Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) was called to order at 1:04 p.m. by Chairperson Julian in Building A, Auditorium, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Jeannette Bruntz
Emma Eljas
David Grant
Katie Heatley (Ex-Officio)
Marjorie Jensen
David Julian, Chairperson
Allen F. Marcillet
Laura Michels
Aaron Morrow, Vice Chairperson
Diana Nguyen
Barbara Rhodes
Thomas Slack
Barbara Stahl

Members Absent
Linda Gallo
Sandra Gouveia
Martin Lasich
Maryjane Naughten

A quorum was present.

Received introductions from the audience including: Robin Anderson, Interested Citizen; Edna Pampy, VTA Accessible Services; Troy Hernandez, Area of Development Disability Board; David Ledwitz, VTA Accessible Services; Julia Jones, VTA Operations Planning; Sheri Fisher, VTA Accessible Services; Bernice Alaniz, VTA Marketing and Public Affairs; Jim Unites, VTA Operations Planning Manager; Steve Johnstone, VTA Operations Division; David Terrazas, VTA Marketing and Customer Services; and Jayme Kunz, VTA Marketing and Public Affairs. 

Chairperson Julian introduced Sam Lau, VTA Operations Planning and Support Services Deputy Director, to the Committee.  Mr. Lau commented that his responsibilities include Service and Operations Planning, Engineering, and Support Services at VTA as well as overseeing Accessible Services Department.  Mr. Lau continued that his background is in Transit Operations Planning as well as working with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) related issues.  Mr. Lau noted that he worked for the Department of Transportation to evaluate Paratransit Ride Systems and technology applications to determine ways to make operations more efficient.  He expressed his appreciation to be the staff liaison to CTA and is looking forward to working with the Committee to address issues.  Mr. Lau commented that his role is to work with the Committee Chairperson to keep the Committee agenda and issues moving forward.  Mr. Lau noted his goal is to assist the Committee to stay focus and thanked the Committee for allowing him the opportunity to work with the CTA Committee and Members.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Robin Anderson, Interested Citizen, expressed concern regarding the Bus and Light Rail System related to accessibility issues, equipment not working properly, and drivers not properly trained.

Thomas Slack, Interested Citizen, expressed concern regarding Non-English speaking OUTREACH drivers.   Mr. Slack requested that OUTREACH provide a report at the next CTA meeting regarding how drivers are screened qualified as OUTREACH drivers. 

Mr. Slack expressed concern regarding customers deemed permanent disability status that use OUTREACH Services and noted that recertification should not be necessary for these individuals.  Mr. Slack noted cost savings by eliminating the recertification process for permanent disability clients.  Mr. Slack requested a report to Committee Members regarding cost savings by eliminating the recertification process for permanent disability clients.

Member Slack stressed the importance related to tracking Committee recommendations and noted the importance to know, which items have been reviewed by the Board of Directors. 

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Legislative Report

Vice Chairperson Morrow expressed concern regarding the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority Legislative Update Report and referenced the June 2005 Activities Summary FY 2006 Transportation Appropriations.   Vice Chairperson Morrow referenced the fourth bullet, noting “ We continued to work with the relevant Senate and House committees on VTA’s FY 2006 appropriations requests, as follows: Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project - $10 million, Zero Emission Bus Demonstration Program - $400,000, Paratransit Vehicles - $1.5 million, Line 22 Articulated Buses - $2.3 million, Guaranteed Ride Program - $400,000, and HOT Lane Demonstration Program - $1 million.” 

Vice Chairperson Morrow commented that the current broker, OUTREACH, goes out to receive bids on its own Paratransit Vehicles and added that VTA does not assist the broker with the capital for the Paratransit Vehicles.

Vice Chairperson Morrow requested a report be provided at the next CTA Meeting regarding VTA seeking funding for Paratransit Vehicles then why is VTA not assisting OUTREACH broker to seek funding for Paratransit Vehicles.

Minutes of July 13, 2005

Member Stahl queried about the May 11, 2005 CTA Meeting Minutes and referenced
Page 6 of 17 Meeting Agenda Item # 9., Disability Services and NovaCare Contracts.   Member Stahl queried about the recommended motion to send cancellation notices to Eligibility Program contractor Disability Services Orthopaedic Hospital and to the Appeals Program contractor NovaCare prohibiting the extension of these contracts.  Member Stahl queried about why staff did not present the recommended motion to the Board of Directors. 

Member Jensen queried about the May 11, 2005 CTA Meeting Minutes and referenced Page 13 of 15 Meeting Agenda Item # 9., FY 2005 Third Quarter Paratransit Services Performance Report.  Member Jensen queried about why Committee Members request for staff to develop a list outlining the motions and recommendations from the Committee and the comments from the Board of Directors be provided to the CTA Committee has not occurred.  Member Jensen stressed the importance of tracking the Committee recommendations and outcome.  Mr. Lau responded that staff presented the May 11, 2005 CTA Meeting Minutes to VTA Board of Directors.  

Member Rhodes queried about how the May 11, 2005 CTA Meeting Minutes were presented to the Board of Directors.  Member Rhodes requested that CTA Meeting Minutes be provided to VTA Board of Directors as a presentation report.

Chairperson Julian commented that CTA Meeting Minutes presented to VTA Board of Directors are edited and different from CTA Meeting Minutes that are provided to CTA Committee.   Chairperson Julian stressed the importance to keep the content of the CTA Meeting within the Minutes.  Mr. Lau responded that staff will look into the Committee’s concern regarding CTA Meeting Minutes. 

Member Grant queried about the July 21, 2005 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting (In Lieu of Administration and Finance (A&F) Committee Meeting) Meeting Record and referenced Agenda Item # 7., Committee for Transit Accessibility Report.   Member Grant queried about and asked if CTA has received a copy of the Committee for Transit Accessibility Report.  Member Grant requested a copy of the Committee for Transit Accessibility Report be distributed to Committee Members.

Member Michels took her seat at 1:20 p.m.

Member Rhodes queried about the Board Memorandum language on the CTA Agenda and why the Board Memorandum language is constantly changing.   Member Rhodes queried why staff is not providing the Committee’s recommendations to the Board of Directors as requested by CTA.

Member Marcillet asked Mr. Lau if he is the conduit of communication between CTA and VTA Board of Directors to forward discussion topics and concerns formally to VTA Board of Directors.  Member Marcillet asked Mr. Lau if he will utilize Bus and Light Rail Service Lines as an opportunity to gain experience related to barriers experienced by the Disability Community.   Member Marcillet expressed concern regarding the comment that CTA Committee needs assistance to stay focused.  Member Marcillet added that CTA Committee has been focused in addressing Committee issues and concerns and noted the Committee’s frustration regarding no responses from VTA Board of Directors.  Member Marcillet stressed the importance of CTA Staff Liaison’s role to be more of an advocate to CTA Committee to work with VTA Board of Directors.  Mr. Lau responded that his role is the middle person between staff and CTA Committee and to be objective in terms of the requests made to staff.  Mr. Lau noted that he is the CTA Staff Liaison and added that important issues will be forwarded to management; however, he is unable to guarantee the response or action.  Mr. Lau continued that his job is to learn the issues, work with CTA Chairperson to facilitate and address issues.  Mr. Lau noted that he is a transit rider and tries to use the transit system to learn what is going on in the system.

Member Bruntz referenced CTA Bylaws, Article II – Duties and Authority, §2.1 – Duties, Page 1 of 8, noting, “It shall be the duty of the Committee to perform the functions of a Paratransit Coordinating Council and to advise the Board of Directors, …” Member Bruntz added that the Committee should forward recommendations and motions as well as staff; however, the primary purpose of the Committee is to advise the Board of Directors.

Vice Chairperson Morrow requested that VTA Counsel respond to why
Board Memorandum language on the CTA Agenda has changed and why CTA was not advised of the changes before the changes occurred. 

Member Eljas stressed the importance to have VTA Board Liaison present at CTA Meetings to obtain input from the CTA Committee.  Mr. Lau responded that at the
August 4, 2005 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting the CTA Bylaws were approved and as part of the recommendation an Ex-Officio Board Member will serve on CTA as Board Liaison.  Committee Members queried about when the Ex-Officio Board Member will serve as Board Liaison on CTA.

M/S/F (Jensen/Michels) on a vote of 3 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 9 Abstentions to approve the Minutes of July 13, 2005.  Members Bruntz, Eljas, Grant, Julian, Morrow, Nguyen, Rhodes, Slack, and Stahl abstained.

NOTE:   M/S/F MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED.

Brown Act as it relates to the use of electronic mail (e-mail)

The Committee received an overview update on the Brown Act as it relates to the use of electronic mail (e-mail).     

Suzanne B. Gifford, Legal Counsel, provided a brief overview update on the Brown Act as it relates to the use of electronic mail (e-mail).   Ms. Gifford referenced Users Guide: California Government Code - Sections 54950 - 54962 - The Ralph M. Brown Act, Open and Public III and provided an overview regarding the use of e-mail and serial meetings.  Ms. Gifford commented that a meeting can take place through e-mail and use of chat rooms.  Ms. Gifford continued that a serial meeting is when one or more members communicate with one another by e-mail, then those members communicate with others by e-mail and others and so on.  According to the Brown Act a meeting is not necessarily conversations in person it can occur by telephone and e-mail resulting in a consensus or decision being made at that time.  The Brown Act could be violated by an exchange of information that ultimately leads to decision-making.  Ms. Gifford continued that the Brown Act says between committee meetings if there is correspondence among the Committee Members by e-mail where ultimately accumulatively more than half of the committee communicates on a topic among each other there is a potential for a Brown Act violation.  The reason that this is important is because the rest of the Committee Members and public need to be a part of the discussion and exchange of information, which would lead to decision-making. 

Ms. Gifford responded to the change in CTA Agenda language and commented that it was her suggestion to be a little more reflective of what the Committees were being asked to do.  Ms. Gifford continued that she suggested that staff attempt to list on the Committee Agendas the action that particular body was being asked to take; therefore, if the Committee was asked to look into something then the action would be to consider or to review and comment.  Ms. Gifford noted that there are other items that come forward that are “receive and file”, such as, the legislative report and quarterly operations report.  These type of reports are given as information items to the Committee to receive the information report.  However, if an item is presented to CTA for input it would be “consider” or “review and comment”.  As time goes on, staff will try to improve the process for all Committees.

Member Nguyen and Ex-Officio Member Heatley left their seats at 1:34 p.m.

Member Jensen requested a written report regarding the information provided from the Brown Act related to use of e-mail and queried on the consequences and repercussions are if the Brown Act is violated.   Member Jensen requested the definitions in print regarding the agenda language action to be taken by the Committee.  Member Jensen continued that the change in agenda language appears to give staff more control over what the Committee is allowed to do with the agenda item. Ms. Gifford responded that the intention was to make it more flexible for the Committee and added that the agenda language is not legal definitions.   

Member Jensen queried if the agenda language is not legal definitions then is the agenda language rules that the Committee is to follow.  Ms. Gifford responded that the agenda language is not rules that the Committees have to follow; however, the Brown Act requires that each agenda item be identified.  Therefore, to reasonably identify what is under consideration or what the topic is so that the public will be able to decide if they want to attend the meeting.

Member Nguyen and Ex-Officio Member Heatley took their seats at 1:40 p.m.

Member Eljas requested Ms. Gifford provide a report on the use of e-mail as it relates to the Brown Act.  Ms. Gifford responded that a report will be provided to Committee Members.

Member Eljas queried about the use of e-mail exchange between Committee Members and if it were a violation of the Brown Act.   Ms. Gifford responded if two Committee Members exchange e-mails then the e-mails are sent to other Committee Members and so on, even if the e-mails are one or two Committee Members at a time, according to the law a Brown Act violation has occurred.  

Member Eljas queried if the e-mail is from one member to many.  Ms. Gifford responded that this is clearly a violation of the Brown Act because it is not a noticed meeting and the Committee is conducting a discussion on CTA related business; therefore, the Committee Meeting is not noticed where the public may hear what is being discussed.

Member Eljas queried about the consequences and repercussions if the Brown Act is violated.  Ms. Gifford responded that the consequences and repercussion information will be provided in the written report.

Member Eljas requested that the information be provided via e-mail along with the Brown Act Publication.  Ms. Gifford responded “yes” to provide the Brown Act Publication and noted that the Attorney General’s Office provides a less expensive version. Ms. Gifford added that she will check with the Office of the Board Secretary regarding the Brown Act Publication.

Vice Chairperson Morrow commented that Committee Members may download the Brown Act Publication version 2003 Portable Data Format (pdf) from the Attorney General Office.  Vice Chairperson Morrow added that Committee Members may contact the Office of the Board Secretary for a copy of the Brown Act.

Ms. Gifford commented that the Office of the Board Secretary has the ability to scan printed documents to make it available in pdf version; therefore, the relevant portions of the Brown Act Publication will be scanned and the pdf transmitted electronically to Committee Members.  Ms. Gifford noted then she would not have to rephrase the relevant portions of the Brown Act and asked the Committee if this suggestion would be acceptable.  Committee Members agreed to accept the PDF transmittal.

Vice Chairperson Morrow suggested having a consent agenda on CTA Agenda. 
Vice Chairperson Morrow added that the consent agenda suggestion will be discussed with the chairperson.

Member Grant queried about items related to the past and how would it violate the Brown Act if the item is not on a future agenda.  Ms. Gifford responded that it depends since there are certain topics that are clearly within the conundrum of what CTA discuss all the time; therefore, items may have been presented in the past and will be presented in the future.  Ms. Gifford added that the Brown Act Publication provides examples that may prove instructive and informative.

Member Bruntz queried if there is any case law.   Ms. Gifford responded that there have been cases and will print out the case references for the Committee Members. 

Los Gatos Community Bus 

Mr. Anderson expressed concern regarding the New Community Bus System. 
Mr. Anderson stressed concern regarding Non-English speaking drivers, not calling out stops, and knowledge of routes.

Julia Jones, Operations and Planning Senior Management Analyst, provided a brief overview on the Los Gatos Community Bus.   Ms. Jones commented that the Community Bus Program started in Los Gatos on July 4, 2005, with five new vehicles.  Ms. Jones noted during the first week of service there were many startup service issues with the Community Bus Program.  In the first week of service, VTA received 34 complaints associated with start-up issues and three comments regarding service requests through the VTA Customer Service Department from passengers and others who live and work in the Los Gatos Community.  Ms. Jones noted that VTA staff has worked with Parking Company of America (PCA) to address the issues. 

Ms. Jones continued that average daily weekday ridership for Line 48 was 309 passengers and average daily weekend ridership totaled 178 passengers.  Ms. Jones noted that average daily weekday ridership for Line 49 was 316 passengers and average daily weekend ridership was 217 passengers.

Ms. Jones commented that staff has made every effort to ensure that customers receive the highest quality service by addressing the issues brought forward and the Community Bus Program has greatly improved since the first week of service.

Member Marcillet queried about the ridership information and requested additional information on ridership numbers.  Ms. Jones responded that the ridership is compared to the ridership that was there before the Community Bus Program; unfortunately, staff did not have the comparison ridership numbers available at the meeting.  Ms. Jones noted that the comparison ridership numbers will be provided to the Committee.

Member Grant queried about the Winchester Light Rail Station not being fully operational and if the issues have been addressed.   Ms. Jones responded “yes”, the Winchester Light Rail Station issue was addressed within the first two days of service. 

Member Grant queried about how complaints are made.   Ms. Jones responded that customer complaints are called in to VTA Customer Service Center. 

Member Grant queried on how many wheelchair spaces are available.  Ms. Jones responded that there are two spots per vehicle available for wheelchairs.  Member Grant queried about the securement on the vehicles for mobility device users.  Ms. Jones responded that there is securement equipment on the vehicles.  Member Grant queried about the vehicles and if the vehicles have lifts.  Ms. Jones responded “yes” that the vehicles have lifts.  Member Grant queried if the Community Buses are new coaches.  Ms. Jones responded “yes” that the Community Buses are all new coach vehicles.          

Member Jensen expressed her appreciation and thanked Ms. Jones for working with PCA to address the issues and complaints related to the Community Bus Program.

Member Rhodes queried on the length of the contract time of September with the contractor.  Ms. Jones responded that the contract was arranged for that specific amount of time with that contractor; however, service does not end for the program.  Therefore, at the end of the contract staff will determine if VTA will continue with that contractor or make changes.

Member Slack queried why the coaches were not low-floor vehicles.  Ms. Jones responded that she is not able to respond to this since she does not have the information.

Member Bruntz queried if the customers have been contacted regarding their complaints.  Ms. Jones responded “yes” that she has contacted every one of the customers regarding their complaint issue.

Member Rhodes queried about how the vendor was selected.   Ms. Jones responded that she conducted the research on the vendors regarding the Community Bus Program and with the assistance with Jim Unites and Mike Aro the vendor selected was PCA.  

The Committee received and considered the report on the Los Gatos Community Bus.

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

Free Off-Peak/Weekend Program for Senior and Disabled Customers

Bernice Alaniz, Marketing and Public Affairs Deputy Director, provided a brief overview on the Free Off-Peak/Weekend Program for Senior and Disabled Customers.  Ms. Alaniz commented that the report is in response to the CTA Committee request for information regarding the Free Off-Peak/Weekend Program made at its meeting on July 13, 2005.

Ms. Alaniz commented that nationally, more than 6,000 public transportation agencies provide enhanced service options for senior and disabled passengers through unique customer outreach programs. The primary goal of these programs is to encourage ridership through discounted pricing and through informational resources.    VTA has a discounted fare structure for senior and disabled customers and operates low-floor buses and light rail trains to help make public transportation a more economical and accessible travel option.  However, more focused customer outreach is necessary to create greater familiarity of the benefits of public transportation to encourage ridership.

Ms. Alaniz continued that in May 2005, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) launched the “Easy Rider” program, an industry-wide effort that calls attention to the importance of creating and maintaining a vital, usable transit system for older Americans.   Ms. Alaniz noted that in conjunction with this national effort, VTA is implementing a trial program of free off-peak and weekend service, as well as additional individualized orientations to VTA’s system to help senior and disabled communities feel more comfortable and more likely to try public transportation.  Ms. Alaniz commented that as mentioned in the General Manager’s 2005 budget message, VTA will offer a free fare program to all seniors ages 65 and older, individuals with disabilities, and Medicare cardholders.

Member Grant asked if the individuals will require an RTC discount card or Medicare card to ride the system for free.   Ms. Alaniz responded that they will require those cards or proof of age to ride for free.  Ms. Alaniz commented that the Free Off-Peak/Weekend Program is an effort to familiarize senior and disabled communities and Medicare cardholders about VTA services and programs through increased outreach, including on-site presentations. 

Ms. Alaniz continued that the program will be implemented from January 1 through March 30, 2006, with public outreach efforts occurring from October to December 2005.  VTA’s Free Off-Peak/Weekend Program will be promoted through informational materials in community newspapers, broadcast media, senior publications, scheduled presentations, and public outreach activities will provide individualized trip planning and travel assistance.

Member Grant asked if anything will be displayed on the buses to notify customers of the program.  Ms. Alaniz responded “yes” and noted that promotions will include public service announcements, community newsletter features, local community paper features, broadcast messages, and AARP materials.  Ms. Alaniz continued that VTA will also provide information at senior centers, nutrition centers, educational centers, churches, community centers, libraries, and community partners.

Member Michels queried if staff would work directly with clients in agencies. 
Ms. Alaniz responded that staff would provide information at the agency center, then provide one-on-one individualized trip planning and travel assistance.

Ex-Officio Member Heatley queried about hours of operation.  Ms. Alaniz responded that there is going to be some flexibility on each end and if someone starts their trip and it takes an hour to get somewhere that they are now going to pay because they have gone into the peak hours; however, noted that staff will thoroughly review the various routes used, when, and where the free services were taken advantage of and review all information.

Member Bruntz expressed appreciation and thanked staff for the program promotion and noted the importance for seniors to connect with the community.  Ms. Alaniz responded that we will review the program and the response to the program.  Ms. Alaniz added that one of the main purposes of the program is to introduce senior and disabled communities, and Medicare cardholders regarding VTA services and programs.

Member Slack extended an offer to provide assistance to work with staff regarding
the program promotion at the Santa Clara Valley Blind Center.   Ms. Alaniz responded and thanked Member Slack for the offer to provide assistance to staff regarding the program promotion.

The Committee received and considered the report on the Free Off-Peak/Weekend Program for Senior and Disabled Customers.

FY 2005 Paratransit Eligibility Certification and Appeals Program Information

Edna Pampy, Senior Management Analyst, provided a brief overview on the FY 2005 Paratransit Eligibility Certification and Appeals Program Information.   Ms. Pampy commented that the following annual report presents FY 2005, which is the period from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 eligibility certification and appeals information.  Ms. Pampy noted that the detailed information is presented in Attachment A – Paratransit Eligibility Certification Information and Attachment B – Paratransit Eligibility Appeals Information. As previously requested by the Committee for Transit Accessibility, the Eligibility Certification and Appeals data presented in these attachments is sorted by disability category.  Ms. Pampy noted that the categories are broadly grouped as visual, cognitive, physical, and a combination of thereof for a total of seven groupings. 

Ms. Pampy continued that during FY 2005, Disability Services conducted 6,011 eligibility evaluations and 97 percent were granted eligibility to use paratransit services, while 3 percent were found to be ineligible.   The cost per eligibility assessment significantly decreased by 31.8 percent to $98.66 from $144.58 for FY 2005.  The decreased cost per assessment is directly related to the increased number of assessments completed. 

Ms. Pampy noted that VTA received 103 appeals from the 181 applicants who were found ineligible to use ADA Paratransit Services.   Ms. Pampy commented that NovaCare completed 95 appeals, of these appeals 81 percent or 77 have been overturned resulting in a post-appeal denial rate of 1.7 percent for the program.  The cost of the Paratransit functional assessment is based on a per unit or per assessment basis of $155, with a total annual cost of  $14,880 for the appeals process. 

Ms. Pampy continued that as part of the community outreach effort in FY 2005 to inform and assist current customers and potential applicants about the new eligibility and appeals programs, VTA Accessible Services staff responded to 8,700 calls, completed targeted mailings to over 250 community senior centers and human service agencies, and conducted 11 community presentations to approximately 320 participants. 

Member Grant expressed concern and queried about information regarding the average wait to obtain an interview.  Member Grant noted that he was told that it is taking about six weeks to obtain an interview appointment.  Member Grant stressed the importance to address the issue regarding the average wait time to obtain an interview.  Ms. Pampy responded that as of today the average wait time is four weeks and Disability Services at Orthopaedic Hospital is double booking individuals in order to process the large amount of interview appointments.

Vice Chairperson Morrow queried about the program costs and requested additional information regarding the fully loaded taxpayers cost of the entire program that includes staff salaries and benefits. 

Member Grant expressed concern and queried about the wait time to schedule a ride to the interview appointment.   Ms. Pampy responded that staff will work with OUTREACH to reduce the wait time to schedule a ride to the interview appointment. 
Ex-Officio Member Heatley responded that the program that developed was adapted to the eligibility contractor and has to do with when the appointments are scheduled with the various locations.

Member Michels referenced attachment A - Paratransit Eligibility Certification Information and queried if the categories could be noted with definition.  Ms. Pampy responded “yes” and noted that the categories will be footnoted.  Ms. Pampy commented that ADA Category One – an individual with a disability who is unable to board, ride, or disembark from an accessible vehicle without the assistance of another individual except the operator of a lift or other boarding device, ADA Category Two – an individual with a disability who is able to ride an accessible vehicle; however, the equipment and location does not meet ADA standards, and ADA Category Three – an individual with a disability who has a specific impairment related condition that prevents the individual from traveling to, boarding, or disembarking location.  Ms. Pampy continued that ADA Category Three is usually where staff determines most of the eligibility.

The Committee received and considered the FY 2005 Paratransit Eligibility Certification and Appeals Program Information.

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

Bus Mobility Securement Device Demonstration

Steve Johnstone, Operations Administration Senior Management Analyst, provided a brief overview on the Bus Mobility Securement Device Demonstration.   Mr. Johnstone commented that the Bus Mobility Securement Device is an action item that CTA Securement Subcommittee discussed completely.  The Bus Mobility Securement Policy is an action that would be forwarded for consideration to the Board of Directors to change the policy from an option to ride with mobility devices secured to a policy that requires the individual to ride with mobility devices secured.   Mr. Johnstone stressed the importance that the policy is an issue of safety.  Mr. Johnstone continued that the current securement equipment is inefficient, time consuming, and in some cases the equipment is unable to secure the mobility devices at all; therefore, one of the recommendations is to purchase new equipment for the coaches.  

Member Grant expressed concern regarding driver-training issues.   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 stressed the importance of having a fully developed driver-training plan.  Member Grant added that from his experience drivers are unwilling to offer or provide additional assistance to customers.  Chairperson Julian responded that CTA Securement Subcommittee Members have made it very clear that driver-training issues are a major concern and will be addressed. 

Member Grant suggested that staff not proceed with purchasing Mobility Securement Device equipment until a fully developed driver-training plan is established. 
Chairperson Julian responded no and stressed the importance to move ahead with the approval of the authorization for the purchase of the standard universal style Mobility Securement Device equipment.   Chairperson Julian suggested that Committee Members recess the meeting to board the VTA Bus Vehicle to receive the Bus Mobility Securement Device Demonstration.

Mr. Johnstone commented that if the policy is approved a training program will be included in the policy; therefore, staff encourages CTA Committee to recommend action to place the kind of securement equipment that will encourage greater utilization of the securement system.

Chairperson Julian suggested that the Committee recess the meeting to receive the Mobility Securement Device Demonstration.

Member Bruntz left her seat at 2:38 p.m.

Member Stahl thanked Mr. Johnstone for the presentation.   Member Stahl expressed concern on spending funding to purchase securement equipment if drivers are not going to use the securement equipment.  Member Stahl noted resentment from drivers towards mobility device users and stressed the importance to address the issue. Chairperson Julian responded that staff is working to address these concerns and issues.

Member Slack queried about Committee meeting time constraints and noted that OUTREACH drivers would be arriving soon to provide transportation for some of the Committee Members.   Chairperson Julian responded that Ex-Officio Member Heatley would assist with OUTREACH drivers regarding the time delays.

Member Marcillet left his seat at 2:40 p.m., the quorum was lost,
and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Member Bruntz took her seat at 2:40 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

The Committee Meeting recessed at 2:40 p.m. 

Committee Members, staff, and Interested Citizens boarded a VTA Bus Vehicle to receive the Bus Mobility Securement Device Demonstration.

The Committee Meeting reconvened at 3:05 p.m.

M/S/C (Morrow/Rhodes) on a vote of 11 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to recommend to extend the Committee Meeting 2 minutes. 

Member Bruntz expressed confidence and support in the CTA Securement Subcommittee and their diligent work related to the Mobility Securement Policy. 

Vice Chairperson Morrow stressed the importance of safety and added the CTA Securement Subcommittee and Members would never endorse or approve anything that would harm the community or constituents that the Members represent.

Member Stahl expressed her opposition of the motion and intent not to support without first addressing the issues and concerns related to driver resentment towards mobility device user customers. 

M/S/C (Morrow/Bruntz) on a vote of 9 Ayes, to 2 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to recommend that CTA accepts the recommendations stated by VTA staff and Securement Subcommittee team with the caveat that CTA Securement Subcommittee Task Force remain intact for at least one-year after implementation of the Mobility Securement Policy to monitor and address issues related to the implementation process of the Mobility Securement Policy.  Members Grant and Stahl opposed. 

Member Stahl left her seat at 3:09 p.m., the quorum was lost, and
a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Member Jensen queried if the Bus Mobility Securement Policy could be agendized for next month to have further Committee discussion regarding concerns and issues.

Vice Chairperson Morrow thanked and expressed his appreciation to the Committee Members who remained at the Meeting to support the recommended motion.

Member Slack left his seat at 3:10 p.m.

Member Rhodes suggested that staff develop a training and requirement stating that drivers have to secure each mobility device individual in the bus.   Chairperson Julian responded that staff is addressing the training issues.

Mr. Johnstone commented that part of the issue is that the current Securement Policy is optional; therefore, operators and customers consider it an option; however, if the Securement Policy is mandatory then the Securement Policy will be enforced.   The Securement Policy will be mandatory as part of the operators procedure.  Mr. Johnstone continued that if the Securement Policy becomes mandatory then the policy becomes a process in effect; therefore, staff would work towards a training program.  Mr. Johnstone noted support of an outlined training plan and enforcement and added that a mandatory policy will work towards more operators doing what they are suppose to be doing.

Member Slack took his seat at 3:13 p.m.

Mr. Lau commented that if the Securement Policy is recommended, part of the policy would include training for all coach operators.  Mr. Lau continued that all coach operators would be trained how to use the mobility securement equipment system.  Mr. Lau added that enforcement would be a management issue and enforcement would come through line supervision where supervisors will make sure that operators are following correct procedures.  Mr. Lau added that if the recommendation is passed then the training would be part of the requirement and all operatives will be required to follow correct procedures.

The Committee of the Whole reviewed and commented on the Bus Mobility Securement Device Demonstration.

OPEN AGENDA

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Legislative Report (continued)

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Legislative Report was deferred.

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

FY 2005 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

The FY 2005 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report was deferred.

FY 2005 Fourth Quarter Paratransit Services Performance Report

The FY 2005 Fourth Quarter Paratransit Services Performance Report was deferred.

OTHER

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Elderly/Disabled Advisory Committee Report

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Elderly/Disabled Advisory Committee Report was deferred.

CTA Transit System Ridership Report

The CTA Transit System Ridership Report was deferred.

Committee Staff Report

The Committee Staff Report was deferred.

Chairperson’s Report

The Chairperson’s Report was deferred.

Announcements

There were no Announcements.

The Committee of the Whole adjourned the meeting at 3:14 p.m.