|
Fiscal Year 2005/06 Operations Division Major Projects and Programs
Ms. Benjamin provided a brief background and noted that VTA is trying to bring public transit in a different form to better fit various communities. Ms. Benjamin noted that the Community Bus Shuttle concept is also being presented to other communities and noted that the shuttle service has flexibility and could be designed to best meet the needs of the community it is serving.
Mike Aro, Service & Operations Planning Deputy Director, provided a presentation regarding Market Segmentation Analysis, Community Bus, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Mr. Aro noted that this presentation was presented at the Board Workshop on August 13, 2004.
Mr. Aro explained Market Segmentation Analysis and noted that it is a technique usually utilized by private sectors to determine their clientele and market. Mr. Aro further explained that VTA will use Market Segmentation Analysis to capture more riders in the County. Mr. Aro noted that there will be more effort to increase ridership within the next couple of years. Mr. Aro noted that there is a decline of bus ridership in the last couple of months but there is an increase of light rail ridership in the last few months compared to last year.
Member Tripousis took her seat at 4:41 p.m. and a quorum was declared.
Mr. Aro discussed the factors that influence people’s decision to use transit. These factors are: flexibility, sensitivity to travel time, costs, concern for the environment, sensitivity to crowd and safety, and sensitivity to use of time.
Member Zimmerman left her seat at 4:42 p.m., the quorum was lost, and a Committee of the Whole was declared.
Mr. Aro noted that the Market Segmentation Analysis will assist in identifying various market and further assist in designing transportation services. Examples of market driven services are traditional fixed-route bus, light rail, commuter rail, ADA Paratransit, and the new concepts such as Community Bus and BRT.
Member Zimmerman took her seat at 4:43 p.m. and a quorum was declared.
Mr. Aro explained the Community Bus concept and noted that this concept has potential in providing solution to challenges associated with various development patterns and densities, diverse population, and multiple destinations.
Mr. Aro enumerated the Community Bus Program Attributes highlighting that smaller vehicles will be used to run on shorter and circuitous routes within a specified community. There will be flexibility to match the travel patterns in the community.
Mr. Aro discussed the benefits of Community Buses. Smaller vehicles could navigate easier and may fit well for smaller communities such as Gilroy. Mr. Aro stated that the program has built in flexibility and could feed into major arterial and other transit hubs.
Mr. Aro discussed the typical services of Community Bus. One type is the circulator or shuttle service wherein the bus has a fixed stop and a fixed route. Another is route deviation or flex route where fixed rides could deviate and could be on an on-demand basis.
Mr. Aro noted the technology needed for Community Bus. VTA has Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Technology, Global Positioning (GPS), and all buses are installed with advanced mobile data terminal. Mr. Aro noted that these technologies will be expanded to provide operators with a list of on-demand stops.
Mr. Aro enumerated the vehicle characteristics of the Community Bus and highlighted that smaller buses will be “branded.” He noted that the goal is to find smaller low-floor vehicles to have easier access. However, he noted that there are not many smaller low floor vehicles in the market.
Member Rogers commented that seniors would prefer low-floor Community buses. She noted that seniors do not favor high steps and transfers.
Mr. Aro explained that the Community Bus is a Partnership with Communities where community members will collaboratively design service and promotion of the concept.
Member Hashimoto inquired about the ridership of Community Buses in other jurisdictions. Mr. Aro stated that it is very successful and could be attributed to community involvement.
Member Tripousis inquired about building and publishing the schedule. She inquired about the impacts of schedule deviations. Mr. Aro noted that times will only be approximations. Mr. Aro noted that the goal is to make Community Buses cost mutual.
Member Zimmerman noted that to increase ridership, transit services should also be linked to specific needs such as entertainment, education, sports, and the like. Mr. Aro noted that the Market Segmentation Analysis will identify the market and capture the most lucrative market.
Mr. Aro stated that the target launch date for Community Bus is January 2006. As for the funds to procure the vehicles, Mr. Aro noted that the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) budget includes procurement of 20 vehicles in FY 06 and 30 vehicles in FY 07. VTA receives federal dollars to replace older buses and this money will be used to acquire smaller buses instead of bigger ones.
Member Zimmerman left her seat at 5:01 p.m., the quorum was lost and the Committee of the Whole was declared.
Ms. Benjamin reiterated that the community will be consulted in the design of the service and the determination of which areas of the community will be served.
Mr. Aro defined the BRT as flexible, rubber-tired rapid transit mode. Mr. Aro noted that the BRT concept is a fixed system that could move a lot of people quickly. Mr. Aro presented a list of cities with current BRT Projects. He noted the key benefits of BRT highlighting on timesavings, flexibility, increased ridership, positive changes in land use, and incremental development of system.
Member Zimmerman took her seat at 5:03 p.m., and a quorum was declared.
Mr. Aro noted the unique features of BRT. BRT vehicles have level loading, multiple doors, large capacity (120-200 people), fare collection at station, and contemporary image or futuristic look. The right-of-way options included dedicated right-of-way in full or rush hours, multiple use such high occupancy vehicle lanes, and general traffic. Mr. Aro presented pictures of different right-of-ways in different cities and noted that the BRT’s right-of-way is significantly less expensive than rail, has multiple funding sources, and could generate revenues. Stations will be integrated within community and will be similar to light rail stations.
Member Elias took his seat at 5:13 p.m.
Mr. Aro noted the service characteristics and highlighted that the BRT will deliver high quality and fast service. VTA staff is looking at low-floor vehicles to speed up the passenger boarding. Mr. Aro noted that VTA is installing a signal priority at El Camino and hopes to save about 25 percent of the travel time on the new route proposed on that corridor. Mr. Aro noted that the corridors that are being studied for BRT are El Camino, Alameda, Santa Clara, Alum Rock, and Palo Alto. Staff is studying operating BRT on frequent service (15 minutes) and headway based schedules.
Mr. Aro discussed the technology and noted that there will be automatic vehicle location system using GPS, signal pre-emption, real-time schedule information, and vehicle interior stop announcements. Mr. Aro noted that the proposed BRT Line mimics the Bus Route #22 and the proposed BRT line will have limited stops.
Upon query of Member Tripousis, Mr. Aro noted the differences between articulated buses and BRT. BRT will have additional wider doors and futuristic look. Mr. Aro added that there will be fare inspectors to check the fares of riders.
Member Zimmerman noted concern on fuel efficiency and environmental concerns. Mr. Aro noted that technology for more fuel-efficient vehicles is still evolving.
Member Elias inquired about safety and ridership as it relate to the speed of the BRT. Mr. Aro responded that the BRT addresses safety, as it will only have incremental improvements such as reduction of stops and signal priority. Mr. Aro noted that BRT in other cities resulted in 40 percent improvement in ridership. Mr. Aro explained that the key to BRT’s success is the corridor where it will run. He cautioned that each transportation system has its own characteristic and may have different results. He emphasized that VTA’s proposed BRT corridor is extremely busy.
Member Elias inquired about the possible increase in fares. Mr. Aro noted that staff is not proposing a different fare structure. He noted there will only be premiums if the BRT line will run on freeways.
Member Elias recommended that a relationship between cost and speed be established for the BRT System. Member Elias suggested a study of environmental implications, ridership growth projections, review trends three to five years from now, and examine the return on investment.
Member Rogers noted that there are many variables and noted that it may be difficult to project ahead of time the return on investment. She noted that speed will definitely be one of the influences.
Ms. Benjamin stated that the Committee’s input will be used to refine the BRT Concept. Ms. Benjamin noted that the research paper on BRT will be provided to the Committee for more information.
Member Zimmerman left her seat at 5:32 p.m.
Member Burnett noted that Paratransit Activity should be tracked because it could be an indicator of where demands are.
The Agenda was taken out of order.
| 
Rider's Links 
