Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
From: Board.Secretary Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 1:20 PM To: Board.Secretary Subject: February 2, 2017, VTA Board Meeting - Agenda Item #6.2-Revised 2017 Appointments to VTA Committees Importance: High
VTA Board of Directors:
Attached please find the following Agenda Item for the Thursday, February 2, 2017, Board of
Directors Meeting:
Revised Agenda Item #6.2 – Revised 2017 Appointments to Board Standing Committees, Joint
Powers Boards, Policy Advisory Boards, and Ad Hoc Committees.
You may access the Agenda packet by clicking this Link.
Thank you.
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Building B-1 San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Phone: 408-321-5680
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: February 2, 2017
Current Meeting: February 2, 2017
Board Meeting: February 2, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
THROUGH: N/A
FROM: Board Chairperson, Jeannie Bruins
SUBJECT: Revised 2017 Appointments to Board Standing Committees, Joint Powers
Boards, Policy Advisory Boards, and Ad Hoc Committees
3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve revised and/or additional appointments to Board Standing Committees, Joint Powers
Boards, Policy Advisory Boards, and Ad Hoc Committees for 2017; and rename the Ad Hoc SVRT
Program Working Committee to VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Ad Hoc Committee.
BACKGROUND:
The VTA Administrative Code specifies five Board standing committees:
1) Administration and Finance (A&F)
2) Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP)
3) Safety, Security, and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO)
4) Capital Projects Oversight Committee (CPOC)
5) Governance and Audit (G&A)
It also specifies that the membership of the Governance & Audit Committee consists of the
Board Chairperson, Board Vice Chairperson, and the chairpersons of three Board standing
committees: (1) A&F; (2) CMPP; and (3) SSTPO. Due to this, the Board Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson cannot concurrently serve as chairperson of A&F, CMPP or SSTPO. All other
standing committees consist of four Directors each except CPOC, which has six. No more than
two members for each committee can be from the same City/County Group.
Page 2 of 2
The Administrative Code further specifies that at its first meeting in January, the Board of
Directors approves the members and chairpersons of all Board standing committees based on
recommendations for these positions provided by the Board Chairperson. The term of
appointment is one year, coinciding with the calendar year. Only directors, not alternates or ex-
officio members, are eligible for appointment to standing committees. However, Board alternate
members are eligible for VTA appointment to joint powers boards (JPBs), policy advisory
boards (PABs), and ad hoc committees.
At its January 5, 2017 meeting, the Board of Directors approved 2017 appointments to Board
Standing Committees, JPBs, PABs, and Ad Hoc Committees based on the Board membership
known at that time. However, it was indicated that appointments for Directors representing the City
of San José were conditional on the San José City Council appointing that individual to the VTA
Board of Directors; this action was scheduled for January 24, 2017.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the San José City Council’s January 24th appointments to the VTA Board, submitted
for consideration are the revised VTA appointments to Board Standing Committees, JPBs, PABs,
and Ad Hoc Committees for 2017 (only changes from the appointments approved by the Board at its
January 2017 meeting are shown):
Capital Projects Oversight Committee (CPOC)
Raul Peralez, Chairperson
Peninsula Corridor (Caltrain) Joint Powers Board
Devora “Dev” Davis
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor & BART Warm Springs Extension PAB
Lan Diep
VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Ad Hoc Committee Lan Diep
These appointments will take effect immediately following Board approval.
Additionally, staff is proposing to rename the Ad Hoc SVRT Program Working Committee to
VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Ad Hoc Committee in order to promote clarity and avoid confusion
with the previous Board standing committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Jim Lawson, Director of Public Affairs & Executive Policy Advisor
Memo No. 5970
From: Board.Secretary
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 2:48 PM
To: VTA Board of Directors
Subject: From VTA: petition, ridership info, and security info
Attached are the following documents for your information:
1) Petition submitted by Joyce, one of the public speakers from the February 2, 2017 Board meeting
2) Ridership and Performance Measures information for December 2016 3) Security data for January 2017
Board Secretary’s Office
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street, Building B
San Jose, CA 95134-1927
Phone 408-321-5680
Valley Transportation AuthorityRidership and Fare Revenue Performance - December 2016
Monthly Year-to-Date (calendar) Prior month
December 2016 Dec-2015 Difference PercentChange
Current(Jan' 16-Dec' 16)
Prior(Jan '15-Dec'15) Difference Percent
Change Nov-2016 PercentChange
Bus 2,323,152 2,501,469 -178,317 -7.1% 30,411,566 33,266,905 -2,855,339 -8.6% 2,512,191 -7.5%Light Rail 706,685 850,304 -143,619 -16.9% 9,926,937 11,030,352 -1,103,415 -10.0% 766,068 -7.8%
System 3,029,837 3,351,773 -321,936 -9.6% 40,338,503 44,297,257 -3,958,754 -8.9% 3,278,259 -7.6%
Rev
e
Monthly Year-to-Date (calendar) Prior month
December 2016 Dec-2015 Difference PercentChange
Current(Jan' 16-Dec' 16)
Prior(Jan '15-Dec'15) Difference Percent
Change Nov-2016 PercentChange
Fare Revenue $2,787,074 $2,965,911 -$178,836 -6.0% $35,855,925 $38,605,823 -$2,749,898 -7.1% $2,860,419 -2.6%
Avg. Fare per Boarding $0.92 $0.89 $0.04 4.0% $0.89 $0.87 $0.02 2.3% $0.87 5.7%
Rid
ersh
ipR
even
ue
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CY 2015 CY 2016VTA System Ridership
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecPenetration Rate 44.6% 48.4% 47.4% 46.1% 45.3% 44.3% 44.8% 44.5% 47.4% 47.6% 45.7% 42.4%Clipper Ridership 1,426,993 1,630,817 1,707,925 1,595,651 1,620,197 1,500,332 1,407,120 1,515,743 1,613,466 1,660,153 1,499,103 1,284,261
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
2,000,000Clipper Ridership
Valley Transportation AuthorityKey Performance Indicators (KPI) - December 2016
December 2016 Dec-2015 Difference PercentChange
Current(Jan' 16-Dec' 16)
Prior(Jan '15-Dec'15) Difference Percent
Change 2016 Goal
% of Scheduled Service OperatedBus 99.62% 99.53% 0.09% 0.1% 99.62% 99.64% -0.02% 0.0% >= 99.50%
Light Rail 99.93% 99.98% -0.05% -0.1% 99.96% 99.96% 0.00% 0.0% >= 99.90%Service Recovery
Bus 63 mins 59 mins 4 mins 6.8% 57 mins 55 mins 2 mins 3.6% <= 50 minsLight Rail 22 mins 20 mins 2 mins 10.0% 23 mins 23 mins 0 mins 0.0% <= 29 mins
Miles Between Mechanical FailureBus 10,606 8,138 2,468 30.3% 10,711 10,166 545 5.4% >= 8,000
Light Rail 31,956 46,936 -14,980 -31.9% 25,868 22,022 3,846 17.5% >= 25,000Chargeable Accidents per 100k miles
Bus 0.95 0.25 0.69 272.5% 1.21 1.33 -0.12 -9.0% <= 1.00Light Rail 0.52 0.00 0.52 n/a 0.10 0.08 0.02 25.0% <= 0.05
On-time performanceBus 86.56% 85.14% 1.42% 1.7% 86.37% 85.50% 0.87% 1.0% >= 92.5%
Light Rail 81.24% 75.31% 5.93% 7.9% 83.07% 75.89% 7.18% 9.5% >= 95.0%Absenteeism
Transportation 8.0% 7.8% 0.2% 2.6% 7.6% 7.4% 0.2% 2.7% <= 10.0%Maintenance 6.5% 5.0% 1.5% 30.0% 5.9% 5.5% 0.4% 7.3% <= 8.0%
Key
Per
form
ance
Indi
cato
rs
Monthly Year-to-Date (calendar)
January 2017 Public Safety DataEnforcement – Sheriff Transit Patrol
Events
December
2016
January
2017
Year-to-Date
Total Incident Reports 91 112 112
Misdemeanors 31 39 39
Felonies 35 50 50
Other 25 23 23
Serious/Violent Offenses 12 14 14
Mental Health Commitments 8 10 10
Alcohol/Drug-Related 19 25 25
Arrests 73 60 60
Misdemeanor Cite and Release 14 26 26
Light Rail Cases 27 48 48
December 2016 January 2017
Total Passengers Checked 64,886 53,044
Total Citations 119 104
VTA Fare Inspectors
From: Board.Secretary
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 5:07 PM
To: VTA Board of Directors
Subject: VTA Information: Approved Revised 2017 Appointments to Board Standing Committees, Joint
Powers Boards, Policy Advisory Boards, and Ad Hoc Committees
VTA Board of Directors:
Please see attached Revised 2017 Appointments to Board Standing Committees, Joint Powers
Boards, Policy Advisory Boards, and Ad Hoc Committees that were approved at the February 2,
2017, VTA Board of Directors meeting.
Thank you.
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Building B-1 San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Phone: 408-321-5680
E-mail: [email protected]
From: Board.Secretary
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 5:15 PM
To: VTA Board of Directors
Subject: VTA Correspondence: Support Letters for AB 28 (Frazier) and SB 1 (Beall); Comments on Next
Network
VTA Board of Directors:
We are forwarding you the following:
From Topic
VTA Letters of Support for AB 28 (Frazier) and SB 1 (Beall)
Members of the Public Comments regarding Next Network
Thank you.
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
408.321.5680
From: Shiraz Kotadia Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 2:28 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bob Strain; Jerry Mungai; Jim Johnson; Mary Ann Holly; Michele Dexter; Pat Mcmahon; Susan Bailey Subject: Total Elimination of All Bus Service to Almaden Valley Dear VTA Board of Directors, Attached letter outlines the position of AVCA Board regarding the elimination of bus service to Almaden Valley. Please review the letter and respond at your earliest convenience. Best regards, Shiraz Kotadia President, Almaden Valley Community Association www.avca-sj.org
Post Office Box 41034 San Jose, CA 95160 January 28, 2017
Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
c/o Secretary of the Board
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
Dear Board Members:
It has come to our attention that one feature of VTA’s Next Network is the total elimination of all
bus service to Almaden Valley. We recognize that Almaden Valley is a difficult area to serve
with mass transit, but it is not reasonable that a community of 40,000 people should be left
completely without access to any form of transit. While the population density is lower than
many areas of San Jose, there is still a need for transit. For instance, the median age in Almaden
Valley is 7½ years older than in San Jose as a whole, and there are roughly 6,000 residents aged
65 or older.
Two other communities, Saratoga and Los Altos, both fewer than 30,000 people, will experience
a significant loss of service, but unlike Almaden Valley, their service is not being taken to zero.
We recognize that there is low ridership on the four lines currently serving Almaden Valley, but
that reflects the routes’ lack of utility to the residents; they are too difficult to use, remote,
infrequent, slow, and generally not worth the effort for most potential riders.
Apart from a review of the fare box, we are not aware of any effort made by VTA to improve the
attractiveness of the bus routes, and the community bus route 13 would appear to have the most
potential for local utility, if the route were redesigned to pass closer to more people more
frequently. Your proposed route 96 in Gilroy is an example of trying to bring transit closer to the
riders.
For the senior and disabled demographic, ACCESS para-transit may fill part of the gap, but the
pending VTA policies could destroy that option as well.
We request that you reconsider the providing Almaden Valley with a transit vacuum, and we
volunteer the resources of the Almaden Valley Community Association for both brain-storming
and market research.
Sincerely yours,
1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 7
X S h i r a z K o t a d i a
S h ir a z K o t a d ia
S ig n e d b y : S h ir a z K o t a d ia
Shiraz Kotadia, AVCA President
cc. AVCA Board Members
John Ristow, VTA Director of Planning & Program Development
From: Mary Ann Holly Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:18 PM To: Pat McMahon; 'Michele Dexter'; 'Shiraz Kotadia'; Board.Secretary Cc: 'Bob Strain'; 'Jerry Mungai'; 'Jim Johnson'; 'Susan Bailey' Subject: Re: Total Elimination of All Bus Service to Almaden Valley
Raymond Holly I agree totally with this letter. It seems very wrong to not have any bus accessibility. On Sunday, January 29, 2017 6:22 PM, Pat McMahon wrote:
Hi All, One way to fund minimal bus service for Almaden would be to discontinue the sparsely used Almaden, Oakridge, Ohlone-Chynoweth spur. Regards. Pat From: Michele Dexter Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:37 PM To: Shiraz Kotadia; [email protected] Cc: Bob Strain; Jerry Mungai; Jim Johnson; Mary Ann Holly; Pat Mcmahon; Susan Bailey Subject: RE: Total Elimination of All Bus Service to Almaden Valley Nice letter. Here are a few suggested changes: is not reasonable that a community of 40,000 people should be left completely without access to any form of transit. They will respond that they are increasing the service on the Almaden light rail. So maybe be more specific to say bus service instead of transit? Apart from a review of the fare box, we are not aware of any effort made by VTA to improve ridership on the Almaden bus routes. The community bus route 13 would appear to have the most potential for local utility, if the route were redesigned to pass closer to more people more frequently. Rest of the paragraph is fine as is. For the senior and disabled demographic, ACCESS para-transit may fill part of the gap, but the pending VTA policies could destroy that option as well. On this sentence, you might state the pending policies for 2 reasons: 1) to be clear on the policies of concern, and 2) so our member readers who don’t know what you’re talking about will learn something. We request that you reconsider leaving Almaden Valley with a transit vacuum, Thank you for taking this on and writing this letter! Best Regards, Michele
From: Jerry Mungai Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:54 PM To: Pat McMahon; 'Shiraz Kotadia'; Board.Secretary Cc: 'Bob Strain'; 'Jim Johnson'; 'Mary Ann Holly'; 'Michele Dexter'; 'Susan Bailey' Subject: Re: Total Elimination of All Bus Service to Almaden Valley
Well done. Jerry On Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:40 PM, Pat McMahon wrote:
Hi Shiraz, Very well stated! I completely support this position. Regards, Pat
From: Danny Li Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:45 PM To: Board.Secretary Subject: Light Rail Service Action
Hi Board Secretary
I would like to contact a board member or the CAC to recommend making light rail service improvement a higher priority. I would like action to be taken ASAP.
The background for this request has to do with the light rail efficiency project started a few years ago and has thus far yielded only drafts and stories of still in the planning stage. So many years of planning and no urgency to get something implemented. This is just my view from the outside but I'm sure many people who don't follow VTA closely will have this opinion already of light rail service.
The progress made in that time has to do with changing the service lines but nothing about speeding it up which was the priority when the efficiency project started.
I see a lot of potential wasted in the light rail service. I hope something can be done sooner rather then later.
Thanks Danny
From: pouxliz Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:10 PM To: Board.Secretary; Community.Outreach Subject: 89 VTA bus route--please continue current service at current frequency
To the VTA decision makers: I'm a volunteer at the VA hospital helping veterans at the Front Desk. The most requested bus information for our Veterans is the 89 bus route. This is a very important route because it passes directly in front of the hospital and many of our patients can no longer drive so they depend on this service. It is very important for them to have frequent service and for the service to remain as it is because the appointment times are variable and the veterans often have mobility issues so just leaving the bus routs to early in the morning and late in the afternoon is not sufficient. I'm sure that many of these veterans are unable to contact you because of health or connectivity issues or they are unaware that the 89 bus service is being debated. But on their behalf, I sincerely hope that you will not change the route in any way. I do not know how many riders there are, but this is a vital service to our veterans who have served our country. I hope that you will not let them down. Sincerely, Liz Poux
From: meg minto Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:03 AM To: Winston, Ethan; Board.Secretary Subject: Re: VTA Route 88 in Palo Alto
Thursday 2 February 17
Thank you for writing back to me.
Before commenting on the 88 (and 89) I would like to thank VTA for several
things. First, I greatly appreciate the plan to preserve the 35. Second, I appreciate
VTA's awareness of a lack of equity resulting from well-placed employees getting
ECO passes and Caltrain passes and thereby having free transport for years if not
decades, while those who aren't working have to pay, and pay more when fare
increases are instituted. You have also expressed awareness of the fact that the
existence of company shuttles, whether they are restricted to employees or open to the
public as the Stanford Marguerite is, may depress your ridership, thus becoming
another way that employee perks have turned out to undermine the position of public
transit and its riders. Thank you for your acknowledgement of these issues.
Now, as for the 88/89, we are aware that once there were many more opportunities in
Palo Alto for VTA riders. Many of us remember the 86, remember when the 35 went
in to the Stanford Oval, when the 22 went to Menlo Park, when the 88 started at Palo
Alto Caltrain and meandered up to California Avenue Caltrain, then back to the VA,
then along Arastradero, and then along its current route (I think) into Midtown Palo
Alto, where once upon a time there was considerable light industry. That old 88 took
quite a while and gradually became chiefly attractive to school children and veterans,
and possibly because of that narrow focus, the route was divided into 88 and 89. It
should be noted that for many of the years before the route was divided, Stanford
provided a VA shuttle that, unlike the current one that goes around the back of the
campus, went along El Camino after leaving Stanford, had a stop at El Camino and
California, and then went up California to the VA, coming back the same way, and
operating every weekday, including holidays. Once Stanford chose to route its bus
behind the campus it became much less useful to veterans, and they were relieved to
have the 89 as a possibility--for many of them it is convenient to depart for the VA
from El Camino.
At the point that the 88 split, those two routes (88 and 89) became considerably less
viable, and now we are in a bad position. Reliance on school kids and veterans and
increasing the headways to 60 minutes could have been expected to start a downturn
for the 88, and probably did.
Now I am very alarmed by what you are proposing - I think that operating the 88 for
one or two hours in the morning and two in the afternoon, eliminating the Community
Bus fare, retaining the 60-minute headways, and above all making the 88 uni-
directional, will destroy it and reduce service very dramatically for Palo Alto.
(In connection with that, I am disturbed by the proposed elimination of the 89,
especially as there is so much housing being planned for the Stanford Industrial Park
area. It might one day make sense to revive the old 88 route, or part of it...)
Returning to the 88 as currently constituted, I urge you in the strongest possible way
to consider operating a bi-directional service for four hours in the morning and four
hours in the afternoon. I think that the school students and their families will feel that
they can't rely on anything less than that, and veterans proceeding to the VA from El
Camino will need at least this much service. If there isn't at least this much service, I
think the line can't attract enough ridership to survive very long at all.
Personally, I was deeply shocked by the plan to make the 88 uni-directional. I hope it
doesn't cost much more to insure a bus on what you would consider its trip back. As a
senior living off East Meadow close to 101, I use the 35 to get to San Antonio
Shopping Center, and I often carry heavy groceries back, making the connection to
the 88 at Charleston and Middlefield. Working at Stanford I often take one of its
shuttles to get to California Avenue, then take a 22 or a 522 to Arastradero, and then
take the 88 to East Meadow. I rely on the 88 being bi-directional.
I hope that you will consider very seriously the damage that would be done by making
deep cuts to the 88.
I would also like to take the opportunity to say that I am distressed at the "flipping" of
the 22 and the 522. I would urge you to do that only on the daytime trips and keep
good frequency of the 22 at night.
Thank you,
Margaret Minto
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Winston, Ethan <[email protected]> wrote:
Information Regarding VTA’s Route 88 in Palo Alto
Thank you for taking the time to previously provide input about VTA’s proposed service
plan. We have received many comments and questions about Route 88 and we thought it would
be good to make clear what VTA is proposing and share the opportunities for public input to
improve the plan.
First and foremost, VTA’s draft plan does not propose eliminating school trip service to Gunn
High School. It is clear that ridership levels demand service in this area during school start and
end times. Outside of these windows, Route 88 records low ridership. We are proposing to
maintain service when ridership is high, and discontinue Route 88 service when demand is low.
VTA Route 88 Currently
VTA operates hourly service on Route 88 between roughly 7:15AM to 6:15PM for northbound
trips and 6:30AM to 5:40PM for southbound trips on weekdays. In addition, VTA operates
variants 88L and 88M which provide southbound trips in the morning and northbound trips in
the evening corresponding with bell times at Gunn High School. For Routes 88, 88L and 88M,
it’s clear that 2:30-4:00PM is a period of high demand for northbound trips and 7:30 to 8:00AM
is a period of high demand for southbound trips.
VTA’s Board of Directors has asked staff to develop a new transit service plan that increases
spending on ridership-purposed services and decreases spending on coverage-purposed
services. Corresponding with this direction, VTA staff is proposing to continue school bell-
timed service but discontinue service on Route 88 at low-demand times of the day.
Changes Proposed to VTA Route 88
Since Route 88 would no longer be all-day service, we are proposing to change the number to
288 to designate it as a school bell-timed service. In the Draft Plan, Route 288A would roughly
mirror Route 88’s current path. Route 288B would mirror the path of current Route 88M. Route
88L is currently envisioned to be discontinued so students who board the 88L along Louis,
Meadow or Arastradero would take Route 288A or 288B instead. The draft plan proposes to
operate three southbound trips between these two routes in the morning and three northbound
trips in the evening.
It’s important to note that these proposals are part of a draft plan and VTA is asking for
community input to make the final plan better. No matter what the final changes are, the process
to get there will be informed by community input, working with Gunn High School, the City of
Palo Alto and other community stakeholders.
Three Ways to Provide Input
Visit http://nextnetwork.vta.org and email a comment from this site.
Attend the Thursday, January 19 Public Meeting at Palo Alto City Hall from 6 PM to 8 PM.
Participate in the Palo Alto-focused webinar on Tuesday, February 7 from 2 PM to 3 PM.
From: kris ramachandran Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:45 PM To: Board.Secretary; Board.Secretary Subject: Route 53 eliminatin
To Board of Directors
VTA
Sirs
Sub: Bus Route Changes and the proposed elimination of Route 53
Recently, I listened to your Representative in the Saratoga Senior Center, presenting the preparations for accommodating the new Bart stations in the Santa Clara County. This involves the elimination of Route 53, which is the route which many Seniors in Saratoga and nearby areas like to use for commuting. Of course the reason is traffic density. One easy way to cut down expenses is to cut down non-profit routes. Another way could be to make the VTA organisation more efficient by reducing operating expenses. I am offering some suggestions here:
1. During the economic recession, private companies were allowed to do the following to make them more profitable for shareholders:
a. Reduce the number of employees b. Employee pensions were replaced by 401K c. Employee retirement Medical Benefits were taken out.
Of course, these were done not only to face the reality of the situation but also to benefit the shareholders. In the case of VTA, the taxpayers are the shareholders and we are to bear the reduction of services paying the same taxes. The VTA should consider adopting some of the above ways, at least for new employees and reduce their burden and expand services.
2. VTA is probably thinking on the lines of main routes which have high frequency buses. We may also consider picking up passengers from remote areas and bringing them to the main ROUTE BUS STOPS at less frequency. These may be called Feeder routes. Hence many have to use the feeder and one or two main routes to reach the destinations As the waiting time is less for transfers, the passengers may not feel the increase in time.
3. The feeder routes need not use be buses. Instead, they could utilize small buses or vans , depending upon the route.
4. Also, the feeder routes can be operated by private contractors or part time drivers to reduce the cost.
5. Also, some feeder routes could be serviced in cooperation with Uber or Lyft etc. 6. If a basic structure is established, even the Access or Paratransit services could be trimmed for availability only for disabled Seniors and the extra vehicles could be diverted to feeder routes.
VTA should consider cost effective ways of improving the public transport with a view of making it popular alternative for all citizens in addition to making it economic transport for underprivileged. Again I would like to stress the need for Route 53 and for increasing the service as well. Already, there used to be a service 27 and this was discontinued a few years back. Alternatively, VTA can consider extending the route 26 from West Valley to De Anza College or Bollinger etc. which may serve us better.
Thanks
K.Ramachandran
On Behalf of Some Saratoga Seniors
Feb 1, 2017
