Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:00-7:00 PM

Minutes

WESTSIDE/CENTRAL SERVICE COUNCIL

Regular Meeting

La Cienega Tennis Center 325 S. La Cienega Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Called to Order at 5:00 p.m.

Council Representatives Present:

Jeffrey Jacobberger, Chair Elliott Petty, Vice Chair Peter Capone-Newton Perri Sloane Goodman Randal Henry Art Ida Glenn Rosten Joe Stitcher George Taule

Officers:

Jon Hillmer, Director Jody Litvak, Community Relations Director Deanna Phillips, Board Specialist Dolores Ramos, Council Admin Analyst Henry Gonzalez, Council Comm. Rel. Mgr.

1. ROLL Called.

2. APPROVED Minutes of July 10, 2013 meeting

3. RECEIVED PUBLIC Comment for items not on the agenda

Wayne Coombs was on Line 704 on Monday evening. As it arrived in downtown Santa Monica near 4th and , the annunciator announced “Connection to the Expo Line.” He was surprised to hear that the Expo Line is already stopping at Downtown Santa Monica, as the only construction in the area has been utility line relocation. The Council recently discussed more space on the subway for bicycles. He was recently on the subway and there were three bicycles, room for two more and room for a wheelchair on one end of the subway car. He does not think any more seats should be removed to accommodate bikes.

Ken Ruben from Culver City is hoping to keep his apartment. Today is the anniversary of 9/11; Mr. Ruben was interviewed which may air on Channels 2 or 9. Culver City Mayor Jeff Cooper was also interviewed; about ten to twelve seconds was aired. The 9/11 remembrance event didn’t have as many people as last year. He acknowledged the recent Angels Flight incident and commended John Wellborne for a great job in trying to keep it going and that Metro stored the cars used on Angels Flight for many years. He expressed frustration with the 511 system. At times, the system will not understand requests, which is very frustrating.

Wayne Wright asked staff to consider re-routing Lines 605 and possibly Lines 71 and 252 to the LA County USC Busway Station. Currently, there are no buses serving the busway station. He would like at least the Line 605 serve the busway station since it lays over on the north side of USC. It can then connect to the Freeway Express Lines, Silver Line and Silver Streak. Currently, it’s not safe, it’s leery to walk from the busway station to USC because there isn’t a direct bus route that serves the hospital busway station. Something needs to be done to bring service to the busway station.

4. RECEIVED Report on Expo Bus/Rail Interface -One Year Later, Stewart Chesler, Transportation Planning Manager

Exposition Line (Phase I) is the newest rail line in Metro’s network. The line runs from 7th/Metro to Culver City, is 8.7 miles long and has a running time of 26 minutes. The line stops at 12 stations including two shared with the Blue Line. The Expo Line opened on April 28, 2012 except for Culver City and Farmdale Stations which opened on June 17, 2012. Expo Phase II to Santa Monica (4th/Colorado) is slated to open in FY 2016.

Average weekday ridership for the Exposition Line was 11,347 after one month in operation (May 2012), rose to 18,181 with the opening of the Culver City and Farmdale Stations in July 2012, and reached 26,663 after one year in operation (May 2013). Expo

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 2 Line ridership has experienced 135% growth or average rate of 8% per month. Average Saturday ridership was 9,000 after one month in operation (May 2012), 11,930 with Culver City and Farmdale Stations opening (July 2012), and has reached 18,604 after one year (May 2013), a 107% growth rate or average rate of 7% per month. Sunday ridership was 7,000 after one month (May 2012), rose to 11,322 when Culver City and Farmdale Stations opened in July 2012, and reached 14,299 after one year in operation (May 2013), a 104% growth or average rate of 7% per month. The Exposition Authority originally forecasted average ridership of 25,251 for the year 2015; ridership surpassed that mark after one year in operation. That forecast did not include Exposition Park USC or Farmdale Stations. Expo Line is also very productive line on a per-mile basis. The Line averages 3,020 boardings per mile, which ranks as the second highest productivity among the light rail lines and third highest productivity overall.

Walking is the predominate mode of access to Expo Stations. Bus transfers are highest at Crenshaw, La Cienega and probably Culver City if non-Metro Service is included. Park and Ride access is highest at Culver City and La Cienega stations due to parking availability. Modes of access percentages are comparable to the rest of the rail system.

Bus Line interface changes made with the opening of the Expo line include: Line 30 was extended to West Hollywood via former Line 550 and 305. Line 42 was discontinued east of Western Ave. Line 102 was shortened to Exposition/Western and combined with the remaining portion of Line 42, south of Exposition/Western. Line 217 was extended to La Cienega/Jefferson Station and Westfield at Culver City via former Line 439. Lines 305, 439 and the portion of Line 550 west of Exposition/Vermont were discontinued. Route 730 was converted to Route 330, a new branch of Line 30, also extended to West Hollywood. Line 740 was shortened eastern and re-routed to Expo/Crenshaw. As a result of bus line changes, ridership for Lines 440 and 740 dropped 45% and 52% respectively on weekdays due to paring them back to the Exposition Line. Line 102 ridership increased 81% on weekdays due to swapping the portion of west of Western with that of the former western portion of Line 42. Ridership on the former western Line 42 segment decreased 12% on weekdays. Line 33 ridership remained virtually unchanged on weekdays but experienced slight gains on weekends – 3% Saturdays, 6% Sundays. Line 733 experienced a slight drop of 4% on weekdays. Lines 38 and 40 ridership decreased 13% and 4% respectively on weekdays since they parallel the Expo Line. Line 217 ridership gained 9% on weekdays due to extending it to the La Cienega Station and Westfield Mall at Culver City. Line 30 ridership increased 46% on weekdays partly due to its extension to West Hollywood to replace the San Vicente portions of Lines 305 and 550 and because it absorbed the former Line 730 as branch route limited 330. As a result of all the line changes, the Expo Corridor experienced a net weekday gain of 6,220 (11%).

Wayne Wright complained that Line 740 ridership has dropped since the re-routing to the Crenshaw Expo Line, particularly on Saturdays. Line 102 has a lot of riders between LAX and Western and up to Jefferson and Figueroa. The last three runs on Line 102 at 10:30pm, 11:30pm and 12:30am only go as far as the stop at Crenshaw, they do not serve the rail. The last bus going to the Expo Line is the 9:40 or 9:45pm route. He doesn’t agree that Line 40 ridership has dropped, as he sees those buses packed between downtown and South Bay Galleria, as well as east of Crenshaw, King and Broadway. One of the

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 3 reasons Line 740 service was changed was to have it serve the rail. Unfortunately, when LAX/Crenshaw Line comes in at the end of this decade, there will be problems with Line 40.

Ken Ruben has observed a lot of people alighting from Lines 733 and 33 to get onto the Expo train. Sometimes there are problems when the trains are delayed due to accidents. People get a little bit antsy when there’s an announcement that the train will leave in 15 minutes and it ends up not departing for 30.

Councilmember Henry asked how walking mode data was calculated. Mr. Chesler responded that he began with spot counts on the number of cars parked and subtracted from the total of boardings at each station. He then looked at the increase of boarding at the stops where Expo and bus lines intersect. Those numbers were then subtracted and the difference was presented as walking.

Councilmember Henry asked if in calculating the data they had been able to calculate a circumference from which people were walking. Mr. Chesler stated he did not have that information; an on-board survey would need to be conducted in order to find that out. Councilmember Henry replied that pedestrian data would be helpful in relation to the discussion of proposed pedestrian enhancements, particularly for the next phase to see if there are a lot of people walking and where they’re walking from. ADA enhancements are necessary in that neighborhood and should be linked those to the areas that pedestrians are walking from. He suggested that he and Mr. Chesler discuss further.

Councilmember Capone-Newton asked if the Expo Corridor experienced a net gain of about 11% in ridership of all the bus lines in the area. Mr. Chesler clarified that the 11% ridership gain refers to all bus lines intersecting the Expo Line, not including the two stations shared with the Blue Line. Councilmember Capone-Newton asked if that was all bus lines, or only those that were modified. Mr. Chesler replied that it included all bus lines, not only those which had route modifications.

Councilmember Capone-Newton asked if overall the changes were positive or negative on the lines that were changed. Mr. Chesler replied that it varies on a line by line basis. For some of the lines it’s positive and negative for some. Councilmember Capone- Newton asked if ridership decreased proportionally where it was cut. Mr. Chesler replied that it varies by line rather than in a linear or in a proportionate fashion. Councilmember Capone-Newton would like to understand the relationship between ridership drops and the proportion of the service that was adjusted, particularly on Lines 515 and 740. Mr. Chesler responded that as service was significantly cut on those lines, ridership dropped quite a bit. Because they intersect the Expo Line, most of that drop off is a result of cutting back on those lines.

Councilmember Capone-Newton thinks the proportion can be better understood by comparing the service decrease to the actual drop in ridership. There is a huge portion of people walking to the station. The is a horrible pedestrian environment and has gotten significantly worse with the construction. There is a huge parking lot that funds were spent on that only 10% of riders use. The other 90% walk to

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 4 the station or use the bus interface which is a horrendous experience and will remain so for at least a few years. He would like to know how the pedestrian and bus interface is serving or not serving riders, and if something can be done to improve the experience for those 90% of station users connect to the Station by walking or taking the bus.

Mr. Chesler stated that the situation is similar for 77% of the Park and Ride locations. Councilmember Capone-Newton replied that those driving to rail stations only make up 10% of riders, which is why the pedestrian interface needs to be better understood.

Chair Jacobberger added that one of the area issues with the pedestrian environment is that is where Expo Phase I ends and Phase II begins on the other side of Venice. There are jurisdictional issues regarding improving the ability for people who are not on the train to get from one side of Venice Blvd. to the other.

Councilmember Henry asked that the cleanliness of the area be considered. He uses that station daily and has noted maintenance issues, such as overgrown bougainvillea, graffiti problems, and overflowing trash cans. He has tried to report using the 311 service but there are jurisdictional issues around some of the stations that can’t seem to be figured out. The Expo Line is a world class asset and should remain looking as such. It may be a small issue now but can snowball if neglected. As the line is fairly new, it contributes to the culture of that line. If the line can be kept clean it would help maintain the culture of the line, in contrast to some of the problems on other lines.

Chair Jacobberger asked if there is any way of knowing how many kiss and ride riders there are. Mr. Chesler replied that a survey would have to be completed in order to get an estimate, but a survey has not been done to date.

5. RECEIVED Update on Expo Line II Construction, Rick Meade, DEO Project Management, Bruce Shelburne, Rail Operations Manager, Bill Reagan, Exposition Construction Authority

Expo Phase I has not yet been fully closed out; the current total cost is $932 million. The line is now open and operating. Expo Phase II is a little over 6.5 miles; there are 7 new stations, Park and Ride lots on 17th St. in Santa Monica, outside parking between Bundy and Centinela and a parking structure on Sepulveda. Expo I has already reached the 27,000 daily ridership projection; based on that, Expo II is expected to reach 64,000 daily ridership by year 2030. Estimated project cost is $1.5 billion. Substantial completion is expected by July 2015, then testing will occur until early 2016. The project is currently in the construction phase. By 2015 the roadways will be completed, train control will be tested, landscaping installed, and the project will be finishing up and the systems testing will finish. This is a design-build project; design is approximately 95% complete and construction is approximately 44% complete. Utilities are being relocated and new lines guideway and grading work is also being completed. Bridges are under construction throughout the alignment. A massive bridge structure is going over Venice Blvd where concrete is being poured for that structure. Retaining walls, sound walls, and MSE walls are going up to the bridge structure, stations under construction and the rail work is

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 5 ongoing as well. The Venice Blvd Bridge links to two projects right by Culver City and includes two street columns. Once the columns go in, the roadway will need to be widened. Construction of the roadway will go on through November.

The Operations and Maintenance Facility is located in Santa Monica between Spencer and Centinela. The land agreement has been executed and contract awarded to Kiewit. Demolition and abatement of asbestos materials is being completed and moving into construction. The facility is scheduled for completion by Fall 2014.

A bikeway is under design that will follow the project from Santa Monica to Culver City. The design has started, and is around the 85% completed level. It includes a 12 ft. paved bike lane, 7 ft. pedestrian way, landscaping and lighting. The stations will have bike racks and secured bike lockers. The Station will interface with the bike way.

Councilmember Rosten asked if the train will be elevated on a bridge. Mr. Meade explained that at Overland, the train will cross at street level; there will be gate arms that go down to facilitate the train going through and the timing of the train with the traffic signals. Councilmember Rosten has observed that rush hour traffic in that area is bumper to bumper and asked what will be done to mitigate that traffic. Mr. Meade replied that traffic mitigation studies were included in the environmental document. It was determined that certain crossings did not require grade separated bridges and that was one of them. The information about that decision is in the environmental document.

Councilmember Stitcher asked if it is likely that Expo II will open before June 30, 2016. Mr. Meade replied that the goal is for it to open before June 30, 2016. The project is currently on schedule and a public use opening date of January 2016 is being targeted.

Councilmember Capone-Newton asked who has jurisdiction over the area near the Venice Blvd overcrossing and responsibility for making it a more pleasant environment for those that traverse the area. A lot of construction is going on adjacent to the existing station. Mr. Meade replied that during construction, the public access, walkways, and safety is taken into consideration. Public safety design needs for the project were submitted to the Construction Authority. The Construction Authority works with City of LA and Culver City to assure that all of the public codes, building codes, and construction codes are complied with.

Wayne Wright asked if trains leaving Palms Station will travel under or over the 10 freeway, and if the train will run over or under the 405 freeway at Sepulveda. Chair Jacobberger replied that the train will travel under the 10 freeway. Mr. Meade added that it will travel underneath the 405 at Sepulveda and as it gets to Sawtelle, it starts to elevate.

Councilmember Stitcher asked if the estimate of $1.5 billion was for Phase II alone or for Phases I and II together. Mr. Meade clarified it was for Phase II. Councilmember Stitcher asked why Phase II is so much more expensive. Mr. Meade explained that there were items in the Phase II design process and utility relocation that increased the cost. That amount includes utility relocation, the construction itself, and the significant features such as the bridge features that were not required in Phase I and more of them.

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 6 For example, certain structures at Culver City, Sepulveda and many of the other crossings were very expensive.

Councilmember Stitcher shared that is conducting a survey about people use the bus now for those who anticipate using Expo Phase II. The survey can be accessed at www.bigbluebus.com. Big Blue Bus is also announcing 4 upcoming service meetings on how Big Blue Bus will interface with the Expo Phase II since all 7 of those stations are in The Big Blue Bus service area and encouraged participation.

6. RECEIVED Corridor Study Update, Jon Hillmer, Director

The service concept for Lines 16/316 and 2202 was to create a branch route of Line 16 to provide service to Culver City Expo Station to replace Line 220 and to extend Line 16 route from Downtown Terminal at 6th & Wall to Little Tokyo Gold Line Station. Line 16 is a very popular bus route from Downtown with approximately 1/3 of its service going to Century City. The proposal for Line 220 is to extend some of the 16 lines which would operate in Downtown Los Angeles on Third St. then down to Robertson and over the 220 route into the Expo Line at Culver City.

Councilmember Sloane Goodman asked if extending Line 218 which goes through the was considered. It’s already a long line but sometimes people get really confused when a route doesn’t always go to the same place. She asked if extending Line 218 is that is an alternative option. Mr. Hillmer replied that it was suggested before, but the issue is that Line 218 is a contract bus route while Line 220 is a directly-operated service. Potentially Metro could take over the 218, as a directly-operated route, but can’t keep it as a contract bus route and extend it over a Metro directly-operated service. Contract service is inexpensive compared to Metro’s directly operated service.

Mr. Hillmer explained that currently Line 16 comes into Downtown Los Angeles on 3rd St. then uses the one way on 6th St. to go to Downtown Los Angeles. It ends at a Maple Ave. lot where there is an off-street Metro facility. Buses leave there by heading east on 6th St. and going up San Pedro back to 5th St. The potential extension would change the route from going to the Maple Ave. lot to instead stay on 6th St. over to Alameda. There’s a growing demand for transit service on Alameda to the Arts District, which is also where the Little Tokyo station is located. The extension would provide access from that location to the heart of Downtown Los Angeles.

Other proposals are to create a branch route of Line 16 (Line 17) to provide service to Culver City Expo Line Station, replacing Line 220. Right now the limited stop service begins at La Brea into downtown Los Angeles. It could be extended to La Cienega which would add maybe 4 more limited stops. By doing this, a slight savings would be generated that could be reinvested into more frequent service on the route. Mr. Hillmer reviewed estimated costs and potential service levels for the proposals.

Eugene Salinsky expressed that he thinks there would potentially be problems with limiting the local stops, mainly at Fairfax and Ogden. A lot of people work at Ogden and

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 7 at Fairfax. He thinks traffic would be backed up worse than it is currently especially at the Fairfax stop is. He suggested that limited service to La Cienega be continued as is.

Councilmember Sloane Goodman asked if every bus on the Little Tokyo extension would run to that station. Mr. Hillmer replied that it would depend on frequency. Councilmember Sloane Goodman asked how it would interface with the proposed extension at the other end. Is there a relationship between what buses are doing what at each end? Mr. Hillmer replied that ideally from a customer’s perspective, it would be nice to keep the same ones. But in practice, looking for the most efficient service, there could be Line 16 or 17 or 316 that would make that trip to the Gold Line Station.

Councilmember Sloane Goodman reiterated that it’s difficult sometimes for riders to know which bus is doing what. For example, when using Trip Planner, it may show 2 different Line 704 trips but it’s not easy to tell which is a short line and which isn’t. Then when riders are waiting for a bus and when it arrives, they learn it is a limited stop bus and they have to wait for the next bus. Mr. Hillmer replied that short lining, when not every trip completes the full route, is done mostly on heavy use lines where the ridership demand typically declines at the ends of the route.

Chair Jacobberger added that having a branch would be worse because on a short line, the worst thing that can happen is you have get off and wait for the next bus. If there’s a branch, instead of stopping short of the rider’s destination, it would suddenly turn.

Councilmember Stitcher asked if the branch of Line 16 would be Line 17, and Line 17 would replace the 220. Mr. Hillmer confirmed that was correct. Councilmember Stitcher asked if the savings were possible because Line 17 would not go around Beverly Center. Mr. Hillmer confirmed that Line 17 would be more efficient.

Chair Jacobberger asked if Line 316 remained a limited stop service between La Brea and La Cienega, if there would not be stops between those two stops at Fairfax and other high ridership stops. Mr. Hillmer replied that there would still be a local bus that would make every stop. Chair Jacobberger asked if there would still be a stop at Fairfax by the Farmers Market and The Grove. Mr. Hillmer confirmed that there would and potentially more. Ridership data on boarding and alightings indicates that transfer stops are much heavier used than the in-between stops; Line 16 is a very popular line.

Mr. Hillmer clarified that the shared concepts were for consideration. The concepts could be thrown out, or additional concepts could be considered. The next step is to refine proposals by generating potential schedules to allow costs or cost savings to be calculated. Then, if the Council approves, the proposals would be considered in a public hearing on those lines.

Councilmember Henry asked about the impact of adding Line 17 to the Little Tokyo station. He walks to that station from 7th and Figueroa or from Little Tokyo Station to the Arts District area once a week for business. Would Line 220 disappear with the addition of the Line 17 branch? Mr. Hillmer responded that if a branch is added to the 220, then Line 220 would go away because it would be replaced. Line 220 ridership is very poor, but

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 8 it’s a once an hour lifeline service that tends to be used by those who don’t have any other option. The intent is to provide attractive transit service for people to use as an option as opposed to out of necessity.

Councilmember Henry replied that it would be a great service if it connects with the Expo Line station, an important connection. If the current service ran more frequently, would that substitute for the branch line? Mr. Hillmer responded that typically when a branch route is offered off of a popular line without taking away service from that main artery, it tends to draw more riders to it because people are used to that route, it sort of feeds into it. He believes this branch will do the same thing off of 3rd St. When Expo Phase II opens, this would be very attractive for people to use to get to the Expo Line and other destinations. He added that the Councils input suggests that maybe Line 218 could be examined to potentially absorb Line 220, and that simplicity in terms of operations and operating numbers should be emphasized for the Little Tokyo option. If Line 16 could be kept, it could be included as a Line 16 going to the Little Tokyo station.

Chair Jacobberger said that in designing the Line 220 options, he understands the importance of providing a good connection from the Expo Line up to the theatres or the Beverly Center. Does the service at La Cienega do that much more frequently and/or quickly because Robertson can be incredibly congested. It seems to him that they may be interchangeable. Is the service provided valuable to very many people?

Mr. Hillmer responded that Jerard Wright had made that proposal and it has a great deal of merit since Line 16 already goes in the right direction and one of the trips that was going to Century City that currently ends at the hospital could be extended. It made a lot of transit sense in terms of that savings, but ridership to the Culver City station is fairly light. Mr. Hillmer state he would return with those two options next month.

Mr. Hillmer shared potential Lines 4 and 704 adjustments. Some of them believe we can improve by not changing it and that’s always an option. Options including leaving the service as is, canceling mid-day Line 704 service and increasing the Line 4 service to Santa Monica, and ending Line 704 at Vermont, as there is a huge turnover ridership at the Vermont station. Other suggestions received at the public workshop were to coordinate service with all of the municipal partners. Line 4 has a lot of excess capacity in the downtown area and on the far west end of the route. Line 704 also has some turnover but not as much as Line 4 where the turnover is much bigger, and more people are boarding to go west rather than heading to downtown. Line 704 is a very direction- oriented demand service. The option to increase Line 704 service would be to run it more frequently but run Line 4 Line a little less frequently. Some of that excess capacity on Line 4 could possibly be used on both ends of its demand areas, downtown Los Angeles and the Westside.

Alexander Friedman supports ending Line 704 at Vermont but does not support cancelling the straight route from Santa Monica to Union Station. It makes more sense than coming from a line on Sepulveda because at Vermont there is subway service that is faster and runs more frequently. Cancelling Rapid Line 704 mid-day and weekends would be an act of lunacy because the service is popular. On weekends they’re packed,

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 9 especially in the summer. On weekdays, they are also filled. He cannot imagine Santa Monica Blvd. not having Rapid Line 704. He strongly urged the Council not to cancel mid-day or weekend service. He’s not sure if adding running time to help on-time performance is a good idea because the current schedules took into account rush hour traffic when created. He thinks if more running time is added, the buses will run slower.

Wayne Coombs expressed his agreement with Mr. Friedman about cancelling Rapid Line 704 mid-day and weekend service. It is lunacy, as it is a very highly used line. A lot of people already don’t even know when the Rapid service runs and who wait for Line 704 and it doesn’t come. He believes there is already too much lag time in the Rapid schedule. By ending Line 704 on Vermont, a half-full bus load of 20–25 people would need to get off the bus and wait for another bus to get downtown, which would be ridiculous. Late night Line 4 service is very highly used. He uses it on Monday nights around 10pm or 11pm at night to travel from Santa Monica and to Fairfax. From Santa Monica to Sepulveda, it is very, very crowded. He asked that service not be reduced, and that no changes be made to Line 704. He thinks it would upset a lot of riders.

Wayne Wright expressed a preference that if Line 704 has to truncate, he would prefer it go up Vermont, north of Santa Monica Blvd. and do a layover north of Sunset around Vermont and Hollywood or Virgil. That way it would serve the area’s hospitals as well as Hollywood/Vine, and the Vermont/Sunset Red Line Station. It would also provide a basic connection to Lines 780 and 181, as well as the Dash that serves Los Feliz.

Councilmember Sloane Goodman stated that for the public record, there is a very vocal constituency in West Hollywood that is very interested in seeing a stop added at Santa Monica and Fuller to the 704 Line. If reducing the mid-day service on Line 4 to increase the 704 is proposed, she asks that the stop be looked at. It would be located between La Brea and Fairfax, where there are a lot of older people; it would serve a large community.

Chair Jacobberger added that Mr. Leahy is not in favor of different color buses. He asked if all the buses were the same color, would it increase flexibility and potentially reduce cost so a shorter route could be run, like mid-day Line704 service that has lighter ridership.

Mr. Hillmer added that Mr. Leahy expressed a preference for one color for buses with head signs that are legible enough so people can see from a distance whether or not it’s a rapid bus or a local bus. He’s also in favor of rapid and local bus stops at the same bus stop where possible. Sometimes stops have to be separate because of the number of buses that can be accommodated at a location, but split stops should be minimized as opposed to being the standard. The South Bay looked at the Crenshaw corridor and asked Stops and Zones to look at consolidating as many stops as they could; they were able to consolidate the majority of the stops. If one color bus is used, it provides the ability to generate interlining savings. You could take a bus that was a rapid bus and have it make the return trip as a local bus. Right now, a rapid bus is supposed to be red and the local, poppy. If you start to interline a red bus with a poppy bus color, it creates more confusion. There would be significant savings if we did go to one color, but the Metro Board prefers the two color bus scheme and it is not likely to change soon.

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 10 Chair Jacobberger observed that some lines are scheduled to accommodate rush hour traffic in periods when traffic is moving smoothly. He asked why running time is increased when buses are slowing down to adhere to schedule. On a line with a 12- minute headway, he’s not as concerned about buses running late and people sitting on the bus feeling like it’s not going as fast as it possibly can. Mr. Hillmer responded that bus on-time performance is two-fold. If the bus is late, it’s probably going to have more passengers because its leader may be too far in front of him. That makes that bus even slower. The other factor is even spacing of buses. Buses should not get ahead of schedule at all because then they could pass up people. Running time was added this past schedule change in June. 30,000 hours of additional service were added to the Orange Line and to buses primarily to increase running time. It’s had a marginal positive impact on on-time performance. Mr. Hillmer added that he will return with a refined Line 704 proposal that does not reduce mid-day service on Line 704 but enhances Line 704 service and potentially modifies Line 4 service.

Ken Ruben stated that the Board is sort of stuck because the whole red started when the rapid service started. Once in a while, on Line 733, a poppy bus will arrive and confuse the riders. On Culver City buses, they have rapids with a different color scheme, a solid green. He received an e-mail about making all the Culver City buses green and growing vegetation on top.

7. RECEIVED Director’s Report on Westside/Central June and July 2013 Service, Jon Hillmer, Director

. On-time Performance: 75.7%; Goal: 80%, System: 77.9% . Complaints Per 100,000 Passengers: 2.45%; Goal: 2.20%, System 3.19% . Miles Between Mechanical Road Calls: 3,550; Goal: 3,900, System: 4,127 . Bus Cleanliness: 8.38; Goal 9.0; System 8.54 . Accidents per 100,000 miles: 4.67%; Goal: 3.10%, System: 3.85% . Bus Station Cleanliness Ratings by Region: 8.16; Goal: 8.5%, System: 8.23% . Average Weekday Ridership: 629,648 of 1,096,890 System Total . Line 720 Ridership: 41,354 weekdays; 29,364 Saturdays; 23,920 Sundays . Rail Average Weekday Ridership: Red Line 162,746, Blue Line 87,597, Green Line 42,670, Gold Line 44,267, Expo Line 26,908. . Average Weekday Bus & Rail Ridership: Bus 1,096,890, rail 364, 188, combined total of ,461,078

8. RECEIVED Report on July 29th Meet and Confer with Art Leahy, Council Members

Mr. Hillmer discussed the Meet and Confer with Mr. Leahy and a lunch meeting with Chair DuBois of the Metro Board of Directors to which the five chairs of the Service Councils were invited and Mr. Leahy also attended. One of the main topics was the need for a fare returns to increase. Currently, Metro receives about 25% to 26% of its operating cost from the fare box. Returns need to rise to the 30-33% range, not only to put Metro closer to the national average, but also to provide matching funds for grants

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 11 for rail projects. A restructuring of the fare system may be proposed in the next year. Some options may include time based fares, adding a feature to TAP cards with stored values that maxes out at the cost of a day pass, which would avoid charging people continuously. Only a small percentage of riders take several trips in a day on a stored- value card. People who take several trips typically buy a day pass or have monthly passes. It’s something that can be technically accomplished and Mr. Leahy seems in favor of implementing such a feature.

Councilmember Henry asked if a family fare option is being considered for the fare structure study. He thinks it would likely be a little used option but may be useful for tourists coming into town and would resonate with families. Mr. Hillmer replied that it may be difficult to implement that type of fare. On Metro’s system, once a pass is tapped it will not accept another tap for another 4 or 5 minutes in order to prevent pass backs. It’s unclear if that occurs with a card with stored value, he can look into it and ask it would be possible to put a group ride onto a stored value card to see if that’s possible.

Chair Jacobberger mentioned that the financial issues of having to pay for transfers and how they affect ridership should also be considered in the discussion. There may be riders who stay on a bus line because they don’t want to pay the extra fare to get on a train not because of ridership perspective, but from a financial standpoint. Both Metro logistics and financial concerns of riders should be considered in fare restructuring.

Mr. Hillmer added that Mr. Leahy indicated this is a consideration as well at the meeting with Chair DuBois. There has been discussion about premium pricing for rail service. However, that may be counterproductive from a transportation perspective because we want people to use the rail, as it’s a more cost effective way to transport people. There’s already an investment in the rail system and they have a tremendously larger capacity. It was suggested but is not likely to happen. If cheaper fare was charged for rail versus the bus, it might drive more people onto the rail system.

Chair Jacobberger added that the fact that Director DuBois set up the meeting makes it clear that she values the work done by the Service Councils for Metro.

Councilmember Taule added that while some of the fare options are really good ideas, the operators should also be considered. Unfortunately, there are people who aren’t honest, and a lot of times they’ll grab other people and ask for a family fare. It would put operators in a position where they have to ask if they’re really family or not. These types of things should be considered when looking at fare options.

9. CHAIR and Council Member Comments

None.

ADJOURNED AT 6:59 p.m.

Westside/Central Service Council Minutes 12