Kamp said the Jenifer Street construction project had produced feedback about bus stop placement at Ingersoll, and the E. Washington Avenue detour. District 6 Alder Marsha Rummel had asked that the discussion be brought to the TPC. Transit Planning and Scheduling Manager Drew Beck, Operations Supervisor Phil Gadke, and Transit Planner Tim Sobota joined Kamp to talk about the plans.

• The TPC had previously recommended keeping stops on every block of Jenifer; and had given Metro discretion regarding nearside vs. farside stop placement.
• Nearside bus stops: They presented safety issues for people and traffic trying to cross in front of the bus, esp. at Ingersoll, where buses parked for 2-3 minutes for driver exchanges and time points. Traffic and parking rules were involved. The 2013 TDP recommended farside stops wherever practical, because they were safer and easier operationally.
• Important factors in planning the detour: Maintaining on-time performance for Routes 3, 4 and 7, so that riders made their connections at transfer points, an issue with equity implications; the availability of ADA boarding pads; avoiding traffic jams.
• Reconstruction would run from May to October, and extend from Baldwin to Livingston.

Written and verbal statements from registrants followed. [Please see attached Registration slips, as well as written comments submitted to the Commission outside of the meeting.]

1. Julie Spears, 307 S. Few Street wrote in opposition to detour: Preferred Willy St. to the long walk on dark streets from E. Wash.
2. Jeff Waldman, 1050 Jenifer Street, opposed bus stop relocation: Concerned about traffic and idling in front of his house, safety of those going in/out of 3-4 driveways affected, tree removal, home values and parking availability.
3. Jeff Wright, 1037 Williamson Street, spoke for Dennis Chandler/Ms. Gold, owners of 1044 Jenifer Street, who opposed bus stop relocation: Residents invested in homes based on the current stop locations. The stops presented no safety issue; no pedestrians had ever been injured. A map (attached) showed the safety problems created by moving the stops between driveways serving multi-unit dwellings.
4. Peter Wolff, 945 Jenifer Street, supported/opposed various items: Opposed moving the stops; had never seen any ped/vehicle problems because of right turns at Ingersoll. Backing stops off of intersections might be good. Neighbors were discussing placing stop signs on Jenifer and Ingersoll, to slow non-resident traffic. If so, it would work better for buses if stops stayed where they were.
5. Larry Jensen, 1618 Jenifer Street, wrote in opposition to detour: Preferred Spaight St. to E. Wash., which would be inconvenient and potentially dangerous for riders.
6. Mike O'Brien, owner of 3-unit building at 1046 Jenifer Street, opposed bus stop relocation: With 7 adults in his unit, all with cars, the stop would create parking problems; 100 buses stopping within 15 feet of front door and loitering riders would create pollution, noise, safety problems; property values and rentals would fall.
7. Joyce Liau, 1054 Jenifer Street, opposed bus stop relocation: A stop in front of their house would affect its resale value; the cost of installing a fence would be a hardship. Had bought the house with the idea of starting a family there; a bus stop would disrupt their environment. Re: safety, people didn't cross in the front of the bus now.
8. Gary Tipler, Chair, Marquette Neighborhood Assn. Traffic Committee, opposed the detour and asked for further review of the bus stop relocation: A detour on E. Wash. would be a huge inconvenience; created many concerns for women walking a 1/2-mile from E. Wash. to the neighborhood, through an industrial part of town where two attacks had occurred. Instead, two alternatives could be considered: a) a shuttle running between E. Wash. and the neighborhood, that would serve the Square; or b) using Willy St. for at least one of the routes. Four owners on Willy had said they wouldn't mind having a stop in front of their building (vs. customers coming/going from E. Wash). Using Spaight was a possibility, but its width might create problems.
9. Donna Davis, read a statement (attached) from John Olson, owner of historical landmark, Capital City Sanctuary Church, 1103 Jenifer Street, who opposed bus stop relocation: Felt that speed control with stop signs on Jenifer would improve safety more; on-street parking spots would be preserved (esp. for elderly/disabled); and homes with driveways and the church would not be disturbed, by noise/loitering. Wondered if Landmarks Commission had been consulted.
10. Karolyn Beebe, 220 Merry Street, wrote in opposition to detour: Being short-term, preferred Willy St. instead.
11. Gregg Sanford, owner and resident of 1050 Jenifer, wrote in opposition to bus stop relocation: Arguments for relocating the stops were weak; relocation would impact safety on busy driveways; property values would be negatively affected.

Alder Rummel spoke in opposition to the farside bus stops and the detour.

• Some residents on the westbound side of Ingersoll backed out of their driveway into the intersection. The safety risk with this was more serious than right turns in front of buses. The current stop westbound was in front of one house recessed from the street, with a driveway quite a distance from the corner. The impact here wasn't the same as the impact on the three lots with shared driveways. The blinking lights of parked buses usually helped show the intentions of the driver. The cost/benefit of a farside stop didn't justify it.
• Jenifer was wide and flat, had no stops signs from Baldwin to the cul-de-sac, making it easy for everyone to speed on it, inc. buses. Neighbors had asked about traffic calming, inc. speed humps. Metro opposed this, so instead the plan called for bulb-outs. To some degree, Metro was determining future safety on this street. Because neighbors were willing to share the street with Metro, they would not have certain traffic calming measures.
• The detour raised safety concerns about traveling through the rail corridor, esp. at night. Also, because the distance was a half-mile, people might stop using the bus. Since the detour was temporary, could Willy Street be considered instead, perhaps using 3-4 stops near willing business owners?
• Re: temporarily removing parking on Willy St. from Baldwin to Livingston to accommodate buses, this had been done during construction. If some businesses were willing, it should be considered.
• The project had been delayed one year. Engineering felt some urgency, to replace 100-year old sanitary sewers.
• Re: Spaight Street for the detour, the turn at the west end was tight; plus it had speed humps.

Members discussed the issues.

• No hard evidence had been provided as to the advantage of farside over nearside stops. Having cars back out onto Jenifer St. completely blind to oncoming traffic, was a more tangible risk than having pedestrians peek around a bus at a nearside stop, for which no injuries had been reported.
• The E. Wash. detour raised real concerns about the safety of walking through the rail corridor. Fear about this placed a tremendous burden on people, and they might just stop taking the bus.
• Using Willy St. might create traffic issues, but it may be better, esp. if parking were removed. If the project was on the fast track, it would be up to the Alder to talk to the Willy St. businesses. Spaight too might work, and would keep the detour in the neighborhood.
• Because of certain advantages in the surroundings, perhaps Brearly could be used for the driver exchange/time point.

Poulson reminded members that they had given Metro the discretion to move stops from nearside to farside; the TPC typically did not decide matters like detours and stop locations. He hoped the body would not get involved in a stop-by-stop analysis, and would leave it up to staff.

Bergamini agreed that they shouldn't micro-manage. But Metro had the most intimate knowledge of the project, and it was appropriate for them to discuss important corridors like this. Though historically staff made these decisions, Rummel felt the TPC could still advise staff.

Kamp and Metro staff commented as follows.

• Re: safety of nearside/farside stops, video cameras showed many close calls with pedestrians walking in front of buses. A student got hit on Monroe Street. The farside stop standard had legitimate safety issues.
• The nearside, west-bound stop placed buses less than 15 feet from the crosswalk, which violated ordinances and blocked visibility. Given the volume of cars on Ingersoll (1,750/day) and Jenifer (2,200/day), these parked buses (100/day) had a significant effect.
• Staff had not yet completed the City's equity process related to alternative detours, taking into account passengers who didn't live in the district who needed to make transfers on time.
• With a Willy St. detour, they would be looking at restricting parking, having stops every other block to make up some time, and identifying accessible stops.
• Re: the Ingersoll stop (vs. Brearly) for driver relief: Ingersoll was written into the contract because drivers were paid for travel time. Adding five minutes of travel time would add ~1,500 more hours/year. Also, all routes through the isthmus used Ingersoll for their time point; riders had come to expect buses to wait there.

Kamp said staff would complete the equity process on detour alternatives, consider the comments and suggestions made at the meeting, and update the TPC in March.