HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-28-TAC-minTransportation Advisory Committee Minutes
Apri128, 2009
Present: Sara Arnold, Sally Castleman, Elaine Dratch, Francine Stieglitz
Staff: Gail Wagner,
Town TDM Negotiators: Jeanne Krieger, Carl Valente, Susan Yanofsky
Note: Richard Canale, Planning Board liaison, was not present as he recluses himself as
an abutter.
MBTA Suburban Subsidy
➢ MBTA budget requires an influx of State funds to maintain its current level of
service.
➢ Suburban subsidy program of which Lexpress receive $80,000 per year is targeted
for elimination if cuts are made. The MBTA will not announce cuts until the
FY10 budget is finalized so cuts remain speculative.
➢ Lexpress will proceed with its annual pass sale in June as if operating with a full
FY10 budget.
➢ Without the subsidy, Lexpress hours and routes may require modifications in the
Spring of 2010.
➢ Stabilization funds could be appropriated at a special Town Meeting to fund any
gap in the approved FY10 budget.
➢ Restructuring of service has a level that makes the system unviable as learned
after Lexpress operated without tax levy funds in FY04.
Patriot Partners Re- zoning Negotiators
➢ Town wants a total dollar amount that it will distribute.
➢ Traffic mitigation should offset cars added by commercial development; cost of
added traffic.
➢ Not buying zoning, but mitigating traffic.
➢ Justification of funds emphasized.
➢ Town operating budgets do not get earmark funds. Lexpress is the exception.
➢ Referring to the TAC 3- legged TDM concept, transportation funds could address
TMA membership for the Alewife Shuttle.
➢ Lexpress is receiving TDM funds from Patriot Partners 2004 re- zoning and no
added money is indicated.
➢ Patriot Partners does not support use of excess on -site parking spaces for residents
commuting on reverse runs to Alewife Shuttle. Objections center on enforcement
issues.
➢ TAC was asked for a justification for added funding to support Lexpress.
TAC Response to Negotiators
➢ TDM Policy was spearheaded by TAC and supported by the Planning Board. It
includes support of town -wide transportation.
➢ TAC supports the 3- legged TDM concept, but interprets town wide travel options
as a critical piece of the transportation leg.
➢ As for justification, development brings added cars and a town bus provides an
option to reduce use of SOVs.
➢ Building ridership among employees takes time. Need options to draw numbers.
Example: Building Spring St sidewalks without solid numbers as to actual use.
➢ Lexpress must contain tax levy funding to continue. TDM rezoning agreements to
date have been effective in accomplishing this critical objective.
Prepared by Gail Wagner, Transportation Services Office, May 1, 2009
Neat TAC Meeting, May 4, 2009, Room 111