Attachment 2
Summary Report
School Bus Focus Group
Service Design Charrette
March 29, 2018
1
Summary Report
School Bus Focus Group Service Design Charrette
A. Highlights
When: Wednesday, Feb ruary 2 8, 7:00 – 9:00 pm
Thursday, March 1, 9:30 – 11:30 am
Location: Police Departments Operations Center , 15900 Los Gatos Boulevard
Who: A focus group made up of interested parents and representatives nominated by
LGUSD Resource Council and LGHS . A total of 20 people attended these two
sessions.
Format: P resent ation by Town staff and consulting team ,
D iscussion and exercise s were f acilitated by Dr. Mark Sil ver
Purpose
Engage in a dialogue with Town staff, consultants and other parents
Opportunity to work on service design together – “get your hands dirty”
Through some interactive exercise, h elp the project team understand the
im portance of your preference in time, location, cost, flexibility, vehicle
safety, driver screening, and technology features.
Outline of the topics:
1. Presentation on Survey Results
2. E xercise 1: Service Design
3. E xercise 2: Service Quality and Delivery
4. E xercise 3: Cost, Funding, Price Sensitivity, and Ridership
5. Wrap up
2
B. Results from the Group Exercises
E xercise 1: Service Design
Format:
Staff prepared m aps showing congested street and h igh demand clusters . Each map
represent ed the demand to the six target schools, Los Gatos High School, Fisher Middle School,
Blossom Hill Elementary School, Daves Avenue Elementary School, Lexington Elementary
School, and Van Meter Elementary School.
Guidelines:
• Fill the bus: Pick up as many stu dents as possible
• Mark the clusters served by the route
• Route distance is limited
Result s:
3
4
5
6
Exercise 2: Service Quality and Delivery
Format:
Each participant was provided 4 green and 4 o range dots. They were asked to p lace the dot s on
the statements that were most important to them and/or the ones they agree d in each
corresponding category, Service Delivery Requirements or Service Design Features. There were
not enough dots for all statements .
Result s:
Service Design Features Vote
2/28
Vote
3/1
1. I would not want my child to have to get up 10 minutes early to
ride the bus .
0 2
2. I am not comfortable for my child to walk more than 6 blocks to
wait for the bus.
3 6
3. I would like to see the bus going directly to school after picking
up m y child.
0 0
4. The bus schedule needs to accommodate after school activities. 3 6
5. We need to have the flexibility for my child to ride AM or PM
only.
7 11
6. Real time tracking and parent notification are very important
features.
3 5
7. Others (fill in): Buses to have bike racks
Avoid busy streets or isolated areas
1 3
Service Delivery Requirements Vote
2/28
Vote
3/1
1. I do have a strong preference to the vehicle size, large or small. 1 0
2. Many of the school bus safety requirements are crucial, such as
seat belt, crash protection, emergency exits and loading zone
protection.
4 6
3. I will only be comfortable with a bus system that requires
rigorous driver background check and drug & alcohol tests.
4 6
4. I do not want my child to ride the bus with much older stu dents,
for example, middle or high school students.
2 5
5. I do not want my child to ride the bus with people other than
school students.
8 10
6. I want to make sure the bus service has “No Bully” rules. 5 6
7. Others 0 0
7
E xercise 3: Cost, Funding, Price Sensitivity, and Ridership
Format:
The participants were presented four price cards and were asked to choose the maximum price
they were willing to pay for the school bus service. They did not need to share their choice with
others.
8
Next, staff provided information on c ost and funding
• Cost elements
• F und sources : bus fare revenue , Measure B, additional sources
• Price sensitivity and ridership performance matrix
The participants were then asked if they would choose their maximum prices differently after
hearing the additional information.
Result s:
The exercise ended with facilitated discussions for the participants to share their thoughts on
pricing, ridership and fu nding potential.
This exercise was not designed to collect quantitative input on price sensitivity. Instead, it
provided insights to the Study Team to better understand the factors families considered in
deciding the price for service and changing transpor tation choices . The input will help the Team
design the price sensitivity question in the second survey.
C. Wrap up
The facilitator asked the participants to share their additional thoughts with the Study Team by
writing their ideas down. He asked them to use these three questions to help frame the input:
I like …
I wish …
I wonder…
Many of the participants provided thoughtful notes . In addition, staff took notes during the
discussions throughout the session. All the feedback will help the Team in further deve lop the
study .
9
D. Pictures of Group Exercise