work to explore the different options that were being considered and sent -- policy was approved in march looking at understanding what the implications for transportation might be. and the membership of that working group includes kakiharo, myself. and dennis garden. and we've had preliminary conversations with ellen broussard and kevin traout. that pertains to the

after-school program. we have broader conversations after tonight's meeting. with much larger groups. once we get feedback from the group. and the next topic is the outreach plan for 2011-2012 and work discussion and feedback. so i'll take a couple of minutes to go through the first few slides of the presentation. we did make copies of it available for the public to -- and we will post it on our webpage. and our objective tonight are to review and confirm the goals and objectives for transportation, approach that we're taking, and the time line. we want to share that information with the board and gather your feedback to incorporate it into the work moving forward. and so i'm going to hand it over to susan kagi haro who will present the information. >> hi. so the first question is why change transportation? we do have a transportation infrastructure.

the main reason is that we believe that our transportation policy should reflect our strategic plan commitment. and our current bus routes are really vestiges of past immigration efforts and requests from schools for additional services. and they're not really aligned with the board's current priorities. so what does our current transportation look like? we have -- we utilize 44 buses and making about five to six trips a day. so that services about 3,300 students, 59 different elementary schools. elementary schools as well as 358 students to seven middle schools. and in terms of afterschool, that 950 students from 50 elementary schools are transported to 19 s.f.u. child development centers and over 30

nonsfusd after school programs. so that's what we do now. one of the questions that the board asked us is well, how did we get here? and so janice guard won couldn't be here tonight -- janice garden who couldn't be here tonight gave us a little bit of history how we got here. he explained that in the 1970's, we had the horseshoe plan where the school district was divided into seven zones and students were transported to support a 4-6 configuration. in the 1980's we launched a redesign and schools were reconfigured into k-5, six, eight, and alternative schools. and the district was divided into feeder areas with walk areas and noncontiguous areas. transportation was provided from the noncontiguous areas to the assigned school. and initially, with the

alternative schools, they didn't have a feeder pattern so no transportation was provided. later on, bus service was added from elementary schools to these alternative schools. later, in the early 1990's, they did some minor changes to the feeder pattern. and then in the past decade, we've added routes to enhance enrollment at certain schools. so an example is we added routes to support certain high schools. we've also, because of budget deficit issues, we've eliminated -- we eliminated services to high schools. we also did some changes on the margins. so when there were unused stops, we eliminated those stops. and where it was possible, we

-- yeah. where possible we added stops to when schools called and requested a stop, if we could add that stop without increasing transportation costs, if we could accommodate that, we did. so really what we have right now is a transportation system that was really set in the 1980's and has just sort of slightly changed over time and over time and over time. so looking back at where we want to be, we would really like our goals for transportation to align with our strategic plan and our new student assignment policy. in our new student assignment policy we identified two goals. first, is to reverse the trend of racial isolation and the

concentration of underserved students in the same school. and the second is to provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students. so we took those two student assignment goals and we built transportation goals that align with these student assignments with these student assignment policies. so if you look in the blue box, we have the corresponding transportation goal. so the first is to support the use of choice for creating integrating learning environments. and the second is to support equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students. so what does that look like? what we tried to do was then take the objective and build what we're calling a sample baseline. what would it mean to implement

this objective? for that first -- for the first goal, to support the use of choice as a tactic for creating integrated learning veerments, we have two objectives. provide transportation to racially isolated schools that have traditionally been underenrolled. and two, to maintain current routes that help create diverse environments. enrollments. so in a sample baseline, what we would do is first maintain our strategic bus routes to schools in the superintendent zone and other schools that are in racially isolated neighborhoods and serve large numbers of underserved students. and then to deal with the second objective, we would maintain limited transportation to schools where enrollment is more diverse than the diversity built into the surrounding residential patterns. so, for example, lakeshore is a

fairly diverse school. but this diversity is not mirrored in the neighborhood -- in the neighborhood demographics. and it's currently supported by bus routes coming from bayview hunters point, which is creating the diversity at that school. so in this sample baseline, we may want to consider continuing to support lakeshore's bus transportation. so moving on to goal number two, which is to support equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students, we've identified three objectives. provide students living in ctip one which is -- i don't think -- ok. with access to k-8 schools, language immersion programs, and f.f. public montreal sorry schools. -- monisorri schools.

and literacy and immersion programs and the third is to provide newcomers with access to newcomer schools. and so what a sample baseline might look like, let's take one of them, so just take the first bullet, to provide transportation to enable students in ctip one areas to access at least one k-8 school. and at least one elementary school offering a language immersion program. so that a ctip one neighborhood, students in the ctip one neighborhood, would have bus transportation to at least one k-8 and one language immersion school. in terms of supporting equitable access to the range of opportunities, we also had two more objectives. so provide reasonable access to attendance area schools, and the fifth is to provide students living in densely populated attendance areas with

reasonable access to schools in less densely populated areas of the city. so for number four, if you remember, there was -- webster attendance area was very geographically large. so in a really large attendance area, we may want to look at where students live and if it's really far away to provide a transportation route within that attendance zone. and then in terms of reasonable access to attendance area schools, another classic example is treasure island. those students would need transportation from treasure island to sherman and elementary schools because the bay is a top graphical area. so we created this baseline and

then we took a step back. and we said, well, what are the implications of that baseline on our current transportation services? the first thing that is pretty obvious is this represents a major shift in services. so what this would mean, the biggest issue here is the majority of the current riders, elementary school riders, would possibly lose bus service. so currently 3,300 elementary school students ride the yellow school buses. in this sort of baseline example that we created, approximately 900 students might continue to have service. but 2,400 students could lose

service. while additional riders would probably gain access through new routes, it still does mean a major shift in who gets served and who may not get served. so here's -- we wanted to try and provide an example. so here are the current routes to rooftop -- rooftop alternatives. and i don't know if you can see them. but the lines -- the lines on -- put my glasses on -- the lines on the map represent -- represent five bus routes. ok. and so they all come to that

one little red spot in the center that is rooftop. so the potential implication of moving to a new system that completely alliance with our objectives would be to -- we would eliminate the stops that do not support objectives. so, for example, we would eliminate the stops or routes outside of ctip one. so if you look at this, it could possibly mean eliminating three routes. and then -- and it would also mean -- potentially mean adding stops within the ctip one areas to efficiently support our objective. >> i would like to ask the same question. this looks like the same map. >> yes.

it is the same map. what we're trying to show is -- so sorry. it is the same map. what might move away, the purple line that doesn't touch any of the ctip areas. the orange line, bus route, that doesn't touch any ctip one areas, and i think it like the pink or red line. >> yeah, this is the same map, right? somewhere here if we could read this tiny little key here, it would tell us some of these routes you might propose to eliminate them. but they are not eliminated on this map. this is the same map. >> right. right. we didn't have -- we weren't able to get a second map. but we will. >> is this available somewhere online so we could actually read it? >> we can put it only online. we can also give you a large print version or an electronic version. we'll email a version. >> can you email me?

can you email this presentation to us? >> yes. >> thank you. >> so the first -- so the first -- >> sorry. just to complete that. can't tell what color these are. for rooftop, which is the k-8, would still not have attendance area. >> no. but what -- what we said in the -- when we talked about one of the objectives is to make sure that ctip one neighborhoods -- >> i understand that. but what you would be saying is the two roofs that you would be keeping are -- don't tell me what color they are. because i have no idea. >> ok. >> the one that seems to come from the bayview and then fly over the rooftop, is that correct? and also the one that snakes through the mission? is that correct? >> what we're saying in the

first baseline that we created, it was very crude baseline. this may not -- >> it might not be these two. but basically -- i understand. but basically what -- you're sort of saying the baseline is -- excuse me. on not having routes. even this, a citywide school that comes from the north or the west. is that correct? >> correct. >> anybody have any more clarifying questions about this? thank you. >> so the first -- so the first major implication was that this would be a major shift in services. the second would be since the objectives that -- the student assignment policy objectives don't specifically talk about after school programs. it may significantly reduce transportation to after school programs. so currently, like i said before, we currently transport approximately 950 students from elementary schools to

after-school programs. so sfusd and nonsfusd after school programs, if we were to go with a very specific baseline that is only linked to these -- to these two objectives, then the majority of currently riders would lose this service. so we have a map that shows the programs, the afterschool programs that currently receive afterschool transportation. >> if i may, at some -- is the information available that would tell us where the bus stops are? we see that people go to these afterschool programs. we don't know where they're coming from. >> we have -- we have a grid that would provide you with what schools, i believe. and what programs. but it's -- it was a lot of

lines. >> i would like to request that. i would like to see the list of schools, what programs they're sending kids to and an approximate count. because, you know, i mean -- >> absolutely. >> i can see what the proposal is going to be. i just want to know where it comes from. >> we can definitely do that. and the third implication is budgetary considerations. we heard at the last ad hoc meeting that the board clearly stated as a goal to reduce the budget for general education transportation. so based on those three implications, we actually have come up with recommended adjustments. the first is that we add a new goal and objective. the goal is to support the district's vision for after school programs with the objective being support access to sfusd after school programs

where the -- where afterschool is not available at the elementary school. the second adjustment is to reduce our general education transportation for elementary school students from the current level of 44 buses to a fleet of 25. and the third is to phase out services over three years of our current route over three years, starting with the 11-12 school years with full implementation by 2013-14. so that we wouldn't go from 44 buses to 25. but what we would do is we would slowly -- that we would slow reduce over these three years to 25 buses. one of the things that dennis

garden had explained to us when he talked about the -- our history of transportation policy and transportation changes is when we made the switch from i believe of it the horseshoe design to the redesign, we completely had everyone in the school district reassigned that school year. in the policy that we adopted, with this new student assignment policy, we are not necessarily starting off. we are actually making a student assignment change at the transitional years. kinder six and nine. so there's a phase-in of student assignments. as opposed to a wholesale. it is true that all families in our -- could request, even if

they're in a different grade, not in a transitional grade, to be -- to participate in the enrollment process. but we are focusing in on kinder six and nine. so in doing that, we're thinking -- we're recommending a three-year phaseout. ok. so then what the revised goals and objectives would -- would then look like is instead of having two goals, we would have three goals for transportation. to support the use of choice as a tactic for an integrated learning environment to support equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students, and to support the district's vision for afterschool. and then the next slide shows what -- our recommended

reduction by 2013. from 44 buses to 25. >> can i ask a question? >> sure. >> mr. lee, could you tell us the cost of each bus? i understand it's not likely to be the same in 2015 as it is now but just for our own -- >> currently, it's between $90,000 and $100,000. >> thank you. >> and that's per year. and that's not for -- for each route. it's for each bus in the fleet. >> thank you. >> and because, just to make -- i think commissioner wynns -- the reason why it's not -- it's per bus, it's because a bus might run multiple routes, is that right? >> and in almost all cases they do, right. >> we might need to be thinking

about the number of buses and not so much the number of kids or even the number of routes. except the routes as related to the number of buses but the cost isn't a per pupil cost. it's a per bus cost. >> ask a related question. >> commissioner yee. commissioner yee: i'm just -- in terms of the buses, and if we know that for student transportation, and at the end of the day, i think we also use it for field trips also. and i don't know how it works. but it seems like -- the schools seem to be committing. we have fewer opportunities to go on field trims.

>> i suspect you're right that because we do offer field trips right now during the day, does have to do with -- to some extent the time for a given bus that is in between the morning and the afternoon pickup so the time during the middle part of the day when they aren't otherwise operating a run or a route, so right now, there are some free field trips that are available on -- i would have to give you a report later about the specific ways that we allocate those two schools. i think there's a combination of some first come, first served and other mechanisms for allocating the number of free trips throughout the year. but i think it stands to reason

that if we had a smaller fleet, that we probably would have some reduction in the number of field trips that are available. but we could look at that more closely. in a year or two. >> i would appreciate if you do look at it closely. a former teacher and i know other teachers, you know, and this is such a big deal to have access to buses. so even though we might be reducing our fleet, i would like us to also maybe explore whether -- what those same -- with the same company. whether or not we can do some other -- create some other situation to allow for us not to reduce our opportunities for kids to go on field trips. >> so what we're -- in thinking about -- in thinking about

trying to deal with budgetary considerations and reducing the fleet, as well as thinking about the way that student assignments -- our new student assignment policy is being phased in, we try to create a sample illustration of how we might think about phasing out old -- our current routes. and phasing in the new routes that align with our current -- our new student assignment policy and goals. and new transportation goals. so this chart tries to show that in 11-12, it might be a combination of current routes as well as new routes that align with our new transportation policy. and 12-13 it would be fewer of

the current routes and maybe slightly more the new routes. and then by 2013-14 we would completely be in our new routes. that's not to say that some of the stops that are part of our current routes couldn't also be stops in our new infrastructure . it's just that we have to go in and do the analysis to see how -- how that matches with our objectives and goals as student assignment and where students live in our analysis of enrollment patterns. so our approach to building bus routes are to first use the objective of the student policy and our transportation policy and our transportation policy and determine transportati