ROGUE VALLEY TRANSIT CONFORMITY
JURISDICTION- CITY OF MEDFORD
MAY 2, 2007 11:00 AM
3200 Crater Lake Ave. Medford
Minutes
I.
Attendance and Introductions
City of Medford- Suzanne Myers, Alex Georgevitch, Jerry Shean
RVTD- Julie Brown, Tim D’Alessandro, Maria Rizzo, Steve Maluk, Paige West
RVCOG- Steve Rehn
II.
Background Information Report
1. Purpose of Long Range Plan- To prepare RVTD for future revenue and service
scenarios. Currently meeting with member jurisdictions to discuss transit goals
and needs. RVTD service costs are exceeding revenue levels. Additional funding
sources must be secured to provide the transit service the community needs.
2. Population and Job Density analysis- Transit planning: Productivity (Maximizing
efficiency by serving densely populated corridors) versus Coverage (providing
transit to all areas of a community including low densities). Efficient transit relies
on land use densities of at least 20 people per acre (Urban Land Institute); Several
Medford areas have already expanded, have become more dense and have
immediate needs, others areas are expecting future growth.
3. Immediate Needs- Specific routes were not discussed. The area with the least
service is East Medford and RVTD sees adding a route to E. Medford as a
priority. Other immediate needs expressed by the City are to increase involvement
with land development review, establish primary bus stops, trunk routes, and
fostering the City’s comfort-level with RVTD.
4. Future Needs- TOD development and service assessment, fareless routes.
5. Additional Long Range Plan topic suggestions from the Citya. The business community will expect to see normal business projections
such as depreciation of equipment, overhead costs, costs of fuel and our
ability to stay fiscally resilient.
b. How RVTD has overcome recent events that caused the community to
question our professionalism.
c. How did changing ADA providers impact our service.
d. What would happen if RVTD dissolved? If cities wanted to fund transit
themselves, how much would that cost?
e. How would an absence of public transit available impact congestion, air
quality, economic vitality?
f. Address service operations (signal prioritization, timing, lane widening,
bus pull out development etc.) and consider having annual meeting with
each jurisdiction’s traffic management staff to determine modifications.
III.
Review Medford’s transit-related adopted plans
1. City of Medford transit goals- The City has the Transportation System Plan, the
Vision for the 21st Century and the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally the City
has neighborhood circulation plans for the Southeast TOD and is currently
working on the West Medford TOD.
Planning terms used in Medford’s TSP- The TSP uses the terms “Radial,
Neighborhood and Circumferential” to describe types of transit service. For
consistency we likened ‘radial’ service to ‘productive’ service, ‘neighborhood’
service to ‘coverage’ service. ‘Circumferential’ service often relies on a beltline,
or limited access roadway that circles a city. RVTD is open to this type of service
however it depends on the road network available. RVTD is also open but
hesitant to provide coverage service compared to increasing the frequency and
extending hours on currently productive routes. These are priorities for the city to
consider.
The City felt that much of the TSP’s Public Transit chapter was crafted in part by
referencing the Regional Transportation Plan, the adopted Alternative Measures
and through discussions with the previous Senior Planner, S.Chancey. The
impression was that the City itself has not dedicated time to understand its transit
needs and priorities but has relied on RVTD to provide the leadership. The main
thrust of the City’s transit related focus comes out in the West Main, Southeast
and Delta Waters TOD planning.
2. Coverage and Productivity service- This was not discussed in detail and there was
not a conclusion as to which the City would prefer RVTD focus on. The group
discussed the difficulty for RVTD to provide service to low-density areas,
especially in times of budget constraints. In regards to high-density land
development, the City said the TSP contains conflicting goals, 1. To increase
densities and nodal development but 2. To meet Volume to Capacity ratios which
is difficult when your have high-density development. Although transit might not
be a primary solution for easing congestion, it is a component that can decrease
demand and is part of an overall solution. However, transit’s success relies on the
dense development and the City should continue to meet density requirements in
major activity centers to ensure RVTD will have an incentive to serve new
sections of the City.
IV.
Prioritize service as part of RVTD’s Long Range plan
Priorities: The City has several issues to still consider; construction on many
major roadways, failing intersections, TOD development, transit amenities, site
designs on trunk routes, funding intra-city operations such as a fareless downtown
route, etc.
V.
Additional transit supportive projects
1. Service standards- Productive transit service requires high densities, convenient
service, and complementary infrastructure such as pedestrian, ADA and cyclist
amenities. The three proposed TOD’s are not built out yet and there are only a
few places in Medford where densities are high enough to self-support a route.
The City can make an effort to ensure that sites along major trunk routes will be
built to code. However, they warned that the code might be changing to only
provide the minimum transit supportive site design required by state law. This is
due to an appeal that RVTD made in 2006 regarding setbacks on property located
directly on one of RVTD’s current trunk routes with the highest ridership. RVTD
staff expressed that there are several development codes that RVTD relies on to
complement transit and we may not provide service, even to areas of need, unless
the appropriate amenities are built. This is a partnership where RVTD entrusts
the City to fulfill this responsibility. This partnership has been made tenuous with
the 2006 land use appeal for both the City and RVTD.
2. Low-Density vs. Demand Response - ADA access is required within ¾ mile of
any fixed-route transportation regardless of who operates it; it’s an expensive
service that RVTD is providing currently as Valley Lift. Valley Lift is reviewing
the client qualifications process to give RVTD more oversight and management
of a client’s eligibility, such as hiring a physical and mental therapist to partly
determine a person’s eligibility.
Additionally, the City of Medford can provide better access by continuing to
improve sidewalk connectivity (a major factor in a clients eligibility is whether
they have sidewalk access to the transit stop). The City has over $6 Million in
sidewalk funding and although it is earmarked for Safe Routes to School projects,
it benefits everyone. The City stated they could look at prioritizing sidewalk
development within ¾ mile of the transit trunk routes as long as it does not
compete with the Safe Routes funding.
3. Intermodal Station (s)- Did not have time to discuss. Side Note: RVTD is
applying for an FTA Discretionary grant to fund the Medford Intermodal Transfer
Center (MITCh) that will revitalize the Front St. Station building, add bus bays
and provide a platform for future commuter rail service.
4. Park and Ride (s) – Did not have time to discuss
5. Passenger Amenities- As a partner in transit the City will provide right of way and
purchase property for bus shelters/ stops/ transfer stations when conditions
warrant it.
6. Transit Oriented Development- The City assumes that RVTD will provide service
to these areas although a strategy has not been discussed between the agencies.
RVTD would like to begin discussing a strategy with City staff to ensure we have
adequate funding to provide service when needed. RVTD has concerns about
providing service if the TOD’s will not be built out for several years. Once the
TOD’s are fully developed and they have high occupancy, RVTD feels that the
areas should be able to support transit through property taxes. However, the
interim period from 2007-est 2025, RVTD may require additional funding to start
service because agency would not be benefiting from a windfall of new property
taxes. The boundaries of the TOD need to be within the transit district boundaries
or RVTD will not benefit at all from the property taxes accrued from the TOD.
Additional funding strategies could be Surface Development Charges or
Transportation Management Association subsidies earmarked for transit. The
City was concerned about the public and property owner support RVTD would
get from alternative funding strategies such as SDC’s. RVTD replied that there is
really no funding strategy that is popular but it may be the only way service can
be provided before 2025.
7. Low-priority bus signal pre-emption- The City and RVTD have partnered to
install Signal Pre-emption at major intersections throughout the City; the New
Flyer CNG buses RVTD acquired in 2005 came equipped with Opticon, that can
trigger the signal. At this time the system is locked to RVTD triggers. The City
would like to see a control system in place before they activate the RVTD trigger
ability. The control system would be automated to avoid driver error. The City
would also require justification for activating signals such as a high volume route
that needs to get a cue jump to stay on schedule.
VI.
TDM
1. RCC/ Employer trip reduction – The TSP has several mentions of being a model
for the region by adopting TDM and trip reduction strategies. RVTD has
presented information on Bus Pass Programs, preferential carpool parking, tripreduction incentive programs and public outreach opportunities in recent years.
To date, the City participates in the annual Car Free Day promotion and they
trialed a preferential carpool space for one year but removed it. The City was
encouraged to provide all City employees with bus pass privileges and to take
advantage of a one-time CMAQ subsidy that RVTD has available for new Bus
Pass Programs. The City was also encouraged to remain an active partner in the
RVTMA expected to reconvene this summer. The City mentioned they are
building a new parking lot for City employees.
2. K-12 trip reduction- The City feels they have excelled in this program. The City
houses the Rogue Valley Safe Kids organization that partners with RVTD each
year to organize Safe Routes to School activities.
3. Marketing- Did not have time to discuss
VII.
Next Stepsa. RVTD requested that the City have internal discussions to prioritize the different
routes and service enhancements described in the TSP that should then be
included as part of the Long Range Plan service scenarios.
b. Once the service priorities are provided to RVTD they will be incorporated into
the Long Range Plan. RVTD will then provide the City with the draft Long
Range Plan for review.
c. Organize a TOD task force with stakeholders for the Southeast and West Medford
TOD’s to look at the strategy for providing future transit service.