|
Community Bus Program Overview
Mr. Aro commented on the Community Bus Program and noted that this is a program VTA will pursue in the next fiscal cycle. Mr. Aro noted that traditional transit is designed to serve large masses and operates on main arterial streets, has a number of stops and operates by using big vehicles to move large numbers of people. Mr. Aro continued that recent development patterns and densities, multiple destinations, and diverse population present some challenges on how to move people around in the Valley. VTA is evaluating these factors and needs to come up with a better solution to serve some of these areas. Therefore, staff is looking at bringing in big buses to serve the major arterial corridors and smaller community vehicles to provide better service in the less dense areas. Some of the attributes of the Community Bus will be the use of smaller vehicles and shorter routes, circuitous within a defined community to match the community needs; therefore, attempting to fit the bus scale to the community. Community Bus will improve mobility for more riders because staff will be able to access some neighborhoods that VTA is not able to access now with the larger vehicles. Community Bus is lower in cost to operate than traditional fixed route and staff is looking at customizing the service to meet the community needs. Staff is looking at making the service connect with the regional network with hubs within the communities and added that the Community Bus can take different forms and variations under this program.
Mr. Aro noted that to make this a success it is important to have Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Technologies to allow on-line reservations, mobile data terminals inside the vehicles so the drivers knows where to go to pick up a rider when there is an itinerary, and Global Position Systems (GPS). The vehicle characteristics would be smaller vehicles and staff is looking to customize these vehicles to fit the specific needs of the community. Therefore, making this a community process where the community decides what the service looks like, how it is designed, and it will be a consensus driven process. Mr. Aro noted that there are several types of these programs in operation and many transit systems are looking to implement similar programs.
Mr. Aro continued that VTA wants this to be a consensus driven process as well as partnering with the community in developing this service. Staff plans to have collaborative planning meetings where the community will participate and assist with designing the routes. Staff will provide input to ensure that everything is appropriate in terms of feasible operational elements. VTA would like the cities to weigh into the service and plans to have citizen planners and stakeholders involved with the actual design of the service to build community ownership. Mr. Aro noted that this program will not be a success without community input. Mr. Aro noted that staff has initiated meetings with some cities and added the cities are excited about the program. Mr. Aro noted the goal is to start service in January 2006 and within VTA’s current Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) program staff has programmed 20 small vehicles in FY 2006 and 30 small vehicles in FY 2007; therefore, when the vehicles start coming in then staff will start reviewing places to implement the service. Some of the areas that staff is looking at implementation of the Community Bus Program is in the South County area because of the density and areas in the North County, East San Jose, Milpitas, and West Valley area.
Member Bruntz queried if staff is considering what will happen in Santa Clara County as more seniors either do not want to or cannot drive themselves to the various places and would this impact the future planning of VTA services. Mr. Aro responded that all of these things will be considered and added that staff intends to work with everyone in the community to address the transportation needs of everyone in the community.
Member Slack noted that the concept is intriguing; however, queried on VTA’s current financial situation and where the money is coming from to buy the buses and implement the program. Member Slack queried if the program would compete with OUTREACH. Mr. Aro responded that staff has programmed money in the SRTP to have buses replaced when they reach the end of their useful life and instead of replacing a large bus with a large bus staff will replace a large bus with a smaller bus. Mr. Aro noted that VTA will receive federal funding for the equipment side of the program. Mr. Aro noted that OUTREACH customers have a free pass to use the system and if staff designs a service that meets their needs then the program should be seen as a compliment in service and not as competition.
Member Rhodes expressed her concern regarding the fact that the program was not presented to CTA for input and queried on the charge to use this vehicle. Mr. Aro responded that the program was presented to the Board of Directors at the VTA Board of Directors August 13, 2004 Workshop Meeting. Mr. Aro noted that the next step is to go through the committee process and added that CTA will have an opportunity to look at the vehicles. Mr. Aro noted that vehicles have not been selected or ordered and added that a lot of the input and design will be up to the various communities.
Member Rhodes queried if the vehicles would be run by VTA and follow ADA guidelines. Mr. Aro responded that VTA will operate the service and noted that normally staff would charge the normal fare structure; however, added if the community wants to subsidize fares then VTA is open to that and noted that it is up to the community.
Member Rhodes noted that the program sounds like feeder lines and queried on branded buses. Mr. Aro responded that branded buses means if a community wanted a special paint job on the vehicle or requested to name the vehicle. Member Rhodes commented that vehicles need to look the same; therefore, the public is aware that the vehicle is available for public transit.
Chairperson Julian clarified that the information presented to the Committee is preliminary. Mr. Aro responded that VTA does not plan to start the program until January 2006. Chairperson Julian suggested to the Committee that most of the comments should be held for the community meetings.
Member Naughten queried on who the consultant was for the bus project. Mr. Aro responded that there are no consultants for the project. Member Naughten queried on a bid for the project. Mr. Aro responded that the program is a concept at this point. Member Naughten queried on the amount of funding for the program. Mr. Aro responded that staff is aware of the issue of VTA’s financial situation; however, VTA is able to convert big buses that serve parts of the route with smaller buses and reallocate resources as well as reduce costs in some areas to balance the program out to prevent an increase in costs. Member Naughten expressed her concern regarding this program and added that the Committee should really look into this matter.
Member Jensen noted that she would like to see a return of service and financial stability within VTA before even considering beginning this new concept. Mr. Tacké responded that the new program will reduce operating costs because staff will be replacing existing larger bus services with smaller bus services.
Member Jensen expressed her concern and noted the importance regarding the costs to implement the program. Mr. Aro responded that the costs are being considered.
Member Gallo queried if the cities that benefits from the Community Buses would be asked to contribute to offset the costs in some manner if they are customized or branded. Mr. Aro responded that he is not able to say yes or no; however, if some special customization is requested, staff may ask the cities to pay for the costs.
Member Slack expressed his concern and noted that any time a new program is implemented there is going to be many expenditures and requested that at the next significant update on the program include a financial analysis as well.
Member Grant queried on the smaller routes and queried if this would force the disabled community to board and re-board the buses more often in order to get to their destination. Member Grant expressed his concern and doubted the cost efficiency of the program. Member Grant added that VTA needs to bring back the bus service that was cut before working on a new concept.
Member Rhodes queried why capital funding is used to purchase smaller vehicles but not on paratransit vehicles. Mr. Aro added that right now VTA is allowed to take the capital money and use it for preventive maintenance, which offsets operating costs; therefore, all the excess money for capital is going into fund operations. Mr. Aro noted that the money staff is using to buy the program vehicles is money the federal government made available to VTA to replace existing vehicles that reach the end of their useful life; therefore, instead of replacing big buses with big buses staff will replace them with smaller ones. Mr. Aro added that VTA is trying to improve the service.
Member Rhodes stressed the importance of getting input from all aspects of the community.
Member Morrow expressed his concern regarding the costs for the program and queried where the funding would come from to implement the program. Mr. Aro responded that VTA’s hope is to reallocate existing resources.
Chairperson Julian noted that this could be a very enthusiastic project and hopes to have ground floor community involvement and participation.
Mr. Aro commented on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Program that VTA is undertaking and noted that VTA has been identified as one of the pilot properties to undertake this program. He likened BRT to light rail on rubber. Mr. Aro noted that the key is to make the vehicles with low-floor level boarding with similar amenities as light rail.
Mr. Aro noted that VTA is initially targeting the Alum Rock, Santa Clara, Alameda,
and El Camino corridors. Service would start at Eastridge go up Capitol Avenue make a left on Alum Rock and continue until it got to Palo Alto. Mr. Aro commented on the new features for the service, such as, signal priority, right-hand-only lane to jump ahead of the traffic, frequent service every 15 minutes, instead of a fixed schedule the buses are going to have a start time and noted that the intent is to get to the destinations faster and to reduce travel time.
Mr. Aro continued that staff is looking at branding the service to give it an identity to stand out. Mr. Aro noted that staff is looking at stations and improving the speed and ability of passengers to board. Mr. Aro added that some of the advantages of stations is it becomes more like light rail with a fixed facility, which eventually promotes Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Mr. Aro noted multiple financing possibilities including Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and private sector.
Member Michels queried on improving the quality of service on the existing fixed route service for individuals with disabilities and expressed her concern regarding the importance of driver sensitivity towards individuals with disabilities.
Member Naughten expressed her concern regarding individuals who use walkers and move slower.
Member Rhodes expressed her concern regarding the safety of visually impaired individuals crossing the pedestrian crossing relating to the increase in speed of these vehicles. Mr. Aro noted that the pedestrian crossing cycle will not be changed or affected by this program and added that anything VTA can do to improve travel time once the vehicles are rolling.
Member Rhodes queried if the BRT is the same as express buses. Mr. Aro responded that express buses operate on the freeway and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and the BRT will operate on local streets.
Member Jensen expressed her concern regarding sensitivity towards individuals with disabilities and noted the importance of safety.
Mr. Aro noted the goal of BRT is to improve the service for the passengers riding the corridor and hopefully introducing this new service will attract new riders within the corridor. Mr. Aro added that VTA is trying to leverage all the funding available through grants to implement improvements within the system for the customers and attract new riders into the system at the same time.
Chairperson Julian noted that the report discussed a number of different layers and added that the system being proposed will not affect pedestrian or boarding time and the intent is to reduce travel time. Mr. Aro responded that this is correct and noted that there will not be huge changes in the traffic signal system because the system is operated by Caltrans. Mr. Aro added that VTA’s goal is saving some time and all that time adds up and eventually end up saving a bus and funding.
Member Morrow noted his support in developing efficiencies in transportation and added that this is the key to improving fare-box recovery.
Member Grant noted the importance of sensitivity and improvement in customer service. Mr. Aro agreed that customer service is very important and added that VTA is continually striving to improve customer service.
The Committee concluded their review and comment on the Market Segmentation Analysis and the Community Bus Program Overviews.
| 
Rider's Links 
