Good afternoon and welcome to this special call meeting of the Mobility Committee.
We have a quorum and we have only one item for individual consideration for this special
meeting which is to receive a report, hold a discussion and give direction regarding
a proposed resolution outlining concerns and proposed revisions to the Denton County Transportation
Authority's DCTA modified service delivery model to include on-demand zone service and
the potential removal of existing fixed route bus service that will significantly impact
transit services in the Denton community.
And I would just like to say a couple sort of opening remarks.
The objective of this meeting is to craft a document for council to deliberate on and
ultimately hopefully to adopt in order to give direction to our representative.
Because he's had the opportunity to hear individual input, but what I'm really hoping we'll be
able to accomplish is to kind of formalize consensus direction for representation.
The other opening remark I'll say is this is weird that we're doing this in chambers.
It doesn't exactly feel like a work session type of setting, but my hope is that we can
kind of keep our mics on and really just have an active discussion and hopefully go point
for point and see where we have overlap and agreement.
Who's going to run the staff side?
Okay.
So we have Becky DeViney.
I'll let you just open it.
Yes, sir, Chair.
Thank you so much.
So Becky DeViney, City Engineer, Director of Capital Projects.
Today we have Rachel Wood.
She's going to be making a presentation to talk through the actual report and discussion.
We also have a draft resolution that has been crafted.
And so I'm going to ask Rachel to come forward and walk through a presentation and then we'll
open up the opportunity to have that work session.
Great.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Rachel.
Thank you, Becky.
So this is going to be a really quick presentation.
Just going to summarize the information that we've received today and then from there we'll
actually open up the Microsoft Word document and start making edits based on the feedback
received from the committee today.
I will note we have gotten some additional feedback today that's not folded into today's
presentation.
And, of course, the resolution that was attached was simply for reaction purposes.
So very preliminary draft.
I just know I work better whenever I don't have a blank sheet of paper and have something
to edit off of.
So that was our attempt was just to kind of take some of that preliminary feedback we
received on the 16th and 17th when we had individual conversations with you all just
so that you had something to kind of wordsmith off of.
So just a quick overview.
As I mentioned, we're going to give some of the feedback that we got.
This really is a continuation of that June 16th Mobility Committee meeting.
And then we'll dive into the actual draft resolution itself.
Mr. Chair has already kind of hit on this, but really just for the record, just to kind
of explain the intent a little bit further, the DCTA Board of Directors is set to meet
on July 22nd to vote for the proposed revisions to their service delivery model.
Due to the summer break, City Council will not be meeting again until that same week
on July 20th.
So really the intent of today's meeting is to get that good working draft that hopefully
the three members of the Mobility Committee are in agreement on that we can then share
with the full City Council and the City Council can consider that at their July 20th City
Council meeting.
The staff will then share with the DCTA Board of Directors so that they have that to inform
the decisions that they make at their July 22nd Board of Directors meeting.
So just to summarize, and again, this is only the feedback that we received from those phone
calls and then some of the conversation that was actually had from the dais at the June
16th Mobility Committee meeting.
Some of what we heard was concern for the drivers and union employees who could potentially
lose their job as a result of the service delivery model revisions.
So in addition to that, some of the feedback we heard was that those drivers may see a
decrease in payer benefits if they're hired to work for a different transit agency in
the Metroplex area.
Other feedback we heard was the concern for the impact to low income and other sensitive
communities.
I think we brought up concern for the underhoused or homeless population and then potentially
people that may suffer from mental illness.
Other feedback received was continue with the fixed routes, but potentially scale the
transit size of vehicles down depending on demand at each route.
So potentially have smaller vehicles where there is lower demand.
We also heard that there is more of a preference for a gradual rather than an abrupt implementation
to allow the community, particularly the heavy transit riders time to adjust and assess ridership
levels at the DCTA level now that society is returning more to those pre-pandemic operations.
There was a note provided as we were having that conversation that pre-pandemic ridership
was actually on the rise.
And so some of the data could potentially be misperceived given that there was kind
of a halt in operations obviously due to the pandemic.
Other feedback we heard was that there is a preference at least from one committee member
to have hailable rides so that they could hail them from a specific location, similar
to how you would hail a taxi in a major city.
And then also a potential elimination of fares given that the fares only represent 0.5 percent
of DCTA's total revenue stream.
So that's the high-level summary of what we received last week in the conversations
that we had.
And really wanted to summarize that and I'll stop sharing my screen for a moment, pull
up the Microsoft Word document.
I will note just so that we can get through this before we kind of launch into the meat
of today's conversation that next steps after we get a resolution that hopefully the three
of you are in agreement on is we will provide a draft resolution in an upcoming Friday report
just so that the City Council will have an opportunity to review potentially during one-on-one
meetings that staff has with those elected officials.
We could use that to inform the final draft that goes to City Council.
And then as I've already mentioned that City Council adoption at the July 20th meeting
and then July 22nd is when the DCTA board is currently set to meet to vote on their
service delivery model revision.
So I will stop sharing that and Mr. Chair, do you want me to go ahead and just pull up
the resolution or do we want to have some dialogue first?
>> Well, yeah, I actually wanted to, you know, consult with my colleagues here about how you'd
like to work.
I mean, two possible paths I see, you know, one is like let's just have an open-ended
chat first or go into like the draft as a template and then say, no, not that at all
or, you know, go point for point.
Do you have an appetite for just an open-ended chat first?
>> I would prefer to go straight to the template and --
>> You okay with that?
>> Yeah, I only have really like one question regarding both the draft and the presentation
revision.
I noticed the word adopt was used, the DCTA board of directors is currently scheduled
to adopt revisions to the service delivery model.
Can you clarify why the word adopt is being used and I know that the DCTA has used that
type of language in their agendas as well.
Why are we using the word adopt as opposed to vote on?
>> Sure, and if I may, Mr. Chair, I forgot to mention that we actually have Nicole Rucker
with DCTA on the call to answer specific questions.
My assumption is that the board will actually be taking a vote and that is why there is
an adoption, but I want to let Nicole answer that question more specifically.
>> Sure.
Can you hear me since I'm joining virtually?
>> We can.
>> Yeah, can we look at the --
>> Okay, perfect.
Perfect.
So the standard language that DCTA uses on their board agenda says to discuss and consider
approval of is typically the language that we use when it comes to voting from our board
perspective.
And our Title VI program currently requires a board vote for any sort of a service change
that impacts 25% more or more of our current services.
And so because this is quite a substantial change, we are required to get board review
and approval of this item.
>> Okay.
>> Does that work for you?
>> Yes, that works for me.
>> Okay.
All right.
So taking the guidance from a moment ago, can I ask you to work with us, Rachel, and
like to say, okay, here's item one.
>> Absolutely.
>> And we are under no obligation to keep any word, including of and the -- you know,
it's just a template and we'll cook it up as we go.
>> Okay.
>> Mr. Chair.
>> Yes, go ahead.
And how about we keep it real casual without recognizing, we can just talk?
>> Thank you.
Paul.
>> Not that casual.
Mr. Meltzer.
>> Okay.
Mr. Meltzer.
>> My question is using the term modified service versus -- is this a true transformation
that we're talking about, transformational versus modified?
>> Read to that, please, someone.
>> Well, I think that's -- part of the purpose of this is to see if we have a shared vision,
you know, to -- I think we should talk about that.
>> Yeah, because she mentioned something about a substantial change.
>> Yeah.
Well, if the plan is exactly as presented to us, we're, you know, just moving on exactly
as presented to us, that would be pretty substantial change.
So you know, but we're here to see if we -- see what our shared vision is.
>> Okay.
>> And I'm happy to provide more specifics on that.
We would consider any change to service a modification.
So there's any -- whether it's a small or it's a large change, right now what we're
looking at from a service hour perspective is a reduction in about 52 to 54% of our overall
service hours would be removed, and so that's why we consider this substantial.
>> And that is across DCTA not just within the city of Denton, is that correct?
>> That is correct.
That is system-wide.
>> All right, so let's see what the first chunk looks like.
>> And Mr. Chair, I do apologize.
We've had a bit of a mix-up and we have the AIS and not the resolution loaded to this
computer, so I'm trying to figure out --
>> No need to stress.
Let's, you know, let's take a break at 1 11, and we'll resume when we have the document
we're working on.
>> Perfect.
It should only take 30 seconds.
Mr. Mark, get set.
Okay, we're back continuing with the special call meeting of the Mobility Committee, and
we're going to take up the resolution bit by bit, starting with the first bit.
>> Okay, so if it's okay with the committee, I'm going to suggest that perhaps we skim
over the caption and probably the meat of the document, and this is just my recommendation,
totally up to you all, is really once we get to section 2, that's really where the council
is kind of taking their stance from a policy perspective.
The whereas's are kind of, for lack of a better term, and I'm sure Trey can give me more specific
language to use, but it's kind of flowery, formal language, but this really is the part
where we're kind of making our policy stance.
So my recommendation is that we start at Roman numeral 1, and then we kind of break that
down, and then once we get through all of that, if we have time, we can sort of work
through wordsmithing the whereas statements at the beginning of the resolution.
>> Okay.
>> So the Roman --
>> Let's at least try it that way.
>> Okay.
>> See what else we need to do.
>> Okay.
So and just to read through for those that are listening in, so section 2 starts with
the city of Denton confirms by resolution prior discussions with DCTA staff regarding
concerns with proposed revisions to the service delivery model for Denton County, including
but not limited to the following specific items.
So Roman numeral 1 states that the DCTA board of directors provide assurance that the current
union labor will be provided assistance in securing new positions with comparable pay
and benefits to what they are receiving as employees of DCTA.
>> I'm not comfortable with this.
>> Say more about that.
>> The phrase provided assistance is pretty wishy-washy.
That doesn't necessarily mean anything in particular.
I mean, what are they going to do?
Give them an application?
Is that providing assistance?
Are they going to give them --
>> What do you think should happen?
>> Well, I guess to sort of jump over this and get straight to my point, I would like
to request that we include in the resolution a language saying that we would prefer there
be no changes to fixed routes until at least November 12.
>> Okay.
So if -- you know what, clearly that's maybe the more central topic, so it leads us to
not going in order, like what do we want to say about changes in service?
So why don't we get at that, and then the other issues are kind of more subordinate
to that.
Right?
>> Yeah.
Go ahead.
>> I hear -- I hear my peers voice in the -- while she's donning the term provided assistance.
When we're using that term provided assistance, that doesn't necessarily mean that these people
are going to get a job for sure.
That doesn't mean that they are going to move from driving a bus to driving a vehicle -- a
car for sure, and that's what the concern is of ours, is that we don't want these people
to lose their jobs.
And if that means that this company is providing assistance to getting the job, that doesn't
necessarily mean that they're guaranteed a job.
And so they are afraid and they're concerned that due to no fault of their own -- and,
you know, this happens to people.
I'm not, you know, unaware that people can get ripped it.
But for something like this, we want to know if they're going to be secure.
That's the issue there.
>> So there's sort of two balls in the air right now.
One is, you know, Councilmember McGuire said, hey, I don't actually want to see there be
any changes in service at all before November 12th.
I have things to say about all that, but, you know, so the labor impact isn't any until
that's there.
So there's the changes to service question, and then there's the resulting labor question.
Do you have an opinion about which one we talk about first?
>> You know, both are very important.
If I'm talking about the result of labor that this, you know, I is actually talking about,
I would think that the security is of the position, regardless of when it happens, as
far as I'm concerned, that they're going to be able to get up the next morning and go
to work.
>> Let me weigh in a little so we can see where we can, where we're going to find consensus.
I don't share the view that we must never change anything in terms of service.
>> I did not say that.
>> Okay.
>> I said no changes to the fixed routes.
>> Yeah, I'm entirely agnostic about that, I am.
My objective is maximize service to then residents.
And that may be some future as yet undiscovered blend of certain amount of fixed, certain
amount of on-demand, certain amount of available, and I don't have a preconceived notion about
that.
So but if in fact having the maximum, so my goal would be having the maximum effective
public transit service for the population and that may or may not result in the same
size labor force, right, so I wouldn't say, my personal view is I wouldn't say for all
time the exact same labor force, exact same pay, exact same benefits, but I think as good
employers and they're proxy employers for us, that I absolutely feel like for some period
of time, if people are going to transition off, they need some kind of protection.
That's my point of view.
So I wouldn't, I'm not saying you must share this, I'm just saying where are we going to
find the common ground?
Is there a common ground between everybody's got to have the exact same job for all time
or if there is, if there are changes, what do you do that's responsible, you know?
So do you see common ground between the thoughts we've all expressed so far on the labor piece
if you want to take up that piece first?
Yeah, absolutely.
So you know, just brainstorming one possible solution that might provide a little bit more
stability but not necessarily be, these people must remain employed until they retire period
type of a thing, could be that, you know, instead of these drivers no longer being employed
by, I'm trying to recall the name of the agency, the North Texas Mobility something, what is
the name of the organization that actually directly employs the drivers?
It's the North Texas Mobility Corporation.
There we go, I was close, North Texas Mobility Corporation.
So would it be feasible for us to say we would prefer that instead of these drivers being
you know essentially riffed by the North Texas Mobility, no, the North Texas thing, instead
of being riffed by that organization and then hired by VIA, could they maintain their employment
with their current agency, could VIA then contract with the agency that they're working
for now and would that perhaps help them retain their union representation which could potentially
improve that stability?
Well is there a way to get to the principle that you're going for without necessarily
prescribing the solution because there may or may not be ways, that may be the exact
right answer, you know, I just don't know what the various obstacles might be organizationally
but in terms of directing our representatives like what's the principle you're trying to
achieve is a way, just find a way for them to be able to retain their union membership
and pay end benefits if they continue to work on DCTA public transit?
I would be amenable to that, I do think that union representation needs to be a priority
in addition to pay end benefits.
So how about let's put a pin on that issue for the moment with just the guidance to staff
that were trying to say that, that some way for them to retain...
Not just union pay but union membership and representation.
Yeah, a way for them to retain their representation, pay and benefits if they continue to work
for DCTA.
That sounds reasonable enough to me.
So there's some overlap.
So let's go for the heart of the beast here.
The proposal is transition, you know, keep two bus routes, stop the rest, replace with
GoZone.
Is there a difference between your view and that view?
Yes.
Yeah, go ahead.
Well, clarify again, what did you say?
What's been presented to us is the plan that is, if nothing else changed, absent our direction
to our representative, the plan would be summarizing, correct me if I get anything wrong here, keep
two bus routes, cut off the others, and in some way transition people to on demand.
And then later cut the other two bus routes six months later, correct?
I don't believe I've heard that.
My understanding was that the end game of this was to have zero fixed bus routes.
I don't think that's correct, but perhaps we can get some clarification.
Nicole, do you want to answer that?
Sure.
So the original proposed plan included operating all of existing fixed route service in concurrence
with GoZone for a period of two weeks, and then retain routes three and seven that would
operate for a period of six months.
So that was the original intent.
I will tell you that our board last week had a discussion about considering looking at
routes three and seven and operating them for a longer period of time, and also extending
the overlap of existing fixed route services as they are today with the launch of GoZone.
So there has been some discussion at that level.
I have to be completely honest.
It's super hard for me to hear you.
I hear most of the words, but it's just not super crisp.
I wonder if there's anything we can do, because what you have to say is so important.
Is this any better?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think so.
So let me say back what I think I gleaned.
The proposal had been everything stays the same for two weeks, then all the fixed routes
except three and seven go away, the three and seven continue for six months.
But now there's an alternative view, and that was the part I couldn't get clearly.
Sure.
So the board had some discussion last week, and they discussed two potential options.
So staff is bringing costing back to our board at the July meeting.
So they're looking at increasing the frequency of routes three and seven, as well as considering
operating it longer than three months, longer than six months.
And they're also looking at potentially providing some connectivity for that North Texas Express
route.
Okay.
So there's some discussion about continuing those services longer than six months, three
and seven.
And then they're also considering the original launch had existing fixed route service as
it is today in GoZone operating concurrently for two weeks.
They are considering having them operate concurrently longer in order to accommodate that educational
period.
Yeah, but with a goal to transitioning on some timeframe.
And then when you say to operate for six months, you know, that idea, you know, or some period
longer than that, is that with the intention of at the end of that time, then they will
go away too, as Councilmember McGuire was indicating?
The original intent was to remove routes three and seven after six months pending data analysis.
So the reason that we would continue routes three and seven is understanding that they're
highly utilized, and we wanted to make sure that we were looking at ridership data, basically
looking at how people are choosing to ride.
Are they choosing to use the fixed route service, or are they choosing to use GoZone?
And then based on that data, the board would then make a decision whether to remove routes
three and seven or to keep them.
Okay.
So I don't know if that squares or supplements your prior understanding or?
It does.
I mean, it's, yeah, that's, yeah, my understanding was that that was what they were considering.
I'm glad to hear that the DCTA board is now considering, at the very least, expanding
those periods.
So if the DCTA board were to expand the period during which the via vans and the fixed routes
are running concurrently, would there be any room for perhaps a new board in November to
make alterations to that plan going forward?
Or is it, you know, what gets voted on on July 22nd is what's going to happen?
So what is voted on on July 22nd is what would be slated to launch for September 7th.
You know, I would say our board is quite innovative and they have a lot of great discussion on
a monthly basis about potential changes.
And so it's certainly possible that there could be further changes, whether it be, you
know, a modification to existing service or a growth potential for existing service.
So I would say, you know, our board is having those discussions every month.
Even if the board so chose to discuss and ask staff to bring that back, something back
for consideration, we would absolutely do so.
You know, I want to be really frank with you.
I personally am and I could get like outvoted, but I think it'd be good if we have three
out of three on things.
I personally am not on board with the idea of hitching our guidance to a date.
I think it's political and if the board does the thing that we concur with on November
10th, I'm all for it.
If they do it on November 15th, I'm all for it.
I'm more about what's the result that we want for Denton.
You know, yeah, that's kind of where I'm at on that.
So I'm really much more interested in understanding the guidance, the substantive guidance rather
than the kind of political guidance.
That's me.
That's where I'm at.
And I think, to say a different point, that when we hear things running concurrently and
see what people want, I think, I mean, I don't know, that makes sense to me.
What do you think, Councilmember Byrd?
Thank you.
I think that running concurrently is a good idea.
The two weeks part is what I'm sticking with.
It's a stickler for me right now.
It depends on when that two weeks occur.
And did I hear something about that that's happening sometime in September?
September 7th is the day when we're supposed to or hopefully we will be doing things concurrently
and that's for two weeks?
Yes, ma'am.
So the service would start on September 7th and we would operate services concurrently
for two weeks starting September 7th.
However, our board has been discussing and will be looking at costs at next month's board
meeting to potentially extend that overlap.
I hope that it's extended because it just seems like you do need more data than two
weeks.
Some people go on vacations.
That might be vacation time, kids are getting back in school, a lot of things are happening
at the first part of September.
What's so special about route number three and seven again?
Why do we keep hearing that?
Sure.
So routes three and seven were chosen to remain because of the boarding thresholds per hour.
So route seven exceeds the minimum of 10 boardings per hour.
Route three is almost, it's just right under the benchmark.
But routes three and seven serve some very specific highly dense areas.
So route seven is going to connect the Downtown Denton Transit Center with Downtown, the University
and Razor Ranch.
And route three primarily serves a lot of the social service agencies that are located
in Denton.
And so those are the two routes that are going to be looked at a little later on.
They're the ones that's the second part of the deal.
Yes.
Right.
So member, we can go with Paul, you're looking at me.
I agree with you in regards to really looking at what the outcome is going to be.
I'm not really particular, you know, as to when it starts, I don't know where the November
date comes from.
Term ends, right?
That's when Chris Watts' term ends on the DCTA board.
Yeah.
But like I say, my point was whoever the board members are, if they do the right thing, I'm
for the right thing.
Right.
And so I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Apparently I didn't recognize that.
But it's got to be the right thing for the right reason.
And I think that the city obviously needed something different.
DCTA is looking for something different.
We are here to support the best for the city and, you know, waiting until November or doing
it in September the 7th, that's something that I haven't thought about.
So I think that running concurrently is a good idea for us to go ahead and get started.
If we're going to do this, I think we need to just jump in and find out what happens.
And we have options of doing something different in a few months or by next year or whatever
the riders want to do.
But I think that if we keep going back and forth on this conversation, looking for the
perfect thing to say and the perfect thing to do, no one is going to be pleased.
And I think that we should just do some of these things.
And I think we should do them as quickly as we possibly can so we can get beyond a certain
point and do something different if we need to.
Let me if I may underscore my points of agreement there and see where we have all three.
I'm totally for adding new options.
I'm not compelled at all by the idea that what we have now is meeting needs exactly
as the service is configured.
And some of the issue might be frequency and it could be a bunch of things.
But adding new options can only learn.
I also agree that we need to see what happens.
My question is how long does it take to actually know what happens?
And I absolutely share your point of view that two weeks is almost random.
What you find will be almost random.
How long does it take for people to become aware of the options?
How long does it take for them to try something that they're intrigued by?
How long does it take to see if they'll repeat?
I mean, I'm using a bit of a consumer products model, but I think for patterns to be established
and to really see where it shakes out, I don't know, I'm kind of throwing this out, but I
would think you'd need at least six months to really see.
And if in fact zero people ride the bus, everybody rides goes on, I think that would lead to
a different conversation.
I have no preconceived notion that that would be the case.
Just to say a little more, sorry for the long speech, one of the much-vaunted benefits of
what has been proposed is the flexibility to fine tune it.
So why throw that away?
We clearly don't know enough to throw anything away yet.
Let's have the learning, as was originally proposed.
This was supposed to have been a trial in the first place.
Let's get the learning and fine tune the mix.
That's kind of where I'm coming from.
I will now be quiet for a while.
And Council Member McGuire, you look like you're ready to say something.
No, I think you well articulated some of the points that I was trying to make.
I think that we all have the goal of we want to see our city have a robust public transportation
system.
We want ridership to go up.
We need for ridership to go up because with the population growth, the way that it's happening,
we can't continue to support the overwhelming majority of individuals in our city driving
their own cars.
We need to increase ridership significantly.
And I think that a multimodal approach that includes on-demand, that includes hailable
services and that includes some fixed routes is the way to go probably, but we need more
information to know what exactly the right mix is of those.
And we need that flexibility.
And I do think that having on-demand service in addition to fixed route services for at
least I think six months is a great period of time, that would be enough time for us
to really gather some data.
And if there are adjustments that need to be made to the fixed routes, that would give
us time to figure out, or DCTA staff, more to the point, time to figure out what those
adjustments need to be.
So yeah, I think that that's, yeah, I think that that really gets at the heart of what
all of us want, which is a strong public transportation system.
Yeah, an opportunity to find out what that is.
Yeah, Council Member Bird.
And with that six months there, and I agree with the six months, you know, the city is
so diverse, it just has these colleges and universities, we got new people moving in,
we have the core of the city is getting ready to kind of change up a little bit with added
features of moving people and all of that.
So yeah, I like the idea of the six months.
Let's go ahead and keep that in there if we can, since it looks like that's what we agreed
on.
We have found consensus.
We have found consensus on one thing.
Yes, that thing.
But pin on that one.
We'll make it green.
Yeah, make it green.
That's good, that's good, make it green.
Okay, so let's go down and are we in agreement with that?
Can we leave that there?
I would tweak the wording slightly, rather than say to allow transit riders time to adjust,
I would say to allow DCTA time to gather data.
Yeah, and to, now this is my business background, but this may not mean anything to anybody
else, but optimize the mix is the phrase that comes to mind for me, because that includes
the possibility that there will be a mix in the future, you know, not with the assumption
that like, yeah, we're definitely transitioning, this thing's going away.
No, I have no preconceived notion like that at all.
What if you find out that post COVID ridership on the fixed routes continues to rise, you
know, that would lead you to say, okay, right size the vehicles, maybe, if we don't want
to beat the heck out of our roads, the buses run it empty, but you know, if there's in
fact 10 people and, or whatever the number is, and it fits in a van, then run vans, but
keep them, you know, optimize the mix is what I'm wondering for.
If I can keep, actually keep us off the text a little bit, I know I'm going against how
I started, but I kind of like surfing from issue to issue here as we talk about it.
I'm the one who brought up hailable, for better or worse, Allison just mentioned it again,
so I think she's at least interested.
I'm not trying to create peer pressure for you, but is that, Councilman Byrd, is that
something that you think is interesting, should be included in the mix, you know, you'd want
to encourage exploration of, or nah, not so much.
Nah, not so much.
I'm not interested in hailable rides, I just think that, you know, we got a whole crop
of millennial people that are not used to and not interested in hailable rides, so I'll
just leave it right there.
You know, I don't have a deep inner need to make it be in the resolution, I'm happy to,
you know, bring it up again to full council at some future time, if necessary, you know,
I won't belabor the point, I'll only say this if it comes up again, if in fact, this will
help us get to another topic, if in fact we like the idea of going without fares, it makes
hailable possible, more possible, if I don't have the need to collect a fare, then I don't
have to figure out how to take payment, then it's easier for me to go, the person's raised
their hand, I can stop and pick you up, they don't need to have a special card or anything,
it's my burden, and actually, I don't need to recognize you, we can just talk.
Well, I don't want to talk over you.
Hailable rides, I mean, I'm just thinking, we have, we would have fixed routes, we would
have on-demand, and we would have hailable rides, those who, how, I wonder how would
this company dissect between the hailable ride cars and the fixed, and the on-demand
cars?
Well, since you're keeping the topic alive, I'll give you my, how I think it works.
So, I mean, are they going to be, who's out there on University Drive saying, hey, hey,
hey, you know, pick me up?
To me, it works like this, it's not different cars, it's if somebody has scheduled an on-demand
ride, and they're on a path, and they're going right by you, and you're standing on a corner,
you and your daughter, and you hold up, for the minutes, I'm holding up two fingers, like
I need two seats, and it's like, I've only got one person here, I could totally take
you, I could stop and take you and your daughter, that's hailable, they're allowed to stop
and pick you up.
Okay, and then I'm the person in the car.
You're the driver now?
No, I'm the passenger, in the car, that did the on-demand, and possibly paid, so, well,
I can see me getting a bit frustrated in me, my driver, stopping to pick up people, and
I have to be somewhere at a certain time.
Now on-demand is not a private cab.
I know.
You know, they're already going to pick up multiple passengers along the way, I believe,
but let's ask Nicole to help us on that, our understanding of when somebody has scheduled
a ride, what is the role of the other seats in the vehicle?
Sure, so let me address the hailable ride piece of it.
So VIA has used the hailable ride system before, and we've had some preliminary discussions
with them about it.
Part of their recommendation is, because this on-demand service would be new to our service
area, is to launch the GoZone service as proposed, and find out what are those pick up and drop
off points that are really popular within each of the zones, because that might give
us some data to determine what we would consider like hailable ride zones.
Those zones would require us to add additional fleet to the fleet number for each of the
zones, depending on how many of those kind of hubs there are where folks can hail rides.
The one thing I do want to point out is that hailing a ride requires kind of a larger space
than like a normal pick up might because there might be multiple people waiting there.
And then we would have some sort of a dedicated frequency range that we would provide saying
like vehicles are going to go by each zone every 10 minutes, every 15 minutes, whatever
that frequency might be.
And so while the concept of hailable is totally feasible, it would be limited to designated
hubs in order to accommodate that, to accommodate more people waiting.
People getting off the train, that idea.
Right.
Potentially.
Sure.
The A train station might be one.
I could see maybe Razor Ranch having a hub.
I can see maybe someplace near the university.
But a lot of that is data that we would collect in launching the GoZone service as proposed
today.
Can you clarify though, in let's say the pre-hailable world, can other people get in your car once
you've scheduled the ride?
Yes.
So the way the technology works is that if you are booking a ride and the GPS signal
is identifying where you are currently when you're booking that ride or where you want
to be picked up for that ride, it's going to assign a vehicle that is one in the closest
proximity, two going in the same direction, and three has the available space on the vehicle.
So if somebody is being picked up four blocks from you and they're going in the general
same direction that you want to go in, it's highly possible that you could get on a vehicle
and it can stop two or four blocks away, pick up somebody else, and go in the same direction.
It will not deviate from that general direction.
So a vehicle's not going to turn back around to go pick someone up or it's not going to
go 10 blocks away to pick somebody up.
So the algorithm that's used for dispatching those vehicles per trip are based on a similar
direction or a similar path, similar destination in order to minimize the amount of time that
you have to ride for your entire trip.
So I consider myself instructed by you and Councilmember Byrd that there are problems
with the idea of hailable en route because they might end up going on the same route
and you don't know that until they get in.
That's correct, and they might not have the capacity in their vehicle.
Well, if they don't have the capacity, then they don't stop.
That's the point of holding up two fingers if you need two seats, but the first point
stands.
And I want to propose to my colleagues here the language that in that six-month period
that we seem to like, that's in green, that we say that DCTA should use that opportunity
to assess the opportunity to the potential for adding hailable hubs.
You know, in other words, not a commitment to doing it, but if it turns out when they
see what the patterns are over six months, if it turns out like there's a whole lot of
people who want to schedule rides from the train stop, that's one of the things you could
learn and consider after you've had six months' experience.
It just sounds like to me that hailable rides, and we're talking about hubs now, that's like
fixed.
You know, we're back to the fixed, you know, the fixed transit.
So we're supposed to be getting around that, the fixed transit.
Now we're talking about the fixed transit with the hailable rides.
I just think that we're getting ready to start kind of going around in a circle again.
Right.
Should we leave hailable just out of it because it just makes things too complicated?
We're now, and we're giving ourselves a chance to come back and bring that in at a later
date if we feel like we need to.
Totally agree.
I suspect we will talk about this entire topic of DCTA at some point in the future too.
Probably, yeah.
And I think that the hailable rides is something that I'm interested in, I'm open to it, but
it's not really, it's not at the heart of what we're talking about right now.
But it does touch on the issue of the fares.
Are you interested in a resolution saying evaluate having no fares, or, you know, where
are you on the issue of no fares?
It could be anywhere on the spectrum.
Well, I have a question about that for Nicole.
Nicole, has any type of fare study been done in the last, let's say, two, three years?
We conducted a public involvement period about three years ago, or maybe two years ago, when
DART was proposing an increase to the regional fare.
We got feedback then, and then part of the most recent public involvement process specifically
for GoZone, we did have a whole, like a fare survey, and information about the proposed
fares as a promotion that we've collected feedback on.
Okay.
So not a study per se, but there's been feedback collected.
And that's why we are doing the promotional period, the six-month promotional period is
so that we can collect data on what fares are purchased, how they're used, any obstacles
that might be an issue, so that then we can go back, do a study, and model what a final
fare structure would be that would potentially go into place in March.
Yeah, I think that sounds great.
I would love to see a fare study done during this six-month period.
Councilmember Byrd?
I would love to see us, our compassion demonstrated by having fares for people that can pay the
fare, and whoever can afford it can pay for it, and they probably won't have a problem
with that.
But I also can see that there, you know, a number of people that may not be able to afford
to pay the fare, and I think that that is something that we need to recognize and demonstrate
that we're compassionate for those people, so those people may not have to pay a fare.
And if they are getting, what is it, a little card or something to demonstrate that they
paid or whatnot, maybe we can have them in different colors for the people that can afford
it, and they paid for it.
And then the compassion side, the compassionate side of us, if there are some people that
have gone through and have been vetted or what have you, I don't know how that's going
to happen.
I don't know if that's extra work for people and how much.
But if they can't afford it, then they may have a stipend of some sort on a card that
will help them transport themselves.
So maybe if you do a two-tier, like a tier-level fare.
I want to see if I can win you over, Councilman Burton.
Go ahead, Councilman Burton.
Oh, well, I was going to ask, again, for Nicole or for anybody who knows the answer to this,
I know that several agencies, the one that comes to mind is Our Daily Bread, do distribute
bus passes.
Are those like comped by DCTA or does Our Daily Bread purchase those from DCTA?
Sure.
So we do have a nonprofit discount program where any of our local fares are 50% off to
any organization who is a 501(c)(3).
So currently, Our Daily Bread, as an example, purchases the passes of their choice from
us, any of the local options, for 50% off.
Okay.
So Our Daily Bread is paying for that, but they're paying a reduced rate.
Correct.
And the passenger doesn't have to pay anything.
Are there any like -- well, first of all, how utilized is that program?
Are there a lot of agencies that utilize that discount?
There are.
Well, I don't know the total number, but we sell quite a few every single month.
I mean, there are multiple organizations that reach out to us on a monthly basis to purchase.
I want to try to win you both over.
Okay.
All right?
And compassion does not play a role in it.
I'm coming at it as a manager.
All right?
It's half a percent of revenue, a rounding error.
They couldn't tell if they're collecting it or not.
I mean, I'm exaggerating a little to say that.
The complexity of everything you've got to do to be able to run these programs and run
the promotion, have people in charge of it, and all that, I don't know what the cost is
that you would avoid by not having to deal with that, and you're giving up this little
sliver you can hardly tell is there of revenue, and I don't know how much you're spending
in order to get it.
So I don't even know if it's a net loss.
Second point, there is magic, I'm telling you magic now, there is magic to the word
free.
If we really want adoption, like I live on a bus route, I've never taken the bus.
It's not because it costs whatever it is, I don't even know what it is, I've never had
to find out.
I mean, as a, you know, a resident, but if I know, I can just do it.
I don't have to have a special thing, I don't have to, I don't need to know whether they
take coins or a card or a doohickey or, it's just there.
The vision of Denton is a place where transportation is just there.
I just think we're far more likely to get people out of their cars if they know it is
a completely frictionless experience.
That's where I'm coming from, possibly at no organizational cost or very minor.
So you know, now I think the responsible position would be to say, to evaluate the impact of
having no fares in terms of both of revenue and cost avoidance.
And then I'm kicking the can down the road a little bit, but I would also wager that
there's strong support in our council that you'd get a, you know, probably, I don't
know if there's universal consensus, but I'm hearing support for it from like unexpected
places.
Disparate, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And I'm very interested in that whatever we put forth would have to put a bluntly five,
six or seven votes, because otherwise I don't think it would be compelling to our representative,
you know.
If it's like three to four, four to three, it's like, I might as well do it, I think.
I don't know.
But if it's very strong voice.
So I think that's an item that could get support.
So what would you think about saying evaluate the cost and revenue impact of eliminating
fares?
I like having that particular language in there.
And yeah, I would ask that you include, to include an evaluation of the impact of potentially
eliminating fares, taking into account the cost savings in terms of labor and other logistics
that are involved with collecting fares.
You okay with that Council Member Byrd?
You know, I could do free.
Why not?
Free is good.
I was just selling for evaluative and you're already there.
I'm free in evaluating the, you know, the possibility of eliminating the potential to
eliminate fares.
I'm just concerned, you know, it's only getting a sliver anyway.
That's it.
So if we eliminate the fares, there's not even that sliver.
It doesn't give us any kind of room to...
Does it cost you a sliver to collect the sliver?
You know what I mean?
I understand.
So how, and you say for the six months, is this trial or is it to evaluate?
How long are they evaluating them?
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I think it's a paper and pencil exercise really.
Okay.
So I don't really have a point of view on, yeah, I'm saying initially, you know, analytically
investigate it.
You know, not, I'm not saying necessarily launch it.
See if there's a...
See if the case is supportable.
Yeah.
You know what I mean?
Okay.
Look at the dollars that are collected via fares and look at the amount that is spent
on collecting fares and subtract.
Yeah.
So they can make an intelligent decision, right?
I'm just looking at, you know, the time of year when things like that could be looked
at.
So I would suspect that the fall semester is the busiest time of year for the city of
Denton between, you know, September and December.
But I think you may, if I can interrupt you a little bit, you may want to go step-wise
into this because you're already testing a lot of variables, right?
You're testing on demand, you know, the service types on demand with fix.
You know, you may not want to introduce the fare question at the same time because then
who knows what you learned.
So it may be that, maybe even in the six-month period, you're just doing the analytical,
is there a business case to be made that this is doable.
Then at the end of six months, now you're making decisions about the optimal service
mix and now you can test the next thing.
How about no fares?
No fares for?
I don't know.
I mean, that may be another conversation at that time.
Just putting it out there and just seeing no fares.
I mean, we want to know, is this something that we need to look at for the next year
or two weeks or six months or permanently?
What are we talking about?
No fares.
I think if we're sort of in the spirit of test your way into things with a reasonable
amount of time to test it, then let's say for rhyming's sake, you would test no fares
for six months if it's determined that the pencil's out.
I'm with that.
I can agree to that.
Okay.
So at least as guidance to our representative.
I like a time frame.
I'm seeing a head nod from Councilmember McGuire as well.
Yes.
Yeah.
I think I'm on board with that.
It's a tricky thing.
Again, sorry.
Can we either delete the word savings or add the word eliminated, eliminating.
I'm willing to look at the language now.
Where are you looking?
Conduct a fair study during the six-month trial period to include an evaluation of the
impact of potentially eliminating fares, taking into account the cost savings associated
with eliminating fair collection or taking into account the costs associated with fair
collection.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
I get your point.
So what we seem to, what I think we have agreement on is a fair analysis during the six-month
trial period with the potential for a fair, with a six-month trial of eliminating fares
after that.
And we're being a little overly prescriptive.
I mean, we're not management, but the principle is test one set of variables at a time on
the actual public, you know.
So the six-month trial would include eliminated fares?
No, I'm saying the opposite.
Okay.
That what we're really after, the primary focus here is evaluating the mix, the best
mix of service types during the six months.
According to that, we'd like to be ready if the analysis bears out to test elimination
of fares.
So we want to replace the word during with the word after?
Yeah.
Well, there's kind of two things, right?
There's the analysis and then there's a trial period of eliminating fares.
Okay.
Wait.
So what are we talking about doing the analysis?
Yeah.
Do the analysis this afternoon, right?
You know.
Yeah.
So do the analysis so that after we've made, you've made determinations on the optimal
service mix, the next thing to potentially introduce would be a trial of eliminating
fares.
Okay.
So, and I apologize if I'm getting myself confused.
So do we want to add to the section that we have in green that it will include a fair
analysis during the six-month trial period or I heard you say we want to conduct the
fair analysis potentially today, right?
Conduct a fair analysis and then do a trial of?
Yeah, I mean, I think it kind of becomes complicated when you try to link them.
Let's.
I don't know if we need to be this prescriptive.
No.
Yeah, right.
I should add, if it's appropriate, if I could just add, Title VI requires us to conduct
a Title VI analysis, which includes a fair equity analysis, and that has been conducted
as part of this preliminary proposed plan.
Before we would adopt like during that six-month period where the fares would be promotional,
we are also required then to conduct an additional fair analysis.
So there's actually two fair analysis that DCTA or a contractor will conduct.
One that we've just completed that talks about disparate and disproportionate impacts and
then a specific equity fair analysis that will be conducted during the six months based
on actual passenger behaviors and what type of fares they're purchasing.
Yeah, it's a little different than what we're talking about though, because at least, you
know, my stance is this isn't about equity or any of that.
It's about an alternative concept of how public transportation is offered in Denton that doesn't
have to do with disparate abilities to pay, it has to do with whether it's a free good.
We are being overly prescriptive.
The general idea is we're interested in evaluating the possibility of eliminating fares and not
necessarily and, you know, I would make the case that you wouldn't necessarily want to
test two things at the same time.
So how about just to keep it broad, evaluate the feasibility of eliminating fares altogether?
What she said.
Okay.
That's, yeah, and then execution will come after that anyway, who knows, maybe it'll
turn out to be a dog.
So if I may, Mr. Chair, we do have some language already that essentially says that, is there,
do we want to just keep it as simple as evaluate the elimination of fares or do we want the
more?
Yeah, I would just, you know, I think elsewhere you had the language that Councilmember McGuire
sort of tweaked that included the consideration of the operational efficiencies, cost savings,
maybe, you know, the word ridership should appear in that as well.
Impact on revenue, you know, operational efficiency and ridership.
But yeah, the cost savings associated with eliminating fare collection and the impact
on ridership.
Yeah.
What if you found out that like the net financial impact, let's say it was still, I don't know,
I'm making this up, you know, $100,000 negative, but 20% increase in ridership, hmm, it might
be worth it, you know, that's kind of, that's why I think ridership is important to put
in there.
That's the goal is to really have it be something that people really make part of their lives
in Denton.
Okay.
So did we want to keep it this long and have it say conduct a fare analysis to include
an evaluation of the impact of potentially eliminating fares, taking into account the
cost savings, I'll take off that extra S, cost savings associated with eliminating fare
collection and I'll add the impact on ridership.
I would eliminate the whole first line and replace it with evaluate the feasibility of.
Okay.
I'm fine with that.
You're okay with that Council Member Berg?
You want to see it?
We don't need the word potentially, let's keep it, keep it snappy.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
No adverbs.
Yeah.
To lead all the adverbs.
Put a column.
Put a column behind there.
There you go.
I'm happy.
Council Member Berg?
I'm okay.
I don't know if okay is the same thing as happy.
I'm happy.
Okay.
All right.
I agree.
Thank you.
Great.
All right.
Have what?
Now, now I ended up not following the template even slightly.
So what have we not touched on?
So we didn't touch on the scalability of vehicles on the fixed routes, which is something that
we did here at the June 16th meeting and I think during some phone conversations that
we had with committee members.
Okay.
So am I the only one who thinks that, that like, just like I'm saying, yeah, keep fixed
routes, but if there's only two people on a route, you don't necessarily have to run
a bus that seats 60.
True.
You know, I'm making those numbers up.
So maybe we could reword that a little bit, just say, I don't think we need that whole
first clause, but yeah, consideration of using...
In order to make, in order to improve efficiency on fixed routes, consider using smaller vehicles.
Works for me.
Once you get past an hour, everyone becomes more agreeable.
Okay.
So we just want to leave it at, in order to improve efficiency of fixed routes, consider
use of smaller vehicles.
Since I mean, since we're already kind of saying like, at least for this initial six
month period, we do not want to see fixed routes cut, so that kind of makes the previous
wording.
What else have we missed?
So I did hear consensus on the language, well, I want to make sure that I heard consensus
on the language of identify an option to maintain union pay representation and benefits for
current drivers.
So if we have that, I assume it's okay for us to remove the language that we did have
for providing assurance that current union labor will be provided assistance in securing
new positions.
Let's just strike that.
Yeah.
I think that's right.
Without objection.
Okay.
I'm seeing head nods, heads nod or head nods.
Yes.
Okay.
And then we've talked about hailable, it sounds like we may bring it up at council, but it's...
We can park it.
Okay.
We'll keep it yellow then.
And were we comfortable with the language that we currently have for the maintain union
pay?
That works for me.
I would say maintain union representation pay and benefits.
Okay.
Oh, that's completely different.
It is though.
I want to make sure that we're clear that that union representation is one of the benefits
of the drivers currently have.
The word was there, but that's fine.
This is a much better order.
This is better.
Okay.
We'll also be missed.
Just kind of looking through the list, we've already spoken to the six month concurrency.
So did we want to talk any more about a gradual implementation?
What happens after the six months or we just want to keep it at the six months?
See, this is the critical point.
If I can try to express the consensus, we don't view it as a fait accompli, that there's
going to be a transition.
Might be, might not be, might be a transition back to all fixed.
It kind of depends on what people do.
It's six months to learn and then optimize the mix.
The optimal mix could be 50/50, could be 100/0, could be 0/100.
No preconceived notion.
At the end of the six month period during which DCTA is gathering data about where most
rides are originating and ending, that is when a decision should be made regarding what
happens after the six month period.
Something else to say.
The only reason, well, here's my, let me say what I had in my head at first.
As we are gathering information for the six months, are we going to, we're going to have
to wing it out a few more months until the decision is made so I can see us coming back
after six months and making the determination and it's, we've got to go further than that
to absolutely put the resolution there that this is what we're going to do.
Yeah, I mean, I'm personally.
I agree with you.
Is it going to be like another two months until we can get the analysis done, until
we can get it implemented or are we going to be in the process of trying to be where
we want to be in the six months?
Because it's already six months now.
Yeah, I'm personally comfortable with the idea.
It's like we just keep going on and on and, you know, when does it, when does it?
I understand your point and I think, and I'm personally comfortable with the idea that
we're saying get six months of data and I'm willing to wait until then to find out how
long it'll take staff to analyze it and to gear up for any proposed changes.
I mean, like, you know, how much can we, so what are we doing while we're waiting for
the analysis?
Are we going to continue on with the process until they come back with analysis or is analysis
being done up to that six months?
I think that's a decision, personally, I think that's a decision to make at that time.
You know, let's say six months transpire and nobody has ridden a bus on a fixed route
in that entire time making it up.
You might not feel you need to wait a long time then to make the decision or conversely
feel like this better.
Nobody has written, has ordered an on-demand ride in six months.
How long are you going to wait to whack that program, you know?
So I think it depends on how compelling the evidence is and how complicated it is to analyze
it.
I'm willing to punt on making that decision today, I don't think we know enough.
I mean, you know, I just put it out there because, you know, that route that has five
people at 9 o'clock, six people at 10 o'clock, one person at 3 o'clock, I mean, all of that
is going to be ticking, ticking, ticking up to the six months and then the DCTA comes
back and says that we, now we're going to start doing the analysis or are they already
working it up and they can give us that cut off and say, okay, in two weeks because of
this, this, this, we're going to start this process.
Are we going to come back and are we going to be agreeing with that or are we going to
come back and have to sit out and regurgitate it all again and bring it all back to come
up with another resolution?
That's where I am with that.
All right.
I'm willing to live in that doubt.
Councilmember Guerra, what are your thoughts on this?
I am as well.
You know, I, I hear your concern that, you know, that we're kicking the can down the
road and that, that, you know, we're, we're just going to have to make more decisions
again in the future.
And I guess maybe I shouldn't say we, the DCTA board is the primary body that's going
to be making these decisions.
I just, I, I feel that there should always be decisions being made.
There should always be tweaks being made to, to delivery of service and, and that should
be based on, you know, data.
So you know, I, I, I'm, I'm okay with the idea of DCTA gathering data, bringing it back
to us in six months, bringing it back to the DCTA board in six months and you know, us,
you know, yeah, passing another resolution, providing additional guidance to DCTA or to
our representatives on DCTA that would, you know, help us decide what, where we're going
to go from there and what we're going to do with that data.
I'm going to, I'm going to make a prediction that the answer will be complex, that the
answer will be, or let, let me put it a different way, will vary by route, right?
So there'll probably be, there'll probably, probably be some decisions within the decision
that will be very clear, some that may not be all that clear even after six months.
You know, it's going to, we'll, it's going to have arms and legs and we'll have to look
at it at the time.
Okay.
I don't know.
That's.
Chair.
Okay.
Are you okay with that?
Sounds like, I'm, I'm particularly am not okay with that, but it's just my thoughts.
Yeah.
And I understand where both of you all are coming from.
I just don't have the, and I don't think that the community, a lot of the community really
has the patience, I mean, some of the community that have the patience to keep waiting and
waiting and waiting.
A lot of people like to know what are we going to do?
What's the plan?
And then let's get in there.
Let's work it up.
Six months later, we're still got to come back and still talking about it.
Well, but then, then you're talking about it after having six months of real data.
Right.
In the end, there's a time frame in there and some things may just completely, you know,
can change.
I'm just not against all of that, but I think that, you know, like she used the term kicking
a can down the road.
Thank you very much for being very basic on that because that's the word I, the terminology
that I had in my head.
But I'm in agreement with, you know, you guys have the majority voice.
I'm just saying that I don't agree with it.
And that's the reason why.
But let's, you know, rather see if we can, you know, find a little happier spot.
I have no objection to saying something like, you know, six month test, blah, blah, blah,
whatever you've already said.
You know, and then for prompt, for careful and prompt decision making after that.
Thank you.
Chair, that's what I wanted to bring up is, I'm not sure if you want to put, I understand
the six month time frame.
I guess one of the things that I wanted to make sure is, is there a specific six month
time frame that you're looking for or is it just in the next six months after the July
22nd board meeting?
I don't know if you need to put any parameters around that.
I don't personally feel compelled to be that prescriptive.
To me, the clock starts when the starter pistol goes off and goes on as introduced.
So in other words, that you have six months lived experience of both services being available.
So six months from September 7th?
If that's when they start, then that's what that would be.
That's the plan.
Oh, is that correct?
But I'd rather not hitch it to a calendar date if the starter pistol date moves.
It's six months of lived experience.
Okay, yeah.
Six months from the implementation.
Right, so that was what I was pointing out is maybe it's six months from the implementation
of the GoZone program.
You know, if you want to put some kind of parameters on it.
And then the other thing I wanted to mention also is to make sure that we're being very
clear that this is not just for route three and seven.
This is for the entire, all of the routes, correct?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Absolutely.
All of the currently running fixed routes.
Yeah.
Not turning anything off until we have six months of lived data of both services being
available.
Sure.
I understand that's being a little more prescriptive, but just wanted to see if there was a way that
we could put some parameters around that.
And to be perfectly honest, six months is something that is sort of a feels good, that
we were all like, yeah, that feels about right.
Yeah, but I mean, for me, the principle really is just a kind of projectable period of time.
You know, which I don't know if six months is it, I know two weeks isn't it.
Right.
Absolutely, yeah.
What else have we missed?
Okay, well, do we want to make sure we're in agreement, because we added a bunch of
language there.
So do we want to make sure we're in agreement with some of the revisions that we've made
to this kind of first statement?
So right now I've got provide concurrent fixed route service for all existing routes.
Thank you for that suggestion, Becky, along with on-demand service model for six months
from implementation of Go Zones to allow DCTA time to gather data and optimize the delivery
model based on ridership patterns.
I like it.
Eliminate fixed route in the first line there.
Okay.
Provide current service or provide on-demand service and exist, well, provide on-demand
service and service for all existing routes concurrently.
Fixed routes, yeah.
I apologize, I just...I've never seen any kind of council meeting like this one before,
have you?
What with me being so picky about the syntax?
No, even just the degree of collaborative decision-making, which I like.
So now we read...
All existing fixed routes.
No problem.
The implementation of, let's say, on-demand service.
No hyphen between six and months.
No hyphen between six and months, okay.
Do you have any openings in legal, unfilled positions?
So what happens when you, yeah, elect teachers to city council?
Are we good with the remainder of that statement?
I'm good with it.
Okay.
So looking through my notes, the only other item is just, you know, we have mentioned
the elimination of...potential elimination of fares following the fee study, but we haven't
spoken specifically...obviously there could be the elimination of fares.
If there's not though, do we want to include anything based on the feedback we've received
from you regarding what to do for low-income or other communities who may have issues or
do we just address that after the fare study?
I'm thinking that now that I've heard that there are provisions for low-income riders
with our non-profits, do we even have to address it at all?
I think that is done presently, you know, and I think Nicole indicated that, but I'm
open to hearing other thoughts.
Yeah, I mean, I think that having a varied fee structure is sort of a different thing
than just eliminating fares.
It is, and these essentially...well, okay, go ahead.
Sorry.
Oh, so I mean, so the status quo is that there sort of is a varied fee structure for folks
who are going through non-profits.
I really...I am interested in DCTA evaluating the feasibility of eliminating fares altogether
for everyone so that anybody in the city can just hop on a bus with no...frictionless.
Yeah, I mean, I'm more about it as kind of a product concept, and if you will, that as
an equity thing.
Yeah, it's about increasing ridership.
It's just like the definition of Denton changes, you know, Denton is a place then where public
transit's so easy because, you know, you don't have to figure anything out, you just get
on.
So that leaves us with the parking lot item.
That's our bird, you gave me a look like, I'm not sure I agree with you, I think you
might be insane, I don't know what that look was.
You know, I like...again, here we're back around to the same topic, I like free.
I'm good with free.
And you know, if it's just a sliver of whatever intake that they're getting, which...I'm okay,
I'm good.
I agree.
Okay, okay.
We're still good.
Stop pulling the Band-Aid off.
Oh, sorry.
Sorry.
We tacked that one down.
Okay, we're done.
We're done.
You asked me what I had in my notes, so I want to do it thorough.
So do we want to return to the parking lot, or do we want to go through some of the...
Like, it's not in...it's in my mental parking lot, it's not in the resolution, we don't
have support for that.
Yeah, I'm fine with eliminating that from the resolution.
Okay.
I could come back at some future conversation, because it would still be in my head.
It's a cool idea, but it's not the point of what we're talking about right now.
Yeah, it's not on point.
Okay.
It's not on point.
No problem.
So then...
Excuse me.
Yes, ma'am.
Just scroll back up.
That last one, in order to improve efficiency of fixed routes, consider the use of smaller
vehicles.
I see you have a semicolon there.
Does that just need to be a period, or is that just a statement hashed?
It's been changed.
Oh, we got two like this now.
We will make sure we do a good grammatical check of this, so I appreciate your patience
with me.
There will be semicolons, just so you know, it'll be semicolon, and semicolon, and once
we get this reformatted with our city attorney's office.
Rachel, I so appreciate the way you're providing this service to us here, you know, scribing
in.
You're so very welcome.
This is an interesting mobility committee meeting, for sure, but we are making progress,
and I'm excited about that.
Burn the videotape, but yeah.
Okay.
All right.
So do we want to go through the whereases, which again is kind of...
It's kind of fluff, but let's make sure there's nothing that's going to set off alarms.
I would say whereas is number four and five need maybe a little tweak.
Okay.
Can we just eliminate the last like clause to ensure a smooth transition and mitigate
community impacts?
Sure.
Just eliminate that, because again, that's sort of...
Yeah, we don't know if there's a transition.
We're agnostic about that.
And I did put a note, so I didn't forget that we don't put anything in here about the
importance to the Denton City Council of having a robust transit service, so if we want to
have that clause, we can absolutely add it.
That's...
I'm in favor of that.
I think that's really the essence of where I perceive this council to be coming from,
that we're less interested in minimizing that cost footprint of the service and more interested
in maximizing the service delivery.
Nobody wants to waste money, but the primary objective is to meet the public transit potential.
The Denton City Council, or whereas a robust public transit service is important to...
Integral to a successful city is...
Whereas a public...
A robust public transit service is necessary to the development of a sustainable...
To meeting our sustainability, accessibility, and mobility goals.
I check in economic development, because I think it's true.
Economic development, mobility, and sustainability.
And accessibility.
Mobility, sustainability, and accessibility.
Goals.
Councillor Baird, you happy so far?
Addition, subtractions, changes?
Is essential to meeting.
Meeting Dentons.
And it will be a semi-calling.
Fair warning, there will be semi-colons.
I think the whereas that's after that, whereas the Denton City Council requests consideration
of revisions to DCTA's service delivery model, I think we can just eliminate that altogether,
because we said that in the previous one.
I am looking at the words modified and revised.
Where are you at?
At the top, at the very top here, where it says modified service delivery model.
And then down here on the one, two, three, did we hit three?
One, two, three?
It says something about us currently, whereas DCTA is currently considering a revised service
delivery model.
I just think that it's important that we use the same words, like modified.
Is it modified?
Is it revised?
Is it service?
Maybe we should replace the word modified with proposed, because they haven't modified
anything yet.
Okay.
I'm okay with that.
And if we use a word revised, if they're proposed, so this is a proposal.
To a similar end.
Anything that you have there, service, one, two, three, four, five, six, a six one down.
I do want to note, if we change it to revised to proposed here, we're going to say DCTA
is currently considering a proposed service delivery model.
That makes sense.
It just breeds a little bit differently, but if we're good with that, we can keep it as
is.
Okay.
Are you all okay with that proposal?
Can we change the word adopt?
Oh, sorry.
Yeah, if I can go back to that one, yeah, where you are, I think to potentially replace
existing fixed route services, right, you're not replacing on-demand.
So whereas DCTA is currently considering a proposed service delivery model to include
on-demand route service that would potentially replace existing fixed route service, right?
I'll need to lean on Nicole, but I do believe there are some on-demand services that are
currently provided.
Yes, but my understanding was that eliminating those was not part of the proposal.
Yeah, we, I'm sorry, I mean, there's some, go ahead.
DCTA, yeah, DCTA currently provides two on-demand services, so the first is the Louisville Lakeway
Zone, and it operates six days a week, and then the second is the DDTC evening on-demand
zone that operates just in like four evening hours, Monday through Friday.
Both of those services would be eliminated and replaced with the GoZone service.
Oh, okay.
So that's technically true, I wasn't aware of that.
I think it's frankly confusing to even, you know, get into it, but whatever.
Is it down there where it says, where is the D at the very bottom right there, service delivery
for the July the 22nd meeting?
Are we going to keep service there or are we going to change that to proposed?
To the proposed delivery model?
Yes.
Great.
They're not adopting revisions to the proposal.
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
Well, can we change adopt to vote on?
Sure.
Because maybe they won't adopt.
What about consider?
Okay.
Yeah, yeah.
That's just what I was thinking.
You know, this is sort of a phrase as direction to the DCATA board.
In my mind, it's direction to our representative on the board, you know, but I don't have a,
I'm not stuck on it, but I'd be interested in like, what's the difference and which is
right?
Well, I mean, you know, I don't hold an at large seat, but Denton residents from other
districts will email me and call me with their concerns, right?
I mean, that's sort of, in a way, that's what we're doing here, right?
I mean, we're asking all the members of the board, even the ones who weren't appointed
by Denton City Council to consider the concerns.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't hate it.
It's just, you know, it's not a huge issue to me either way.
It's just like the, my objective is to provide instruction to our representative, but it
does the same thing.
I don't really care.
I don't know.
Do you have an opinion about it?
No, I don't.
Thank you.
Fine.
Leave it.
Let's just, well, let's put it, let me just not leave it alone for one second.
Let's say November comes around and our representative has faithfully conveyed our guidance, or November
comes around and our representative has completely not represented our guidance, right?
That would weigh on us.
That's why to me it matters, like that it's very clear, you know, to our representative
what our will is once council votes on it.
But I would just ask staff, if it's expressed as our guidance to the board, or maybe, I
don't know.
I don't really know who I'm asking, on staff, you know, is that, does that also provide
that direction, does that explicitly or implicitly provide direction to our representative, because
to me that's important.
I mean, it's a five member board, and we've got one representative on there.
It will be the full five member board that would be voting on the proposed service delivery
model changes, so I think it's up to the council to decide if you're providing direction to
one of the five, or if you're providing direction to the full five who will ultimately be making
that decision.
All right.
You know what?
I give it up.
I think that's fine.
I think it's fine as is.
If it's, if we're expressing it to the full five, we're obviously also expressing it to
our representative.
So, okay.
I'm fine.
Uncle?
I hate to say it, but I think we've gone through, unless we have any concerns with the findings
and recitation contained in the preamble, which is standard legalese that Trey always
makes sure we include in all of our resolutions.
The only revisions we'd be making is, unfortunately, removing some periods, adding some semi-colons,
and then having some room in numerals, but other than that, we will keep the language
proposed by this committee, and then we would include it in a Friday report, and then ultimately
it would go on the agenda on July 20th.
I think we have to strike the word here in.
I think it's just offensive.
All right.
Well, good job, committee members.
Because the last whereas, just to repeat, I just, I want to make sure we're not saying
unnecessary stuff, I guess.
The City Council finds it in the public interest to recommend that the DCTA Board of Directors
consider certain revisions to their proposed service delivery model to ensure the needs
of transit riders in the Denton community are addressed.
Do we need to say that in addition to, well, no.
Where do you think it's already covered?
No, it's typically the transition.
We usually have kind of a summary that transitions into what the policy statement is.
It's sort of the drum roll.
Also, yeah, I mean, kind of the key, the key part of the previous one was that the city
provides a dedicated sales tax revenue stream to DCTA, right?
I'm okay with that, never mind.
All right.
Going once.
Going twice.
Wait, can you scroll down and let me just like kind of skim the rest of it?
And I can, if you're okay with me making a little bit smaller, then we can fit all the
green on one page.
And I did not hear Nicole's head explode, so I don't know if that indicates anything
or not.
All right.
I'm good with that.
Going once.
Going twice.
We have a proposed resolution, bang of gavel.
I'm going to close our meeting while the closing's good at 2.37 p.m.
Excellent.
We will save-- [end of transcript]