MEETING OF THE Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee. 10:00 a.m.

Transcription

1 VMOCC Meeting Packet MEETING OF THE Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee MEETING DATE August 18, 2009 TIME LOCATION 10:00 a.m. METRO Rail Office 13 th Floor Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 1300 Phoenix, AZ

2

3 August 11, 2009 Meeting of the Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee METRO Rail 13 th Floor Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 1300 Tuesday, August 18, :00 a.m. Action Recommended 1. Consent Agenda A. Summary Meeting Minutes: i. May 19 th Joint FOAC and VMOCC Meeting Summary minutes from the May 19, 2009 joint meeting of the FOAC and VMOCC are presented for approval. 1. For action A. For action ii. May 26 th Joint FOAC and VMOCC Meeting Summary minutes from the May 26, 2009 joint meeting of the FOAC and VMOCC are presented for approval. B. Facility Security Upgrades Contract Change Order with Architectural Resources Team, Inc. for Mesa Facility Site Security Improvements C. Maricopa County Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment D. Cooperative Agreements The Executive Director requests the VMOCC forward to the TMC the following competitively procured cooperative agreements awarded by the Arizona State Procurement Office of the Arizona Department of Administration: B. For action C. For action D. For action i. Blackstone Security Services (State Contract) ii. HMI (landscaping) (State Contract) iii. Union Distributing (fuel-diesel) (State Contract) E. Contract Change Orders The Executive Director requests the VMOCC forward to the TMC the following RPTA contract change orders. Each change order has been procured in accordance with the RPTA Procurement Policy and will not exceed the total annual budget for the current year that has been approved by the RPTA Board of Directors: E. For action To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 1

4 i. Veolia Transportation Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Services ii. ValuTrans Fixed Route Bus Services iii. Second Generation dba Ajo Transportation, Inc. Ajo Gila Bend/Regional Circulator iv. Ashton Tiffany for Risk Management Services v. IT Cooperative Information Technology Consulting vi. Logic Tree Interactive Voice Response (IVR) vii. VPSI Vanpool Services viii. Ove Arup & Partners, Inc. ix. Vehicle Technical Consultants (VTC) Vehicle Maintenance, Inspections and Compliance x. WestGroup Market Research Activities xi. DMS Facility Services for the East Valley Operations and Maintenance Facility xii. Zonar Annual Service (Software Maintenance-proprietary Sole Source) xiii. Scheidt Bachmann (Farebox Software Maintenance Sole Source) F. Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) The Executive Director requests the VMOCC forward to the TMC the following IGAs and Amendments including Transit Service Agreements (TSAs) by and between RPTA and other public agencies in accordance with the approved RPTA budget: F. For action i. City of Avondale ADA Reimbursement ii. Town of Buckeye ADA Reimbursement iii. City of Chandler Alternative Transportation Services (East Valley Ride Choice) iv. City of Chandler East Valley Dial-A-Ride v. City of Chandler Fixed Route TSA vi. City of Chandler ADA Reimbursement vii. City of Chandler Bus Stop Improvements viii. City of Chandler AZ Avenue BRT ix. City of El Mirage ADA Reimbursement x. Town of Fountain Hills ADA Reimbursement xi. Town of Gila Bend ADA Reimbursement xii. Town of Gilbert East Valley Dial-A-Ride & Alternative Transportation Services (East Valley Ride Choice) xiii. Town of Gilbert Fixed Route TSA xiv. Town of Gilbert ADA Reimbursement xv. Town of Gilbert Bus Stop Improvements To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 2

5 xvi. Town of Gilbert AZ Avenue BRT xvii. City of Glendale ADA Reimbursement xviii. City of Glendale Bus Stop Improvements xix. City of Goodyear ADA Reimbursement xx. Town of Guadalupe ADA Reimbursement xxi. City of Litchfield Park ADA Reimbursement xxii. City of Mesa Alternative Transportation Services (East Valley Ride Choice) xxiii. City of Mesa East Valley Dial-A-Ride xxiv. City of Mesa Fixed Route TSA xxv. City of Mesa ADA Reimbursement xxvi. City of Mesa Bus Stop Improvements xxvii. City of Mesa AZ Avenue BRT xxviii. Town of Paradise Valley ADA Reimbursement xxix. City of Peoria ADA Reimbursement xxx. City of Phoenix Fixed Route TSA, Agreement #88397 (funded by RPTA) xxxi. City of Phoenix Fixed Route TSA, Agreement #83974 (funded by Phoenix) xxxii. City of Phoenix General Services IGA xxxiii. City of Phoenix Bus Stop Improvements xxxiv. Town of Queen Creek ADA Reimbursement xxxv. SCAT Dial-A-Ride Service xxxvi. City of Scottsdale East Valley Dial-A-Ride & Alternative Transportation Services (East Valley Ride Choice) xxxvii. City of Scottsdale Fixed Route TSA xxxviii. City of Scottsdale ADA Reimbursement xxxix. City of Scottsdale Bus Stop Improvements xl. City of Surprise ADA Reimbursement xli. City of Tempe Fixed Route TSA xlii. City of Tempe ADA Reimbursement xliii. City of Tempe East Valley Dial-A-Ride & Alternative Transportation Services (East Valley Ride Choice) xliv. City of Tempe Bus Stop Improvements xlv. City of Tolleson ADA Reimbursement xlvi. City of Tolleson Bus Stop Improvements xlvii. Town of Wickenburg ADA Reimbursement xlviii. Town of Youngtown ADA Reimbursement xlix. Arizona Department of Transportation FTA Section 5311 (Rural Transportation Services: Gila Bend/Ajo & Wickenburg) To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 3

6 G. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to Establish Dial-a-Ride Operations in the Northwest Valley for El Mirage, Peoria, Sun City, and Surprise G. For action RPTA Staff will request the VMOCC forward to the TMC authorization to issue an RFP to establish Dial-a-Ride operations in the Northwest Valley for El Mirage, Peoria, Sun City, and Surprise. H. Authorization to Issue an Integration of Real Time Transit Information and Signal Priority Service for Arizona Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Procurement Solicitation H. For action RPTA Staff will request the VMOCC forward to the TMC authorization to issue an Integration of Real Time Transit Information and Signal Priority Service for Arizona Avenue BRT Project Procurement Solicitation. I. Authorization to Issue a 2010 On-Board Origin and Destination Study Request for Proposals (RFP) I. For action RPTA Staff will request the VMOCC forward to the TMC authorization to issue a 2010 On-Board Origin and Destination Study RFP. J. Accept Transfer of Two (2) Vehicles from Maricopa County for Sun City Area Transit (SCAT) Service J. For action RPTA Staff will request the VMOCC forward to the TMC authorization to transfer two (2) vehicles from Maricopa County to SCAT. K. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to Replace Services Formerly Provided by Maricopa County Special Transportation Services (STS) K. For action RPTA Staff will request the VMOCC forward to the TMC authorization to issue an RFP to replace services formerly provided by Maricopa County STS. 2. Emergency Procurements, Contracts, and Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) for Special Transportation Services (STS): 2. For action A. Total Transit Operations Contract The Executive Director requests the VMOCC forward to the TMC the Total Transit Operations Contract for STS and approval to revise the FY 2009/10 Operating and Capital Budget to include the cost and revenues of this new project. To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 4

7 B. Beatitudes Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Operations Contract The Executive Director requests the VMOCC forward to the TMC the Beatitudes MOU Operations Contract for STS. C. Fountain Hills IGA The Executive Director requests the VMOCC forward to the TMC the Fountain Hills IGA for STS. 3. Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study, 18-Month Review 3. For action Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, will provide an update on the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study (SEES) and will request the VMOCC forward the SEES 18-month review to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. 4. Cost Savings Recommendations Through Service Adjustments 4. For information Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, will provide an update on the current Valley Metro service evaluations. 5. Fixed Route Policy Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 5. For information Jim Wright, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations, will lead a discussion regarding the development of a Fixed Route Policy TAC. 6. Regional Transit Framework Study Draft Final Report 6. For information Kevin Wallace, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Transit Planner, will provide an update on the status of the Regional Transit Framework Study. 7. Valley Metro Planning Studies Update, 2 nd Quarter Overview 7. For information Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, will update the committee on the current Valley Metro Planning studies. 8. Regional Transit Planning Roles and Responsibilities 8. For information Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, will discuss the result of meeting with Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), METRO Rail, and the City of Phoenix regarding the future of the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) development process. 9. Future VMOCC Agenda Items 9. For information Chairperson, Greg Jordan, will request future VMOCC agenda items for committee members. The attached matrix illustrates past and pending agenda items of the VMOCC. To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 5

8 10. Member Agency Updates 10. For information VMOCC members are provided with an opportunity to give an update on projects in their jurisdictions. 11. Public Comment 11. For information An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker. 12. Next VMOCC Meeting 12. For information The next meeting of the VMOCC is scheduled for September 15, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. The location for the meeting is to be determined. Qualified sign language interpreters are available with 72 hours notice. Materials in alternative formats (large print, audiocassette, or computer diskette) are available upon request. For further information, please call Nichole Myers, Valley Metro at or TDD at To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 6

9 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Summary Minutes Agenda Item #1A-i Summary Summary minutes from the May 19, 2009 joint meeting of the FOAC and VMOCC are presented for review and approval. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation It is recommended that the FOAC and VMOCC approve the summary meeting minutes from the May 19, 2009 joint meeting. Contact Person Michael Taylor, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Jim Wright, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations Attachments Summary Minutes 1

10 Summary Minutes Finance Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC) and Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) May 19, 2009 MAG Saguaro Room 302 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 10:00 a.m. FOAC Members Present Michelle Gramley, Town of Gilbert, Chair Kristen Taylor, City of Avondale Sean Banda, Town of Buckeye R.J. Zeder, City of Chandler Christy Eusebio, City of Glendale Cato Esquivel, City of Goodyear Julie Howard, City of Mesa David Moody, City of Peoria Ken Kessler, City of Phoenix Dave Meinhart, City of Scottsdale Randy Overmyer, City of Surprise Joe Clements, City of Tempe FOAC Members Not Present City of El Mirage Maricopa County METRO Rail Town of Queen Creek VMOCC Members Present Greg Jordan, City of Tempe, Chair Cathy Colbath, City of Glendale, Vice Chair Kristen Taylor, City of Avondale Sean Banda, Town of Buckeye R.J. Zeder, City of Chandler Ken Maruyama, Town of Gilbert Terry Johnson, City of Glendale Cato Esquivel, City of Goodyear Julie Howard, City of Mesa David Moody, City of Peoria Reed Caldwell, City of Phoenix Madeline Clemann, City of Scottsdale Randy Overmyer, City of Surprise Wulf Grote, METRO Rail VMOCC Members Not Present City of El Mirage Maricopa County Town of Queen Creek Chairman Greg Jordan called the joint meeting of the FOAC and VMOCC to order at 10:10 a.m. 2

11 Joint Committee Agenda Items 1. Summary Minutes A. FOAC Summary Minutes Summary minutes from the April 21, 2009 meeting of the FOAC were presented for approval. IT WAS MOVED BY DAVE MEINHART, SECONDED BY CHRISTY EUSEBIO AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 21, 2009 MEETING OF THE FOAC. B. Joint FOAC & VMOCC Summary Minutes Summary minutes from the April 21, 2009 joint meeting of the FOAC and VMOCC were presented for approval. IT WAS MOVED BY DAVE MEINHART, SECONDED BY JULIE HOWARD AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 21, 2009 JOINT MEETING OF THE FOAC AND VMOCC. 2. FY 2009/10 (July 1, 2009 thru June 30, 2010) Proposed Operating and Capital Budget Mike Taylor, Deputy Executive Director of Finance, presented information to the FOAC and VMOCC, as written in the memo, regarding the revised FY 2008/09 Operating and Capital Budget, the FY 2009/10 Operating and Capital Budget, and Five Year Capital Program. Reed Caldwell asked about the difference between the adopted FY 08/09 budget and the revised FY 08/09 adopted budget. Mr. Taylor said the differences in the current revised budget and the adopted are: (1) the PTF dollars received were lowered; (2) capital projects not completed this year, were carried over into next year; (3) Administrative expenses (administration, planning, and regional service expenses) were lowered; and (4) the bond proceeds were increased to $135 million ($85 million for METRO Rail and $50 million for RPTA). Mr. Caldwell suggested approving the FY 08/09 revised budget and delaying approval of the FY 09/10 budget and proposed resolution until the May 26 th meeting, to coincide with the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) update. Mr. Jordan asked for an explanation and reasoning behind the proposed resolution. Mr. Taylor said the resolution is to allow the Executive Director to execute Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs), Transit Service Agreements (TSAs), contracts, and budget authority. He said the resolution currently states as long as a project is in the budget, the Executive Director can execute the IGAs; this was approved last year. 3

12 He said the proposed resolution expands onto being able to send out solicitation as long as the items in the solicitations are within the budget, but approval of contracts would still be forwarded to the Board of Directors within the procurement policy, which is over $50,000. Mr. Taylor said the Executive Director currently has budget authority as long as the project doesn t exceed the total budget limit. He said the proposed budget authority is stricter, where the Executive Director will only have budget authority within a project fund; the Executive Director can t move dollars outside of the project fund into other budget dollars. Mr. Taylor said the proposed budget authority was requested by the Budget and Finance Sub-committee (BFS). Dave Meinhart asked if any contingencies on the administrative side have been developed in the event the revenue forecast doesn t meet expectations. Mr. Taylor said staff constantly reviews departmental budgets and expenses. He said there is a contingency list available for next year, if needed. Mr. Meinhart said Scottsdale cannot support the FY 09/10 budget if the Scottsdale/Rural Road project is dropped from the budget. Mr. Caldwell suggested the resolution clarify and explain the transferring of funds between departments. Mr. Taylor said funds can be transferred between departments within the same fund. Cathy Colbath suggested the following and asked the following: Delaying approval on the resolution until the next meeting on May 26 th, for further review. Does the emergency procurement come back to the Board of Directors as a requirement to get ratified? Mr. Taylor said yes. Is there a limit on the amount for emergency purchases? Mr. Taylor said there is no limit. What situation would be considered as an emergency procurement under the purview of the Executive Director? Mr. Taylor said he would reply in writing and research what those situations would be. He said it would probably be for safety reasons or something to keep the facility operating in the instance a generator would fail. Is there an amount for carry forwards and reserves? Mr. Taylor said RPTA s policy is 12% of the operating budget, approximately $11 million for next fiscal year. R.J. Zeder suggested delaying the proposed recommendations for further review. Mr. Jordan asked if there are any constraints with delaying the proposed recommendations. Mr. Taylor said there are no constraints. He said the FY 09/10 budget won t change, regardless of which alternative is approved. Terry Johnson asked if the communities are spending funds for capital projects which could be gone in Mr. Taylor said the capital projects in FY 2010 already have a commitment and majority of the IGAs have been signed. 4

13 Mr. Johnson suggested creating three separate motions: (1) approve the FY 08/09 revised budget; (2) approve the FY 09/10 budget; and (3) approve the proposed resolution. The FOAC and VMOCC agreed to table the recommended motions until the May 26 th meeting. Mr. Jordan said if the members have any questions to contact Mr. Taylor prior to the May 26 th meeting. 3. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Update Paul Hodgins, Manager of Capital Programming, gave a presentation to the FOAC and VMOCC outlining the four TLCP alternatives. He said the presentation will be given to the Board of Directors at their May 21 st meeting. The presentation included the following: TLCP History Original model adopted in June 2005 First model update led to TLCP Review review adopted in March 2007 Set the baseline for TLCP projects Based on adopted and voter approved plans Second model update adopted in April 2008 Cuts to contingencies and some projects No change in operations implementation from baseline TLCP Guiding Principles 1. A defined and consistent process will be established to implement the voter approved Plan. 2. A defined and consistent process for Plan amendments and changes will be established. 3. Funding allocations will be regularly monitored and managed. 4. A defined and consistent process will be established to ensure legislated compliance audit, reporting and performance requirements are met. 5. Budgeting and accounting systems will be established to manage Public Transportation Funds (PTF) and monitor and report results. 6. Jurisdictional equity will be monitored annually over 20 years. TLCP Process (moving forward) Review model impacts with staff committees, based on policy changes and guidance. Finalize program changes based on input. Bring program changes to subcommittee in June. Subcommittee to make policy recommendations to the Board in June. 5

14 Financial Model Update Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Updated to Reflect Current ADOT Revenue Projections and Other Adjustments Operating rates Variable inflation rates Federal revenue project matching Revenue shortfall measures All Elements of the Program will be Impacted to Balance the 2009 TLCP Update Revenue Adjustments Adjusted ADOT Public Transportation Fund Estimates Bus - FY 2008 Update Bus Program Value = $2.76 Billion - FY 2009 Update Bus Program Value = $2.18 Billion - Program Loss of $.58 Billion Adjusted Fare Revenue Projections - FY 2008 Update = 25% each year - FY 2009 Update = 29.9% in FY 2010 with linear decline to 25% in FY 2018 Adjusted Federal Bus Section 5307 & 5309 Projections - FY 2008 Update = $1.85 Billion - FY 2009 Update = varies by alternative - Program Loss of revenue reflects region s reduced local match capabilities Expenditure Adjustments - General Adjusted Inflation Rates By Category - Previous updates used 3% annual inflation rate for all categories - Inflation rates adjusted to more accurately reflect specific markets Category FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY Vehicles 1.50% 2.00% 2.5% 3.00% Facilities 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 3.00% Operations Budgeted 5.81% 5.81% 3.00% Other 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% Expenditure Adjustments Operations Regional Services Reduced - FY 2008 Update Regional Services Cost = $205.5 million - FY 2009 Update Regional Services Cost = $197.5 million - Program savings of $8 million - FY 10 budget $8.1 million PTF, plus inflation Operations Rate per Revenue Mile Adjusted - Includes separate rates for Supergrid and Express 6

15 - Adjusted for new inflation factor Alternative 1 focuses on bus service; keeping as much bus service as possible Expenditure Adjustments Operations All Fixed Route Bus Operations Beginning FY 2010 Impacted to Meet Positive Cash Flow Goals Future PTF funded routes that exist today Funded at current weekday and weekend levels Planned New PTF Funded Routes (Express & Supergrid) Delayed up to four years Exception routes where a 4 year delay would result in implantation beyond 2026 Reduced headway to 60 minutes, 7 days a week on Supergrid routes Reduced to 8 daily trips on express routes Planned Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Routes Delayed beyond 2026 Expenditure Adjustments Capital After Funding Reduced Operations Program the Available Local Match for Capital is Reduced FY 2008 Update PTF Transfer to Capital for Local Match = $.52 Billion FY 2009 Update PTF Transfer to Capital for Local Match = $.27 Billion Fleet Requirements Reduced Corresponding with Operations Capital Revenues Available to Support Currently Committed Capital Facilities Projects Only Key Points Minimum service levels in all corridors Arterial BRT service delayed, by underlying Supergrid maintained PTF funds existing service on schedule, no impact to city budgets This alternative maintains the most funding for service and the least amount of capital projects New services would operate without supporting facilities Committee Comments Unacceptable because it creates inequities Preferable because it keeps the most service in the plan 60 minute headways are not considered good service and the plan should deliver quality, not just quantity Alternative 2 similar to alternative 1, except all of the arterial BRT service is not delayed Expenditure Adjustments Operations All Fixed route Bus Operations Beginning FY 2010 Impacted to Meet Positive Cash Flow Goals Future PTF funded routes that exist today Funded at current weekday and weekend levels, delayed by 2-4 years Planned New PTF Funded Routes (Express & Supergrid) 7

16 Delayed two years or more depending on available revenues Headway at 30 minutes, 7 days a week on Supergrid routes Four supergrid routes delayed beyond 2026 Two express routes delayed beyond 2026 Planned Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Routes Two routes delayed beyond 2026 (S Central and Chandler Blvd) Expenditure Adjustments Capital After Funding Reduced Operations Program the Available Local Match for Capital is Reduced FY 2008 Update PTF Transfer to Capital for Local Match = $.52 Billion FY 2009 Update PTF Transfer to Capital for Local Match = $.34 Billion Fleet Requirements Reduced Corresponding with Operations 16 year extended fleet life option Capital Revenues Available to Support currently Committed capital Facilities Projects and Improvements for two BRT corridors Key Points No minimum service levels in all corridors, some routes delayed beyond 2026 Arterial BRT service maintained in three corridors PTF funds for existing service delayed, impact to future city budgets This alternative contains less funding for service to accommodate arterial BRT improvements New services would operate without supporting facilities Committee Comments Unacceptable because it creates inequities Concern about how much additional funding will be required by the cities to maintain current service Close to build the plan but gives preference to service, which may be a policy question Alternative 3 focuses on jurisdictional equity Available revenues FY 2010 through FY 2026 revenues allocated by mode Regional Services costs removed from bus allocation Remaining bus PTF allocation distributed by Jurisdictional Equity category and jurisdiction Project Costs Jurisdictions projects listed with estimated FY 2010 through FY 2026 costs Jurisdictions would prioritize projects to use only available revenues Financial model would be re-balanced to account for new priorities Key Points May significantly change the nature of the plan and violate Board guidelines Requires additional work to ensure cities priorities are compatible and to ensure that model can be balanced 8

17 Cities have flexibility to direct funding to highest priority projects Sets precedent to use this method for every update May be hardest alternative to return to adopted baseline should revenues increase Committee Comments Most equitable for all Unacceptable because it basically destroys the plan Difficult for outlying cities to get what they need, they rely on others to share priorities for service Not a regional approach Mr. Hodgins said the BFS suggested eliminating alternative 4 and they created an alternative 5 for consideration at their May 7 th meeting. Alternative 5 focuses on the priorities of all the projects Expenditure Adjustments Operations All Fixed Route Bus Operations Beginning FY 2010 Impacted to Meet Positive Cash Flow Goals Future PTF funded routes 30 minute weekday and 60 minute weekend headways (unless currently better) Delayed 4 to 18 years 18 Supergrid routes delayed beyond express routes delayed beyond 2026 Planned Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Routes Two routes delayed beyond 2026 (S Central and Chandler Blvd) Expenditure Adjustments Capital After Funding Reduced Operations Program the Available Local Match for Capital is Increased, Average Federal Participation is Decreased FY 2008 Update PTF Transfer to Capital for Local Match = $.52 Billion FY 2009 Update PTF Transfer to Capital for Local Match = $.68 Billion Fleet Requirements Reduced Corresponding with Operations Standard replacement cycle of 12 years Capital Revenues Available to Support Capital Projects Five park-and-rides delayed beyond 2026 Five transit centers delayed beyond 2026 Four maintenance facilities delayed beyond 2026 Key Points Standard service levels in all corridors, many routes delayed beyond 2026 Projects are implemented in order, based on 2007 TLCP Review Arterial BRT service maintained in three corridors PTF funds for existing service delayed, impact to future city budgets This alternative contains the least funding for service to accommodate additional capital improvements New services would have supporting facilities Ensures that funding beyond 2026 is adequate to support operations 9

18 Committee Comments The service delays are excessive, too many routes are delayed outside the plan Significant cost to the cities to maintain existing services for additional years Most like build the plan, just stretches the timeline Easiest to return to baseline plan should revenues increase Next Steps Guidance on preferred alternative or approach Appropriate mix of operations and capital Approval of final TLCP Model Update May 26 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee May 26 Finance Oversight Advisory Committee June 3 Transit Management Committee June 4 Budget and Finance Subcommittee June 18 Board of Directors Model future system performance for preferred alternative Regional Transportation Plan Update and 2009 Annual Report David Moody asked why alternative 5 had the 12-year fleet replacement cycle and not the 16-year fleet cycle like alternative 2. Mr. Hodgins said staff decided not to include the 16-year fleet cycle in alternative 5 and prior to the May 26 th joint meeting, staff will put the 12-year fleet cycle back in alternative 2 so the members can review the impact before approval. Mr. Moody said Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) must have a balanced budget and a new life cycle going into the fiscal year, per law. He was in favor of Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson s letter he submitted at the May 14 th BFS meeting, which stated to approve next year s budget so everyone understands what is going to happen and that allows more time to review the various models and develop a balanced plan. Mr. Moody was not in favor of approving any of the alternatives. Mr. Jordan asked what are MAG s requirements according to the law. Mr. Hodgins said there needs to be a balanced TLCP. He said it has to be a balanced program from either the strict life cycle perspective for the 20-year tax or for the 20-year Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Mr. Moody said when Proposition 400 was passed there was a legal requirement that the TLCP has to be balanced. He said he had a conversation with Eric Anderson with MAG and Mr. Anderson suggested the ability to create a fuzzy balance, to allow additional time to come up with another option. Mr. Hodgins said moving forward, the members can call it a fuzzy balance, but the TLCP still has to somehow balance and if it means adding revenues or making arbitrary cuts to expenditures to make it fuzzy. 10

19 Mr. Jordan asked if there are consequences of an unbalanced plan. Mr. Hodgins said the RTP and the long range transit plan has to be balanced by federal regulations and when MAG moves forward to the air quality conformity, it has to at least show it s balanced. Mr. Caldwell said Phoenix will support Mr. Moody s comments. He suggested the following in regards to balancing the budget: (1) increase the debt; (2) overstate the federal share (like in 2007), which some projects are overstated in the FY 09/10 budget; or (3) a combination of both. Regarding a fuzzy balance, Ken Kessler suggested keeping all of the elements in the 20-year plan but move the projects out far enough to have a fuzzy balance and in the mean time look at a major overhaul. He suggested taking several months to look at this and possibly reprogram everything, instead of approving something within a few meetings to try coming up with an alternative to suit everyone. Mr. Kessler said if there is a way to keep every element in the plan whether it means push everything until the last year, possibly keeping everything in and work from there to figure out how to reprogram until the life of the TLCP, year Mr. Meinhart said he looks forward in seeing alternative 2 with the change in the fleet life cycle. He expected to see the assessment of what the impacts would be to the local governments that are currently funding service, which was provided to the Budget and Finance Subcommittee (BFS) at their meeting. Mr. Meinhart said some of these options have additional costs associated that just don t show up in the plan. He requested the table of information provided to the BFS be sent to the committees prior to the May 26 th joint meeting. On the options pushing capital out, Mr. Meinhart asked the following questions: How does that play with federal funds we receive? Does that mean communities that have other services is that where we would focus using the federal funds from year to year? Mr. Hodgins said the formula funds received have never been enough to fully fund the capital needs in the region and the formula funds assumed go to the fleet included in the plan. He said staff wouldn t request discretionary for any of the other capital, so it s basically assumed the rest is discretionary and the discretionary program would focus more on the jurisdiction s needs. Mr. Meinhart said there are two things part of the decision making: (1) the impacts on the communities that are funding these services and anticipating to be picked up in the future; and (2) some of the expectations on the federal funds that come in and which communities it s going to. Mr. Zeder was uncomfortable recommending an option that does not balance over the life of the plan and hearing the word fuzzy in accounting or a budget in the same sentence. He agreed with Mr. Meinhart s suggestion to see impacts on the jurisdictions. He said alternative 5 balances and it s an equal balance towards operations and capital, 11

20 but he supports the idea of a comprehensive review over the next year. Mr. Zeder said the Board of Directors could approve alternative 5 with a commitment from all the jurisdictions to go back and look at the remainder of the plan through As RPTA pays for portions of certain local routes, Mr. Johnson asked if RPTA s allocations will discontinue in the current year or is it carried forward to cover those gaps in those years. Mr. Hodgins said the services currently funded would carry forward. Mr. Johnson asked if the level of funding commitment on these routes would continue until that route was taken over. Mr. Hodgins said yes. Mr. Johnson suggested adding on in alternative 5 how long it would have to continue until that option was completed and how far out does this extend the program. Mr. Hodgins said the extra years were built into the model, so it s probably doable. Mr. Johnson said there could be additional assumptions made in terms of federal discretionary for the capital area and there could be some enhanced bonding options. He said dealing with jurisdictional equity, the current adopted TLCP is a better departure for viewing what is equitable. Mr. Jordan asked if there are any federal discretionary funds. Mr. Hodgins said there are some assumed, but the level of federal participation assumed is down in the 60-65% range and not in the 75-80% range as in the past, so staff is a little more conservative. He said some projects with 100% PTF and moving forward, the level of federal revenues assumed was overly aggressive, as Mr. Caldwell pointed out. Staff can certainly review this again. Mr. Meinhart said the reality is the plan will probably have to be recast into something more realistic and manageable and try to keep it equitable at the same time. Mr. Caldwell said alternative 5 puts a significant hit on Phoenix s budget. He said the Phoenix voters should receive transit for their fair share of the tax they re providing. Mr. Caldwell said Phoenix cannot support a plan which uses Phoenix tax payer money to put service to operate service outside of Phoenix. He said Phoenix does support Phoenix District 8 Councilman Michael Johnson s recommendation he put forward to the BFS, which was a proposal considering to move forward with the FY 09/10 budget with no new expanded service or capital projects that are now in design or construction. Mr. Caldwell suggested the members get together over the next few months, and review the TLCP to get it balanced. Mr. Jordan asked which options the BFS agreed to forward to the Board of Directors. Mr. Hodgins said the four options reviewed today (alternative 1, 2, 3, & 5) will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for information. He said the Board of Directors will review basically the same presentation given at this meeting. 12

21 Mr. Jordan asked if the BFS discussed Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson s proposal. Mr. Hodgins said yes, and the BFS chose not to forward Councilman Johnson s recommendation. 4. Future FOAC Agenda Items None received. 5. Public Comment None received. 6. Next FOAC Meeting The next meeting of the FOAC is scheduled for May 26, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. located at the METRO Rail Offices (101 N. 1 st Avenue, Ste. 1300) and will be a joint meeting with the VMOCC to take action on the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) and the FY 2009/10 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget. With no further discussion, the FOAC and VMOCC joint meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. VMOCC Agenda Items Summary Minutes Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) May 19, 2009 MAG Saguaro Room 302 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ VMOCC Members Present Greg Jordan, City of Tempe, Chair Cathy Colbath, City of Glendale, Vice Chair Kristen Taylor, City of Avondale Sean Banda, Town of Buckeye R.J. Zeder, City of Chandler Terry Johnson, City of Glendale Cato Esquivel, City of Goodyear Julie Howard, City of Mesa David Moody, City of Peoria Reed Caldwell, City of Phoenix Madeline Clemann, City of Scottsdale Randy Overmyer, City of Surprise 13

22 Jay Harper, METRO Rail VMOCC Members Not Present City of El Mirage Town of Gilbert Maricopa County Town of Queen Creek Chairman Greg Jordan called the VMOCC meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. 7. VMOCC Consent Agenda A. VMOCC Summary Minutes Summary minutes from the April 21, 2009 meeting of the VMOCC were presented for approval. B. Vanpool Vehicle Procurement Contract Award It was recommended that the VMOCC authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Arizona Bus Sales to supply vanpool vehicles for the Valley Metro Vanpool Fleet and forward the recommendation to the TMC for consideration. IT WAS MOVED BY KRISTEN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY R.J. ZEDER AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A AND B. 8. July 1 st Fare Communications and Retail Location Strategy Update Mario Diaz, Chief Marketing Manager, presented an update on the July 1 st transit fare communications and retail location strategy. The presentation included the following: Internal readiness Internal training and awareness to enable all to deliver excellent service and minimize customer issues Launch program task force (Regional Marketing Committee) Bus operators Customer service team Communications team Transit Centers Key partners: METRO Rail, Cities and Towns, Retail Sales Locations, etc. Customer information VM RPTA 14

23 VM.org, , newsletters, media, transit book, general and business outreach, materials for buses, flyers, farebox stickers METRO Ride guide, Fare Vending Machines Transit centers Fare posters, general flyer, fare media types poster Cities and Towns On hold messages, water bill inserts, general flyer Dial-a-Ride and rural route information Customer information on the bus (Samples of fare posters and flyers were provided during the meeting.) Customer information Media plan Task Audience Distribution Social Media Young Adults Launch June 1; keep updated Press Release Local Media English & Spanish June 1; 22 Fare Change Q&A Website Visitors Ongoing Internal Notices Staff June 1; 22 Member Notices Board and Transit Staff June 1; 22 External Notices Copper Square Ambassadors; Tempe Ambassadors June 1; 22 Mr. Diaz said with the increase of social media, staff is going to provide transit information on Twitter and Facebook. Fare media Tools for internal training Pre July 1 Fare media purchases valid Touch, hold and go campaign Farebox update New fare tariff testing in progress On 7/1 the farebox will accept $5 bills. It will not accept larger bills. Exact fare only. 15

24 Fare vending machines Fare pricing sticker revisions Touch, hold and go campaign Testing coordinated between bus and rail staff Fare media sales Public awareness campaign designed to communicate purchase options and sales locations Recruitment of sales partners near top boarding locations Tools to help public places (libraries) provide information Current fare purchase options Online at ValleyMetro.org revised to support changes 8 Transit Centers internal training Public facilities: City Halls, Public Libraries, etc. additional tools Grocery Stores such as Fry s Food and Food City - contacted Social Help Groups and Employers - contacted Fare Vending Machines (100 units along 20 mile METRO corridor) Automatic Mail Plan - expanded to carry more fare types Sales partner tools Customer information on the bus Next steps May - June Internal training and readiness Launch public awareness campaign (fare change and sales location information) Launch retail partner recruitment initiative (Business Services team) Implement news media plan Program and test new fare tariff bus fareboxes, fare vending machines, reporting, etc. Adjust inventory levels to support July 1 launch transit centers, fare vending machines, etc. Messaging on bus and rail stations prior to fare change July 1 (Wednesday) The new fare policy begins Mr. Zeder was concerned about transit riders who don t have computer access to purchase fare media and would have no choice but to purchase fare media on the bus and pay the on-board fare. Mr. Diaz said staff has communicated with the vendors to carry the correct fare media. He said staff is working with the different communities to provide tools in public locations to let the public aware of the retail outlets providing fare media. 16

25 Mr. Caldwell asked if RPTA has a specific date the fare information and materials will be placed on the buses. Mr. Diaz said staff is coordinating with Marie Chapple, City of Phoenix, as to when their materials will be placed on Phoenix buses. He said Ms. Chapple wanted to train the operators before placing fare information and materials on the buses. Mr. Diaz said RPTA contractors have started to place materials on the buses. Mr. Caldwell said Phoenix staff suggested June 15 th as a target date for placement of the fare information and materials on all transit buses, to eliminate customers and companies from purchasing large quantities of fare media way before July 1st. Madeline Clemann asked if the fare location map provided in the presentation current. Mr. Diaz said no it s an older map. Kristen Taylor asked if proof is required for customers purchasing ADA passes. Scott Wisner, Customer Service Manager, said ADA riders must show proof to the bus operator when getting on the bus. Mr. Jordan suggested the continuing need to establish the retail sales outlet network for the ability for the public to purchase fare media without any inconvenience, whether it s through retail sales, transit facilities, or fare vending machines (FVMs) disbursed widely across the valley. 9. Fare Vending Machines (FVM) Project Jim Book, Project Manager, presented information regarding the acquisition and installation of fare vending machines (FVM), as provided in the meeting packet. Mr. Jordan asked if the $50,000 estimated cost was a quote from Scheidt and Bachman (S&B). Mr. Book said it was the quote from S&B when the Mesa Main Street project started. Mr. Jordan asked if there will be a cost analysis. Mr. Book said he is in the process of starting an independent cost analysis. Mr. Book said to contact him if any of the communities have a specific suggestion or need for FVM locations. Mr. Jordan asked if RPTA will use the City of Phoenix s current contract for the sole source contract. Mr. Book said RPTA would do a new procurement. Mr. Caldwell asked what the current estimated number of FVMs RPTA is looking into buying without the options. Mr. Book said 44 FVMs, including the 12 FVMs for light rail. 10. Update and Summary on Public Comments Regarding Proposed ADA Paratransit Eligibility Program 17

26 Scott Wisner, Customer Service Manager, said a complete record of all public comments is available upon request. He said the timeline for implementation of the proposed ADA Paratransit Eligibility Program was included in the meeting packet and to direct any questions to himself or Carol Ketcherside. 11. Valley Metro Planning Studies Overview Update 1 st Quarter 2009 Stuart Boggs, Planning Manager, provided an update on the current Valley Metro Planning studies, as provided in the meeting packet. 12. Customer Relations Performance Report Scott Wisner, Customer Service Manager, presented information regarding the current customer relations performance report and customer service issues, as provided in the meeting packet. Ms. Clemann asked if the customer service calls are categorized. Mr. Wisner said the calls are categorized by complaint calls versus regular calls. He said the customer service department uses tick-marks according to a particular complaint situation like fare increases or service changes. Ms. Clemann said other systems review the kind of calls received, in order to reduce the number of calls and reduce the number of staff needed to make their system more efficient and effective, so there aren t a lot of calls coming in. Ms. Clemann asked why the Google program and the data sharing haven t moved forward. Mr. Wisner said Google requires a signed agreement, which states Google can use that data for other purposes other than the application. He said the City of Phoenix has a policy which doesn t agree with that type of agreement to use the data for commercial purposes. Ms. Clemann said she had the impression the bus stop ID project had already been started. Mr. Wisner said staff hasn t received a formal approval from any of the members and the funding was supposed to come from the ITS budget, prior to all the budget reductions. He said the bus stop ID project will probably tie in with what the City of Phoenix is working on with the regional bus stop database. Ms. Clemann felt this project is important, not just for the call center needs, but for all the communities. She suggested seeing this move forward and expedited. Ms. Colbath asked what the $50,000 amount covers in the budget. Mr. Wisner said the amount would cover the printer, the labels, and things of that nature. He suggested the jurisdictions use their maintenance program to fund the costs for the maintenance for the bus stop project (as a cheaper alternative). Ms. Colbath asked if there are any requirements for additional staff to maintain any of the other technical projects, like the Google Transit or the web trip planner. Mr. Wisner 18

27 said no. He said currently the City of Phoenix is maintaining the current trip planner and Trapeze maintains the system and performs the annual maintenance. Mr. Jordan asked which projects are already in the FY 2010 budget. Mr. Wisner said $210,000 is in the budget for the trip planner, the printer for the bus stop ID program, and the Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) system. He said RPTA would need to come up with $40,000 for installation of the bus stop ID program labels and reprioritization with direction from the members. Mr. Jordan asked what the benefits are for the bus stop labels. Mr. Wisner said customers can visually identify the bus stop and availability for the next bus times and real time on the website and/or by telephone. He said in the IVR system, instead of entering a street location, the customer can enter the bus stop ID number. Cato Esquivel suggested coordinating the installation of the bus stop ID labels with other contracted maintenance vendors within the different jurisdictions. Mr. Wisner suggested RPTA research pricing on the installation of the bus stop ID labels and present the results to the VMOCC for their decision on whether the jurisdictions handle the installation individually or hire a contractor for the region. 13. Future VMOCC Agenda Items Jim Wright, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations, briefed the VMOCC on the future agenda items, which included: ADA In-Person Assessment, for action Parliamentary Procedure Briefing (requested by the VMOCC Chair) Volunteer Driver Mileage Reimbursement Update Valley Metro Planning Studies Overview Update, 2nd Quarter Member Agency Updates None received. 15. Public Comment None received. 16. Next VMOCC Meeting The next meeting of the VMOCC is scheduled for May 26, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. located at the METRO Rail Offices (101 N. 1 st Avenue, Ste. 1300) and will be a joint meeting with the FOAC to take action on the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) and the FY 2009/10 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget. With no further discussion, the joint FOAC and VMOCC meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. 19

28 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Summary Minutes Agenda Item #1A-ii Summary Summary minutes from the May 26, 2009 joint meeting of the FOAC and VMOCC are presented for review and approval. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation It is recommended that the FOAC and VMOCC approve the summary meeting minutes from the May 26, 2009 joint meeting. Contact Person Michael Taylor, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Jim Wright, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations Attachments Summary Minutes 1

29 Summary Minutes Finance Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC) and Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) May 26, 2009 METRO Light Rail Board Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 1300 Phoenix, AZ 1:00 p.m. FOAC Members Present Tami Ryall, Town of Gilbert, Chair Kristen Taylor, City of Avondale Sean Banda, Town of Buckeye R.J. Zeder, City of Chandler Christy Eusebio, City of Glendale Romina Korkes, City of Goodyear Julie Howard, City of Mesa Randy Roberts, City of Peoria Ken Kessler, City of Phoenix Dave Meinhart, City of Scottsdale Randy Overmyer, City of Surprise Greg Jordan, City of Tempe FOAC Members Not Present City of El Mirage Maricopa County METRO Rail Town of Queen Creek VMOCC Members Present Greg Jordan, City of Tempe, Chair Cathy Colbath, City of Glendale, Vice Chair Kristen Taylor, City of Avondale Sean Banda, Town of Buckeye R.J. Zeder, City of Chandler Ken Maruyama, Town of Gilbert Terry Johnson, City of Glendale Romina Korkes, City of Goodyear Julie Howard, City of Mesa Randy Roberts, City of Peoria Reed Caldwell, City of Phoenix Madeline Clemann, City of Scottsdale Randy Overmyer, City of Surprise VMOCC Members Not Present City of El Mirage Maricopa County METRO Rail Town of Queen Creek Chairman Greg Jordan called the joint meeting of the FOAC and VMOCC to order at 1:05 p.m. 2

30 1. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Update Paul Hodgins said there were no major changes since the May 21 st Board of Directors meeting. He provided a document (alternative 2A), which outlined alternative 2 with a 12-year fleet cycle carried out until year Scott Miller, consultant with HDR, said alternative 2A changes the fleet replacement cycle back to the standard 12-year replacement cycle in alternative 2. He said the HDR memo summarizes the impacts using a 12-year fleet replacement cycle; it reduces the amount of revenues available to operations for other capital projects and extends the delays even earlier in the program. Mr. Miller said carrying all the projects out to a year in which they would be implemented was added to alternative 2A. He said changing the fleet cycle from 16 years to 12 years, delays service and operations similar to alternative 5, with slight differences. Dave Meinhart asked about the difference between alternative 2A and alternative 5. Mr. Miller said all of the facilities are in both alternatives if the projects are carried out to the additional 20 years. He said the difference is in alternative 2A, implementation of operations is prioritized over capital and as a result, the capital implementation dates are pushed back further in the program; whereas in alternative 5, keeps operations and capital together which causes operations to be delayed longer than in alternative 2A. Mr. Jordan asked for a recap of the May 21 st Board of Directors meeting. Mr. Hodgins said the discussion at the Board of Directors meeting mirrored the discussions at the joint meetings of the FOAC and VMOCC and at the May TMC meeting. He said there was minimal agreement on which alternative to move forward; however, there was agreement no one is in favor of any of the alternatives. Mr. Hodgins said a letter was provided by Mayor Scruggs from Glendale, which encouraged the members to not make any rash decisions, but to wait and take some time to review the alternatives. He said Councilman Johnson from Phoenix requested for a representative from Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) to be present at the Board of Directors meeting. Mr. Hodgins said Eric Anderson was present at the Board of Directors meeting and discussed the process for the regional plan update. Mr. Anderson said an update must be done every three years and this is the third year. MAG is moving forward with the plan update which has to be balanced for a fiscally constrained transit portion. Mr. Hodgins said the regional plan extends out at least until 2030; that s the timeframe beyond the TLCP and there is some inflexibility. He said MAG wants a draft regional plan approved by the MAG Regional Council and the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) by September for the Air Quality Conformity final plan approval in January. Mr. Hodgins said RPTA has to provide a fiscally balanced TLCP to MAG. Mr. Jordan asked if a definitive alternative is needed to put as a placeholder or if there is time to create a working technical advisory committee (TAC) to review and discuss the 3

31 alternatives, as some of the Board members have suggested. Mr. Hodgins said staff has to provide a balanced plan to MAG and they have requested a draft plan in June or July, which doesn t give staff adequate time to meet as a TAC. Mr. Hodgins said staff is recommending alternative 5 because it implements everything in the same order in the baseline plan and that would be the placeholder for MAG s plan update, and then a TAC or working group will be created. He said this provides a placeholder without making any significant changes to priorities on implementations and then take time to review the level of planning needed. Tami Ryall asked about the federal deadlines for the conformity analysis. Mr. Hodgins said the schedule Eric Anderson with MAG presented was for a September approval of a draft plan to go to Air Quality Conformity. He said he will check with MAG for their federal deadline. Ms. Ryall suggested the plan go directly to the MAG Regional Council, which would give RPTA extra time over the summer to review the alternatives and approve an alternative comfortable for everyone. Mr. Hodgins said staff will recommend the suggestion to MAG. Ms. Ryall said Gilbert won t support going forward with either alternative 1 or 5 and wants to know the real deadlines staff and the members are up against. R.J. Zeder said given there s $15 million going to fund capital, not operations, for the Arizona Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, Chandler won t support alternative 1. Reed Caldwell suggested overstating the federal participation and bonding in the later years, like in 2007, and a possible change to the revenue forecasts. He agreed with the rest of the members to create a TAC which would analyze this situation and come up with some recommendations. He suggested the TAC be directed by two members: one from the west valley and one from the east valley. Phoenix is not interested from the central standpoint. Mr. Caldwell said moving forward, it s important to understand reprioritizing work is needed and to eliminate calling the recommendation the projects or the plan. Mr. Jordan said whatever is voted on is going to somehow be enshrined in stone and won t be able to be modified in the future. He suggested the motion state the forming of a TAC and the recommended alternative will be a placeholder. Cathy Colbath asked if bonding could be an option. Mr. Hodgins said it would be difficult to make up the billion dollars with federal and bonding because the federal funds can t be used for operations. Mr. Hodgins said to be cautious about putting the recommendation of forming a TAC in the motion because if it s part of a motion which the Board approves, then it s a Board created committee and then it becomes subject to open meeting laws. He suggested keeping the TAC more as a working group. 4

32 Mr. Meinhart agreed with keeping the TAC as a working group, and then the TAC would come back to the committees with a recommendation. He said he won t support anything that isn t seen as a placeholder, because the key language in the recommendation is to understand further work is needed for reprioritizing the projects to meet current and projected future economic conditions. Mr. Meinhart suggested using alternative 5 for the placeholder. He said if alternative 5 had any chance of surviving long term, he wouldn t support it because it has the most impact of any of the alternatives for Scottsdale. Mr. Jordan asked about the issue of extending or increasing bonding and federal discretionary assumptions. Mr. Hodgins said increasing bonding won t help any of the alternatives because the bonds all have to be paid off by the end of the tax which is 2026 and the result would add interest amounts. Ms. Ryall said without going directly to bonding if that s not going to work, RPTA could take a range of where the revenue forecasts are going to be from conservative to less conservative. She suggested applying what those factors are and anticipating how the tax is going to recover, and when it s going to recover, possibly show something maybe a less conservative revenue forecast. Mr. Hodgins said it can be considered for the TLCP if the Board chooses to deviate from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) forecast. He said MAG uses ADOT s official revenue forecast for the 20-year plan update, so RPTA can t deviate from that for the plan update. Ms. Colbath asked if option 1 has the same type of funding assumption as option 5. Mr. Hodgins said the federal revenues for each of the alternatives were generally 80/20 for fleet and 50/50 for capital facilities. He said depending on which projects stay within the 20-year plan, that s how the federal revenues were assumed. Mr. Miller said alternative 1 has a slightly different federal assumption. It s completely based on the concepts and principals the Board wanted staff to follow. He said alternative 3 doesn t have a federal forecast. He said staff didn t try to match projects to 50/50 or 80/20 in alternative 1, but set the revenue level based upon some assumptions developed from research which the Board agreed. Ms. Colbath asked if there was stimulus funding in alternative 1. Mr. Miller said no, alternative 1 was created before the stimulus funds were allocated. Terry Johnson suggested using option 1 as the placeholder and agreed the Arizona Avenue BRT has to be in the plan. He suggested the following assumptions which could be made to enhance the model funding for capital in option 1: (1) increasing the federal funding assumption could add funds to the capital projects; (2) the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds need to be added into option 1; 5

33 (3) inflation rates the near term inflation rates for the short term are too conservative; (4) bonding he said although the bonding amount won t create more revenue, but it could create more revenue before 2026, so if bonds are issued with post 2026 debt service there would increase revenue table for capital that could be used to enhance the option 1. Mr. Hodgins said bonding can only be done within the term of the approved sales tax, which is through 2026 and maturities can t be extended beyond He said staff can t advance money in that way, unless there was an election in the next year that extended the sales tax beyond Mr. Caldwell agreed with the placeholder option. He said to take caution with the TAC because having a meeting with another committee member to discuss an agenda item would violate the open meeting law. Ms. Ryall suggested a modified version of option 3 with an expectation that the members come back with a prioritization process. She said Gilbert won t support options 1, 2, or 3. Mr. Jordan suggested option 1 because it refers back to the assumptions and directions given by the Board and is the most consistent with prior Board action. He said it does sacrifice certain elements, but it does preserve the most service should things not change appreciably in the future. He said the motion should contain language which summarizes the context of it being a placeholder. Christy Eusebio suggested the motion have language such as, must come back prior to the next budget cycle. Mr. Jordan said the members have to make sure it s focused on a re-balancing effort or a re-prioritization effort by looking at policies to better fit the current environment, which will help make decisions in the future because the policies themselves are set up between jurisdictional and geographical equity. He suggested the need to have a fiscally constrained plan which gives the jurisdictions the peace of mind the members will be reviewing the details over the next six months. Sean Banda suggested having a definite date rather than six months or one year. Julie Howard said Mesa is in favor of option 3 or 5. Mr. Meinhart said based on adopted Board policy which is last-in, first-out on projects and routes, option 5 matches the adopted policy the closest as far as alternatives. He said option 1 comes closer to what the members were working on in the way of guidelines over the last several months through the Budget and Finance Subcommittee (BFS), as well as the committee process which is the adopted policy (last-in, first-out). He suggested the motion focus on creating a placeholder with the priority being on the realization of reprioritizing the existing plan. 6

34 IT WAS MOVED BY CATHY COLBATH AND SECONDED BY SEAN BANDA TO APPROVE OPTION 1 AS A TLCP PLACEHOLDER UPDATE AND REQUIRE A REVIEW AND UPDATE WITHIN SIX MONTHS. Kristen Taylor said option 1 is a placeholder and pushes nothing out to the jurisdictions. She said option 5 pushes everything out to the jurisdictions. Mr. Zeder said Chandler isn t in favor of the motion as stated because it s focusing more about getting routes on a map rather than quality of service. He said rather than approving a plan showing operational routes at 60-minute headways, is against the intent of what the members are trying to achieve. Mr. Meinhart suggested the motion should start with the need to reprioritize the plan and then choose an alternative to serve as a placeholder. He agreed with Mr. Zeder s comments regarding quality of service. Mr. Hodgins said the Arizona Avenue BRT project is not programmed for operating funds in alternative 1 and a decision needs to be made on the project because it s planned for operation in July Ken Kessler said the Arizona Avenue BRT project can t move forward unless Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is notified there s operating funds for the project or $15 million will be lost. Mr. Caldwell said it s vital there are no long term decisions made, whether or not routes on a map or funds for certain projects are included. He said Phoenix is against the motion. Ms. Colbath said in two years, option 5 will impact the jurisdiction s budgets, because if the sales tax revenues don t come back substantially enough in one year, then budgets will be impacted in the second year, so option 1 would be the better option as a placeholder. She said she would amend the motion to include the Arizona Avenue BRT project. Mr. Caldwell suggested using a timeline date of December 31, 2009 be included in the motion. He said this will force a resolution by the members by the set date. Mr. Meinhart suggested the language in the motion possibly state that this is only good for the 2009 TLCP update and is not the direction for any future updates. He said he can t support the motion with option 1 and suggested focusing on a date to reprioritize the plan. Ms. Colbath amended her original motion to include the Arizona Avenue BRT project. IT WAS MOVED BY CATHY COLBATH AND SECONDED BY SEAN BANDA TO APPROVE OPTION 1 AS THE PLACEHOLDER FOR THE 2009 TLCP UPDATE INCLUDING OPERATING FUNDS FOR ARIZONA AVENUE BRT AND REQUIRING A REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE PLACEHOLDER BY DECEMBER 31,

35 Ms. Howard asked about the effect of including the Arizona Avenue BRT operating funds would have on option 1 the first couple of years. Mr. Miller said the Arizona Avenue BRT has trips per day and it wouldn t be a significant financial cost to cover the minimal level of operations. Mr. Jordan asked if option one has a surplus. Mr. Miller said yes, a small surplus. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE FROM BOTH FOAC AND VMOCC MEMBERS: FOR: AVONDALE BUCKEYE GLENDALE GOODYEAR PEORIA PHOENIX SURPRISE TEMPE AGAINST: CHANDLER GILBERT MESA SCOTTSDALE 2. FY 2009/10 (July 1, 2009 thru June 30, 2010) Proposed Operating and Capital Budget Mike Taylor, Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance, said there were changes made since the May 19 th joint meeting: (1) the 5-year Capital Plan was removed from the motion and (2) the resolution was revised to make it more clear and understandable. He requested approval of the revised FY 2009 Operating and Capital Budget, approval of the FY 2010 Operating and Capital Budget, and approval of the resolution delegating authority to the Executive Director regarding Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs), Transit Service Agreements (TSAs), Contracts, and Budget Authority and forward the recommendation to the TMC for consideration. Mr. Jordan said at the May 21 st Board meeting, there was a discussion regarding the resolution, the need to clarify the Executive Director s authority must come back to the Board to have emergency procurements ratified over $50,000. Mr. Taylor said the emergency procurement statement was removed from the resolution. He said the last sentence of the third paragraph in the resolution was revised as well. IT WAS MOVED BY TERRY JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY R.J. ZEDER TO APPROVE THE REVISED FY08/09 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET AND APPROVE THE FY09/10 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET. 8

36 Mr. Johnson said the motion is only for the budget portion and suggested the resolution be approved separate from the budget. Mr. Meinhart said he requested clarification on the elimination of budgeted funds for the Scottsdale/Rural Road BRT alternatives analysis, which RPTA provided a support letter to Congressman Mitchell for FY 2010, and the matching funds will help this project move forward. He said Scottsdale won t support this motion if those funds are not in the budget. Mr. Taylor said there aren t any funds to move forward with the project without a commitment of federal funds. He said if the project receives federal earmark, the budget will be restored in FY Mr. Zeder asked about the amount of the matching funds. Mr. Meinhart said in this current fiscal year, $400,000 was budgeted for the project. He said this project was for the Scottsdale Road corridor, at least for all portions north of the segment being analyzed in south Tempe, so it wasn t just for Scottsdale. Mr. Zeder said although he seconded the motion, he agreed with Scottsdale s concerns. Mr. Johnson asked if there are any consequences of amending the budget to include the Scottsdale/Rural Road BRT project. Mr. Taylor said the funds won t be spent in FY 2010 if the federal funds are received and go through the grant process. He said FY 2011 would be the earliest to do a local match. Mr. Johnson amended his original motion to include Mr. Meinhart s request. IT WAS MOVED BY TERRY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY R.J. ZEDER AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE REVISED FY08/09 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET AND APPROVE THE FY09/10 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET WHICH INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL $400,000 TO CARRY FORWARD FUNDS FOR THE COST OF THE SCOTTSDALE ROAD ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS STUDY. Ms. Colbath asked for clarification of the resolution. Mr. Taylor said the proposed resolution is stating the following: (1) the Executive Director is able to prepare Request for Proposals (RFPs), Invitation for Bid (IFBs), and make solicitations following our procurement policies and within the procurement policies the Executive Director cannot award anything over $50,000; (2) as requested from Councilman Ecton, the Executive Director is able to move budget line items amongst departments within a fund. Ms. Colbath asked for clarification regarding the authority for the Executive Director to award under $50,000. Mr. Hodgins said RPTA has an on-call list which the Executive Director has the ability to select a contractor and award under $50,000 without going through a competitive process because the on call list went through the approval process. He said the proposed resolution states if something is specifically identified in the budget, that will be competitively procured within that fiscal year, the Executive Director has the authority to go straight to the solicitation. 9

37 IT WAS MOVED BY DAVE MEINHART, SECONDED BY CHRISTY EUSEBIO AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, WITH THE WORD MUST REMOVED FROM THE THIRD PARAGRAPH. 3. Public Comment None received. 4. Next FOAC Meeting The next meeting of the FOAC is scheduled for August 19, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. located at the Valley Metro RPTA Offices (302 N. 1 st Avenue, Ste. 700). 5. Next VMOCC Meeting The next meeting of the VMOCC is scheduled for August 18, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. located at the MAG Offices Saguaro Room (302 N. 1 st Avenue, Ste. 200). Mr. Caldwell said he requested backup information of the alternatives on April 21 st, and haven t received that information. With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. 10

38 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1B Subject Contract Change Order with Architectural Resources Team, Inc. for Mesa Facility Site Security Improvements Summary The Mesa Facility Site Security Improvements includes, but is not limited to: north and south parking lots re-configuration; the addition of multiple electronic access controls; upgrade to its current building access control system; the addition of two perimeter fences; the addition of a kiosk (guard house); and the addition of access gates/arms to the north and south lots. Fiscal Impact Projected costs for this project are $467, The expense for this project is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2006, Activity 7035 on page 51. Considerations Target hardening is essential to preventing security breaches. Failure to execute this change order will leave the Mesa facility and region very vulnerable to highly undesired security events. Execution of this change order will satisfy one very important element the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration s findings during a recent assessment conducted at our Mesa facility. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. 1

39 Contact Person Jon Medwin Contract & Procurement Manager Attachments Architectural Resources Team, Inc. A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

40 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1C Subject Maricopa County Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that Maricopa County may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $91,584 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in Maricopa County. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $91,584 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse Maricopa County for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

41 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Maricopa County ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

42 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Contract with Blackstone Security, Inc. for Physical Security Agenda Item #1D-i Summary Blackstone Security, Inc., is an on-call state contractor that provides physical security at RPTA s Mesa facility with the use of one officer whose duties are primarily focused on the protection of RPTA s rolling assets. Fiscal Impact The program was initiated after the budgeting process and currently does not have an adopted budget source. Due to its critical nature, the facility s state of vulnerability, and recommendations made by the Department of Homeland Security s Transit Security Administration, a decision was made to provide physical security. The current yearly cost of services is approximately $115,000. The cost could grow, slightly, with holiday pay. Considerations Failure to execute this change order will result in RPTA s inability to provide optimal physical security necessary to protect its rolling stock, buildings and employees from undesired security events at our Mesa facility. Execution of this change order will satisfy one very important element the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration s findings during a recent assessment conducted at our Mesa facility. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

43 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments Blackstone Security, Inc. A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

44 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Contract with HMI Landscaping Agenda Item #1D-ii Summary HMI Landscaping provides landscaping maintenance services at Valley Metro RPTA s Mesa facility. HMI Landscaping services are purchased through State of Arizona contract #T0611B00. Fiscal Impact HMI Landscaping expenses of $53,000 are included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Projects 2015 and 2030, Activity 7055 on page 53. Considerations If not approved, payments will cease resulting in no landscaping service for the Valley Metro RPTA s Mesa facility. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments HMI Landscaping A copy of this document is available upon request. 1

45 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Contract with Union Distributing Agenda Item #1D-iii Summary Union Distributing provides diesel fuel for fixed route and Dial-a-Ride service vehicles. Union Distributing services and materials are purchased through the State of Arizona contract #SCC A3. Fiscal Impact The total cost of diesel fuel for FY 2010 is $2,995,189. The expense for diesel fuel is included in the FY 2010 budget in Projects 2015, 2030, and 2017, Activity 7022 on pages 53, 54, and 58. Considerations If not approved, payments will end resulting in not having diesel fuel for fixed route and Dial-a-Ride services operated by Valley Metro RPTA. Valley Metro RPTA would have to procure a new fuel vendor and that may not be as successful in receiving prices as low a rate as the State of Arizona contract. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments Union Distributing A copy of this document is available upon request. 1

46 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-i Subject Contract Change Order with Veolia Transportation for Fixed Route and Dial-a-Ride Services Summary The contract with Veolia is for the operation of 5,864,027 revenue miles of fixed route service for routes: 30, 45, 61, 96, 104, 112, 120, 128, 136, 156, Main St. LINK, 511, 531, 532, 533, 535, 536, 540, 541, and 542. Also included in the Veolia agreement is the operation and management of the East Valley Dial-a-ride service (146,158 revenue hours), RideChoice alternative transportation program, and natural gas compressor maintenance activities (provided by Clean Energy, Inc). Fiscal Impact Change Order #10 is valued at $32,250,149. The expense is budgeted in activities 2015 and 2030 on pages 53 and 58. Considerations Contract change order approval is required to continue to provide the fixed route bus services. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement and Contracts Manager Attachments Veolia Transportation Change Order #10 A copy of this agreement is available upon request. 1

47 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Contract Change Order with ValuTrans, Inc. for Fixed Route Bus Services Agenda Item #1E-ii Summary The contract with ValuTrans, Inc. is for the operation of 369,463 revenue miles of fixed route service for Express Routes 562, 571, 572, 573, 575, 576, and 4,055 hours for the Rural Route 660. Fiscal Impact Change Order #5 is valued at $2,916, The expense is budgeted in Projects 2017 and 2029 on pages 54 and 57. Considerations Contract Change Order approval is required to continue to provide the fixed route bus services. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. Contact Person Jon Medwin Contracts & Procurement Manager Attachments ValuTrans Change Order #5 A copy of this document is available upon request. 1

48 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-iii Subject Contract Change Order with Second Generation (dba Ajo Transportation, Inc.), Ajo/Gila Bend Regional Connector (Route 685) Summary This change order to the existing contract will continue service on the Route 685-Ajo/Gila Bend Regional Connector. This route provides service for the Maricopa County communities of Gila Bend, Buckeye, Avondale, Goodyear and Phoenix along Hwy 85. The contractor, Ajo Transportation, has been providing service since October Operating five round trips on weekdays and two round trips on Saturdays, Route 685 uses both 16-and 26-passenger vehicles. In FY , the average daily ridership was over 43, which is a 21 percent increase from FY Riders use this route for medical, shopping, employment, education, job training, and social trips. Fiscal Impact The annual net operating cost for Route 685 is $554,467, which includes operating service, one additional full-time administrative staff person in the Ajo Transportation Office, operator incentive program, and reimbursement for an office computer. The service is funded by Public Transportation Funds and from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 (Rural Transit) and Section 5316 (Job Access Reverse Commute JARC) programs. $554,467 is $3,446 more than the preliminary budgeted line item amount for the service contractor. This slight increase is being funded through additional federal funds from FTA Section 5311 and Section 5316 programs. Route 685 is project on page 57 of the FY Preliminary Operating and Capital Budget. Considerations Extending this contract another year will allow Route 685 service to continue another year without interruption. Authorizing the amount for the administrative staff person and reimbursement for an office computer will allow Ajo Transportation to better comply with 1

49 agency and federal reporting requirements. The operator incentive program rewards operators for continued safe driving and excellent customer service. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. Contact Person Anne MacCracken Planner III Attachments Second Generation Contract Change Order A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

50 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Contract Change Order with Ashton Tiffany for Risk Management Services Agenda Item #1E-iv Summary The RPTA has a contract with Ashton Tiffany to provide a variety of Risk Management services. The RPTA is requesting an extension of these services to provide guidance with issues of insurance, indemnification, risk mitigation, issuance of insurance certificates, and tracking of insurance certificates from RPTA contractors, data collection, contract review, surveys of other transit providers, assessment of risk, analysis of possible risk management techniques for specific risks, selection and design of risk management strategies, implementation of risk management strategies, reporting and monitoring risks and risk management action plan, as well as general risk management consulting. Fiscal Impact The $65,000 expense for this project is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 1015, Activity 6500 on page 35. The Public Transportation Fund (PTF) is the source of funds for this project. Considerations Failure to execute the change order extending this contract, RPTA will be without the services of a Risk Management consultant, and all tasks that have been addressed by the consultant, as outlined above would not be accomplished, as the expertise in Risk Management does not reside in-house. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17,

51 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. Contact Person Penny Lynch Senior Manager of Management Services Attachments Aston Tiffany Risk Management Services A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

52 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-v Subject Contract Change Order for Information Technology Services with IT Cooperative Summary IT-Cooperative provides Information Technology (IT) services on site to the RPTA. Staff is requesting approval of a change order to extend the contract with IT Co-op for FY The contractor provides the following services: Dedicated Helpdesk support including Network Support, Server Support including Main File/Print Server, Exchange Server, Terminal Server, SQL and Stellant Server, Web Server, Utility Server, IVR Server Microsoft Windows Server 2003, IVR Server Linux Server, Quality Management System Server, and the Badge System Server, Virus and Spyware Monitoring Support, and Help Desk support between 4 a.m.-9 p.m. onsite. Fiscal Impact The $425,000 expense for IT services is budgeted for FY 2010 from PTF funds and is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 1015, Activity 6510 on page 35. Considerations Failure to execute this change order for FY 2010 in the amount of $425,000 would cause RPTA to be faced with no information technology support. The RPTA does not possess the expertise in-house to provide these services. As a result, all departments within RPTA would be adversely affected, and as situations developed that needed to be resolved, such as servers that go down, there would be no available resource to remedy those situations, and RPTA employees could be affected by servers going down frequently. As a result, overall service and performance in all departments would be adversely affected. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17,

53 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. Contact Person Penny Lynch Senior Manager of Management Services Attachments Contract Change Order for Information Technology Services with IT Cooperative A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

54 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-vi Subject Annual Maintenance Agreement with Logic Tree, Inc. for the Interactive Voice Response System (IVR) Summary The IVR system used within the Regional Call Center provides call routing and automated options for customers to obtain transit information. Menu options include: next bus arrival times, trip planning, detours, my pass sales outlet, lost and found, and general information. In order to maintain various applications within the system and keep all information updated, Logic Tree Incorporated must perform quarterly maintenance on the system. This change order is necessary to continue annual maintenance services for the IVR system. These services were procured competitively at the time the system was awarded. Fiscal Impact The amount of this change order is for $64,100. The expense for this project is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 6035, Activity 7210 on page 67. Considerations This change order will enable Logic Tree Incorporated to support the IVR System for FY 2009/10. Failure to execute this change order could result in a loss of service to our customers if the system goes down for any reason. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. 1

55 Contact Person Scott Wisner Customer Service Manager Attachments Annual Maintenance with Logic Tree for the IVR System A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

56 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-vii Subject Contract Change Order with VPSI Inc. for the Operation and Management of the Valley Metro RPTA Regional Vanpool Program Summary The Regional Vanpool Services Contract between Valley Metro RPTA and VPSI Inc. was established and awarded through a competitive procurement process. VPSI performs the professional services for the vanpool program: billing, vehicle insurance, maintenance, administering vanpool starts, and terminations. This contract allows for option year extensions and budget price increases may be requested by the contractor sixty (60) days prior to each anniversary date of the contract. Any proposed increase is subject to RPTA approval with such approval not unreasonably withheld. VPSI Inc. submitted a budget increase requested within the 60-day period stated in the contract. Fiscal Impact A one percent increase in indirect costs, administrative costs, profit, and associated taxes, but no increase in personnel for the vanpool contractor was allowed for FY 2009/10. Separate program 2 costs, insurance, maintenance, and profit on those vanpool vans not active but available for service are included in the Board-adopted budget in Project 2050, Activity 7000 on page 63. Funds available in the FY 2009/10 vanpool budget for program 2 costs amount to $175,807 and vanpool contractor amount is $434,193, which is an increase of $8,720 to the contractor. Considerations It is necessary to approve the change order and extend the Administrative Services Contract in order to continue regional vanpool operations. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17,

57 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. Contact Person Gary Roberts Vanpool Coordinator Attachments VPSI Contract A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

58 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-viii Subject Contract Change Order with Ove Arup and Partners, Inc. for the Business Continuity Plan and Emergency Preparedness Plan Summary The objective of this project is to develop and provide RPTA with a Business Continuity Plan and Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan. The Business Continuity Plan will provide the guidance necessary for RPTA to operate in the event of a major disruption. The Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan will provide the guidance necessary for RPTA to function in the event of a major security occurrence. Ove Arup are on-call consultants that will provide project planning, direction and information gathering, conduct site tours and interviews, identify best practices and lessons learned, and develop and a framework. Fiscal Impact The amount of the contract change order is $82, The expense for this project is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2006, Activity 7035 on page 51. Considerations Failure to execute this change order will result in an inability for RPTA to have a defined Business Continuity Plan (BCP) and Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan (SEPP) that would allow RPTA to function effectively in the event of a major operations disruption. Additionally, not having the BCP would result in an audit finding, as this deficiency has been previously identified in a previous audit. The SEPP is a requirement of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It has been identified in a recent Baseline Assessment and Security Enhancement assessment as a finding, and is necessary to RPTA in its intentions to move forward with a more comprehensive security plan to better protect its system. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2,

59 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. Contact Person Gardner Tabon Safety and Security Manager Attachments Ove Arup and Partners, Inc. Contract A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

60 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-ix Subject Contract Change Order with Vehicle Technical Consultants (VTC) for vehicle inspection services Summary Vehicle Technical Consultants (VTC) provide factory on-line vehicle inspection services for new vehicles, bus, and Dial-a-Ride vehicles being produced at factory locations as required by federal law. VTC provides scheduled vehicle inspection services at the facilities in Mesa, Tempe, ValuTrans, Inc. and Ajo contract locations. Fiscal Impact Funding for VTC service is included in the FY 2010 budget in Projects 2015, 2017 and 2030, Activity The total expense budget for VTC inspection services is $179,600 in FY Considerations If not approved, Valley Metro RPTA vehicle inspection services will cease. This cessation would significantly impact Valley Metro RPTA s vehicle oversight and the performance of the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA) requirement of systematic asset continuing control. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. 1

61 Contact Person Jon Medwin Contracts & Procurement Manager Attachments Vehicle Technical Consultants Contracts A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

62 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject WestGroup Research Agenda Item #1E-x Summary RPTA contracts with WestGroup Research to conduct market research as required by funding partners and the federal government. This includes both user and non-user insight via survey research, phone studies, focus groups, omnibus questionnaires, etc. This information is used to maintain compliance and continuously improve regional service delivery via customer understanding with the ultimate goal of increasing ridership and customer satisfaction. Fiscal Impact The contract change order is for $200,000 which provides research monies for: Rider Satisfaction Survey (fixed route) Rider Satisfaction (DAR) TDM Research Annual Market Research Ozone (pre & post) Transit Book Telework (Employer) Telework (Employee) Focus Groups These monies also include estimated riders of research for cities (estimates of: $60K for Tempe and City of Phoenix) as well as $51,800 of grant funded research. Considerations Customer research is used to guide system improvements in the most cost effective and efficient manner. Without this research, money would be spent on projects that could potentially have little or no impact on regional goals. Additionally, some of the research outlined above is contractually mandated as part of the region s federally and state mandated clean air initiatives. Not conducting this research, could lead in part to non-compliance issues as outlined in the current grants. 1

63 Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. Contact Person Mario Diaz Senior Marketing Manager Attachments WestGroup Research Contract A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

64 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-xi Subject Contract Change Order with DMS Facility Services for the East Valley Operations and Maintenance Facility Summary DMS Facility Services provides preventive maintenance and repair services for the Valley Metro RPTA Mesa facility. Services include, but are not limited to, maintaining and repairing the following: air conditioning system, air coolers, air flow management, plumbing, lighting, electrical equipment, security gates, and miscellaneous repairs. DMS Facility Services also provides janitorial services at the Valley Metro RPTA Mesa facility. These services include but are not limited to: cleaning restrooms, fuel island, office cleaning, maintenance building lunchroom and office cleaning, fare building cleaning and administration building cleaning. Fiscal Impact The DMS Facility Services fees are included in the FY 2010 Board-approved budget in Projects 2015 and 2030, Activity 7055 on page 53. The total amount budgeted for DMS Facitliy Services is $210,000. Considerations If not approved, facility preventive maintenance, repairs and janitorial services performed by DMS Facility services will cease and another vendor will need to be procured. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. 1

65 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments DMS Facility Services A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

66 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Zonar Annual Service Agenda Item #1E-xii Summary Zonar is a paperless pre-/post-trip vehicle safety inspection system. The equipment was purchased as a sole-source procurement in 2007 by Valley Metro RPTA. Zonar is a webbased electronic system used for vehicle pre-and post-trip safety inspections, vehicle tracking, vehicle defect notification, and maintenance work order initiation. The requested budgeted amount is an annual charge for air time for off-site data hosting. Fiscal Impact The total cost for Zonar s service is $100,500. The project is budgeted in the FY 2010 budget in Projects 2015, 2017, and 2030, Activity 7210 pages 53, 54, and 58. Considerations If not approved, payments to Zonar for air time and off-site data hosting will end, resulting in no electronic pre-/post-trip vehicle inspections. Contractors will be required to return to a less accurate and less reliable paper-based system. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. Contact Person Jon Medwin Contracts & Procurement Manager Attachments Zonar Contract A copy of this document is available upon request. 1

67 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1E-xiii Subject Contract Change Order for Scheidt & Bachmann Farebox Software Maintenance Summary The Scheidt & Bachmann fare collection system requires an annual agreement between Valley Metro RPTA and Scheidt & Bachmann for software maintenance. The maintenance agreement is a sole source purchase from Scheidt & Bachmann due to the proprietary nature of the system s software. The stability of fare collection software insures the following functionalities: tariff maintenance, statistical reporting, and the transfer of data. The software maintenance agreement will provide updates and upgrades, when necessary, to meet system requirements. The agreement provides software maintenance for up to 250 vehicles, help desk and advice guidance, and service management. Fiscal Impact The total cost for Scheidt & Bachmann s software maintenance is $79,250. The project s included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2015, Activity 7052 on page 53. Considerations If not approved, Valley Metro RPTA will not receive software maintenance service from Scheidt & Bachmann for the regional fare collection system. Valley Metro RPTA would run the risk of not being able to properly collect and/or report fare collection activities if Scheidt & Bachmann issued new/updated software. Due to the proprietary nature of the software, there is no other vendor that can supply the support offered by Scheidt & Bachmann. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. 1

68 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments Scheidt & Bachmann Contract A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

69 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-i Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Avondale Summary As a component of the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA- certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Avondale may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $147,503 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Avondale. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $147,503 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Avondale for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

70 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Avondale ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

71 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-ii Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Town of Buckeye Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the Town of Buckeye may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $5,355 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the Town of Buckeye. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $5,355 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the Town of Buckeye for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

72 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Town of Buckeye ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

73 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-iii Subject RPTA/City of Chandler Intergovernmental Agreement for the East Valley Ride Choice Program, Contract # Summary East Valley Ride Choice (EVRC) provides a cab subsidy program for Chandler residents as an alternative to the more expensive East Valley Dial-a-Ride (EVDAR) service. Fiscal Impact The City of Chandler will pay $50,000 for the cab subsidy program. This project is included in the Board adopted FY10 budget in Project 2047, Activity 7000 on page 62. The revenue from the City of Chandler is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2047, Activity 4418 on page 62. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the City of Chandler cannot be invoiced for EVRC service provided in the City of Chandler. Without the City of Chandler funding, another funding source would be required. The decreased funding will require reductions to the EVRC program, which will likely result in more persons using the more costly federally-mandated ADA paratransit service (East Valley Dial-a-Ride). Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin Contract & Procurement Manager

74 Attachments Chandler IGA Contract # for EVRC A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

75 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-iv Subject RPTA/City of Chandler to provide East Valley Dial-a-Ride Service, Contract # Summary East Valley Dial-a-Ride (EVDAR) provides the federally mandated complementary paratransit service component as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 in the cities of Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, and the towns of Gilbert, Guadalupe, and Paradise Valley. This project provides mobility for senior citizens and persons with disabilities among these communities and coordinates transportation with the existing Dial-a-Ride service to and from Phoenix. Chandler s estimated revenue hours are 16,249. Fiscal Impact The City of Chandler will pay $193,815 for EVDAR service in Chandler. Included in the estimated operating budget above is a prorated fee of $29,554 charged by RPTA to administer, monitor, and market the project. The expenses for the EVDAR projects are included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activities 7000,7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on page 58. The revenue from the City of Chandler is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activity 4418 on page 58. Considerations If the IGA is not approved, the City of Chandler cannot be invoiced for Dial-a-Ride service in Chandler. Without the City of Chandler funding, another funding source would be required. The decreased funding will require reductions in the EVDAR service which may result in non-compliance with Federal Transit Administration ADA requirements. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17,

76 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments Chandler IGA Contract # for EVDAR A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

77 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-v Subject City of Chandler Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the City of Chandler and the RPTA details each agency s responsibility for funding for local and express bus route services during FY RPTA funded service for Routes 72, 81, 96, 104, 112, 136, 156, 511, 540, 541, and 542 amounts to 985,347 annual miles. The RPTA Contracted Service funded by the City of Chandler includes Routes 65, 81,104,112,108, and 542 amounting to 104,756 annual miles. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the RPTA funded service is $5,026,248. The funding is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015; Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on page 53. The value of the contract for the City of Chandler funded service is $491,533 and is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activity 4418 on page 53. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the City of Chandler cannot be invoiced for fixed route services in Chandler. Without the City of Chandler funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17,

78 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments City of Chandler Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

79 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-vi Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Chandler Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Chandler may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $937,883 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Chandler. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $937,883 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61 and in Project 2030 East Valley Dial-a-Ride on page 58. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Chandler for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

80 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Chandler ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

81 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Chandler Intergovernmental Agreement for Bus Stop Improvements Agenda Item #1F-vii Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies require that project agreements be developed for all projects for which RPTA is not the lead agency. A new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been developed for bus stop improvements in the City of Chandler. Fiscal Impact The amount in the agreement was allocated and approved by the RPTA Board and is consistent with the approved TLCP financial model in FY 08/09. Funding is required to be carried forward to FY09/10 and is consistent with the Board-approved RPTA operating and capital budget. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without an approved agreement, the City of Chandler cannot be reimbursed for any bus stop improvement expenses. This project is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the RPTA Capital Budget. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst

82 Attachments City of Chandler Bus Stop Improvement Program IGA A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

83 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-viii Subject RPTA/City of Chandler Intergovernmental Agreement for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit Capital Improvements, Contract # Summary The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor is one of several transit projects approved by voters in Prop This project was prioritized for federal stimulus funding by the RPTA Board under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive arterial BRT corridor is scheduled in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) to begin service in Mesa, Gilbert and Chandler in July of This new BRT corridor will provide a direct connection between the Tumbleweed Park and Ride in Chandler and the Sycamore Transit Station in Mesa (current end of line for METRO Light Rail). RPTA is acting as the lead agency in the design and construction of capital improvements needed for this project. The City of Chandler is to be reimbursed for the cost of right-of-way acquisition. Fiscal Impact The project cost is estimated in the TLCP and the FY 2010 budget at $23,194,768 of which $15 million is funded by ARRA funds. The precise cost of the project will be determined by a combination of competitive and sole source solicitations as well as real estate acquisition activity. The expenses for the Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT project is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 9420, Activities 7020, 7901, 9003, 9005, 9009, and 9900 on page 139. The grant revenue for the project is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 9420, Activity 4206 on page 139. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, RPTA will not be able to reimburse the City of Chandler for right-of-way acquisition. 1

84 Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Ratna Korepella Planner III Attachments City of Chandler IGA Contract # for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT Project A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

85 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-ix Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of El Mirage Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of El Mirage may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $22,187 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of El Mirage. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $22,187 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of El Mirage for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

86 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of El Mirage ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

87 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-x Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Town of Fountain Hills Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Fountain Hills may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $6,120 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the Town of Fountain Hills. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $6,120 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the Town of Fountain Hills for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

88 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Town of Fountain Hills ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

89 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xi Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Town of Gila Bend Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the Town of Gila Bend may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $1,148 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the Town of Gila Bend. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $1,148 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the Town of Gila Bend for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

90 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Town of Gila Bend ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

91 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xii Subject RPTA/Town of Gilbert Intergovernmental Agreement for East Valley Dial-a-Ride and East Valley Ride Choice Program, Contract # Summary East Valley Dial-a-Ride (EVDAR) provides the federally mandated complementary paratransit service component as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 in the cities of Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale and the towns of Gilbert, Guadalupe, and Paradise Valley. This project provides mobility for senior citizens and persons with disabilities between these communities and coordinates transportation with the existing Dial-a-Ride service to and from Phoenix. Gilbert s estimated revenue hours for FY 2010 are 12,938. The East Valley Ride Choice (EVRC) program provides a cab subsidy and volunteer driver mileage reimbursement for Gilbert residents as an alternative to the more expensive EVDAR service. Fiscal Impact The Town of Gilbert will pay RPTA $229,779 for East Valley Dial-a-Ride service in Gilbert. Included in the estimated operating budget is a prorated fee of $23,532 charged by RPTA to administer, monitor, and market the project. The expenses for the EVDAR projects are included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on page 58. The revenue from the Town of Gilbert for its participation in the EVDAR is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activity 4430 on page 58. The Town of Gilbert will pay RPTA $20,000 for its participation in the East Valley Ride Choice Coupon for Cabs program. This project is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2047, Activity 7000 on page 62. The revenue from the Town of Gilbert is included in the Board adopted FY10 budget in Project 2047, Activity 4430 on page 62. 1

92 Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the Town of Gilbert cannot be invoiced for Dial-a-Ride or EVRC service. Without the Town of Gilbert funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. The EVRC program provides affordable alternatives to the expensive federally mandated ADA paratransit service, and EVDAR reductions may result in the region becoming noncompliant with Federal Transit Administration ADA requirements. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jim Wright Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations Attachments Gilbert IGA Contract # for EVDAR and EVRC A copy of this agreement is available upon request. 2

93 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xiii Subject Town of Gilbert Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the Town of Gilbert and the RPTA details each agency s responsibility for funding for local and express route service during FY The RPTA-funded service includes Routes 136,156 and 531 amounting to 381,467 annual miles. The RPTA contracted service funded by the Town of Gilbert includes Route 108 amounting to 101,570 annual miles. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the RPTA-funded service is $2,024,608. The funding is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project # 2015, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210, on page 53. The value of the contract for the Town of Gilbert funded service is $529,564 and is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activity 4430 on page 53. Considerations If the IGA is not approved, the Town of Gilbert cannot be invoiced for fixed route services in Gilbert. Without the Town of Gilbert funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

94 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments Town of Gilbert Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

95 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xiv Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Town of Gilbert Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the Town of Gilbert may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $623,751 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the Town of Gilbert. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $623,751 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61 and in Project 2030 East Valley Dial-a-Ride on page 58. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the Town of Gilbert for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

96 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Town of Gilbert ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

97 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Town of Gilbert Intergovernmental Agreement for Bus Stop Improvements Agenda Item #1F-xv Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies require that project agreements be developed for all projects for which RPTA is not the lead agency. A new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been developed for bus stop improvements in the Town of Gilbert. Fiscal Impact The amount in the agreement was allocated and approved by the RPTA Board and is consistent with the approved TLCP financial model in FY 08/09. Funding is required to be carried forward to FY09/10 and is consistent with the Board-approved RPTA operating and capital budget. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without an approved agreement, the Town of Gilbert cannot be reimbursed for any bus stop improvement expenses. This project is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the RPTA Capital Budget. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst

98 Attachments Town of Gilbert Bus Stop Improvement Program IGA A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

99 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xvi Subject RPTA/Town of Gilbert Intergovernmental Agreement for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit Capital Improvements, Contract # Summary The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor is one of several transit projects approved by voters in Prop This project was prioritized for federal stimulus funding by the RPTA Board under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive arterial BRT corridor is scheduled in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) to begin service in Mesa, Gilbert and Chandler in July of This new BRT corridor will provide a direct connection between the Tumbleweed Park and Ride in Chandler and the Sycamore Transit Station in Mesa (current end of line for METRO Light Rail). RPTA is acting as the lead agency in the design and construction of capital improvements needed for this project. The Town of Gilbert is to be reimbursed for the cost of right-of-way acquisition. Fiscal Impact The project cost is estimated in the TLCP and the FY 2010 budget at $23,194,768 of which $15 million in ARRA funds. The precise cost of the project will be determined by a combination of competitive and sole source solicitations as well as real estate acquisition activity. The expenses for the Arizona Avenue / Country Club Drive BRT project are included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 9420, Activities 7020, 7901, 9003, 9005, 9009, and 9900 on page 139. The grant revenue for the project is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 9420, Activity 4206 on page 139. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, RPTA will not be able to reimburse the Town of Gilbert for right-of-way acquisition. 1

100 Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Ratna Korepella Planner III Attachments Town of Gilbert IGA contract # for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT Project A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

101 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xvii Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Glendale Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Glendale may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $459,722 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Glendale. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $459,722 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Glendale for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

102 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Glendale ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

103 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Glendale Intergovernmental Agreement for Bus Stop Improvements Agenda Item #1F-xviii Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies require that project agreements be developed for all projects for which RPTA is not the lead agency. A new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been developed for bus stop improvements in the City of Glendale. Fiscal Impact The amount in the agreement was allocated and approved by the RPTA Board and is consistent with the approved TLCP financial model in FY 08/09. Funding is required to be carried forward to FY09/10 and is consistent with the Board-approved RPTA operating and capital budget. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without an approved agreement, the City of Glendale cannot be reimbursed for any bus stop improvement expenses. This project is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the RPTA Capital Budget. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst

104 Attachments City of Glendale Bus Stop Improvement Program IGA A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

105 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xix Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Goodyear Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Goodyear may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $17,826 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Goodyear. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $17,826 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Goodyear for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

106 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Goodyear ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

107 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xx Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Town of Guadalupe Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 it is estimated that the Town of Guadalupe may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $536 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the Town of Guadalupe. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $536 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the Town of Guadalupe for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

108 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Town of Guadalupe ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

109 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxi Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Litchfield Park Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Litchfield Park may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $16,143 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Litchfield Park. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $16,143 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Litchfield Park for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

110 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Litchfield Park ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

111 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxii Subject RPTA/City of Mesa Intergovernmental Agreement for the East Valley Ride Choice Program, Contract # Summary The East Valley Ride Choice (EVRC) program provides a cab subsidy and volunteer driver mileage reimbursement for Mesa residents as an alternative to the more expensive East Valley Dial-a-Ride (EVDAR) service. Fiscal Impact The City of Mesa will pay RPTA $350,000 for the cab subsidy program and volunteer driver mileage reimbursement program. This project is included in the Board adopted FY10 budget in Project 2047, Activity 7000 on page 62. The revenue from the City of Mesa is included in the Board-adopted FY10 budget in Project 2047, Activity 4445 on page 62. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the City of Mesa cannot be invoiced for EVRC service in Mesa. Without the City of Mesa funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. The EVRC program provides affordable alternatives to the expensive federally-mandated ADA paratransit service, and EVDAR reductions may result in the region becoming non-compliant with Federal Transit Administration ADA requirements. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

112 Contact Person Jon Medwin Contracts & Procurement Manager Attachments Mesa IGA Contract # for EVRC A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

113 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxiii Subject RPTA/City of Mesa Intergovernmental Agreement for East Valley Dial-a-Ride Program, Contract # Summary East Valley Dial-a-Ride (EVDAR) provides the federally-mandated complementary paratransit service component as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 in the cities of Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale and the towns of Gilbert, Guadalupe, and Paradise Valley. This project provides mobility for senior citizens and persons with disabilities between these communities and coordinates transportation with the existing Dial-a-Ride service to and from Phoenix. Mesa s estimated revenue hours for FY 2010 are 62,622. Fiscal Impact The City of Mesa will pay RPTA $2,131,897 for EVDAR service in Mesa. Included in the estimated operating budget is a prorated fee of $113,899 charged by RPTA to administer, monitor, and market the project. The expenses for the East Valley Dial-a- Ride project are included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on page 58. The revenue from the City of Mesa is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activity 4445 on page 58. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the City of Mesa cannot be invoiced for EVDAR service. Without the City of Mesa funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. EVDAR reductions may result in the region becoming non-compliant with Federal Transit Administration ADA requirements. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17,

114 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jim Wright Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations Attachments Mesa IGA Contract # for EVDAR and EVRC A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

115 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Mesa Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # Agenda Item #1F-xxiv Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the City of Mesa and RPTA details each agency s responsibility for funding for local, express and LINK services during FY The RPTA-funded service includes routes 40, 61, 96, 112, 136, 156, 531, 532, 533, 535, 536, 541, and LINK amounting to 1,669,615 annual miles. RPTA contracted service funded by City of Mesa include Routes 30, 35, 104, 120, 128, 533, BUZZ, 77, and 108 amounting to 1,056,451 annual miles. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the RPTA-funded service is $8,151,193. The funding is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210, on page 53. The value of the contract for the City of Mesa funded service is $4,559,481 and is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activity 4445 on page 53. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment is not approved, the City of Mesa cannot be invoiced for fixed route services in Mesa. Without the City of Mesa funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

116 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments City of Mesa Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

117 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxv Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Mesa Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Mesa may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $2,052,341 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Mesa. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $2,052,341 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61 and Project 2030 East Valley Dial-a-Ride on page 58. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Mesa for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

118 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Mesa ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

119 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Mesa Intergovernmental Agreement for Bus Stop Improvements Agenda Item #1F-xxvi Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies require that project agreements be developed for all projects for which RPTA is not the lead agency. A new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been developed for bus stop improvements in the City of Mesa. Fiscal Impact The amount in the agreement was allocated and approved by the RPTA Board and is consistent with the approved TLCP financial model in FY 08/09. Funding is required to be carried forward to FY09/10 and is consistent with the Board-approved RPTA operating and capital budget. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without an approved agreement, the City of Mesa cannot be reimbursed for any bus stop improvement expenses. This project is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the RPTA Capital Budget. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst

120 Attachments City of Mesa Bus Stop Improvement Program IGA A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

121 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxvii Subject RPTA/City of Mesa Intergovernmental Agreement for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit Capital Improvements, Contract # Summary The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor is one of several transit projects approved by voters in Prop This project was prioritized for federal stimulus funding by the RPTA Board under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive arterial BRT corridor is scheduled in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) to begin service in Mesa, Gilbert and Chandler in July of This new BRT corridor will provide a direct connection between the Tumbleweed Park and Ride in Chandler and the Sycamore Transit Station in Mesa (current end of line for METRO Light Rail). RPTA is acting as the lead agency in the design and construction of capital improvements needed for this project. The City of Mesa is to be reimbursed for the cost of right-of-way acquisition. Fiscal Impact The project is estimated in the TLCP at $23,194,768 of which $15 million is funded by ARRA funds. The precise cost of the project will be determined by a combination of competitive and sole source solicitations as well as real estate acquisition activity. The expenses for the Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT project are included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 9420, Activities 7020, 7901, 9003, 9005, 9009, and 9900 on page 139. The grant revenue for the project is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 9420, Activity 4206 on page 139. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, RPTA will not be able to reimburse the City of Mesa for right-of-way acquisition. 1

122 Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Ratna Korepella Planner III Attachments City of Mesa IGA Contract # for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT Project A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

123 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxviii Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Town of Paradise Valley Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the Town of Paradise Valley may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $36,340 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the Town of Paradise Valley. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $36,340 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the Town of Paradise Valley for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. 1

124 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Town of Paradise Valley ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

125 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxix Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Peoria Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Peoria may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $218,041 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Peoria. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $218,041 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Peoria for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance

126 Attachments City of Peoria ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

127 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Phoenix Transit Service Agreement, #88397 (funded by RPTA) Agenda Item #1F-xxx Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the City of Phoenix and the RPTA details RPTA s funding for local and express route services during FY 2010 and Phoenix s service delivery roles. The RPTA-funded service includes Routes GAL, 70, 50, 59, 67, 106, 400, 450, 460, 480, 560, 570, 581, 582, and 590 amounting to 1.47 million annual miles at a cost of $10.15 million. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the RPTA funded service is $10.15 million. The funding is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on page 53. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the City of Phoenix cannot continue to provide fixed route services. Without the RPTA funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

128 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments City of Phoenix Transit Service Agreement #88397 A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

129 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Phoenix Transit Service Agreement, #83974 (funded by Phoenix) Agenda Item #1F-xxxi Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the City of Phoenix and the RPTA details Phoenix s funding for local and express route services during FY 2010 and RPTA s service delivery roles. The Phoenix-funded service includes Routes 30, 45, 56, 61, 77, and 156 amounting to 1.05 million annual miles at a cost of $4.59 million. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the City of Phoenix funded service is $4.59 million. The funding is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015 and 2026 on pages 53 and 55. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, RPTA cannot continue to provide fixed route services. Without the City of Phoenix funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

130 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments City of Phoenix Transit Service Agreement #83974 A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

131 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject RPTA/City of Phoenix General Services Agreement Agenda Item #1F-xxxii Summary The General Services Agreement between the City of Phoenix and the RPTA defines that the City will provide financial and operational data, route change information, marketing information and comply with the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies with respect to all transit services funded under any service Agreement with RPTA. Fiscal Impact None. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, RPTA may not receive information required to provide adequate reporting to the Board and an audit compliance finding could be received in respect to Prop. 400 funding controls. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments City of Phoenix General Services Agreement A copy of this document is available upon request. 1

132 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Phoenix Intergovernmental Agreement for Bus Stop Improvements Agenda Item #1F-xxxiii Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies require that project agreements be developed for all projects for which RPTA is not the lead agency. A new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been developed for bus stop improvements in the City of Phoenix. Fiscal Impact The amount in the agreement was allocated and approved by the RPTA Board and is consistent with the approved TLCP financial model in FY 08/09. Funding is required to be carried forward to FY09/10 and is consistent with the Board-approved RPTA operating and capital budget. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without an approved agreement, the City of Phoenix cannot be reimbursed for any bus stop improvement expenses. This project is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the RPTA Capital Budget. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst

133 Attachments City of Phoenix Bus Stop Improvement Program IGA A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

134 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxxiv Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Queen Creek Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Queen Creek may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $4,208 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Queen Creek. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $4,208 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Queen Creek for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

135 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Queen Creek ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

136 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxxv Subject Sun City Area Transit (SCAT) Intergovernmental Agreement for Dial-a-Ride Service, Contract # Summary SCAT provides the federally mandated complementary paratransit service as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) in the Sun City and Youngtown. This project provides mobility for senior citizens and persons with disabilities in these communities and coordinates transportation with the existing fixed route services and Dial-a-Ride service to and from Peoria. Fiscal Impact The RPTA will provide SCAT with Public Transportation Funds (PTF) in the amounts of $175,000 and $33,500 from the regional ADA allocation, and an estimated $26,000 in pass through funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the associated capital maintenance. The expenditures for the SCAT program are included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2040, Activity 7000 on page 59. The ADA allocation for SCAT is in the Board-adopted budget in Project 2046, Activity 7901 on page 61. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, SCAT will not have the resources to provide the federally-mandated ADA paratransit service, which would result in noncompliance with FTA ADA requirements. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order. 1

137 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments SCAT Contract # A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

138 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxxvi Subject RPTA/City of Scottsdale Intergovernmental Agreement for East Valley Dial-a-Ride and East Valley Ride Choice Travel Training Program, Contract # Summary East Valley Dial-a-Ride (EVDAR) provides the federally mandated complementary paratransit service component as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 in the cities of Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale and the towns of Gilbert, Guadalupe, and Paradise Valley. This project provides mobility for senior citizens and persons with disabilities between these communities and coordinates transportation with the existing Dial-a-Ride service to and from Phoenix. Scottsdale s estimated revenue hours for FY 2010 are 25,877. With the assistance of a Federal New Freedom Grant, East Valley Ride Choice Program (EVRC) will also provide fixed route bus and light rail travel training as a transportation alternative to the more expensive EVDAR service. Fiscal Impact The City of Scottsdale will pay RPTA $529,738 for EVDAR service in Scottsdale. Included in the estimated operating budget, is a prorated fee of $47,066 charged by RPTA to administer, monitor, and market the project. The expenses for the EVDAR project are included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on pages 58. The revenue from the City of Scottsdale for its participation in the East Valley Dial-a-Ride is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activity 4460 on page 58. The City of Scottsdale will pay RPTA $15,000 for the Travel Training program. This represents the local 50 percent matching funds for a Federal New Freedom Grant. This project is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2047; Activity 7000 on page 62. The revenue from the City of Scottsdale is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2047, Activity 4460 on page 62. 1

139 Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the City of Scottsdale cannot be invoiced for Dial-a-Ride or EVRC service in Scottsdale. Without the City of Scottsdale funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. The EVRC travel-training program provides affordable alternatives to the expensive federally mandated ADA paratransit service, and EVDAR reductions may result in the region becoming non-compliant with Federal Transit Administration ADA requirements. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jim Wright Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations Attachments Scottsdale IGA Contract # for EVDAR and EVRC A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

140 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxxvii Subject City of Scottsdale Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the City of Scottsdale and the RPTA details each agency s responsibility for funding for local and express route service during FY The RPTA-funded service includes Routes 50, 72, 106, 510, 511, 512, 532, and 572 amounting to 783,856 annual miles. RPTA Contracted Service funded by City of Scottsdale includes Routes 66, 76, 81, 84, and 114, amounting to 993,836 annual miles. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the RPTA funded service is $4,128,348. The funding is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project # 2015, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210, on page 53. The value of the contract for the City of Scottsdale funded service is $4,864,653 and is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activity 4460 on page 53. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement-Amendment is not approved, the City of Scottsdale cannot be invoiced for fixed route services in Scottsdale. Without the City of Scottsdale funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

141 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments City of Scottsdale Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

142 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xxxviii Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Scottsdale Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Scottsdale may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $1,179,717 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Scottsdale. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $1,179,717 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61 and in Project 2030 East Valley Dial-a-Ride on page 58. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Scottsdale for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

143 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Scottsdale ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

144 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Scottsdale Intergovernmental Agreement for Bus Stop Improvements Agenda Item #1F-xxxix Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies require that project agreements be developed for all projects for which RPTA is not the lead agency. A new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been developed for bus stop improvements in the City of Scottsdale. Fiscal Impact The amount in the agreement was allocated and approved by the RPTA Board and is consistent with the approved TLCP financial model in FY 08/09. Funding is required to be carried forward to FY09/10 and is consistent with the Board-approved RPTA operating and capital budget. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without an approved agreement, the City of Scottsdale cannot be reimbursed for any bus stop improvement expenses. This project is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the RPTA Capital Budget. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst

145 Attachments City of Scottsdale Bus Stop Improvement Program IGA A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

146 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xl Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Surprise Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Surprise may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $15,454 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Surprise. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY is $15,454 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Surprise for eligible ADA expenses in FY Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

147 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Surprise ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

148 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xli Subject City of Tempe Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the City of Tempe and the RPTA details each agency s responsibility for funding for local and express route services during FY The RPTA-funded service includes Routes 40,61,72,81,511,520, 521, 531,532, 533, 535, 536, 540, 541, and 542 amounting to 876,515 annual miles. The RPTA contracted service funded by the City of Tempe includes Routes 30, 40, 45, and 61 amounting to 917,904 annual miles. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the RPTA funded service is $4,349,135. The funding is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on page 53. The value of the contract for the City of Tempe funded service is $4,023,063 and is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activity 4469 on page 53. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement-Amendment is not approved, the City of Tempe cannot be invoiced for fixed route services in Tempe. Without the City of Tempe funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

149 Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments City of Tempe Transit Service Agreement Amendment, Contract # A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

150 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xlii Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Tempe Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Tempe may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $1,758,788 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Tempe. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $1,758,788 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61 and in Project 2030 East Valley Dial-a-Ride on page 58. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Tempe for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

151 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments City of Tempe ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

152 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xliii Subject RPTA/City of Tempe Intergovernmental Agreement for East Valley Dial-a-Ride and East Valley Ride Choice Program, Contract # Summary East Valley Dial-a-Ride (EVDAR) provides the federally mandated complementary paratransit service component as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 in the cities of Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale and the towns of Gilbert, Guadalupe, and Paradise Valley. This project provides mobility for senior citizens and persons with disabilities between these communities and coordinates transportation with the existing Dial-a-Ride service to and from Phoenix. Tempe s estimated revenue hours for FY 2010 are 28,472. The East Valley Ride Choice Program (EVRC) provides a cab subsidy for Tempe residents as an alternative to the more expensive EVDAR service. With the assistance of a Federal New Freedom Grant, EVRC will also provide fixed route bus and light rail travel training as a transportation alternative to the more expensive EVDAR service. Fiscal Impact The City of Tempe will pay RPTA $462,484 for East Valley Dial-a-Ride service in Tempe. Included in the estimated operating budget is a prorated fee of $51,786 charged by RPTA to administer, monitor, and market the project. The expenses for the EVDAR project are included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2030, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on page 58. The City of Tempe will pay RPTA $50,000 for the cab subsidy program and $15,000 for the Travel Training program. This represents the local 50 percent matching funds for a Federal New Freedom Grant. This project is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2047, Activity 7000 on page 62. The revenue from the City of Tempe is included in the Board adopted FY 2010 budget in Project 2047, Activity 4469 on page 62. 1

153 Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the City of Tempe cannot be invoiced for Dial-a-Ride or EVRC service in Tempe. Without the City of Tempe funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. The EVRC provides affordable alternatives to the expensive federally mandated ADA paratransit service, and EVDAR reductions may result in the region becoming noncompliant with Federal Transit Administration ADA requirements. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jim Wright Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations Attachments City of Tempe IGA Contract # for EVDAR and EVRC A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

154 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Tempe Intergovernmental Agreement for Bus Stop Improvements Agenda Item #1F-xliv Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies require that project agreements be developed for all projects for which RPTA is not the lead agency. A new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been developed for bus stop improvements in the City of Tempe. Fiscal Impact The amount in the agreement was allocated and approved by the RPTA Board and is consistent with the approved TLCP financial model in FY 08/09. Funding is required to be carried forward to FY09/10 and is consistent with the Board-approved RPTA operating and capital budget. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without an approved agreement, the City of Tempe cannot be reimbursed for any bus stop improvement expenses. This project is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the RPTA Capital Budget. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst

155 Attachments City of Tempe Bus Stop Improvement Program IGA A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

156 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xlv Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment City of Tolleson Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the City of Tolleson may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $19,585 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the City of Tolleson. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $19,585 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the City of Tolleson for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

157 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director, Finance Attachments City of Tolleson ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

158 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject City of Tolleson Intergovernmental Agreement for Bus Stop Improvements Agenda Item #1F-xlvi Summary The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies require that project agreements be developed for all projects for which RPTA is not the lead agency. A new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been developed for bus stop improvements in the City of Tolleson. Fiscal Impact The amount in the agreement was allocated and approved by the RPTA Board and is consistent with the approved TLCP financial model in FY 08/09. Funding is required to be carried forward to FY09/10 and is consistent with the Board-approved RPTA operating and capital budget. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without an approved agreement, the City of Tolleson cannot be reimbursed for any bus stop improvement expenses. This project is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the RPTA Capital Budget. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst

159 Attachments City of Tolleson Bus Stop Improvement Program IGA A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

160 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xlvii Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Town of Wickenburg Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the Town of Wickenburg may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $1,683 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the Town of Wickenburg. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $1,683 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the Town of Wickenburg for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

161 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Town of Wickenburg ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

162 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xlviii Subject Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Public Transportation Fund (PTF) Reimbursement Agreement Amendment Town of Youngtown Summary As a component of the Board approved Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) policies, 7 percent of the PTF is set aside to reimburse jurisdictions for paratransit services for ADA certified riders. This policy applies to all jurisdictions with the exception of Phoenix. For the period of July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, it is estimated that the Town of Youngtown may request reimbursement from RPTA for a maximum of $1,148 for service consumed by RPTA ADA-certified paratransit riders in the Town of Youngtown. Fiscal Impact The maximum amount of reimbursement for FY 2009/10 is $1,148 and is included in the Board-approved Transit Life Cycle Update and the Board-adopted FY 2009/10 budget referenced in Project 2046 Other ADA on page 61. Considerations Approval of the ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment will allow RPTA to reimburse the Town of Youngtown for eligible ADA expenses in FY 2009/10. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. 1

163 Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director of Finance Attachments Town of Youngtown ADA PTF Reimbursement Agreement Amendment A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

164 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1F-xlix Subject Arizona Department of Transportation s Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 (Rural Transportation Services) Grant Contract for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009/2010 Summary RPTA has been awarded $482,557 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 (Rural Transit) funding from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for FY 2009/10. The Section 5311 Program provides funding for administrative, operating and training expenses. RPTA has been using this program to fund Route 660-Wickenburg Connector since October 2006 and Route 685-Gila Bend/Ajo Regional Connector since March Routes 660 and 685 provide a vital transportation link for the county s rural populations. The two routes provide affordable access to jobs, shopping, medical and social services for many rural residents. The growth in rural transit ridership since the start of the program in 2005 attests to the demand that is being met by these services. The FTA Section 5311 grant program has allowed RPTA to leverage existing local funds to provide a level of service that begins to meet the needs of rural residents. For FFY 2009/10, Section 5311 funding will cover 47 percent of operating and administrative expenses on Route 685 and 50 percent of operating and administrative expenses on Route 660. ADOT also provides $500 for contractor training for each route. In order to accept this grant, continue to participate in ADOT s 5311 Program, and continue current levels of service on Routes 660 and 685, RPTA must sign these agreements with ADOT by September 17, Fiscal Impact RPTA has been awarded $191,754 for the Route 660-Wickenburg and $290,803 for Route 685-Gila Bend/Ajo, for a total of $482,557 in FTA Section 5311 (Rural Transit) funding. RPTA matches the Section 5311 grant funds of $349,436 in Public Transportation Funds (PTF). 1

165 Funding for Route 660 and Route 685 is included in the Board-approved FY 2009/10 Operating and Capital Budget. Considerations If these contracts are not approved by the RPTA Board of Directors on September 17, 2009, RPTA will lose $482,557 in FTA Section 5311 funding. This loss of funding would necessitate a drastic reduction in service levels that would adversely impact the rural populations that depend on this service. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments Intergovernmental Agreement between the State of Arizona and the RPTA, A.G. Contract #KR TRN A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

166 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1G Subject Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to establish Dial-a-Ride Operations in the Northwest Valley for El Mirage, Peoria, Sun City, and Surprise Summary For a variety of reasons, West Valley cities have grown and developed their own, independent dial-a-ride systems. Over time, municipal borders have melded, creating increased passenger demand for travel between cities. Also, because each system developed in its own unique manner, there are a number of inconsistencies in the provision of dial-a-ride service throughout the participating Northwest Valley communities. Because operating expenses include fixed costs such as: separate operation facilities, computer equipment and software, vehicle maintenance, and human resources, consolidation of services is expected to reduce costs through the creation of economiesof-scale. For participating Northwest Valley communities, the implementation of a subregional dial-a-ride service will provide a uniform service operation through standardized policies, fares, and one call center for travel throughout the subregion. The RPTA has the capability to successfully consolidate and to efficiently operate a subregional dial-a-ride system while providing local communities the ability to continue deciding jurisdictional service levels. Some communities may want to provide service for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit-eligible passengers only. Other cities may opt to include dial-a-ride service for seniors, for customers eligible for reduced fixed route fares, or even for the general public. Likewise, cities may want to restrict travel areas or trip purpose for non-ada customers. RPTA will manage the level of service any individual city desires. RPTA staff are seeking Board approval to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit an operating contractor for a Northwest Valley Dial-a-Ride. The service area will likely include the communities of El Mirage, Peoria, Sun City, and Surprise (at each jurisdiction s discretion). The contract would be a turnkey operation with the operator 1

167 providing the facility, call center and dispatch duties as well as vehicle operations and maintenance. In the future, the call center function may be deleted from the contractor s scope of work following the development and implementation of a regional paratransit call center. The selected contractor will be required to give preference in hiring to existing Dial-a-Ride employees. Fiscal Impact The operating expense for a Northwest Valley Dial-a-Ride service that combines the existing Sun City Area Transit (SCAT), City of El Mirage, City of Peoria, and City of Surprise systems will be approximately $3,000,000. The actual cost will be determined through the procurement process. Considerations If the RFP is not issued, the four dial-a-ride services will not be combined and services will continue status quo in FY Consolidation of these services is an important step in implementing the Board-approved regional strategic plan. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. Contact Person Jon Medwin Contracts & Procurement Manager Attachments None 2

168 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1H Subject Authorization to Issue a Procurement Solicitation for Real Time Transit Information and Signal Priority Services for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Capital Improvements Summary The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT corridor is one of several transit projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and originally adopted by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Council in This project was prioritized for federal stimulus funding by the RPTA Board under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive arterial BRT corridor is scheduled in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) to begin service in Mesa, Gilbert and Chandler in July of This new BRT corridor will provide a direct connection between the Tumbleweed Park and Ride in Chandler and the Sycamore Transit Station in Mesa (current end of line for METRO Light Rail). The route is approximately twelve miles long and includes curbside stations for north and southbound BRT buses, with a total of 20 custom designed stations. There is presently no direct transit link between the two major passenger facilities previously stated, as well as to activity centers located along the BRT corridor. This BRT route will connect three communities (City of Chandler, Town of Gilbert and City of Mesa). BRT project elements were identified as part of the design effort. The project includes the following: a curbside alignment, landscaping, ticket vending machines that will speed boarding at stops by allowing for off vehicle fare collection, traffic signal priority and queue jump lanes at major intersections, bike racks, and advertisement panels at the stations. Prototypical BRT stations are proposed to be constructed along the side of the existing roadway generally in a far side position at major intersections. Each station will feature low heat gain finishes and materials, enhanced landscaping to further reduce heat gain, and will include dynamic message signs (DMS), which provide real-time next bus arrival times. The station as designed will accomodate a 60-foot articulated bus. At a minimum, the downtown Chandler and Tumbleweed Park-and-Ride Stations will be 1

169 equipped with Fare Vending Machines (FVM), but all stations will be wired to allow for future installation of FVMs as funding becomes available. The procurement solicitation for which authorization is being sought will allow RPTA to obtain the equipment and support needed for real time travel information at the stations. A recommendation for contract award will be brought through the RPTA committee process beginning in October and to the RPTA Board of Directors for action at their November meeting. Fiscal Impact No financial commitment is being asked of the RPTA Board of Directors at this time. The Arizona Avenue BRT project identified in the RTP will be funded for construction through a $15 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Operations funding will be provided through Public Transportation Fund (PTF) monies as part of the TLCP. The $15 million of ARRA funding will be used for construction, construction management, the procurement of fare vending machines, and for dynamic message signs that will provide real-time bus information. Considerations BRT systems provide shorter travel times than traditional fixed route buses using one or more features such as traffic signal priority, intersection improvements including queue jumpers, limited stop service, and off-vehicle fare collection. The travel time savings and the frequency of service will encourage more transit usage, which will alternatively reduce traffic congestion, lessen the demand for parking and also contribute to clean air. The RPTA Board of Directors has recommended this project for ARRA funding. Without RPTA Board of Directors authority for a procurement solicitation in September, the dynamic message signs, real-time transit information and signal priority systems will not be available when the new BRT service begins in July In addition to these services for the Arizona Avenue/Country Club BRT, there will be options to provide the service for the Mesa Main Street BRT route as well. Separate funding sources will be identified for each project. Prior Committee Action April 21, 2009 VMOCC received the 30 percent design plans May 6, 2009 TMC received the 30 percent design plans May 21, 2009 RPTA Board received the 30 percent design plans June 18, 2009 RPTA Board authorized the issuance of an Invitation for Bid for the Construction Contract of Arizona Avenue/Country Club BRT Recommendation It is recommended the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration, authorizing the Executive Director to issue a procurement solicitation for the integration of real time transit information and signal priority services for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT capital project improvements. 2

170 Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning Attachments None 3

171 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 2010 Origins and Destinations Study Agenda Item #1I Summary The Origin and Destination Study (also known as the Transit On-Board Survey) will collect data about passenger travel patterns on fixed bus routes and light rail. Valley Metro RPTA has been conducting these surveys since The last Origin and Destination survey was conducted in The survey results will be useful to Valley Metro and its partner agencies for several purposes: to gain market research insights to enable better understanding of customer travel patterns, demographic characteristics, and satisfaction with the service; and to assist in fulfilling a grant funding agreement obligation to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a Before and After Study of the METRO Light Rail line which began operation in December of Data collected through origin-destination surveys is also used for calibration of the regional transportation model, as well as for network simulation for air quality forecasting and long-range planning by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). It is anticipated that data collection for this study will be conducted in Fall 2010 pending approval from FTA. Fiscal Impact The projected cost for this project is $825,000 over two fiscal years. The approved FY 2010 RPTA budget includes $165,000 for the portion of this project that will be completed during this fiscal year. The remaining cost of the project will be included in the FY 2011 budget. Considerations The 2010 Transit On-Board Study output will be used to calibrate the regional transportation model. Since this survey will include ridership data on the METRO Light Rail line as well as the region s first arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, this calibration will enhance the model s ability to predict mode splits and projected ridership on the region s transit networks. Accurate ridership projections are a critical part of making the case when seeking New Starts or Small Starts federal funding of new transit 1

172 investments. The survey findings will also provide an interim benchmark of the effects of light rail on the community within two years of its start of operation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning Attachments None 2

173 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1J Subject Accept Transfer of Two (2) Vehicles from Maricopa County for Sun City Area Transit (SCAT) service Summary Sun City Area Transit (SCAT) utilizes a compressed natural gas (CNG) station that was built in the early 1990s. The station is in significant disrepair and is barely able to fuel the two (2) remaining CNG-powered vehicles in the SCAT fleet. SCAT does not have the financial resources to repair its fueling facility. There are 36 vehicles currently available for reassignment due to Maricopa County s dissolution of its STS program. Valley Metro/RPTA is seeking title for two (2) 2008 Ford E-350 Cutaway vehicles for use in the SCAT service. These diesel-powered vehicles will replace the two (2) CNG vehicles. The CNG vehicles will be reassigned to the East Valley Dial-a-Ride program. Both Maricopa County and Valley Metro/RPTA have submitted their request to the City of Phoenix seeking Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval of the vehicle transfer. Following the transfer of the two (2) 2008 diesel vehicles, SCAT will be able to decommission its CNG fueling facility. Fiscal Impact Valley Metro/RPTA provided the local funding for the vehicles. Considerations None Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17,

174 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. Contact Person Jim Wright Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations Attachments None. 2

175 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #1K Subject Request for Proposals to replace services formerly provided by Maricopa County Special Transportation Services (STS) Summary Staff is seeking Board approval to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an operating contractor for door-to-door transportation to eligible persons displaced by the elimination of Maricopa County s STS program. Transportation would be determined by local service needs, decision-making, and funding availability in each community served. Transportation could be provided in incorporated and unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. Local agencies choosing to participate in this service will be charged the rates determined in this competitive procurement. The RPTA would not be obligated to spend any funds other than five percent funds provided by the participating agency. The RPTA plans to charge an administrative fee estimated at 5 percent fee to cover its administrative costs. RPTA staff is seeking Board approval to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit an operating contractor(s) for the door-to-door transportation. This contract would be a turnkey operation with the operator providing the facility, call center and dispatch duties, and vehicle operations and maintenance. Fiscal Impact The operating expense for the door-to-door service would be paid by the individual communities participating in this service. The cost for this service will be included in the FY 2011 budget if ultimately approved by the Board. Considerations If the RFP is not issued, the emergency service implemented by the RPTA to replace the discontinued STS will cease after FY Without this safety-net service, vital lifesustaining transportation in areas without any other mobility resources will cease. 1

176 Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments None 2

177 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Contract Change Order with Total Transit as (dba ValuTrans, Inc.) for Special Transportation Services (STS) Agenda Item #2A Summary Change Order #6 with Valu Trans, Inc. provides for door-to-door transportation for eligible persons displaced by Maricopa County Special Transportation Services (STS) ceasing operations on June 30, Transportation could be provided in incorporated and unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. Cities and towns choosing to participate in this service will be charged the rates shown below. The RPTA is not obligated to spend any funds other than those funds provided by the participating jurisdiction. The RPTA will charge participating agencies a 5 percent fee to cover its administrative costs. Passenger Type Pick-Up Fee Fee Per Mile Ambulatory $3.40 $2.20 Non-Ambulatory (uses a wheelchair) $28.50 $2.20 Fiscal Impact Change Order #6 is valued at $765,000. This expense is not included in the Boardapproved FY 2010 budget. Revenues to cover the cost of this project are from Maricopa County s LTAF II and ADA Public Transportation Fund (PTF) funds and participating towns and cities, including Fountain Hills. Considerations This safety net service replaces the Maricopa County STS Program which ceased operations on June 30, Without this service, vital life-sustaining transportation, such as trips to dialysis centers, may not be made. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17,

178 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this change order and approval to revise the FY 2009/10 Operating and Capital Budget to include the cost and revenues of this new project. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments Total Transit (dba ValuTrans), Change Order #6 A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

179 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #2B Subject Beatitudes Developing Older Adult Resources (DOAR) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Special Transportation Services (STS) Summary The MOU with Beatitudes DOAR provides for door-to-door transportation for eligible persons displaced by Maricopa County Special Transportation Services (STS) that ceased operations on June 30, The project will provide a safety net for transporting ambulatory persons who relied on STS for medical, nutritional and other essential trips. The Beatitudes DOAR service would be provided by volunteer drivers using their own cars. Cities and towns choosing to participate in this service would work with the RPTA to identify eligible persons and trips for the service. Beatitudes would be paid a flat rate of $5 for eligible one-way trips within one city, $10 for eligible one-way trips within two cities, and $15 for eligible one-way trips within three cities or more. Participation in this safety net service would be determined by local service needs, decision-making and funding availability in each community served. The RPTA is not obligated to spend any funds other than those funds provided by the participating city or town. The RPTA will charge a 5 percent fee to cover its administrative costs. Fiscal Impact There will be no funds expended until cities and towns choose to participate. This project is not included in the board adopted FY 2010 budget. Any expenditure associated with this project will have an accompanying revenue offset provided by the participating agency. The project has been established as a pass-through program. Considerations This safety net service helps replace the Maricopa County STS Program which ceased operation on June 30, The service can provide the vital, life-sustaining transportation, such as trips to dialysis centers at a very low cost to the cities and towns. If the Board decides not to agree to the Memorandum of Understanding, Beatitudes will not be available as a mobility resource to RPTA or its member agencies. 1

180 Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this contract. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager Attachments Beatitudes Memorandum of Understanding A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

181 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Agenda Item #2C Subject Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Fountain Hills to participate in the special transportation services for Fountain Hills residents displaced by the discontinued Maricopa County Special Transportation Services (STS), IGA # Summary This IGA with Fountain Hills, provides door-to-door transportation for eligible Fountain Hills residents displaced by the discontinued STS program which ended on June 30, The service provides essential trips including trips to and from dialysis centers and nutritional sites. The RPTA has contracted with Total Transit for the provision of this service. Fiscal Impact The Town of Fountain Hills will pay up to $70,500 for the service in FY10. This is an unbudgeted project, however the expense will be completely paid for by the Town of Fountain Hills. Considerations If the IGA is not approved, the Town of Fountain Hills cannot be invoiced for the special transportation service in Fountain Hills. The decreased funding will require reductions or elimination of the special transportation service in Fountain Hills. Without this service, vital life-sustaining trips may not be made. Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee allowing the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin

182 Attachments Town of Fountain Hills IGA Contract # A copy of this document is available upon request. 2

183 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study, 18-Month Review Agenda Item #3 Summary As part of the RPTA Board approved Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study (SEES), Booz Allen was tasked to undertake an evaluation of the SEES framework implementation eighteen months after the completion of the study. The attached memo contains the consultant s findings from the November 2008 review of the implemented framework. It should be noted that the memo does not reflect any improvements in the framework that was undertaken subsequent to this review. A memo updating changes since November 2008 will be forthcoming. Transit Performance Data Timeline will be provided at the September 2009 VMOCC meeting. The highlights of these recommendations include the following: Updating cost efficiency measures should be done though the RPTA s budgeting process, which will better reflect local costs and revenues. The Transit Performance Report should report on both Proposition 400 service and non-proposition 400 funded service. The Transit Performance Report should include route level analysis such as subsidy per boarding. Fiscal Impact This memo is the final deliverable on an existing consultant contract. The original cost of the SEEs contract was $83,750. The said cost was reflected in the FY 2007/08 and FY 2008/09 Agency Adopted Budgets. Considerations The SEES provides a set of performance measures and performance targets or goals used to evaluate the performance of individual routes and the transit system as a whole. This evaluation provides a quantitative tool that provides the agency with guidance when considering how and when to adjust underperforming performing service. 1

184 Prior Committee Action VMOCC for action August 18, 2009 TMC for action September 2, 2009 Board for action September 17, 2009 Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC forward this item to the Transit Management Committee for consideration. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning Attachments Technical Memo: 18 Month Review Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study Phase II 2

185 Carol Ketcherside December 30, 2008 (Version 2) Yonel Grant 18 Month Review Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study Phase II San Francisco Bryan Jungwirth This technical memorandum constitutes Booz Allen Hamilton s 18-month evaluation of the Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study (SEES) framework implemented in early INTRODUCTION Brief Background Booz Allen Hamilton consultant team was hired in The Phase I SEES Report was finalized in March The SEES framework was adopted by the Valley Metro/RPTA Board in March SEES performance targets were adopted by the Valley Metro/RPTA Board in June RPTA issued the FY Transit Performance Report in January of month evaluation (Phase II) was scheduled for November-December Purpose of 18 Month Review The purpose of the 18 month review is to provide an independent evaluation of the SEES framework implementation, and associated performance measures and processes. The consultant scope is also to provide recommendations for revising or amending specific components of the route and system performance criteria. Approach During the course of several days in November 2008, Booz Allen interviewed three RPTA Planning staff and two staff from City of Phoenix Public Transit Department. Booz Allen also conducted telephone interviews with a half dozen RPTA member agencies to solicit feedback on their experiences with the Transit Performance Report (TPR) data reporting and process. Booz Allen also reviewed the draft TPR report and supporting data sheets, as well as early data submittals from the City of Phoenix.

186 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 2 2. FINDINGS Overall, the implementation of the SEES framework is going well (B+). There have been, and continue to be, some challenges related to communications, technology, data quality, and staffing, but this is to be expected when implementing a new framework such as this for a transit system that is not truly regionalized. A major success came early when the Valley Metro/RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Boards adopted the recommended performance framework. The two policy boards actively supported RPTA s transit performance reporting goals. Findings and observations, which are discussed in this section, are grouped as follows: Framework adoption Target setting and adoption Communications with reporting agencies Data reporting into regional framework Web tool implementation Transit Performance Report (TPR) Contract negotiations regarding performance reporting Route maturation guidelines Proposition 400 routes versus other routes Reporting transit performance to policy bodies. Framework Adoption The framework was successfully adopted in March 2007 by the Valley Metro/RPTA Board and subsequently by the VMR Board (for the rail portion of the SEES). Target Setting and Adoption The SEES framework, route, mode and system targets were presented and discussed at TMC, VMOCC, Valley Metro/RPTA Board and VMR Board meetings. Initial Board approval of performance targets occurred in March and April Following recommendations from rail staff, the Total Rail Boardings target for the first year of operations was reduced from 10,665,000 to 7,827,000. The revised targets were approved by the RPTA and VMR Boards in June In November-December 2007, RPTA Planning staff prepared the FY2007 Transit Performance Report using updated performance targets. Financial targets (e.g., operating cost per boarding, operating cost per revenue mile) were increased by the percentage increase in the CPI-U for transportation items. Effectiveness targets were not changed. The targeted annual increase in boardings remained unchanged at 3%. The fixed route farebox recovery ratio target was also held at 25% (the RPTA Board

187 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 3 adopted the 25% farebox recovery ratio target in September 2007 when the regional fare policy recommendations were approved). RPTA staff commented to Booz Allen Hamilton that the 3% target for annual increases in paratransit ridership is problematic given the growth in operating costs. The source of ridership target was the Financial Plan assumptions that were in place in RPTA staff desires consistency with the Paratransit Study. Staff from one of the reporting agencies commented that targets should be revised on a regular basis, to challenge the operating agencies to continuously improve. For the November-December draft FY2008 TPR, RPTA staff have updated the targets using the same assumptions: CPI-U increases for financial targets; other targets unchanged. In December 2008, RPTA staff uploaded a series of documents to the Valley Metro website, including the draft TPR, supporting modal summaries, and a master table of targets. Communications with Reporting Agencies Communications to reporting agencies on TPR planning and reporting occurs mainly through the monthly VMOCC process. In addition, RPTA sent notification to member agencies by in September 2008 about the October deadline for annual transit performance reporting. The notification included a spreadsheet template for reporting agencies to populate as well as a complete list of performance indicator definitions. The primary challenge for communications with member agencies is the number of agencies involved in the process and the turnover (real and procedural) of member agency staff involved in this process. Two examples are provided: The Technical Working Group (TWG) established for the SEES was made up primarily of data practitioners from each agency, who would have the most familiarity with the data and data reporting that would ultimately be required. Not counting RPTA staff, the TWG had 12 reporting agency members. Of these 12, only one person holds the same role now (18 months later). In at least one case, the responsible staff member is no longer with the agency and it appears that the replacement staff person may not have been trained on the reporting requirements. Even with several of the larger reporting agencies (e.g., Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe), there is turnover in terms of attendance at VMOCC meetings. As a result, the same person does not attend VMOCC meetings each month. Both in-person and telephone interviews with member agencies revealed a significant information gap in the history of the SEES initiative, the rationale

188 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 4 for the regional reporting requirement vis a vis Proposition 400 and the upcoming audit, the need to report performance by route, and the need to flow down reporting requirements to contractors. A secondary challenge which results from turnover in reporting agency staff is the technical ability to accurately report all of the transit data required for the TPR. For instance, during the review Booz Allen found that Boarding data initially submitted by a new transit analyst at the City of Phoenix was 17.5 percent too low. RPTA staff immediately suspected an error, based on comparisons to prior year results. The error was confirmed and subsequently corrected. In cases where there is turnover among staff responsible for collecting and reporting data, it is critical to provide for training of replacement staff and if possible, cross-training of other agency staff. Data Reporting into Regional Framework Member agencies interviewed for the 18 month review reported that the transition from the old Performance Management Analysis System (PMAS) to the regional Transportation Performance Report (TPR) process was seamless. It is fairly difficult for RPTA Planning staff to spend considerable time auditing data provided by member agencies, and in most cases they do not have access to the source data to be able to audit it. RPTA Planning staff do tally the information provided and compare it to expected levels and prior year results. Questionable numbers typically are subjected to a second opinion and/or are sent back to the reporting agency for correction or explanation. In the current cycle, this occurred with Phoenix ridership data as previously described. Another agency that revised data in response to a question from RPTA Planning staff, suggested that it would be helpful to receive a copy of the revised report before it is forwarded to the VMOCC. The agencies interviewed reported that they had not used the Operating Cost template distributed during the 2006 SEES. This template provides a method to calculate total operating costs for member agencies, including allocated administrative and overhead costs. However, on careful questioning, the agencies stressed that the reported operating costs include both direct and allocated costs, including contractor costs as well as administrative overhead for the respective cities. RPTA Planning staff noted that some performance categories needed for the TPR are not available due to large gaps in the data available from contractors. Examples include safety/security, and the maintenance indicator. One agency reports roadcalls in a manner that is consistent with the TPR definition, but manual data manipulation is required to pull those instances from the more broadly defined maintenance service call data that the agency tracks. On-time performance data appears to be fully reported in the detailed tables, but not in the graphics section of the TPR. In at least one case, on-

189 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 5 time performance data is not available for neighborhood shuttles because there is no reporting system in place to capture the data. Although several agencies said that they are reporting performance data at the route level, RPTA is experiencing some push back from some member agencies for detailed route level performance data. Web Tool Implementation In the SEES concept, RPTA would work with member agencies to develop a final reporting format, complete the transition from PMAS (the old performance measurement reporting system), develop a reporting platform, and work with individual members to facilitate the process. The hope was that these activities could occur between April and December of Ultimately, this schedule proved to be unrealistic because RPTA engaged a contractor to develop the web-driven, automated data reporting tool. Development took longer than expected but now includes a detailed System Manual and User Manual. As of December 2008 the contractor, Systems Technology Group, Inc. (STG), is still working through minor bugs. Other RPTA Planning priorities also interfered with the schedule. RPTA decided therefore to pursue two parallel tracks: 1) Develop the FY2008 TPR manually, sending spreadsheet templates to all reporting agencies and compiling the report based on the feedback 2) Continue development of the automated Performance Planning System with STG, with gradual implementation during calendar year The intent for the web-based reporting system is to begin quarterly performance reporting in addition to the annual reporting. RPTA has formed a working group to provide feedback on the STG web tool. As soon as the beta version is ready, members will be able to comment on the input screens. Phoenix has already made a request to enter data by batch file. Transit Performance Report The TPR has replaced the old PMAS. The transition occurred in the fall of The Valley Metro/RPTA Board was pleased with the FY2007 report presented in January Booz Allen reviewed the draft FY2008 Transit Performance Report (prepared in December 2008) and provided feedback to RPTA. The report has an appealing layout

190 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 6 and features clear performance updates for system-wide bus, paratransit and vanpool. However, Booz Allen also identified several gaps: The presentation of performance indicators does not include all the indicators in the SEES framework. For example, the fixed route system-wide pages lack data on safety/security performance, on-time performance, and mechanical performance. The draft TPR also does not contain any route-level data. The SEES framework advocated a comprehensive set of route level indicators as shown below. Exhibit ES-2 Fixed Route, Route Level Measures Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy (Net Opg Cost) per Boarding Cost per Revenue Mile Service Effectiveness Total Boardings Boardings Avg. Weekday, Sat., Sun. Boardings per Revenue Mile Boardings per Revenue Hours (Express Bus) On-time Performance Miles between Mechanical Failures Source: SEES Report, March 2007 It would be cumbersome to provide this much information in the TPR for all routes. However, a summary of the best performing and worst performing routes (e.g., the highest and lowest quartile boardings per revenue mile and subsidy per boarding), and a link to the complete route level data should be additions to the TPR. Contract Negotiations Regarding Performance Reporting Since the SEES adoption, there do not appear to have been any changes in contractual requirements for reporting route level data and operating costs by the three primary fixed route bus contractors in the Valley (Veolia, First Transit, MV). In most cases, the contractors derive route level performance from larger samples of data. As one example, representatives of the City of Phoenix said they were not made aware that their contractors had to report cost per boarding or miles between mechanical failures on a route by route basis. Now that they understood the rationale for the regional reporting requirement, they could begin collecting this data for July 2008 (i.e.,

191 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 7 first quarter of FY2009) so that the FY2009 TPR could include route level performance results. Route Maturation Guidelines By December 2008, route maturation guidelines have not specifically been discussed in TMC or VMOCC meetings since the SEES. These are expected to be included in the Short Range Transit Program (SRTP). Generally, the current understanding is that there is a two- year maturation period. However, since neither the TPR nor other processes currently lend themselves to a quarterly comparison of route level performance data, discussion of this topic at the regional level is difficult. Another agency noted that the TPR does not make it clear whether data for immature routes (i.e., those that have been operating for less than two years) are excluded from the performance indicators. That agency went on to make the case that data from immature routes should be excluded from the systemwide data because it is likely to have a negative impact on systemwide performance. Performance of these routes should be reported only at the route level. The Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) provides guidance for Proposition 400 Route implementation and funding, above the original legislation. Given the state of the Arizona and national economies, regional discussions are under way to consider phased route implementations (i.e., SRTP). Proposition 400 Routes Versus Other Routes For the 18-month review, the consultant team reviewed annual transit performance data files and confirmed that the transit performance data is available at the route level, including all of the Proposition 400 routes. Each route receiving Proposition 400 funding was identified, however it was not immediately possible for the consultant to know what percentage of the route was funded through Proposition 400 funding. Reporting Transit Performance to Policy Bodies The annual TPR is proceeding on schedule, with presentations to the TMC and Board planned for January Currently, there is no quarterly regional transit performance reporting. It is expected that regional reporting can begin in the third or fourth quarter of FY09 (i.e., by June 2009), as the web-based data implementation tool is rolled out.

192 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 8 3. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for the SEES implementation are provided below and organized by the following topics: Target setting and adoption Communications with reporting agencies Web tool implementation Transit Performance Report Contract negotiations regarding performance reporting Proposition 400 routes versus other routes Reporting to policy bodies. Target Setting and Adoption First, Valley Metro/RPTA is to be commended on the establishment and adoption of performance targets. As the reporting process matures, so too will the process for updating the targets. The appropriate Board(s) should always be involved in changes to performance targets. Performance targets can be divided into four groups with respect to how and when they should be updated (from less frequent to most frequent) Group Example Measure Source of Performance Target 1 Farebox Recovery Ratio Regional fare policy recommendation 2 Service effectiveness measures Miles between Mechanical Failures Security Incidents per X Boardings On Time Performance Customer Satisfaction Etc. 3 Demand measures Annual Increase in Total Boardings Annual Increase in Saturday/Sunday Boardings 4 Standard cost efficiency measures: Operating Cost per Boarding Subsidy per Boarding Operating Cost per Revenue Mile Etc. Rationale for Update Update Frequency Regional policy; Regular pulse check, but unlikely to Regional fare policy change unless regional policy recommendation changes. Actual performance Regional policy Regular pulse check, but unlikely to change unless regional policy changes. Financial Plan assumptions Actual baseline data from FY05-06 Should be consistent with assumptions in RPTA financial plan For the FY07 and FY08 TPRs, the target was escalated based on national CPI-U for transportation items Future targets should be based on budgeted costs and service levels Yearly pulse check; change according to Financial Plan assumptions Need to update every year. RPTA staff requested advice on the rationale for updating cost efficiency measures such as operating cost per boarding. Simply inflating historical operating cost data using national inflation trends can result in increasing the divergence between a theoretical

193 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 9 goal and what is observed (or attainable) locally. A better approach would be to develop the target annually as a part of the budgeting process rather than externally through the CPI-U. The Finance Department would take the lead in updating the targets based on current financial projections, ridership projections and interest rates. Annual transit budgets are developed to provide specific service levels, with costs built up at the line item level to reflect the direct (e.g., labor, benefits, fuels, parts) and indirect (or overhead) costs of providing a given level of service. Therefore, the budget effectively establishes the target for annual efficiency measures such as operating cost per boarding or operating cost per revenue mile. Transit budgets also identify revenues by source, and may therefore also be used to define targets for revenue measures, such as subsidy per boarding. It is therefore recommended that RPTA use budgeted costs and revenues per unit of service delivered or consumed to calculate the annual targets for those indicators. For instance, the paratransit ridership target of 3% annual increase could be dropped given the disproportionate cost of paratransit trips. In addition to being relatively simple to calculate, an advantage of this approach is that it makes it easy to explain variances in terms of budget line item costs. It is also likely to be more relevant to local experience than the rate of change in a national index that may or may not reflect local conditions. RPTA should also periodically evaluate effectiveness performance targets (i.e., not dependent on cost). For instance, the 3% target for annual increases in paratransit ridership, although a baseline assumption in the Financial Plan, should be dropped as it given the disproportionate costs involved. It is recommended that RPTA take advantage of the regular TMC and VMOCC meetings during the October cycle to discuss potential updates to the SEES targets (by exception only), with the objective of presenting recommended updates for Board consideration during the January cycle. Communications With Reporting Agencies The main strategy to address the turnover among member agency staff involved in reporting transit performance data is regular communication and solid documentation. RPTA already has a working group of data practitioners responsible for TPR updates and Proposition 400 reporting. The working group listing needs to be kept current and should include back-ups (alternates) for participation when the primary member is not present. RPTA should also keep a running tally of participation. RPTA staff should develop a standard package of documentation to share with current and future working group members. This documentation could include:

194 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 10 Working group list (primary member and alternate) Proposition 400 legislation/summary SEES Report Operating cost template Performance measure definitions (longer version) Latest TPR report Data implementation tool User Manual. Web Tool Implementation RPTA should more proactively advertise the data tool implementation with its working group. Early participation by the data input staff will contribute to tool acceptance, and will likely prevent costly fixes to the software ahead of the beta version release. The City of Phoenix request for batch data entry is a good example of both the former and the latter. Another advantage of more proactive participation in the data tool implementation project is increased member agency awareness of upcoming quarterly reporting, and the ability to sort performance by route including by Proposition 400 routes. To facilitate understanding and implementation of the tool, it is recommended that RPTA offer several training sessions for the working group members (ideally both primary and secondary members should be trained). RPTA could use this opportunity to reiterate the importance of total operating cost reporting, and to provide additional training on the operating cost template. Transit Performance Report Booz Allen has worked with RPTA staff to make improvements to the draft FY2008 TPR report. As indicated in the Findings section above, two major opportunities for improvement include the inclusion of the missing performance indicators (e.g., on-time, maintenance, safety and security) as well as the route analysis summary. Individual route performance is currently not available in the TPR, but definitely should be included in the future. The following table illustrates three approaches RPTA peer agencies use to evaluate and present individual route performance. System Evaluation Measure Evaluation Approach Houston METRO Subsidy per Boarding Routes ranked from best to worst Routes sorted by quartile Focus on 4th quartile for improvement Routes in lower 4th quartile subject to elimination

195 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 11 Denver RTD Dallas DART Subsidy per Boarding Boarding per Revenue Hour Subsidy per Boarding Passengers per Trip Passengers per Revenue Mile Routes ranked from best to worst Focus on least 10% for either measure Focus on least 25% for both measures Routes subject to modification or elimination Routes ranked from best to worst Routes with Route Performance Index (RPI) less than 0.6 require corrective action; with examined for corrective action Source: Booz Allen Hamilton, Technical Advisory Committee Presentation #7, SEES, November 2006 The complete listing of the route level performance indicators is included in the SEES report and listed above (Exhibit ES-2). Booz Allen does not recommend that all measures be included in the TPR report, but they should all be available upon request. It is expected that this data will be readily available once the data implementation tool is operational. Specific recommendations for what route level analysis to include in the TPR did not exist up to this point. To cover the route cost component, it is recommended that subsidy per boarding be tracked, at a minimum. For service effectiveness, it is recommended that RPTA track passenger boardings per revenue mile. A representative sample of the best and worst performers would be shown in the TPR. From the base data, it is recommended that RPTA rank the routes from best to worst for each indicator, then sort them by quartile (top 25%, next 25%, etc). Performance for the routes can be shown by quartile in a few simple tables as illustrated below. Route-Level Subsidy Per Boarding Best performers (Top 25%) Route-Level Performance Summary, FY08 Route-Level Subsidy Per Boarding Worst performers (Bottom 25%) Route A: $a/boarding Route B: $b/boarding Passenger Boardings per Revenue Mile Best performers (Top 25%) Route A (not the same A as above): a/mi Route B: b/mi Route Z: $z/boarding Route Y: $y/boarding Passenger Boardings per Revenue Mile Worst performers (Bottom 25%) Route Z: z/mi Route Y: y/mi It is worth noting that in monitoring regionally funded service programmed under the TLCP, the draft SRTP (FY08/09 to FY13/14) recommends using both passenger

196 SEES 18-Month Review December 30, 2008 Page 12 boardings per mile (target: 2.1) and the regional local bus passenger loading (standard: 125%). The passenger loading measure tracks whether for the same trip (in a period of 6 months within the year) there were three or more consecutively sequenced trips that exceeded the regional local bus passenger load of 125% (i.e., 25% standees). Monitoring route performance is key to identifying areas of improvement. This is desirable at all times, but particularly important in a recessionary economy. Possible actions for poor performing routes could include targeted marketing, headway changes, days of service changes, elimination of non productive route segment(s), or route elimination, among others. Contract Negotiations Regarding Performance Reporting Progress needs to be made with respect to requiring operators to meet the regional reporting requirement contractually. Problematic areas include safety and security, mechanical, and on time data. Reporting agencies need to flow down the reporting requirements to their contractors for both the system and route level performance. RPTA should monitor and check compliance with the requirements. Copies of the SEES indicator table should be helpful for communicating these needs. Proposition 400 Routes Versus Other Routes During the review, the question arose as to whether it would be appropriate for the TPR to provide specific reporting for Proposition 400 routes. The TPR was designed as a reporting tool to manage the system on a regional basis. It is expected that the webbased data implementation tool will have the functionality to drill down to any indicator by route or groups of routes (e.g., for all Proposition 400 routes as a system). For this reason it is not recommended that RPTA transform the TPR into a Proposition 400 system report. It is recommended that RPTA ensure that a similar report can be produced through the automated system either by quarter or for all of FY2009. Reporting to Policy Bodies At the moment, the only regional transit performance data reporting occurs on an annual basis, in January for the prior fiscal year. During the SEES, the recommendation was that regional transit performance reporting should occur quarterly. The consultant team recommends maintaining the quarterly reporting cycle to the extent possible, and that the Operations Department should become involved in the process.

197 Summary Recommendations 18 Month SEES Pulse Check CATEGORY RECOMMENDATION ACTION OWNER TIMEFRAME Target Setting and Adoption Discuss potential updates to SEES targets with TMC and VMOCC RPTA Planning Staff October each year Consider change in base escalation for cost efficiency measures RPTA Planning Staff January each year Present annual TPR; present recommended target change (s) to RPTA and VMR Boards RPTA Planning Staff January each year Communications with Develop up to date working group listing RPTA Planning Staff February 2008 Reporting Agencies Conduct monthly Data Tool/Transit performance meeting RPTA Planning Staff, reporting agencies Monthly in 2008 Emphasize to working group importance of total cost accounting RPTA Planning Staff February 2008 Keep running record of participation RPTA Planning Staff February 2008 Develop standard package of documentation for working group members RPTA Planning Staff February 2008 Web Tool Implementation Finish roll out of Beta version RPTA Planning Staff, STG March 2009 Test Special Report for Proposition 400 individual route and System RPTA Planning Staff, STG performance for all of Prop 400 routes together March 2009 Work with individual members to maximize input; monthly working RPTA Planning Staff, reporting agencies meetings member staff March 2009 Finish roll out RPTA Planning Staff May 2009 Plan and Execute Training Session for member agencies RPTA Planning Staff May 2009 Transit Performance Report Add snapshot of best route level performance: recommend subsidy per boarding and boardings per revenue mile for best and worst performing quartile routes Add safety and security, maintenance and on-time performance indicator performance data. Indicate where/why not available RPTA Planning Staff February 2009 RPTA Planning Staff February 2009 Contract Negotiations Flow down reporting requirement to Contractors Tempe, Phoenix, Glendale January-March 2009 (system wide and route level) RPTA Operations Reporting Begin monthly data entry with new system RPTA Planning Staff, reporting agencies member staff May 2009 Begin quarterly, etc briefing to Audiences - Bus/DAR RPTA Operations Mgr June 2009 and quarterly Begin quarterly, etc briefing to Audiences - Rail VMR Operations Mgr June 2009 and quarterly

198 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Cost Savings Recommendations through Service Adjustments Agenda Item #4 Summary Under Proposition 400 the State of Arizona is required to audit the performance of transit services provided by Public Transportation Funds (PTF). To provide a basis for performance measures, the RPTA Board approved the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study (SEES) in The SEES includes recommendations regarding the evaluation of operating investments. This evaluation has gained additional significance as RPTA works to address regional funding shortfalls resulting from a decline in sales tax collections. To this end, agency staff has been working to identify potential cost savings through transit service adjustments. These adjustments would target routes that are identified as underperforming using the SEES performance criteria adopted by the RPTA Board. To ensure that potential service adjustments adhere to best planning practices, and will not adversely impact the operational efficiency of the regional transit system, planning staff have evaluated currently operating routes using the SEES performance measures. Use of the measures has allowed staff to identify underperforming routes. The evaluation was conducted for all Valley Metro routes but recommendations for service changes have been limited to just those routes funded or partially funded by RPTA. Once underperforming routes were initially identified, planning staff then evaluated individual trips for the subject routes to determine whether or not the route was generally underperforming or if only certain trips were. This second step was critical since some routes, such as bi-directional express routes, may operate well in one direction but not in the other. In the case of local routes, some trips may exceed capacity due to destinations served (i.e. a major employer or school) but may feature other trips with little ridership. By identifying these patterns, staff were able to determine whether a route should be watched, targeted for marketing, terminated, or restructured to allow for maximum efficiency within available resources. 1

199 The Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study (SEES) recommends that a new route be given two years to mature before being considered for alteration or termination under the performance measures. The maturation recommendation recognizes that new routes take time to build ridership, especially in areas where little or no transit service previously existed. Therefore, recommendations for service reductions do not include routes that have operated for less than two years. As a final step, planning staff identified parallel routes that could address existing trip needs if a decision to terminate a route or a trip is made. In some cases, no changes would be needed for these parallel routes. In other cases, some small diversions may be considered to reduce adverse impacts stemming from a route termination. The attached draft Cost Savings Recommendations Through Service Adjustments Paper outlines the finding and recommendations of this exercise. Fiscal Impact The service adjustment recommended could result in an annual savings as high as $717,000. Considerations Before implementation, routes adjustments would need to go through Title VI and Environmental Justice analysis, and would be subject to any applicable public hearing requirements. In addition, if any service changes are made, all efforts should be made to provide alternatives for displaced riders. These could include modifications to parallel routes or increasing service frequencies on said routes to provide substitute trip options for displaced riders. Committee Action Process April 2007 RPTA Board approved the SEES February 2008 RPTA Board accepted the FY 2007 Transit Performance Report January 2009 RPTA Board accepted the FY 2008 Transit Performance Report Recommendation No action is being requested at this time. This item is for discussion only. Based on service performance evaluation a preliminary recommendation is that the following routes be terminated: Route 520 Tempe Express Route 570 Glendale Express Route 582 North Mountain Express Another recommendation is to consider the elimination of the four reverse commute trips on Route 572 (Surprise/Scottsdale Express). It should be noted that the amount of cost savings that would be realized may be minimal since dead heading would increase with the loss of the revenue reverse commute trips. 2

200 Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning Attachments White paper Cost Savings and Service Reductions Report 3

201 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Cost Savings Recommendations Through Service Adjustments Draft August 11, 2009 As a part of the Proposition 400 transportation tax referendum, the Arizona Legislature required that a performance audit be performed on the transit service paid for by public transportation funds. To provide a basis for measuring the performance of the regional transit system, the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority authorized a Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study (SEES) to develop uniform standard for collecting data and measuring performance, and to develop performance targets for the region. The Board approved this study in April Using the structure provided by the SEES, two Annual Transit Performance Reports (FY 2008 and FY 2009) have been prepared and accepted by the Board since that time. To take the process one step further, the results of the Transit Performance Reports need to be evaluated with respect to whether or not transit investments are considered worthwhile. This report makes that evaluation and recommends actions that are in keeping with good stewardship of Public Transportation Funds provided through the county-wide sales tax for transportation. This exercise has taken on added significance as Valley Metro RPTA is faced with revenue shortfalls caused by the downturn in the economy. To that end, RPTA staff has identified potential cost savings through transit service adjustments. The cost savings could assist the agency in addressing the projected county-wide sales tax revenue shortfall which is the result of a decline in both the regional and national economies. Following the recommendations of the SEES helps ensure that potential service adjustments adhere to best planning practices, and will not adversely impact the operational efficiency of the regional transit system. To that end, planning staff have evaluated currently operating routes using the performance measures identified in the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study (SEES) which have been adopted by the RPTA Board. Use of the measures has allowed staff to identify underperforming routes. The evaluation was conducted for all Valley Metro Routes, but recommendations for service changes or terminations has been limited to just those routes funded or partially funded by RPTA. Local Route Identification Methodology The first step in the process of identifying the least productive routes was to list all of the local routes in the system with their boardings per mile performance. This was done for weekday, Saturday, and Sunday data. These lists were then ranked from high to low according to boardings per mile to identify the routes that fell into the bottom quartile of system performance. Once these rankings were determined, further analysis was focused on those routes that are funded or partially funded by RPTA. The results of this Working Draft August 11,

202 process for Weekday Local Routes are shown in Table 1. RPTA funded routes that appear in the bottom quartile of the weekday system include: Route 81 Hayden/McClintock LINK Route 156 Chandler Boulevard Grand Avenue Limited The performance of local routes on both Saturday and Sunday were identified using the same process. Table 2 presents the results for Saturday service and Table 3 presents the results for Sunday service. Routes funded or partially funded by RPTA that fall in the bottom quartile for Saturday service include: LINK Route 136 Gilbert Road Route 156 Chandler Boulevard RPTA-funded routes in the bottom quartile for Sunday service include: LINK, Route 96 Dobson Route 156 Chandler Boulevard. Working Draft August 11,

203 Weekday Local: Sorted By Route Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings Route Miles January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile 0 2, ,610 6,403 5,978 6,135 5, , ,408 6,425 6,265 6,149 5, A , ,710 5,659 5,356 5,480 4, , ,141 3,032 2,752 2,923 2, , ,216 3,188 3,013 3,349 3, ,311 2,232 2,038 2,195 2, ,189 1,162 1,138 1,122 1, , ,649 3,656 3,483 3,563 3, , ,042 5,030 4,950 4,934 4, ,374 8,719 8,636 8,267 8,434 8, A , ,776 9,874 9,493 9,743 9, , ,085 5,260 4,937 4,906 4, , ,368 11,416 10,760 11,486 10, A , ,519 3,484 3,256 3,299 2, , ,324 2,388 2,199 2,343 2, , ,385 7,487 6,986 7,082 6, , ,067 1,109 1,097 1, , ,379 2,372 2,204 2,245 2, , ,041 10,241 9,727 9,953 9, A , ,365 3,284 3,010 3,159 2, , ,082 3,065 2,976 2,983 2, , ,280 4,992 4,819 4,680 4, , ,916 6,865 6,534 6,507 6, ,362 1,398 1,343 1,383 1, ,028 1, , ,999 2,126 2,058 2,210 2, , ,063 3,149 3,013 3,110 2, , ,231 3,207 3,081 3,045 3, , ,691 6,642 6,103 6,424 5, , ,514 1,592 1,481 1,517 1, ,021 1,002 1, Working Draft August 11,

204 Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings Route Miles January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile 66 1, ,180 1,287 1,193 1,235 1, , ,577 2,750 2,576 2,549 2, , ,375 8,241 7,920 8,195 7, , ,071 5,792 5,551 5,459 4, , ,894 3,063 2,910 3,099 2, ,970 1,965 1,979 1,966 1, , ,927 3,117 3,165 3,132 2, , ,402 3,475 3,398 3,382 3, , ,940 2,012 1,901 1,899 1, , ,916 2,026 1,937 2,045 1, ,502 1,545 1,445 1,480 1, , ,187 4,289 4,242 4,152 4, ,684 1,591 1,583 1,630 1, , ,500 1,629 1,614 1,597 1, , ,151 1,200 1,153 1,126 1, , ,382 1,455 1,410 1,436 1, , ,604 3,494 3,275 3,226 2, , ,572 1,749 1,794 1,774 1, L GAL LINK 1, , System Average Total 86, , , , , , Working Draft August 11,

205 TABLE 1 (Continued) Service Evaluation Process Weekday Local: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings February Route Miles January March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile 29 2, ,368 11,416 10,760 11,486 10, , ,916 6,865 6,534 6,507 6, , ,041 10,241 9,727 9,953 9, ,311 2,232 2,038 2,195 2, ,970 1,965 1,979 1,966 1, ,374 8,719 8,636 8,267 8,434 8, , ,408 6,425 6,265 6,149 5, , ,776 9,874 9,493 9,743 9, , ,085 5,260 4,937 4,906 4, , ,385 7,487 6,986 7,082 6, , ,610 6,403 5,978 6,135 5, , ,649 3,656 3,483 3,563 3, , ,402 3,475 3,398 3,382 3, , ,365 3,284 3,010 3,159 2, , ,042 5,030 4,950 4,934 4, , ,231 3,207 3,081 3,045 3, , ,375 8,241 7,920 8,195 7, ,684 1,591 1,583 1,630 1, , ,216 3,188 3,013 3,349 3, , ,710 5,659 5,356 5,480 4, , ,141 3,032 2,752 2,923 2, , ,604 3,494 3,275 3,226 2, ,362 1,398 1,343 1,383 1, , ,577 2,750 2,576 2,549 2, , ,187 4,289 4,242 4,152 4, , ,894 3,063 2,910 3,099 2, , ,691 6,642 6,103 6,424 5, , ,280 4,992 4,819 4,680 4, , ,082 3,065 2,976 2,983 2, , ,063 3,149 3,013 3,110 2, , ,324 2,388 2,199 2,343 2, L , ,999 2,126 2,058 2,210 2, ,502 1,545 1,445 1,480 1, Working Draft August 11,

206 Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings Route Miles January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile 62 1, ,514 1,592 1,481 1,517 1, , ,071 5,792 5,551 5,459 4, , ,572 1,749 1,794 1,774 1, ,028 1, ,021 1,002 1, , ,916 2,026 1,937 2,045 1, , ,940 2,012 1,901 1,899 1, , ,379 2,372 2,204 2,245 2, ,189 1,162 1,138 1,122 1, , ,927 3,117 3,165 3,132 2, , ,151 1,200 1,153 1,126 1, , ,180 1,287 1,193 1,235 1, , ,067 1,109 1,097 1, A LINK 1, , A , ,382 1,455 1,410 1,436 1, A A GAL System Average Total 83, , , , , , = Bottom Quartile Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Working Draft August 11,

207 TABLE 2 Service Evaluation Process Saturday: Sorted By Route Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings February Route Miles January March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile ,717 2,429 2,163 2,548 2, ,210 3,330 3,082 2,961 3, A , ,732 2,687 2,559 2,585 2, , ,765 1,835 1,809 1,652 1, ,118 1, ,942 1,978 1,905 1,814 1, , ,872 3,098 3,021 2,483 2, ,227 4,404 4,380 4,110 4,001 3, A , ,227 5,362 5,139 4,833 4, , ,079 3,195 2,823 2,705 2, , ,138 5,165 5,113 4,536 4, A , ,646 1,629 1,393 1,374 1, ,034 1,042 1, , ,487 4,449 4,286 3,899 3, , ,489 1,730 1,791 1,707 1, , ,052 5,205 5,255 5,077 4, A ,567 1,453 1,466 1,278 1, ,646 1,719 1,684 1,547 1, , ,514 2,330 2,532 2,220 2, ,503 3,426 3,141 3,059 2, ,430 1,567 1,576 1,608 1, ,466 1,246 1,246 1,250 1, ,817 1,729 1,615 1,299 1, , ,346 3,413 3,186 3,242 3, Working Draft August 11,

208 Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings Route Miles January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile 66 1, ,530 1,548 1, , ,501 4,369 4,305 3,960 3, , ,823 3,158 3,091 2,982 2, ,452 1,737 1,485 1,405 1, ,005 1,121 1,226 1,070 1, , ,085 2,062 1,957 1,984 1, , ,076 1,019 1, , , ,307 1,279 1,327 1,261 1, , ,268 2,417 2,311 2,172 2, , , ,207 2,316 2,186 2,206 1, ,116 1, LINK System Average 52, ,006 99,377 95,405 89,659 87, Working Draft August 11,

209 TABLE 2 (Continued) Service Evaluation Process Saturday: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings Route Miles January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile 29 1, ,138 5,165 5,113 4,536 4, ,210 3,330 3,082 2,961 3, , ,227 5,362 5,139 4,833 4, , ,052 5,205 5,255 5,077 4, ,503 3,426 3,141 3,059 2, ,942 1,978 1,905 1,814 1, ,227 4,404 4,380 4,110 4,001 3, ,817 1,729 1,615 1,299 1, , ,487 4,449 4,286 3,899 3, ,567 1,453 1,466 1,278 1, , ,872 3,098 3,021 2,483 2, ,530 1,548 1, ,717 2,429 2,163 2,548 2, ,466 1,246 1,246 1,250 1, , ,501 4,369 4,305 3,960 3, , ,079 3,195 2,823 2,705 2, ,118 1, , ,085 2,062 1,957 1,984 1, , ,732 2,687 2,559 2,585 2, ,452 1,737 1,485 1,405 1, ,116 1, ,034 1,042 1, , ,207 2,316 2,186 2,206 1, , ,268 2,417 2,311 2,172 2, , ,765 1,835 1,809 1,652 1, ,646 1,719 1,684 1,547 1, ,430 1,567 1,576 1,608 1, , ,346 3,413 3,186 3,242 3, , ,514 2,330 2,532 2,220 2, Working Draft August 11,

210 Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings Route Miles January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile , ,823 3,158 3,091 2,982 2, , ,307 1,279 1,327 1,261 1, ,005 1,121 1,226 1,070 1, , ,646 1,629 1,393 1,374 1, , ,489 1,730 1,791 1,707 1, , ,076 1,019 1, , LINK , A A , A A System Average 52, ,006 99,377 95,405 89,659 87, = Bottom Quartile Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Working Draft August 11,

211 TABLE 3 Service Evaluation Process Sunday: Sorted By Route Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings February Route Miles January March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile ,578 1,641 1,434 1,535 1, ,095 2,243 2,202 2,056 1, , ,654 1,709 1,810 1,811 1, , ,161 1,059 1,057 1,034 1, ,220 1,230 1,319 1,263 1, , ,995 1,867 2,010 1,769 1, , ,570 2,893 2,909 2,862 2, , ,499 3,683 3,700 3,400 3, , ,110 2,271 2,292 2,112 1, , ,358 3,522 3,585 3,370 3, , ,151 3,238 3,273 3,077 2, , ,057 1,189 1,445 1,273 1, , ,012 3,095 3,397 2,915 2, ,046 1,170 1, ,183 2,224 2,394 2,240 2, ,044 1, , ,099 1,184 1,143 1, , ,121 2,038 2,222 1,983 2, , Working Draft August 11,

212 Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings Route Miles January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile 72 2, ,906 2,232 2,392 2,217 2, , , ,340 1,451 1,305 1,324 1, , , ,516 1,565 1,564 1,458 1, , , ,533 1,615 1,546 1,541 1, LINK System Average 43, ,472 57,583 60,046 55,939 55, , ,255 57,407 59,774 55,718 54,953 Working Draft August 11,

213 TABLE 3 (Continued) Service Evaluation Process Sunday: Sorted By Boardings Per Mile Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings February Route Miles January March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile 29 1, ,358 3,522 3,585 3,370 3, , ,499 3,683 3,700 3,400 3, ,095 2,243 2,202 2,056 1, ,183 2,224 2,394 2,240 2, , ,570 2,893 2,909 2,862 2, ,220 1,230 1,319 1,263 1, , ,012 3,095 3,397 2,915 2, ,099 1,184 1,143 1, , ,151 3,238 3,273 3,077 2, , ,995 1,867 2,010 1,769 1, , ,578 1,641 1,434 1,535 1, , ,110 2,271 2,292 2,112 1, , ,786 2,752 2,846 2,785 2, , ,533 1,615 1,546 1,541 1, , ,516 1,565 1,564 1,458 1, , ,340 1,451 1,305 1,324 1, , ,654 1,709 1,810 1,811 1, , , ,121 2,038 2,222 1,983 2, ,044 1, ,046 1,170 1, , ,161 1,059 1,057 1,034 1, , ,906 2,232 2,392 2,217 2, Working Draft August 11,

214 Revenue Average Daily Boardings Boardings Route Miles January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Mile , ,057 1,189 1,445 1,273 1, LINK , , , System Average 46, ,026 61,174 63,673 59,482 58, = Bottom Quartile Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA 782 Working Draft August 11,

215 Local Route Analysis Once the underperforming local routes were identified, a closer look was taken at both average daily boardings and boardings per mile. Graphs were developed for these two performance indicators for each route. For routes that have been operating for some time, graphs were developed showing annual boardings for a five year period to show ridership trends. LINK: Graph 1 presents average daily boardings for LINK weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service from its implementation at the end of December through May Graph 1A presents boarding per mile data for the LINK over the same time period. Since LINK is a new route, and the ridership indicators appear to be trending upwards, it is recommended that this route s performance continue to be monitored. GRAPH 1 LINK Average Daily Boardings 1,200 1, Weekday Saturday Sunday Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

216 GRAPH 1A LINK Boardings Per Mile Weekday Saturday Sunday Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

217 Route 156 Chandler Boulevard: Average daily boardings for a twelve month period are presented in Graph 2. Boarding per mile data for Route 156 are presented in Graph 2A. Annual boarding data are presented in Graph 2B. The data for this route indicate that progress is being made with ridership generally trending upwards. Continued monitoring is recommended GRAPH 2 Route 156--Chandler Blvd Average Daily Boardings Weekday Saturday Sunday May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

218 0.8 GRAPH 2A Route 156--Chandler Blvd Boardings Per Mile Weekday Saturday Sunday May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

219 GRAPH 2B Route- 156 Chandler Blvd Annual Boardings Weekday Saturday Sunday FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

220 Route 136 Gilbert Road: This route only appeared in the bottom quartile for Saturday service. Graph 3 and Graph 3A show average Saturday boardings and average Saturday boardings per mile respectively. Annual boarding data is presented in Graph 3B. The data for Saturday Route 136 indicate that it may be too early to make any changes, but the service should continue to be watched. 400 GRAPH 3 Route 136--Gilbert Road Saturday Service Daily Boardings May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

221 0.9 GRAPH 3A Route 136--Gilbert Road Saturday Service Boardings Per Mile May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

222 25000 GRAPH 3B Route 136-Gilbert Rd Annual Saturday Boardings FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

223 Route 96 Dobson: This route appears to be performing fairly well on weekdays and Saturdays. However, Route 96 falls into the bottom quartile for Sunday performance. Graph 4 shows the average daily Sunday boarding from its implementation in August 2008 through May Graph 4A shows the boarding per mile data for the same time period. Both indicators show an upward trend and therefore no action is recommended other that continued monitoring. 900 GRAPH 4 Route 96--Dobson Sunday Service Daily Boardings Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

224 0.8 GRAPH 4A Route 96--Dobson Sunday Boardings Per Mile Boardings Per Mile Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

225 Grand Avenue Limited: Although Grand Avenue Limited is technically a local route, the peak period only operation suggest that analysis of its boarding per trip data would provide a better picture of its performance. Graph 5 presents both average daily boardings and boarding per trip data over a thirteen month period. Annual boarding data is presented in Graph 5A. While not exactly trending upwards, the data does seem to be stabilizing. Grand Avenue Limited should also continue to be watched. 180 GRAPH 5 Grand Avenue Limited Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

226 GRAPH 5A Grand Avenue Limited Annual Boardings Annual Boardings FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

227 Local Route Recommendations It appears that no drastic action is needed with these underperforming local routes. Many are new routes or routes recently upgraded to regional Supergrid route levels of service which take some time to mature. The SEES recommends that new routes be given two years to mature before being considered for alteration or termination under the performance measures. Therefore it is simply recommended that these local routes continue to be monitored over time. It is further recommended that for each of the routes identified for continued monitoring, Valley Metro consider what marketing resources are available that could enhance these routes visibility with the traveling public. Express / RAPID Route Identification Methodology A similar process was used for express and RAPID routes, although boardings per trip was used as a more appropriate measure of productivity for commuter oriented service. The following routes fall into the bottom quartile of this type of service: Route 520 Tempe Express Route 582 North Mountain Express Route 570 Glendale Express Route 572 Surprise/Scottsdale Express Route 511 Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express Route 576 Northwest Valley/Montebello Express Route 536 Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Express Express / RAPID Route Analysis As with the local routes, once the lowest performing quartile of express routes was identified, a closer look was taken at the average daily boardings. Boardings per trip were used instead of boardings per mile, as a better indicator of performance for peakhour commuter-oriented service. Unlike the local routes, in some cases the express route data were then broken down into boardings per individual trip to gain a better understanding of what is happening with these routes. Working Draft August 11,

228 Route 520 Tempe Express: This route is showing a downward trend for the last several months. Graph 6 shows that average daily boardings and boardings per trip are declining, particularly since the implementation of light rail. Annual boarding data are presented in Graph 6A. The downward trend clearly corresponds to the opening of the METRO light rail line linking Mesa, Tempe and Phoenix. This likely indicates that some Route 520 riders have shifted to using light rail. Likely reasons for the shift include greater service frequency on light rail which addresses a greater range of trip needs, and access to three METRO park & ride lots immediately north of the current Rt. 520 alignment. Staff is recommending that this route be terminated GRAPH 6 Route 520--Tempe Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

229 GRAPH 6A Route Tempe Express Annual Boardings Annual Boardings FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

230 Route 582 North Mountain Express: Graph 7 shows that this older route has performed poorly for some time. Although the route attracts approximately one hundred riders per day, it averages only around 10 or 12 boarding per trip. The overall system average is about Annual boarding data presented in Graph 7B also indicate a decline in ridership over time. This trend reflects the impact of competing express service, such as Route 590 and the I-17 RAPID. Both of these routes generally operate within this same commute corridor and offer faster commute options to central Phoenix. Since these competing travel options apparently better address commute travel demand within the corridor, the planning staff recommends termination of Rt To help alleviate the impact of this, staff also recommends that a stop at the Bell Road Park & Ride be considered for Rt This would address any Rt. 582 riders seeking to access employment centers along north Central Avenue through a connection to METRO Light Rail at the Montebello Station at 19 th Avenue. 120 GRAPH 7 Route 582--N Mountain Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

231 GRAPH 7A Route North Mountain Express Annual Boardings Annual Boardings FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

232 Route 570 Glendale Express: This is another older route that is not performing particularly well. Graph 8 shows that boardings per trip average a little over 10. The overall system average is about Annual boardings data are presented in Graph 8B. For part of its route, the Glendale Express competes with Route 80 which operates in the Northern Avenue corridor. Express riders seeking a faster trip to central Phoenix have the option of utilizing the Grand Avenue Limited which provides both a shorter and faster trip due to its routing and limited number of stops. Staff recommends termination of the Glendale Express, and further recommends adding one in-bound and one outbound trip to the Grand Avenue Limited. 70 GRAPH 8 Route 570--Glendale Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

233 GRAPH 8A Route Glendale Express Annual Boardings Annual Boardings FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

234 Route 572 Surprise/Scottsdale Express: Graph 9 indicates that this route is attracting only about 10 boardings per trip on average. This route was implemented in July 2008 and includes some reverse commute trips. In order to find out what going on with this route, Graph 9A was developed to show average boarding per individual trip. It shows that some trips are doing fairly well, but that the reverse commute westbound morning and early afternoon trips are performing poorly. Staff recommends that the reverse commute trips for this route be eliminated and that additional peak direction trips be considered for this route. To avoid costs associated with the excessive dead heading that would result, staff further recommends that the feasibility of interlining this route with Route 511 be evaluated. GRAPH Route 572--Surprise/Scottsdale Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

235 Route 511 Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express: This route was implemented in December Although ridership is low, graph 10 shows that the numbers are trending upward. This route operates bi-directionally during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Graph 10A shows that some a.m. southbound trips, and some p.m. northbound trips have almost no ridership. This suggests a significant directional travel demand bias in the corridor. Another factor affecting ridership includes the impact of the Loop 101 HOV lane construction project which has been underway in this corridor since Since this corridor has operated for less than a year, staff is not recommending adjustments at this time. Staff does recommend that Valley Metro consider what marketing resources are available to enhance this route s visibility, especially its connection to light rail. Staff also recommends that additional trips be added to the route to allow the service to better address travel demand in the corridor. A mid-day southbound trip should be considered. This would provide greater travel flexibility for express bus riders who use Route 540, 541, or 542 for their morning commute but need a connection back to the Chandler Park & Ride if they need to leave work mid day. It is also recommended that a stop be added at the Chandler Fashion Center/Transit Center to provide access to this major employment center and significant transit transfer location (connections to Routes 72, 81, and 156). GRAPH Route 511--Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip 10 0 Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

236 GRAPH 10A 14 Route 511--Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Boardings By Trip Month Average Start Time NB 525a NB 628a NB 410p NB 510p SB 507a SB 607a SB 410p SB 510p Working Draft August 11,

237 Route 576 Northwest Valley/Montebello Express: This route was also implemented in December Graph 11 shows that average boardings and boardings per trip are very low, and Graph 11A shows that the reverse commute trips have almost no riders. Although this route is less than two years old, elimination of reverse commute trips should be considered. Additional peak direction trips should be considered if fleet is available. Staff further recommends the addition of a stop at the I-17/Bell Road Park & Ride as this would address additional peak travel needs within the corridors of I-17, Camelback (through connection to METRO light rail), and north Central Avenue (through connection to METRO light rail). GRAPH Route 576--Northwest Valley/Montebello Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

238 7 GRAPH 11A Route 576--Northwest Valley/Montebello Express Boardings By Trip Month Average Start Time 545a IB 645a IB 745a IB 900a OB 1000a OB 440p OB 540p OB 640p OB 510p IB 610p IB Working Draft August 11,

239 Route 536 Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU: Graph 12 shows that this route averages fewer than five boardings per trip. Graph 12A indicates that some trips are averaging only one rider per trip. This route is also one that was implemented in December, Valley Metro should consider what marketing resources are available that could enhance this route s visibility with the traveling public. Since this route serves the ASU Tempe campus a major regional activity center it is also recommended that a survey be conducted of university faculty, staff and students to identify whether or not the current schedule addresses their trip needs. Results of this survey would provide the agency with guidance on possible schedule modifications that may better address travel needs in this corridor. GRAPH Route 536--Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

240 GRAPH 12A 7 Route 536--Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ ASU Boardings By Trip Month Average Start Time 635a 705a 735a 940a 1100a 1215p 315p 445p 515p 545p Working Draft August 11,

241 Express/RAPID Route Recommendations In developing recommendations, planning staff gave special consideration to routes that have operated for less than two years. This is in line with the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study (SEES) recommendation that a new route be given two years to mature before being considered for alteration or termination under the performance measures. The maturation recommendation recognizes that new routes take time to build ridership, especially in areas where little or no transit service previously existed. Based on the previously discussed service performance evaluation the planning staff recommend that the following routes be considered for termination: Route 520 Tempe Express Route 582 North Mountain Express Route 570 Glendale Express Elimination of these three routes could result in an annual cost saving of $717,000. Despite the two-year maturation recommendation of the SEES, another recommendation resulting from this analysis is to consider the elimination of the four reverse commute trips on Route 572 (Surprise/Scottsdale Express). The amount of cost savings that would be realized may be minimal since dead heading would increase with the loss of the revenue reverse commute trips. To minimize the resulting dead heading, interlining of this route with Rt. 511 should be explored. Planning staff also recommends identifying what marketing resources are available for the promotion of new express routes to increase their visibility to the traveling public. Several of these routes include features that have not previously existed in the region (i.e. bi-directional service, suburb to suburb commuting, arterial BRT, etc.). Educating the public on these new travel options could go a long way to increasing the use of these services by the travelling public. Working Draft August 11,

242 TABLE 4 Service Evaluation Process Weekday Express: Sorted By Route Revenue Average Boardings Per Trip Boardings February Route Trips January March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Trip SR I-10 East I-10 West I ,259 1,277 1,217 1,231 1, System Average Total 322 7,297 7,081 6,965 6,765 6, Working Draft August 11,

243 TABLE 4 (Continued) Service Evaluation Process Weekday Express: Sorted By Boardings Per Trip Revenue Average Boardings Per Trip Boardings February Route Trips January March 09 April 09 May 09 Per Trip I-10 East I ,259 1,277 1,217 1,231 1, I-10 West SR System Average Total 322 7,297 7,081 6,965 6,765 6, = Bottom Quartile Funded or Partially Funded by RPTA Working Draft August 11,

244 GRAPH 6 Route 520--Tempe Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

245 40000 GRAPH 6A Route Tempe Express Annual Boardings Annual Boardings FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

246 120 GRAPH 7 Route 582--N Mountain Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

247 GRAPH 7A Route North Mountain Express Annual Boardings Annual Boardings FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

248 70 GRAPH 8 Route 570--Glendale Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

249 GRAPH 8A Route Glendale Express Annual Boardings Annual Boardings FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Working Draft August 11,

250 GRAPH Route Surprise/Scottsdale Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

251 40 GRAPH 9A Route Surprise/ Scottsdale Express Boardings By Trip Month Average Start Time EB 455a EB 520a EB 548a EB 618a EB 510p EB 540p WB 605a WB 630a WB 340p WB 410p WB 440p WB 510p Working Draft August 11,

252 GRAPH Route Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip 10 0 Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

253 GRAPH 10A 14 Route Chandler/Scottsdale Airpark Boardings By Trip Month Average Start Time NB 525a NB 628a NB 410p NB 510p SB 507a SB 607a SB 410p SB 510p Working Draft August 11,

254 GRAPH Route Northwest Valley/Montebello Express Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

255 7 GRAPH 11A Route Northwest Valley/Montebello Express Boardings By Trip Month Average Start Time 545a IB645a IB745a IB 900a OB 1000a OB 440p OB 540p OB 640p OB 510p IB610p IB Working Draft August 11,

256 GRAPH Route Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ASU Daily Boardings Boardings Per Trip Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Working Draft August 11,

257 GRAPH 12A 7 Route Northeast Mesa/Tempe/ ASU Boardings By Trip Month Average Start Time 635a 705a 735a 940a 1100a 1215p 315p 445p 515p 545p Working Draft August 11,

258 Estimated Annual Savings From Service Reduction Rate Daily Annual Annual Farebox Estimated Annual Route Contractor Per Mile Miles Miles Cost Revenue Net Savings Route 520--Tempe Express Veolia Tempe $ ,856.5 $232,000 $23,000 $209,000 Route 570--Glendale Express First Transit $ ,895.5 $155,000 $16,000 $139,000 Route 582--N Mountain Express Veolia Phoenix $ ,102.5 $410,000 $41,000 $369,000 $717,000 Working Draft August 11,

259 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Fixed Route Policy Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Agenda Item #5 Summary The purpose of the TAC will be to focus on revising, adding and/or deleting existing (traditional) fixed-route operating policies focusing on customer-based issues. The customer-focused policies should be based upon existing legal requirements Specifically, the TAC will review the following items in order to establish a foundation for policy development: Ordinances in Mesa, Phoenix, and Tempe relative to METRO operations Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements and guidelines Federal and State laws regarding the operation of public transportation services e.g. ADA Operating contracts of the primary fixed-route service providers. Municipal ordinances that may be applicable (right-of-way, standing vehicles, sign placement, etc ) Valley Metro/RPTA staff will develop a list of hot issues for the TAC s first meeting. These are issues that have been tabled or have recently negatively impacted customers. These issues will be dealt with early in order to develop guidelines. The new guidelines will be published as an update to previously produced collateral material. The TAC s charge will be to develop: 1) A new set of guidelines, as an interim step, in order to deal with hot issues. 2) Customer-focused operating policies for VM/RPTA Board adoption Membership on the Fixed Route Policy TAC is open to interested VMOCC agencies. Each agency that is interested in participating should send the appropriate subject matter expert relative to fixed-route operation and customer issues. The goal is to have VM/RPTA Board adoption of the new Fixed-Route Policies at its September 2010 meeting. 1

260 Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action Requested by VMOCC at its March 2009 meeting. Recommendation It is recommended that the VMOCC establish a Fixed Route Policy Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Contact Person Jim Wright Acting Deputy Executive Director of Operations Attachments None. 2

261 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Regional Transit Framework Study Final Draft Report Agenda Item #6 Summary The overall goal of the study is to prepare a Regional Transit Framework Study in cooperation with the Regional Public Transportation Authority (Valley Metro RPTA) and Valley Metro Rail (METRO). This project is funded and managed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). Valley Metro RPTA and METRO are partners in managing the technical work effort. It is anticipated that the results of this study would be incorporated into the MAG Regional Transportation Plan for approval by the MAG Regional Council. The Study provides a technical basis for evaluating and prioritizing future transit projects and programs. It also provides decision makers with a comprehensive perspective on the costs, schedules, tradeoffs, impacts, and policy implications of various transit improvement options. The Framework Study identifies three mobility investments scenarios: 1) Basic mobility; 2) Enhanced mobility; and 3) Transit choice. Costs associated with each of these levels have also been identified. The three mobility investment scenarios were modeled by MAG and the results evaluated. Fiscal Impact MAG funded the Regional Transit Framework Study at a cost not to exceed $980,000. Considerations None. Committee Action Process October 2008 VMOCC project update provided for information only. February 2009 VMOCC project update provided for information only. 1

262 Recommendation This item is for information and discussion. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning Attachments The Final Draft Report, and all other documents associated with this study, are available at or by contacting Kevin Wallace at the MAG: (602)

263 Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee Information Summary Date August 11, 2009 Subject Valley Metro Planning Studies Update 2 nd Quarter Overview Agenda Item #7 Summary This report is intended to give a brief status update for ongoing studies in the Planning department of Valley Metro RPTA. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Committee Action Process None Recommendation For Information only. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning Attachments 2 nd Quarter 2009 Update 1

264 Valley Metro Planning Studies 2 nd Quarter Project Update April - June 2009 INTRODUCTION This report provides a brief status update for ongoing studies in the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) Planning Department. For more information on any of the listed projects, please contact: Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director, Planning cketcherside@valleymetro.org PLANNING PROJECTS 1. Comprehensive Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study Study Objective Define the operational parameters of the arterial BRT lines identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and funded under Proposition 400. Work includes reviewing existing and ongoing planning documents to identify demand for and recommend operational characteristics of the arterial BRT system. Recommendations of the study will address operational characteristics, performance measurements, administrative/managerial characteristics, and identification of transit supportive land use and development. This draft final report is complete. The draft final report will be presented the Technical Advisory Group at a meeting to be scheduled in August. The draft final report will be presented at the September VMOCC meeting. Relationship to Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) and RTP Takes the arterial BRT routes that are conceptually identified in the RTP and provides the operational assumptions that will provide the basis for five BRT routes operating schedules. Study is being undertaken concurrently with Arizona Avenue Design Concept Report which will provide the design for a BRT line in this corridor. The Arizona Avenue BRT is scheduled to enter service in July Mesa Main Street Valley Metro LINK (Bus Rapid Transit) Implementation Project Objective The project has moved into the final design/construction phase with construction related tasks beginning January 5, The LINK bus service began service on December 27, 2008 concurrent with the 1

265 start of METRO Light Rail Transit (LRT) service. LINK buses are currently using temporary stops and will do so until the construction project is complete and the new stations are put into service. LINK bus service is supplemented by Route 40 supergrid service which operates in the same corridor. The LINK stops only every mile and more closely resembles express service. Route 40 stops every 1/4 mile and is considered local service. The RPTA Board approved contracts for construction administration and for project management, as well as two construction contracts on November 20, SDB Inc. is under contract to construct the 26 stations along Main Street and Power Road. SDB has all 26 stations under construction: preparing the pad for the shelter, curb and sidewalk. SDB has nearly completed the shelter prototype at the southeast corner of Alma School and Main Street. A restroom is being constructed by SDB as a change order to their contract at the Sycamore Station Transit Center. Ry-Tan Inc. is under contract to constructing the Superstition Springs Mall Transit Center. Ry-Tan has completed all the underground construction and has begun work on the new bus station and the additional parking area. Staff is continuing to work with the Orbital division of ACS to integrate the Real Time Transit Bus data feeds and software for the stations. Staff is researching the incorporation of fare vending machines at three station locations. Construction of both projects is anticipated to be completed by the first week of November A ribbon cutting is being planned for early November. Relationship to TLCP and RTP Preliminary and final design for capital improvements associated with Main Street BRT. The Main Street BRT entered service on December 27, 2008 concurrent with the start of METRO Light Rail service on the Central Phoenix East Valley Light Rail initial operating segment. 3. Arizona Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Design Study Objective Define the operational characteristics and associated capital requirements for the Arizona Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line that will operate in the cities of Mesa, Chandler and the Town of Gilbert. The Design Concept Report is complete and includes 30% design plans for the infrastructure improvements in the corridor. Design contract options to develop 65% and 100% design plans and associated construction bid documents have been exercised. 2

266 The Arizona Ave BRT line connects Sycamore station (end of line for METRO Light Rail) to the Tumbleweed Park and Ride (Germann and Ocotillo Road) via Main Street, Arizona Ave/ Country Club, and Germann Road. Construction funding for the Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive BRT project is being provided by an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Grant from the Federal Transit Administration. Right of way acquisition associated with the project is being undertaken by the Cities of Chandler and Mesa, and the Town of Gilbert. The IGAs are currently being reviewed by RPTA and the Cities of Chandler and Mesa, along with the Town of Gilbert. The City of Chandler has decided to use functional art for two of their stations in downtown Chandler, at the corner of Chandler Blvd and Arizona Ave. Through the City of Chandler, an artist has been chosen for the design work. The comments received on the draft 95% plans were updated and the final version of the 95% plans was sent to the three agencies for further review. Comments received on the 95% plans were reflected in the subsequent 100% design plans. On July 31 st, RPTA will advertise an Invitation for Bid (IFB) for construction of the BRT stations and associated right of way improvements. Bids will be due on September 2, A recommendation to award a contract will be made to the RPTA Board in October. Relationship to TLCP and RTP Preliminary and final design for capital improvements associated with Arizona Avenue BRT. The Arizona BRT is scheduled to enter service in Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study Study Objective Determine overall performance of current bus service offerings through a detailed analysis of performance factors. Outcomes include strategies to improve, eliminate or modify lowest performance-related services, development of recurring evaluation strategy and methodology that can be applied to a regular rating process, and target goals for each performance factor. In November 2008, Phase II was begun to evaluate the recommendations from the first Phase. The Phase II 18-month testing of the performance measurement parameters has been completed. The consultant has submitted a draft of the Phase II recommendations. Revised draft memo is being reviewed. The draft final Phase II memo will be presented to VMOCC in August. Relationship to TLCP and RTP Proposition 400 requires that Regional Area Road Funds (RARF) and PTF funded transportation investments be 3

267 subjected to a performance audit every five years. The Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study defined the performance measures that will be used to determine the effectiveness of regionally funded transit investments implemented under Proposition 400. The first performance audit is scheduled for Database Development Services for Web-Based reporting and monitoring of Valley Metro Performance Indices Project Objective Timely and consistent reporting of performance data by all of Valley Metro members who operate service is crucial to implementation of the Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study, and to preparedness for State Performance Audits required under Proposition 400. A software vendor is developing a web-based reporting tool that will be accessible to RPTA staff and to RPTA member agencies. The Web based application is complete. RPTA staff is in the process of setting up user accounts and sending out individual s with passwords/usernames and instructions. Database is set up for FY 08/09 annual data and FY 09/10 1 st quarter (July 09 to September 09) to be entered and approved by agencies providing service. The deadline to enter and submit FY 2009 annual data is October 30, FY 09/10 1 st quarter data is November 30 th. Relationship to TLCP and RTP See relationship text for Service Efficiency and Effectiveness Study project above. The web based data reporting tool being developed as part of this overall effort will allow for the efficient and timely collection of transit performance data in readiness for future audits. 6. Park-and-Ride Environmental Assessment and Site Selection Project Objective Park-and-Ride Environmental Assessment and Site Selection is to assist local municipalities that are developing a park-and-ride lots to a) identify potential locations; b) determining site selection criteria; c) recommend a preferred site; d) determine the appropriate level of environmental analysis required; e) perform environmental research and technical studies appropriate; f) assist with presentation of materials and gathering of input from the public, as well as municipal staff, local councils, and elected officials; and g) prepare environmental documents for submittal to the regional designated recipient of federal funds and the Federal Transit Administration. Project on hold because of current agency wide budget constraints. Some of this work is being completed through individual city funded projects including the Surprise Park-and-Ride study, and the Scottsdale Loop 101 Park & Ride Study. 4

268 Relationship to TLCP and RTP The regional capital program assumes a significant use of Federal funds. In order for a park-and-ride to be eligible for Federal matching funds the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process must be followed. This means that categorical exclusions (CEs) must be developed for each project. RPTA, in partnership with the host community, will undertake site selections and CEs for the regional park-and-rides identified in the RTP and the TLCP which will support the regional express bus program. LOCAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 7. Peoria Transit Planning Study for the City of Peoria The Project is complete. Study Objective Develop a transit plan for the City of Peoria. The study will develop recommendations for transit routes and associated infrastructure with an action plan that will guide implementation of the Plan s recommendations. The final report has been submitted to Peoria for review Relationship to TLCP and RTP No direct relationship. Study is being done at the request of and the expense of the City of Peoria as part of our planning support to our members. Study assumptions included regional service assumptions from the TLCP and the RTP. 8. Surprise Short Range Transit Study (Inter-Governmental Agreement) Study Objective The project will review existing Park-and-Ride facilities and ensure they conform to the transit service phasing identified in the 2003 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The study will develop recommendations for new Park-and-Ride facilities to coincide with proposed transit routes and associated infrastructure, with an action plan that will guide implementation of the Plan s recommendations. Planning scope and schedule altered from short-term to long-term study. IGA has been amended to reflect the change. The study is almost complete and is pending City Council approval. Relationship to TLCP and RTP No direct relationship. Study is being done at the request of, and the expense of the City of Surprise as part of our planning support to our members. Study assumptions included regional service assumptions from the TLCP and the RTP. 9. Scottsdale Mustang Center The study is a follow-on to a previous design study for the Mustang Transit Center. The current effort is in response to recent discussions between 5

269 the City and Scottsdale Healthcare regarding a possible public/private development of a parking structure that would both serve the parking needs of the hospital as well as those of the transit center. Study is currently on hold while City staff explores partnering opportunities with Scottsdale Healthcare. Relationship to TLCP and RTP TLCP includes funding for a transit center and park-and-ride in this vicinity. While capital funding in the TLCP assumes construction of a surface park-and-ride, these funds can be used as a match to private sector funds for the development of a parking structure. Study is being done at the request and expense of the City of Scottsdale as part of our planning support to our members. 10. Scottsdale Loop 101 Park and Ride This project will construct a park and ride near Loop 101. Scope of work has been prepared and approved by the City of Scottsdale. A cost and staffing plan has been solicited from one of RPTA s on-call consultants. An IGA with the City of Scottsdale is being prepared for this project. A limited notice to proceed has been issued to the study consultant AECOM. Contract with AECOM was approved at the May 21 st RPTA Board meeting. ARRA (Federal Stimulus) funding for this project was included in the RPTA Board action on February 19, A stimulus funding application to FTA for this project is in development. Relationship to TLCP and RTP This project is not one of the PTF funded facilities identified in the TLCP implementation schedule. Study is being done at the request of the City of Scottsdale as part of our planning support to our members. Funding for the Study is being provided by the City of Scottsdale. This facility will support operational investments that are identified in the TLCP. 6

270 Valley Metro Planning Studies 2nd Quarter Project Update April- June 2009 PLANNING PROJECTS Project Description Mesa Main Street BRT Implementation Schedule Dates Mths Start Finish O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 04/17/07 10/01/09 29 Status Date Status Date: 06/30/2009 Run Date: 8/18/2009 Service Effectiveness/Efficiency Study 04/13/06 12/01/09 31 Park and Ride Environmental Assessment and Site Selection 05/15/09 06/15/10 12 Comprehensive Arterial BRT Study 02/04/08 07/01/09 16 Arizona Avenue BRT Preliminary and Final Design 02/13/08 07/30/10 29 Web-Based Reporting Tool 12/01/07 01/01/10 25 LOCAL SUPPORT PROJECTS Peoria Transit Planning Study (IGA) 07/01/06 06/30/09 36 Scottsdale Loop 101 Park and Ride 02/01/09 06/30/10 16 Scottsdale Mustang Center** 07/07/06 10/30/09 42 Surprise Short Range Transit Study (IGA)*** 05/05/06 06/30/09 37 Total. Planned Activity In-Progress Completed Activity **Additional task may be added to expand scope. ***Scope amended to include long range element Status Date: June 30, 2009 Planning Progress Report Page 1