HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 338-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 22
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AUGUST 6, 2007 CMR:338:07
AUTHORIZATION OF LETTER FROM THE MAYOR TO THE SANTA
CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS IN OPPOSITION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUS SERVICE
IN PALO ALTO
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Endorse a position in opposition to the VTA Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA)
report recommending changes in Lines 35 and 88 in Palo Alto.
2. Recommend that no changes in VTA service be undertaken until a thorough community
bus service study can be undertaken by VTA in cooperation with the City of Palo Alto to
determine the most productive use of the existing level of VTA transit resources in Palo
Alto.
3.Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the VTA Board of Directors summarizing the
Council’s action.
BACKGROUND
In May 2007, the VTA issued a Draft Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) which is the
first major evaluation of the bus service structure undertaken by VTA since the existing bus
service system was implemented in the 1980s. While there have been several cost-cutting service
reductions and service expansions over the past decades, there hasn’t been a comprehensive
evaluation of service performance or analysis of the service market. The last service
modifications that impacted bus routes in Palo Alto were in 2002, 2003, and 2004, when
countywide service reduction of 5%, 9%, and 3%, were implemented respectively, due to
declining VTA revenues. At that time, Line 35 service to the Stanford Medical Center was
discontinued entirely, Lines 86 was discontinued, and Line 88 was merged with Line 86 and
rerouted with less frequent service and elimination of Sunday service. These service reductions
left both major medical facilities in Palo Alto - Stanford Medica! Center and VA Hospital -
without public transit service on Sunday.
CMR:338:07 Page 1 of 6
The ne~v Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) ~vas initiated to address VTA Board
concerns about the performance of county~vide bus service, including low farebox recovery, high
costs per revenue hour and low transit usage. The COA recommends investing the same
resource level in more efficient, but cost-neutral, service. The COA recommends focusing VTA
service in a core service area with the geatest potential for increased ridership, while
discontinuing or consolidating underperforming routes with poor ridership. Core routes, located
largely in the mid-county, central and east San Jose areas would offer service every 15 minutes,
while bus services on non-core and community bus lines would run every 30-60 minutes. The
VTA Board of Directors is scheduled to take action on this matter on August 30. Phase 1 of the
new Service Operating Plan is scheduled for January 2008.
The Draft COA proposal released in May included the following changes to bus routes in Palo
Alto:
Line 35 (Mountain View to Stanford Shopping Center): Line 35 would remain largely intact in
Palo Alto, but end at the Palo Alto transit center instead of the Stanford Shopping Center. Riders
traveling to the shopping center would need to transfer to Samtrans buses and pay an additional
fare for the remainder of the trip (Attachment B).
Line 88 (Palo Alto Transit Center to VA Hospital): Line 88 would be converted to a community
bus line with smaller, 25 passenger buses. A revised route would run from the California Avenue
area to the Showers Drive transit center in Mountain View via Stanford Research Park,
Arastradero and E1 Camino Real (Attachment C). Bus resources on the route would be reduced
from 4 to 2 buses in the peak periods mad from 1 to 2 buses in the midday. Service would
operate at hour headways in the midday and 30 minutes in the peak periods. All service to
residential areas east of E1 Camino Real and school commute service to Gunn High School
Would be discontinued.
Express Line 101 (Camden & Hw¥ 85 to Palo Alto/Stanford Research Park): This route would
be discontinued due to low ridership
Express Line 104 (Penitencia Creek/East San Jose to Pa!o Alto/Stanford Research Park):
This route would be discontinued due to low ridership.
A community meeting sponsored by VTA was held on May 23, 2007 at Lucie Stem Community
Center. Approximately 75 members of the public attended the meeting including residents,
neighborhood representatives, Gunn High school students, PTA representatives, local VTA
riders and representatives of the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life/BUILD (TKCJL) project
at 901 San Antonio Road. Most of the comments were directed to the proposed change to Line
88. Key comments and concerns voiced by those present included:
¯
The need to maintain service to Gunn High School
The redevelopment and construction of over 800 housing units in the
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor generating demand for improved transit services in the
corridor
CMR:338:07 Page 2 of 6
¯The need to maintain service coverage to the Midtmvn and Channing Avenue
neighborhoods
¯Concerns that Palo Alto has seen an erosion of bus service over the years
¯Concerns that Palo Alto does not receive a fair share of transit services.
¯A summary of the public comments compiled by Joanne Benjamin, Policy Aide to
Supervisor Liz I~fiss, is provided as Attachment (D). In addition to the public testimony,
staff has received over 70 emails from residents concerned about the changes proposed
for Line
At the June 4 City Council study session, the Council received a presentation from VTA staff
regarding the agency’s Organizational Audit and the Comprehensive Operations Analysis.
Kevin Connolly, VTA Transportation Planning Manager, discussed the impact of the COA
proposals on bus services in Palo Alto, including changes to Line 35, rerouting and conversion of
Line 88 to a community bus route, and input received from the public at the May 23 community
meeting at Lucie Stem Community Center.
Council members queried VTA staff on the continuing reduction in VTA bus services in Palo
Alto, limited VTA efforts to market its services, and the relationship between Palo Alto’s sales
tax support for VTA services compared to the share of services received. A number of members
of the public spoke in opposition to the rerouting of Line 88 and the needs to maintain service to
Gunn High School, the Midtown neighborhood and the new housing and major developments
approved for the Line 88 service area.
Subsequent to the June 4 meeting, staff met twice with VTA representatives to discuss Palo
Alto’s concerns and suggestions and to review VTA’s preliminary revised recommendations.
DISCUSSION
On July 25, VTA released the revised COA plan, which will be forwarded to the VTA Board of
Directors later this month. The revised plan includes the following changes to Palo Alto’s bus
routes:
Line 35: Line 35 service to a terminus at Stanford Shopping Center will be retained.
Line 88: VTA has proposed a revised routing that splits the reduced community bus
resources into two separate lines (See Attachment E). The revised Line 88 would operate
between the VA Hospital and Mountain View Showers Drive Transit Center along
Charleston and Arastradero and San Antonio with a deviation via East Meadow Circle and
Fabian to serve the ne~v housing and the TKCJL/Bridge projects. In addition, two special
trips (one ~vith a large bus and one with a smaller community bus) would operate in the
morning and afternoon school commute times between Midtown neighborhood and Gunn
High School. The route would not serve Midtown or Channing neighborhoods, Lytton
Gardens, Downtown Palo Alto or the Palo Alto Caltrain station
CMR:338:07 Page 3 of 6
A Jle~u Lble 89 would operate during the morning and evening peak periods between the
California Avenue Caltrain station and the VA Hospital to serve the Stanford Research park
businesses and employees.
Express Lines 101 and 104: Discontinued as originally proposed.
Staff has identified a number of concerns with the proposed COA plan:
CoJltinuing loss a~d i~efficiet~cv o_fproposed bus sere,ice: VTA staff has indicated that the cost of
operating the existing Line 88 is $1.6 million/year. The revised proposal cuts the bus resources
allocated to new Lines 88 and 89 to $600,000/year. Over the years, Palo Alto has lost a
significant amount of bus service in temas of routes, hours of operation and days of service.
Historically, bus service, once eliminated, has not been restored. Currently, only Lines 22 and 35
operate a full 7-day service schedule at a frequency of 30 minute or less. Line 88 currently runs
30 minute service only between the California Avenue Caltrain station and VA Hospital during
the commute period and at hourly frequency middays Monday through Friday and on an
abbreviated Saturday schedule. Further, as discussed below, a long segment of the proposed
Line 88 runs along San Antonio Road, duplicating service already available to Palo Alto
residents on Line 35, which also travels to the Mountain View Showers Drive transit center.
VTA has indicated that bus resources need to be redeployed to areas with potential high
employment or housing density. ABAG data included in the MTC Transportation 2030 Plan
Draft EIR on the density of development in the Bay Area by MTC Superdistrict indicates Palo
Alto/Los Altos have the highest employment density per acre in Santa Clara County, and fifth
highest in the Metropolitan Bay Area (See Attachment F). Yet, one of the City’s major
employment sites, Stanford Medical Center, is not served by VTA. Furthermore, with respect to
residential density, over 800 new housing units are planned or under construction in the
Charleston/East Meadow/Fabian area with the potential for ridership growth.
Reduced Accessibility: The revised proposal for Line 88 will reduce convenient access to transit
service in key neighborhoods, while duplicating existing VTA service in other areas. The
Midtown neighborhoods east of Louis Road will not have convenient (e.g. within a ~A mile
walking distance to transit). Line 35 on Middlefield Road is almost a half mile from Middlefield,
not considered a comfortable walking distance to transit. Line 88 would travel down San
Antonio Road to the San Antonio/Showers Drive transit center in Mountain View, largely along
the same route covered by Line 35. The new line will connect with Caltrain at the San Antonio
Station, one of the least served stations on the line (6 trains less per day than the California
Avenue station), rather than at either of the two Palo Alto stations.
Commu~litv Bus Plannin~ Process: As late as August 2006, VTA indicated that Palo Alto would
fol!ow next in line after Los Gatos and South County (Morgan Hill/Gilroy) for implementation
of a community bus project. VTA reports stated that "the vision for community bus entails active
community participation in the design and branding of the service." The participatory planning
process includes meetings of VTA transit planners with community stakeholders, city council
and city representatives, fol!owed by a series of public meetings where further input is accepted,
resulting in a final community bus implementation plan. The COA proposal has short-cut that
CMR:338:07 Page 4 of 6
process for the Palo Alto community bus routes Lines 88 and 89. Based on the breadth and
extent of community input on the COA proposal, staff believes the community engagement
process could have been very productive. Further, much of VTA analysis has been based on
existing ridership of Line 88, without having the opportunity to assess the potential for increased
ridership when using smaller, more neighborhood friendly buses with a reduced fare structure on
this route.
Relationship to Shuttle: VTA staff has commented that the Crosstown shuttle has reduced
ridership on Line 88. VTA staff participated in the feasibility study planning process for the
initiation of the shuttle service in 1999. The Crosstown shuttle route was designed specifically to
serve destinations and neighborhoods not adequately served by the VTA, including the Main
Library and Art Center, Midtown neighborhoods west of Middlefield, JLS Middle School and
the Ventura neighborhood. Staff would welcome the opportunity work with VTA staff to
reassess all of the bus and shuttle services in Palo Alto with a goal of developing a more
integrated mad productive transit network.
VTA General Manager Michael Burns has sent a letter to Mayor Kishimoto stating VTA’s
ongoing commitment to work ~vith Palo Alto staff and community members over the next year to
evaluate and modify Line 88 service to meet the needs of south Palo Alto (Attachment G).
Nevertheless, it will likely mean that the proposed bus routes will be established in January 2008
and be in place for at least one year, if the extended evaluation process doesn’t begin until the
summer of 2008.
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to inform the VTA Board of Directors that,
while VTA staff have partially addressed community concerns by revising the COA proposal to
retain service to Gunn High School and introduce new service to the Meadow and Fabian
con-idors, the net loss of bus service in Palo Alto continues to erode the viability of transit
options for Palo Alto residents and workers. There has been no "community planning" process
associated with the new community bus routes, and Palo Alto does not support changes in VTA
bus services until a full community planning process occurs.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy T-6:
Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those within Palo Alto; Policy
T-9: Work towards integrating public school comlnuting into the local transit system; and
Policy T-12: Support efforts to decrease wait times for intercity transit to a maximum of 20
minutes between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Design for a maximum wait time of 12 minutes for
intra-city transit if feasible.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This is not considered a project and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. No
Palo Alto environmental review is needed for Council to take a policy position on proposed bus
service changes.
CMR:338:07 Page 5 of 6
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Letter from Mayor Kishimoto to VTA Board Chairperson Dean Chu
B. Original Line 35 COA proposal
C. Original Line 88 COA proposal
D. Summary notes from May 23 public meeting
E. Revised Line 88 route proposal
F. Density of Development in the Bay Area by MTC Superdistrict
G. Letter from Michael Bums dated July 24, 2007
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
GAYLE LIKENS
Transportation Manager
STEV~ EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:V@ ~
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
COURTESY COPIES:
Michael Bums, VTA General Manager
Jim Lawson, VTA Community Relations Manager
Kevin Connolly, VTA Transportation Planning Mm~ager
Brodie Hamilton, Stanford University
CMR:338:07 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
DRAF-
August 7, 2007
Mr. Dean Chu, Chairperson
Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
Re: VTA Comprehensive Operations Analysis Plan
Dear Mr. Chu:
On August 6, 2007, the City Council discussed the VTA Comprehensive Operations
Analysis Plan with particular regard to existing and proposed bus service levels in Palo
Alto. The Council understands and strongly supports the Board’s goals of transforming
the bus service model into one that creates greater ridership and better serves our
economy and community by becoming more efficient, cost-effective and responsive to
customer needs.
The Council acknowledges that VTA staff was able to partially respond to Palo Alto
and community concerns about the original COA proposals for Lines 35 and 88, and the
revised VTA recommendations address community concerns about the lack of direct
Line 35 bus service to the Stanford Shopping Center and elimination of Line 88 service
in the Louis/Charleston corridors to Gunn High school, as well as the need for VTA to
address direct transit service to the Charleston-Arastradero co~Tidor where significant
new housing and community facilities are under construction or planned in the
immediate future.
Ho~vever, the Council camaot support or endorse a plan that further reduces VTA
resources in Palo Alto and establishes new community bus routes without a community
Mr. Dean Chu
August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 2
dialogue, similar to the community planning process been undertaken by VTA in Los
Gatos and South County.
Consequently, the Council voted (insert vote) to endorse a position opposed to the COA
recommendations as currently proposed regarding changes in Lines 35 and 88 in Palo
Alto, and to recommend that no changes in VTA service be undertaken until a thorough
comlnunity bus service study can be undertaken by VTA in cooperation with the City of
Palo Alto to determine the most productive use of the existing level of VTA transit
resources in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has the highest job density outside of San Francisco in
the Bay Area, and we are a community that strongly supports a pedestrian, bike and
transit network that connects to schools, jobs, shopping districts and transit hubs.
The Council appreciates General Manager Michael Burns’ comnaitment to have VTA
staff work with the City and the Palo Alto community to review the entire transit
network in Palo Alto in the coming year, including VTA and Palo Alto shuttle services.
Palo Alto looks forward to participating in such discussions at the earliest possible time.
Sincerely,
YORIKO KISHIMOTO
Mayor
City Council
Michael Bums, VTA General Manager
Jim La~vson, VTA Community Relations Manager
Kevin Connolly, VTA Transportation Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT B
O ~
ATTACHMENT C
0
0
ATTACHMENT D
VTA Community Meetin~
Comprehensive Operations Analysis
Wednesday, May 23, 3 pm
Lucie Stern Community Center, Palo Alto
Approximately 75 people attended the meeting. After the presentation by VTA staff,
community members asked the following questions or made the following comments:
General Comments:
¯Isn’t peak hour analysis more important than average ridership? (Answer: VTA
uses average ridership.)
¯What will make you change your mind regarding this plan? (Answer: What is
being presented is just a draft. We are holding a series of community meetings to
learn what the community thinks about the plan. We will take the month of July
to review the plan, revise the plan, etc. We will take the final plan to the VTA
Board on Aug. 30.)
¯Why is there a security officer at this meeting? (Answer: It’s VTA’s practice to
provide security at all public meetings.)
¯VTA should coordinate with the Palo Alto City Council m~d Planning
Commission. (Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto announced that the City Council will
hear a presentation on the COA at its Monday, J~_~ne 4 meeting.)
¯This meeting is held at 3 pm which is inconvenient for many parents who will be
affected by the toss of service.
¯Many people here are an~y because we have been to VTA meetings before, have
made meaningful comments, and then had them ignored. (VTA staff assured
everyone that comments are being recorded by VTA staff. VTA will study the
routes and comments in July before bringing a final plan to the Board on Aug.
3O.)
¯How can you increase ridership if you keep changing the lines and times?
Consistency in routes and schedules is fundamental to maintaining and building
ridership.
Palo Alto Shuttle:
¯The Palo Alto Shuttle was designed to complement and not to compete with VTA
routes. (VTA staff had stated that the shuttle did compete with VTA routes.)
¯When the Palo Alto Shuttle was started, VTA committed to not reduce service in
Palo Alto because of the service. VTA could implement a community bus
program in Palo Alto like it did in Los Gatos.
¯Concern that we will lose service to Gunn High School. The Palo Alto Shuttle is
already full and can’t increase trips to meet demand, especially during peak hours.
(A number of people spoke to the need for bus service for students.)
New Development in Palo Alto:
¯ There is a Palo Alto renaissance underway in the Charleston/Arastradero/E1
Camino Southeast Palo Alto area. The new developments that have been recently
permitted by the City of Palo Alto were approved with the mitigation measure of
construction workers, employees, residents, and clients using public transit so as
to not further congest city streets. The new developments include the Charleston
and E1 Camino (250 homes and 60,000 sf(square feet) of the Elk’s Lodge,
Campus for Jewish Life development at 130,000 sfand 193 units for the Jewish
Senior Residence, Bridge Housing Development of 155 single family units and 60
senior units, TruMark Development of 151 homes, Classic Communities with 96
units, the redevelopment of the Recording for Blind and Dislexic at Charleston
near E1 Camino, and the redevelopment of the 4 acres of the Palo Alto Bowl. (A
number of speakers spoke about the new development and the necessity of better
transit, not less.)
¯The JCC is planned as an "Intergenerational" Corridor. The swimming pool is
shared with the Palo Alto community. Opening will be in Sept. 2009.
¯COA based on existing data and should use the new data that includes new
development and analyze these new markets.
Service
¯
to Schools:
The 88 line is used by children traveling to a number of schools, not just Gunn.
Gunn sold 100 passes this past year.
The 88 line is an important alternative to the congestion caused by parents driving
children to school. Many parents are not happy about the elimination of a portion
of this route.
SamTrans considers school children as an important constituents and part of its
core mission. VTA should also.
Loss of Service in Palo Alto:
¯In last election Palo Alto voted for higher sales tax for transit. Now service is
being taken away.
¯Measure A in 2000 promised many things that we’re now told now we can’t
afford. Now VTA should be fair to the entire county and not spend all the money
on BART to San Jose?
¯! use the Line 88 right now. If you eliminate part of it, then I have to transfer and
my trip will be even longer.
¯Pacific Graduate School of Psychology has been working with 511.org to help
students find public transportation options to commute to school. Our students
come from around the Bay Area. We could use better bus service and service
later into the evening.
¯I’m retired and use public transportation to travel to the San Jose airport. If
eliminate part of the 88, will need to walk a mile to get to the 35.
¯VTA appears to be working in a vacuum and not looking at regional service. For
example, it’s important to many to have public transportation solution of us to get
to Menlo Park.
2
¯If you cut the 88, there will be more people using Outreach, which is more
expensive. (There were a number of people at the meeting from the Blind Center
that expressed the need for transit service as they have no alternative. Can’t use
shuttle or Marguerite because these services don’t call out the stops.)
¯Many people here are visually impaired and depend on VTA service. If the
service is taken away, it will impact the independence of our senior and disabled.
¯Proposed cuts in line 88 eliminate transit service for many residents in our area of
town.
¯Our schools are teaching our children about climate protection and healthy
lifestyles, and encouraging them to walk or take transit instead of being driven to
school. To eliminate their transit options sends the wrong message.
¯Midtown residents can’t get to the Caltrain stations on transit and we don’t have
an intercounty link to other destinations. The 35 line connects to Mountain View
but doesn’t connect Palo Alto to other destinations.
ATTACHMENT E
~THE HARBO
N
Palo Alto & VTA
~Crosstown
= - =GunnVA Extension
Embarcadero
........ Jordan Run
~Caltrain Deer Creek
Marguerite RP
Marguerite VA
~VTA Line 22
~VTA Line 35
=,===VTA Line 88
= =VTA Gunn Extension
Line 89
VTA Rapid 522
~VTA Express Service
Alternate Pro
ATTACHMENT F
Part Two: Settings, trnpacts, and i~4iti~ation ,Measures
Ghapter 2.3: Land Use, Housing, and S0c.~al Environment
Table 2.3- i : Year 2000 Density of Development in the Ba7 .....Area6y I~ITC .....Superdistrict
Employment Density f{esidential Density
Superdistrict Jobs Commercial/Density Households ResidentJol
Industrial Acres Acres
Downtown San Francisco 386,582 1,396 276.9 68,139 547
2 Richmond District 81,534 969 84. I 102,163 2,259
3 Mission District 138, I 15 3,069 45.0 I ! 0,434 4,025
4 Sunset District 28,216 438 64.4 48,961 2,540
5 Daly CitylSan Bruno 163,295 8,545 19. l 96,371 9,945
San Mateo/Burlingame I 11,981 4,942
Redwood City/Menlo Park 120,629 9,642
Pato AltolLos Altos 179,489 4,404
SunnyvalelMouncain View 372,~___~_4_6._517,013
SaratogalCupe~dno 145,643 S,234
Central San Jose 161,034 5,709
Milpi~aslEast San Jose 120,309 6,354
22.7 80,400 16,715
12.5 77,333 34,320
:/~0.8:68,068 17,931
21.9 88,679 10,992
27.8 116,842 28,375
/28.2.92,049 12,404
!8.9 99,420 18,948
3 South San JoselAlmaden 71,208 3,134 22.7 71,320 14,928
4 GilroylMorgan Hill 42,200 2,957 14.3 29,484 13,779
5 LivermorelPleasanton I 19,075 9,100 13.1 60,487 20,655
6 FremonclUnion City 145,557 10,310 14. I 99,310 18,923
7 HaywardlSan Leandro 163,$93 12,115 13.S 122,610 21,540
18 OaklandlAlameda 216, ] 70 13,750 15.7 172,049 18,629
19 Berkele),/A.!bany ! 07,279 3,413 31.4 68,709 5,88 I
20 Richmond/El Cerrito 76,291 8,308 9.2 85,492 I 1,616
21 Concord/Mar~inez 104,518 12,382 8.4 83,827 15,800
22 Walnut CreeldLamorinda 82,823 2,727 30.4 59, I I 0 19,317
23 Danville/San Ramon 53,803 2,274 23.7 41,471 16,821
24 Antioch/Pittsburg 43,670 10,030 4.4 74,229 16,495
25 Valleio/Benicia 43,881 6,608 6.6 50,961 7,752
26 FairfieldlVacaville 79,330 18,550 4.3 79,442 34,737
27 Napa 41,453 2,601 15.9 31,209 7,586
28 St. HelenalCalistoga 25,381 2,182 ] 1.6 14,193 10,272
29 Pe~alumalSonoma 61,085 11,047 S.5 60,448 38,637
30 Sanca Rosa/Sebastopol 123,534 9,S I S 13.0 82,438 58,457
31 Healdsburg/Cloverdale 20,602 I 1,796 1.7 29,517 45,721
32 Novato 27,878 2,414 11.5 21,176 6,733
33 San Rafael 52,911 4,319 12.3 41,527 14,497
34 Mill Valley/Sausalito 42,175 !,919 22.0 37,947 9,115
Note: information in this table was based on MTC’s Superdistrict data.
Source: A4TC Superdistrict and County Summaries ot-AgAG’s Projections 2003 2000-2030 Dato Summary, 2003
Density
124.6
45.2
27.4
19.3
9.7
4.8
2.3
3.8
8.1
4.1
7.4
5.2
4.8
2.1
2.9
S.3
5.7
9.2
11.7
7.4
5.3
3.1
2.5
4.5
6.6
2.3
4.1
1.4
1.6
1.4
0.6
-~ ,
Honorable Yoriko Kishimoto
July 24, 2007
Page 2 of 2
However, because the Community. Bus concept is based on designing services with the
larger communiV this is just the beginning of an on-going relationship between VTA and
the City of Palo Alto for Line 88. We will be working hand-in-hand with yourself, city
staff and the Palo Alto community over the next year to evaluate and modify Line 88
service so it meets the community needs of South Palo Alto. Our staff is prepared to
begin this dialogue in September and maintain that level of commitment throughout
future public workshops and communi~ meetings over the next year.
In addition, we will commit to work with the City" of Palo Alto and its leadership, staff
and community to review" the entire issue of service delivery in the area. This includes
the bus routes, the Community Bus and the shuttle services. We will be particularly
sensitive to new developments coming on line in Palo Alto. This will all be part of an
ongoing commitment to working with the City of Palo Alto that provides an efficient and
effective transit delivery, model that will serve the communi~’s needs.
I look forward to working together with you to develop this new model for local transit
services that will meet the needs of Palo Alto residents into the future. Please accept my
personal thanks for your dedication and hard work on this issue.
/~ncerely,/~
k’-"/Michael Burns
General Manager
cc:Steve Emslie
Gail Likens
Kevin Connolly
Jim Lawson