Laserfiche WebLink
~ ^. <br />For Board Meeting Of: August 24, 1995 <br />EXHIBIT 1 <br />' MEMO TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS <br />FROM: BILL FREY <br />SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER ADVISORY CONIIVIITTEE <br />' REPORT <br />On behalf of the Board, I have served for the past 6 weeks as the chauman of the Downtown <br />' Transit Center Advisory Commitxee• With the assistance of the Technical Task Force, the Committee <br />has sorted thmugh many issues to review potential transit center sites in the downtown area and <br />develop recommendations for the Board to review and consider. The Committee and Task Force <br />' have done a very fine job in this assignment. <br />' THE STUDY PROCESS <br />The process began with an overview of the past studies, identification of current sites of interest, <br />and an explanation of the Federal grants and the timeline that the District is working under. The <br />, Advisory Committee initially identified 14 sites in the downtown area for consideration by the <br />Technical Task Force. The technical group retumed with six sites for more detai~led review, and that <br />' group was subsequendy reduced to four primary sites of interest to the committee. 'I'he four final <br />sites were labeled the Movieland block, the Senator block, the Greyhound block, and the <br />Washington Mutual block (see Attachment A). <br />~ Staff worked with both the committee and the task force to provide information on sites and to assist <br />in developing evaluation criteria and a process to score the final sites. Over the past several weeks <br />' the study team has been looking at land uses on the prospective sites, evaluating access and traffic <br />patterns, comparing assessed values of the properties, and rating the sites on their ability to meet <br />service needs of the District and its patrons. <br />~ To tie to ether the committee's scoring process, an evaluation matrix was developed. All members <br />g <br />of the committee were asked to score the sites from 1 to 5. A copy of the final table is attached (B). <br />' Each site was scored on the eleven evaluation criteria, and the scores of all committee members <br />were averaged to fomi the composite matrix that is attached. As can be seen, the four sites were <br />' scored fairly close together. <br />After lengthy discussion by the Technical Task Force, several of ~e evaluation criteria were <br />weighted more heavily dian the others-trai~'ic considerations, ease of bus access, adequacy of the <br />' site to accominodate facilities, and desirabiliry of the site from a bus rider standpoint gained a higher <br />importance in the technical group's view. An around-th~table poll ended up ranking the Senator <br />block as a strong preference, with the Movieland block second, followed by the Washington Mutual <br />' and Greyhound sites. <br />' COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECONiMENDATIONS . <br />The Advisory Committee met on August 16 to review the work of the technical group and formulate <br />' final recommendations. Staff presented the four final sites and reviewed the acoripg and the task <br />force discussions pertinent to each site. , <br />~~ A vote was taken around the table, and as may be noted on attachment C, the Advison~ Committee <br />, split evenly on three of the final sites-the Senator, Washington Mutual, and Greyhound The <br />' <br />