 14 3.4. Equity analysis 15 4. Web framework and database 17 4.1. Conceptual design 17 4.2. Code structure 17 4.3. Web application 18 4.4. URL structure 19 4.5. Backend data queries 20 4.5.1. Score queries 20 4.5.2. Date queries 21 4.6. Database 21 4.7. Updating the dashboard 25 5. References 26 Appendix A: Definition of essential workers 27 Appendix B: Fare calculations and assumptions 33 TransitCenter Equity Dashboard Technical Documentation 1. Introduction The purpose of this project is to provide timely indicators of public transit system performance via a publicly available web dashboard. The focus of the dashboard is to track the equity of transit service over time in seven US regions. The dashboard facilitates visualization and assessment of changes in accessibility (measured as access to various opportunities with and without a fare constraint), transit service intensity, and transit reliability (delay) and their varying effects on different neighborhoods and populations.
  • Baltimore Region Maryland Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan

    Baltimore Region Maryland Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan

    Baltimore Region Maryland Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford and Howard Counties Final Plan October 2015 Prepared for Maryland Transit Administration By KFH Group, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Background Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 Plan Contents ................................................................................................................ 1-3 Coordinated Transportation Plan Elements ................................................................ 1-3 Section 5310 Program ................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 – Outreach and Planning Process Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2-1 Regional Coordinating Body ........................................................................................ 2-1 Baltimore Area Coordinated Transportation Planning Workshops .......................... 2-2 Workshop Follow-up ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Maryland Coordinated Community Transportation Website ..................................... 2-2 Chapter 3 – Demographic Analysis and Previous Plans and Studies Introduction ...................................................................................................................
  • Circulators and Shuttles

    Circulators and Shuttles

    38 CHAPTER 4 CIRCULATORS AND SHUTTLES The second set of actions are those designed to comple- core routes of a suburban bus network are generally linear and ment the local bus network by featuring specialized services are operated, for the most part, along arterial roadways. These to smaller markets. Circulators are most often designed to routes are designed to offer direct, timely linkages between supplement or perhaps substitute for line-haul services, neighborhoods, communities, and multiple activity centers where line-haul routes may be impractical because of street with a minimum of indirect segments into local communities. patterns, terrain, densities, or operating cost. Most offer local Circulator routes are designed to complement this network, travel with connections to regional rail and bus services. offering services that penetrate into neighborhoods, provide Shuttles are developed to connect key activity centers and trip localized trip making, and operate on secondary roadways. generators to the regional bus or rail network, providing the Circulator routes are generally confined to a single commu- “missing link” in the regional network that might influence nity, with intercommunity trips offered via transfers to other single-occupant vehicle users to try transit. bus or rail services. Circulator routes, by definition, circulate riders through- LOCAL AREA CIRCULATORS out a community. The routes are generally shorter than reg- ular route services and are nonlinear, connecting multiple Three generic types of local area circulators are identifiable origins and destinations in the local area and penetrating into from the case studies and are classified by their operating char- communities where regular fixed-route services cannot acteristics: fixed-route circulators (sometimes called service travel (Figure 30).
  • One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America

    One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America

    H. R. 2400 One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight An Act To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE.ÐThis Act may be cited as the ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century''. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.ÐThe table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Definitions. TITLE IÐFEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS Subtitle AÐAuthorizations and Programs Sec. 1101. Authorization of appropriations. Sec. 1102. Obligation ceiling. Sec. 1103. Apportionments. Sec. 1104. Minimum guarantee. Sec. 1105. Revenue aligned budget authority. Sec. 1106. Federal-aid systems. Sec. 1107. Interstate maintenance program. Sec. 1108. Surface transportation program. Sec. 1109. Highway bridge program. Sec. 1110. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program. Sec. 1111. Federal share. Sec. 1112. Recreational trails program. Sec. 1113. Emergency relief. Sec. 1114. Highway use tax evasion projects. Sec. 1115. Federal lands highways program. Sec. 1116. Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. Sec. 1117. Appalachian development highway system. Sec. 1118. National corridor planning and development program. Sec. 1119. Coordinated border infrastructure and safety program. Subtitle BÐGeneral Provisions Sec. 1201. Definitions. Sec. 1202. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways. Sec. 1203. Metropolitan planning. Sec. 1204. Statewide planning.
  • Ordinance 12743

    Ordinance 12743

    1 1 t DWIGHt PELZ GREG NICKELS . April 29, 1997 Introduced By: Rob McKenna Proposed No.: 97-209 1 2 ORDINANCE NO. 12743 3 AN ORDINANCE for the September 1997 public transportation 4 service improvements for King County. 5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 6 SECTION 1. The September 1997 public transportation service improvements for King 7 County, substantially as described in Exhibits A, Band C attached hereto, are hereby approved. 8 SECTION 2. These public transportation service improvements will be implemented during 9 September 1997, except as otherwise specified in the exhibits, pursuant to King County Code 10 28.94.020. 11 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 8\ ~-t- day of 12 \V\d.-rcJ'1 ,19ct1-. 13 PASSED by a vote of1L to () this ;Oi.~ay of i/II7Ilt4:f . 19 q1 14 KING COUNTY COUNCIL 15 KINGtOUNTY, WASHINGTON 16 17 18 ATTEST: . 19 ()(UJtvt-~ 20 ~~ of the Council 21 APPROVED this r13 day of I ~-==, ' 19 71. 22 23 24 Attachments: Exhibit A - September 1997 East King Cou~ty Transit Service Improvements 25 Exhibit B - September 1997 Central and Southeast Seattle Transit Service 26 Improvements 27 Exhibit C - September 1997 South King County Transit Service Improvements - 1 - 12748'_ J Exhibit A September 1997 East King County Service Changes EAST AREA SERVICE CHANGES ROUTES: 201, 202,203 and 204 (New) OBJECTIVES: 1. Improve efficiency in the existing system by eliminating low ridership Route 201,and reinvesting the resources througho~t the East subarea (Consistent with Strategy S- 1, Six-Year Plan) .
  • Richmond Regional Mass Transit Study

    Richmond Regional Mass Transit Study

    RICHMOND REGIONAL MASS TRANSIT STUDY FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT May 8, 2008 Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization c/o Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 9211 Forest Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23235 804-323-2033 www.richmondregional.org RICHMOND REGIONAL MASS TRANSIT STUDY Acknowledgment Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the Richmond Regional Area MPO. The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) or the RRPDC. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. FHWA or VDOT acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternative may be necessary. RICHMOND REGIONAL MASS TRANSIT STUDY Regional Mass Transit Study Advisory Committee The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission recognizes the work of the Regional Mass Transit Study Advisory Committee who worked tirelessly to develop and review this study. The members were appointed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization and include representatives from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) and the Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee (EDAC): Name Role Representing Todd Eure Chairman TAC/Henrico County Lawrence C.