City Council Report

City Council Meeting: February 27, 2018 Agenda Item: 4.A

To: Mayor and City Council From: Edward King, Director, Big Blue Bus Subject: The Future of Big Blue Bus

Recommended Action Staff requests that the City Council review Big Blue Bus (BBB) governance, service design, and service delivery strategies and provide guidance to staff for framing the future of BBB.

Executive Summary: Big Blue Bus is the third largest municipal bus operator in Los Angeles County, providing service to the City and the Westside through 20 fixed route bus lines, a late night demand-response service from one of the Expo light rail stations, and a community Dial-A-Ride service (now branded MODE) that provides transportation to seniors and disabled City residents within the City limits. The service has a proud 90 year-history of providing cost-effective, high-quality bus transit to residents and neighbors of Santa Monica and offering connections to the region beyond. It has won the prestigious American Public Transportation Association’s Outstanding Transportation System award five times, last in 2011.

Since the inauguration of Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines service in 1928, the system has matured to a sub-regional transportation operation, providing 54,000 daily trips to 58 square miles of LA County.

BBB has been tremendously successful as a leader in the County and the transportation industry. BBB has been a marketplace leader from technology innovations like BBB’s mobile phone applications for real-time schedule information and fare payment, to utilizing metrics to measure system performance to make informed

1 of 31

decisions on service delivery, to leading the country in sustainability efforts by propelling buses with Near-Zero emissions engines fueled with Renewable Natural Gas (RNG).

As a result of historical transit ridership declines in the US and in LA County (per capita ridership has seen a consistent decrease since 2002), staff has undertaken a number of initiatives to provide more efficient and effective service, understanding that the cost for the provision of service has increased 1.17% over the last year. Should we continue to operate service in the current model, financial projections prepared for the Five Year Budget Forecast predict that the structural operating deficit could approach $11 million by FY19-20, and that subsequent years could exhaust BBB reserves by FY21-22.

Since providing the current level of service with the current service model would not be sustainable, the time has come to chart a new direction to ensure a sustainable transit model for our City’s residents, visitors and the Westside. We face the opportunity and challenge of adapting to the unfolding changes in mobility – including becoming more efficient in the delivery of our service, and focusing on enriching the customer experience in order to both retain current customers, and attract new ones. Staff is targeting the value that our service provides to our customers by improving the wellbeing of Santa Monica and Los Angeles (LA) residents, in addition to the value that we provide to the visitors who use our service.

While many agencies have decided to “wait out” the tectonic changes in our marketplace (thinking that these were cyclical ridership anomalies), BBB staff aggressively undertook new programs and projects to improve service quality, enhance the customer experience, and become nimbler. Customer amenities described in detail later in the report include mobile applications for fare payment and real time schedule information, discounted fares through TAP, Blue to Business, Discounted Youth Pass, and partnership with Lyft for late night and Dial-a-Ride (now branded MODE) service to the City.

Concurrently, staff has worked diligently to reduce and contain operating expenditures, including the engagement of a Third Party Administrator, Intercare Holdings, to manage

2 of 31

our worker’s compensation program, installation of collision avoidance technology on the fleet to reduce accidents and support the City’s Vision Zero program, and streamlining the selection process and training program for Motor Coach Operators to optimize workforce availability. We have continued to use BBB Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to enhance and improve operational performance and reliability (On Time Performance, Miles between Road Failures).

All these trends, challenges and opportunities take place in the context of Santa Monica’s Strategic Goal of “Creating a new model of mobility” set by the City Council in 2015. BBB is an integral player in this effort, and the future of our local and regional transit service is interwoven into discussions about bike, pedestrian and other modes of “first-mile, last-mile” connections between where people live, and where they journey for work, school, shopping, and services.

This report provides a summation of where we have been and the challenges we face today. It addresses some of the dramatic changes to the mobility landscape never before experienced by the transit industry. In looking to the future, staff seeks Council’s guidance on charting the future of BBB and poses three alternative options for framing the discussion:

 Are we a leader?

 Are we a partner?

 Should we get out of the way?

The final section of this report, Where We’re Going: The Road to 2018, provides a comprehensive discussion on these three major areas for Council guidance:

 Governance: A discussion on the appropriate future governing body for BBB as well as discussion on what policy and regulatory issues could be addressed to

3 of 31

incentivize mass transit, define Santa Monica as a “Transit First” City, and allow the department to become nimbler.  Service Design: What should our transit system look like in the future based upon the Service Design options presented? Is the Council receptive to adopting new service planning standards understanding the current state of the market?  Service Delivery: How do we best provide efficient and effective service in the future? Is now the appropriate time to develop partnerships to provide more efficient service in order to maintain core service and provide other mobility options to the community? Finally, since this study session will raise questions about governance and service delivery methodologies, a commitment to ensuring that a collective and collaborative approach is taken with all BBB staff to re-position BBB for future success is critical. Therefore, the BBB leadership team is committed to providing a thoughtful, engaging process for all levels of BBB staff to participate in an internal culture change to make this a successful journey serving all our diverse transit stakeholders: riders, community members and BBB staff.

Discussion

Where We’ve Been: The First 90 Years During the first 90 years of service, BBB has been an industry leader in innovative approaches to service delivery and enhancing the customer experience. BBB is the third largest municipal bus operator in LA County providing service to the City and the Westside through 20 fixed route bus lines, a late night demand-response service from one of the Expo light rail stations, and a community demand-response service, MODE, that provides transportation to seniors and disabled City residents within the City limits, a service not offered by most other municipalities in LA County. This service is provided by BBB in addition to the complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service provided by Access Services.

4 of 31

The most recent comprehensive operational analysis, Evolution of Blue, was approved by City Council on April 28, 2015 and implemented in 2014-2016 to ensure that the system provided first-last mile connectivity to the seven new rail stations in the service area, and updated routes and schedules that had not been holistically analyzed in more than 15 years.

BBB has led the industry with transit technology by providing customer-friendly fare payment options through TAP, and was the second system in the County to also offer fare payment through a mobile ticketing app. Other technology applications include real- time schedule information available via mobile apps and at 34 bus stops in Santa Monica, customer and staff safety and security features through BBB’s CAD/AVL Radio System, on-board video surveillance systems, and proximity sensors and cameras installed on buses that alert operators to nearby pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in time to prevent collisions.

Over the years, the system has consistently ranked in the 90th percentile in customer satisfaction and in the industry for the following core strengths:

Fleet reliability, cleanliness, appearance, and sustainability: 100% of BBB’s fleet is propelled by clean RNG with projected further reduction of NOx emissions by more than 90 percent in 2018 with the current procurement of 27 more buses with near-zero emission engines. Average fleet age is less than 6 years, with an industry best practice of 8.5 years.

Infrastructure: BBB has a state of the art maintenance facility, fueling facility, and campus, as well as iconic on-street bus stop amenities at more than 235 stops in Santa Monica.

Strong brand: Customer satisfaction is at 94%.

Regional connectivity: BBB’s 58-square mile service area is dense with housing and jobs. BBB provides convenient connections to Metro’s Expo, Green,

5 of 31

Blue, Purple, Red and Gold rail lines; Metrolink and Amtrak commuter rail; and Culver CityBus, Gardena Transit (Gtrans), Beach Cities Transit, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Commuter Express, LADOT Dash, Torrance Transit, Santa Clarita Transit, and Foothill Transit Silver Line bus service.

Last mile provider: Strong ridership on the Metro Rail system, particularly the Expo line, brings as many as 60,000 potential bus riders per day into our service area who are looking for last mile connections to their destinations.

World-class destinations: BBB serves Los Angeles Airport, Loyola Marymount University, Playa Vista, Marina Del Rey, VA campus in Westwood, Santa Monica College (SMC), University California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Westwood Village, Downtown Los Angeles, and Union Station.

Workforce culture and development programs: BBB provides every employee with opportunities for training. This includes more than 16 annual hours of customized training on customer service, technology and fleet maintenance, safety and security, and de-escalation/self-defense tactics for front-line and safety sensitive staff. BBB's internal Supervisory Training and Education Program (STEP) also provides leadership training for front-line employees and develops their supervisory skills by allowing them to work as supervisors and instructors in an acting capacity.

Supervisory/management academy and other skills and curricula are available through internal and external programs facilitated by Southern California Regional Transit Training Consortium (SCRRTC), National Transit Institute (NTI), Transportation Safety Institute (TSI), American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and California Transit Association (CTA) as well as Santa Monica Institute (SMI).

6 of 31

Partnerships: Existing corporate and college contracts enable institutions to fund BBB fares as a benefit to their students and staff (including UCLA, SMC, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and Providence St. Johns Health Center). Business and college partnerships collectively make up 19% of BBB’s annual ridership and our new Blue to Business program provides further partnership opportunities.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives: Targeted programs enable opportunities for broader ridership in addition to Blue to Business, including K-12 Youth (Blue to School) and transit assistance programs in our service area such as the LA County Transit Pass Subsidy Program intended for residents living in unincorporated parts of the County, the Low Income Fares are Easy (LIFE - formerly Rider Relief) program that provides transit discounts to low income LA County residents, and the Federal Employee Commuter Benefit Program.

Service reliability: On-time Performance (OTP) is consistently at 80% and the Road Call (RC) rate is over 19,000 miles between mechanical failures.

Figure 1 - On-time Performance in 2017 compared to 2016

7 of 31

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities exist with the 4th Street/Colorado Avenue terminus site and Bergamot Station.

New technology to enhance the customer experience includes:  Real time schedule information through the NextBus app which allows customers to access the information using any type of mobile phone;  Smartphone apps such as the Transit App and Google Transit make use of BBB’s GTFS-RT (General Transit Feed Specification Real Time) open data feed for greater customer convenience at no cost to BBB;  Installation of regional TAP fare validators and offering of all BBB fare products on TAP for seamless fare payment, a system that has dramatically reduced boarding and dwell time;  The recently-opened LiNC Bus-Only Lane to improve travel speed for customers and provide enhanced operational efficiencies to invest these savings in more service on our busiest north-south corridor during commuter peak hours;  Solar powered real-time signs at 34 bus stops in the city; and,  Collision avoidance technology to address the Vision Zero city-wide effort and to improve safety on buses.  BBB is the first municipal transit agency in our region to offer mobile ticketing, allowing any customer with a smartphone to purchase, activate, and use mobile passes on our buses.

Partnerships with Federal, State, Regional, and City staff to leverage best practices with the advancement of new transportation technologies: Connected and Automated Vehicle (C/AV) Technology development and pilot implementations are becoming prolific at cities throughout the country. Staff is actively participating in organizations such as the Intelligent Transportation Systems-California (ITS-CA), a public/private partnership formed to foster the development and deployment of advanced transportation systems within the State of California. Staff also serves on CONNECT-IT (Connect and Integrate

8 of 31

Transportation Technology), the newly formed regional committee representing multiple jurisdictions in LA County that include 31 cities, several transit organizations, the Ports of Long Beach and LA, Caltrans, and others to develop a regional transportation technology architecture. BBB staff also supports the city’s Automated Vehicle (AV) Workgroup. Although many pilot programs are underway (as discussed in Appendix A) these organizations continue to analyze the potential threats and opportunities presented by emerging AV technology including safety, traffic congestion, infrastructure requirements, and other implications.

Technology Roadmap: With the advent of technology that would provide tremendous savings in the provision of mobility options and service, staff has initiated an analysis of all of our technology systems and is currently in the late stages of a procurement process to engage a consultant to perform a system-by- system needs assessment of BBB’s technology infrastructure. Recommendations will be prioritized based on cost/benefit and other criteria, including relevance in the changing transit marketplace, ease of implementation, and implementation timeline. Further information about BBB’s technology planning and demonstration programs planned and underway are explained in Appendix A.

Challenges & Changing Marketplace As noted earlier, the public transit landscape has changed dramatically over the last three years. Transit ridership declines, particularly bus ridership, have been seen throughout not only the region and state but across all of North America.

BBB, like most other transit systems, saw a significant decline in ridership over the last three years, the most dramatic in FY15-16 and FY16-17 where ridership declined 11.58% and 19.56% respectively. However, ridership trends this year to date do show modest growth with August, October and November showing increases from .05% to over 4%, a positive trend that indicates we may have reached bottom, and BBB’s

9 of 31

ridership performance in FY17-18 to date compares favorably with other municipal providers in our region as can be seen in the following figure.

Figure 2 - Bus Ridership FY17-18 YTD Comparison among Region’s Transit Providers

Although many in the industry predicted that ridership declines were “cyclical” due to economic changes, staff did not concur with this assessment and began a process of evaluating BBB ridership changes, demographic changes, and a new strategic direction.

In addition to conducting internal analyses, staff is participating in a regional ridership improvement task force formed in 2016 by BBB, Long Beach Transit, Culver CityBus and Metro to evaluate and address ridership retention and attraction of new customers. Staff is also participating in the LA County regional study of ridership patterns and providing data for the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies recent work regarding transit ridership trends in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, who just published their report a few weeks ago.

Based on information collected thus far, the following issues have directly influenced BBB ridership in recent years:

Disruptive factors affecting ridership trends in BBB’s service area, including opening of the Expo light rail extension to downtown Santa Monica: Route

10 of 31

based analysis revealed that many riders shifted from BBB service to the Expo Line from BBB routes that ran parallel to the train. This affected Route 7, Rapid 7, and Rapid 10 customers most dramatically, as they can now reach their east-west destinations faster on light rail than by bus. However, ridership was lost on every BBB route at nearly every bus stop across the system, not just those directly impacted by the Expo light rail opening, indicating the presence of other forces at work. Staff efforts to better understand BBB’s changing ridership trends include an in-depth analysis using data compiled from customer satisfaction surveys, a non- rider survey of attitudes and opinions about transit, and public meetings.

Affordability of and access to driving in our region and state: Both automobiles and gasoline have become more affordable. Studies suggest that vehicle ownership rates may well be the “smoking gun” underlying transit’s precipitous decline in ridership. o From 2000 to 2015, 2.4 million people moved into the County. During that same period, 2.1 million new automobiles were registered in the County, an almost 1:1 ratio of automobiles to new residents. According to US Census data, access to a vehicle increased most dramatically among lower income households (which have traditionally been considered public transportation’s “captive” riders.) o In the entire SCAG region (Southern California Area Governments), the share of households without vehicles fell 30% between 2000 and 2015, while the share of households with less than one vehicle for each adult fell 14% as shown in the figure below from the report published in January 2018 by the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies for SCAG.

11 of 31

Figure 3 - Zero Vehicle Households Decreasing, Especially in Low-Income Households o Among foreign-born households, also traditionally transit users, percentage declines were larger; 42% decrease in the number of households without a vehicle, and 22% decrease in households with less than one vehicle, as shown in this figure from the same report.

Figure 4 - Zero-Vehicle Households Down among Recent Immigrants

12 of 31

o A recent BBB non-rider survey conducted in early 2018 on City and West Side residents who do not take public transportation comports to the data from the SCAG-UCLA Study that vehicle ownership was the number one reason that over 80% of the respondents no longer took public transportation.

Other external influences: Two other contributing factors affecting ridership trends in the region include the 2016 state legislation that provided driver’s licenses to an estimated 650,000 undocumented residents of LA County, who were most likely former transit riders; and gentrification of neighborhoods such as Central LA and the fringes of Downtown LA, causing losses of former transit commuters who had to relocate to more affordable housing well outside of the Los Angeles regional transit network and for whom driving or telecommuting became more viable options.

The rise of transportation network companies (TNCs) operating in our City and throughout the County offering affordable on-demand transportation alternatives and direct door-to-door service not only provides new mobility options for many of our former customers, but also presents a secondary issue of TNC’s conducting operations in BBB stops, hindering BBB’s ability to operate safely.

Deteriorated travel speeds: Traffic and congestion have had impacts on bus travel speed, which has slowed 4% in the last two years as traffic continues to worsen.

Regulatory cost of conducting business: While the past few years have been challenging for bus ridership and farebox revenue, operating costs for maintaining the current level of service have continued to increase due to higher wage rates and benefit costs, negotiated entitlements, and unfunded mandatory legislative actions at both the state and federal levels; e.g., National Transit Database (NTD), Safety Management Systems (SMS), Transit Asset Management (TAM), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the California Paid Sick Leave Law, and others.

13 of 31

Given the rising costs of operations, were BBB to continue to provide the current level of Revenue Vehicle Service Hours (RVSH) over the next two years, a potential budget deficit of approximately $11 million has been forecasted. This is not financially sustainable.

Where We’re Going: The Road to 2018

Framework The following sections - Governance, Service Design and Delivery, and Fleet Composition - each provide opportunities for framing BBB’s future. Each section is prefaced with a series of questions to help Council formulate feedback for discussion. Staff also asks that Council consider each section in the framework of the questions that were posed in the Executive Summary.

 Are we a leader? Do we continue to lead the industry and the County, understanding the inherent tradeoffs and risks?

 Are we a partner? Is this the appropriate time to expand our partnerships with the private sector or other organizations?

 Should we get out of the way? Is it time for an entirely new mobility model and framework and, if so, what is the transition period for getting there?

Governance Is the Santa Monica City Council the appropriate policy body to govern a sub-regional bus operation? What actions can be taken to evolve our municipal policies and codes, many of which were developed in the 20th century, to keep pace with and embrace the disruptive technologies of the 21st century, to keep our City on the path to greater sustainability, and to add value to the services we provide to our citizens and visitors, especially mobility? What regulatory enhancements can be provided to truly identify Santa Monica as a “Transit First” community?

14 of 31

The governing body of the BBB has been the City Council of the City of Santa Monica since its creation as Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines. While this relationship has been productive and rewarding for both parties, there may be reasons to re-examine that relationship now. Approximately 85% of BBB service is offered outside the City of Santa Monica in Los Angeles, Culver City, and in unincorporated sections of LA County. Santa Monica residents sometimes complain that the service is not locally focused and many erroneously assume that their City tax money underwrites BBB operations. While serving as the hub for a regional transit network provides advantages to Santa Monica residents accessing regional destinations and reduces traffic from incoming visitors and commuters, these advantages may be undervalued given expectations for local service.

Similarly, while BBB maintains cordial working relationships with our neighboring jurisdictions, our governing body does not contain representation or “champions” for those areas. As a result, constituents from those areas do not have an elected official to appeal to regarding BBB policy and actions, and BBB is sometimes challenged in obtaining cooperation to make needed changes or repairs to bus stops, street infrastructure, terminal availability, or bus routing. A transit board with representatives from all jurisdictions served might create a more effective and harmonious governance, and enhance BBB’s ability to confront current ridership trends.

In addition to the geographic and jurisdictional representation on a transit board, some transit systems have found value in assigning board members from constituent communities such as seniors, people with disabilities, or members of minority communities that are heavily represented in system ridership. An alternative local governance model might look more like the Airport Commission or Pier Board which supplements City Council oversight and enhances community participation in decision- making.

If sub-regional governance is not the answer, then what can be done to support BBB as a line department of the City that provides an invaluable service to not only citizens with their local and first-last mile mobility, but also moves more than 13.6 million people annually to their work, shopping, and entertainment options? BBB service is key to the

15 of 31

economic health and wellbeing of not only the individuals who ride our buses, but of the City itself. With this in mind, what actions could be taken to evolve our municipal policies and codes, many of which were developed in the 20th century, to keep pace with and embrace the disruptive transportation trends and technologies of the 21st century? What regulatory enhancements could be adopted to truly identify Santa Monica as a “Transit First” community? For example, can citywide parking rate strategies be evaluated and eventually adopted to mitigate single occupancy vehicle trips to downtown, and with adoption of higher rates, incentivize the community to use another mobility option when traveling within the City?

Staff has identified best practices for how other municipalities are addressing congestion mitigation strategies, understanding that more TNCs transporting one or two passengers at a time bring additional congestion, pollution, and municipal code violations. Could policy changes for opportunities that do not currently exist within the framework of the City be considered? For example, the implementation of a new user fee for TNCs similar to Chicago’s new tax on Uber and Lyft could offset revenue loss and to help fund transit improvements and operations within the City. Should the City consider identifying TNC stops at strategic downtown locations to address the current practice of TNCs illegally staging in BBB’s stops, or stopping in the traffic lane, which negatively impacts bus operations safety as well as lane throughput and congestion?

Another approach to alleviating congestion is to encourage people to leave their cars and take public transit by implementing congestion pricing, which has a number of different applications including toll lanes already in use across the U.S. and in Southern California; but in this case specifically refers to assessing a fee on any vehicle entering city limits during rush hours. This approach is being discussed as a congestion- mitigation strategy in New York City; and has already been successfully implemented in London, Milan, Gothenberg, and Stockholm. This model is under consideration by the Southern California Association of Governments. By charging peak hour prices for driving, significant funds could be freed up to support transit systems and transportation improvements that support transit, bike and pedestrian mobility options.

16 of 31

Finally, administrative policy presents a governance challenge. Many projects require rapid implementation in a quickly changing technology environment, which can be impeded by a traditional procurement process that can result in technology solutions that are approaching obsolescence by the time of implementation. If BBB is to continue to take a leading role in our industry, be agile, and experiment with mobility options, staff suggests that Council consider a review of City policies/practices for procurements of new technologies, allowing for more pilots or iterative implementations, as well as considering updates to civil service policies for hiring, training, and development of staff.

The Service We Offer How do we approach service design and what should our system look like in five years? Mobility options include all services currently offered by the City, and could include other service routes, more demand-response service open to the general public, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) expansion on “bus-only” lanes, and additional express service to the South Bay/Long Beach and Ventura County.

How might our new service model best be delivered? Should BBB continue to operate all service and maintain all equipment? Should some service be contracted out in order to lower costs? Should service be delivered through a combination of these models? Should we operate only on major corridors and allow the private sector to fill in the service gaps and/or rely on other mobility options like bike/pedestrian? How are consumer preferences changing and how can those changes inform our decision- making?

Finally, how could we, as a City, evolve our mobility landscape to improve our constituents’ and visitors’ physical, economic, and social wellbeing through a “Transit First” approach whereby access to public transportation for citizens and visitors is seen as the basis of improved community wellbeing? Citywide street enhancements, corridor design, travel speed, universal electronic payment systems, bus stop placement, and transit-oriented development including affordable housing adjacent or close to mobility hubs with last-mile solutions complementary to fixed route transit (such as bicycle, scooter, pedestrian wayfinding, demand-response, and others) would all be designed

17 of 31

with the transit customer in mind. For example, just as the recently opened LiNC bus- only lane is already increasing travel speed along that corridor for Route 3 and Rapid 3, additional bus-only lanes, Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and queue-jump to support more effective mass transit and other active mobility options could move more people to their destinations faster and more sustainably while at the same time improving operational efficiencies for Big Blue Bus. Best practices in other cities including Nashville, TN and Columbus, OH showing successful applications of this approach are described in Appendix B.

Staff has completed a great deal of work in service design and service delivery over the last five years, beginning with the Service, Design, Performance and Evaluation Guidelines adopted by Council in September of 2013. Service standards were adopted to ensure that service is provided equitably and fairly to all customer markets, understanding the resources available to do so. Using these standards, staff annually evaluates route performance and productivity to make informed recommendations and decisions on route and schedule changes.

Subsequent to that effort, staff embarked on a study of the impacts of rail expansion in the BBB service area. That study led to Evolution of Blue, recommendations on system modifications to interface with Expo to ensure first-last mile connectivity to the seven new stations in the BBB service area, as well as to preserve important market generators and existing high productivity bus corridors.

Shortly after the Council adopted the Evolution of Blue plan to restructure BBB service, the tremendous market changes described earlier in the section “Challenges and Marketplace” began to noticeably influence customer-riding behaviors. It became evident that additional factors beyond the changes adopted in Evolution of Blue were having dramatic impacts on the bus system. Ridership at all stops in the system declined nearly simultaneously, even on routes not impacted by the service changes. While it was clear that the rail system and ensuing bus route and schedule changes had removed some ridership, it also became clear that ridership was suffering for other reasons.

18 of 31

BBB ridership has stabilized in recent months as a result of a variety of ridership stabilization efforts taking place at BBB. However, this stabilization has been holding ridership steady at approximately 20% below levels seen just a few years ago. While the decrease in ridership is lamentable, BBB is in a far better position than most Southern California transit agencies that are still losing riders at a rate of 5% to 10% year over year (Figure 2 above). Put simply, this new stable level of ridership with BBB’s current level of service provided is not sustainable. The purpose of the following sections is to provide a menu of approaches that are economically viable and sustainable for the next five (5) years, and to allow BBB to continue to adopt and test new market initiatives and mobility approaches, as well as be nimble in the adaptation of technology advances and enhancements for improving the customer experience.

Service Design Options Service design refers to passenger facing elements such as routes, schedules, span of service, frequencies, travel speed, fares and numerous other aspects that all influence how, when and where people take transit, and what it costs to operate the service. BBB intends to pursue a number of customer facing initiatives to improve the experience of using BBB that are not addressed in this discussion because they do not hold the potential to offer significant relief from the budget impacts identified. Rather than offering a comprehensive list, the following options are more narrowly focused activities that can be considered in whole or in part to significantly raise revenue, or cut costs, and in some cases increase passenger demand.

A status quo approach to service design is not recommended as it is not economically sustainable and would result in an increasing operating deficit and could mean depletion of reserves by FY21-22. From a community wellbeing perspective, any delay in action on service design increases the size of the measures that will need to be taken and will limit our flexibility to implement creative solutions.

Regardless of how we proceed with service design, the ridership losses we have suffered require the re-examination of our productivity standards. Currently, 45% of all

19 of 31

weekday service and 38% of weekend service meets the minimum standards of productivity. Conversely, more than half of our service does not meet the standard. Productivity is defined as the number of passengers per hour that the service attracts. Unless we are prepared to pare half the BBB system, we are compelled to reset the minimum amount of riders that we find acceptable on our service.

Currently our productivity standards require 20 passengers per hour on local and commuter services (commuter service runs only in the peaks on weekdays) and 40 passenger per hour on Rapid and Express services in order for a route to be deemed sustainable. Staff is recommending adjusting that requirement to 12 passengers per hour on all services and then eliminating all services that do not meet that minimum. At 12 passengers per vehicle revenue hour, the average cost for providing a trip per passenger is $8.79. Even at the less restrictive standard of 12 passengers per hour, nearly a full 10% of today’s service would need to be eliminated in order for the system to meet the new standard.

With a new productivity standard in place, there are still choices to be made. Adherence to existing frequency standards, or adjustments to those same standards can be considered, and the decision as to whether to offer replacement service can also be considered. Furthermore, the suggested new standard of 12 passengers per hour may not be the correct threshold for a productivity standard. There is more than one path to reaching sustainability, and barring an unforeseen drastic increase in ridership, staff sees the need to explore these paths and to make choices. Following are two service design options for Council consideration and discussion:

Service Design 1 (SD1) – Establish a new productivity standard, retain current span of service standard, establish a new frequency standard, eliminate unproductive fixed route service, and provide demand response service: Under this model, services removed due to low productivity could be replaced with demand response service that provides similar service levels with lower cost per passenger. When service is removed and replaced by demand response, the customer would pay a base fare and BBB would provide a fixed

20 of 31

contribution. Customers who incur costs above the base fare and BBB contribution would pay any additional balance. As an example, because this type of demand response service would be defined as a “premium” service, a higher fare would be charged ($1.75 to $2.50). In combination with a lower operating cost, and a fixed limit to the BBB contribution to the ride, the cost per passenger trip could be held to less than $7.

There are no proposed changes to Span of Service standards under this option. Those standards currently call for corridor service starting at 5am to 6am with a shut down time of midnight on weekdays, and a one hour later start time on weekends. Local service has the same start time as corridor service on all days and a shut down time of 9pm on all days.

This service design option also suggests the adjustment of minimum frequency standards that recognize the changing preferences of consumers. The current standards are every 30 minutes minimum for local service and every 15 minutes for Rapid and Express service during all days of the week. A new standard proposed under this option would be every 20 minutes on weekdays and every 30 minutes on weekends on all services.

Regarding frequency of service, many corridors would have higher service levels than the minimums in order to meet the current ridership demand (Santa Monica Blvd. every 10 minutes on weekdays, Pico Blvd. every 15 minutes on weekdays, etc.), but the minimums would be rigorously enforced and communicated to the public as part of the BBB brand.

At all times, the service would be required to obtain a minimum average of 12 passengers per hour productivity, or face elimination. At those times when the route is not running due to low productivity, passengers would be able to obtain a demand response shared ride that would pick them up and drop them off along the route corridor subject to the start and end times of the service day offered by the Span of Service standards which remain unchanged.

21 of 31

The advantage of this option is that it offers a low per passenger cost of service during low productivity times, while retaining the basic route structure and potential for route ridership growth. When and if the demand response ridership grows sufficiently to exceed the 12 passengers per hour threshold, the fixed route service could be reinstated during that hour, and the demand response service pared back. In this way, the route becomes a flexible service corridor able to offer as much or as little service is demanded by the public. In this way, costs are controlled, and passengers are provided service that does not suffer in frequency or convenience as a result of low demand.

The exception to this reinvestment approach is the Rapid 10, the Downtown Los Angeles Express that does not reach 12 passengers per vehicle revenue hour for any period long enough to offer even a limited service day, and would be proposed for elimination under this plan. However, the long route length does not make this service a candidate for alternative, reasonably priced demand response service.

The table below shows what the weekday service might look like under this scenario. Blue areas would identify fixed route service at a 20 minute or better frequency, and pink areas would be subsidized demand response service along those routes. In a preliminary analysis at the above level of frequency and productivity standards, staff estimates savings of approximately $5.8 million could be realized after service reductions and reinvestment to meet minimum frequency standards. $1.2 million of those savings would be re-invested in the new demand response mobility opportunities providing over 170,000 annual trips. The resultant savings would be utilized to rebuild reserves and used to leverage federal and state capital and planning funding.

22 of 31

Figure 5 - Weekday Service Modifications under the Service Design 1 (SD1) Model

The last element of this service design approach would be a phased approach to raising fares over a three- to five-year period in order to sustain a 20% farebox recovery ratio. The service model would include premium pricing in order to achieve Council adopted farebox recovery policies.

Service Design 2 (SD2) - Establish a new productivity standard, retain current span of service standard, establish a new frequency standard, eliminate unproductive fixed route service, but limit reinvestment of savings in a demand response service during hours when productivity standards are not met. This approach provides core fixed route service on productive lines and eliminates unproductive service with limited reinvestment. This model is similar to those that Houston Metro and Seattle recently undertook to pare unproductive service and focus on core productive service to improve frequency and span of service. The difference between this option and the first

23 of 31

option would be the limit of reinvestment in demand response service where fixed route service was eliminated.

Staff conducted a small-scale version of this in FY2013-14 after the Council adopted the Planning Standards. Underperforming service was eliminated or reduced; and, in that case, the service hours were reinvested in core routes such as Route 1, Route 2, Route 3, Route 7, and Rapid 3 and 7.

Under this scenario, several compromise alternatives could be considered:

1. No replacement service for routes or route segments that are eliminated; in a preliminary analysis staff has estimated that, with no reinvestment, savings of approximately $5.8 million could be realized under this option. Savings would be utilized to rebuild reserves that would be used to match federal and state capital and planning funding.

2. Limited replacement service for routes or route segments. This approach invests some of the savings into limited demand response zones. Staff could evaluate options that do not necessarily reproduce the fixed route alignment with a demand response alignment, but instead look at demand response zones that transport riders the last mile to the transit network in whichever way is most expedient and efficient.

The disadvantages of this option are twofold. One, the lack of demand response service in some areas may further erode fixed route ridership during productive hours; two, where last mile demand response zones are offered, if they do not reproduce the route corridor, they may complicate the option to restore fixed route service if and when demand response ridership increases. However, the implication of further savings beyond those offered in SD1 cannot be ignored as the balance of the fixed route elimination savings would be recognized as overall savings, which would

24 of 31

be utilized to rebuild reserves that would be used to match federal and state capital and planning funding.

3. No replacement service for routes or route segments combined with investment in new markets to be piloted over an 18-month period and implemented if successful. Suggested new markets might include:

a. A BRT or express bus network that would provide service to the South Bay, Long Beach, Malibu, and Oxnard.

In a preliminary analysis, staff has estimated that the annual savings of approximately $5.8 million in service cuts would require a reinvestment of approximately $1.5 million to create a Santa Monica to South Bay Express or a Santa Monica to Oxnard Express, or approximately $3 million annually to implement both depending on service levels.

b. Development of a water ferry service that would operate two routes, one from Santa Monica or Marina del Rey to Malibu, then to Oxnard, and a southern route that would operate from Santa Monica or Marina del Rey to the South Bay, then to Long Beach and the Orange County line.

BBB has not developed a pricing model for ferry implementation.

Implementation of service into any of these new markets would likely require limiting service expansion to a selection of only one or two key services in order to realize projected savings, with a preliminary estimate selecting a single new market for reinvestment would generate a net savings of approximately $3 million. These savings would be utilized to rebuild reserves that would be used to match federal and state capital funding.

25 of 31

Service Design 3 (SD3) - Limit service outside of Santa Monica: This option considers the possibility of transforming BBB from a sub-regional provider to a local provider of transit. With 85% of current service outside of Santa Monica, this option would vastly shrink the size of BBB. This proposal would involve abandoning most service outside of Santa Monica and offering the abandoned routes to neighboring agencies such as Metro, Culver City Bus or LADOT to absorb. These agencies could not be forced under current regulations to absorb those routes, nor could they be forced to continue to run them if they deemed them unproductive after initial adoption. Additionally, even if they did adopt the routes, control of fares and levels of service would shift to other agencies.

Limited City service would continue to be operated, and could be supported with Measure M and R Local Return, and Prop A Local Return. However, the total funding from these measures and Prop A amounts to approximately $3 million annually. Additionally, formula Measure R and M funding of over $16 million would be reallocated to other service providers in the County.

In the past, the City dedicated Local Prop A funding to provide the Tide and Ride shuttles. Those services were deemed unproductive. A partnership with Santa Monica Travel and Tourism and hotels could provide matching funds that would enhance core service routes to connect popular destinations downtown and fringe destinations like Montana Avenue or SMC from the downtown core.

It should be noted here that many of BBB’s most productive services cross the city line and have more than half of their service miles outside Santa Monica, including routes 7 and Rapid 7 on Pico Blvd, Routes 3 and Rapid 3 on Lincoln Blvd, and route 1 on Main Street and Santa Monica Blvds. Those high productivity corridors correspond to lower costs per passenger and all of those routes consistently fall below the mean cost per passenger ($5.10 in FY2017) of the BBB system.

26 of 31

Conversely, some of the Santa Monica based services consistently have lower productivity and the consequence of a higher costs per passenger including Routes 18, 41, 42, and 43, which all fell above the mean cost per passenger for FY2017. It is a likely outcome that a local-only service model would suffer lower productivity overall and higher costs per passenger than the current sub-regional model.

Due to the high level of unknowns, staff has not estimated the financial impact of this approach; however, implementation of this approach would greatly diminish BBB’s funding opportunities.

Service Delivery Options Service delivery refers to the types of vehicles that are used, the agency that is running the vehicles, the pay and benefits programs offered to bus operators, maintenance and support staff, and other factors divorced from issues such as routes, schedules and fares. While there is always some crossover between service delivery and service design, the next section focuses on considerations of service delivery.

Considering the market factors and internal challenges we face today, the following service delivery options are being considered by staff. When considering these, the range of options can include subcontracting the entire organization, to subcontracting different business functions as described below.

Subcontracted Operations: Understanding that the Council recently read the BBB Staff Information Item on the FY2016-17 BBB Performance Report, the current model of delivering fixed route service cannot continue to be sustained financially. Several routes have fallen below the Council adopted performance standards for consecutive quarters. In order to address delivering the current level of service efficiently, staff considered subcontracting some or all of the operation of the BBB system to a private contractor. This is a common approach to cost savings and one employed by LA Metro, Foothill Transit, as well as numerous other transit districts regionally.

27 of 31

Subcontracted costs are generally 10-25% lower due to lower wage and benefit rates. Single functions or multiple business functions can be subcontracted including Motor Coach Operations, Mechanical Support, Motor Coach Cleaning and other functions. The implementation of subcontracting routes, geographic portions of the service area, or an entire turn-key operation are options that are industry best practice, depending upon the goals that have been established by the organization. The advantage of this option is the ability to retain higher levels of service and low passenger impacts, while still reducing costs.

An example of a total turn-key privately contracted service delivery model is found locally at Foothill Transit, where all service and maintenance of the fleet are provided by an outside vendor. Foothill Transit has two (2) contractors established through geographic model where one contractor provides service to some communities from one garage, and a second operates service in a different area from a second facility. Foothill Transit administrative staff are all employees of the District and report to a district-wide board of directors. Administrative staff are maintained as District employees to administer contractual agreements, monitor performance, and sustain grant development/management. All liability and any relevant employee agreements would be assumed by the contractor.

In a preliminary analysis, staff has estimated that entering into an agreement with a private sector company that is suited for this work could generate annual savings of approximately $8-20 million annually depending on wage rates, employee benefits, and other similar factors.

Offer Select Routes to Neighboring Transit Partners: This model would shrink BBB service in size through turning over routes to Metro, Culver CityBus, LADOT, or other transportation providers in the region. The actual process that would take place is the abandonment of a route by BBB and the implementation of service by another agency at the same time, often by agreement.

28 of 31

This process is not without risks, as transit providers are under no obligation to accept the invitation to implement new service, or if they do accept to undertake it initially, to continue the routes as designed, or to run the routes at all, if they deem them unproductive after a trial period (usually two years). The recent closure of the Venice Metro base of operations on Main Street leaves West Hollywood as the closest Metro garage to Santa Monica, and distance from service is a key consideration when looking at adoption of new routes.

As stated above, the inherent risk to this model is that the new provider is under no obligation to continue to operate the service, and if it determined that it was prudent to abandon this service, the City could potentially lose its sub-regional connection to the County bus, rail, and other mobility options if this happened. Council would likely face decisions regarding service abandonment in terms of the sub-regional corridors that form the basis of BBB service.

Moving to More Demand Response Services Where Ridership is Low: This model begins to blur the line between service delivery and service design because it entails elements of both. The premise here is that where ridership falls below a certain determined level, fixed route service would be eliminated and demand response service implemented along the corridor. This is presented as a separate option to the concept offered in SD1 and SD2, because there are myriad possibilities in this type of service replacement that are not considered in either SD1 or SD2. Higher fixed route productivity standards could be considered, which would drive more fixed route service elimination and more replacement with demand response. Route productivity standards could be differentiated based on route length, providing the opportunity for different levels of demand response subsidy depending on distance travelled, and many other options for varying fares and subsidies could be considered.

The sophistication of the demand response technology available implies that this option could introduce significant levels of nuance that BBB could use to drive consumer behavior. Recent innovations in on-demand transportation have

29 of 31

resulted in easier access to shared fleets and sophisticated calling, scheduling, dispatching, and couponing of rides being available at a low cost through TNC’s. The advantage to this option is the ability to provide the same or similar customer experience (wait time, cost, travel time) at a lower cost per passenger. Service would be provided during the same hours as fixed route, and would be available within the corridor at stops or major intersections.

Fleet Composition BBB has been an industry leader in sustainability. It was one of the first agencies to adopt an alternative fuel path and is currently operating a fleet of 200 buses using Renewable Natural Gas (RNG). In 2017, BBB was the first agency in the country to adopt the Near-Zero emission engine produced by Cummins for all new bus procurements as well as for repowering of buses at mid-life. As of the end of 2017, BBB has 25 new buses and 15 repowered buses with the Near-Zero Engine, the most in the entire country. By the end of 2019, BBB will have 120 vehicles with the Near-Zero engines, reducing our current NOx by 91.5%.

Understanding that BBB’s service delivery model will change, what will the fleet of the future look like? How should we convert the fleet to Zero Emissions and Autonomous- Connected Vehicles, and what is the cost to build the necessary infrastructure? What are all of the relevant cost implications to do so, and what is the appropriate timeline? Staff will provide a detailed analysis of these technologies and options to Council at a future study session that is scheduled for later this spring.

Financial Impacts and Budget Action There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of study session discussion. However, the financial concerns raised will require decisions to address the structural deficit. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

30 of 31

Prepared By: Edward King, Director Approved Forwarded to Council

Attachments:

A. Adoption of Big Blue Bus Service Design, Performance & Evaluation Guidelines B. Attachment A - Technology Roadmap and C-AV Demonstration Program-2 C. Attachment B - Transit First Case Studies D. Written Communications E. Powerpoint Presentation

31 of 31 Appendix A

BBB’s Technology Roadmap and Connected and Autonomous (C/AV) Vehicle Demonstration Program

As described in the section, Where We’ve Been: the First 90 Years, BBB has led the industry with transit technology by providing customer-friendly fare payment options through TAP, and was the second system in the County to also offer fare payment through a mobile ticketing app. Other technology applications in use today include: real-time schedule information via a mobile app and at 34 bus stops in Santa Monica; customer and staff safety and security features through BBB’s CAD/AVL Radio System; onboard video surveillance systems; and proximity sensors and cameras installed on buses that alert operators to nearby pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in time to prevent collisions.

With the advent of new technologies that can provide tremendous time and cost savings in the provision of mobility options and service, BBB needs to reevaluate its software and systems. BBB staff are currently in the late stages of a procurement process for a consultant to perform a system-by-system needs assessment of BBB’s technology infrastructure. Recommendations will be prioritized based on cost/benefit analyses and other criteria, including relevance in the changing transit marketplace, ease of implementation, and implementation timeline.

This comprehensive technology analysis is expected to begin in Spring 2018, and one area of technology BBB will need the consultant to assess is connected and autonomous vehicles (C/AVs). Some industry observers consider C/AVs to be a “when, not if,” and in order for BBB to remain a leader in the industry, with deployments of emerging technologies, it will need to examine this new technology closely. As part of the technology analysis, the consultant will consider a feasibility study on undertaking a proof of concept partnership with one of the electric autonomous vehicle manufacturers in 2019.

Connected and autonomous vehicle technology is rapidly evolving, and some cities already have pilot programs underway. For example, Waymo is providing service to Phoenix-Scottsdale consumers with its early riders program, which allows individuals and families the opportunity to test out Waymo’s self-driving cars. Currently, Waymo has 600 self-driving Chrysler Pacifica minivans on the road. Since its inception, Waymo has accumulated 4 million miles of autonomous driving; tested its vehicles in cities including Phoenix, Mountain View, and Austin; and developed four generations of self-driving vehicles.

Las Vegas has also launched an autonomous technology pilot, having debuted a free public driverless shuttle service in November 2017. The shuttle carries up to eight passengers along a short loop in downtown Las Vegas. It is equipped with vehicle-to- infrastructure (V2I) and other technology that allows it to communicate with sensors in Las Vegas’s traffic signals and better manage the flow of traffic.

Other start-ups are operating proof of concept projects in other jurisdictions including Phoenix, Arizona; and Jacksonville and Orlando, Florida, with more jurisdictions following close behind.

Another autonomous vehicle brand, Local Motors, produces an electric-powered 8- passenger vehicle model, Olli, which has been field tested in Knoxville, TN. Olli is a smart vehicle powered by IBM Watson Technology. Customers can register, book, ride, and pay for a trip on Olli via a mobile app, and the cognitive software plans the best trip for each booking. Olli’s activity and passengers’ safety is monitored remotely by a human controller, and LIDAR technology affords a 360-degree view of Olli’s surroundings at all times. The City of Knoxville plans to launch a shuttle service using Olli vehicles in the near future.

Figure 1 – Olli Olli and Waymo vehicles are available for purchase, and other autonomous transit vehicles, including one produced by the Ford Motor Company, are in the testing stages. Major automobile manufacturers as well as startups predict that this technology will be widely available for purchase in as early as 2020.

Appendix B The “Transit First” Approach to Improving Wellbeing through Active Mobility – Two Case Studies

Some transit systems’ governing bodies (including Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and Nashville) are embracing a “Transit First” governance policy whereby all municipal and district governing decisions evaluate mobility and access to public transportation for citizens and visitors as key to community wellbeing. Corridor design, bus stop placement, travel speed, Traffic Signal Priority (TSP), and other mobility decisions all take into consideration the existing transit route structure to ensure that those systems are stewards of good mobility management. Case Study #1: Nashville, TN and the Let’s Move Nashville Program On December 11, 2017, the City of Nashville published its Let’s Move Nashville Transit Improvement Program. The City of Nashville has seen rapid growth in recent years, which it expects to continue, with a million more residents anticipated to flood the city by 2040 (a population increase of about 24 percent). Such rapid growth has brought challenges to the region:

“Regional traffic congestion is already a critical concern along several commute corridors. Without a comprehensive range of future travel options, the inability to move people and goods will impede quality of life, economic growth and regional competitiveness. Roadway improvements and capacity expansions will be part of the solutions to relieve traffic congestion. However, the region will be unable to solve congestion through roadway projects alone. Travel and mobility challenges also need to be addressed through a robust transit system that embraces paradigm-shifting technology.... Transit will be the catalyst for creating a more livable Nashville by encouraging equitable access, affordable housing, jobs, mobility, quality of life, and safety, all within the City’s framework of smart growth initiatives and policies.”

With Let’s Move Nashville, the City of Nashville is taking a Transit First approach to solving the challenges it faces. Its transit improvement program includes:

 Service enhancements to their fixed route bus, such as increasing frequency to 15 minutes or better during peak times on the busiest routes  Longer hours of service  Enhanced off-peak frequency  Shoring up their demand response services, including paratransit, by increasing access to the services, deploying real-time information and other technology, and adding first-last mile integrated connections.

The plan also includes developing 19 new neighborhood transit centers equipped with bike-share, digital wayfinding, real-time information, and improved pedestrian connections, all served by two or more bus routes at each hub.

The City of Nashville’s program of transit-oriented mobility projects is scheduled for completion by 2032 with the goal of providing bus, rapid bus, or light rail service within one-half mile of 76 percent of all residents in the county and to 89 percent of all jobs in the county by 2040. Even greater coverage will occur with enhancements to their demand-response services.

The City of Nashville believes this program will reap many benefits, including:

 Providing access for citizens and visitors  Facilitating access to affordable housing  Creating and sustaining jobs  Enhancing mobility by connecting employees with employers, neighbors with neighborhoods, families with amenities, and tourists with attractions  Preserving the quality of life  Integrating safety into the program for patrons of the transit services, the communities through which they travel, and system employees

Information and images from Let's Move Nashville Transit Improvement Program; read the full document here. Case Study #2: Columbus, OH, Smart City Challenge Winner Smart City Challenge winner Columbus, Ohio, understood that focusing on improving transit was key to improving conditions for their most vulnerable residents. With the vision of being a community that provides “beauty, prosperity, and help for all of its citizens,” Columbus proposed to address their challenges with five interrelated strategies centered on improving their transportation network. All five strategies (access to jobs, smart logistics, connected visitors, connected citizens, and sustainable transportation) focus on transportation infrastructure and technology, with four of them specifically geared toward the public transportation system.

The highlights of Columbus’ strategies for a Smart City are:

Columbus’ vision is to improve the wellbeing of its residents and welcome its visitors by supporting transit initiatives that improve access to jobs and other destinations in the city with smart and sustainable technologies.

Information and images from Columbus Smart City Application; read the full document here.

Item 4-A 02/27/18

Vernice Hankins

From: Terri de la pena Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 5:50 PM To: councilmtgitems Subject: Future of BBB and Mobility

I am a 71‐year‐old Santa Monica native and UCLA retiree. For the 31 years I worked on the UCLA campus, I took the #1 Santa Monica Blvd Big Blue Bus every morning and evening. I had a car but preferred to take the bus due to the heavy traffic Believe me, riding the bus daily saved me a lot of stress especially after a long day in the office.

No longer do I own a car and the BBB is my main mode of transportation for shopping, doctors’ appointments and entertainment. Once in a while I take the Expo Line to downtown Los Angeles but the BBB is much more convenient since I live half a block from a #10 bus stop and further away from Bergamot Station. Recently I was on jury duty in the Criminal Courts building downtown and rode the #10 each day. I always arrived there promptly. Frankly, I wish the #10 still ran on weekends!

The BBB is one of the reasons why I have remained in my hometown, allowing me to age in place and travel conveniently through the area. Not only seniors and students ride the BBB but also tourists and working people. I live near two hotels and have noticed that many tourists use the BBB to get to downtown Santa Monica.

The BBB is one of our civic treasures and I sincerely hope the city will continue to fund and expand it. It has a wonderful reputation and the drivers are always friendly and helpful, especially for those who need assistance with wheelchairs.

Please keep the BBB running! Thank you,

Mary T. de la Pena 1342 Stanford Street #8 Santa Monica, CA 90404 (310) 453‐6821

Sent from my iPad

1 1 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

Vernice Hankins

From: darwyn1616 Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 7:31 PM To: councilmtgitems Subject: Future of BBB and Mobility

The Blue bus is always, the best in there Bus Services. I'm am a mobility imprisonment. And I send all updated Blessings for the People's that really need bigger and better areas on the City Bus Lines.

Sent from my Boost Mobile Phone.

1 2 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

Vernice Hankins

From: darwyn1616 Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 7:31 PM To: councilmtgitems Subject: Future of BBB and Mobility

The Blue bus is always, the best in there Bus Services. I'm am a mobility imprisonment. And I send all updated Blessings for the People's that really need bigger and better areas on the City Bus Lines.

Sent from my Boost Mobile Phone.

1 3 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

Vernice Hankins

From: Linda Androila Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 8:21 PM To: councilmtgitems Subject: Future of BBB and Mobility

Comment Stores such as Vons and Bristol Farms do not encourage walking or bus. Their entrances are from the back parking lot and not on the street

Sent from my iPhone

1 4 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

Vernice Hankins

From: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 4:04 PM To: councilmtgitems Subject: Future of BBB and Mobility

BBB changed most of its routes two years ago when the train came and they wanted to get the students from 17th St. station to SMC. In so doing they ignored the needs of the local users. BBB stopped going on Ocean Ave., so getting to the beach is now at least FOUR very long blocks from 4th to Ocean R/T. So for anyone in a wheelchair, with kids, bags, are old, whatever, it is no longer possible. I am in a wheelchair, there is not enough juice to add those extra long blocks. In fact, I have had to have my garden spot changed from Main St. to Euclid specifically because of these BBB changes. I never get to the beach anymore or am able to get to Ocean Ave. No more stop at the corner of Main and Pico. No more 41/44 going all the way around to Ocean Ave. No more stop on Broadway, so from library on #7 have to go back to fourth - 3 long blocks. We locals protested and protested these changes, to no avail. XXXXXXXX Mobility Traffic patterns have to change. Certain intersections need a no right turn on red. I cannot tell you how many times I have nearly been hit by right turners, ignoring the white WALK light. Left turners ignore the walkers crossing from the left. We need a signal at the lights at the intersection that flashes pedestrian crossing for an actual live pedestrian that is crossing - don't we have the technology for that? Like for the train? A yellow train icon flashes when the train is passing. I need a crossing light to go on via sensors - sometimes I cannot get to the walk button (steep, uneven,blocked by signs, etc.) and it is not safe to cross without the white walk light. Maybe at the most dangerous intersections sensors could be installed to trigger the Wallk light? Sincerely, Kathryn Kosmeya-Dodge

1 5 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

February 25, 2018 Santa Monica City Council Re: 4.A. The Future of Big Blue Bus

Dear Council,

I’m writing you to offer my input on the future of the Big Blue Bus. I’m a resident of Santa Monica and a big supporter of the bus system. I want to see BBB succeed, but a history of bad land-use policy and poor infrastructure investment is the culprit for the BBB’s challenges today. Below, in no particular order, are my suggestions to improve the BBB system and promote a transit first mentality for the City. Although many of my recommendations below are likely outside the scope of your study session, I do hope that you take them into consideration on future policy decisions or infrastructure investment.

Recommendations to support and improve BBB:

• Allocate resources to fixed bus routes along high demand corridors / boulevards. Although reducing service is difficult, focus should be placed on high productivity routes while supplementing low productivity routes with on-demand services or other options. This design decision is considered in Staff’s SD1 or SD2 proposals. • Adopt housing policy that encourages residential development along our main boulevards / transit corridors. Transit oriented development will help promote public transit adoption and support the longevity of the bus system. Please consider this when council re-visits zoning along our commercial boulevards. • Restrict or limit parking requirements for new development along transit corridors. Consider eliminating parking minimums (similar to the DCP) and limit or exclude parking permits for new developments. This is another consideration for when council re-visits zoning along our commercial boulevards, • Expand Bus Only Lanes. Public transit is less attractive because it’s slow and unreliable, mainly because the bus has to share the road with single occupancy vehicles. Priority should be given to high occupancy vehicles; otherwise we’ll continue to encourage auto-dependence. • Consider Bus/Taxi Only Lanes. As an expansion to bus only lanes, allow taxis or on-demand ride services (Lyft and Uber) to use bus only lanes. These services should be charged a tax or road fee, which can be fed back into the BBB transit system. • Encourage new development to offer bus passes. • Maximize BBB owned property. The City should consider ground leasing additional BBB owned property (if it exists) such as is proposed for the Bergamot station area. This revenue can be reinvested into BBB.

6 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

• Be Bold and Be Innovative. Partner with the private sector to experiment with new technologies and creative ideas.

There are many more opportunities for improvement, but I tried to keep it brief and limited given the demand for your time. Thank you and I appreciate the time you took to read this.

Sincerely,

Jan-Michael Medina

7 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

8 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

MEMO to Mr. Cole Residents Working Group 2016 02 02

I. BBB

• Safety & Accountability Why is there no accountability or safety back-up during the hours that the buses run.. For riders, there is no one to call with authority to answer questions, solve problems and handle safety concerns when they arise because customer service representatives, who have a limited informational and palliative function, work from Monday to Friday, 7:30am to 5:30pm and Saturday, 12-6, do not have authority to solve problems. For drivers, it has been our observation that dispatchers dispense policy as they see fit, which suggests power without capacity and entrenchment, as well as a policy vacuum.

• Routes & Planning Why do the route changes seem unsystematic, poorly researched and seemingly arbitrary? We would be happy to work up an extensive, route-by-route analysis which that illustrates questions about who the routes and BBB is trying to serve – or ignore. By way of example, here are a few questions.

o Why haven’t residents and drivers been consulted in a systematic way regarding route needs and changes? Drivers regularly talk about the physical difficulty of negotiating the new routes because of hairpin turns and street narrowness.

o Why are BBB options for residents to get home (north, northeast and south) from downtown after 9pm few, far between (#2, #3, #8, #9, all nil after 10pm, every 25-30 min 7-10 ) or absent (#3m)

o Why is it so difficult and time-consuming to make bus line connections?

o Why are inter-line BBB transfers no longer issued?

o Why, as one example of a myriad of odd changes, was the #9 bus route moved from Seventh to Fourth Street, removing it further from access to residents who used it regularly along a route that has existed for over six decades?

• Right of way Why are buses not given priority lanes and why, in fact, have major arterties like 4th St, been narrowed? (Bus drivers say that their side-view mirrors touch in passing.)

9 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

• Route changes Why hasn’t the question of routes and safety been studied, researched and based on needs that are articulated publicly, not simply speculation about a train whose riders are not yet known.

• Traffic enforcement to protect buses Why has there been no enforcement (that we have seen) of bicycles and cars cutting off buses, jutting into traffic, turning left and right in front of buses, forcing fast stops, etc.?

• Public Good or Private Interest? Subsidization or profit? Why have we had a 25% increase in fares which regressively taxes the most vulnerable populations who regularly ride and RELY UPON the bus for their livelihoods?

• Work force or union-busting? Why have so many new drivers been hired, seemingly without the background, experience and training as drivers with more seniority or new drivers in the past?

• Personnel, Route stability and Community Why aren’t drivers kept on the same routes, so that they are familiar with the routes and the passengers, as had been the practice of past decades, and as builds community?

• Efficiency? What is the rationale for “DEADHEADS,” that is, buses that are put out of service at mid-point of route, so that they return EMPTY en route to yard or other destinations? This is evidenced wholesale, for example, during peak hours (5:30pm-7pm) at the UCLS Hilgard terminal, where daily during that period, 3-6 buses return from the terminal “out of service?” This suggests not only inefficiency but also incompetence.

* * * * *

OTHER CONCERNS

1. Study and research or strictly political foundations of Policy and City Decision Making? This refers to the absence of and need for systematic investigation and objective assessments based on qualified, scientific research and adequate data, such as impact reports of various sorts, e.g., economic, demographic, sociological, for example, as well as environmental, safety and circulation studies and projections.

In their stead, hasty, opportunistic, paternalistic crude, short-sighted and counter-productive measures have been legislated or pushed through, which defy common sense, much less needs, which in turn, compound problems and polarized the public along many lines of division,

10 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

including the principle one between the city and residents who have lived in or migrated to the city for peace, quiet, anonymity, space, etc.) .

Examples abound, such as, timing traffic lights so that observance of speed laws will cause stops at every light, e.g., OP blvd from Bundy to Main; lack of enforcement of traffic violations by cars, bicycles and pedestrians; lack of control of bands of white male millennials, who regularly roam the downtown area on weekend and holiday evenings, often intoxicated or high, indulging in rowdy, disruptive and often dangerous or threatening conduct, continued doctoring and support of failing, dated business models for SM downtown, etc.

2. Local Coastal Plan In view of the city track record which has left in its wake, social degradation, alienation and polarization; geographical division and a circulation catastrophe city government has wreaked in their over-zealous response to opportunistic development initiatives, failed business models, and given the aforementioned lack of study and research, it would seem reckless and foolhardy to place in the hands of this city, the formation of guidelines for ANY CHANGES WHATSOEVER to our coastline, the most miniscule of which could have long-term ecological, demographic and other social implications for generations to come.

Most alarming in this regard was the initial discussion on a proposed LCP by the Planning Commission. We were stunned by the cavalier attitude of the commissioners and the self- important manner with which the members discussed the prospect, never mentioned explicitly, of developing the coastline, not to mention their utter disregard for any need for scientific and social scientific study and research, historical comparisons, projections or hard data. Were the matter not so serious, their pomposity and posturing would beg for satire. Their trumped-up (no pun intended) grandiosity is exceeded only by their brutish ignorance.

3. Bicycle safety – why the accident record and the aggressive, often illegal conduct of bicyclists have been excised from the “transportation” debate and placed into the untouchable realms of “forward-thinking” and “environmental sagacity”. Given the well-documented dangers of walking, driving and bicycle riding in this city as recorded by the State of California and amplified by the real numbers of incidents that are daily reflected in the SM police blotter, it is not clear why (1) anyone would recommend getting on a bicycle, much less permit a child or loved one to do so, and (2) why there are no helmet laws and provisions (as there have been in previous times in this city) for enforcement of them.

11 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

Line #18 BBB: History as Example Ongoing Problems Recommendations

HISTORY Line 18 was the originally Line 3, the longest route in the BBB system, going from UCLA to the Green Line Station in Culver City by way of LAX. A few years ago, that line was divided into the 18 and the 3, first at SM Blvd and 4th St., purportedly because it was “too long.”

Subsequent to a reported 12,000+ complaints, many from parents whose children then had to walk an inconvenient distance to SM High School and others who were used to connecting at or continuing past Pico Blvd south, the Route 18 was continued south in several different experiments and different schedule changes to the present incarnation, which took the line off the main artery of Lincoln and instead, to the consternation of residents objecting to noise and pollution, along the residential corridor of 4th St. south of Pico to Rose Avenue through the residential corridor of Oakwood in Venice, to Marquesas in Marina del Rey. The buses were also reduced in size, some said, to be able to travel and make the turns in residential neighborhoods, others said it was to economize, which meant overcrowding in the few busy times and passenger discomfort at all other times because the seats all face each other across the aisle and there is little or no cross-wise seating.

According to Line 18 bus drivers and our observations, the line is busy in the early morning from SM Blvd to UCLA and in the afternoon from SM High School to various stops on Montana and is otherwise almost empty at all other hours.

It has also been said that the Culver City line #6, which goes from UCLA down Sepulveda to the Green Line Station via LAX has taken business from BBB which used to offer the same service via Lincoln. (It should be noted here that UCLA students and staff, with visitors, approximately 70,000, who have for decades depended on direct transportation from LAX to UCLA.)

But these are not the least of the problems. Currently the #18, if one wishes to continue south along Lincoln, whether to Pico, to Rose or to LAX, stops at 5th and Colorado. Not only does this NOT connect with the #3 or any other NS line, but it forces passengers to walk a block, often not pleasant because of proximity to train and need to cross busy thoroughfare at 4th and Colorado, to connect with the #3 or any other NS line.

Further, it has encouraged passengers getting off the train to jaywalk and run across Colorado in order to catch the #18 at 5th street, because it generally runs every 30 minutes.

12 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

In addition, if one wants to go to the city offices near the Doubletree on the Line #18, it will leave passenger right across the street going south. However, if that same passenger wants to return on the same line – or ANY OTHER NORTH / SOUTH LINE THAT PASSES THE CITY OFFICES ON 4TH ST, e.g., the # 1, 3, 7, 9, must EITHER WALK ACROSS THE FREEWAY, THEN ACROSS THE TRAIN STATION AND ACROSS COLORADO in order to get a NS line or walk the long block south to Pico, past the high school, This made the return impossible for seniors and disabled, and perilous or extremely inconvenient for the rest.

The exception to this was Line #2, for which that stop was made into a layover. At least, this has been the case until 19 Feb 2018, when the newest 6-month schedule (of at least half-dozen such “6-month schedules,” printed at public expense) was published, and returned that layover to Main Street.

Moreover, the absence of a stop at the Doubletree at night means that passengers coming from the airport or anywhere along Lincoln south of SM who need to go north of Arizona (where the #3 ends) have NO SAFE PLACE to get off the bus, either to change buses or call taxi.

Almost each change that has been made to the former line #3, now the #18, is paradigmatic of the counter-productivity of changes that have been made, up to details such as the left-turn patterns, sharp turns in small spaces, use of small, uncomfortable buses. .

ONGOING PROBLEMS 1. Schedule changes a. Changes NOT supported by evidence-based study of demand, need, ridership, history b. Model of change resembles “beta-testing,” a method used in private business to test demand, in lieu of systematic study based on expert analysis of hard data and evidence, more suitable for public goods and the public purse. c. Schedule changes are misleading and confusing to riders because of i. Constant miniscule changes of time points ii. Changes of routes from large arteries to residential streets which do not serve needs of most riders iii. Instability of time schedules and routes d. Too many, too frequent changes (every six months, complete with hard copy schedule books at taxpayers’ expense, for at least the last 2+ years) e. Unannounced changes between published books (6-month intervals) leading to public bewilderment, not knowing where to catch/ wait for buses, or when to expect bus, new routes. In general, this had led to inability of public to depend on BBB service.

13 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

2. Connections a. Buses and bus lines that do not connect geographically or chronologically, which cause passengers to walk in order to connect with another bus line, often with long waits and often at their peril, This had made traveling by bus onerous if not impossible for the elderly, disabled or people with children and packages.

3. Inefficiency: Deadheads (defined as buses which come from the field, empty and without picking up passengers,) One of the most egregious examples of this occurs during prime rush hour at the UCLA terminal, where at least five (5) empty buses “Not in Service” [Deadheads] regularly return to base since the “run” of the driver is over, passing by dozens of students waiting between 5 and 7 pm daily, meanwhile using the the same labor power and gasoline as they would with passengers aboard.

4. Dependability a. Constant schedule and route changes b. Drivers leaving time points and terminals early, leaving passengers in lurch and wondering how to depend on bus schedule c. Drivers not picking up passengers, passing them by at bus stops (This has been documented by supervisors, for example at the Tiverton and Le Conte stop at UCLA)

5. Safety & Accountability a. For riders, there is no one to phone with authority to answer questions, solve problems and handle safety concerns when they arise because customer service representatives, who have a limited informational and palliative function, work from Monday to Friday, 7:30am to 5:30pm and Saturday, 12-6, do not have authority to address or resolve problems. b. For drivers, dispatchers dispense advice and policy as they see fit, which suggests power without capacity and a policy vacuum.

6. Summary What does this history tell us about the BBB? First, that it is “experimenting” with route schedule changes without basing them on study of data, demand, passenger needs, much less public safety and the viability and long term future of BBB. Second, it suggests incompetence and mismanagement, if not malfeasance, lack of due diligence and negligence.

7. Recommendations

a. Professional study and analysis of BBB by qualified, objective third-party experts based on longitudinal data and evidence from drivers, supervisors, union, SMPD and other institutional sources, of:

14 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

i. Efficiency ii. Routes, specifically, rationales for 1. why buses have been taken off main arteries 2. why route changes have been made (evidence and data bases, planning rationales) iii. Schedules iv. Ridership v. Demand vi. Possibility of shuttles for SMC and VA vii. Driver safety and satisfaction viii. Supervisory personnel ix. Policy x. Strategic Plan xi. Methods and bases for initiating / instituting change xii. Management

b. Institute i. Method by which drivers and supervisors can report problems as sources for study anonymously, without fear of retribution (e.g., via a union committee) ii. Systematic use of information and data from long-term drivers and supervisors, especially what is known as “NEAR MISSES,” one of the most accurate predictors of problems.

c. Review / Dismiss current management for incompetence and mismanagement, if not malfeasance, lack of due diligence and gross negligence.

15 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

Vernice Hankins

From: marten Breuer Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:31 AM To: Clerk Mailbox; Sue Himmelrich; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Pam OConnor; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; [email protected] Cc: Rick Cole Subject: BBB Attachments: OUT OF SESRVICE UCLA.jpg; 2018-02 27 ATT A- BBB- SENT Rick Cole.docx; 2016 rick cole bbb plus list 02-02 -SEND COUNCIL 2018 02 27 Marten.docx

Dear Council Member, Below and attached, please find material which we hope will inform your views on BBB.

City Clerk, please enter this into the public record.

1. Intro to Current Overview BBB (Appended below): Sent to Rick Cole, 2018 02 27

2. Documentation / Analysis BBB 3016: Problem Overview (ATT) Sent to Rick Cole, 2016 05 29

3. Documentation / Analysis BBB 3018: Single Bus Line Analysis, Summary & Recommendations (ATT) Sent to Rick Cole, 2018 02 27

4. Photo of "Deadhead" (example of current inefficient deployment of labor materiel & capital) (ATT) Sent to Rick Cole, 2018 02 27

Sincerely,

Marten Breuer for the Working Group

*********************************

LETTER TO RICK COLE, 2018 02 27

marten Breuer 1:48 AM (7 hours ago)

to Rick, Mary

Dear Rick,

Since Mary Rushfield spoke to you last year, we and other members of our Working Group have been trying to make sense of the BBB service in order to present a terse, systematic analysis of the problems we have been seeing.

However, the BBB system, as currently run, has seemed ever more chaotic and harder to abstract absent full access to BBB data and policy as well as the expertise of a qualified third party who has both the credentials and skills to perform that task.

1 16 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18 However, given that BBB is on the Council agenda for tomorrow, we would like you to have the following information, which will we hope will inform your views on BBB service as it has transpired in the last few years to the present.

While this is hardly an analysis of the type we suggest is needed, we offer what we hope is a window into the some of its salient problems.

We have chosen to do so by way of examining the history of a single bus line that many of us have used regularly for decades. The changes that this line has undergone are, in our view, not only paradigmatic with respect to those of several other lines, but also help place into relief the problems of the BBB system as a whole.

Appended to that description are recommendations that we feel follow logically from it.

We thank you for your continued interest in this problem and for your commitment to bettering the city of Santa Monica. Apologies in advance for any typos or oversights, as we have put this together in haste.

Cordially,

Marten Breuer and Mary Rushfield for the Working Group

Rachel Gallagher

Jerry Bumbaugh

Katherine Sydness

Joan Temple

Stefan de Vos

Eric Saarsgard

Matthew Fox

Genevieve Vattel and the affiliates at UCLA

*************************

Attachments: 1. ATT A: Line 18 as History and Example Ongoing problems Recommendations

2. Photo: Deadhead at UCLA Terminal: Hilgard and Westholme 3. 2016 Letter to Rick Cole re BBB (Martin Breuer and Working Group)/ [ FYI, same problems outstanding]

2 17 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

February 27, 2018 Subject: City Council 2/27/2018, Items 4A & 4B, BBB and Mobility Mobility is a key problem confronting Santa Monica. People complain about Santa Monica’s crushing traffic issues, inadequate bus service, and lack of safety for pedestrians and others. Of course, none of this is new. And there are many, multi-faceted components of this problem. Mobility is the ability to move from where you are, to where you want to be, when you want to do so. Sometimes a lot of people are going roughly the same direction at the same time. Other times, you’re pretty much on your own. Sometimes, you’ve got children, pets, and/or stuff that need to move with you. Other times, you’re unencumbered. Sometimes, you’ve had “a night on the town.” Other times you’re stone, cold sober. Some people are more challenged by walking or riding a bicycle than others. As most of you know, I was Chair of Wilmont during much of the LUCE process, and for some time afterwards. During the LUCE, we brought up the challenge of getting people home from the bus stop with stuff as well as related challenges. We also held a Transportation Forum. We recognized transportation (mobility) as a critical part of many of the City’s problems and solutions. Other organizations have also worked on parts of this problem. We need a City Commission on Mobility to provide ongoing study, oversight, and visibility as we have for other critical issues. I’m very happy to see the City looking at a holistic approach to the problem. “Transit First” is essential to our future. We cannot “seduce people out of their cars” (in the words of one Councilmember) without “seducing” them into something that’s really better. We need to work in conjunction with other local transit providers to, ultimately, serve the entire region. Only such an approach can provide mobility within Santa Monica, especially in the woefully-underserved North/South direction, while also providing the ability to travel throughout the region. The BBB should be part of an agile organization with mobility services as their core mission. (Enough buzzwords there?) Only such an organization can address changing needs, including those brought about by disruptors cherry-picking services they choose to provide. As a City, we need to ensure that everyone has real access to real mobility. Valerie Griffin 310 486-0753

18 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

February 27, 2018 Subject: City Council 2/27/2018, Items 4A & 4B, BBB and Mobility Mobility is a key problem confronting Santa Monica. People complain about Santa Monica’s crushing traffic issues, inadequate bus service, and lack of safety for pedestrians and others. Of course, none of this is new. And there are many, multi-faceted components of this problem. Mobility is the ability to move from where you are, to where you want to be, when you want to do so. Sometimes a lot of people are going roughly the same direction at the same time. Other times, you’re pretty much on your own. Sometimes, you’ve got children, pets, and/or stuff that need to move with you. Other times, you’re unencumbered. Sometimes, you’ve had “a night on the town.” Other times you’re stone, cold sober. Some people are more challenged by walking or riding a bicycle than others. As most of you know, I was Chair of Wilmont during much of the LUCE process, and for some time afterwards. During the LUCE, we brought up the challenge of getting people home from the bus stop with stuff as well as related challenges. We also held a Transportation Forum. We recognized transportation (mobility) as a critical part of many of the City’s problems and solutions. Other organizations have also worked on parts of this problem. We need a City Commission on Mobility to provide ongoing study, oversight, and visibility as we have for other critical issues. I’m very happy to see the City looking at a holistic approach to the problem. “Transit First” is essential to our future. We cannot “seduce people out of their cars” (in the words of one Councilmember) without “seducing” them into something that’s really better. We need to work in conjunction with other local transit providers to, ultimately, serve the entire region. Only such an approach can provide mobility within Santa Monica, especially in the woefully-underserved North/South direction, while also providing the ability to travel throughout the region. The BBB should be part of an agile organization with mobility services as their core mission. (Enough buzzwords there?) Only such an organization can address changing needs, including those brought about by disruptors cherry-picking services they choose to provide. As a City, we need to ensure that everyone has real access to real mobility. Valerie Griffin 310 486-0753

19 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

Vernice Hankins

From: Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 3:09 PM To: Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc: councilmtgitems Subject: FW: We need our BBBs

Council ‐

Please see below regarding the BBB report.

Best, Estefania

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Aggi Raeder [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:10 PM To: Council Mailbox Subject: We need our BBBs

I count on using the BigBlueBus. If it is now losing money, then adjustments must be made so it is productively serving our community. I moved to Santa Monica in 1967 particularly because of your busline. My two schoolage kids needed transportation because I was a working mother. Now that I am a senior, I need the Big Blue Bus because I drive much less now and count on BBB to get me to doctors, shopping, and events. We need our buses; seniors, handicapped, youngsters cannot all be out there on scooters, bikes and skates. Aggi Raeder a Santa Monica resident since 1967

Aggi Raeder

1 20 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 Item 4-A 02/27/18

27 February 2018

Santa Monica City Council City Hall 1685 Main Street, Room 209 Santa Monica, California 90401

Re: 2/27/18 Council Agenda Items 4A and 4B

Dear Mayor Winterer and City Council Members:

As 64% of Santa Monica’s greenhouse gas emissions result from transportation vehicles, Climate Action Santa Monica (CASM) and its Climate Corps work hard to help people appreciate the power of making climate-sensitive choices to move about and commute in Santa Monica and the region. Active transportation, such as walking, biking, skateboarding, etc., and public transit, particularly riding the Big Blue Bus, are sustainable choices that must appeal to people, providing options, which are incentivized and rewarded, if we are to advance to carbon neutrality and to develop community resiliency.

For the Big Blue Bus (BBB) to be popular, efficient, and financially sound, it needs to exist as an integral facility within a mobility ecosystem, not operate as an insular service entity.

In addition, ongoing and transparent public input is essential to guide policies and difficult decisions, such as which BBB routes require adjustments, for riders and the general public to have confidence in Santa Monica’s transportation “revolution.” It is time for public oversight or an advisory commission on mobility to be established.

If people are to have the freedom of making sustainable commuting choices and taking advantage of active means of getting around, Santa Monica’s streets must also be safe and welcoming to all. Towards that end CASM supports the “Vision Zero” commitments and urges the City to authorize investing in staff dedicated to bringing those commitments to life.

The ravages of climate change have unleashed cataclysmic storms, wildfires, mudflows, heat waves, etc. in 2017, and now 2018 begins with abnormal dryness and drought conditions in California. The cost to the quality of our lives is extraordinary. Our transit and mobility choices matter in helping to save the climate and in saving lives.

To meet our city's sustainability goals and serve our common wellbeing, it is essential that we invest in a robust, resilient mobility system that includes BBB and safe streets coupled with strong public input.

With respect, Climate Action Santa Monica Steering Committee Katharine King and Cris Gutierrez, Co-Chairs Judy Abdo Zachary Gaidzik Laura Gillette Kent Strumpell Amy Sullivan

c/o Church in Ocean Park • 235 Hill Street • Santa Monica • CA • 90405 • Climateactionsantamonica.org

21 of 21 Item 4-A 02/27/18 The Future of Big Blue Bus Staying Sustainable in a Changing Mobility Marketplace

City Council Meeting 2.27.2018

2/28/2018 Agenda

• Where We’ve Been: BBB History • Where We are Today: Current Marketplace • Where We’re Going: For Council Guidance • Agency Role • Governance Structure • Service Design • Service Delivery

2/28/2018 3rd Largest Municipal Bus Operator in LA County • 20 fixed route bus lines serve the City and the Westside • Innovative community demand- response service, MODE, to senior and disabled City residents • Blue@Night demand-response service from 17th Street Expo rail station

2/28/2018 Community Partner Blue to Business Employer Pass Program • 3 contracts since November 2017 • 2 more in progress Partnerships • Santa Monica College, UCLA, and St. John’s total 24% of BBB ridership

2/28/2018 Current Marketplace Factors Impacting BBB Ridership • Increasing automobile ownership • Deteriorated travel speeds and frequency of service • Disruption of existing east-west ridership by Expo light rail • Transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber & Lyft

2/28/2018 Access to Cars SCAG (Southern California Area Governments) Study • Increased vehicle ownership rates reflect transit’s deep ridership decline • Between 2000 and 2015: • Households without vehicles fell 30% • Households with less than one vehicle per adult fell 14%

2/28/2018 BBB’s Non-Rider Survey Jan. 2018 Preliminary Findings

Former riders are now driving § 86% said “bought a car” was #1 reason they no longer use bus § 49% said bus frequency was part of the reason they stopped using bus • Non-riders want faster travel in order to use bus § #1 reason non-riders are not riding bus was “takes too much time” § 66% say 10 minutes is the most they would wait for a bus

2/28/2018 Other Disruptive Factors Expo Line Opening RIDERSHIP COMPARISON BY ROUTE FY15-16 VS. FY16-17 • Many customers shifted from BBB service to train for east-west travel

FY15-16 FY16-17

2/28/2018 Ridership & Farebox Revenue Declining over Ridership and Passenger Revenue Past 3 Fiscal Years Comparison FY15, FY16 and FY17 Year End • FY15-16 decline of 18,748,869 11% 16,576,944 $13,361,718 $12,841,034 13,333,812 • FY16-17 decline of $11,809,016 19%

FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 Ridership Passenger Revenue

2/28/2018 BBB’s Proactive Measures

2/28/2018 Measures to Improve Ridership Customer Experience

• Intermodal integration through creation of transfer points to key Metro lines and 13 rail stations • Partnered with Lyft for Blue@Night & MODE demand-response service • Increased travel speeds with fewer cash customers, dedicated lanes on Lincoln Blvd, and improved wheelchair securement system

2/28/2018 Measures to Improve Ridership Customer Experience • Increased on-time performance (OTP) to consistently above 80% • Improved service reliability to 19,463 miles between road failures

Miles Between Road Calls

s 20% increase FY15/16 - FY16/17 l l a

C 30,000

d

a 25,000 o R 20,000 n e

e 15,000 w t 10,000 e B

s 5,000 e l i 0

M Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY16 FY17

2/28/2018 Proactive Measures to Improve Ridership Customer Experience • Blue to Business employer pass program • Mobile apps for fare payment and real-time bus arrival information • Discounted TAP fares – TAP use is up 12% compared to last year • Discounted Youth Pass sales have increased by 25%

2/28/2018 Ridership FY17-18 Year to Date

Fiscal Year BBB YTD Ridership FY18 7,749,358 FY17 7,793,092 Difference (43,734) Percent Difference -0.56%

BBB ridership has stabilized and is down less than 1% YTD

2/28/2018 BBB is doing better on ridership in FY17-18 than most Southern California public transit bus operators 2/28/2018 Proactive Measures to Decrease Expenditures

Monthly Overtime Cost Workers' Compensation $3,939,466 Open Claims $3,900,000 s

$3,788,591 m i 190 a $3,700,000 l C

170 n

$3,500,000 e 150 p

O 130

$3,300,000 f o

110 r

$3,100,000 e b

$2,900,000 m u

December December N 2016 2017 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18

Reduced overtime spending and workers’ compensation claims

2/28/2018 Where We’re Going: Charting BBB’s Future

2/28/2018 Cost of Service Provision

• Despite proactive 5-Year Forecast: Revenue vs. Expenditure $95M measures, if BBB $90M

keeps providing the $85M

current level of $80M

service, we will face $75M

challenges in future $70M

years $65M • Current operation is $60M financially FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 not Revenue Expenditures sustainable

2/28/2018 Staff Seeks Council’s Guidance Charting BBB’s Future • Agency Role • Governance Structure • Service Design • Service Delivery

2/28/2018 Agency Role

• Are we a leader?

• Are we a partner?

• Should we get out of the way?

2/28/2018 Governance Questions to Consider • Is the Council the appropriate authority to govern a sub- regional bus operation covering 58 square miles? • What could be done to evolve municipal policies to stay innovative, relevant, sustainable, and valuable? • What regulatory enhancements could make Santa Monica a “Transit First” community?

2/28/2018 Governance Option A

Service in Sub-Regional Governance Santa Monica • 85% of BBB’s service area is outside of the City of Santa Monica Service outside of • 58-mile service area covering multiple jurisdictions Santa Monica • 71% of customers riding BBB are not city residents Question to consider: • Could governance by a transit board representing constituent communities in our service area better represent the interests of those served by BBB?

2/28/2018 Governance Option B Continue Municipal Governance and Evolve Policies • Update procurement and civil service processes to be more agile, to keep pace with disruptive 21st century transportation trends • Adopt enhanced regulations that identify Santa Monica as a “Transit First” community. • Higher citywide parking rates • Implement user fee for TNCs (as in Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia)

2/28/2018 Service Design Passenger-facing Elements • Routes, schedules, frequencies, span of service • Travel speed • Fares Questions to consider: • What should our transit system look like in the future? • Is the Council receptive to adopting new service planning standards understanding the current state of the market?

2/28/2018 Service Design Option 1

• Alter service planning standards • Reduce minimum required productivity in light of new market conditions • Retain current span of service standard • Change frequency standards to increase minimum weekday frequencies • Eliminate unproductive fixed route service • Provide demand-response service

2/28/2018 Productivity Standard • Current standards are outdated

Current Standards for Minimum Proposed Standards for Minimum Passengers Passengers Boarding Per Hour Boarding Per Hour for Fixed Route Service Category Weekday Weekend Category Weekday Weekend Local 20 15 Local & Rapid 12 12 Rapid & Express 40 35 Express 12 12 Commuter (runs in 20 - Commuter (runs in 12 - peak times only) peak times only)

2/28/2018 Eliminate Unproductive Fixed Route Service

• Under new standards, Rapid 10, Route 16, Route 5 mid- day service, and others would be eliminated

2/28/2018 Provide Demand Response Service

• Evaluate provision of alternative mobility services (e.g., demand response) when fixed route service is not running

2/28/2018 Service Design Option 2 Same Standards Apply as in SD1, plus • Eliminate underperforming fixed route service • Limit reinvestment in alternative mobility services to areas with no transit options • Reinvest savings into new markets that could be piloted and implemented if successful; e.g., • Partnership with Long Beach Transit for Express service on 405 corridor, or partnership with Ventura County for Express service to Oxnard

2/28/2018 Service Design Option 3 Limit Service outside of Santa Monica • Offer routes that leave Santa Monica to other agencies • This would severely impact the local, state, and federal funding BBB receives

2/28/2018 Service Delivery Factors • Vehicle type and fuel source* • Agency operating the service • Human resources administration • Pay and benefits • Work rules

*A complete exploration of fuel source will be presented at the Fleet Technology Council study session Apr. 2018

2/28/2018 Service Delivery Models

Offer Select Routes to Neighboring Transit Partners • Funding, revenue, and equipment transfer to the transit partner Evaluate Other Mobility Alternatives • Including demand response where fixed route does not meet performance standards

2/28/2018 Without recommending a specific course of action, BBB Staff requests that Council review governance, service design, and service delivery strategies, and provide guidance to staff.

2/28/2018 For Council Consideration Governance • Regional governance; representation from 58-sq. mile service area? • Council governance; evolve city policies, “Transit First” focus? Service Design • Should staff further analyze: SD1, SD2, and/or SD3? Service Delivery • Offer select routes to neighboring transit partners; and/or • Evaluate other mobility choices where fixed route service doesn’t meet performance standards?

2/28/2018