City staff presented the second phase of the transit network study and sought council guidance on a values‑based tradeoff between a ridership‑focused network (higher frequency on fewer corridors) and a coverage approach (wider geographic access with lower frequency).

Jessica (transit staff) summarized public engagement and said the project received more than 900 survey responses and about 660 answers to the core ridership/coverage preference question. "We did have about 900 plus responses to the overall survey," she said, noting the sample is not statistical but provides direction for design work. Staff reported lower‑income respondents and frequent riders tended to favor coverage, while higher‑income respondents skewed toward ridership.

Given recent council feedback, staff recommended a modest "nudge" toward ridership for the next phase and said the consultant will draft a network reflecting that direction. Council members raised equity concerns, urging the study to prioritize frequency improvements for low‑income and public‑housing neighborhoods and to avoid shifting service primarily toward higher‑income corridors. One council member recommended including operator/union insights and former drivers in the working group to reflect operational realities.

Council asked for route‑level ridership, on‑time performance and missed‑trip data, cost estimates for tradeoffs (ballpark dollars per route or per frequency increase), and clearer information on who benefits and who may be harmed by potential changes. Staff said a draft network and more tangible trade‑off impacts are expected in late January or early February, when council will have another opportunity to review specific routing, frequency and fiscal implications before any formal action.