Advisory Committee on Accessibility

There was no meeting of the Advisory Committee on Accessibility in January 2010.

Bus Passengers Advisory Committee

There was no meeting of the Bus Passengers Advisory Committee in January 2010.

Ferry Passengers Advisory Committee

The agenda for the February 8, 2010, meeting and the minutes of January 11, 2010, meeting of the Ferry Passengers Advisory Committee were furnished to the Transportation Committee. Copies are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Action by the Board – None Required

The staff report stated that staff will present findings from the Open Houses and public feedback to the Special Transportation Committee meeting on May 27, 2010, when staff presents a final recommendation, and that the implementation date for approved bus service changes would be September 12, 2010.

At the meeting, Ms. Kupersmith stated that staff has reviewed transit services, identifying routes and segments of routes with low productivity and duplication of service. She stated that staff recommends that the Board authorize the setting of a public hearing on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 6:00 p.m., at Whistlestop Wheels in downtown San Rafael and the holding of Open Houses as shown above. Staff proposes to accept public comments at that time on toll increases previously proposed, as well as service changes for commute bus service. She stated that action taken today approves only the initiation of the public hearing process.

At the meeting, Principal Planner Ron Downing, in summarizing the staff report, stated that currently 85% of commute service meets the adopted performance standard of 20 intercounty passengers per trip. He discussed each of the proposed bus transit service reductions, as set forth above and in the staff report. He stated that approximately 50% of the savings from the proposed route changes would come from changes to Routes 72, 73 and 76. A copy of the staff report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Discussion ensued, including the following comments and inquiries:

• Director Stroeh inquired as to whether the outreach program would be expanded. In response, Ms. Kupersmith stated that it would.

• Director Reilly inquired as to the number of passengers boarding the Route 75 bus in Santa Rosa. In response, Mr. Downing stated that average ridership crossing the Sonoma-Marin County line is 14 passengers per trip.

• Director Brown made the following comments and inquiries:
  • He inquired as to the percentage of cost savings that would result from discontinuing the Route 75. In response, Mr. Downing stated that, if all proposed changes are approved, approximately 23% of the savings that can be expected would result from the proposed changes to Route 75.
  • He inquired as to how much of the cost savings could be attributed to the discontinuance of Route 44 Lucas Valley. In response, Mr. Downing stated that Route 44 represents approximately 22% of the savings.
  • He inquired as to the reason why school children ride the Route 24 Lagunitas to attend Sir Francis Drake High School rather than riding the West Marin Stage Coach. In response, Mr. Downing stated that the West Marin Stage Coach operates along the same route within minutes of the Route 24 schedule. No research has been done to identify the reason high school students choose as they do. However, it could be attributed to habit.
  • He inquired as to the number of riders who go all the way to Sleepy Hollow using Route 26. In response, Mr. Downing stated that 3 to 5 people per trip take Route 26 to Sleepy Hollow. Ms. Kupersmith added that the Sleepy Hollow service constitutes approximately 5-6% of the savings.

• Director Kerns inquired as to the length of time a passenger would be delayed by having to wait for a different bus. In response, Mr. Downing stated that the added wait time would be approximately 5 to 10 minutes for Route 93, but that additional trips are being added to remaining routes to limit added wait time as much as possible.

• President Boro made the following inquiries:

  • He inquired as to how many individuals using Route 44 were represented by the staff report’s statement that “70% of riders can use alternate GGT services.” In response, Mr. Downing stated that it is 70% of approximately 100 riders per day.
  • He inquired as to whether the figures applied to northbound or southbound Route 44. In response, Mr. Downing stated that it applies to both directions. Ms. Kupersmith stated that approximately 30 people per day from Lucas Valley would have to use alternate transportation to get to the bus pad.
  • He inquired as to whether the conclusion could be drawn that approximately 30 people using this Route will have no alternative to GGT service. In response, Mr. Downing stated this is correct.
  • He inquired as to whether the information about the public hearing process had been shared with the Amalgamated Transit Union. In response, Ms. Kupersmith confirmed that it had.

• Director Sobel made the following comment and inquiry:

  • He commented that alternative service is going to be available in every case, to take the place of routes or segments of routes with low productivity or duplicative service.
  • He inquired as to whether statistics were available that show changes in ridership over time for specific segments of routes that serve areas north of the Golden Gate Bridge. In response, Ms. Kupersmith stated that information by county is readily available. She stated that the District will follow up with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to provide additional data.

• Director McGlashan commented that data are available for Marin County and Marin County Transit District (MCTD). He stated that this data was used by MCTD and that additional survey work had been done in 2006-2007.

Public Comment

Marina V. Secchitano stated that, while cost savings may be realized by reducing or eliminating bus transit service on some routes, the hidden cost is the loss of employment. She stated that the Board should take a close look at the hidden costs and consider seriously how employees will be affected.

Discussion ensued, including the following comment:

• Director Sobel stated that the suggestion that employees have not already been considered in coming to the recommendation today is erroneous. He stated that the District benefits by the efforts of employees. He stated that the District faces an unprecedented financial crisis and that it is the Board’s responsibility to look at every alternative.

Copies of all of the above-listed items are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Action by the Board – None Required

Public Comment

There was no public comment.

Adjournment

All business having been concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.