Get documents about "brc_minutes_0202_2010
Document Sample
Metro Blue Ribbon Committee
Meeting #1
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
9:00 am – 12:00 pm
Metro, Windsor Room, 15th Floor
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles
D R A F T M E E T I N G S UM M A R Y
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 2, 2010, Metro hosted the first meeting of its Blue Ribbon Committee—a collaborative
group of key stakeholders representing system users, local transit operators, and community and
business interests. The purpose of the meeting was to:
Review the Committee’s purpose and charge
Give an overview of Metro’s current system and its challenges and opportunities
Discuss emerging visions for the regional transit system
Background
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA, or Metro) convened the
Blue Ribbon Committee to help guide the development of a regional transit services concept—a
concept that will serve as the blueprint for the agency’s continued development of integrated
systems and services. Metro is at a critical planning juncture as the agency seeks to leverage Measure
R funds to continue to improve the network while addressing significant operating deficits. Current
deficits are the result of reductions in state funding and services revenues, as well as system
inefficiencies.
Metro’s success in leveraging Measure R funds will be contingent on innovative thinking stemming
from a solid base of sound planning practices. The Blue Ribbon Committee will advise Metro on
how to meet challenges related to serving the diverse needs of passengers, communities, and
operators, while also increasing the effectiveness and attractiveness of the regional transit system for
current and potential users.
Critical elements for consideration are systems integration and coordination, quality and
attractiveness of services, attention to customers and employees, and an emphasis on sustainability.
Meeting Format and Attendees
Meeting facilitator Daniel Iacofano of MIG introduced himself and co-facilitator Pat McLaughlin.
He welcomed Committee members and reviewed the agenda for the morning. He oriented the
Metro Blue Ribbon Committee Meeting #1
DRAFT Meeting Summary February 2, 2010
Page 1 of 7
group to a packet of materials provided by Metro, including descriptions of Metro’s current services,
area transit maps, and a series of documents providing background on Metro’s goals for the Blue
Ribbon initiative.
Dr. Iacofano thanked Committee members for their participation in the process, noting the
importance of stakeholder perspectives. He then asked members to introduce themselves and
indicate the organization or interest area they represented. Committee members in attendance were:
Neil Bjornsen, Metro Citizens Advisory Council
Cathi Cole, Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System (ARTS)
Diana Ho representing Larry Eisenberg, Los Angeles Community College District
Genevieve Giuliano, University of Southern California
Alex Gonzalez, Metro San Gabriel Valley Sector Governance Council
Rena Kambara, Metro South Bay Sector Governance Council
Jim Lefton, Los Angeles Department of Transportation
Antonio Le Mons, FAME Assistance Corporation
Stefanie Negriff, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus
Jim Parker, Norwalk Transit System
Kymberleigh Richards, Metro San Fernando Valley Sector Governance Council
Joyce Rooney, City of West Hollywood
Wally Shidler, Metro Gateway Cities Sector Governanace Council
Stuart Waldman, Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Jerard Wright, Metro Westside/Central Sector Governance Council
Also in attendance were Lynda Bybee, Metro Regional Communications; Phil Aker, Los Angeles
Department of Transportation; Ed Muncy, Metro Service Planning; Dana Woodbury, Metro Service
Development; Susan Gilmore, Metro Regional Communications; and Conan Cheung, Metro Service
Development.
Current Issues Facing Metro Operations
Dr. Iacofano introduced Conan Cheung, Metro’s Deputy Executive Officer of Service
Development. Mr. Cheung summarized the mission of the Blue Ribbon initiative, stating the need to
create a better regional transportation system using fewer resources. He emphasized key elements
for consideration, including coordination and integration of services, clever design, user friendliness,
system simplification, quality of service, and a sustainable planning base.
Metro Blue Ribbon Committee Meeting #1
DRAFT Meeting Summary February 2, 2010
Page 2 of 7
Mr. Cheung noted that this would not be a staff-driven process; rather a collaboration of
stakeholders representing diverse groups of service providers and system users. He reviewed the
project schedule, which comprises a six-month period of monthly committee meetings. The
initiative will result in a report for the MTA Board outlining the Committee’s vision, direction, and
recommendations.
Mr. Cheung then gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining Metro’s current services, services of
other regional providers, and current challenges facing Metro operations.
Metro’s management region covers 1,400 square miles, with buses serving one million users per day.
The combined bus/rail system serves 1.25 million passengers daily. Metro’s annual operating budget
is $1 billion for the bus system, and $265 million for rail. Metro has projected a budget shortfall of
$251 million for fiscal year 2011, largely due to reallocation of state funds. Farebox revenues are also
not keeping up with inflation, which will continue to affect the deficit regardless of State actions.
Over the years, Metro has increased service levels while ridership has decreased, which is another
factor that contributes to a widening gap between operating costs and revenues. Multiple funding
sources must be leveraged to address this issue.
Mr. Cheung described the “push/pull” phenomenon with transit ridership. Elements that “push”
users to consider transit include fuel prices, traffic congestion, parking fees and restrictions, and auto
ownership costs. On the other hand, a “pull” effect is created by the positive elements that keep
people using transit, such as speed, reliability, convenience, safety, and customer service.
Measure R has allocated $40 billion to Metro over a 30-year period. It is the Committee’s charge to
advise on how to leverage these funds and others to effectively to improve system operations.
Questions and comments that arose during Mr. Cheung’s presentation include:
To what extent are the other regional operators integrated with Metro now?
o We try to coordinate our services to the extent possible, and we adhere to certain
management boundaries to avoid duplication. We try to time transfers when
possible, but we could improve in this regard. Our service sectors are extremely
beneficial; our five sector governance councils are much more accessible to the
public than the Metro headquarters office.
What are the differences between the 17 included and eligible transit operators; and the
municipally operated systems?
o The 17 operators are part of our formula allocation funds. Originally, statutory
requirements designated certain operators to receive funds. With subsequent
initiatives that allocated funds to cities, cities began developing their own systems
and services. The history of funding and policy explains the various layers of service
provision we see today.
Is the EZ Pass valid with the eligible and included service providers in addition to other
service providers?
Metro Blue Ribbon Committee Meeting #1
DRAFT Meeting Summary February 2, 2010
Page 3 of 7
o For the most part, yes. Metro has different agreements with the various cities and
operators. The general standard for local cities is to accept EZ Pass.
What effect did the Consent Decree have on fares?
o It froze fares for 2 – 3 years, but because of political tensions, the MTA Board did
not want to raise fares after that. Since then, fares have not kept up with inflation.
What is the breakdown of the 7% increase in operating costs?
o Detailed analysis has not been done yet. As of now we know the overall numbers.
With 22% decrease in passengers, what is the percent utilization of current capacity?
o About 60% on average. The Blue Ribbon Committee will play an important role in
figuring out how to address this. Agencies don’t like to go below a certain frequency
because infrequent service lines become less usable. Frequent lines have really good
utilization. Within a 20-minute time period, we like to average 120% of seated
capacity.
Why are only buses addressed in the figures, and why the decrease in ridership?
o On the bus side, we have a significant issue. When we add the rail, we actually see an
11% growth in ridership. But we’re still experiencing a funding deficit of $250
million as a region.
One member commented that it is important to separate bus and rail statistics so that
contributing factors can be identified.
Mr. Cheung highlighted the complexity of these systems and their operations and funding structures.
He encouraged the Committee to focus further discussion at the policy level. Once sound policy is
determined, staff will work out the technical details.
II. GROUP DISCUSSION
Dr. Iacofano led the Committee through a discussion of visions for the regional transit system. He
asked them to consider what types of coverage, services, system attributes, and system design they
envision. He also asked them to consider funding models, roles and partnerships, and case studies
from elsewhere. Committee members came up with a series of directions:
Geographic Coverage and Service Type
There should be a backbone system with other services and facilities planned around it:
o Rail/bus tradeoffs should be considered
o Supporting systems such as Transit Oriented Development (TOD), facilities and
technology should be in place
Intentional and unintentional service duplication – e.g. the Silver Line and Silver Streak
services operated by Metro and Foothill Transit – should be reduced
Metro Blue Ribbon Committee Meeting #1
DRAFT Meeting Summary February 2, 2010
Page 4 of 7
o However, it was pointed out that the Silver Line is part of the federally-funded
congestion pricing/Express Lanes demonstration, and the I-10/I-110 connection for
the Silver Line is necessary
There should be an increased orientation and focus on campuses – for example, CSUN – a
concept could be to have a transit center with a bus bay and local and express service
connections
o The orientation to campuses could support job creation
Consider direct routes between destinations—deviating from the straight-line, grid-based
route system
Transit systems in Europe and Asia are often held up as examples but we should recognize
the unique spatial orientation of Los Angeles when comparing systems – the comparison
should be made with areas such as Orlando and Dallas. When we consider these as peers,
the system in Southern California is superior by comparison.
Service Qualities and Features
An integrated fare policy should be in place with a regional fare and coordination. This
system should be understandable and easy to use
o One card could be provided that could be used on train, bus or carshare
There is opportunity to create a common information platform and an overall information
and education focus—a regional “cloud” as an umbrella for all information and resources
Metro and municipal operators should have an integrated schedule change process to reduce
passenger confusion
Reliability is key – service should be on time and system maintenance should ensure bus
availability
The overall perception of the system is that there are problems getting information, personal
safety concerns and lack of convenience
System Design and Integration
The system should connect activity centers (the Metro Connections idea)
There should be “one system”
The design should support the backbone approach, restructuring around express bus and
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as well as the rail system
o Design should go beyond the grid system of buses to include supporting systems
On-demand jitneys
Bike facilities
Taxi integration (such as in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C.)
Metro Blue Ribbon Committee Meeting #1
DRAFT Meeting Summary February 2, 2010
Page 5 of 7
o Support technologies and infrastructure should be incorporated
Roles and Partnerships
The rationale for contracting service should be clarified and improved
o Smaller routes should be considered for contracting out rather than major routes
A county policy should be instituted that created transit-oriented districts
There should be an increase in private partnerships
There is an opportunity for more partnerships in fare integration
o An example is Go Rio, an LA Community College District model
o This incorporates a student pass that is good on Metro and the municipal operators
Governance
The Metro Board should recognize that it is a universal Board that represents the municipal
operators as well
Improved models of governance can decrease costs and increase coordination – such as
coordinated fare policy.
Level of Service Policy
This represents the opportunity to change the way business is done
There can be new models of subsidy distribution
o For example, Metro could expand the “service abandonment” and subsidy transfer
opportunity to include Local Return operators
o The subsidy should cover full cost of service
Metro should also re-visit the bus stop maintenance policy
Overall the Blue Ribbon Committee and Metro restructuring process should consider how
one policy addresses another
Emerging Visions
Based on group discussion, the emerging visions for the future transit system are that it is:
Designed to fit our unique Southern California environment
Provides safe, clean, quality service
Changes the perception of transit
Creates an informed and educated populace
Metro Blue Ribbon Committee Meeting #1
DRAFT Meeting Summary February 2, 2010
Page 6 of 7
Is convenient and easy to use – it works!
Overall, is an integrated system, providing connectivity between Metro and local services
Is achieved through a coordinated planning process – representing the confluence of Metro,
muni and city plans and policies
III. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
Mr. Cheung thanked Committee members for their input and reiterated the importance of the
Committee’s role in establishing a vision for regional transit, and in determining policy-level
directions to achieve that vision. He noted themes to be covered at the next meeting, including
transit markets, components of a transit network, and a more detailed discussion of Metro’s bus and
rail services and possibly other integrated services. One objective for the March meeting will be to
prioritize the markets served, recognizing that some people will always be more likely than others to
consider public transportation options.
The Committee will work to complete a report to present to the MTA Board in July, 2010.
Follow-up Topics
Governance – management, corporate culture and coordination – beyond fiscal
considerations
Re-look at historical efforts (Metro Connections by the City of Los Angeles)
Requests and Action Items
Provide information on percentage, extent, and breakdown of the budget shortfall (including
how much of the deficit is due to STA “raid”)
Provide information on the proportion of service increase among services types
Break down the amount of growth by other operators due to:
o Assumption of Metro service by municipal operators
o Growth in operators’ own services
Re-look at and review previous proposals and concepts such as Metro Connections
Metro Blue Ribbon Committee Meeting #1
DRAFT Meeting Summary February 2, 2010
Page 7 of 7
Related docs
Other docs by zhangyun
TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF ... - PDF - PDF
Views: 20 | Downloads: 0
