GM Memo No. 09-217E Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 Page 3 of 18

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

GM Memo No. 09-217E Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 Page 3 of 18 GM Memo No. 09-217e Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 Page 3 of 18 • Total positions eliminated 233 Should the Board adopt the Revised Service Adjustments Plan, it is intended that no bus drivers will be laid off and that the resulting reduction in maintenance employees will be limited to approximately 12 temporary service employees and 3 temporary janitors. The number of positions will be proportionately reduced but the actual layoffs will be primarily offset by attrition. On August 26, 2009 the AC Transit Board of Directors approved the Biennial Budget for the District for Fiscal Years 2009/10 and 2010/11. This was further ratified by Resolution 09-048 passed by the Board on September 9, 2009, which provided the District with a balanced budget, as required by Board Policy 312. The budget passed was predicated on savings from service reductions totaling $18 Million, net of fares. Service Development staff then prepared a series of service reductions, adjustments and re-alignments in accordance with direction to reduce District services 15% (315,000 Platform Hours). Currently the District operates approximately 2,070,000 annual platform hours. The implementation of the Service Adjustments Plan would result in operations of 1,755,000 annual platform hours. 2009 Service Adjustments Plan Staff developed the 2009 Service Adjustments Plan (SAP) in accordance with Board-adopted principles: • Allocation of service must reflect some consideration of geographic equity, but ultimately productivity and usefulness of the service should be given greater weight – Strategic Plan • Service must be prioritized to those areas with the greatest potential for transit use, with good patronage rewarded by better service and shorter waits – Guiding Principles • The District should maintain minimum route spacing/coverage – Service Deployment Policies On June 24, 2009 the Board received a detailed report (GM Memo 09-161) and presentation of the SAP that included routing, frequency and span changes. At that time, staff had estimated that the plan would reduce the daily platform hours to 5,700 per day for weekdays and just fewer than 2,900 per day for weekends. These targeted savings were confirmed through a run cut, developed by the Schedules Department. A final set of proposals was presented to the Board on August 26, 2009 (GM Memo 09-161a), which included three (3) minor revisions to the original SAP. Information regarding ridership methodology, preliminary Title VI screening and related matters is available in GM Memo 09-161. Public Outreach and Public Comments Process The development of the SAP process involved an extensive and comprehensive public outreach process. Please refer to Exhibit A1 of Attachment A for a brief narrative on the process as well as Exhibit A2 for a complete report detailing the nature and scope of comments received. Additionally, the Districts External Affairs, Marketing and Media Affairs Department have provided a report (Attachment B) of the Summary of Publicity and GM Memo No. 09-217e Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 Page 4 of 18 Outreach for the Community Workshops and Public Hearings on the AC Transit 2009 Service Adjustments Plan. 2009 Revised Service Adjustments Plan (RevSAP) On September 25, 2009 the Board considered a proposal to shift funds from the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project to the District’s operating budget (GM Memo 09-228). Subsequently, on October 28, 2009 the Board affirmed its support for the diversion of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding to operating expenses. If the effort to divert the funds is successful, it would allow for the reinstatement of 140,000 annual platform hours of service, bringing the District’s annual platform hours to 1,920,000. Additionally, staff was able to provide solutions to concerns and issues identified through the public comments process of the original SAP. The RevSAP is an amalgam of “restored” service and efficient and creative solutions to identified problems. Generally, all trunk-line service has been restored to original frequencies and span, and the span for several lines has been restored. Finally, service to a key regional destination previously proposed for discontinuation has been restored. Service Reinstatement Guidelines As discussed in GM Memo 09-217c, the Board was provided priorities for reinstatement of service based on the funding shift. These priorities included: • Coverage – restoration of lines that are shown to have disparate impacts under Title VI, and under the concept of “completing the grid” (ensuring adequate route spacing/coverage), • Frequency, Transbay Trips and Span – restoration or expansion of frequency, trips and/or span to areas based on demonstrated patron demand and use. The revisions to the original SAP are predicated on the above guidelines, taking into account the sub-regional hours split from both the current (Fall 2009) and the RevSAP proposal. More information regarding the results of the sub-regional hours split is discussed below. Platform Hours Split Analysis District service has evolved over time, and per policy, has been apportioned based on a balance between productivity and geography. As this exercise is ultimately considered a reduction in service, staff attempted to maintain the basic geographic, service day and service type split established through prior service planning. Existing routes were apportioned by the actual amount of time spent within a particular area to ensure equity. The table below shows the split by geographic area: • Western Contra Costa County – including the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito and un-incorporated portions of Contra Costa County. • Northern Alameda County – including the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Alameda and Piedmont. • Central Alameda County – including the cities of San Leandro, Castro Valley, Hayward, and un-incorporated portions of Alameda County. • Southern Alameda County – including the cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City. GM Memo No. 09-217e Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 Page 5 of 18 Weekday Geographic Platform Hours Split Service Period West North Central South Fall 2009 Apportioned Hours Split 11.1% 58.4% 17.8% 12.7% RevSAP Apportioned Hours Split 11.3% 57.7% 18.1% 12.8% Difference -0.2% 0.7% -0.4% -0.1% Weekend Geographic Platform Hours Split Service Period West North Central South Fall 2009 Apportioned Hours Split 11.0% 62.8% 16.5% 9.7% RevSAP Apportioned Hours Split 9.6% 65.7% 15.3% 9.4% Difference -1.4% 2.9% -1.2% -0.3% Analysis of the geographic platform hours split above indicates a minor shift in service in the West County region, spread across the other three region with the North area receiving a minor proportionate increase. It’s important to note that services in West Contra Costa County were essentially restored to their current conditions, and all of the lines are again at 30 minute frequency. Weekend hours in the North area have shifted by almost 3% due to the demonstrated use of transit in that area. Service Day Hours Split Fall 2009 RevSAP Service Day Difference Service Day Split Service Day Split Weekday 82.1% 81.5% -0.6% Saturday 8.5% 8.7% 0.3% Sunday 9.5% 9.8% 0.3% The Service Day Hours split is consistent with expectations that there were some very deep reductions to weekend service under the SAP, which resulted in a very slight reallocation of hours from the weekday platform. Service Type Split Service Type Fall 2009 Split RevSAP Split Difference Local 78.3% 80.3% 2.1% All Nighter 1.6% 1.7% 0.1% Supplemental 4.2% 3.9% -0.2% Transbay 16.0% 14.1% -1.9% Analysis of the above shows a minor increase in local service, offset primarily by a reduction in Transbay services. The reductions proposed for Transbay service represent a balanced plan between allocation and demonstrated demand. As shown below, increased trips were added to several Transbay lines; staff will continue to monitor the operations of the lines and adjust trips accordingly. GM Memo No. 09-217e Meeting Date: December 16, 2009 Page 6 of 18 RevSAP Final Plan Details Similar to the SAP, staff has identified service adjustments in five (5) general areas: • Western Contra Costa County • Northern Alameda County • Central Alameda County • Southern Alameda County (Special District 2) • Transbay Service The tables below provide detail on the final staff recommendations and rationale related to the RevSAP proposal. Changes were made based largely on public comment received during the SAP process, as well as staff analysis of ridership reductions completed during the SAP process. As stated above, service restorations were prioritized on demonstrated demand (ridership), line spacing guidelines (coverage), and lifeline considerations (span). The information provided below represents a combination of weekday and weekend changes. For more information regarding particular concerns raised by the public during the public comment period of the RevSAP, please refer to Exhibit A of Attachment A (Resolution 09-053). A final and detailed review of the proposed service changes by service day can be found in Exhibit B of Attachment A (Resolution 09-053). RevSAP Revisions Since 11/18/09 There have been a few revisions to routing suggestions previously presented to the Board in November 2009. These are based on receipt of comments in connection with the public input process completed in connection with the final plan development. Specific changes include: • Line 25 – The RevSAP proposed that service to the Gilman/Hopkins corridor of North Berkeley was to be operated via the Line 52. Staff received initial concern about the size and frequency of buses through this highly residential area as well as considerable negative feedback from residents of University Village and has elected to revise its original proposal. The revised proposal includes routing the Line 25 (North Berkeley Circulator) via Gilman/Hopkins to Martin Luther King Jr Drive to downtown Berkeley.
Recommended publications
  • Golden Gate Transit & Golden Gate Ferry
    Golden Gate Transit & Golden Gate Ferry 2013 Passenger Study Draft Methodology Report Conducted by: Redhill Group December 23, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1 COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1 FIELD SURVEY OPERATIONS COMMUNICATIONS ...................................... 1 PHONE SURVEY COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................ 2 DETAILED SAMPLING PLAN ............................................................................. 3 GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT: ............................................................................... 3 GOLDEN GATE FERRY: ................................................................................. 13 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................. 20 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................... 20 TELEPHONE SURVEY ................................................................................... 21 DATA COLLECTION: FIELD SURVEYS ........................................................... 23 RECRUITMENT .............................................................................................. 23 TRAINING ....................................................................................................... 24 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center Plus Mixed-Use Retail Development
    Revised Traffic Study for: San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center plus Mixed-Use Retail Development Prepared for: PBS&J and the City of San Leandro Submitted by: 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 839-1742 x103; Fax: (510) 839-0871 April 06, 2010 www.dowlinginc.com Contact: Damian Stefanakis April 06, 2010 Post Buckley Shue & Jernigan 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: Michael Kay, Project Manager Subject: Revised Traffic Report for the San Leandro Kaiser Medical P09066 Center and Mixed-Use Retail Development Project Dear Mr. Kay, Dowling Associates is pleased to submit the revised traffic report for the San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center plus Mixed-Use Retail Development Project. The detailed calculations and volume graphics are provided in the attached Technical Appendix. Sincerely, Dowling Associates, Inc. Damian Stefanakis Debbie Chan Yueh, AICP Principal Senior Transportation Planner Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................. 7 Background and Terminology .................................................................................. 7 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 8 Existing (2007) Traffic Conditions ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Audit Summary Report, TFCA Program Manager Fund
    BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT PROJECT PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction…….…….…….…………………………………………………………….…….. 1 2. Project Description …….………….………….………….………………….………….……... 1 3. Audit Process…….…….…….…….…….….………….………….………………...…….…... 3 4. Program Manager Findings…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….….. 4 Appendix: A- Health and Safety Code Sections 44241 and 44242…….…….…….…….…….…………... 7 B- Listing of Audited Projects…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….……….…………. 11 i BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND Audit Summary Report For the Project Period Ended June 30, 2017 1 – INTRODUCTION The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District), created by the California legislature in 1955, is the state’s first regional agency dealing with air pollution. The Air District regulates stationary sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties in California. The Air District’s jurisdiction includes Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, City/County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, southern Sonoma County, and south-western Solano County. The primary mission of the Air District is to achieve ambient air quality standards designed to protect the public’s health and the environment. The Air District is governed by a twenty-two-member Board of Directors who has the authority to develop and enforce regulations for the control of air pollution within its jurisdiction 2 – PROGRAM DEISCRIPTION Health and Safety Code Section 44223 and 44225 authorize a surcharge on the motor vehicle registration fee (surcharge) to be used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) and local governments specifically for programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee February 12, 2014 Resolution Nos. 4053, Revised, 4084, Revised and 4086, Revised Subject: Federal Grants Status Update and Revisions to the Lifeline Transportation Program Third Cycle Program of Projects. Background: As reported at the Committee’s December 2013 meeting, FTA Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds totaling about $2.0 million lapsed on September 30, 2013 due to delays in U.S. Department of Labor certification of the grants requesting those funds from FTA. The delays were the result of a dispute over potential conflicts between the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) and federal transit labor law. MTC submitted a letter to the FTA Administrator requesting that the lapsed funds be reinstated, but this request was denied. The lapsed JARC funds were programmed for the Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 3 program, which funds projects that improve mobility for the region’s low-income communities, and were included in grants that had been submitted to FTA by MTC, Santa Rosa CityBus and AC Transit. In order to maintain funding for Lifeline, staff has developed a proposed plan to replace all of the lapsed funds. The plan includes the following elements, which are detailed in Attachment A: A total of $1.75 million in population-based STA funds would be allocated to subrecipients in MTC’s grant to offset the loss of FTA funds. Of the total, about $692,000 would be redirected from an allocation for the regional Means-Based Fare Study that was part of the Lifeline Cycle 3 program, and $1.05 million would come off the top of the region’s FY2013-14 Lifeline program category of population-based funds.
    [Show full text]
  • San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Expansion Plan Final Report City of San Leandro
    San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Expansion Plan Final Report City of San Leandro San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Expansion Plan Final Report February 2020 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Expansion Plan Final Report City of San Leandro Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1-1 Nelson\Nygaard ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Initial Project Goals ............................................................................................................................... 1-4 2 San Leandro Demographics .............................................................................................2-1 Poverty ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Race/Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Seniors ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 People with Disabilities ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 Non-English Languages ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Ferry
    San Francisco Bay Ferry 2013 Passenger Study Draft Methodology Report Conducted by: Redhill Group January 21, 2014 - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. iv PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1 COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1 FIELD SURVEY OPERATIONS COMMUNICATIONS ...................................... 1 PHONE SURVEY COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................ 2 DETAILED SAMPLING PLAN ............................................................................. 3 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................. 12 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................... 12 TELEPHONE SURVEY ................................................................................... 13 DATA COLLECTION: FIELD SURVEYS ........................................................... 15 RECRUITMENT .............................................................................................. 15 TRAINING ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Air Quality Management District
    BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT PROJECT PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 Program Description 1 Audit Process 2 Program Manager Findings 3 Oversight Findings 3 Appendix: A – Health and Safety Code Sections 44241 and 44242 4 B – Listing of Audited Projects by Program Manager 7 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE PROJECT PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 1. INTRODUCTION The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District), created by the California legislature in 1955, is the state’s first regional agency dealing with air pollution. The Air District regulates stationary sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties in California. The Air District’s jurisdiction includes Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, City/County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, southern Sonoma County, and south-western Solano County. The primary mission of the Air District is to achieve ambient air quality standards designed to protect the public’s health and the environment. The Air District is governed by a twenty-two member Board of Directors who has the authority to develop and enforce regulations for the control of air pollution within its jurisdiction. 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Health and Safety Code Sections 44223 and 44225 authorize a surcharge on the motor vehicle registration fee (surcharge) to be used by the Air District and local governments to fund projects that implement transportation control measures in accordance with the 1988 California Clean Air Act and the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Model Documentation Report
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE TRAVEL MODEL PLAN BAY AREA 2040 UPDATE Final Documentation Report January, 2019 Prepared by: Alameda Countywide Travel Model | Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Alameda Countywide Travel Model ........................................................................................ i Plan Bay Area 2040 Update.................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. v Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Features .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Updates .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Selected Consistency Results ............................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2015-2016
    Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2015-2016 June 10, 2 015 Table of Contents FY 2015-2016 Adopted Budget Introduction General Manager’s Message ........................................................................................ 1 Resolution Adopting the General Fund Operating and Capital Budget ....................... 3 Overview of Operating Budget FY 15-16 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget Summary ...................................... 9 FY 2014 to FY 2024 10-Year Forecast ...................................................................... 10 FY14-15 Mid-Year Budget vs. FY15-16 Adopted Revenue Budget Chart ............... 13 Percent Share of Operating Expenses by Use of Funds Chart ................................... 14 FY14-15 Mid-Year vs. FY15-16 Adopted Operating Expense Budget Chart ........... 15 FY14-15 Mid-Year vs. FY15-16 Adopted Budget by Department Chart .................. 16 General Fund Operating Expense Budget by Department ......................................... 17 Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Organization Chart ...................................... 18 Assumptions for Revenues and Expenses Budget FY 2015-16 ................................. 19 Adopted Budget FY 2015-16 - Position Count by Department ................................. 27 Adopted Budget FY 2015-16 - Position Summary - Count by Type ......................... 28 FY 15-16 Authorized New Positions ......................................................................... 29 FY 15-16 Operating Revenue Projections .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GL: JARC FY11-FY12 – Large UA (TIP ID – REG110032)
    GL: JARC FY11- FY12 – Large UA (TIP ID – REG110032) Last updated with 2017 TIP Update FTIP BACK-UP LIST FOR JARC PROGRAM - FY2011 & FY2012 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR LARGE URBANIZED AREAS (REG110032) As Updated with TIP Revision 17-00 Project Total Federal Total Project No. County Subrecipient Program Year Local Share Name Description Share Cost MTC Grant (Subrecipients + Admin & Technical Assistance) 1 ALA Cycles of Change Neighborhood Bicycle Neighborhood Bicycle Centers / "Bike-go-Round" provides free bikes $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 Centers/"Bike-go-Round" - and safety training to referred low-income adults for their work 2012 Operations commute. An extension of the Lifeline Cycle 2 funded program for FY 2017 calendar year 2012. 2 ALA Cycles of Change Neighborhood Bicycle Bike-go-Round program offers bicycle education and distribution $ 360,000 $ 360,000 $ 720,000 Centers/"Bike-go-Round" services for low-income Oakland Residents to use bicycles for work commuting. The funding requested is for three years of program FY 2017 operations which would provide training for 1,500 participants and distribute 600 bikes over a three-year period. 3 ALA City of Oakland* Oakland Broadway Shuttle The Broadway Shuttle is a free downtown shuttle linking major transit $ - $ - $ - stations such as the AC Transit 20th St Hub, BART, Amtrak Capitol Corridor, and the Alameda/Oakland/SF Ferry. The route is on Broadway between Embarcadero and 27th St from 7am-7pm Mon-Th; 7am-1am FY 2017 Fri; and 6pm-1am Sat. The Lifeline request also incudes expanding weekday evening service until 10pm Mon-Thurs. 4 ALA San Leandro San Leandro "LINKS" LINKS is a free shuttle service from the San Leandro BART station to $ 60,911 $ 60,911 $ 121,822 Transportation Mgmt Shuttle businesses in West San Leandro.
    [Show full text]
  • LAST MILE TRANSIT Program Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design
    Fremont Innovation District LAST MILE TRANSIT Program Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Prepared by: Fremont Innovation District LAST MILE TRANSIT Program Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 1-1 2. Statement of Purpose 2-1 3. Introduction 3-1 3.1 City of Fremont .............................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Fremont Innovation District ..........................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station ...............................................................................3-4 3.4 Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan ..........................................................................3-4 4. Existing Conditions 4-1 4.1 Roadway, Bike, and Pedestrian Infrastructure .............................................................................4-1 4.2 Existing Transit Services and Infrastructure .................................................................................4-3 5. Future Conditions 5-1 5.1 Roadway, Bike, and Pedestrian Infrastructure .............................................................................5-1 5.2 BART Extensions into Santa Clara County ...................................................................................5-1 5.3 Future Bus Transit Services and Infrastructure .............................................................................5-2 6. Last Mile Shuttle
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B: Existing Conditions and Market Analysis
    Appendix B Technical Memorandum #2 Existing Conditions and Market Analysis ` Existing Conditions and Market Analysis Countywide Transit Plan FINAL Technical Memo #2 Prepared for: Alameda County Transportation Commission Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff With Arup North America Ltd. Cambridge Systematics Community Design + Architecture June 2015 Countywide Transit Plan Table of Contents 1.0. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0. Report Methodology ................................................................................................ 2 3.0. Network Conditions .................................................................................................. 3 3.1. Transit Providers Serving Alameda County ................................................... 3 3.2. Transit in Alameda County Planning Areas .................................................. 5 A. North County ............................................................................................... 5 B. Central County ............................................................................................ 7 C. South County ............................................................................................... 8 D. East County .................................................................................................. 9 3.3. Alameda County Travel Patterns ................................................................. 10 A. Overall Transportation Patterns
    [Show full text]