WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.480
 Good afternoon and welcome to this special call meeting of the Mobility Committee.

00:00:07.480 --> 00:00:13.820
 We have a quorum and we have only one item for individual consideration for this special

00:00:13.820 --> 00:00:18.940
 meeting which is to receive a report, hold a discussion and give direction regarding

00:00:18.940 --> 00:00:24.680
 a proposed resolution outlining concerns and proposed revisions to the Denton County Transportation

00:00:24.680 --> 00:00:30.960
 Authority's DCTA modified service delivery model to include on-demand zone service and

00:00:30.960 --> 00:00:36.240
 the potential removal of existing fixed route bus service that will significantly impact

00:00:36.240 --> 00:00:38.720
 transit services in the Denton community.

00:00:38.720 --> 00:00:46.520
 And I would just like to say a couple sort of opening remarks.

00:00:46.520 --> 00:00:56.080
 The objective of this meeting is to craft a document for council to deliberate on and

00:00:56.080 --> 00:01:01.920
 ultimately hopefully to adopt in order to give direction to our representative.

00:01:01.920 --> 00:01:09.240
 Because he's had the opportunity to hear individual input, but what I'm really hoping we'll be

00:01:09.240 --> 00:01:19.200
 able to accomplish is to kind of formalize consensus direction for representation.

00:01:19.200 --> 00:01:25.520
 The other opening remark I'll say is this is weird that we're doing this in chambers.

00:01:25.520 --> 00:01:31.920
 It doesn't exactly feel like a work session type of setting, but my hope is that we can

00:01:31.920 --> 00:01:39.040
 kind of keep our mics on and really just have an active discussion and hopefully go point

00:01:39.040 --> 00:01:42.080
 for point and see where we have overlap and agreement.

00:01:42.080 --> 00:01:46.280
 Who's going to run the staff side?

00:01:46.280 --> 00:01:47.280
 Okay.

00:01:47.280 --> 00:01:49.280
 So we have Becky DeViney.

00:01:49.280 --> 00:01:51.600
 I'll let you just open it.

00:01:51.600 --> 00:01:52.600
 Yes, sir, Chair.

00:01:52.600 --> 00:01:53.600
 Thank you so much.

00:01:53.600 --> 00:01:56.440
 So Becky DeViney, City Engineer, Director of Capital Projects.

00:01:56.440 --> 00:01:57.680
 Today we have Rachel Wood.

00:01:57.680 --> 00:02:04.880
 She's going to be making a presentation to talk through the actual report and discussion.

00:02:04.880 --> 00:02:08.280
 We also have a draft resolution that has been crafted.

00:02:08.280 --> 00:02:12.960
 And so I'm going to ask Rachel to come forward and walk through a presentation and then we'll

00:02:12.960 --> 00:02:15.480
 open up the opportunity to have that work session.

00:02:15.480 --> 00:02:16.480
 Great.

00:02:16.480 --> 00:02:20.000
 So with that, I'll turn it over to Rachel.

00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:21.000
 Thank you, Becky.

00:02:21.000 --> 00:02:23.520
 So this is going to be a really quick presentation.

00:02:23.520 --> 00:02:27.360
 Just going to summarize the information that we've received today and then from there we'll

00:02:27.360 --> 00:02:32.760
 actually open up the Microsoft Word document and start making edits based on the feedback

00:02:32.760 --> 00:02:35.860
 received from the committee today.

00:02:35.860 --> 00:02:39.760
 I will note we have gotten some additional feedback today that's not folded into today's

00:02:39.760 --> 00:02:40.760
 presentation.

00:02:40.760 --> 00:02:45.360
 And, of course, the resolution that was attached was simply for reaction purposes.

00:02:45.360 --> 00:02:47.320
 So very preliminary draft.

00:02:47.320 --> 00:02:50.640
 I just know I work better whenever I don't have a blank sheet of paper and have something

00:02:50.640 --> 00:02:51.960
 to edit off of.

00:02:51.960 --> 00:02:55.320
 So that was our attempt was just to kind of take some of that preliminary feedback we

00:02:55.320 --> 00:03:00.320
 received on the 16th and 17th when we had individual conversations with you all just

00:03:00.320 --> 00:03:04.140
 so that you had something to kind of wordsmith off of.

00:03:04.140 --> 00:03:06.200
 So just a quick overview.

00:03:06.200 --> 00:03:08.520
 As I mentioned, we're going to give some of the feedback that we got.

00:03:08.520 --> 00:03:12.520
 This really is a continuation of that June 16th Mobility Committee meeting.

00:03:12.520 --> 00:03:17.800
 And then we'll dive into the actual draft resolution itself.

00:03:17.800 --> 00:03:22.160
 Mr. Chair has already kind of hit on this, but really just for the record, just to kind

00:03:22.160 --> 00:03:27.840
 of explain the intent a little bit further, the DCTA Board of Directors is set to meet

00:03:27.840 --> 00:03:34.240
 on July 22nd to vote for the proposed revisions to their service delivery model.

00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:38.200
 Due to the summer break, City Council will not be meeting again until that same week

00:03:38.200 --> 00:03:39.800
 on July 20th.

00:03:39.800 --> 00:03:44.400
 So really the intent of today's meeting is to get that good working draft that hopefully

00:03:44.400 --> 00:03:48.840
 the three members of the Mobility Committee are in agreement on that we can then share

00:03:48.840 --> 00:03:53.720
 with the full City Council and the City Council can consider that at their July 20th City

00:03:53.720 --> 00:03:54.720
 Council meeting.

00:03:54.720 --> 00:03:58.720
 The staff will then share with the DCTA Board of Directors so that they have that to inform

00:03:58.720 --> 00:04:03.760
 the decisions that they make at their July 22nd Board of Directors meeting.

00:04:03.760 --> 00:04:07.400
 So just to summarize, and again, this is only the feedback that we received from those phone

00:04:07.400 --> 00:04:11.520
 calls and then some of the conversation that was actually had from the dais at the June

00:04:11.520 --> 00:04:13.740
 16th Mobility Committee meeting.

00:04:13.740 --> 00:04:18.040
 Some of what we heard was concern for the drivers and union employees who could potentially

00:04:18.040 --> 00:04:22.600
 lose their job as a result of the service delivery model revisions.

00:04:22.600 --> 00:04:27.880
 So in addition to that, some of the feedback we heard was that those drivers may see a

00:04:27.880 --> 00:04:33.160
 decrease in payer benefits if they're hired to work for a different transit agency in

00:04:33.160 --> 00:04:35.320
 the Metroplex area.

00:04:35.320 --> 00:04:40.000
 Other feedback we heard was the concern for the impact to low income and other sensitive

00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:41.000
 communities.

00:04:41.000 --> 00:04:45.080
 I think we brought up concern for the underhoused or homeless population and then potentially

00:04:45.080 --> 00:04:49.300
 people that may suffer from mental illness.

00:04:49.300 --> 00:04:53.760
 Other feedback received was continue with the fixed routes, but potentially scale the

00:04:53.760 --> 00:04:58.480
 transit size of vehicles down depending on demand at each route.

00:04:58.480 --> 00:05:02.600
 So potentially have smaller vehicles where there is lower demand.

00:05:02.600 --> 00:05:08.120
 We also heard that there is more of a preference for a gradual rather than an abrupt implementation

00:05:08.120 --> 00:05:13.680
 to allow the community, particularly the heavy transit riders time to adjust and assess ridership

00:05:13.680 --> 00:05:20.900
 levels at the DCTA level now that society is returning more to those pre-pandemic operations.

00:05:20.900 --> 00:05:25.320
 There was a note provided as we were having that conversation that pre-pandemic ridership

00:05:25.320 --> 00:05:27.280
 was actually on the rise.

00:05:27.280 --> 00:05:33.200
 And so some of the data could potentially be misperceived given that there was kind

00:05:33.200 --> 00:05:37.660
 of a halt in operations obviously due to the pandemic.

00:05:37.660 --> 00:05:41.560
 Other feedback we heard was that there is a preference at least from one committee member

00:05:41.560 --> 00:05:46.640
 to have hailable rides so that they could hail them from a specific location, similar

00:05:46.640 --> 00:05:49.480
 to how you would hail a taxi in a major city.

00:05:49.480 --> 00:05:55.520
 And then also a potential elimination of fares given that the fares only represent 0.5 percent

00:05:55.520 --> 00:05:57.760
 of DCTA's total revenue stream.

00:05:57.760 --> 00:06:02.560
 So that's the high-level summary of what we received last week in the conversations

00:06:02.560 --> 00:06:04.040
 that we had.

00:06:04.040 --> 00:06:09.360
 And really wanted to summarize that and I'll stop sharing my screen for a moment, pull

00:06:09.360 --> 00:06:12.160
 up the Microsoft Word document.

00:06:12.160 --> 00:06:16.040
 I will note just so that we can get through this before we kind of launch into the meat

00:06:16.040 --> 00:06:21.740
 of today's conversation that next steps after we get a resolution that hopefully the three

00:06:21.740 --> 00:06:27.000
 of you are in agreement on is we will provide a draft resolution in an upcoming Friday report

00:06:27.000 --> 00:06:31.640
 just so that the City Council will have an opportunity to review potentially during one-on-one

00:06:31.640 --> 00:06:33.920
 meetings that staff has with those elected officials.

00:06:33.920 --> 00:06:38.600
 We could use that to inform the final draft that goes to City Council.

00:06:38.600 --> 00:06:42.620
 And then as I've already mentioned that City Council adoption at the July 20th meeting

00:06:42.620 --> 00:06:48.000
 and then July 22nd is when the DCTA board is currently set to meet to vote on their

00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:51.120
 service delivery model revision.

00:06:51.120 --> 00:06:57.160
 So I will stop sharing that and Mr. Chair, do you want me to go ahead and just pull up

00:06:57.160 --> 00:06:59.320
 the resolution or do we want to have some dialogue first?

00:06:59.320 --> 00:07:03.120
 >> Well, yeah, I actually wanted to, you know, consult with my colleagues here about how you'd

00:07:03.120 --> 00:07:04.120
 like to work.

00:07:04.120 --> 00:07:09.880
 I mean, two possible paths I see, you know, one is like let's just have an open-ended

00:07:09.880 --> 00:07:16.440
 chat first or go into like the draft as a template and then say, no, not that at all

00:07:16.440 --> 00:07:18.120
 or, you know, go point for point.

00:07:18.120 --> 00:07:21.160
 Do you have an appetite for just an open-ended chat first?

00:07:21.160 --> 00:07:23.800
 >> I would prefer to go straight to the template and --

00:07:23.800 --> 00:07:24.800
 >> You okay with that?

00:07:24.800 --> 00:07:33.720
 >> Yeah, I only have really like one question regarding both the draft and the presentation

00:07:33.720 --> 00:07:34.720
 revision.

00:07:34.720 --> 00:07:39.400
 I noticed the word adopt was used, the DCTA board of directors is currently scheduled

00:07:39.400 --> 00:07:44.440
 to adopt revisions to the service delivery model.

00:07:44.440 --> 00:07:50.040
 Can you clarify why the word adopt is being used and I know that the DCTA has used that

00:07:50.040 --> 00:07:53.200
 type of language in their agendas as well.

00:07:53.200 --> 00:07:57.040
 Why are we using the word adopt as opposed to vote on?

00:07:57.040 --> 00:08:02.640
 >> Sure, and if I may, Mr. Chair, I forgot to mention that we actually have Nicole Rucker

00:08:02.640 --> 00:08:07.160
 with DCTA on the call to answer specific questions.

00:08:07.160 --> 00:08:10.840
 My assumption is that the board will actually be taking a vote and that is why there is

00:08:10.840 --> 00:08:14.600
 an adoption, but I want to let Nicole answer that question more specifically.

00:08:14.600 --> 00:08:15.600
 >> Sure.

00:08:15.600 --> 00:08:18.320
 Can you hear me since I'm joining virtually?

00:08:18.320 --> 00:08:19.320
 >> We can.

00:08:19.320 --> 00:08:20.320
 >> Yeah, can we look at the --

00:08:20.320 --> 00:08:21.320
 >> Okay, perfect.

00:08:21.320 --> 00:08:22.320
 Perfect.

00:08:22.320 --> 00:08:30.240
 So the standard language that DCTA uses on their board agenda says to discuss and consider

00:08:30.240 --> 00:08:37.440
 approval of is typically the language that we use when it comes to voting from our board

00:08:37.440 --> 00:08:39.200
 perspective.

00:08:39.200 --> 00:08:44.720
 And our Title VI program currently requires a board vote for any sort of a service change

00:08:44.720 --> 00:08:50.600
 that impacts 25% more or more of our current services.

00:08:50.600 --> 00:08:55.920
 And so because this is quite a substantial change, we are required to get board review

00:08:55.920 --> 00:08:57.360
 and approval of this item.

00:08:57.360 --> 00:08:58.360
 >> Okay.

00:08:58.360 --> 00:09:00.160
 >> Does that work for you?

00:09:00.160 --> 00:09:02.320
 >> Yes, that works for me.

00:09:02.320 --> 00:09:03.320
 >> Okay.

00:09:03.320 --> 00:09:04.320
 All right.

00:09:04.320 --> 00:09:09.480
 So taking the guidance from a moment ago, can I ask you to work with us, Rachel, and

00:09:09.480 --> 00:09:12.720
 like to say, okay, here's item one.

00:09:12.720 --> 00:09:13.720
 >> Absolutely.

00:09:13.720 --> 00:09:21.920
 >> And we are under no obligation to keep any word, including of and the -- you know,

00:09:21.920 --> 00:09:26.960
 it's just a template and we'll cook it up as we go.

00:09:26.960 --> 00:09:27.960
 >> Okay.

00:09:27.960 --> 00:09:28.960
 >> Mr. Chair.

00:09:28.960 --> 00:09:31.200
 >> Yes, go ahead.

00:09:31.200 --> 00:09:36.000
 And how about we keep it real casual without recognizing, we can just talk?

00:09:36.000 --> 00:09:37.000
 >> Thank you.

00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:38.000
 Paul.

00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:39.000
 >> Not that casual.

00:09:39.000 --> 00:09:40.000
 Mr. Meltzer.

00:09:40.000 --> 00:09:41.000
 >> Okay.

00:09:41.000 --> 00:09:42.000
 Mr. Meltzer.

00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:51.480
 >> My question is using the term modified service versus -- is this a true transformation

00:09:51.480 --> 00:09:57.560
 that we're talking about, transformational versus modified?

00:09:57.560 --> 00:09:59.880
 >> Read to that, please, someone.

00:09:59.880 --> 00:10:08.760
 >> Well, I think that's -- part of the purpose of this is to see if we have a shared vision,

00:10:08.760 --> 00:10:14.040
 you know, to -- I think we should talk about that.

00:10:14.040 --> 00:10:18.160
 >> Yeah, because she mentioned something about a substantial change.

00:10:18.160 --> 00:10:19.160
 >> Yeah.

00:10:19.160 --> 00:10:26.440
 Well, if the plan is exactly as presented to us, we're, you know, just moving on exactly

00:10:26.440 --> 00:10:30.920
 as presented to us, that would be pretty substantial change.

00:10:30.920 --> 00:10:37.520
 So you know, but we're here to see if we -- see what our shared vision is.

00:10:37.520 --> 00:10:38.520
 >> Okay.

00:10:38.520 --> 00:10:41.480
 >> And I'm happy to provide more specifics on that.

00:10:41.480 --> 00:10:45.240
 We would consider any change to service a modification.

00:10:45.240 --> 00:10:49.120
 So there's any -- whether it's a small or it's a large change, right now what we're

00:10:49.120 --> 00:10:57.720
 looking at from a service hour perspective is a reduction in about 52 to 54% of our overall

00:10:57.720 --> 00:11:03.080
 service hours would be removed, and so that's why we consider this substantial.

00:11:03.080 --> 00:11:09.760
 >> And that is across DCTA not just within the city of Denton, is that correct?

00:11:09.760 --> 00:11:10.760
 >> That is correct.

00:11:10.760 --> 00:11:11.760
 That is system-wide.

00:11:11.760 --> 00:11:19.240
 >> All right, so let's see what the first chunk looks like.

00:11:19.240 --> 00:11:21.120
 >> And Mr. Chair, I do apologize.

00:11:21.120 --> 00:11:25.400
 We've had a bit of a mix-up and we have the AIS and not the resolution loaded to this

00:11:25.400 --> 00:11:27.400
 computer, so I'm trying to figure out --

00:11:27.400 --> 00:11:30.400
 >> No need to stress.

00:11:30.400 --> 00:11:37.120
 Let's, you know, let's take a break at 1 11, and we'll resume when we have the document

00:11:37.120 --> 00:11:38.120
 we're working on.

00:11:38.120 --> 00:11:39.120
 >> Perfect.

00:11:39.120 --> 00:11:40.120
 It should only take 30 seconds.

00:11:40.120 --> 00:11:44.840
 Mr. Mark, get set.

00:11:44.840 --> 00:11:55.840
 Okay, we're back continuing with the special call meeting of the Mobility Committee, and

00:11:55.840 --> 00:12:02.680
 we're going to take up the resolution bit by bit, starting with the first bit.

00:12:02.680 --> 00:12:08.760
 >> Okay, so if it's okay with the committee, I'm going to suggest that perhaps we skim

00:12:08.760 --> 00:12:16.000
 over the caption and probably the meat of the document, and this is just my recommendation,

00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:22.720
 totally up to you all, is really once we get to section 2, that's really where the council

00:12:22.720 --> 00:12:26.160
 is kind of taking their stance from a policy perspective.

00:12:26.160 --> 00:12:31.320
 The whereas's are kind of, for lack of a better term, and I'm sure Trey can give me more specific

00:12:31.320 --> 00:12:36.520
 language to use, but it's kind of flowery, formal language, but this really is the part

00:12:36.520 --> 00:12:38.360
 where we're kind of making our policy stance.

00:12:38.360 --> 00:12:43.160
 So my recommendation is that we start at Roman numeral 1, and then we kind of break that

00:12:43.160 --> 00:12:47.500
 down, and then once we get through all of that, if we have time, we can sort of work

00:12:47.500 --> 00:12:52.000
 through wordsmithing the whereas statements at the beginning of the resolution.

00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:53.000
 >> Okay.

00:12:53.000 --> 00:12:54.000
 >> So the Roman --

00:12:54.000 --> 00:12:57.000
 >> Let's at least try it that way.

00:12:57.000 --> 00:12:58.000
 >> Okay.

00:12:58.000 --> 00:12:59.000
 >> See what else we need to do.

00:12:59.000 --> 00:13:00.000
 >> Okay.

00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:03.880
 So and just to read through for those that are listening in, so section 2 starts with

00:13:03.880 --> 00:13:08.600
 the city of Denton confirms by resolution prior discussions with DCTA staff regarding

00:13:08.600 --> 00:13:13.400
 concerns with proposed revisions to the service delivery model for Denton County, including

00:13:13.400 --> 00:13:16.980
 but not limited to the following specific items.

00:13:16.980 --> 00:13:22.560
 So Roman numeral 1 states that the DCTA board of directors provide assurance that the current

00:13:22.560 --> 00:13:27.640
 union labor will be provided assistance in securing new positions with comparable pay

00:13:27.640 --> 00:13:34.040
 and benefits to what they are receiving as employees of DCTA.

00:13:34.040 --> 00:13:37.040
 >> I'm not comfortable with this.

00:13:37.040 --> 00:13:38.320
 >> Say more about that.

00:13:38.320 --> 00:13:44.760
 >> The phrase provided assistance is pretty wishy-washy.

00:13:44.760 --> 00:13:48.240
 That doesn't necessarily mean anything in particular.

00:13:48.240 --> 00:13:50.040
 I mean, what are they going to do?

00:13:50.040 --> 00:13:51.040
 Give them an application?

00:13:51.040 --> 00:13:52.040
 Is that providing assistance?

00:13:52.040 --> 00:13:53.280
 Are they going to give them --

00:13:53.280 --> 00:13:56.480
 >> What do you think should happen?

00:13:56.480 --> 00:14:02.520
 >> Well, I guess to sort of jump over this and get straight to my point, I would like

00:14:02.520 --> 00:14:09.960
 to request that we include in the resolution a language saying that we would prefer there

00:14:09.960 --> 00:14:14.160
 be no changes to fixed routes until at least November 12.

00:14:14.160 --> 00:14:15.160
 >> Okay.

00:14:15.160 --> 00:14:22.640
 So if -- you know what, clearly that's maybe the more central topic, so it leads us to

00:14:22.640 --> 00:14:29.960
 not going in order, like what do we want to say about changes in service?

00:14:29.960 --> 00:14:33.160
 So why don't we get at that, and then the other issues are kind of more subordinate

00:14:33.160 --> 00:14:34.160
 to that.

00:14:34.160 --> 00:14:35.160
 Right?

00:14:35.160 --> 00:14:36.160
 >> Yeah.

00:14:36.160 --> 00:14:37.160
 >> Yeah.

00:14:37.160 --> 00:14:38.960
 Go ahead.

00:14:38.960 --> 00:14:48.600
 >> I hear -- I hear my peers voice in the -- while she's donning the term provided assistance.

00:14:48.600 --> 00:14:54.720
 When we're using that term provided assistance, that doesn't necessarily mean that these people

00:14:54.720 --> 00:15:01.160
 are going to get a job for sure.

00:15:01.160 --> 00:15:07.560
 That doesn't mean that they are going to move from driving a bus to driving a vehicle -- a

00:15:07.560 --> 00:15:14.880
 car for sure, and that's what the concern is of ours, is that we don't want these people

00:15:14.880 --> 00:15:16.920
 to lose their jobs.

00:15:16.920 --> 00:15:23.160
 And if that means that this company is providing assistance to getting the job, that doesn't

00:15:23.160 --> 00:15:27.640
 necessarily mean that they're guaranteed a job.

00:15:27.640 --> 00:15:36.760
 And so they are afraid and they're concerned that due to no fault of their own -- and,

00:15:36.760 --> 00:15:38.040
 you know, this happens to people.

00:15:38.040 --> 00:15:42.200
 I'm not, you know, unaware that people can get ripped it.

00:15:42.200 --> 00:15:49.420
 But for something like this, we want to know if they're going to be secure.

00:15:49.420 --> 00:15:51.200
 That's the issue there.

00:15:51.200 --> 00:15:55.680
 >> So there's sort of two balls in the air right now.

00:15:55.680 --> 00:16:01.280
 One is, you know, Councilmember McGuire said, hey, I don't actually want to see there be

00:16:01.280 --> 00:16:06.920
 any changes in service at all before November 12th.

00:16:06.920 --> 00:16:14.480
 I have things to say about all that, but, you know, so the labor impact isn't any until

00:16:14.480 --> 00:16:15.640
 that's there.

00:16:15.640 --> 00:16:21.000
 So there's the changes to service question, and then there's the resulting labor question.

00:16:21.000 --> 00:16:24.160
 Do you have an opinion about which one we talk about first?

00:16:24.160 --> 00:16:31.160
 >> You know, both are very important.

00:16:31.160 --> 00:16:41.160
 If I'm talking about the result of labor that this, you know, I is actually talking about,

00:16:41.160 --> 00:16:49.760
 I would think that the security is of the position, regardless of when it happens, as

00:16:49.760 --> 00:16:53.760
 far as I'm concerned, that they're going to be able to get up the next morning and go

00:16:53.760 --> 00:16:54.760
 to work.

00:16:54.760 --> 00:17:03.920
 >> Let me weigh in a little so we can see where we can, where we're going to find consensus.

00:17:03.920 --> 00:17:08.160
 I don't share the view that we must never change anything in terms of service.

00:17:08.160 --> 00:17:09.160
 >> I did not say that.

00:17:09.160 --> 00:17:10.160
 >> Okay.

00:17:10.160 --> 00:17:12.120
 >> I said no changes to the fixed routes.

00:17:12.120 --> 00:17:18.200
 >> Yeah, I'm entirely agnostic about that, I am.

00:17:18.200 --> 00:17:24.400
 My objective is maximize service to then residents.

00:17:24.400 --> 00:17:31.800
 And that may be some future as yet undiscovered blend of certain amount of fixed, certain

00:17:31.800 --> 00:17:36.360
 amount of on-demand, certain amount of available, and I don't have a preconceived notion about

00:17:36.360 --> 00:17:39.000
 that.

00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:48.920
 So but if in fact having the maximum, so my goal would be having the maximum effective

00:17:48.920 --> 00:17:54.440
 public transit service for the population and that may or may not result in the same

00:17:54.440 --> 00:18:00.680
 size labor force, right, so I wouldn't say, my personal view is I wouldn't say for all

00:18:00.680 --> 00:18:08.680
 time the exact same labor force, exact same pay, exact same benefits, but I think as good

00:18:08.680 --> 00:18:17.520
 employers and they're proxy employers for us, that I absolutely feel like for some period

00:18:17.520 --> 00:18:23.320
 of time, if people are going to transition off, they need some kind of protection.

00:18:23.320 --> 00:18:24.320
 That's my point of view.

00:18:24.320 --> 00:18:28.040
 So I wouldn't, I'm not saying you must share this, I'm just saying where are we going to

00:18:28.040 --> 00:18:30.600
 find the common ground?

00:18:30.600 --> 00:18:35.840
 Is there a common ground between everybody's got to have the exact same job for all time

00:18:35.840 --> 00:18:44.240
 or if there is, if there are changes, what do you do that's responsible, you know?

00:18:44.240 --> 00:18:50.960
 So do you see common ground between the thoughts we've all expressed so far on the labor piece

00:18:50.960 --> 00:18:54.400
 if you want to take up that piece first?

00:18:54.400 --> 00:18:57.400
 Yeah, absolutely.

00:18:57.400 --> 00:19:06.400
 So you know, just brainstorming one possible solution that might provide a little bit more

00:19:06.400 --> 00:19:14.640
 stability but not necessarily be, these people must remain employed until they retire period

00:19:14.640 --> 00:19:23.280
 type of a thing, could be that, you know, instead of these drivers no longer being employed

00:19:23.280 --> 00:19:30.840
 by, I'm trying to recall the name of the agency, the North Texas Mobility something, what is

00:19:30.840 --> 00:19:35.440
 the name of the organization that actually directly employs the drivers?

00:19:35.440 --> 00:19:38.160
 It's the North Texas Mobility Corporation.

00:19:38.160 --> 00:19:41.920
 There we go, I was close, North Texas Mobility Corporation.

00:19:41.920 --> 00:19:50.960
 So would it be feasible for us to say we would prefer that instead of these drivers being

00:19:50.960 --> 00:19:59.840
 you know essentially riffed by the North Texas Mobility, no, the North Texas thing, instead

00:19:59.840 --> 00:20:09.740
 of being riffed by that organization and then hired by VIA, could they maintain their employment

00:20:09.740 --> 00:20:13.360
 with their current agency, could VIA then contract with the agency that they're working

00:20:13.360 --> 00:20:21.360
 for now and would that perhaps help them retain their union representation which could potentially

00:20:21.360 --> 00:20:22.360
 improve that stability?

00:20:22.360 --> 00:20:28.440
 Well is there a way to get to the principle that you're going for without necessarily

00:20:28.440 --> 00:20:32.920
 prescribing the solution because there may or may not be ways, that may be the exact

00:20:32.920 --> 00:20:39.320
 right answer, you know, I just don't know what the various obstacles might be organizationally

00:20:39.320 --> 00:20:43.800
 but in terms of directing our representatives like what's the principle you're trying to

00:20:43.800 --> 00:20:49.840
 achieve is a way, just find a way for them to be able to retain their union membership

00:20:49.840 --> 00:21:01.400
 and pay end benefits if they continue to work on DCTA public transit?

00:21:01.400 --> 00:21:07.840
 I would be amenable to that, I do think that union representation needs to be a priority

00:21:07.840 --> 00:21:10.920
 in addition to pay end benefits.

00:21:10.920 --> 00:21:16.600
 So how about let's put a pin on that issue for the moment with just the guidance to staff

00:21:16.600 --> 00:21:20.160
 that were trying to say that, that some way for them to retain...

00:21:20.160 --> 00:21:22.840
 Not just union pay but union membership and representation.

00:21:22.840 --> 00:21:28.280
 Yeah, a way for them to retain their representation, pay and benefits if they continue to work

00:21:28.280 --> 00:21:29.280
 for DCTA.

00:21:29.280 --> 00:21:33.240
 That sounds reasonable enough to me.

00:21:33.240 --> 00:21:36.520
 So there's some overlap.

00:21:36.520 --> 00:21:41.000
 So let's go for the heart of the beast here.

00:21:41.000 --> 00:21:52.480
 The proposal is transition, you know, keep two bus routes, stop the rest, replace with

00:21:52.480 --> 00:21:53.480
 GoZone.

00:21:53.480 --> 00:22:01.560
 Is there a difference between your view and that view?

00:22:01.560 --> 00:22:02.560
 Yes.

00:22:02.560 --> 00:22:06.660
 Yeah, go ahead.

00:22:06.660 --> 00:22:11.240
 Well, clarify again, what did you say?

00:22:11.240 --> 00:22:17.720
 What's been presented to us is the plan that is, if nothing else changed, absent our direction

00:22:17.720 --> 00:22:24.200
 to our representative, the plan would be summarizing, correct me if I get anything wrong here, keep

00:22:24.200 --> 00:22:30.720
 two bus routes, cut off the others, and in some way transition people to on demand.

00:22:30.720 --> 00:22:37.160
 And then later cut the other two bus routes six months later, correct?

00:22:37.160 --> 00:22:38.960
 I don't believe I've heard that.

00:22:38.960 --> 00:22:42.400
 My understanding was that the end game of this was to have zero fixed bus routes.

00:22:42.400 --> 00:22:48.440
 I don't think that's correct, but perhaps we can get some clarification.

00:22:48.440 --> 00:22:50.440
 Nicole, do you want to answer that?

00:22:50.440 --> 00:22:51.440
 Sure.

00:22:51.440 --> 00:22:59.520
 So the original proposed plan included operating all of existing fixed route service in concurrence

00:22:59.520 --> 00:23:05.240
 with GoZone for a period of two weeks, and then retain routes three and seven that would

00:23:05.240 --> 00:23:08.280
 operate for a period of six months.

00:23:08.280 --> 00:23:09.920
 So that was the original intent.

00:23:09.920 --> 00:23:16.400
 I will tell you that our board last week had a discussion about considering looking at

00:23:16.400 --> 00:23:21.600
 routes three and seven and operating them for a longer period of time, and also extending

00:23:21.600 --> 00:23:26.920
 the overlap of existing fixed route services as they are today with the launch of GoZone.

00:23:26.920 --> 00:23:31.700
 So there has been some discussion at that level.

00:23:31.700 --> 00:23:34.760
 I have to be completely honest.

00:23:34.760 --> 00:23:40.280
 It's super hard for me to hear you.

00:23:40.280 --> 00:23:44.280
 I hear most of the words, but it's just not super crisp.

00:23:44.280 --> 00:23:50.320
 I wonder if there's anything we can do, because what you have to say is so important.

00:23:50.320 --> 00:23:51.880
 Is this any better?

00:23:51.880 --> 00:23:52.880
 Yeah.

00:23:52.880 --> 00:23:54.480
 Yeah, I think so.

00:23:54.480 --> 00:23:59.040
 So let me say back what I think I gleaned.

00:23:59.040 --> 00:24:06.680
 The proposal had been everything stays the same for two weeks, then all the fixed routes

00:24:06.680 --> 00:24:11.280
 except three and seven go away, the three and seven continue for six months.

00:24:11.280 --> 00:24:14.720
 But now there's an alternative view, and that was the part I couldn't get clearly.

00:24:14.720 --> 00:24:15.720
 Sure.

00:24:15.720 --> 00:24:21.360
 So the board had some discussion last week, and they discussed two potential options.

00:24:21.360 --> 00:24:26.900
 So staff is bringing costing back to our board at the July meeting.

00:24:26.900 --> 00:24:32.620
 So they're looking at increasing the frequency of routes three and seven, as well as considering

00:24:32.620 --> 00:24:37.520
 operating it longer than three months, longer than six months.

00:24:37.520 --> 00:24:43.800
 And they're also looking at potentially providing some connectivity for that North Texas Express

00:24:43.800 --> 00:24:44.800
 route.

00:24:44.800 --> 00:24:45.800
 Okay.

00:24:45.800 --> 00:24:51.520
 So there's some discussion about continuing those services longer than six months, three

00:24:51.520 --> 00:24:52.520
 and seven.

00:24:52.520 --> 00:24:57.680
 And then they're also considering the original launch had existing fixed route service as

00:24:57.680 --> 00:25:02.200
 it is today in GoZone operating concurrently for two weeks.

00:25:02.200 --> 00:25:09.480
 They are considering having them operate concurrently longer in order to accommodate that educational

00:25:09.480 --> 00:25:10.480
 period.

00:25:10.480 --> 00:25:15.360
 Yeah, but with a goal to transitioning on some timeframe.

00:25:15.360 --> 00:25:20.640
 And then when you say to operate for six months, you know, that idea, you know, or some period

00:25:20.640 --> 00:25:24.600
 longer than that, is that with the intention of at the end of that time, then they will

00:25:24.600 --> 00:25:29.100
 go away too, as Councilmember McGuire was indicating?

00:25:29.100 --> 00:25:35.820
 The original intent was to remove routes three and seven after six months pending data analysis.

00:25:35.820 --> 00:25:39.880
 So the reason that we would continue routes three and seven is understanding that they're

00:25:39.880 --> 00:25:46.080
 highly utilized, and we wanted to make sure that we were looking at ridership data, basically

00:25:46.080 --> 00:25:48.560
 looking at how people are choosing to ride.

00:25:48.560 --> 00:25:53.200
 Are they choosing to use the fixed route service, or are they choosing to use GoZone?

00:25:53.200 --> 00:25:58.120
 And then based on that data, the board would then make a decision whether to remove routes

00:25:58.120 --> 00:26:00.240
 three and seven or to keep them.

00:26:00.240 --> 00:26:01.240
 Okay.

00:26:01.240 --> 00:26:09.080
 So I don't know if that squares or supplements your prior understanding or?

00:26:09.080 --> 00:26:10.080
 It does.

00:26:10.080 --> 00:26:16.720
 I mean, it's, yeah, that's, yeah, my understanding was that that was what they were considering.

00:26:16.720 --> 00:26:23.920
 I'm glad to hear that the DCTA board is now considering, at the very least, expanding

00:26:23.920 --> 00:26:27.660
 those periods.

00:26:27.660 --> 00:26:38.240
 So if the DCTA board were to expand the period during which the via vans and the fixed routes

00:26:38.240 --> 00:26:54.600
 are running concurrently, would there be any room for perhaps a new board in November to

00:26:54.600 --> 00:26:58.280
 make alterations to that plan going forward?

00:26:58.280 --> 00:27:06.700
 Or is it, you know, what gets voted on on July 22nd is what's going to happen?

00:27:06.700 --> 00:27:14.180
 So what is voted on on July 22nd is what would be slated to launch for September 7th.

00:27:14.180 --> 00:27:18.740
 You know, I would say our board is quite innovative and they have a lot of great discussion on

00:27:18.740 --> 00:27:22.060
 a monthly basis about potential changes.

00:27:22.060 --> 00:27:27.680
 And so it's certainly possible that there could be further changes, whether it be, you

00:27:27.680 --> 00:27:32.360
 know, a modification to existing service or a growth potential for existing service.

00:27:32.360 --> 00:27:35.760
 So I would say, you know, our board is having those discussions every month.

00:27:35.760 --> 00:27:40.720
 Even if the board so chose to discuss and ask staff to bring that back, something back

00:27:40.720 --> 00:27:43.620
 for consideration, we would absolutely do so.

00:27:43.620 --> 00:27:46.240
 You know, I want to be really frank with you.

00:27:46.240 --> 00:27:51.320
 I personally am and I could get like outvoted, but I think it'd be good if we have three

00:27:51.320 --> 00:27:52.320
 out of three on things.

00:27:52.320 --> 00:27:57.360
 I personally am not on board with the idea of hitching our guidance to a date.

00:27:57.360 --> 00:28:05.640
 I think it's political and if the board does the thing that we concur with on November

00:28:05.640 --> 00:28:07.840
 10th, I'm all for it.

00:28:07.840 --> 00:28:10.880
 If they do it on November 15th, I'm all for it.

00:28:10.880 --> 00:28:16.280
 I'm more about what's the result that we want for Denton.

00:28:16.280 --> 00:28:20.520
 You know, yeah, that's kind of where I'm at on that.

00:28:20.520 --> 00:28:28.400
 So I'm really much more interested in understanding the guidance, the substantive guidance rather

00:28:28.400 --> 00:28:31.320
 than the kind of political guidance.

00:28:31.320 --> 00:28:32.320
 That's me.

00:28:32.320 --> 00:28:34.880
 That's where I'm at.

00:28:34.880 --> 00:28:43.660
 And I think, to say a different point, that when we hear things running concurrently and

00:28:43.660 --> 00:28:51.440
 see what people want, I think, I mean, I don't know, that makes sense to me.

00:28:51.440 --> 00:28:53.880
 What do you think, Councilmember Byrd?

00:28:53.880 --> 00:28:56.720
 Thank you.

00:28:56.720 --> 00:29:04.560
 I think that running concurrently is a good idea.

00:29:04.560 --> 00:29:07.000
 The two weeks part is what I'm sticking with.

00:29:07.000 --> 00:29:09.320
 It's a stickler for me right now.

00:29:09.320 --> 00:29:11.680
 It depends on when that two weeks occur.

00:29:11.680 --> 00:29:17.200
 And did I hear something about that that's happening sometime in September?

00:29:17.200 --> 00:29:24.220
 September 7th is the day when we're supposed to or hopefully we will be doing things concurrently

00:29:24.220 --> 00:29:26.240
 and that's for two weeks?

00:29:26.240 --> 00:29:27.720
 Yes, ma'am.

00:29:27.720 --> 00:29:32.400
 So the service would start on September 7th and we would operate services concurrently

00:29:32.400 --> 00:29:35.680
 for two weeks starting September 7th.

00:29:35.680 --> 00:29:41.000
 However, our board has been discussing and will be looking at costs at next month's board

00:29:41.000 --> 00:29:44.280
 meeting to potentially extend that overlap.

00:29:44.280 --> 00:29:49.320
 I hope that it's extended because it just seems like you do need more data than two

00:29:49.320 --> 00:29:50.920
 weeks.

00:29:50.920 --> 00:29:51.920
 Some people go on vacations.

00:29:51.920 --> 00:29:56.480
 That might be vacation time, kids are getting back in school, a lot of things are happening

00:29:56.480 --> 00:30:01.040
 at the first part of September.

00:30:01.040 --> 00:30:05.040
 What's so special about route number three and seven again?

00:30:05.040 --> 00:30:07.320
 Why do we keep hearing that?

00:30:07.320 --> 00:30:08.320
 Sure.

00:30:08.320 --> 00:30:15.440
 So routes three and seven were chosen to remain because of the boarding thresholds per hour.

00:30:15.440 --> 00:30:21.480
 So route seven exceeds the minimum of 10 boardings per hour.

00:30:21.480 --> 00:30:24.840
 Route three is almost, it's just right under the benchmark.

00:30:24.840 --> 00:30:29.160
 But routes three and seven serve some very specific highly dense areas.

00:30:29.160 --> 00:30:35.160
 So route seven is going to connect the Downtown Denton Transit Center with Downtown, the University

00:30:35.160 --> 00:30:37.080
 and Razor Ranch.

00:30:37.080 --> 00:30:40.880
 And route three primarily serves a lot of the social service agencies that are located

00:30:40.880 --> 00:30:42.640
 in Denton.

00:30:42.640 --> 00:30:48.040
 And so those are the two routes that are going to be looked at a little later on.

00:30:48.040 --> 00:30:52.360
 They're the ones that's the second part of the deal.

00:30:52.360 --> 00:30:53.840
 Yes.

00:30:53.840 --> 00:30:55.400
 Right.

00:30:55.400 --> 00:31:02.800
 So member, we can go with Paul, you're looking at me.

00:31:02.800 --> 00:31:11.800
 I agree with you in regards to really looking at what the outcome is going to be.

00:31:11.800 --> 00:31:18.120
 I'm not really particular, you know, as to when it starts, I don't know where the November

00:31:18.120 --> 00:31:20.000
 date comes from.

00:31:20.000 --> 00:31:21.000
 Term ends, right?

00:31:21.000 --> 00:31:25.560
 That's when Chris Watts' term ends on the DCTA board.

00:31:25.560 --> 00:31:26.560
 Yeah.

00:31:26.560 --> 00:31:32.120
 But like I say, my point was whoever the board members are, if they do the right thing, I'm

00:31:32.120 --> 00:31:33.120
 for the right thing.

00:31:33.120 --> 00:31:34.120
 Right.

00:31:34.120 --> 00:31:37.080
 And so I wholeheartedly agree with you.

00:31:37.080 --> 00:31:39.600
 Apparently I didn't recognize that.

00:31:39.600 --> 00:31:42.720
 But it's got to be the right thing for the right reason.

00:31:42.720 --> 00:31:47.320
 And I think that the city obviously needed something different.

00:31:47.320 --> 00:31:50.960
 DCTA is looking for something different.

00:31:50.960 --> 00:32:01.180
 We are here to support the best for the city and, you know, waiting until November or doing

00:32:01.180 --> 00:32:07.080
 it in September the 7th, that's something that I haven't thought about.

00:32:07.080 --> 00:32:12.920
 So I think that running concurrently is a good idea for us to go ahead and get started.

00:32:12.920 --> 00:32:18.320
 If we're going to do this, I think we need to just jump in and find out what happens.

00:32:18.320 --> 00:32:26.920
 And we have options of doing something different in a few months or by next year or whatever

00:32:26.920 --> 00:32:29.540
 the riders want to do.

00:32:29.540 --> 00:32:34.520
 But I think that if we keep going back and forth on this conversation, looking for the

00:32:34.520 --> 00:32:40.360
 perfect thing to say and the perfect thing to do, no one is going to be pleased.

00:32:40.360 --> 00:32:46.920
 And I think that we should just do some of these things.

00:32:46.920 --> 00:32:54.520
 And I think we should do them as quickly as we possibly can so we can get beyond a certain

00:32:54.520 --> 00:32:57.520
 point and do something different if we need to.

00:32:57.520 --> 00:33:06.720
 Let me if I may underscore my points of agreement there and see where we have all three.

00:33:06.720 --> 00:33:11.440
 I'm totally for adding new options.

00:33:11.440 --> 00:33:18.120
 I'm not compelled at all by the idea that what we have now is meeting needs exactly

00:33:18.120 --> 00:33:21.120
 as the service is configured.

00:33:21.120 --> 00:33:25.600
 And some of the issue might be frequency and it could be a bunch of things.

00:33:25.600 --> 00:33:29.800
 But adding new options can only learn.

00:33:29.800 --> 00:33:34.040
 I also agree that we need to see what happens.

00:33:34.040 --> 00:33:39.040
 My question is how long does it take to actually know what happens?

00:33:39.040 --> 00:33:45.320
 And I absolutely share your point of view that two weeks is almost random.

00:33:45.320 --> 00:33:47.980
 What you find will be almost random.

00:33:47.980 --> 00:33:50.600
 How long does it take for people to become aware of the options?

00:33:50.600 --> 00:33:56.360
 How long does it take for them to try something that they're intrigued by?

00:33:56.360 --> 00:33:58.240
 How long does it take to see if they'll repeat?

00:33:58.240 --> 00:34:04.040
 I mean, I'm using a bit of a consumer products model, but I think for patterns to be established

00:34:04.040 --> 00:34:07.320
 and to really see where it shakes out, I don't know, I'm kind of throwing this out, but I

00:34:07.320 --> 00:34:11.960
 would think you'd need at least six months to really see.

00:34:11.960 --> 00:34:18.720
 And if in fact zero people ride the bus, everybody rides goes on, I think that would lead to

00:34:18.720 --> 00:34:20.680
 a different conversation.

00:34:20.680 --> 00:34:27.120
 I have no preconceived notion that that would be the case.

00:34:27.120 --> 00:34:34.080
 Just to say a little more, sorry for the long speech, one of the much-vaunted benefits of

00:34:34.080 --> 00:34:38.960
 what has been proposed is the flexibility to fine tune it.

00:34:38.960 --> 00:34:40.160
 So why throw that away?

00:34:40.160 --> 00:34:44.080
 We clearly don't know enough to throw anything away yet.

00:34:44.080 --> 00:34:47.320
 Let's have the learning, as was originally proposed.

00:34:47.320 --> 00:34:49.920
 This was supposed to have been a trial in the first place.

00:34:49.920 --> 00:34:52.760
 Let's get the learning and fine tune the mix.

00:34:52.760 --> 00:34:53.760
 That's kind of where I'm coming from.

00:34:53.760 --> 00:34:55.200
 I will now be quiet for a while.

00:34:55.200 --> 00:34:57.800
 And Council Member McGuire, you look like you're ready to say something.

00:34:57.800 --> 00:35:04.960
 No, I think you well articulated some of the points that I was trying to make.

00:35:04.960 --> 00:35:13.440
 I think that we all have the goal of we want to see our city have a robust public transportation

00:35:13.440 --> 00:35:14.640
 system.

00:35:14.640 --> 00:35:17.200
 We want ridership to go up.

00:35:17.200 --> 00:35:23.640
 We need for ridership to go up because with the population growth, the way that it's happening,

00:35:23.640 --> 00:35:30.000
 we can't continue to support the overwhelming majority of individuals in our city driving

00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:31.000
 their own cars.

00:35:31.000 --> 00:35:34.360
 We need to increase ridership significantly.

00:35:34.360 --> 00:35:38.500
 And I think that a multimodal approach that includes on-demand, that includes hailable

00:35:38.500 --> 00:35:47.200
 services and that includes some fixed routes is the way to go probably, but we need more

00:35:47.200 --> 00:35:52.680
 information to know what exactly the right mix is of those.

00:35:52.680 --> 00:35:55.000
 And we need that flexibility.

00:35:55.000 --> 00:36:01.160
 And I do think that having on-demand service in addition to fixed route services for at

00:36:01.160 --> 00:36:08.000
 least I think six months is a great period of time, that would be enough time for us

00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:10.280
 to really gather some data.

00:36:10.280 --> 00:36:15.840
 And if there are adjustments that need to be made to the fixed routes, that would give

00:36:15.840 --> 00:36:22.840
 us time to figure out, or DCTA staff, more to the point, time to figure out what those

00:36:22.840 --> 00:36:25.680
 adjustments need to be.

00:36:25.680 --> 00:36:31.000
 So yeah, I think that that's, yeah, I think that that really gets at the heart of what

00:36:31.000 --> 00:36:34.720
 all of us want, which is a strong public transportation system.

00:36:34.720 --> 00:36:36.760
 Yeah, an opportunity to find out what that is.

00:36:36.760 --> 00:36:37.760
 Yeah, Council Member Bird.

00:36:37.760 --> 00:36:43.280
 And with that six months there, and I agree with the six months, you know, the city is

00:36:43.280 --> 00:36:48.480
 so diverse, it just has these colleges and universities, we got new people moving in,

00:36:48.480 --> 00:36:54.080
 we have the core of the city is getting ready to kind of change up a little bit with added

00:36:54.080 --> 00:36:57.280
 features of moving people and all of that.

00:36:57.280 --> 00:37:00.440
 So yeah, I like the idea of the six months.

00:37:00.440 --> 00:37:04.520
 Let's go ahead and keep that in there if we can, since it looks like that's what we agreed

00:37:04.520 --> 00:37:05.520
 on.

00:37:05.520 --> 00:37:06.520
 We have found consensus.

00:37:06.520 --> 00:37:07.520
 We have found consensus on one thing.

00:37:07.520 --> 00:37:08.520
 Yes, that thing.

00:37:08.520 --> 00:37:09.520
 But pin on that one.

00:37:09.520 --> 00:37:10.520
 We'll make it green.

00:37:10.520 --> 00:37:11.520
 Yeah, make it green.

00:37:11.520 --> 00:37:15.320
 That's good, that's good, make it green.

00:37:15.320 --> 00:37:18.960
 Okay, so let's go down and are we in agreement with that?

00:37:18.960 --> 00:37:20.080
 Can we leave that there?

00:37:20.080 --> 00:37:25.040
 I would tweak the wording slightly, rather than say to allow transit riders time to adjust,

00:37:25.040 --> 00:37:30.440
 I would say to allow DCTA time to gather data.

00:37:30.440 --> 00:37:37.080
 Yeah, and to, now this is my business background, but this may not mean anything to anybody

00:37:37.080 --> 00:37:44.680
 else, but optimize the mix is the phrase that comes to mind for me, because that includes

00:37:44.680 --> 00:37:50.920
 the possibility that there will be a mix in the future, you know, not with the assumption

00:37:50.920 --> 00:37:54.320
 that like, yeah, we're definitely transitioning, this thing's going away.

00:37:54.320 --> 00:37:57.400
 No, I have no preconceived notion like that at all.

00:37:57.400 --> 00:38:04.280
 What if you find out that post COVID ridership on the fixed routes continues to rise, you

00:38:04.280 --> 00:38:08.760
 know, that would lead you to say, okay, right size the vehicles, maybe, if we don't want

00:38:08.760 --> 00:38:13.480
 to beat the heck out of our roads, the buses run it empty, but you know, if there's in

00:38:13.480 --> 00:38:18.360
 fact 10 people and, or whatever the number is, and it fits in a van, then run vans, but

00:38:18.360 --> 00:38:23.720
 keep them, you know, optimize the mix is what I'm wondering for.

00:38:23.720 --> 00:38:27.040
 If I can keep, actually keep us off the text a little bit, I know I'm going against how

00:38:27.040 --> 00:38:34.040
 I started, but I kind of like surfing from issue to issue here as we talk about it.

00:38:34.040 --> 00:38:41.920
 I'm the one who brought up hailable, for better or worse, Allison just mentioned it again,

00:38:41.920 --> 00:38:46.000
 so I think she's at least interested.

00:38:46.000 --> 00:38:49.800
 I'm not trying to create peer pressure for you, but is that, Councilman Byrd, is that

00:38:49.800 --> 00:38:55.680
 something that you think is interesting, should be included in the mix, you know, you'd want

00:38:55.680 --> 00:38:59.680
 to encourage exploration of, or nah, not so much.

00:38:59.680 --> 00:39:01.480
 Nah, not so much.

00:39:01.480 --> 00:39:07.220
 I'm not interested in hailable rides, I just think that, you know, we got a whole crop

00:39:07.220 --> 00:39:16.000
 of millennial people that are not used to and not interested in hailable rides, so I'll

00:39:16.000 --> 00:39:19.000
 just leave it right there.

00:39:19.000 --> 00:39:24.100
 You know, I don't have a deep inner need to make it be in the resolution, I'm happy to,

00:39:24.100 --> 00:39:30.600
 you know, bring it up again to full council at some future time, if necessary, you know,

00:39:30.600 --> 00:39:35.400
 I won't belabor the point, I'll only say this if it comes up again, if in fact, this will

00:39:35.400 --> 00:39:42.120
 help us get to another topic, if in fact we like the idea of going without fares, it makes

00:39:42.120 --> 00:39:49.640
 hailable possible, more possible, if I don't have the need to collect a fare, then I don't

00:39:49.640 --> 00:39:53.880
 have to figure out how to take payment, then it's easier for me to go, the person's raised

00:39:53.880 --> 00:39:58.320
 their hand, I can stop and pick you up, they don't need to have a special card or anything,

00:39:58.320 --> 00:40:02.260
 it's my burden, and actually, I don't need to recognize you, we can just talk.

00:40:02.260 --> 00:40:06.240
 Well, I don't want to talk over you.

00:40:06.240 --> 00:40:12.920
 Hailable rides, I mean, I'm just thinking, we have, we would have fixed routes, we would

00:40:12.920 --> 00:40:23.360
 have on-demand, and we would have hailable rides, those who, how, I wonder how would

00:40:23.360 --> 00:40:32.160
 this company dissect between the hailable ride cars and the fixed, and the on-demand

00:40:32.160 --> 00:40:33.160
 cars?

00:40:33.160 --> 00:40:36.520
 Well, since you're keeping the topic alive, I'll give you my, how I think it works.

00:40:36.520 --> 00:40:41.000
 So, I mean, are they going to be, who's out there on University Drive saying, hey, hey,

00:40:41.000 --> 00:40:42.560
 hey, you know, pick me up?

00:40:42.560 --> 00:40:53.320
 To me, it works like this, it's not different cars, it's if somebody has scheduled an on-demand

00:40:53.320 --> 00:41:00.560
 ride, and they're on a path, and they're going right by you, and you're standing on a corner,

00:41:00.560 --> 00:41:08.360
 you and your daughter, and you hold up, for the minutes, I'm holding up two fingers, like

00:41:08.360 --> 00:41:12.680
 I need two seats, and it's like, I've only got one person here, I could totally take

00:41:12.680 --> 00:41:18.480
 you, I could stop and take you and your daughter, that's hailable, they're allowed to stop

00:41:18.480 --> 00:41:19.480
 and pick you up.

00:41:19.480 --> 00:41:23.880
 Okay, and then I'm the person in the car.

00:41:23.880 --> 00:41:24.880
 You're the driver now?

00:41:24.880 --> 00:41:38.520
 No, I'm the passenger, in the car, that did the on-demand, and possibly paid, so, well,

00:41:38.520 --> 00:41:45.760
 I can see me getting a bit frustrated in me, my driver, stopping to pick up people, and

00:41:45.760 --> 00:41:48.280
 I have to be somewhere at a certain time.

00:41:48.280 --> 00:41:50.480
 Now on-demand is not a private cab.

00:41:50.480 --> 00:41:51.480
 I know.

00:41:51.480 --> 00:41:58.240
 You know, they're already going to pick up multiple passengers along the way, I believe,

00:41:58.240 --> 00:42:08.840
 but let's ask Nicole to help us on that, our understanding of when somebody has scheduled

00:42:08.840 --> 00:42:14.800
 a ride, what is the role of the other seats in the vehicle?

00:42:14.800 --> 00:42:18.840
 Sure, so let me address the hailable ride piece of it.

00:42:18.840 --> 00:42:25.480
 So VIA has used the hailable ride system before, and we've had some preliminary discussions

00:42:25.480 --> 00:42:27.560
 with them about it.

00:42:27.560 --> 00:42:35.120
 Part of their recommendation is, because this on-demand service would be new to our service

00:42:35.120 --> 00:42:41.720
 area, is to launch the GoZone service as proposed, and find out what are those pick up and drop

00:42:41.720 --> 00:42:46.000
 off points that are really popular within each of the zones, because that might give

00:42:46.000 --> 00:42:52.360
 us some data to determine what we would consider like hailable ride zones.

00:42:52.360 --> 00:42:59.520
 Those zones would require us to add additional fleet to the fleet number for each of the

00:42:59.520 --> 00:43:04.920
 zones, depending on how many of those kind of hubs there are where folks can hail rides.

00:43:04.920 --> 00:43:11.560
 The one thing I do want to point out is that hailing a ride requires kind of a larger space

00:43:11.560 --> 00:43:17.160
 than like a normal pick up might because there might be multiple people waiting there.

00:43:17.160 --> 00:43:22.240
 And then we would have some sort of a dedicated frequency range that we would provide saying

00:43:22.240 --> 00:43:28.240
 like vehicles are going to go by each zone every 10 minutes, every 15 minutes, whatever

00:43:28.240 --> 00:43:30.460
 that frequency might be.

00:43:30.460 --> 00:43:35.680
 And so while the concept of hailable is totally feasible, it would be limited to designated

00:43:35.680 --> 00:43:40.180
 hubs in order to accommodate that, to accommodate more people waiting.

00:43:40.180 --> 00:43:42.680
 People getting off the train, that idea.

00:43:42.680 --> 00:43:43.680
 Right.

00:43:43.680 --> 00:43:44.680
 Potentially.

00:43:44.680 --> 00:43:45.680
 Sure.

00:43:45.680 --> 00:43:46.680
 The A train station might be one.

00:43:46.680 --> 00:43:48.840
 I could see maybe Razor Ranch having a hub.

00:43:48.840 --> 00:43:53.480
 I can see maybe someplace near the university.

00:43:53.480 --> 00:43:59.040
 But a lot of that is data that we would collect in launching the GoZone service as proposed

00:43:59.040 --> 00:44:00.240
 today.

00:44:00.240 --> 00:44:09.040
 Can you clarify though, in let's say the pre-hailable world, can other people get in your car once

00:44:09.040 --> 00:44:10.840
 you've scheduled the ride?

00:44:10.840 --> 00:44:11.840
 Yes.

00:44:11.840 --> 00:44:17.880
 So the way the technology works is that if you are booking a ride and the GPS signal

00:44:17.880 --> 00:44:22.080
 is identifying where you are currently when you're booking that ride or where you want

00:44:22.080 --> 00:44:28.080
 to be picked up for that ride, it's going to assign a vehicle that is one in the closest

00:44:28.080 --> 00:44:34.840
 proximity, two going in the same direction, and three has the available space on the vehicle.

00:44:34.840 --> 00:44:40.120
 So if somebody is being picked up four blocks from you and they're going in the general

00:44:40.120 --> 00:44:44.360
 same direction that you want to go in, it's highly possible that you could get on a vehicle

00:44:44.360 --> 00:44:50.040
 and it can stop two or four blocks away, pick up somebody else, and go in the same direction.

00:44:50.040 --> 00:44:54.440
 It will not deviate from that general direction.

00:44:54.440 --> 00:45:00.000
 So a vehicle's not going to turn back around to go pick someone up or it's not going to

00:45:00.000 --> 00:45:03.720
 go 10 blocks away to pick somebody up.

00:45:03.720 --> 00:45:10.720
 So the algorithm that's used for dispatching those vehicles per trip are based on a similar

00:45:10.720 --> 00:45:16.840
 direction or a similar path, similar destination in order to minimize the amount of time that

00:45:16.840 --> 00:45:18.900
 you have to ride for your entire trip.

00:45:18.900 --> 00:45:25.720
 So I consider myself instructed by you and Councilmember Byrd that there are problems

00:45:25.720 --> 00:45:30.000
 with the idea of hailable en route because they might end up going on the same route

00:45:30.000 --> 00:45:32.120
 and you don't know that until they get in.

00:45:32.120 --> 00:45:35.560
 That's correct, and they might not have the capacity in their vehicle.

00:45:35.560 --> 00:45:37.480
 Well, if they don't have the capacity, then they don't stop.

00:45:37.480 --> 00:45:41.960
 That's the point of holding up two fingers if you need two seats, but the first point

00:45:41.960 --> 00:45:42.960
 stands.

00:45:42.960 --> 00:45:48.480
 And I want to propose to my colleagues here the language that in that six-month period

00:45:48.480 --> 00:45:58.540
 that we seem to like, that's in green, that we say that DCTA should use that opportunity

00:45:58.540 --> 00:46:05.320
 to assess the opportunity to the potential for adding hailable hubs.

00:46:05.320 --> 00:46:10.160
 You know, in other words, not a commitment to doing it, but if it turns out when they

00:46:10.160 --> 00:46:14.400
 see what the patterns are over six months, if it turns out like there's a whole lot of

00:46:14.400 --> 00:46:20.000
 people who want to schedule rides from the train stop, that's one of the things you could

00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:26.520
 learn and consider after you've had six months' experience.

00:46:26.520 --> 00:46:31.200
 It just sounds like to me that hailable rides, and we're talking about hubs now, that's like

00:46:31.200 --> 00:46:32.200
 fixed.

00:46:32.200 --> 00:46:37.080
 You know, we're back to the fixed, you know, the fixed transit.

00:46:37.080 --> 00:46:43.260
 So we're supposed to be getting around that, the fixed transit.

00:46:43.260 --> 00:46:46.000
 Now we're talking about the fixed transit with the hailable rides.

00:46:46.000 --> 00:46:52.280
 I just think that we're getting ready to start kind of going around in a circle again.

00:46:52.280 --> 00:46:53.280
 Right.

00:46:53.280 --> 00:46:56.080
 Should we leave hailable just out of it because it just makes things too complicated?

00:46:56.080 --> 00:47:07.080
 We're now, and we're giving ourselves a chance to come back and bring that in at a later

00:47:07.080 --> 00:47:08.560
 date if we feel like we need to.

00:47:08.560 --> 00:47:09.560
 Totally agree.

00:47:09.560 --> 00:47:15.640
 I suspect we will talk about this entire topic of DCTA at some point in the future too.

00:47:15.640 --> 00:47:16.800
 Probably, yeah.

00:47:16.800 --> 00:47:22.280
 And I think that the hailable rides is something that I'm interested in, I'm open to it, but

00:47:22.280 --> 00:47:26.720
 it's not really, it's not at the heart of what we're talking about right now.

00:47:26.720 --> 00:47:31.600
 But it does touch on the issue of the fares.

00:47:31.600 --> 00:47:39.880
 Are you interested in a resolution saying evaluate having no fares, or, you know, where

00:47:39.880 --> 00:47:43.000
 are you on the issue of no fares?

00:47:43.000 --> 00:47:45.960
 It could be anywhere on the spectrum.

00:47:45.960 --> 00:47:50.600
 Well, I have a question about that for Nicole.

00:47:50.600 --> 00:47:59.360
 Nicole, has any type of fare study been done in the last, let's say, two, three years?

00:47:59.360 --> 00:48:07.560
 We conducted a public involvement period about three years ago, or maybe two years ago, when

00:48:07.560 --> 00:48:11.040
 DART was proposing an increase to the regional fare.

00:48:11.040 --> 00:48:16.560
 We got feedback then, and then part of the most recent public involvement process specifically

00:48:16.560 --> 00:48:23.520
 for GoZone, we did have a whole, like a fare survey, and information about the proposed

00:48:23.520 --> 00:48:29.560
 fares as a promotion that we've collected feedback on.

00:48:29.560 --> 00:48:30.560
 Okay.

00:48:30.560 --> 00:48:37.400
 So not a study per se, but there's been feedback collected.

00:48:37.400 --> 00:48:42.760
 And that's why we are doing the promotional period, the six-month promotional period is

00:48:42.760 --> 00:48:48.520
 so that we can collect data on what fares are purchased, how they're used, any obstacles

00:48:48.520 --> 00:48:56.200
 that might be an issue, so that then we can go back, do a study, and model what a final

00:48:56.200 --> 00:49:00.720
 fare structure would be that would potentially go into place in March.

00:49:00.720 --> 00:49:05.840
 Yeah, I think that sounds great.

00:49:05.840 --> 00:49:13.000
 I would love to see a fare study done during this six-month period.

00:49:13.000 --> 00:49:15.280
 Councilmember Byrd?

00:49:15.280 --> 00:49:26.600
 I would love to see us, our compassion demonstrated by having fares for people that can pay the

00:49:26.600 --> 00:49:32.040
 fare, and whoever can afford it can pay for it, and they probably won't have a problem

00:49:32.040 --> 00:49:33.040
 with that.

00:49:33.040 --> 00:49:40.520
 But I also can see that there, you know, a number of people that may not be able to afford

00:49:40.520 --> 00:49:48.400
 to pay the fare, and I think that that is something that we need to recognize and demonstrate

00:49:48.400 --> 00:49:55.160
 that we're compassionate for those people, so those people may not have to pay a fare.

00:49:55.160 --> 00:49:59.080
 And if they are getting, what is it, a little card or something to demonstrate that they

00:49:59.080 --> 00:50:04.280
 paid or whatnot, maybe we can have them in different colors for the people that can afford

00:50:04.280 --> 00:50:06.400
 it, and they paid for it.

00:50:06.400 --> 00:50:15.200
 And then the compassion side, the compassionate side of us, if there are some people that

00:50:15.200 --> 00:50:18.320
 have gone through and have been vetted or what have you, I don't know how that's going

00:50:18.320 --> 00:50:19.320
 to happen.

00:50:19.320 --> 00:50:21.840
 I don't know if that's extra work for people and how much.

00:50:21.840 --> 00:50:29.440
 But if they can't afford it, then they may have a stipend of some sort on a card that

00:50:29.440 --> 00:50:31.480
 will help them transport themselves.

00:50:31.480 --> 00:50:37.100
 So maybe if you do a two-tier, like a tier-level fare.

00:50:37.100 --> 00:50:39.040
 I want to see if I can win you over, Councilman Burton.

00:50:39.040 --> 00:50:40.040
 Go ahead, Councilman Burton.

00:50:40.040 --> 00:50:43.840
 Oh, well, I was going to ask, again, for Nicole or for anybody who knows the answer to this,

00:50:43.840 --> 00:50:52.720
 I know that several agencies, the one that comes to mind is Our Daily Bread, do distribute

00:50:52.720 --> 00:50:55.260
 bus passes.

00:50:55.260 --> 00:51:00.880
 Are those like comped by DCTA or does Our Daily Bread purchase those from DCTA?

00:51:00.880 --> 00:51:01.880
 Sure.

00:51:01.880 --> 00:51:08.400
 So we do have a nonprofit discount program where any of our local fares are 50% off to

00:51:08.400 --> 00:51:12.240
 any organization who is a 501(c)(3).

00:51:12.240 --> 00:51:16.800
 So currently, Our Daily Bread, as an example, purchases the passes of their choice from

00:51:16.800 --> 00:51:21.080
 us, any of the local options, for 50% off.

00:51:21.080 --> 00:51:22.080
 Okay.

00:51:22.080 --> 00:51:24.920
 So Our Daily Bread is paying for that, but they're paying a reduced rate.

00:51:24.920 --> 00:51:25.920
 Correct.

00:51:25.920 --> 00:51:29.080
 And the passenger doesn't have to pay anything.

00:51:29.080 --> 00:51:35.020
 Are there any like -- well, first of all, how utilized is that program?

00:51:35.020 --> 00:51:38.500
 Are there a lot of agencies that utilize that discount?

00:51:38.500 --> 00:51:39.500
 There are.

00:51:39.500 --> 00:51:40.500
 There are.

00:51:40.500 --> 00:51:44.640
 Well, I don't know the total number, but we sell quite a few every single month.

00:51:44.640 --> 00:51:50.120
 I mean, there are multiple organizations that reach out to us on a monthly basis to purchase.

00:51:50.120 --> 00:51:52.440
 I want to try to win you both over.

00:51:52.440 --> 00:51:53.440
 Okay.

00:51:53.440 --> 00:51:54.560
 All right?

00:51:54.560 --> 00:51:58.640
 And compassion does not play a role in it.

00:51:58.640 --> 00:52:01.520
 I'm coming at it as a manager.

00:52:01.520 --> 00:52:03.340
 All right?

00:52:03.340 --> 00:52:07.520
 It's half a percent of revenue, a rounding error.

00:52:07.520 --> 00:52:09.360
 They couldn't tell if they're collecting it or not.

00:52:09.360 --> 00:52:14.020
 I mean, I'm exaggerating a little to say that.

00:52:14.020 --> 00:52:19.120
 The complexity of everything you've got to do to be able to run these programs and run

00:52:19.120 --> 00:52:24.740
 the promotion, have people in charge of it, and all that, I don't know what the cost is

00:52:24.740 --> 00:52:31.300
 that you would avoid by not having to deal with that, and you're giving up this little

00:52:31.300 --> 00:52:35.020
 sliver you can hardly tell is there of revenue, and I don't know how much you're spending

00:52:35.020 --> 00:52:36.460
 in order to get it.

00:52:36.460 --> 00:52:40.380
 So I don't even know if it's a net loss.

00:52:40.380 --> 00:52:47.820
 Second point, there is magic, I'm telling you magic now, there is magic to the word

00:52:47.820 --> 00:52:49.140
 free.

00:52:49.140 --> 00:52:55.060
 If we really want adoption, like I live on a bus route, I've never taken the bus.

00:52:55.060 --> 00:52:58.900
 It's not because it costs whatever it is, I don't even know what it is, I've never had

00:52:58.900 --> 00:52:59.900
 to find out.

00:52:59.900 --> 00:53:05.980
 I mean, as a, you know, a resident, but if I know, I can just do it.

00:53:05.980 --> 00:53:10.180
 I don't have to have a special thing, I don't have to, I don't need to know whether they

00:53:10.180 --> 00:53:16.300
 take coins or a card or a doohickey or, it's just there.

00:53:16.300 --> 00:53:22.720
 The vision of Denton is a place where transportation is just there.

00:53:22.720 --> 00:53:26.860
 I just think we're far more likely to get people out of their cars if they know it is

00:53:26.860 --> 00:53:31.380
 a completely frictionless experience.

00:53:31.380 --> 00:53:36.420
 That's where I'm coming from, possibly at no organizational cost or very minor.

00:53:36.420 --> 00:53:49.660
 So you know, now I think the responsible position would be to say, to evaluate the impact of

00:53:49.660 --> 00:53:55.940
 having no fares in terms of both of revenue and cost avoidance.

00:53:55.940 --> 00:54:01.260
 And then I'm kicking the can down the road a little bit, but I would also wager that

00:54:01.260 --> 00:54:05.540
 there's strong support in our council that you'd get a, you know, probably, I don't

00:54:05.540 --> 00:54:11.420
 know if there's universal consensus, but I'm hearing support for it from like unexpected

00:54:11.420 --> 00:54:12.420
 places.

00:54:12.420 --> 00:54:13.420
 Disparate, yeah.

00:54:13.420 --> 00:54:14.420
 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:54:14.420 --> 00:54:21.620
 And I'm very interested in that whatever we put forth would have to put a bluntly five,

00:54:21.620 --> 00:54:25.380
 six or seven votes, because otherwise I don't think it would be compelling to our representative,

00:54:25.380 --> 00:54:26.380
 you know.

00:54:26.380 --> 00:54:31.180
 If it's like three to four, four to three, it's like, I might as well do it, I think.

00:54:31.180 --> 00:54:32.180
 I don't know.

00:54:32.180 --> 00:54:33.300
 But if it's very strong voice.

00:54:33.300 --> 00:54:36.020
 So I think that's an item that could get support.

00:54:36.020 --> 00:54:43.340
 So what would you think about saying evaluate the cost and revenue impact of eliminating

00:54:43.340 --> 00:54:44.700
 fares?

00:54:44.700 --> 00:54:48.580
 I like having that particular language in there.

00:54:48.580 --> 00:54:54.100
 And yeah, I would ask that you include, to include an evaluation of the impact of potentially

00:54:54.100 --> 00:55:04.100
 eliminating fares, taking into account the cost savings in terms of labor and other logistics

00:55:04.100 --> 00:55:07.040
 that are involved with collecting fares.

00:55:07.040 --> 00:55:14.940
 You okay with that Council Member Byrd?

00:55:14.940 --> 00:55:15.940
 You know, I could do free.

00:55:15.940 --> 00:55:16.940
 Why not?

00:55:16.940 --> 00:55:17.940
 Free is good.

00:55:17.940 --> 00:55:21.380
 I was just selling for evaluative and you're already there.

00:55:21.380 --> 00:55:29.880
 I'm free in evaluating the, you know, the possibility of eliminating the potential to

00:55:29.880 --> 00:55:32.860
 eliminate fares.

00:55:32.860 --> 00:55:39.180
 I'm just concerned, you know, it's only getting a sliver anyway.

00:55:39.180 --> 00:55:40.180
 That's it.

00:55:40.180 --> 00:55:44.580
 So if we eliminate the fares, there's not even that sliver.

00:55:44.580 --> 00:55:46.500
 It doesn't give us any kind of room to...

00:55:46.500 --> 00:55:49.260
 Does it cost you a sliver to collect the sliver?

00:55:49.260 --> 00:55:51.460
 You know what I mean?

00:55:51.460 --> 00:55:52.460
 I understand.

00:55:52.460 --> 00:55:57.060
 So how, and you say for the six months, is this trial or is it to evaluate?

00:55:57.060 --> 00:56:00.060
 How long are they evaluating them?

00:56:00.060 --> 00:56:01.060
 Well, I don't know.

00:56:01.060 --> 00:56:03.260
 I mean, I think it's a paper and pencil exercise really.

00:56:03.260 --> 00:56:04.260
 Okay.

00:56:04.260 --> 00:56:13.060
 So I don't really have a point of view on, yeah, I'm saying initially, you know, analytically

00:56:13.060 --> 00:56:14.060
 investigate it.

00:56:14.060 --> 00:56:16.380
 You know, not, I'm not saying necessarily launch it.

00:56:16.380 --> 00:56:17.380
 See if there's a...

00:56:17.380 --> 00:56:18.380
 See if the case is supportable.

00:56:18.380 --> 00:56:19.380
 Yeah.

00:56:19.380 --> 00:56:20.380
 You know what I mean?

00:56:20.380 --> 00:56:21.380
 Okay.

00:56:21.380 --> 00:56:25.260
 Look at the dollars that are collected via fares and look at the amount that is spent

00:56:25.260 --> 00:56:26.740
 on collecting fares and subtract.

00:56:26.740 --> 00:56:27.740
 Yeah.

00:56:27.740 --> 00:56:30.140
 So they can make an intelligent decision, right?

00:56:30.140 --> 00:56:35.220
 I'm just looking at, you know, the time of year when things like that could be looked

00:56:35.220 --> 00:56:36.220
 at.

00:56:36.220 --> 00:56:40.860
 So I would suspect that the fall semester is the busiest time of year for the city of

00:56:40.860 --> 00:56:45.860
 Denton between, you know, September and December.

00:56:45.860 --> 00:56:54.420
 But I think you may, if I can interrupt you a little bit, you may want to go step-wise

00:56:54.420 --> 00:56:57.780
 into this because you're already testing a lot of variables, right?

00:56:57.780 --> 00:57:03.580
 You're testing on demand, you know, the service types on demand with fix.

00:57:03.580 --> 00:57:09.020
 You know, you may not want to introduce the fare question at the same time because then

00:57:09.020 --> 00:57:10.460
 who knows what you learned.

00:57:10.460 --> 00:57:18.980
 So it may be that, maybe even in the six-month period, you're just doing the analytical,

00:57:18.980 --> 00:57:24.420
 is there a business case to be made that this is doable.

00:57:24.420 --> 00:57:28.820
 Then at the end of six months, now you're making decisions about the optimal service

00:57:28.820 --> 00:57:31.300
 mix and now you can test the next thing.

00:57:31.300 --> 00:57:33.860
 How about no fares?

00:57:33.860 --> 00:57:34.860
 No fares for?

00:57:34.860 --> 00:57:35.860
 I don't know.

00:57:35.860 --> 00:57:40.620
 I mean, that may be another conversation at that time.

00:57:40.620 --> 00:57:42.020
 Just putting it out there and just seeing no fares.

00:57:42.020 --> 00:57:46.420
 I mean, we want to know, is this something that we need to look at for the next year

00:57:46.420 --> 00:57:52.140
 or two weeks or six months or permanently?

00:57:52.140 --> 00:57:53.140
 What are we talking about?

00:57:53.140 --> 00:57:54.140
 No fares.

00:57:54.140 --> 00:57:59.740
 I think if we're sort of in the spirit of test your way into things with a reasonable

00:57:59.740 --> 00:58:07.260
 amount of time to test it, then let's say for rhyming's sake, you would test no fares

00:58:07.260 --> 00:58:13.260
 for six months if it's determined that the pencil's out.

00:58:13.260 --> 00:58:14.940
 I'm with that.

00:58:14.940 --> 00:58:16.620
 I can agree to that.

00:58:16.620 --> 00:58:17.620
 Okay.

00:58:17.620 --> 00:58:20.980
 So at least as guidance to our representative.

00:58:20.980 --> 00:58:21.980
 I like a time frame.

00:58:21.980 --> 00:58:25.980
 I'm seeing a head nod from Councilmember McGuire as well.

00:58:25.980 --> 00:58:26.980
 Yes.

00:58:26.980 --> 00:58:27.980
 Yeah.

00:58:27.980 --> 00:58:28.980
 I think I'm on board with that.

00:58:28.980 --> 00:58:29.980
 It's a tricky thing.

00:58:29.980 --> 00:58:30.980
 Again, sorry.

00:58:30.980 --> 00:58:35.860
 Can we either delete the word savings or add the word eliminated, eliminating.

00:58:35.860 --> 00:58:38.340
 I'm willing to look at the language now.

00:58:38.340 --> 00:58:39.340
 Where are you looking?

00:58:39.340 --> 00:58:42.540
 Conduct a fair study during the six-month trial period to include an evaluation of the

00:58:42.540 --> 00:58:47.980
 impact of potentially eliminating fares, taking into account the cost savings associated

00:58:47.980 --> 00:58:52.660
 with eliminating fair collection or taking into account the costs associated with fair

00:58:52.660 --> 00:58:53.660
 collection.

00:58:53.660 --> 00:58:54.660
 Oh, yeah.

00:58:54.660 --> 00:58:55.660
 Okay.

00:58:55.660 --> 00:58:56.660
 I get your point.

00:58:56.660 --> 00:59:08.820
 So what we seem to, what I think we have agreement on is a fair analysis during the six-month

00:59:08.820 --> 00:59:19.100
 trial period with the potential for a fair, with a six-month trial of eliminating fares

00:59:19.100 --> 00:59:20.100
 after that.

00:59:20.100 --> 00:59:21.420
 And we're being a little overly prescriptive.

00:59:21.420 --> 00:59:27.260
 I mean, we're not management, but the principle is test one set of variables at a time on

00:59:27.260 --> 00:59:29.260
 the actual public, you know.

00:59:29.260 --> 00:59:31.700
 So the six-month trial would include eliminated fares?

00:59:31.700 --> 00:59:34.220
 No, I'm saying the opposite.

00:59:34.220 --> 00:59:35.220
 Okay.

00:59:35.220 --> 00:59:44.140
 That what we're really after, the primary focus here is evaluating the mix, the best

00:59:44.140 --> 00:59:47.820
 mix of service types during the six months.

00:59:47.820 --> 00:59:53.540
 According to that, we'd like to be ready if the analysis bears out to test elimination

00:59:53.540 --> 00:59:54.540
 of fares.

00:59:54.540 --> 00:59:57.100
 So we want to replace the word during with the word after?

00:59:57.100 --> 00:59:58.100
 Yeah.

00:59:58.100 --> 00:59:59.780
 Well, there's kind of two things, right?

00:59:59.780 --> 01:00:04.540
 There's the analysis and then there's a trial period of eliminating fares.

01:00:04.540 --> 01:00:05.540
 Okay.

01:00:05.540 --> 01:00:06.540
 Wait.

01:00:06.540 --> 01:00:07.540
 So what are we talking about doing the analysis?

01:00:07.540 --> 01:00:08.540
 Yeah.

01:00:08.540 --> 01:00:10.120
 Do the analysis this afternoon, right?

01:00:10.120 --> 01:00:11.120
 You know.

01:00:11.120 --> 01:00:12.120
 Yeah.

01:00:12.120 --> 01:00:16.340
 So do the analysis so that after we've made, you've made determinations on the optimal

01:00:16.340 --> 01:00:23.940
 service mix, the next thing to potentially introduce would be a trial of eliminating

01:00:23.940 --> 01:00:24.940
 fares.

01:00:24.940 --> 01:00:25.940
 Okay.

01:00:25.940 --> 01:00:28.660
 So, and I apologize if I'm getting myself confused.

01:00:28.660 --> 01:00:32.820
 So do we want to add to the section that we have in green that it will include a fair

01:00:32.820 --> 01:00:37.820
 analysis during the six-month trial period or I heard you say we want to conduct the

01:00:37.820 --> 01:00:40.380
 fair analysis potentially today, right?

01:00:40.380 --> 01:00:42.700
 Conduct a fair analysis and then do a trial of?

01:00:42.700 --> 01:00:47.180
 Yeah, I mean, I think it kind of becomes complicated when you try to link them.

01:00:47.180 --> 01:00:48.180
 Let's.

01:00:48.180 --> 01:00:51.180
 I don't know if we need to be this prescriptive.

01:00:51.180 --> 01:00:52.180
 No.

01:00:52.180 --> 01:00:53.180
 Yeah, right.

01:00:53.180 --> 01:01:00.820
 I should add, if it's appropriate, if I could just add, Title VI requires us to conduct

01:01:00.820 --> 01:01:08.060
 a Title VI analysis, which includes a fair equity analysis, and that has been conducted

01:01:08.060 --> 01:01:12.040
 as part of this preliminary proposed plan.

01:01:12.040 --> 01:01:17.700
 Before we would adopt like during that six-month period where the fares would be promotional,

01:01:17.700 --> 01:01:22.620
 we are also required then to conduct an additional fair analysis.

01:01:22.620 --> 01:01:29.020
 So there's actually two fair analysis that DCTA or a contractor will conduct.

01:01:29.020 --> 01:01:35.460
 One that we've just completed that talks about disparate and disproportionate impacts and

01:01:35.460 --> 01:01:41.180
 then a specific equity fair analysis that will be conducted during the six months based

01:01:41.180 --> 01:01:45.520
 on actual passenger behaviors and what type of fares they're purchasing.

01:01:45.520 --> 01:01:49.460
 Yeah, it's a little different than what we're talking about though, because at least, you

01:01:49.460 --> 01:01:55.420
 know, my stance is this isn't about equity or any of that.

01:01:55.420 --> 01:02:06.540
 It's about an alternative concept of how public transportation is offered in Denton that doesn't

01:02:06.540 --> 01:02:18.540
 have to do with disparate abilities to pay, it has to do with whether it's a free good.

01:02:18.540 --> 01:02:20.220
 We are being overly prescriptive.

01:02:20.220 --> 01:02:28.580
 The general idea is we're interested in evaluating the possibility of eliminating fares and not

01:02:28.580 --> 01:02:36.820
 necessarily and, you know, I would make the case that you wouldn't necessarily want to

01:02:36.820 --> 01:02:42.740
 test two things at the same time.

01:02:42.740 --> 01:02:50.700
 So how about just to keep it broad, evaluate the feasibility of eliminating fares altogether?

01:02:50.700 --> 01:02:51.700
 What she said.

01:02:51.700 --> 01:02:52.700
 Okay.

01:02:52.700 --> 01:02:58.460
 That's, yeah, and then execution will come after that anyway, who knows, maybe it'll

01:02:58.460 --> 01:02:59.900
 turn out to be a dog.

01:02:59.900 --> 01:03:06.700
 So if I may, Mr. Chair, we do have some language already that essentially says that, is there,

01:03:06.700 --> 01:03:13.180
 do we want to just keep it as simple as evaluate the elimination of fares or do we want the

01:03:13.180 --> 01:03:14.180
 more?

01:03:14.180 --> 01:03:20.100
 Yeah, I would just, you know, I think elsewhere you had the language that Councilmember McGuire

01:03:20.100 --> 01:03:28.060
 sort of tweaked that included the consideration of the operational efficiencies, cost savings,

01:03:28.060 --> 01:03:35.100
 maybe, you know, the word ridership should appear in that as well.

01:03:35.100 --> 01:03:39.500
 Impact on revenue, you know, operational efficiency and ridership.

01:03:39.500 --> 01:03:43.300
 But yeah, the cost savings associated with eliminating fare collection and the impact

01:03:43.300 --> 01:03:44.300
 on ridership.

01:03:44.300 --> 01:03:45.300
 Yeah.

01:03:45.300 --> 01:03:49.300
 What if you found out that like the net financial impact, let's say it was still, I don't know,

01:03:49.300 --> 01:03:56.780
 I'm making this up, you know, $100,000 negative, but 20% increase in ridership, hmm, it might

01:03:56.780 --> 01:04:00.380
 be worth it, you know, that's kind of, that's why I think ridership is important to put

01:04:00.380 --> 01:04:01.380
 in there.

01:04:01.380 --> 01:04:06.900
 That's the goal is to really have it be something that people really make part of their lives

01:04:06.900 --> 01:04:10.220
 in Denton.

01:04:10.220 --> 01:04:13.140
 Okay.

01:04:13.140 --> 01:04:17.980
 So did we want to keep it this long and have it say conduct a fare analysis to include

01:04:17.980 --> 01:04:22.900
 an evaluation of the impact of potentially eliminating fares, taking into account the

01:04:22.900 --> 01:04:28.140
 cost savings, I'll take off that extra S, cost savings associated with eliminating fare

01:04:28.140 --> 01:04:32.060
 collection and I'll add the impact on ridership.

01:04:32.060 --> 01:04:36.740
 I would eliminate the whole first line and replace it with evaluate the feasibility of.

01:04:36.740 --> 01:04:39.740
 Okay.

01:04:39.740 --> 01:04:40.740
 I'm fine with that.

01:04:40.740 --> 01:04:42.740
 You're okay with that Council Member Berg?

01:04:42.740 --> 01:04:47.060
 You want to see it?

01:04:47.060 --> 01:04:49.820
 We don't need the word potentially, let's keep it, keep it snappy.

01:04:49.820 --> 01:04:50.820
 Yeah, yeah.

01:04:50.820 --> 01:04:51.820
 Okay.

01:04:51.820 --> 01:04:52.820
 No adverbs.

01:04:52.820 --> 01:04:53.820
 Yeah.

01:04:53.820 --> 01:04:54.820
 To lead all the adverbs.

01:04:54.820 --> 01:04:55.820
 Put a column.

01:04:55.820 --> 01:04:56.820
 Put a column behind there.

01:04:56.820 --> 01:04:57.820
 There you go.

01:04:57.820 --> 01:04:58.820
 I'm happy.

01:04:58.820 --> 01:04:59.820
 Council Member Berg?

01:04:59.820 --> 01:05:00.820
 I'm okay.

01:05:00.820 --> 01:05:09.460
 I don't know if okay is the same thing as happy.

01:05:09.460 --> 01:05:10.460
 I'm happy.

01:05:10.460 --> 01:05:11.460
 Okay.

01:05:11.460 --> 01:05:12.460
 All right.

01:05:12.460 --> 01:05:13.460
 I agree.

01:05:13.460 --> 01:05:14.460
 Thank you.

01:05:14.460 --> 01:05:15.460
 Great.

01:05:15.460 --> 01:05:16.460
 All right.

01:05:16.460 --> 01:05:17.460
 Have what?

01:05:17.460 --> 01:05:22.060
 Now, now I ended up not following the template even slightly.

01:05:22.060 --> 01:05:24.660
 So what have we not touched on?

01:05:24.660 --> 01:05:30.180
 So we didn't touch on the scalability of vehicles on the fixed routes, which is something that

01:05:30.180 --> 01:05:34.340
 we did here at the June 16th meeting and I think during some phone conversations that

01:05:34.340 --> 01:05:35.700
 we had with committee members.

01:05:35.700 --> 01:05:36.700
 Okay.

01:05:36.700 --> 01:05:40.820
 So am I the only one who thinks that, that like, just like I'm saying, yeah, keep fixed

01:05:40.820 --> 01:05:44.820
 routes, but if there's only two people on a route, you don't necessarily have to run

01:05:44.820 --> 01:05:46.540
 a bus that seats 60.

01:05:46.540 --> 01:05:47.540
 True.

01:05:47.540 --> 01:05:49.260
 You know, I'm making those numbers up.

01:05:49.260 --> 01:05:55.620
 So maybe we could reword that a little bit, just say, I don't think we need that whole

01:05:55.620 --> 01:06:01.180
 first clause, but yeah, consideration of using...

01:06:01.180 --> 01:06:12.540
 In order to make, in order to improve efficiency on fixed routes, consider using smaller vehicles.

01:06:12.540 --> 01:06:16.220
 Works for me.

01:06:16.220 --> 01:06:23.340
 Once you get past an hour, everyone becomes more agreeable.

01:06:23.340 --> 01:06:24.340
 Okay.

01:06:24.340 --> 01:06:29.700
 So we just want to leave it at, in order to improve efficiency of fixed routes, consider

01:06:29.700 --> 01:06:32.380
 use of smaller vehicles.

01:06:32.380 --> 01:06:36.300
 Since I mean, since we're already kind of saying like, at least for this initial six

01:06:36.300 --> 01:06:42.660
 month period, we do not want to see fixed routes cut, so that kind of makes the previous

01:06:42.660 --> 01:06:43.660
 wording.

01:06:43.660 --> 01:06:47.500
 What else have we missed?

01:06:47.500 --> 01:06:54.700
 So I did hear consensus on the language, well, I want to make sure that I heard consensus

01:06:54.700 --> 01:07:00.180
 on the language of identify an option to maintain union pay representation and benefits for

01:07:00.180 --> 01:07:01.740
 current drivers.

01:07:01.740 --> 01:07:07.340
 So if we have that, I assume it's okay for us to remove the language that we did have

01:07:07.340 --> 01:07:11.900
 for providing assurance that current union labor will be provided assistance in securing

01:07:11.900 --> 01:07:12.900
 new positions.

01:07:12.900 --> 01:07:13.900
 Let's just strike that.

01:07:13.900 --> 01:07:14.900
 Yeah.

01:07:14.900 --> 01:07:15.900
 I think that's right.

01:07:15.900 --> 01:07:16.900
 Without objection.

01:07:16.900 --> 01:07:17.900
 Okay.

01:07:17.900 --> 01:07:24.140
 I'm seeing head nods, heads nod or head nods.

01:07:24.140 --> 01:07:26.540
 Yes.

01:07:26.540 --> 01:07:28.700
 Okay.

01:07:28.700 --> 01:07:35.380
 And then we've talked about hailable, it sounds like we may bring it up at council, but it's...

01:07:35.380 --> 01:07:36.380
 We can park it.

01:07:36.380 --> 01:07:37.380
 Okay.

01:07:37.380 --> 01:07:38.380
 We'll keep it yellow then.

01:07:38.380 --> 01:07:44.100
 And were we comfortable with the language that we currently have for the maintain union

01:07:44.100 --> 01:07:45.100
 pay?

01:07:45.100 --> 01:07:47.740
 That works for me.

01:07:47.740 --> 01:07:52.060
 I would say maintain union representation pay and benefits.

01:07:52.060 --> 01:07:53.060
 Okay.

01:07:53.060 --> 01:07:54.060
 Oh, that's completely different.

01:07:54.060 --> 01:07:55.060
 It is though.

01:07:55.060 --> 01:08:03.300
 I want to make sure that we're clear that that union representation is one of the benefits

01:08:03.300 --> 01:08:04.300
 of the drivers currently have.

01:08:04.300 --> 01:08:05.300
 The word was there, but that's fine.

01:08:05.300 --> 01:08:06.300
 This is a much better order.

01:08:06.300 --> 01:08:07.300
 This is better.

01:08:07.300 --> 01:08:08.300
 Okay.

01:08:08.300 --> 01:08:09.300
 We'll also be missed.

01:08:09.300 --> 01:08:14.540
 Just kind of looking through the list, we've already spoken to the six month concurrency.

01:08:14.540 --> 01:08:18.900
 So did we want to talk any more about a gradual implementation?

01:08:18.900 --> 01:08:22.260
 What happens after the six months or we just want to keep it at the six months?

01:08:22.260 --> 01:08:27.420
 See, this is the critical point.

01:08:27.420 --> 01:08:31.980
 If I can try to express the consensus, we don't view it as a fait accompli, that there's

01:08:31.980 --> 01:08:33.620
 going to be a transition.

01:08:33.620 --> 01:08:37.700
 Might be, might not be, might be a transition back to all fixed.

01:08:37.700 --> 01:08:39.860
 It kind of depends on what people do.

01:08:39.860 --> 01:08:44.500
 It's six months to learn and then optimize the mix.

01:08:44.500 --> 01:08:49.980
 The optimal mix could be 50/50, could be 100/0, could be 0/100.

01:08:49.980 --> 01:08:50.980
 No preconceived notion.

01:08:50.980 --> 01:08:58.100
 At the end of the six month period during which DCTA is gathering data about where most

01:08:58.100 --> 01:09:04.500
 rides are originating and ending, that is when a decision should be made regarding what

01:09:04.500 --> 01:09:06.140
 happens after the six month period.

01:09:06.140 --> 01:09:09.900
 Something else to say.

01:09:09.900 --> 01:09:15.340
 The only reason, well, here's my, let me say what I had in my head at first.

01:09:15.340 --> 01:09:23.380
 As we are gathering information for the six months, are we going to, we're going to have

01:09:23.380 --> 01:09:32.220
 to wing it out a few more months until the decision is made so I can see us coming back

01:09:32.220 --> 01:09:40.860
 after six months and making the determination and it's, we've got to go further than that

01:09:40.860 --> 01:09:45.820
 to absolutely put the resolution there that this is what we're going to do.

01:09:45.820 --> 01:09:46.820
 Yeah, I mean, I'm personally.

01:09:46.820 --> 01:09:47.820
 I agree with you.

01:09:47.820 --> 01:09:52.500
 Is it going to be like another two months until we can get the analysis done, until

01:09:52.500 --> 01:09:57.900
 we can get it implemented or are we going to be in the process of trying to be where

01:09:57.900 --> 01:10:00.540
 we want to be in the six months?

01:10:00.540 --> 01:10:02.940
 Because it's already six months now.

01:10:02.940 --> 01:10:05.300
 Yeah, I'm personally comfortable with the idea.

01:10:05.300 --> 01:10:11.420
 It's like we just keep going on and on and, you know, when does it, when does it?

01:10:11.420 --> 01:10:17.900
 I understand your point and I think, and I'm personally comfortable with the idea that

01:10:17.900 --> 01:10:23.380
 we're saying get six months of data and I'm willing to wait until then to find out how

01:10:23.380 --> 01:10:28.180
 long it'll take staff to analyze it and to gear up for any proposed changes.

01:10:28.180 --> 01:10:33.780
 I mean, like, you know, how much can we, so what are we doing while we're waiting for

01:10:33.780 --> 01:10:34.780
 the analysis?

01:10:34.780 --> 01:10:41.220
 Are we going to continue on with the process until they come back with analysis or is analysis

01:10:41.220 --> 01:10:44.220
 being done up to that six months?

01:10:44.220 --> 01:10:47.940
 I think that's a decision, personally, I think that's a decision to make at that time.

01:10:47.940 --> 01:10:55.780
 You know, let's say six months transpire and nobody has ridden a bus on a fixed route

01:10:55.780 --> 01:10:59.060
 in that entire time making it up.

01:10:59.060 --> 01:11:03.140
 You might not feel you need to wait a long time then to make the decision or conversely

01:11:03.140 --> 01:11:04.620
 feel like this better.

01:11:04.620 --> 01:11:09.580
 Nobody has written, has ordered an on-demand ride in six months.

01:11:09.580 --> 01:11:12.600
 How long are you going to wait to whack that program, you know?

01:11:12.600 --> 01:11:17.980
 So I think it depends on how compelling the evidence is and how complicated it is to analyze

01:11:17.980 --> 01:11:18.980
 it.

01:11:18.980 --> 01:11:24.180
 I'm willing to punt on making that decision today, I don't think we know enough.

01:11:24.180 --> 01:11:31.340
 I mean, you know, I just put it out there because, you know, that route that has five

01:11:31.340 --> 01:11:37.500
 people at 9 o'clock, six people at 10 o'clock, one person at 3 o'clock, I mean, all of that

01:11:37.500 --> 01:11:43.980
 is going to be ticking, ticking, ticking up to the six months and then the DCTA comes

01:11:43.980 --> 01:11:49.860
 back and says that we, now we're going to start doing the analysis or are they already

01:11:49.860 --> 01:11:54.700
 working it up and they can give us that cut off and say, okay, in two weeks because of

01:11:54.700 --> 01:11:58.500
 this, this, this, we're going to start this process.

01:11:58.500 --> 01:12:02.920
 Are we going to come back and are we going to be agreeing with that or are we going to

01:12:02.920 --> 01:12:08.520
 come back and have to sit out and regurgitate it all again and bring it all back to come

01:12:08.520 --> 01:12:11.420
 up with another resolution?

01:12:11.420 --> 01:12:12.420
 That's where I am with that.

01:12:12.420 --> 01:12:13.420
 All right.

01:12:13.420 --> 01:12:14.420
 I'm willing to live in that doubt.

01:12:14.420 --> 01:12:16.540
 Councilmember Guerra, what are your thoughts on this?

01:12:16.540 --> 01:12:17.540
 I am as well.

01:12:17.540 --> 01:12:22.300
 You know, I, I hear your concern that, you know, that we're kicking the can down the

01:12:22.300 --> 01:12:26.500
 road and that, that, you know, we're, we're just going to have to make more decisions

01:12:26.500 --> 01:12:27.500
 again in the future.

01:12:27.500 --> 01:12:32.380
 And I guess maybe I shouldn't say we, the DCTA board is the primary body that's going

01:12:32.380 --> 01:12:35.500
 to be making these decisions.

01:12:35.500 --> 01:12:43.460
 I just, I, I feel that there should always be decisions being made.

01:12:43.460 --> 01:12:49.500
 There should always be tweaks being made to, to delivery of service and, and that should

01:12:49.500 --> 01:12:53.060
 be based on, you know, data.

01:12:53.060 --> 01:13:02.260
 So you know, I, I, I'm, I'm okay with the idea of DCTA gathering data, bringing it back

01:13:02.260 --> 01:13:10.060
 to us in six months, bringing it back to the DCTA board in six months and you know, us,

01:13:10.060 --> 01:13:16.260
 you know, yeah, passing another resolution, providing additional guidance to DCTA or to

01:13:16.260 --> 01:13:22.220
 our representatives on DCTA that would, you know, help us decide what, where we're going

01:13:22.220 --> 01:13:24.460
 to go from there and what we're going to do with that data.

01:13:24.460 --> 01:13:30.780
 I'm going to, I'm going to make a prediction that the answer will be complex, that the

01:13:30.780 --> 01:13:37.780
 answer will be, or let, let me put it a different way, will vary by route, right?

01:13:37.780 --> 01:13:43.060
 So there'll probably be, there'll probably, probably be some decisions within the decision

01:13:43.060 --> 01:13:49.700
 that will be very clear, some that may not be all that clear even after six months.

01:13:49.700 --> 01:13:54.180
 You know, it's going to, we'll, it's going to have arms and legs and we'll have to look

01:13:54.180 --> 01:13:55.540
 at it at the time.

01:13:55.540 --> 01:13:56.540
 Okay.

01:13:56.540 --> 01:13:57.540
 I don't know.

01:13:57.540 --> 01:13:58.540
 That's.

01:13:58.540 --> 01:13:59.540
 Chair.

01:13:59.540 --> 01:14:00.540
 Okay.

01:14:00.540 --> 01:14:01.540
 Are you okay with that?

01:14:01.540 --> 01:14:07.380
 Sounds like, I'm, I'm particularly am not okay with that, but it's just my thoughts.

01:14:07.380 --> 01:14:08.380
 Yeah.

01:14:08.380 --> 01:14:11.100
 And I understand where both of you all are coming from.

01:14:11.100 --> 01:14:16.940
 I just don't have the, and I don't think that the community, a lot of the community really

01:14:16.940 --> 01:14:26.300
 has the patience, I mean, some of the community that have the patience to keep waiting and

01:14:26.300 --> 01:14:27.300
 waiting and waiting.

01:14:27.300 --> 01:14:30.500
 A lot of people like to know what are we going to do?

01:14:30.500 --> 01:14:32.180
 What's the plan?

01:14:32.180 --> 01:14:33.780
 And then let's get in there.

01:14:33.780 --> 01:14:35.420
 Let's work it up.

01:14:35.420 --> 01:14:42.020
 Six months later, we're still got to come back and still talking about it.

01:14:42.020 --> 01:14:45.500
 Well, but then, then you're talking about it after having six months of real data.

01:14:45.500 --> 01:14:46.500
 Right.

01:14:46.500 --> 01:14:50.900
 In the end, there's a time frame in there and some things may just completely, you know,

01:14:50.900 --> 01:14:51.900
 can change.

01:14:51.900 --> 01:14:56.980
 I'm just not against all of that, but I think that, you know, like she used the term kicking

01:14:56.980 --> 01:14:58.140
 a can down the road.

01:14:58.140 --> 01:15:02.980
 Thank you very much for being very basic on that because that's the word I, the terminology

01:15:02.980 --> 01:15:05.260
 that I had in my head.

01:15:05.260 --> 01:15:09.540
 But I'm in agreement with, you know, you guys have the majority voice.

01:15:09.540 --> 01:15:11.220
 I'm just saying that I don't agree with it.

01:15:11.220 --> 01:15:12.220
 And that's the reason why.

01:15:12.220 --> 01:15:17.780
 But let's, you know, rather see if we can, you know, find a little happier spot.

01:15:17.780 --> 01:15:22.380
 I have no objection to saying something like, you know, six month test, blah, blah, blah,

01:15:22.380 --> 01:15:25.260
 whatever you've already said.

01:15:25.260 --> 01:15:40.820
 You know, and then for prompt, for careful and prompt decision making after that.

01:15:40.820 --> 01:15:41.820
 Thank you.

01:15:41.820 --> 01:15:48.580
 Chair, that's what I wanted to bring up is, I'm not sure if you want to put, I understand

01:15:48.580 --> 01:15:49.580
 the six month time frame.

01:15:49.580 --> 01:15:54.020
 I guess one of the things that I wanted to make sure is, is there a specific six month

01:15:54.020 --> 01:15:58.300
 time frame that you're looking for or is it just in the next six months after the July

01:15:58.300 --> 01:15:59.300
 22nd board meeting?

01:15:59.300 --> 01:16:03.300
 I don't know if you need to put any parameters around that.

01:16:03.300 --> 01:16:05.860
 I don't personally feel compelled to be that prescriptive.

01:16:05.860 --> 01:16:11.180
 To me, the clock starts when the starter pistol goes off and goes on as introduced.

01:16:11.180 --> 01:16:16.820
 So in other words, that you have six months lived experience of both services being available.

01:16:16.820 --> 01:16:20.020
 So six months from September 7th?

01:16:20.020 --> 01:16:22.820
 If that's when they start, then that's what that would be.

01:16:22.820 --> 01:16:23.820
 That's the plan.

01:16:23.820 --> 01:16:24.820
 Oh, is that correct?

01:16:24.820 --> 01:16:30.860
 But I'd rather not hitch it to a calendar date if the starter pistol date moves.

01:16:30.860 --> 01:16:32.180
 It's six months of lived experience.

01:16:32.180 --> 01:16:33.180
 Okay, yeah.

01:16:33.180 --> 01:16:34.180
 Six months from the implementation.

01:16:34.180 --> 01:16:38.060
 Right, so that was what I was pointing out is maybe it's six months from the implementation

01:16:38.060 --> 01:16:40.060
 of the GoZone program.

01:16:40.060 --> 01:16:43.620
 You know, if you want to put some kind of parameters on it.

01:16:43.620 --> 01:16:48.180
 And then the other thing I wanted to mention also is to make sure that we're being very

01:16:48.180 --> 01:16:50.980
 clear that this is not just for route three and seven.

01:16:50.980 --> 01:16:53.420
 This is for the entire, all of the routes, correct?

01:16:53.420 --> 01:16:54.420
 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:16:54.420 --> 01:16:55.420
 Absolutely.

01:16:55.420 --> 01:16:56.420
 All of the currently running fixed routes.

01:16:56.420 --> 01:16:57.420
 Yeah.

01:16:57.420 --> 01:17:05.260
 Not turning anything off until we have six months of lived data of both services being

01:17:05.260 --> 01:17:06.260
 available.

01:17:06.260 --> 01:17:07.260
 Sure.

01:17:07.260 --> 01:17:10.380
 I understand that's being a little more prescriptive, but just wanted to see if there was a way that

01:17:10.380 --> 01:17:14.540
 we could put some parameters around that.

01:17:14.540 --> 01:17:18.500
 And to be perfectly honest, six months is something that is sort of a feels good, that

01:17:18.500 --> 01:17:20.340
 we were all like, yeah, that feels about right.

01:17:20.340 --> 01:17:27.060
 Yeah, but I mean, for me, the principle really is just a kind of projectable period of time.

01:17:27.060 --> 01:17:31.380
 You know, which I don't know if six months is it, I know two weeks isn't it.

01:17:31.380 --> 01:17:32.380
 Right.

01:17:32.380 --> 01:17:33.380
 Absolutely, yeah.

01:17:33.380 --> 01:17:36.380
 What else have we missed?

01:17:36.380 --> 01:17:40.420
 Okay, well, do we want to make sure we're in agreement, because we added a bunch of

01:17:40.420 --> 01:17:41.420
 language there.

01:17:41.420 --> 01:17:45.020
 So do we want to make sure we're in agreement with some of the revisions that we've made

01:17:45.020 --> 01:17:47.380
 to this kind of first statement?

01:17:47.380 --> 01:17:51.900
 So right now I've got provide concurrent fixed route service for all existing routes.

01:17:51.900 --> 01:17:56.680
 Thank you for that suggestion, Becky, along with on-demand service model for six months

01:17:56.680 --> 01:18:03.020
 from implementation of Go Zones to allow DCTA time to gather data and optimize the delivery

01:18:03.020 --> 01:18:05.060
 model based on ridership patterns.

01:18:05.060 --> 01:18:06.740
 I like it.

01:18:06.740 --> 01:18:10.020
 Eliminate fixed route in the first line there.

01:18:10.020 --> 01:18:11.020
 Okay.

01:18:11.020 --> 01:18:20.860
 Provide current service or provide on-demand service and exist, well, provide on-demand

01:18:20.860 --> 01:18:35.420
 service and service for all existing routes concurrently.

01:18:35.420 --> 01:18:36.420
 Fixed routes, yeah.

01:18:36.420 --> 01:18:44.140
 I apologize, I just...I've never seen any kind of council meeting like this one before,

01:18:44.140 --> 01:18:46.140
 have you?

01:18:46.140 --> 01:18:48.380
 What with me being so picky about the syntax?

01:18:48.380 --> 01:18:53.180
 No, even just the degree of collaborative decision-making, which I like.

01:18:53.180 --> 01:18:54.980
 So now we read...

01:18:54.980 --> 01:18:58.060
 All existing fixed routes.

01:18:58.060 --> 01:19:03.060
 No problem.

01:19:03.060 --> 01:19:19.540
 The implementation of, let's say, on-demand service.

01:19:19.540 --> 01:19:21.740
 No hyphen between six and months.

01:19:21.740 --> 01:19:24.900
 No hyphen between six and months, okay.

01:19:24.900 --> 01:19:29.140
 Do you have any openings in legal, unfilled positions?

01:19:29.140 --> 01:19:40.500
 So what happens when you, yeah, elect teachers to city council?

01:19:40.500 --> 01:19:49.460
 Are we good with the remainder of that statement?

01:19:49.460 --> 01:19:51.420
 I'm good with it.

01:19:51.420 --> 01:19:52.420
 Okay.

01:19:52.420 --> 01:19:57.620
 So looking through my notes, the only other item is just, you know, we have mentioned

01:19:57.620 --> 01:20:03.820
 the elimination of...potential elimination of fares following the fee study, but we haven't

01:20:03.820 --> 01:20:08.020
 spoken specifically...obviously there could be the elimination of fares.

01:20:08.020 --> 01:20:11.940
 If there's not though, do we want to include anything based on the feedback we've received

01:20:11.940 --> 01:20:18.180
 from you regarding what to do for low-income or other communities who may have issues or

01:20:18.180 --> 01:20:23.320
 do we just address that after the fare study?

01:20:23.320 --> 01:20:31.060
 I'm thinking that now that I've heard that there are provisions for low-income riders

01:20:31.060 --> 01:20:37.920
 with our non-profits, do we even have to address it at all?

01:20:37.920 --> 01:20:45.340
 I think that is done presently, you know, and I think Nicole indicated that, but I'm

01:20:45.340 --> 01:20:47.580
 open to hearing other thoughts.

01:20:47.580 --> 01:20:58.860
 Yeah, I mean, I think that having a varied fee structure is sort of a different thing

01:20:58.860 --> 01:21:00.820
 than just eliminating fares.

01:21:00.820 --> 01:21:06.180
 It is, and these essentially...well, okay, go ahead.

01:21:06.180 --> 01:21:07.180
 Sorry.

01:21:07.180 --> 01:21:11.820
 Oh, so I mean, so the status quo is that there sort of is a varied fee structure for folks

01:21:11.820 --> 01:21:14.860
 who are going through non-profits.

01:21:14.860 --> 01:21:21.140
 I really...I am interested in DCTA evaluating the feasibility of eliminating fares altogether

01:21:21.140 --> 01:21:28.260
 for everyone so that anybody in the city can just hop on a bus with no...frictionless.

01:21:28.260 --> 01:21:34.980
 Yeah, I mean, I'm more about it as kind of a product concept, and if you will, that as

01:21:34.980 --> 01:21:35.980
 an equity thing.

01:21:35.980 --> 01:21:36.980
 Yeah, it's about increasing ridership.

01:21:36.980 --> 01:21:41.940
 It's just like the definition of Denton changes, you know, Denton is a place then where public

01:21:41.940 --> 01:21:48.380
 transit's so easy because, you know, you don't have to figure anything out, you just get

01:21:48.380 --> 01:21:49.380
 on.

01:21:49.380 --> 01:21:53.380
 So that leaves us with the parking lot item.

01:21:53.380 --> 01:21:57.700
 That's our bird, you gave me a look like, I'm not sure I agree with you, I think you

01:21:57.700 --> 01:22:00.900
 might be insane, I don't know what that look was.

01:22:00.900 --> 01:22:07.460
 You know, I like...again, here we're back around to the same topic, I like free.

01:22:07.460 --> 01:22:11.060
 I'm good with free.

01:22:11.060 --> 01:22:18.740
 And you know, if it's just a sliver of whatever intake that they're getting, which...I'm okay,

01:22:18.740 --> 01:22:19.740
 I'm good.

01:22:19.740 --> 01:22:20.740
 I agree.

01:22:20.740 --> 01:22:21.740
 Okay, okay.

01:22:21.740 --> 01:22:22.740
 We're still good.

01:22:22.740 --> 01:22:23.740
 We're still good.

01:22:23.740 --> 01:22:24.740
 Stop pulling the Band-Aid off.

01:22:24.740 --> 01:22:25.740
 Oh, sorry.

01:22:25.740 --> 01:22:26.740
 Sorry.

01:22:26.740 --> 01:22:27.740
 We tacked that one down.

01:22:27.740 --> 01:22:28.740
 Okay, we're done.

01:22:28.740 --> 01:22:29.740
 We're done.

01:22:29.740 --> 01:22:33.180
 You asked me what I had in my notes, so I want to do it thorough.

01:22:33.180 --> 01:22:37.380
 So do we want to return to the parking lot, or do we want to go through some of the...

01:22:37.380 --> 01:22:42.020
 Like, it's not in...it's in my mental parking lot, it's not in the resolution, we don't

01:22:42.020 --> 01:22:43.020
 have support for that.

01:22:43.020 --> 01:22:44.020
 Yeah, I'm fine with eliminating that from the resolution.

01:22:44.020 --> 01:22:45.020
 Okay.

01:22:45.020 --> 01:22:48.580
 I could come back at some future conversation, because it would still be in my head.

01:22:48.580 --> 01:22:52.060
 It's a cool idea, but it's not the point of what we're talking about right now.

01:22:52.060 --> 01:22:53.060
 Yeah, it's not on point.

01:22:53.060 --> 01:22:54.060
 Okay.

01:22:54.060 --> 01:22:55.060
 It's not on point.

01:22:55.060 --> 01:22:56.060
 No problem.

01:22:56.060 --> 01:22:57.060
 So then...

01:22:57.060 --> 01:22:58.060
 Excuse me.

01:22:58.060 --> 01:22:59.060
 Yes, ma'am.

01:22:59.060 --> 01:23:00.060
 Just scroll back up.

01:23:00.060 --> 01:23:01.060
 That last one, in order to improve efficiency of fixed routes, consider the use of smaller

01:23:01.060 --> 01:23:02.060
 vehicles.

01:23:02.060 --> 01:23:03.060
 I see you have a semicolon there.

01:23:03.060 --> 01:23:10.440
 Does that just need to be a period, or is that just a statement hashed?

01:23:10.440 --> 01:23:11.440
 It's been changed.

01:23:11.440 --> 01:23:14.440
 Oh, we got two like this now.

01:23:14.440 --> 01:23:18.860
 We will make sure we do a good grammatical check of this, so I appreciate your patience

01:23:18.860 --> 01:23:19.860
 with me.

01:23:19.860 --> 01:23:24.440
 There will be semicolons, just so you know, it'll be semicolon, and semicolon, and once

01:23:24.440 --> 01:23:27.820
 we get this reformatted with our city attorney's office.

01:23:27.820 --> 01:23:34.920
 Rachel, I so appreciate the way you're providing this service to us here, you know, scribing

01:23:34.920 --> 01:23:35.920
 in.

01:23:35.920 --> 01:23:36.920
 You're so very welcome.

01:23:36.920 --> 01:23:42.300
 This is an interesting mobility committee meeting, for sure, but we are making progress,

01:23:42.300 --> 01:23:43.300
 and I'm excited about that.

01:23:43.300 --> 01:23:44.300
 Burn the videotape, but yeah.

01:23:44.300 --> 01:23:45.300
 Okay.

01:23:45.300 --> 01:23:46.300
 All right.

01:23:46.300 --> 01:23:49.660
 So do we want to go through the whereases, which again is kind of...

01:23:49.660 --> 01:23:54.780
 It's kind of fluff, but let's make sure there's nothing that's going to set off alarms.

01:23:54.780 --> 01:24:03.780
 I would say whereas is number four and five need maybe a little tweak.

01:24:03.780 --> 01:24:06.060
 Okay.

01:24:06.060 --> 01:24:11.740
 Can we just eliminate the last like clause to ensure a smooth transition and mitigate

01:24:11.740 --> 01:24:12.740
 community impacts?

01:24:12.740 --> 01:24:13.740
 Sure.

01:24:13.740 --> 01:24:15.500
 Just eliminate that, because again, that's sort of...

01:24:15.500 --> 01:24:17.700
 Yeah, we don't know if there's a transition.

01:24:17.700 --> 01:24:19.780
 We're agnostic about that.

01:24:19.780 --> 01:24:24.700
 And I did put a note, so I didn't forget that we don't put anything in here about the

01:24:24.700 --> 01:24:28.900
 importance to the Denton City Council of having a robust transit service, so if we want to

01:24:28.900 --> 01:24:31.020
 have that clause, we can absolutely add it.

01:24:31.020 --> 01:24:32.020
 That's...

01:24:32.020 --> 01:24:33.100
 I'm in favor of that.

01:24:33.100 --> 01:24:38.940
 I think that's really the essence of where I perceive this council to be coming from,

01:24:38.940 --> 01:24:46.540
 that we're less interested in minimizing that cost footprint of the service and more interested

01:24:46.540 --> 01:24:48.740
 in maximizing the service delivery.

01:24:48.740 --> 01:24:59.860
 Nobody wants to waste money, but the primary objective is to meet the public transit potential.

01:24:59.860 --> 01:25:18.180
 The Denton City Council, or whereas a robust public transit service is important to...

01:25:18.180 --> 01:25:29.060
 Integral to a successful city is...

01:25:29.060 --> 01:25:30.060
 Whereas a public...

01:25:30.060 --> 01:25:45.100
 A robust public transit service is necessary to the development of a sustainable...

01:25:45.100 --> 01:25:49.260
 To meeting our sustainability, accessibility, and mobility goals.

01:25:49.260 --> 01:26:00.340
 I check in economic development, because I think it's true.

01:26:00.340 --> 01:26:03.100
 Economic development, mobility, and sustainability.

01:26:03.100 --> 01:26:05.140
 And accessibility.

01:26:05.140 --> 01:26:11.260
 Mobility, sustainability, and accessibility.

01:26:11.260 --> 01:26:15.940
 Goals.

01:26:15.940 --> 01:26:18.820
 Councillor Baird, you happy so far?

01:26:18.820 --> 01:26:22.540
 Addition, subtractions, changes?

01:26:22.540 --> 01:26:30.700
 Is essential to meeting.

01:26:30.700 --> 01:26:34.740
 Meeting Dentons.

01:26:34.740 --> 01:26:46.300
 And it will be a semi-calling.

01:26:46.300 --> 01:26:56.340
 Fair warning, there will be semi-colons.

01:26:56.340 --> 01:27:00.140
 I think the whereas that's after that, whereas the Denton City Council requests consideration

01:27:00.140 --> 01:27:04.460
 of revisions to DCTA's service delivery model, I think we can just eliminate that altogether,

01:27:04.460 --> 01:27:12.020
 because we said that in the previous one.

01:27:12.020 --> 01:27:17.500
 I am looking at the words modified and revised.

01:27:17.500 --> 01:27:20.300
 Where are you at?

01:27:20.300 --> 01:27:27.460
 At the top, at the very top here, where it says modified service delivery model.

01:27:27.460 --> 01:27:31.380
 And then down here on the one, two, three, did we hit three?

01:27:31.380 --> 01:27:32.980
 One, two, three?

01:27:32.980 --> 01:27:38.740
 It says something about us currently, whereas DCTA is currently considering a revised service

01:27:38.740 --> 01:27:42.860
 delivery model.

01:27:42.860 --> 01:27:50.980
 I just think that it's important that we use the same words, like modified.

01:27:50.980 --> 01:27:51.980
 Is it modified?

01:27:51.980 --> 01:27:52.980
 Is it revised?

01:27:52.980 --> 01:27:53.980
 Is it service?

01:27:53.980 --> 01:27:58.060
 Maybe we should replace the word modified with proposed, because they haven't modified

01:27:58.060 --> 01:28:00.060
 anything yet.

01:28:00.060 --> 01:28:02.580
 Okay.

01:28:02.580 --> 01:28:06.100
 I'm okay with that.

01:28:06.100 --> 01:28:20.540
 And if we use a word revised, if they're proposed, so this is a proposal.

01:28:20.540 --> 01:28:23.020
 To a similar end.

01:28:23.020 --> 01:28:31.020
 Anything that you have there, service, one, two, three, four, five, six, a six one down.

01:28:31.020 --> 01:28:36.380
 I do want to note, if we change it to revised to proposed here, we're going to say DCTA

01:28:36.380 --> 01:28:40.460
 is currently considering a proposed service delivery model.

01:28:40.460 --> 01:28:41.460
 That makes sense.

01:28:41.460 --> 01:28:45.520
 It just breeds a little bit differently, but if we're good with that, we can keep it as

01:28:45.520 --> 01:28:46.520
 is.

01:28:46.520 --> 01:28:47.520
 Okay.

01:28:47.520 --> 01:28:52.220
 Are you all okay with that proposal?

01:28:52.220 --> 01:28:54.820
 Can we change the word adopt?

01:28:54.820 --> 01:28:55.820
 Oh, sorry.

01:28:55.820 --> 01:29:03.060
 Yeah, if I can go back to that one, yeah, where you are, I think to potentially replace

01:29:03.060 --> 01:29:10.060
 existing fixed route services, right, you're not replacing on-demand.

01:29:10.060 --> 01:29:18.300
 So whereas DCTA is currently considering a proposed service delivery model to include

01:29:18.300 --> 01:29:26.620
 on-demand route service that would potentially replace existing fixed route service, right?

01:29:26.620 --> 01:29:30.620
 I'll need to lean on Nicole, but I do believe there are some on-demand services that are

01:29:30.620 --> 01:29:31.900
 currently provided.

01:29:31.900 --> 01:29:37.260
 Yes, but my understanding was that eliminating those was not part of the proposal.

01:29:37.260 --> 01:29:41.740
 Yeah, we, I'm sorry, I mean, there's some, go ahead.

01:29:41.740 --> 01:29:47.020
 DCTA, yeah, DCTA currently provides two on-demand services, so the first is the Louisville Lakeway

01:29:47.020 --> 01:29:52.460
 Zone, and it operates six days a week, and then the second is the DDTC evening on-demand

01:29:52.460 --> 01:29:56.780
 zone that operates just in like four evening hours, Monday through Friday.

01:29:56.780 --> 01:30:00.780
 Both of those services would be eliminated and replaced with the GoZone service.

01:30:00.780 --> 01:30:01.780
 Oh, okay.

01:30:01.780 --> 01:30:04.740
 So that's technically true, I wasn't aware of that.

01:30:04.740 --> 01:30:10.860
 I think it's frankly confusing to even, you know, get into it, but whatever.

01:30:10.860 --> 01:30:18.220
 Is it down there where it says, where is the D at the very bottom right there, service delivery

01:30:18.220 --> 01:30:20.220
 for the July the 22nd meeting?

01:30:20.220 --> 01:30:27.420
 Are we going to keep service there or are we going to change that to proposed?

01:30:27.420 --> 01:30:29.460
 To the proposed delivery model?

01:30:29.460 --> 01:30:30.460
 Yes.

01:30:30.460 --> 01:30:31.460
 Great.

01:30:31.460 --> 01:30:34.100
 They're not adopting revisions to the proposal.

01:30:34.100 --> 01:30:35.100
 Yeah.

01:30:35.100 --> 01:30:36.740
 Oh, okay.

01:30:36.740 --> 01:30:43.500
 Well, can we change adopt to vote on?

01:30:43.500 --> 01:30:44.500
 Sure.

01:30:44.500 --> 01:30:47.580
 Because maybe they won't adopt.

01:30:47.580 --> 01:30:48.580
 What about consider?

01:30:48.580 --> 01:30:49.580
 Okay.

01:30:49.580 --> 01:30:50.580
 Yeah, yeah.

01:30:50.580 --> 01:31:02.180
 That's just what I was thinking.

01:31:02.180 --> 01:31:09.140
 You know, this is sort of a phrase as direction to the DCATA board.

01:31:09.140 --> 01:31:17.060
 In my mind, it's direction to our representative on the board, you know, but I don't have a,

01:31:17.060 --> 01:31:22.180
 I'm not stuck on it, but I'd be interested in like, what's the difference and which is

01:31:22.180 --> 01:31:23.180
 right?

01:31:23.180 --> 01:31:30.940
 Well, I mean, you know, I don't hold an at large seat, but Denton residents from other

01:31:30.940 --> 01:31:38.260
 districts will email me and call me with their concerns, right?

01:31:38.260 --> 01:31:41.660
 I mean, that's sort of, in a way, that's what we're doing here, right?

01:31:41.660 --> 01:31:45.820
 I mean, we're asking all the members of the board, even the ones who weren't appointed

01:31:45.820 --> 01:31:49.420
 by Denton City Council to consider the concerns.

01:31:49.420 --> 01:31:50.420
 Yeah.

01:31:50.420 --> 01:31:51.420
 I mean, I don't hate it.

01:31:51.420 --> 01:31:55.860
 It's just, you know, it's not a huge issue to me either way.

01:31:55.860 --> 01:32:07.620
 It's just like the, my objective is to provide instruction to our representative, but it

01:32:07.620 --> 01:32:08.620
 does the same thing.

01:32:08.620 --> 01:32:09.620
 I don't really care.

01:32:09.620 --> 01:32:10.620
 I don't know.

01:32:10.620 --> 01:32:11.620
 Do you have an opinion about it?

01:32:11.620 --> 01:32:12.620
 No, I don't.

01:32:12.620 --> 01:32:13.620
 Thank you.

01:32:13.620 --> 01:32:14.620
 Fine.

01:32:14.620 --> 01:32:15.620
 Leave it.

01:32:15.620 --> 01:32:22.540
 Let's just, well, let's put it, let me just not leave it alone for one second.

01:32:22.540 --> 01:32:40.340
 Let's say November comes around and our representative has faithfully conveyed our guidance, or November

01:32:40.340 --> 01:32:46.140
 comes around and our representative has completely not represented our guidance, right?

01:32:46.140 --> 01:32:48.300
 That would weigh on us.

01:32:48.300 --> 01:32:54.620
 That's why to me it matters, like that it's very clear, you know, to our representative

01:32:54.620 --> 01:32:59.140
 what our will is once council votes on it.

01:32:59.140 --> 01:33:07.420
 But I would just ask staff, if it's expressed as our guidance to the board, or maybe, I

01:33:07.420 --> 01:33:08.420
 don't know.

01:33:08.420 --> 01:33:14.060
 I don't really know who I'm asking, on staff, you know, is that, does that also provide

01:33:14.060 --> 01:33:21.820
 that direction, does that explicitly or implicitly provide direction to our representative, because

01:33:21.820 --> 01:33:23.780
 to me that's important.

01:33:23.780 --> 01:33:28.180
 I mean, it's a five member board, and we've got one representative on there.

01:33:28.180 --> 01:33:33.180
 It will be the full five member board that would be voting on the proposed service delivery

01:33:33.180 --> 01:33:37.540
 model changes, so I think it's up to the council to decide if you're providing direction to

01:33:37.540 --> 01:33:42.500
 one of the five, or if you're providing direction to the full five who will ultimately be making

01:33:42.500 --> 01:33:43.500
 that decision.

01:33:43.500 --> 01:33:44.500
 All right.

01:33:44.500 --> 01:33:45.500
 You know what?

01:33:45.500 --> 01:33:46.500
 I give it up.

01:33:46.500 --> 01:33:47.500
 I think that's fine.

01:33:47.500 --> 01:33:48.500
 I think it's fine as is.

01:33:48.500 --> 01:33:52.200
 If it's, if we're expressing it to the full five, we're obviously also expressing it to

01:33:52.200 --> 01:33:53.200
 our representative.

01:33:53.200 --> 01:33:54.200
 So, okay.

01:33:54.200 --> 01:33:55.200
 I'm fine.

01:33:55.200 --> 01:33:56.200
 Uncle?

01:33:56.200 --> 01:34:06.060
 I hate to say it, but I think we've gone through, unless we have any concerns with the findings

01:34:06.060 --> 01:34:10.940
 and recitation contained in the preamble, which is standard legalese that Trey always

01:34:10.940 --> 01:34:14.380
 makes sure we include in all of our resolutions.

01:34:14.380 --> 01:34:19.980
 The only revisions we'd be making is, unfortunately, removing some periods, adding some semi-colons,

01:34:19.980 --> 01:34:24.460
 and then having some room in numerals, but other than that, we will keep the language

01:34:24.460 --> 01:34:29.300
 proposed by this committee, and then we would include it in a Friday report, and then ultimately

01:34:29.300 --> 01:34:31.500
 it would go on the agenda on July 20th.

01:34:31.500 --> 01:34:33.340
 I think we have to strike the word here in.

01:34:33.340 --> 01:34:35.180
 I think it's just offensive.

01:34:35.180 --> 01:34:36.180
 All right.

01:34:36.180 --> 01:34:40.740
 Well, good job, committee members.

01:34:40.740 --> 01:34:46.460
 Because the last whereas, just to repeat, I just, I want to make sure we're not saying

01:34:46.460 --> 01:34:48.140
 unnecessary stuff, I guess.

01:34:48.140 --> 01:34:52.120
 The City Council finds it in the public interest to recommend that the DCTA Board of Directors

01:34:52.120 --> 01:34:55.700
 consider certain revisions to their proposed service delivery model to ensure the needs

01:34:55.700 --> 01:34:58.020
 of transit riders in the Denton community are addressed.

01:34:58.020 --> 01:35:01.180
 Do we need to say that in addition to, well, no.

01:35:01.180 --> 01:35:02.180
 Where do you think it's already covered?

01:35:02.180 --> 01:35:03.180
 No, it's typically the transition.

01:35:03.180 --> 01:35:08.780
 We usually have kind of a summary that transitions into what the policy statement is.

01:35:08.780 --> 01:35:10.180
 It's sort of the drum roll.

01:35:10.180 --> 01:35:15.340
 Also, yeah, I mean, kind of the key, the key part of the previous one was that the city

01:35:15.340 --> 01:35:20.260
 provides a dedicated sales tax revenue stream to DCTA, right?

01:35:20.260 --> 01:35:23.340
 I'm okay with that, never mind.

01:35:23.340 --> 01:35:25.420
 All right.

01:35:25.420 --> 01:35:27.780
 Going once.

01:35:27.780 --> 01:35:28.780
 Going twice.

01:35:28.780 --> 01:35:33.500
 Wait, can you scroll down and let me just like kind of skim the rest of it?

01:35:33.500 --> 01:35:37.860
 And I can, if you're okay with me making a little bit smaller, then we can fit all the

01:35:37.860 --> 01:35:42.620
 green on one page.

01:35:42.620 --> 01:35:49.780
 And I did not hear Nicole's head explode, so I don't know if that indicates anything

01:35:49.780 --> 01:35:54.780
 or not.

01:35:54.780 --> 01:36:02.180
 All right.

01:36:02.180 --> 01:36:08.240
 I'm good with that.

01:36:08.240 --> 01:36:09.240
 Going once.

01:36:09.240 --> 01:36:10.460
 Going twice.

01:36:10.460 --> 01:36:15.780
 We have a proposed resolution, bang of gavel.

01:36:15.780 --> 01:36:22.180
 I'm going to close our meeting while the closing's good at 2.37 p.m.

01:36:22.180 --> 01:36:23.180
 Excellent.

01:36:23.180 --> 01:36:39.620
 We will save-- [end of transcript]