Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) was called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Chairperson Julian in Building A, Auditorium, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Linda Gallo
Sandra Gouveia
David Grant
Katie Heatley (Ex-Officio)
Marjorie Jensen
David Julian, Chairperson
Martin Lasich
Allen F. Marcillet
Laura Michels
Aaron Morrow, Vice Chairperson
Diana Nguyen
Barbara Rhodes
Thomas Slack
Barbara Stahl

Members Absent
Jeannette Bruntz
Emma Eljas
Maryjane Naughten

A quorum was present.

INTRODUCTION OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS

Received introductions from the audience including: Terry Applegate, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center; Troy Hernandez, Area of Development Disability Board; Dana Mitchell, Interested Citizen; Duane Haugen, Interested Citizen; Edna Pampy, VTA Accessible Services; Steve Johnstone, VTA Operations Division; David Ledwitz, VTA Accessible Services; Sam Lau, VTA Operations Planning and Support Services Deputy Director; Jim Unites, VTA Operations Program Manager; Paul Googe,
VTA Operations Transportation Superintendent; and Nancy Coss-Fitzwater,
VTA Operations Division.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Dana Mitchell, Los Gatos Community Interested Citizen, expressed concern regarding the New Community Bus System.  Ms. Mitchell expressed concern regarding accessibility issues, Non-English speaking drivers, and driver’s knowledge of routes and transfer points.

Member Marcillet took his seat at 1:10 p.m.

Ms. Mitchell stressed the importance for the Committee to be alerted to the problems that are happening with regard to the Community Bus Program in Los Gatos.   Chairperson Julian encouraged VTA staff to work on resolving the matter quickly. 

Vice Chairperson Morrow queried if Committee Members would receive copies of the prepared statement.  Ms. Mitchell responded yes that Committee Members would receive copies via electronic mail later today.

Member Rhodes noted that she has spoken to Mr. Unites regarding the problems associated with PCA and is awaiting a response.  Member Rhodes expressed concern regarding the Community Buses and added that the buses were suppose to be accessible; therefore, requested that Community Buses be placed on the CTA Agenda next month.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Proposed Paratransit Eligibility Procedures (Community Plan)

Terry Applegate, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center, provided a brief presentation on the Proposed Paratransit Eligibility Procedures (Community Plan).   Ms. Applegate distributed copies to Committee Members of the Community Plan Report that was presented to the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee.  Ms. Applegate thanked and noted appreciation for the invitation to present the Community Plan to CTA.  Ms. Applegate continued that the Community Plan has been an issue dealt with over a period of three years and CTA’s determination to make this a simplified process and cost effective plan does not go unnoticed.  Ms. Applegate commented that at the March 2005 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting staff was directed to have CTA closely examine the Community Plan.  Ms. Applegate noted that social services directors, clinicians, and paratransit consumers developed the Community Plan.  Immediately following the November 2005 VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meeting work was started on the Community Plan and input was gathered at meetings, teleconferences, presentations, and e-mail.  Ms. Applegate noted the principal key players involved in the Community Plan were the Council on Aging and Transportation Subcommittee, San Jose State Social Workers Student Group, members of various County senior and disability advisory committees, and a broad layer of individuals.  Since May 2005 the Paratransit Eligibility Subcommittee has been meeting to make recommendations to improve the Paratransit Eligibility Certification Program.  The following is a list of concerns of the Paratransit Eligibility Subcommittee members: system is broken, costly program, and a great need for broadening communication and education between the Board of Directors, community agencies, and the public.  The goal of the Community Plan is to make the process simplified so clients in the County are not hurt and the basic concept is to streamline the Paratransit Eligibility Certification Program, cut costs; therefore, funding may be used for services instead of expensive screening processes and make the content appropriate in determining the need for Paratransit Services. 

Ms. Applegate commented that the Community Plan calls for the cancellation of the contract with Orthopaedic Hospital and NovaCare.  Ms. Applegate continued that in the place of Orthopaedic Hospital, a local agency that works with individuals with disabilities, or individual licensed health professionals would have a contract to conduct Paratransit Eligibility Certification Program interviews.  The applicant would complete the application form and a phone interview would be conducted and for the individuals where a phone interview would not be appropriate, an in-person interview would be offered.  Ms. Applegate continued that composition of the Paratransit Eligibility Certification Program staff could include occupational therapists, physical therapists, orientation specialists, and psychiatric social workers to conduct the interviews. Ms. Applegate noted that language and communication issues would be addressed by the agencies providing eligibility services.  Transportation services would not be needed for phone interviews; therefore, saving an estimated $200,000 per year and those individuals who request an in-person interview would be provided free transportation to and from the interview.  Individuals with permanent disabilities already in the system would not be required to go through the process, but would simply supply information regarding changes in health care condition and mobility aids.

Ms. Applegate commented on the appeals process and noted if an applicant is rejected and an appeal is requested the applicant schedules a hearing with the appeals panel, comprised of one or more CTA Members and a licensed health professional from the community with knowledge of the individual’s specific type of disability.  If the appeals panel cannot make the determination then the appeals panel can recommend a mobility assessment in the field to the applicant’s home or a trip destination with the applicant and a trained professional.  Ms. Applegate continued that members of the appeals panel would undergo training before sitting on the appeals panel for issues such as client confidentiality, sensitivity, and conformance to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Regulations.  If an applicant is still denied by the appeals panel then it will go to a mobility assessment and this in field assessment would be paid on a per unit basis where a mobility specialist, occupational, and physical therapist would be contracted to conduct the mobility assessment on a per need basis.  Ms. Applegate commented on the cost with the present program and noted that the program is an expensive process.  Ms. Applegate noted that the current contract with Orthopaedic Hospital over three years totals $1,742, 000 and if granted extension for two years, the total cost is close to $3 million.  Ms. Applegate added that NovaCare’s current contract over three years is $156,000 and if extended an additional two years the total cost is about $270,000; therefore, without the contract extensions between the two agencies the costs run over $2 million.  However, this does not reflect the costs of the true program since the $200,000 for the transportation rides cost needs to be included, VTA staffing costs, brochures, and etc.  Ms. Applegate noted that a number of community agencies spend an additional considerable amount of time and money assisting clients in trying to get their interviews scheduled with Orthopaedic Hospital.  Ms. Applegate continued that VTA’s own statistics reflect spending a large amount of money to weed out a small number of individuals who are not eligible.  Ms. Applegate referenced the May 11, 2005 CTA Meeting where Mr. Ledwitz noted less than 3 percent of applicants were denied eligibility and noted in February 2005 staff stated that over 75 percent of the appeals were overturned; therefore, the program can be done more efficiently at half the cost.

Ms. Applegate noted action step recommendations 1) send Letters of Intent to both Orthopaedic Hospital and NovaCare to not extend their contracts, 2) initiate new vendor procurement process and program design July 2005, 3) broaden the role of the CTA Subcommittee to review and provide input into VTA staff’s redesign of the eligibility and appeals program, based on the core concepts of the Community Plan,
4) submit approved redesigned concepts with proposed scope of work documents to CTA for review and input from that body and the public, 5) initiate a new bid process with a preference for bringing in qualified local agencies and/or clinicians to be providers of eligibility and appeals services.  Include CTA Members on the selection and review panel, and 6) begin new Paratransit Eligibility Program July 1, 2006.

Ms. Applegate noted that a number of agencies around the country have been very displeased with Orthopaedic Hospital; therefore, have cancelled their contracts with Orthopaedic Hospital and added support to cancel VTA’s contract with Orthopaedic Hospital as well.

Chairperson Julian thanked and noted appreciation to Ms. Applegate on the Community Plan presentation.

Vice Chairperson Morrow thanked and noted appreciation to the CTA Members and staff who gave their time to serve on the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee to advise on the Eligibility Program.   Vice Chairperson Morrow noted that the common perception of the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee was that the present Eligibility Program needs additional improvement in terms of process, procedures, and results while the costs of the program needs to be greatly reduced.  Vice Chairperson Morrow added a primary task of the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee was to review and comment on the Community Plan in terms of suggestive changes intended to help improve and reduce the costs of the Eligibility Process Program.  Local community agency representatives serving the disabled, seniors, and members of the disabled community developed the Community Plan over the past few years.  The Community Plan has been presented to the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee and the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee has also received presentations from Disability Services at Orthopaedic Hospital and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Eligibility Program.  After processing all the information and discussing the present Eligibility Program, which has undergone changes, the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee is forwarding two recommendations for adoption by CTA to recommend to the VTA Board of Directors. 

Vice Chairperson Morrow read the recommendations from the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee: 1) send cancellation notices now to Eligibility Program contractor Disability Services Orthopaedic Hospital and to the appeals program contractor, NovaCare, prohibiting the extension of their contracts beyond June 2006, and 2) initiate process with CTA design and improve Eligibility Program to help select a new Eligibility Certification contractor and scope of work to be operative by July 1, 2006. 
Vice Chairperson Morrow noted that the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee is asking CTA to accept the recommendations and approve the recommendation under Agenda Item # 9., Disability Services and NovaCare Contracts and the recommendation is as followed: as soon as possible initiate a phone interview for those remaining clients who have not yet been through the recertification process this will make the process more convenient, more timely, reduce the cost to recertify existing clients, eliminate the need to provide transportation to the in-person interview, and any recertifying client who wish an in-person interview will be provided that option with free transportation. Vice Chairperson Morrow noted that the recommendation recognizes very few clients who are being denied are about three percent or five persons as of May 2005.  Under the current process, which is very costly, time consuming, and has associated transportation costs for the rides to and from the interview note that the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee is asking CTA to recommend and approve under Agenda Item # 9., Disability Services and NovaCare Contracts.  Vice Chairperson Morrow added in summary the final recommended motion is generous in that it allows the contractors, VTA staff, and CTA a year long window to plan an improved program that cost less.  The second recommendation provides a reasonable cost effective solution to the costly recertification process that CTA never favored from the beginning and the results have shown that the recertification policy to be misguided as nearly all clients are recertified. Vice Chairperson Morrow noted that the MTC presentation documented that phone interviews are used in other counties in the Bay Area and are successful.

Member Stahl expressed her appreciation to Ms. Applegate for the Community Plan presentation and Vice Chairperson Morrow for the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee recommendation. 

Member Gouveia noted if an individual has a permanent disability then an audit should be conducted regarding who has a permanent disability; therefore, the individual should not have to worry about being recertified.   Ms. Applegate responded that it was their feeling as well and was echoed at the March 2005 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting.  Ms. Applegate commented that a phone interview would be conducted every three years to determine if there was a change in status or mobility devices; therefore, an individual would not have to go through the process. 

Member Gouveia responded that the Plan sounds like it would save a lot of money.

Member Grant expressed his support of the Community Plan and added that the Plan and recommendations are a step in the right direction.

Member Slack noted his support of the recommendation and added that spending funds to recertify permanently disabled individuals is a waste of funds. 

Vice Chairperson Morrow expressed his appreciation to the CTA Eligibility Subcommittee for their diligent work and effort on the Proposed Paratransit Eligibility Procedures and Community Plan.

The Committee reviewed and provided comment on the Proposed Paratransit Eligibility Procedures (Community Plan). 

Disability Services and NovaCare Contracts 

M/S/C (Morrow/Rhodes) on a vote of 13 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to recommend sending cancellation notices to Eligibility Program contractor Disability Services Orthopaedic Hospital and to the Appeals Program contractor NovaCare prohibiting the extension of these contracts beyond June 2006 and initiate process with CTA to design and improve the Eligibility Program to help select a new Eligibility Certification contractor and scope of work to be operative by July 1, 2006.

Vice Chairperson Morrow requested the initiation of a phone interview for the remaining clients who have not yet been through the recertification process, which will make the process more convenient, more timely, and reduce costs to recertify existing clients and eliminate the need to provide transportation to the in-person interview.  Any recertifying client who wishes an in-person interview will be provided that option and free transportation.

Member Slack queried about who would conduct the phone interview and if the interviewer would be Orthopaedic Hospital.   Vice Chairperson Morrow responded yes since Orthopaedic Hospital still has the contract to conduct the Paratransit Eligibility Certification Program.

M/S/C (Morrow/Rhodes) on a vote of 13 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to recommend as soon as possible to initiation of a phone interview for those remaining clients who have not yet been through the recertification process, which will make the process more convenient, more timely, and reduce costs to recertify existing clients and eliminate the need to provide transportation to the in-person interview.  Any recertifying client who wishes an in-person interview will be provided that option and free transportation.

The Committee discussed and recommended changes to VTA Board of Directors with regard to Disability Services and NovaCare Contracts.   (Requested by Committee For Transit Accessibility at the May 11, 2005 Meeting.)

NOTE:   M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Paratransit Fares

Member Rhodes commented on her attendance at the May 19, 2005 Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee Meeting and expressed her concern regarding a CTA motion not presented to TP&O Committee Members.  Member Rhodes noted her concern regarding Paratransit Fares being charged double the Fixed Route Fare. Member Rhodes suggested advising TP&O Committee Members that Paratransit Fares can be charged double the Fixed Route Fare; however, they do not have to charge the double Fixed Route Fare.  Member Rhodes noted that individuals are on low-income budgets; therefore, this would negatively impact these individuals.

Ms. Applegate noted that funding saved from the Paratransit Eligibility Process could be utilized for service; therefore, Paratransit Service Fares do not have to increase. 
Ms. Applegate added that San Mateo County has a program for low-income individuals who are only required to show proof of income and do not pay the higher fare when fares are increased.

Ms. Mitchell noted her support of a low-income program instated into VTA’s Transportation System.

Member Rhodes noted her support of a low-income program; however, added that every one who utilizes paratransit should be given same consideration and treated equally. 

M/S/C (Jensen/Rhodes) on a vote of 13 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to recommend ADA Paratransit Service be removed from the Farebox Recovery Ratio Policy and considered independently even though the ADA allows the increase the fare increase is not required. 

Member Rhodes requested that the policy of tracking CTA motions when the recommendations are presented to TP&O Committee and VTA Board of Directors and a report outlining comments from TP&O Committee Members and VTA Board of Directors be provided to CTA Members.       

The Committee discussed and recommended changes to VTA Board of Directors with regard to Paratransit Fares.   (Requested by Member Rhodes at the May, 19, 2005 Transit Planning and Operations Committee.)

Minutes of May 11, 2005

Member Grant queried on the May 11, 2005 CTA Meeting Minutes and referenced
Page 6 of 15, Paragraph 2, noting Member Grants query regarding the message in the Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 from Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager, stating free fares for all seniors age 67 and older who are disabled currently not qualified for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit Services during off-peak hours, Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays and if this is moving forward. 

Member Grant noted and referenced Matthew O. Tucker’s, Chief Operating Officer, response was yes and added that VTA Marketing Department is taking the lead on the program.   Member Grant queried on the progress regarding the free fares for all seniors age 67 and older who are disabled currently not qualified for ADA Paratransit Services during off-peak hours, Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays.  Mr. Unites responded that VTA Marketing Department is working on the free fares program.

Member Grant requested more information regarding the progress of the free fares program.   Mr. Unites responded that more information will be provided and forwarded to CTA in the Fall. 

Minutes of February 9, 2005

M/S/C (Gouveia/Rhodes) on a vote of 13 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to approve the Minutes of February 9, 2005.

Minutes of March 9, 2005

M/S/C (Gouveia/Rhodes) on a vote of 13 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to approve the Minutes of March 9, 2005.

Vice Chairperson Morrow left his seat at 1:55 p.m.

Minutes of May 11, 2005 (continued)

Member Grant requested that VTA Marketing Department provide a status report to Committee Members regarding the free fares message stated in the Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. 

Member Rhodes requested that VTA Marketing Department provide a status report to Committee Members at the next CTA Meeting regarding the free fares program.

M/S/C (Gouveia/Rhodes) on a vote of 12 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to approve the Minutes of May 11, 2005. 

Vice Chairperson Morrow took his seat at 2:00 p.m.

Member Nguyen left her seat at 2:00 p.m.

BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/GENERAL MANAGER

Bus Mobility Securement Policy

Steve Johnstone, Operations Administration Senior Management Analyst, provided an overview on Bus Mobility Securement Policy.   Mr. Johnstone commented that in December 2004 CTA recommended and initiated the establishment of a Securement Task Force that would evaluate the current Securement Policy as it relates to mobility devices in buses and to develop an action plan with recommendations towards changing the policy if the Securement Task Force felt that it were in order.  Mr. Johnstone noted that he is the facilitator of the Securement Task Force Meeting and added that the CTA Securement Task Force has been meeting twice a month for six months.  The Securement Task Force includes the following members:  two members from CTA – Chairperson Julian and Vice Chairperson Morrow, two members from OUTREACH – Stanley Aragon and Bill Swartz along with several VTA staff members such as – bus engineer, training department, accessible services, and transportation supervisors. 

Mr. Johnstone continued that the Securement Task Force put a lot of work into evaluating the current securement rule and noted that the current policy for securement devices in coaches allows mobility device users to ride with their mobility devices secured as well as unsecured.    Mr. Johnstone noted that staff has conducted some studies, which statistics that show over 70 passengers per day ride in VTA coaches with their mobility devices unsecured.  Mr. Johnstone commented that the Securement Task Force conducted studies with four different coaches in VTA’s fleet, each with different types of securement equipment installed in the coaches.  The Securement Task Force went through a process to determine how long it would take to secure a mobility device in VTA’s coaches with the current securement equipment.  The intent was to determine if the current securement equipment is efficient to secure mobility devices in VTA’s coaches.  Mr. Johnstone noted that he brought some securement equipment devices from the coaches to show Committee Members.  Mr. Johnstone added that one of the common securement equipment devices in coaches is to use a seatbelt type of device that wraps around and latches on the frame of a mobility device; however, this equipment is very cumbersome for the driver to secure the mobility device.  Mr. Johnstone commented on other coaches with a hook securement equipment device, which is on about 20 percent of VTA’s coaches is easier for drivers to utilize.  Mr. Johnstone commented that with the recommendation from OUTREACH that a hook securement equipment device be used in conjunction with a loop tether attached to the mobility device makes it extremely easy and efficient for operators to secure mobility devices in coaches.  Mr. Johnstone added that OUTREACH and other transportation agencies in the Bay Area use loop tethers to secure mobility devices. 

Mr. Johnstone commented that he was secured with loop tethers in a three-wheel scooter and rode around in a coach for about two hours.   He noted that the objective was to determine what it would take to get the mobility device to tip or roll over with an individual in the mobility device secured in the coach.  Mr. Johnstone noted that he rode around in the coach for an hour and half and he could not get the mobility device to tip over while it was secured in the coach.  Then the securement equipment loop tethers were removed from the mobility device and the coach drove out on a test drive with the mobility device unsecured, the mobility device moved forward and backward, and the back of the mobility device began to tip over.  If not for another person on the coach, an individual in a mobility device would have been rolling around the floor of the coach.  There is a need to change the current Securement Policy from one that offers the customer the option to ride with their mobility device secured and change the policy to say that VTA will require the mobility device users to ride with their mobility devices secured in coaches.  Mr. Johnstone continued that it is a policy change from optional to mandatory securement of mobility devices and noted that the ADA does allow for this kind of policy. 

Mr. Johnstone noted that there are several issues to be addressed with regard to implementing a new policy.   Mr. Johnstone commented on those in the community who resist the idea of allowing their mobility devices to be secured because it takes more time and draws more attention to the person using the mobility device and staff understands the concerns.  When weighing the inconvenience and inefficiency that it creates to the issue of safety, safety is a winner and overriding decision-making factor.  

The Securement Task Force recommendation is to initiate a public awareness campaign that will encourage mobility device users to accept the offer of the operator to assist with securing their mobility devices in the coach; therefore, brochures and cards will be in the coaches that will educate the public regarding the Securement Policy.  The Securement Task Force noted that it is worth retrofitting the coaches with efficient securement equipment and staff has initiated a process with the training department to train and re-educate coach operators on how to secure mobility devices on the coaches.

Mr. Johnstone noted that Chairperson Julian and Vice Chairperson Morrow shared their experiences with regard to agencies in the Bay Area that do require Securement Policies, such as Muni, AC Transit, SamTrans, and Sacramento Regional Transit District. Mr. Johnstone noted that mobility device users, other passengers, and operators are accustomed to a Securement Policy that operators become proficient in how to secure mobility devices efficiently and mobility device users do not raise objection to have their mobility device secured and other passengers view the securement and time it takes for the securement as a customary part of the riding process.

Member Nguyen took her seat at 2:10 p.m.

Mr. Johnstone continued that staff has initiated refresher training for operators and issued a number of notices over the past six months reminding operators to at least offer to secure mobility devices in the coaches.   Mr. Johnstone commented on the next step is to solicit public comments.  Staff is developing a plan to target different groups to receive comments representative of those in mobility devise users community, public at large, and other public transit users then present VTA’s recommendation of a policy change to the TP&O Committee then forward to VTA Board of Directors for consideration.  In the meantime, staff is working to provide the type of securement equipment in coaches that will make it efficient for passengers to be secured when using their mobility devices to ride safely.  Mr. Johnstone noted that the point is to truly retrofit the coaches with a standardized type of equipment and subject to VTA Board of Directors approval move forward with a new Securement Policy that requires mobility device users to ride with their mobility devices secured.

Chairperson Julian thanked and noted appreciation to Mr. Johnstone for the Bus Mobility Securement Policy overview.   Chairperson Julian noted that the four different buses tested did not have a universal securing equipment style; therefore, retrofitting the bus coaches is necessary so that securement equipment is uniform. 
Chairperson Julian stressed the importance of education and public awareness for both the public and mobility devices users who should be encouraged to use the securement equipment.  Chairperson Julian noted that the process is going to take a lot of time and energy.  He encouraged each CTA Member to participate to assist the process regarding the new Securement Policy.

Member Stahl noted support of the safety issue.   She also noted concern regarding the resentment by the rest of the public regarding how long it takes for the mobility device users to board the bus.  Member Stahl queried if VTA planned to adjust the time schedule so that drivers are not racing to try to keep to the timetables because if not then there will be more resentment by the general public towards mobility device users and this issue needs to be addressed. 

Member Stahl expressed concern regarding an emergency situation and queried how an individual will unsecure their mobility device.   Chairperson Julian responded that he has brought up this concern and the concerns are being addressed and noted that emergency procedures need to be implemented in the Securement Policy.  Mr. Johnstone responded that OUTREACH has made some recommendations regarding the use of tethers and a cutter; therefore, every coach as part of the retrofit will be supplied with a securement equipment kit.  The securement equipment kit will include tethers, brochures, and a cutter.  Mr. Johnstone commented that staff is currently discussing the issue related to the time required to secure mobility devices in coaches 1 minute, 30 seconds to secure one mobility device efficiently.  If ten mobility devices required securement, that is an additional 15 minutes.  If the Securement Policy is endorsed, it will take about six months to retrofit the coaches.  The Securement Policy will not be implemented until the securement equipment is installed in the coaches to make the policy successful.  However, at the same time VTA is encouraging mobility device users to ride with their mobility devices secured; therefore, staff is going to initiate a public awareness campaign for all transit passengers to let them know that in the interest of safety VTA is initiating a new program. 

Mr. Johnstone noted that staff is working with the Planning Department and those who establish routes and time schedules to determine what the impacts would be and what adjustments would have to be made for those schedules.    Mr. Johnstone commented that staff has a chronicle of what lines have the most mobility device activity based on lift usage data.  Therefore, the data is something that staff is working on to determine good judgment as far as whether or not staff should modify any of the route schedules.

Member Gouveia and Ex-Officio Member Heatley left their seats at 2:25 p.m.

Member Grant noted concern regarding general public resentment towards mobility device users.   Member Grant referenced a previous trip downtown on Line 81,
new coach number 2023, where the seatbelt could not be removed from the mobility device; therefore, the customer had to wait for a mechanic since the driver did not have a cutter.  Member Grant queried why drivers do not have the cutter already on the bus.  Member Grant commented on the 70 people who decline to be secured and queried on how many people in an unsecured mobility device are injured per year or last year on buses.  Mr. Johnstone responded that Mr. Googe mentioned that while working on a public liability claim the public liability claim adjuster stated that several people are interested in pursuing litigation with VTA regarding injuries from unsecured mobility devices. Mr. Johnstone added that VTA has an obligation to protect passengers from serious injury; therefore, the policy is an appropriate effort in terms of safety.

Member Grant stressed concern regarding mobility device users being passed on by because the policy would require a driver to perform additional work.   Member Grant added that passengers are lucky to get drivers to put the seat up and drivers never offer to secure a mobility device. 

Member Grant commented on ADA specification “common wheelchair” and queried about what a “common wheelchair” was because the new Securement Policy states that drivers cannot refuse a ride if a person has a “common wheelchair.”   Member Grant requested a clearer definition on a “common wheelchair” since there are too many different designs on wheelchairs.  Member Grant queried on where VTA is going to draw the line on what is an acceptable wheelchair.  Mr. Johnstone responded that VTA cannot refuse service if securement equipment cannot secure the mobility device; therefore, VTA still has to provide service to the customer.

Members Gallo and Stahl left their seats at 2:30 p.m.

Chairperson Julian noted that VTA plans to provide a lot of education and information to the public regarding the Bus Mobility Securement Policy.

Member Slack commented if a mobility device is secured it is prevented from falling over and queried if the securement equipment was tested and shown to be adequate if hitting of the brakes occurred and an individual was thrown forward if the individual in the secured mobility device would be held. 

Member Gouveia and Ex-Officio Member Heatley took their seats at 2:32 p.m.

Members Marcillet left his seat at 2:32 p.m., the quorum was lost, and
a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Member Stahl took her seat at 2:32 p.m. and the quorum was declared.

Mr. Johnstone responded that the policy can require the mobility device to be secured in the coach; however, VTA cannot require the individual to be secured with a lap belt.   It is safer for an individual to ride with their mobility device secured. 
Mr. Johnstone responded that it is safest for an individual to ride with the mobility device secured and with the use of a shoulder harness or belt.  Consequently, in the event of a panic stop the mobility device would be secured just like the seats on the coach; however, the individual would not be secured on the seat so there is an issue.

Member Slack queried if the securement equipment would hold the mobility device in a panic situation stop.   Mr. Johnstone responded yes that the securement equipment would hold the mobility device.

Member Slack queried on the proposed change in Securement Policy when a person gets on board a coach and refuses to be secured if the individual could ride or is the individual asked to get off the coach.   Mr. Johnstone responded that under the ADA and the new proposal Securement Policy if VTA has a requirement policy to ride with securement then if a passenger refuses to have their mobility device secured then VTA can decline service to that customer.

Members Marcillet took his seat at 2:34 p.m.

Member Jensen suggested signage in the coach area to let passengers know that it is the policy that mobility devices are secured in the coaches.   Member Jensen suggested that drivers receive sensitivity training with regard to individuals who may not want to have their mobility device secured.  Member Jensen queried if the drivers are taught that they are responsible for everyone on the bus in an emergency situation and that all passengers are off the bus coach before the driver gets off.  Mr. Johnstone responded yes and noted that drivers are aware that they are responsible for the passengers. 

Member Jensen queried about the cutter and noted that someone in a scooter or wheelchair may not have the strength to use the cutter; therefore, drivers should be required to use the cutter to remove securement equipment from mobility devices. 
Mr. Johnstone responded yes and noted that the cutter would be part of the drivers Securement Kit.   Part of the Securement Policy proposal is that every operator and coach will be equipped with a supply of tethers, a cutter, and brochures.  Mr. Johnstone continued that education is an important part of the process and the intent and goal is to move forward to improve safety of each passenger trip.  Mr. Johnstone added that much work is needed and by CTA endorsing the proposed policy does not mean that tomorrow VTA is going to require every one to use securement equipment to secure their mobility device.  Mr. Johnstone commented that VTA has a long journey ahead and the bulk of the work is to educate operators, mobility device users, and transportation users to change their way of thinking.  Mr. Johnstone noted that when other transportation agencies implemented Securement Policies, the operators, mobility device users, and other transit users became accustomed to the policy and realized that this is a standard way of operating the transportation system.

Member Jensen noted her support of the Mobility Device Securement Policy and added that as a passenger she would feel safer knowing that in an emergency situation a mobility device would be secured to prevent injuries.

Member Gouveia queried on the cost figures of the Securement Policy.   Member Gouveia noted that in her experience it takes at least four minutes to secure a mobility device and queried on the test timings conducted regarding securement of mobility devices. Mr. Johnstone responded that the timing of the securement of mobility devices was about two minutes and was based on the time the individual left the farebox, positioned the mobility device in the appropriate area, and when the driver secured the mobility device with the tethers. 

Member Rhodes queried if Chairperson Julian or Vice Chairperson Morrow have tried the tethers VTA is proposing ordering for the coaches.   Chairperson Julian responded yes that he has tried the tethers. 

Member Rhodes queried on the comfort of the tethers.   Chairperson Julian responded that there was no real discomfort. 

Member Rhodes noted the importance to include the end user in the testing of the securement equipment.

Member Rhodes left her seat at 2:40 p.m.

Member Gouveia queried on the cost.   Mr. Johnstone responded that it is about
$700 to $800 per coach for retrofitting with the proposed securement equipment.
Member Gouveia responded that the cost sounds reasonable.

Ex-Officio Member Heatley noted that under the current policy of OUTREACH a customer is not stranded if they refuse to ride one way or the other; therefore, OUTREACH will make transportation arrangements for the customer. 
Ex-Officio Member Heatley stressed the importance to include something in the Securement Policy to address the matter if someone refuses to be secured then a road supervisor or other transportation arrangements would be arranged to avoid further problems.   Mr. Johnstone responded that this issue is part of the Securement Policy and similar to a lift problem or capacity issue on VTA’s coach.  Mr. Johnstone added that VTA recognizes their obligation to rectify situations.

Ms. Applegate referenced the Bus Mobility Securement memorandum, Page 1, Second Paragraph, “The Mobility Device Task Force recommends that the policy allow operators to request passengers using three-wheeled devices (scooters) to transfer from the device to a seat in the bus whenever possible” and noted many individuals are unable to transfer out of their mobility device.   Ms. Applegate continued that the ADA does not require the transfer; therefore, the language should be stated recommend but not require. Ms. Applegate noted that marketing must include the public at large.  Ms. Applegate stressed the importance that the materials released to the public first come to CTA for review.  Chairperson Julian responded yes and noted that marketing materials will be provided to CTA for review. 

Member Stahl noted that she has never had a driver secure her mobility device in a minute.   Member Stahl stressed the importance to take into consideration that there are instances that it will take longer to secure mobility devices and noted concern regarding the resentment form other transit users for the additional time to secure mobility devices in coaches.  Mr. Johnstone responded that the test time of 1 minute, 19 seconds is the best-case scenario.  Mr. Johnstone continued that when the coach is equipped with the right equipment, when the mobility device has a tether attached, then the time to secure the mobility device will be less; however, if not all of those things are in place then it does become more time consuming; therefore, this is why staff is recommending to change the mobility securement equipment in the coaches to have all the right tools in place to make the mobility device securement as efficient as possible.

Member Grant queried on the securement equipment device.   Mr. Johnstone responded that there are four different points to secure the mobility device and added that the equipment is the latest in securement equipment.  Mr. Johnstone continued that the S-Hook system provides the most efficient means of securing devices when used in conjunction with 15-inch loop tethers. Mr. Johnstone noted that using loop tethers with most types of securement equipment reduces the time to fully secure a mobility device.

Member Grant queried about tire clamps in the bus coaches.   Mr. Johnstone responded that tire clamps will be removed from the bus coaches.

Member Grant requested VTA staff provide a demonstration regarding securement of mobility devices in bus coaches to the Committee.   Member Grant suggested VTA staff observe a real world mobility device securement where the driver is unaware that they are being observed and timed.

Vice Chairperson Morrow stressed the importance of the safety issue; therefore, suggested that the CTA Securement Task Force remain in effect at least one-year during the implementation of the Securement Policy to ensure that the securement equipment products are working properly in the event that something needs to come back to the CTA Securement Task Force to address.

Member Grant left his seat at 2:55 p.m., and the quorum was lost, and
a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Member Rhodes took her seat at 2:55 p.m. and the quorum was declared.

Member Slack queried about research from other transit agencies using securement devices and the success with regard to their Securement Policy.   Mr. Johnstone responded that AC Transit, SamTrans, and Sacramento Regional Transit District have Securement Policies that require passengers to ride with their mobility devices secured and most securement devices use tethers and are provided free of charge.  Mr. Johnstone continued that the other transit agencies have been successful with their Securement Policy Program, which is very similar to VTA’s Securement Policy Program. 

Member Grant took his seat at 2:57 p.m.

Vice Chairperson Morrow left his seat at 2:57 p.m.

Member Lasich queried if the securement is geared for one type of mobility device or more.   Mr. Johnstone responded that it is geared for a variety of mobility devices and noted that there are 6,000 varieties of mobility devices but if ranged into similar categories then the variety number decreases down to a small number of similar mobility devices, and with a use of a tether the securement equipment is close to universal. Mr. Johnstone continued that the use of a tether makes the securement equipment not 100 percent universal but close to universal for every type of mobility device.

The Committee reviewed and commented on the Bus Mobility Securement Policy.

OTHER

CTA Transit System Ridership Report

The CTA Transit System Ridership Report was deferred.

Legislative Updates

The Legislative Updates was deferred.

Chairperson’s Report

The Chairperson’s Report was deferred.

Announcements

There were no Announcements.

Chairperson Julian left his seat at 2:59 p.m., and the quorum was lost, and
a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Committee Staff Report

Mr. Unites commented that CTA Bylaws will be reviewed at the July 21, 2005
VTA Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting then forwarded to the August 4, 2005 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting for consideration.

Chairperson Julian took his seat at 3:00 p.m. and the quorum was declared.