Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-08-TAC-minTransportation Advisory Committee Minutes August 8, 2011 Members Present: Bill Levison, Elaine Dratch, Sally Castleman, Francine Stieglitz, Peter Levy, Larry Link Liaisons: Nancy Adler Guests: Marty Cohen, Daniel Cherenson Staff: Sara Arnold, Pauline Burke 1. Minutes: The July Minutes were accepted with the correction that all references to Human Resources will be changed to Human Services. 2. Transportation Services Location in Department Structure: TAC discussed four options for departmental structure that had been identified by the Town Manager. Option 1 leaves transportation services, transportation planning and parking under DPW. Options 2 and 3 move the transportation services component to the Human Services department, transportation planning to the Planning Dept. and the parking responsibilities remain with DPW (Option 2) or are moved to the Police Dept. (Option 3). Option 4 contracts out the transportation services component, transportation planning moves to the Planning Department and Parking goes to either DPW or the Police Department. The following comments were made: • Options 2 and 3 are looking at organizational changes. • The Town needs a person who can focus on transportation planning. • It isn't clear whether there are any financial advantages in Option 4; there will still need to be a Town employee who oversees the contract. • The 128 Business Council is likely to be interested in Option 4, if it were to be pursued. • Parking and Lexpress require the same kind of skill sets: tracking data, record keeping, responding to individuals who have specific needs, etc. • Transportation Services does not belong under the Planning Dept. • Regardless of the organizational structure, Transportation Services needs to interact with the DPW (for route /street infrastructure issues), COA (for senior citizen and special needs issues) and the School Dept. (for student issues), Planning (for transportation planning issues), and Community Development (for issues related to serving Lexington's businesses). • Traffic safety issues are now frequently handled by the police department rather than the Traffic Safety Committee. There was general consensus that TAC should suggest a fifth option: the planning aspects be moved to the Planning Department, but Lexpress and parking remain under the same person because the required skill sets (customer service, data collection, financial reporting, etc.) are similar. Bill Levison will suggest this when he meets with Carl. 3. RFP, including Vehicle Specs: Bill reported that he, Peter and Sara met with Jim Borsari, a representative from Northern Bus Sales. Jim sold the current bus fleet to Joseph's, and had previously sold buses to M &L. Peter reviewed comments made by Jim, a copy of which he had distributed to the committee. Bill reported that the Bicycle Committee supported the addition of bike racks. He also found that • transportation systems have different rules regarding the transporting of bikes; • the bus systems contacted do not have counters to tally riders. It was agreed that sophisticated fareboxes would be helpful for passenger counts and collections, but they are extremely expensive. There was discussion about the need to ensure proper training of the supervisor and drivers. Committee members agreed that the specifications should: • Allow either gas or diesel, although it appears that gas is better. • Restrict buses to 23-30 feet in length. • Allow bids with buses that have 20 or more seats. • Allow bids that include some buses with 20 seats and some with more than 20 seats. • Ask for the added cost for including bike racks. • Ask for the added cost for having the buses shrink - wrapped. • Require tally counters with six buttons • Require certificated ADA training • Require proper training of the supervisor and drivers Committee members asked Bill to work with Jim McLaughlin to determine how to incorporate the following concepts: • The ability to negotiate the number of buses with more than 20 seats. • The back up bus specifications • The minimum number of hours of service • The length of the contract: would 4+1 +1 be better than 3 +1 +1 ? MOTION: That the chair will work with the town to finalize the RFP document wording. This was passed unanimously. Documents Agenda Minutes of the July 25 meetings Draft RFP for transportation service