SR 02-27-2018 4A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 27, 2018
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 31
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
2 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
3 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
4 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.
5 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,
6 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).
7 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
8 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
9 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
10 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
11 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.
12 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
13 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.
14 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?
15 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
16 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.
17 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
18 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.
19 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
20 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
21 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.
22 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.
23 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
24 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
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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
30 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.
31 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
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.
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Terri de la pena <dlp1781@gmail.com>
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
Item 4-A
02/27/18
1 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:darwyn1616 <darwyn1616@gmail.com>
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.
Item 4-A
02/27/18
2 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:darwyn1616 <darwyn1616@gmail.com>
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.
Item 4-A
02/27/18
3 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Linda Androila <sunstonetours@aol.com>
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
Item 4-A
02/27/18
4 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:shiva2000@verizon.net
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
Item 4-A
02/27/18
5 of 21 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.
Item 4-A
02/27/18
6 of 21 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
Item 4-A
02/27/18
7 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
Item 4-A
02/27/18
8 of 21 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.)
Item 4-A
02/27/18
9 of 21 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,
Item 4-A
02/27/18
10 of 21 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.
Item 4-A
02/27/18
11 of 21 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.
Item 4-A
02/27/18
12 of 21 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.
Item 4-A
02/27/18
13 of 21 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:
Item 4-A
02/27/18
14 of 21 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.
Item 4-A
02/27/18
15 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:marten Breuer <marten.c.breuer@gmail.com>
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; gleam.davis@gmail.com
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 <marten.c.breuer@gmail.com>
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.
Item 4-A
02/27/18
16 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
2
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]
Item 4-A
02/27/18
17 of 21 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
Item 4-A
02/27/18
18 of 21 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
Item 4-A
02/27/18
19 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
1
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:aggi@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:10 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
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
Item 4-A
02/27/18
20 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
c/o Church in Ocean Park • 235 Hill Street • Santa Monica • CA • 90405 • Climateactionsantamonica.org
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
Item 4-A
02/27/18
21 of 21 Item 4-A
02/27/18
2/28/2018
Staying Sustainable in a Changing Mobility Marketplace
City Council Meeting 2.27.2018
The Future of Big Blue Bus
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 ow nership
•Deteriorated travel speeds and
frequency of service
•Disruption of existing east-west
ridership by Expo light rail
•Tr ansportation 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 w ait for a bus
2/28/2018
Other Disruptive Factors
Expo Line Opening
•Many customers
shifted from BBB
service to train for
east-west travel
RIDERSHIP COMPARISON BY ROUTE
FY15-16 VS. FY16-17
FY15-16 FY16-17
2/28/2018
Ridership & Farebox Revenue
Declining over
Past 3 Fiscal Years
•FY15-16 decline of
11 %
•FY16-17 decline of
19%
18,748,869
16,576,944
13,333,812$13,361,718 $12,841,034 $11,809,016
FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
Ridership and Passenger Revenue
Comparison FY15, FY16 and FY17 Year End
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 w ith 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
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunMiles B e t w e e n R o a d C a l l s
Miles Between Road Calls
20% increase FY15/16 -FY16/17
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 –TA P u se
is up 12% compared to last year
•Discounted Youth Pass sales
have increased by 25%
2/28/2018
BBB ridership has stabilized and is down less than 1% YTD
Fiscal Year BBB YTD Ridership
FY18 7,749,358
FY17 7,793,092
Difference (43,734)
Percent Difference -0.56%
Ridership FY17-18 Year to Date
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
Reduced overtime spending and workers’compensation claims
$3,939,466
$3,788,591
$2,900,000
$3,100,000
$3,300,000
$3,500,000
$3,700,000
$3,900,000
December
2016
December
2017
Monthly Overtime Cost
110
130
150
170
190
N u m b e r o f O p e n C l a i m s
Wo rkers' Compensation
Open Claims
FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18
2/28/2018
Where We’re Going:
Charting BBB’s Future
2/28/2018
Cost of Service Provision
•Despite proactive
measures, if BBB
keeps providing the
current level of
service, we will face
challenges in future
years
•Current operation is
not financially
sustainable
$60M
$65M
$70M
$75M
$80M
$85M
$90M
$95M
FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22
5-Ye ar Forecast: Revenue vs. Expenditure
Revenue Expenditures
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
Sub-Regional Governance
•85%of BBB’s service area is outside of the
City of Santa Monica
•58-mile service area covering multiple jurisdictions
•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?
Service in
Santa
Monica
Service outside of
Santa Monica
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 Yo rk City, and
Philadelphia)
2/28/2018
Service Design
Passenger-facing Elements
•Routes, schedules, frequencies, span of service
•Tr avel 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
Pa ssengers Boarding Per Hour
Category We ekday We ekend
Local 20 15
Rapid & Express 40 35
Commuter (runs in
peak times only)
20 -
Proposed Standards for Minimum Passengers
Boarding Per Hour for Fixed Route Service
Category We ekday We ekend
Local & Rapid 12 12
Express 12 12
Commuter (runs in
peak times only)
12 -
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 Tr ansit for Express service on
405 corridor, or partnership with Ve ntura 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
Factors
•Ve hicle type and fuel source*
•Agency operating the service
•Human resources administration
•Pay and benefits
•Wo rk rules
Service Delivery
*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?