route one um via soquel between santa cruz and wassenville that will go away in both scenarios route one would come from downtown santa cruz um through soquel drive cabrio college um highway one and to uh airport and freedom boulevard in wassenville so that was important it's partly a response to the reliability concern about route 18 and route one um and it's also partly kind of keeping those direct trips as much as possible kind of across the county um route 18 is also the longest path from downtown santa cruz to uh of the frequent routes from downtown santa cruz to ucsc so it's kind of the least valuable of those three routes not that it wasn't valuable just it was the one that provided the least new benefit uh big thing um significantly more service on route 17 than in the draft proposal so the draft proposal had hourly direct service from santa cruz to santa jose and a few trips um basically through scott's valley in addition to that um the the um proposal we're bringing to you today uh has basically service every 30 minutes from santa cruz to santa jose and half of those trips so once an hour through scott's valley um as part of what i was telling you about route one and also some changes made on route two 62 and 73 we've tried to maximize the amount of direct service in both scenarios um between wassenville and and santa cruz and those key mid county destinations capitol amal and dominican hospital um i would add to that for wassenville cabrio college which is also directly accessible from pretty much every route coming out um and route 15 has been added back um and also there was some feedback we got about route 20 which was proposed to be just get to the base of campus and then you transfer to other routes and that's no longer the case and what's being proposed today so um i've said all that that's a lot of words describing a lot of various very detailed things so appreciate your patience with it here's what this looks like on a map so scenario a the the the dream of the dream the extra dream so this is including ucsc layover and funding so on this one um key things to know you have that two-way service at ucsc and the layover um we have ucsc east side direct service maintained on routes two so via bay street into downtown santa cruz and then out so kell avenue uh and capitol a road to capitol amal and on route three which also starts at ucsc and ends up at capitol amal but serves high street and broadway and splits to serve kind of different areas um around sea bright and twin lakes um and parts alive before joining back again around pleasure point um so that ucsc side direct service is is in this concept um and you can see uh compared to the draft proposal routes 62 and 73 uh instead of ending um at cabrio college they're both extended to capitol amal one of them via 41st the other one via capitol village uh detail of this through capitol avenue will change based on what i heard earlier today but that's the idea um and so we're able to basically with that assumption get all of the benefits that were in the draft plan um and in addition to that um extra service on route 17 um and um one lost east west direct connection but one kind of regained or maintained direct connection between downtown santa cruz and watsonville so here's kind of the base dream here's what metro can control can make happen within your control um all the way um so scenario b um ucsc the relationship with ucsc kind of stays what it is which is your basic budget assumption as well as reported earlier um so to make that happen and to maintain service reliability and continue working towards improving it there's one key consequence which is that as long as you're running all these one-way loops around ucsc that east west service is going to have to break it downtown santa cruz because otherwise you're just making the east side suffer the reliability consequences of the extremely high demand and multiple trip types happening simultaneously at uc santa cruz so as a result what that means compared to today route three which is currently a throughout from capitol amal ucsc but isn't running reliably would split it would still double in service on the east side but route 10 would go back to being its own route uh on high street um and then route two which um you know would not merge with route 19 route 19 would make stay its own thing and route two as long as this is the case um would continue being a direct route well sorry a complete route it's not that direct it goes very long but from santa cruz all the way to watsonville by a capitol amal it wouldn't split into two and 62 it stay every 30 minutes at this time um and that's scenario b so at this time um staff recommendation would be that the board approved scenario b as the preferred service alternative so basically because you it's what you know you can do and because we've spent a lot of time thinking about it and incorporating um all the public input we've had uh into it and that's kind of pending future discussions and seeing where those go um and seeing how ucsc reacts to scenario a and what's needed to make that happen um so if the board approves this recommendation then the staff and project team are going to move on to the next step which is developing schedules and preparing for service changes starting as soon as june although i don't know if everything would happen in june i'm assuming there'd be a staggered implementation that's for john to determine so thanks so much for taking the time uh to listen to all this today um i will let you move on to the next step i am assuming there's some public comment before we go to board discussion um thanks again and if anyone uh needs me to move back to any of this and provide anything in more detail i'm happy to uh at any time thank you appreciate it before we move on i think we should just pause and take stock of how historic and transformational this service increase is that we're talking about there aren't many maybe any agencies talking about service increases right now and and definitely not at the scale that we're considering and we're able to do that because of all the success we had last year raising capital funding to to fulfill our zero-emission vision we raised 90 million dollars for the hydrogen buses feeling solid so when the one-time tourism materialized we can invest that in service whereas most agencies are using that to augment their capital zero emission transition button so it's it's a pretty incredible position to be in even if it is one-time funding we're able to really invest in a community at the service so i just wanted to make that point before we move on to the discussion thank you all right board discussion yes so a couple of questions first when the polling was done the 425 people who gave kind of two-thirds i think 67 in favor were they seeing scenario a or scenario b they were seeing the originals attracted so so if we didn't pull on a b a b kind of take elements from yes both a is mostly the draft scenario with some of the changes that we incorporated based on the feedback and b is the without ucs where i was going with that is is it fair to say we don't have a clear read on the desire for cross county commuters to the campus despite the timing issues and the delay issues you have a sense of whether we've got for students yeah writing from capitol the mall all the way to ucs i don't have good data on that currently we typically kind of do the summary quarterly right and we're we're just at the end of the quarter we know that previous to the service change about the quarter of live oak customers were ucs the students and that was on routes that ran hourly that required transferring to an hourly route right so with the direct connection anecdotally it seemed to be having the intent we we did see people riding through downtown on those routes the reliability was a big issue and we did pull on that so you know daniel showed the kind of the survey results it was towards the bottom there wasn't you know as high as frequency the weekend service levels but it was noted for sure the reason we we addressed it is kind of kept coming up the second question earlier this week at a spark meeting there was discussion mentioned bringing the route 10 back there was discussion possibly making it route 11 so that it ran clockwise through the campus and sort of balanced the service within 19 and the 15 if it's coming back to our school term you already got the 18 the 20 18 is carrying twice as many riders per month as any of the uc routes so it's certainly not i kind of missed the comment but so i was underperforming it's been really well so i think the route 10 on the map is to show coverage on high street the way we route around the campus let that play what to balance counterclockwise so we vote today to call it a 10 that's we still have that flexibility yeah we'll still have that flexibility responding to rude 18 it's not that routine is um underperforming in any way it's that if you're coming from from across county and connecting towards campus rude 18 is a longer path into campus okay so among the east west connections it's the one that provides the least benefit coming from the east certainly got plenty of ridership and performing extremely well on the west side thanks for clarification which is why we kind of split it in both scenario a and b um i forgot the number it's not bus 35 it's the other center into a valley that i've been hearing too about but i forgot the number it's mentioned it's not been um reliable probably the 35 no wasn't 35 they said not 35 and that on the slide there was a second three is it the three it's like a seven seven seven it could be 17 i a number like that oh wait wait wait it is okay it's not 17 all right yeah 35 more 17 and that's it no but you knew you were right the route three said reliability issues and now i kept hearing that some of the people weren't used in it because of that i was trying to say yeah you'll have to report back okay i'll make a note thanks so with the recommended action they would just be improving the routes and sort of with the idea that heading on where our final budget lands we would start rolling out June or as soon as possible but all right yeah it's less the budget than the operator availability so i think we have uh authorized the hiring up to 80 new operators i think we'll have 60 for training so that's my piece of it so theoretically we could implement three quarters of the service in June the other big piece is having enough buses to do it and that's something we're still working on so the hydrogen the 53 hydrogen buses aren't coming most aren't coming at the end of the year but we need a bridge uh in order to implement the service before we get the full order of the hydrogen buses and so that's something we're still working on we think we have a solution to get most of those by June but those are really impediments to implementing the full thing now so we we didn't expect to have the hiring go so well with so that's why we've always been targeting September but we pretty much have the bus operators we need now and now we need to work on it thanks i mentioned because if we are looking at a budget gap and there are various ways to try to fill that and hopefully we can identify the thoughts we've seen i think it would benefit us as an agency to push much of the service improvements and fare free as possible right up to a potential vote on funding to continue them right rather than the worst thing would happen if we had this gap where oh wouldn't you remember we did for you last year right yeah that'd be terrible so i think that maybe delay is a good thing i mean the other thing to consider is that we've got kind of construction on our roads right now i mean the improvements on highway one the initial bus on the shoulder section is there i mean those won't be done until 2025 the so-called drive improvements have been done at the end of this year so ultimately our bus can be told a lot better when those improvements are done and so that could also benefit a little bit of the way because public will be able to see the benefit of these service improvements yeah so it's a good point and we are even even though we've been more successful in the bus operator hiring we are still looking to target the majority of the improvements with september and also aligns well with ucsc schedule most of our riders should not fall um the only complicated factor there is the of that one time sd-125 per cent funding is available now to draw down and through mid 2027 i think so there's still an opportunity to delay a little bit except that we have the operators on staff so we want to put the service out there i think thank you the work is a great mission um so depending on how conversations go we're used to going to see what is the process to revisit scenario a should we adopt scenario b today we can we can come back yeah just to come back but you know in some sense we've already done the planning uh i was going to ask like maybe we prove both but i think we should come back and once once we get greater detail specifically i guess the follow-up to that is um this is a lot of what ifs but let's say we eventually get into scenario a how challenging will it be to shift from the service provision of scenario b to scenario a in terms of the what the agency can handle uh it's it's because we didn't change one of those throughout it's it's basically two made corrupt changes so most of what we implemented in b will stay the same when we move to a but there will be a big route change on two two route structures and then a new operation around the lake over but it was doable definitely and and you'll need the extra drivers and i'm just trying to understand the budget part of this but i thought i understood that when metro staffs went to rtc in december the lord of the 32 million he said is that fully funded that reimagined metro phase two at least that's what was reported the paper what i understood from the budget presentation earlier today was that both phase one and two and free fares for everyone but students that's a 3.4 million dollar hit you're taking like you're fully funded uh to do this for the next two fiscal years so i guess one quite but then we're hearing that there's a gap and i guess maybe the gap is to go beyond the two fiscal years but i'm trying to understand why there's a gap when it's reported to be fully funded with the rtc money and it appeared in budget today to be fully funded for two years so i don't understand where the gap is and then second even if there is a gap i'm not understanding why the one route to close the gap would be for ucsc students to pay more than they already do they pay i think we pay close to five million dollars a year of student treaty funds they pay uh to metro so going forward they would continue to pay that amount that everybody else except the brio students would be writing for free so i think there's an equity issue there that perhaps i don't know if that was discussed when the board discussed fair or free for everybody about students i don't understand why the presumption would be for this dream of dreams plan that is a great plan and that you went out and clearly secured great public support for buy it would fall to ucsc to fund the gap that i don't even see is there but if it is there why why would that be on ucsc since this is a countywide service and freedom yeah so no one here on the metric side is asking ucsc students to pay more than they already pay i mean that's one way they could do it we have some students here that's one way phase two could be fully funded but that isn't the assumption the assumption kind of built into the service planning and the service model is that because of this turn turnaround metro is now operating the same level of service that today metro and taps operate because we go in one way we come back the other way doing that means metro is doubling the amount of service around the loop that it currently provides so i think the assumption or one logical conclusion of that is oh the cost of doing that there's a cost right because it's double the revenue hours around the loop and the fact could come from the tax budget assuming that ask me drivers are willing to come over to metro and there's you know other discussions that need to happen there but the kind of the built-in assumption into that was how can we without duplicating service come up with a rational way to provide service around the loop so it it ends up costing about the same for metro to add that service to the loop and taps currently spends to operate the service if that makes sense that that was kind of the built-in assumption i think when we presented this at plan in december to be frank we hadn't fully thought about we hadn't fully quantified the effect of for the cost of duplicating service around the loop and there's i would turn the equity question the other way directing all this service at ucsc is really unfair to the rest of the community um because we would have ended up essentially doing this doubling of service around the loop which mean which would have meant we could have you would have had to do much less in the rest of the community so that's that's kind of why we we pulled it back in scenario b and said well wait a second if we are going to provide this level of service then there's there's really no equitable equitable way to do it um unless there's more contribution coming from ucsc and again the assumption wasn't that students pick more that is one way to happen the working assumption was let's figure out a way to kind of use a part of the tax budget that's already used to operate loop service if there's a way to rationalize that as part of metro service in the future so that was that was the assumption that we've now drawn back frankly so we love this dream of dreams we think makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons these frequent network at 15-minute routes extending from the highest demand point in the system right throughout Santa Cruz County but there's a lot of sense to that um but it's going to take it's clearly going to take more work to come to an agreement of how can we actually make the work and that's what we're putting forth the scenario b and did the budget that was presented earlier today and i'm 12th represent scenario fee or a little follow-up but i think maybe an answer to the question is we are we're also looking at instead of $32 million in two years $32 million for years now thanks to the legislature saying hey i'll give you everything in profits in year one but your two is actually your two yeah for that obviously i thought in one of the acts that got flowing in the final two years of this plan but that actually has slightly less to do with this discussion around the service around your csc we we could implement scenario a but it would mean getting a lot of the other service that we've because we're now really focused on doubling service around that that's the issue is the allocation of resources i'm recording a real-time view of the of the trips i've i've heard some comments from folks that it hasn't quite i don't want to say been accurate but yeah and so i wanted to know when you put these systems into place how how quickly that information is available to the customers for some folks they look at it and i realize if you're offering 15-minute service maybe they don't care but if they have a longer wait or they thought the bus was going to be here by now are as you keep adding these things that as you have added in the last phase how has that changed is it is it pretty smooth or are there some challenges so it's been a challenge with new buses so currently what we're experiencing is all of the articulated buses that we got from san diego to serve ucsc none of those buses yet have the real-time information equipment on stall so most of the complaints that we receive are related to those buses that's the 18 and 19 primarily those routes they're also the most frequent so it's in some sense the west impactful the bus should be coming every 15 minutes but still the advertiser system it works on the rest of it people expect it they want to see it so it's in process the equipment has been ordered it's being installed but that little caveats at the bottom of that so that people who can't find because that's very frustrating yeah um you know yeah i mean on all of the real-time apps it it does indicate to the user whether or not it's tracking real-time information or schedule information so you can't actually know oh this bus is tracking right it's subtle yeah but it's there uh whether or not it's right and it has to refresh yeah thank you for the questions right seeing none we will now open the public hearing and take public comments on proposed reimagine metro phase two service proposals any comments in the room hello so as Larry knows we've been through this a couple of different times and smart smart has had their feedback heard by staff the only difference that i would like to bring up between some of the maps that we're doing here versus what we've been talking about we still maintain that there's a question about having the 55 dot continue to serve capital of village extending that through the 73 we would rather see the 73 go through core lead us on a more regular basis and restore service into that area rather than shorten the 55 and have that connection be made i don't think that there is a huge amount of people that are using rural freedom to capital of village it would mind transferring from one bus to another at cabrillo compared to the amount of people that could be served if we did actually go into core lead us around to the market like they used to do i think that that would be a much larger community that we could serve so i'd ask that we continue to be able to explore those and make that change if necessary i'm not proposing that we abandon capital of village because if you look at the map close enough to 55 would now begin and end at cabrillo college it would just continue to run as it does today so we can use that cost savings to extend service to core lead us on the 73 with that being said it option b is what we are endorsing at this time without proper layover facilities without proper break facilities on the university we can no longer maintain this looping around the coming back thing we've been trying to hold that together on the route three and that is probably one of the most unequivocal things we're doing right now because the community of live oak is suffering at the expense of the university and that has to stop so option b is really kind of our only option unless we can break those routes in half we just cannot keep them on time it doesn't matter if it's busy it doesn't matter if it's traffic the route is too long the longer that the route gets the more unreliable it gets and bogging down around the university especially right now is we're seeing a massive increase in the amount of on-campus usage that we're having not sure where that's coming from but current events could play into that we're leaving a lot of people behind and having the next bus have to come pick them up but the actual loading time that that takes especially in an articulated bus when we are literally emptying and refilling at almost every stop is just impossible to continue that service through live oak at that point because it could take us over an hour to loop the campus at the site so with those changes in mind we're endorsing option b at this time unless we can figure out something different on the university campus with the slight change that i'd like to consideration of currently the service returned just pretty short comments from my arms but i think the way daniel summarized it earlier has been my experience with those phase one changes i live on the east side and i've pretty much just all about these things just come about at the expense of operations there i live right by the three and three d broadway sad transport eclipses that stop to me and there's times where the bus will be delayed 45 minutes 30 minutes so really glad to hear that it is something that's being studied and something that's come up as a concern um also scenario b just sounds like the best option at the site for that reason but if scenario a is further explored in the future um really just keep in mind to not put more service on campus at the expense of places like watson mill three of college is then from watson mill to come to santa cruz that be split up into and that's just not there in any circumstance um i just really want to urge to for service to be restored on soak hill avenue on any of the buses that do you go to talk to mill for anyone that lives east of soak hill avenue for me it turns into a 20 minute walk to go to watson mill where i have doctor's appointments i see family just like shop there enjoy going to watson mill so it's really been difficult just to get there um theoretically there could be a connection from the 3d or 3a to the one or two but that never works out because of the problems um being on time from campus and just one last thing so it was mentioned earlier too but broadway south france of hortie there's no lighting there you know where to sit so especially once we get started there's already been several instances where the bus has just passed by and then it's waiting another 30 minutes 45 minutes really the up in discretion of the member the bus to show up so just really hope you all take these things into consideration thank you thank you hi again uh thank you john and daniel for the presentation um i want to talk about scenario b it's a little bit disappointing to lose that uh one seat ride from the other side i completely understand it's not working right now it's not fair to um east side commuter so i get that but i'm more concerned about like how in the long term can we plan for a transit center on campus so regardless of if there's any like additional ucsc funding um just kind of hoping that there's something in the pipeline long term for ucsc and metro work together to like get a transit center on campus so we can run east side routes and have them be reliable because like we did fight hard to get that one seat ride to catch tola and sucks that it's not working but it also sucks to leave that and to lose um basically cutting frequency on high street and have that's just that's selfishly we really don't need that much frequency on high street i just move there and i'm like and it's only i think one was an hour um and then as well i know we're not talking about communication right now but when it comes to the timetables um for weekend routes making sure they're kind of staggered because a couple weekends ago i was trying to get to campus from circles and the 20 of the 19 came like within 10 minutes of each other and then there was no bus for an hour so having those be you know more spread out especially because like 20 doesn't come very often and it's like weekend route for this tub um i have some more open ended questions about so does base to restore the precoded levels of service to dcsc um and then when will the scenario be mapped be posted uh online because the agenda it's not updated with the when we saw in the presentation and then also where can we get i don't so this is my first coordinating but i'm not sure with the procedures that are when you get updates on data so like when will you hear the real-time gtfs data like and will that be presented um like after phase two is implemented like some wedding september when can we expect to hear that yeah those are my comments thank you thank you the additional comments in the room i i do kind of agree that at this point uh and i think it is it's more realistic to implement but i do want to encourage everybody that's involved in the process to continue to try to get um a transit center or whatever's needed to work at the college to have that directory from there up to to the capital area maybe perhaps i don't know if it would be needed or it would help perhaps a directory from the campus area to spots belly since i know that one of the main reasons they go over there is for your target your polls and your own and that kind of stuff that they don't can't get in Santa Cruz area um i don't go out that way very much but just when i even though the service wasn't really reliable it did have a positive impact just on my rights that i did take because we didn't have all the uc kids college kids transferring with all of their stuff at the bus station so i even know i don't use that particular service i do think it would help the overall niceness of it i guess i don't know what to say but yeah thank you thank you further comment yeah do you want to address the question uh sure it should be posted now uh the real time is in the process what was the other question you have three questions store pre-covid left for store pre-covid it's 13 buses an hour at peak of the peak it was around 16 pre-covid at the base it's more it's pre-covid service hours the base was a little bit more i did want to address one thing i mean hope we don't lose sight of scenario a that we can keep working towards that idea you don't have to be in this town very long to notice the difference in traffic on the day you see a season session and the day they're not and part of what this was trying to address was getting a longer one-seat ride that's a frequent network you know to the campus and all the other benefits that pass for the rest of the community and getting people out of their cars um a comment was brought up i think on both both side maybe i go down the career side that if we go free fare everyone's going to be paying but the students i think we should think about it i think it is that we should we think about it differently the students paid for service natural wouldn't be operating the level of service that we operate to usc or cabrillo without those contracts for transit service we just went um and so it's it's less about payers than paying for the service and the benefit that that provides the students um so i hope uh i hope we can still keep working towards scenario i think you know as a lot uh it's a strong vision for the community as a lot of that but there are obviously some additional considerations made to keep working thank you so i really appreciate the pleasure but that goes to usc set those for their comment right any further public comment in the room right we'll go to virtual public color saying none we'll bring it back to the board for discussion in a vote oh i'm sorry and we are officially closing the public here so we'll now bring it back to the board for discussion in a vote they should be the scenario b with the caveat that we continue discussions around scenario a partnership with um mr rayskin and ucsc team and i don't know if you need more than that but come back in the next year with an update on some really long motion we have a moment in a second uh okay we have a roll call vote please director brown hi director downy hi director newtron hi director palmetary johnson hi rick japanic hi ricky lin hi ricky rick fearson hi ricky newson hi ricky things like i rick japan's current hi in the motion access thank you i will move on now to our interim CEO general manager oral report i'll turn it up to you i i'll try to be brief because i know it's been long these um just a couple of things that i want to touch on um metro's going to be participating in the senator's birthday event let's take a place um april 20 and um we will also have a booth and bring one electric raft bus um to this event and we're also going to be offering free rides for both bus and parents on mond i think it's monday um april 22nd and then a quick update on bus operators we currently have um full fully qualified we have 167 bus drivers and we have 51 trainees one more class is coming in in april which will be about 20 more bus operators so we we currently have a total of 180 and then lastly i wanted to talk about um the vibe magazine that everybody has um we made the spring edition and it has some really nice pictures and it talks like that uh about one ride at a time reimagine metro um and a few other things there's some beautiful pictures and that's all i have for you right yeah we got a lot of friends and no it's really nice nice very nice yes question uh so where's the booth going to be at certain day question oh i'll get you that the other questions public comment on this item in the room any online done all right well thank you so much that brings us to the end of today's meeting we will adjourn to our next regularly scheduled meeting on friday april 26th at nine a.m so then please take care of yourself and take care of each other thank you


by Governor Hope Uzadeem of Emo State has stated that he does not interfere with Labour Union's affairs and that his administration prioritizes workers' welfare and well-being and sharing their salaries are never delayed during a meeting with state health correspondents at the presidential villa in Abuja. I challenge any Emo State civil servant to come up to say that between 2020 January 15th he did not receive salary in any of the months. What has happened in this ugly coincidence that a national leader, each year president of Nigerian Labour Congress is from Emo State and has not been able to market the difference between being a national leader of an organization.