HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 LAVTA Bus Shelter Program_ +of&n)Sr4L.U�w412iW.h..Yf.a..b.fl:...�aK.rawa.eva 4l. w.......w:..ur..iu rr.:...ray ... w ......a�,:. .. .... ........... ... .. .......... ...... �......... .. .« .. .. _ .c ..... .. .....n. ..
CITY OF DUBLIN
y
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 11, 1988
SUBJECT LAVTA (Wheels) Bus Shelter Program
EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1 - Proposed Bus Shelter Locations
2 - LAVTA Staff Letter dated June 29, 1988
3 - Working Paper No. 2 - Bus Shelter Program
(slides of alternative shelters will be
available for review at the meeting)
RECOMMENDATION (see below)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT A, , No cost to the City for either the full shelter
or partial shelter
DESCRIPTION
LAVTA (Wheels) has proposed a bus shelter program with alternative designs and
tentative locations. The Wheels' consultants, JHK & Associates, prepared
"Working Paper No. 2 - Bus Shelter Program." The working paper contained the
following recommendations:
- Use either the full (5'x8' ) or partial (2 1/2'x8' ) shelter design
- Use aluminum frames, tempered glass panels, fiberglass roofs, and
polished wooden benches to allow for easier relocation, resistence
to vandalism, visibility for security and positive appearance.
- Display Wheels signs, schedules and routes
- Provide trash cans at each location
The working paper recommended the following proportion of shelters allocated
by types of locations:
Location Type Proportion Number of Shelters
- Major Transfer Points/
Trip Generators 50% 25
- Public/Semi-Public
Institutions 20% 10
- Elderly & Handicapped
Facilities 10% 5
- Medical Facilities 10% 5
- Unallocated/Spares 10% 5
TOTAL 100% 50
The Wheels Staff has tentatively identified nineteen (19) shelter locations in
Dublin (see Attachment 1) . Wheels Staff would coordinate and work with City
Staff on specific locations so that both Dublin and Wheels can agree that the
locations are appropriate prior to installation.
The tentative locations and number of shelters identified by the Wheels Staff
are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Planning Department
Vic Sood, LAVTA
-1-
1
Tentative Location No. of Shelters
- Shannon Community Center #1 and #2
- Dublin Library #3 and #4 '-
- Amador Valley Blvd./Penn Drive #5 and #6
(Wells Intermediate School)
- Dublin Blvd./Golden Gate Drive #7 and #8
- Dublin Civic Center - Sports Grounds #9 and #10
- Dublin Blvd./Dublin Court #11 and #12
- Dublin Community Swim Center #13 and #14
- Dublin High School #15 and #16
- Dublin Senior Citizens Center #17
(in conjunction with potential route change)
- Village Parkway/Tamarack Drive #18 and #19
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Wheel's Bus Shelter Program
subject to the following conditions:
1. Use the full shelter design wherever possible to maximize protection from
wind, summer sun and winter rain.
2. Use opaque fiberglass roofs to shade from summer sun.
3. Review shelter locations #5 and #6 for neighborhood acceptance in the
front yard, lack of right of way, sight distance and similar concerns.
4. Try to secure easements to place full shelters behind sidewalks; if
easements cannot be secured, use partial shelters.
5. Provide additional shelters at the following locations as soon as
feasible:
- Arroyo Vista #20 and #21
- Dublin Blvd./Village Parkway #22 and #23
- Dublin Blvd./Donlon Way #24 and #25
- Alamo Creek Park #26
- Wildwood Road #27 and #28
- Fall Creek Road #29 and #30
6. Do not allow advertising in or on the bus shelters.
-2-
� ...
• /i U
j' Imo'' � ���' r � '�'�� -. I'I � � "• C
to
>1
\ >�-' Ili _ [� �:•` �-,
SAN
r
s AKARLLO'
n
w.rntsr�
�r
-
PRO"ED Sus $flE M L&ATfWs
LAVTA PROPOSED = O'
Livermore _
Amador Valley
Transit
AuArily
87 fenton Street
Suite 200
Livermore, CA 94550
415 449.3312
i
June 29, 1988
R' I y D,
Maureen O'Halloran UN
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340 8 "Aw
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Maureen
In response to your letter on LAVTA' s proposed bus shelter
program, I have enclosed a Dublin city map with the
tentative bus shelter locations marked in pencil. We have
identified nineteen shelters on this map. LAVTA will
coordinate and work with the city on the specific locations
so that both City of Dublin and LAVTA agree that the bus
shelter locations are appropriate prior to installation.
LAVTA will bear the cost of the shelters, whether Dublin
selects the full or the partial design. The figure quoted
you of $4800 per shelter is an average and does not mean
that Dublin would be required to bear costs above that
figure for either the partial or full shelter type.
As you know we are anxious to take this matter to our Board
of Directors for approval and therefore will appreciate
your formal Staff Report as soon as possible.
Please contact me at 449-3322 if you have any further
questions.
Yours truly,
Sue Bruestle
Transit Development Planner
Attachment
THE
WAY
TO GET
AROUND
r
' R :E CE l .Y. ED ihk & associates
MAR i0f 13
DUBLIN PIANNIR_G:
LIVERMORE AMADOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
SHORT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
FY 1988-89 TO FY 1992-93
WORKING PAPER NO. 2
BUS SHELTER PROGRAM
February 22, 1988
r r ihk & associates
TABLE OF C I ONTENTS I
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. BUS SHELTER DESIGN CONCEPTS 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Shelter Design Alternatives 2-1
3. MATERIAL REVIEW 3_1
Introduction 3-1
Glazing and Metal Frame Shelters 3-1
Wooden Shelters 3-1
Metal Shelters 3-2
Concreate Shelters 3_2
Conclusions and Recommendations 3-3
4. RECOMMENDED DESIGN 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Enclosures 4-1
Benches 4-1
Field Inspection Conclusions 4-1
Recommended Program 4_2
5. LOCATION PLAN 5-1
Introduction 5-1
Basic Location Criteria 5-1
Recommended Allocation Method for Shelter Program S_2
Recommended Site Locations 5-3
6. ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR FUTURE
SHELTER PLACEMENT 6-1
Introduction 6-1
Recommended Allocation System 6-1
*hk & associates
1. INTRODUCTION
The goal of the shelter planning effort is to purchase and locate fifty (50) bus
shelters in the LAVTA service area. The specific purposes of the bus shelters
_�,.. ;.•»- t•,-.,- >, �_ � ..-� -- ,. ,.
planning task are to: A) identify the available shelter types, B)compare the various,,,:-,-`
alternatives, Q. develop-aprocedure for locating shelters, D)'"recommend shelter
locations, and E) prepare;tFie.necessary bid documents.'
This working paper documents the results of activities A through D. Task E -
Prepare Necessary Bid Documents will be carried out following selection of shelter
locations. A procedure for locating shelters is also described. The alternatives are
based on information from local Bay Area transit systems as well as systems in
Seattle, Vancouver (Washington), and Anchorage.
1-1
ihk & associates
2. BUS SHELTER DESIGN CONCEPTS
i
INTRODUCTION
There are three major types of transit shelters and four major categories of
construction materials. The following outlines the possible design alternatives.
SHELTER DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
In general, there are three basic shelter design types: full enclosure, partial
enclosure, or roof only. Passenger benches may be included in any shelter design as
an option. The following further describes each of the design options.
Full enclosure shelters provide transit patrons the best protection from the
elements. Paneling is provided on four sides with the front side being open for
access and egress purposes. A variation of this design option involves a partial
coverage for the front of the shelter (see Figure 2-1). Openings at the ends of the
front panel provide access and egress locations. For security reasons, the full
enclosure shelters are only used with the metal frame construction materials.
Full shelters involve higher construction costs due to the added materials.
They also involve higher maintenance costs because they tend to retain more dirt
and litter. Although the full enclosures provide the highest level of weather
protection, they may become overly warm during the summer months. These type
of shelters, because they provide maximum protection from the elements, are
usually located in areas with cold climates such as the midwest and northeast.
Partial or cantalever shelters (see Figure 2-2) are similar to the full enclosure
concept but typically include only a back wall and partial side walls. Due to the
more-open design, litter is less of a problem. Vandalism is generally less of a
problem with this shelter type because of the smaller structure and greater
visibility. Weather protection is diminished but heating during the summer months
is less extensive as compared to the full enclosure option. A further advantage
2-1
i
� 1
t
� s y
�°° ".►ors. � a. _ 4 �,�lYfirF lf`�':• e�°i►`
5
Figure 2-1
Full Shelter
jhk .� .. .�
' F
�n
y
r
P a
M
-
�" Y a
Figure 2-2
Partial or Cantalever Shelter
jhka "Docion
i
ihk & associates
of this shelter is that it does not incur as much street or property space as a full
shelter but it still provides the same amount of overhead protection.
The roof only shelter type (see Figure 2-3) provides a roof with a supporting
pole. Maintenance, construction costs, and the vandalism rates for this option are
low. However, weather protection is also minimal. These types of shelters can be
found in very high passenger volume areas such as Market Street in San Francisco.
Because there are no walls for this type of shelter, large volumes of transit patrons
can be more easily accommodated.
Each of the three basic shelter types could include bench seating. Comfort
and convenience are increased with the provision of benches but, additional
construction and maintenance cost will be incurred. Benches are usually of polished
wood or aluminum material. Benches currently on the market provide some
resistance to vandalism. Some wood material benches are particularly resistant to
long term damage since they can be repaired through sanding and seal coating of the
damaged area.
a
The three basic shelter types provide a range of benefits and costs. The full
weather protection provided by the enclosed shelters are not needed in the moderate
climate of the LAVTA service area. The partial or cantalever enclosures, if planned
and located properly, can provide an adequate level of protection without the higher
costs and safety concerns of the full shelter alternatives. The minimal shelter types
providing only a roof are not recommended for LAVTA. This option provides
rudimentary protection and is not appropriate for a system such as LAVTA which is
trying to present a strong positive image to the residents of its service area.
2-2
s
Y
2
'S
i�
:i
/j
,y
i
��• � sue, ���:
• �. ���•�� x:. +r r_ � t,f j.f yyams vti�y e Y
. .'�.�y°M��Y Y e�•�-t Jf14 � �. � j X71 �
fig a
RN
`�''^5 •a: b Tom'>"'YJ wag+ ff.mf` �rmw..r.,.yy„maw"' ,}4 .,..
.tr+;y �'`• � ,� f f ,rY ' r"4.��' a'�'.,,,��+f '�'q .�` �� vy
.:ems"" '*�.jy �' ��'w�'•�`,'., "z.��•. -_..��a�r�-'
Figure 2-3
Roof Only Shelter
i
4
'hk & associates
3. MATERIAL REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
There are four major construction types for transit shelters: metal frame with
glazing, wood, metal only, and concrete. The following further describes the
construction types:
GLAZING AND METAL FRAME SHELTERS
This type of shelter is the most common in use throughout North America. It
consists of a frame of aluminum with glazing panels of glass or plastic. The roofs
for these types of shelters are generally of translucent molded fibreglass. They are
either domed shape or sloped to allow rain water to drain to the rear.
The key features of this type of shelter are as follows:
Positive Features Negative Features
• Easy to install and relocate o Very low resistance to
vandalism.
• Among the least expensive to o Requires a storage of parts
construct and install. and material.
• Does not require special design
• Design blends in well with urban areas.
WOODEN SHELTERS
These shelters have several design variations and have been implemented in
several locations in the Bay Area. Wooden shelters are used on Harbor Bay Isle,
(City of Alameda) and by the Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit
Districts. Figure 3-1 identifies a wood material shelter located in a residential area
of Harbor Bay Isle.
A major positive feature of this material is that it can be suitable for
landscaped locations such as residential areas. In busier areas, however, this feature
is less important and there will be greater likelihood of vandalism. This material is
not particularly resistant to vandalism.
3-1
�.db � �• '�r�
r F�
ir
06 \ z
'it r - •.+ ;�w �. 1,_ T•
{
a
•
*hk & associates
The key features of this material type are as follows:
Positive Negative
• Blends very well with suburban/rural o Requires a foundation or deep
settings. post holes.
• Does not require extensive o Cannot be easily moved or
maintenance. removed.
o Can be easily vandalized.
o Does not fit into urban
downtown areas.
o Can only provide side and back
protection at the expense of
reduced security visibility.
METAL SHELTERS
All metal shelters are usually used only with a roof-only design. full metal
enclosure is not recommended due to security concerns. The following describes the
features of this material.
Positive Negative
o Resistant to breaking or physical o Can have a negative
damage. appearance.
o Can be designed for ease of o Can only provide side wind
installation and moving. protection at the expense of
reduced security and visibility.
o Does not require extensive cleaning.
CONCRETE SHELTERS
There are two basic types of concrete bus shelters, precast and site cast. Pre-
cast shelters have several advantages over site cast shelters, including lower cost,
and flexibility in that they can be moved or disassembled. Pre-cast concrete
shelters are currently used by SAMTRANS and Santa Clara County Transit District.
3-2
. ;hk & associates
The following further describes the features of this mi aterial.
Positive Negative
• Very high resistance to breakage or o Can be targets of graffiti and
other physical damage. may need frequent repainting.
• Does not require spare parts storage. o Lower security visibility than
glazing and metal shelters.
o Does not provide flexibility
regarding relocation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The metal frame shelters with glazing are the most popular type but may
require high maintenance and cleaning requirements. The wood shelters are easy to
construct and blend well with the suburban environment but there are some security
and maintenance considerations. The metal and concrete shelters share the security
concerns of the wooden types but they can be more resistant to vandalism.
The metal or metal/glaze shelters are the only shelter types which can be
easily relocated. This is a major attribute since LAVTA will likely be faced with the
need to relocate shelters.
3-3
.4. RECOMMENDED DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
Prior to selection of a recommended shelter design and materials, JHK do
Associates. conducted an on-site review of several bus shelter types available in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Staff of both AC Transit and the Contra
Costa County Transit Authority were contacted to determine current maintenance
costs. Staff was also able to provide input regarding particular problems and
advantages of particular shelter designs and the materials used. The following
summarizes the results of the shelter inspection procedure and identifies the
recommended design.
ENCLOSURES
Nearly all of the shelters with Lexan type glazing have developed either some
level of glazing or experienced vandalism. The most common form of vandalism are
burn marks and felt pen graffiti. Shelters with normal glass glazing did not
experience hazing or burn mark vandalism. The rates of missing panels and felt pen
graffiti were also less than those found on the Lexan Glazing shelters.
Metal, concrete, and metal framed shelters rarely exhibited structural
damage. Wooden shelters were often carved with graffiti but no examples were
found with structural damage.
BENCHES
Benches were in generally good condition. The medal benches were much
better at resisting carved and felt pen graffiti than the wooden benches. The
wooden benches, however, gave a more positive appearance.
FIELD INSPECTION CONCLUSIONS
Lexan Glazing was found to weather poorly in the Bay Area climate. Hazing
of the Lexan was a major feature in creating an overall poor appearance in shelters.
Bench and frame designs were generally in good condition.
4-1
*hk & associates
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM
'i
Based on the findings of the previous sections for this working paper as well as
the review of current shelter programs the following is recommended:
• The bus shelters should involve either a full or partial/cantalever
design.
• Materials for the shelter components should consist of:
- aluminum frames to allow ease of relocation
- tempered glass panels with a minimum number of panels.
The panels should be either safety (shatter-proof) glass or
glass with wire mesh reinforcement.
- in areas where vandalism could be high, the back panels
should have a mix of both glass and plywood.
- fibreglass roof tilted to allow drainage towards the rear
of the shelter
polished wooden seats
• The shelter design should allow placement of Wheels route and
schedule information.
• Trash cans should be provided at each location. These can be
located separately from the shelter or as part of the shelter
design.
• At locations without Wheels information signs the shelters should
incorporate a small pole to allow installation of a sign.
4-2
ihk & associates
5. LOCATION PLAN
i
INTRODUCTION
This component of the plan is designed to select locations in the LAVTA
service area for the bus shelters. The overall goal of the planning process is to
provide a methodology for locating the initial program of shelters. It will also
provide LAVTA staff with a basis for locating additional shelters as well as
evaluating any relocation of shelters.
Although a set of standards for shelter location is important, the decision
process should have some flexibility. Each potential location should be considered
uniquely. There will often be special circumstances not covered by the standards.
BASIC LOCATION CRITERIA
The need for shelters can be expected at major transfer points and major trip
generation points. A study for the Municipality of Anchorage found •that many
transit systems locate shelters at locations with more than 40 to 50 daily boardings.
Some systems use lower minimum standards in less densely populated areas. For
example, Seattle Metro uses a minimum of 25 boardings per day in the less
populated areas outside, the city. Other standards for shelter location are based on
land use density and/or population density.
In addition to those locations meeting minimum boarding standards, shelters
are often located at medical facilities, locations with a high percentage of elderly
and handicapped passengers such as retirement homes and other senior citizen
housing, and public and semi-public institutions.
Shelters should be located on both sides of the street at locations with a high
number of boardings in both the inbound and outbound directions. Location with a
high number of boardings in one direction only (inbound or outbound) will require one
shelter. This is typical in residential areas where most boardings are made in the
outbound direction (from the residential area to another major activity center).
Shelter locations are often based on requests from transit users and interest
groups in the community. These locations are then prioritized according to a
5-1
jhk & associatcs
selected set of data which typically includes information on potential use, safety,
neighborhood acceptance, and distance from existing shelters.
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION METHOD FOR SHELTER PROGRAM
Several transit systems identify an allocation methodology in terms of the
types of locations which may receive transit shelters. For the total number of
shelters available, a proportion will be allocated to the specific types of locations
which could warrant a facility. For example, the C-Trap system in Vancouver,
Washington has seven categories such as "major transfer locations" for its allocation
method.
It is recommended that an allocation method be used for the LAVTA shelter
program. This system will help ensure that the variety of locations which can
warrant a shelter will receive proper attention. Table 5-1 identifies the
recommended allocation system for LAVTA in terms of the proportion of shelters
that should be allocated to particular types of locations. Also identified is the
number of shelters, of the 50 units expected to be available, which can be assigned
to each category.
Table 5-1
RECOMMENDED SHELTER ALLOCATION BY LOCATION
Location Type Proportion Number of Shelters
Major Transfer Points/
Trip Generators 50 per cent 25
Public/Semi-Public
Institutions 20 per cent 10
Elderly and Handicapped
Facilities 10 per cent 5
Medical Facilities 10 per cent 5
Unallocated/Spares 10 per cent 5
Total 100 per cent 50
5-2
ihk & associatcs
For the LAVTA shelters, specific information from the Fall 1987 operations
analysis, including the current extent of boardings at major locations, provided key
direction for the Authority's initial shelter program. The operations analysis
identified the major locations of passenger activity for the LAVTA service area.
RECOMMENDED SITE LOCATIONS
The following identifies the recommended site locations for the shelter
program. The number of locations for each category of location is based on the
allocation methodology recommended in the previous section.
The number of shelters assigned to each location is dependent of the location
of the site in terms of the rest of the route as well as the characteristics of the site.
For example, locations at the terminus of a route will be provided only one shelter
since boardings will be taking place in one direction only. At some sites such as
Foothill High School the boarding area is a single location thereby requiring only one
shelter.
The allocation shelters is identified according to the previously recommended
location types - major generators and transfer locations, public/semi-public
institutions, elderly and handicapped facilities, and medical facilities. Ten per cent
or five shelters are set aside as unallocated spares in order to provide spare units
and components.
Major Generators and Transfer Locations - These locations are based on the
results of the operations analysis conducted for LAVTA in the Fall of 1987. They
involve high schools and other sites where boardings generally exceed 20 passengers
per day. Table 5-2 identifies the recommended site locations, the routes which
serve the site, and the number of shelters required. A total of 27 shelters are
identified in the LAVTA service area for this type of location. This volume slightly
exceeds the recommended amount of 25 units or 50 per cent of the total allocation
of shelters.
S-3
;hk & associates'
Table 5-2
RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF SHELTERS AT
MAJOR BOARDING AREAS
Location Routes No. of Shelters
Dublin
Dublin/Dougherty 1,2 2
Village/Tamarack 1,2 2
Dublin/Golden Gate 1,2,3 2
Dublin High School 1,2 1
Wells Intermediate School 1,2 1
Total Dublin 8
Pleasanton
Stoneridge Mall 1,2,3,4 1
Foothill High 2,4 1
Main/Neal 3 1
Valley/Santa Rita 1,3,4 4
Amador High 3,4 1
Hopyard/West Las Positas 1,2,3,4 1*
Total Pleasanton 9
Livermore
Stanley Transfer Center 11,14,15 3
Livermore High 11,12,16 1
East Avenue Middle School 12,13,17 1
Junction Avenue Middle School 11,15 1
Christensen Park 11,16,17 1
Chabot College 14,15 1
East/Charlotte 12,13,16,17 2
Total Livermore 10
Total Shelters 27
*Hacienda Business Park has installed several shelters at this location.
Public Institutions - Table 5-3 identifies the recommended location of the
shelters for involving public institutions. A total of nine shelters are allocated to
the various sites. This volume virtually matches the recommended allocation for
this type of facility and represents approximately 20 per cent of the total shelter
program.
5-4
;hk & associatcs
Table S-3
RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF SHELTERS
AT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
Location Routes No. of Shelters
Dublin
Dublin Library 1 2
City Hall* 1,2 2
Dublin Community Swim Center 1,2 2
Total Dublin 6
Pleasanton
City Hall 2 1
Livermore
Library/Civic Center 11,13 2
Total Shelters 9
*a new civic center is under construction; shelters will be allocated
to this new facility
Senior and Handicapped Facilities - Table 5-4 identifies the recommended
locations for shelter placement involving senior and handicapped facilities. The
eight shelters identified for installation exceeds the five recommended for this
location type or 10 per cent of the total allocation.
Table S-4
RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF SHELTERS.AT
SENIOR CITIZEN/HANDICAPPED FACILITIES
Location Routes No. of Shelters
Dublin
Shannon Senior Citizen Center 1,2 2 .
New 56(A.r 6r.,6 LakAa-LA t
Pleasanton 3
Pleasanton Senior Citizen Center 3,4 2
Pleasanton Gardens 3 1
Pleasanton Green 3 1
Livermore
Livermore Senior Center 11,13 2
Total Shelters 8
S-S
a
�hk & associa.
Medical Facilities - Table 5-5 identifies the recommended locations for
shelters under the medical facilities category. Only two locations are identified,
although one - Valley Memorial Hospital already is allocated shelters under the
"Major Transfer Points/Trip Generators" category. The hospital is located in the
immediate vicinity of the Stanley Transfer location which was recommended for
allocation of three shelters. The two shelters for this category is less than the
recommended allocation of five units or 10 per cent of the total program.
Table 5-5
RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF SHELTERS AT
MEDICAL FACILITIES
Location Routes No. of Shelters
Dublin/Pleasanton
Kaiser Permanente 1,3 2
Livermore '
Valley Memorial Hospital 11,14,15 (2)*
Total 2
*Included under Major Transfer Locations/Trip Generators - Stanley
Transfer site
5-6
ihk & associates
6. ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR FUTURE SHELTER PLACEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Several transit systems use a point system methodology to identify the
locations of bus shelters. Using this type of methodology to locate shelters has
become more prevalent as a result of demand for shelters usually exceeding supply.
The point system provides the operator with an objective basis for evaluating
ongoing requests for shelters as well as identifying locations for new shelters that
can be incorporated in the system's five year capital program.
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION SYSTEM
The evaluation systems adopted by transit systems usually involve a variety of
criteria and a number of points that can be assigned to each criteria. These points
involve a range which indicates the extent to which a prospective location satisfies
the criterion. For example, some systems use site characteristics in terms of the
amount of preparation required. Out of 15 points none will be given to sites that are
not feasible regarding preparation, 10 points for locations where it will be
"possible", and the full 15 points to locations that will be "probable" in that they will
involve minimum site preparation.
Table 6-1 outlines a recommended approach that can be used by LAVTA staff
for evaluating future requests for shelters placement. Staff can also use this
approach in identifying future shelter locations as part of an on-going placement
program by the Authority.
6-1
• ♦U `
Table 6=1
SUGGESTED PROCEDURE FOR
EVALUATING SHELTER PLACEENT
Shelter Placement Rating System
Individual or Organization Requesting Date
Address Zip Code
City
Site Location and Description (Commercial, residential, urban,
suburban, rural; cross streets and proposed location of shelter;
site preparation required; type of shelter recommended; A, B,
Double B, or Vandal Resistant.
_City _County _State (Jurisdiction) or _Private Property
Shelter Placement Category Check One
Elderly and handicapped: retirement facility,
nursing home, hotel, etc.
Medical facility, hospital, other community
medical facilities.
Public and semi-public institutions: i.e., Court
House, City Hall, Federal buildings, Coliseum or _
sports arenas, schools, etc.
Major trip generators: shopping centers,
multiple family dwellings, industrial parks,
large residential developments.
Feasibility
Placement Category
(25) Preferred Placement Category
(5) Other
jhk & 295062=
Shelter allotment available
(15) Yes
(0) No
Local Jurisdiction Approval
(15) Probable
(5) Possible
(0) Not possible (review in 6 months)
Safety
(15) No hazards to pedestrians or traffic
(5) Some hazards (explain)
(0) Very hazardous (explain)
Property Owner's Acceptance
(15) Probable
(10) Possible
(0) Not likely
Neighborhood Acceptance
(15) Probable t
` (10) Possible
(5) Not likely
Site Characteristics
(15) Desirable, minimum preparation required
(5) Desirable, major preparation required
(0) Undesirable, not feasible (explain)
Shelters Already Installed
(15) More than 5 blocks away
(10) Within 5 blocks
(5) Within one block
(0) Transportation incentive program provides
Time Frame
(15) Immediate
(5) Within 6 months
(0) One year or longer - review in 6 months
Potential Use
Level of Service
(20) 15 to 30 minute headways*
(10) 30 to 60 minute headways*
(5) Saturday service
*Add 5 points when 2 or more lines serve the site.
jhk & ftS,oCi.t=
J,
• - i
Compatibility With Plans
(15) No programmed change in route
(10) Programmed decrease in service
(5) Programmed change in route within one year
Total Score: Request Granted: Request Denied:
Final Dispensation:
jhk & .,sow