My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Note Book: Miscellaneous
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Note Book: Miscellaneous
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:39:42 AM
Creation date
8/8/2011 9:50:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10404
Title
Note Book: Miscellaneous
BLDG Date
1/1/1998
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9801 Courthouse Square Construction
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
at a central terminal area) would eliminate the need to have a downtown transit <br />center. This issue has been examined on numerous occasions over the years, with <br />the latest study being completed in 1994. Every study has indicated, without <br />equivocation, that the most cost-effective, efficient, and accessible system for our <br />geographic and demographic service area is the pulse, or "timed transfer" system. <br />Even if changes in demographics in the future indicated that consideration be <br />given to satellite transit centers or partial grid systems, the need for the downtown <br />hub would still exist (as it dces in Portland and Eugene); not to mention that a <br />grid system would require twice the number of buses and operators on a <br />somewhat static post-measure 50 tax resource. . <br />The Board has approached this issue on numerous occasions, with an open mind <br />on the subject. We have found no reason to believe that an alternative system of <br />operation would perform as efficiently or as successfully as the timed transfer or <br />`pulse' system. <br />• Should the District consolidate its current administrative offices with a new <br />downtown transit center? <br />We currently operate with a decentralized system; that is, our passenger service <br />operations are downtown and our administrative and maintenance services are at <br />the Del Webb site. Such a system reduces administrative supervision of the <br />downtown services at the same time it makes the administrative functions less <br />accessible to the public. In addition, the Board has long been criticized for its <br />inaccessibility, though that has been improved somewhat by the addition of night <br />service. The addition of more service and more buses to our fleet increases <br />operators, which increases lead people, supervisors, mechanics, and service <br />workers. <br />The Del Webb facilities are already overcrowded: staff are occupying the former <br />staff lounge/lunch room; several office spaces intended for one person are <br />occupied by two; our small library is disjointed and lining the walls of a hallway; <br />archived information is stored in rented facilities that aze off-property and not <br />easily-accessed; and, there is no room for future growth. Even the addition of the <br />Securiry Coordinator required us to section off the customer service lunch room <br />downtown in order to provide him an office. Downtown facilities are in leased <br />space with inadequate utilities and deteriorating infrastructure. <br />The need exists, so the question is whether or not we increase capacity at the Del <br />Webb site and only build a new transfer center with related facilities downtown, <br />or whether we consolidate the two. With the availability of federal grants to assist <br />with either option, the scales are tipped by four key points: <br />1. It is more cost-effective to construct a single facility than two separate ones; <br />2. There are supervisory and operational efficiencies to consolidation; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.