MEETING OF THE Transit Management Committee · To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at 602-262-7433 for the dial-in-information. The supporting information

MEETING OF THE

Transit Management Committee

MEETING DATE April 6, 2011

TIME 11:00 a.m.

LOCATION Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room

101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor Phoenix

March 30, 2011 TO: Members of the Valley Metro RPTA Transit Management Committee FROM: David A. Boggs Executive Director RE: April 6, 2011 TMC Packet Notes Attached is the April 6, 2011 Transit Management Committee Meeting agenda and supporting information. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 11:00 a.m. and will be held in the Lake Powell Conference Room at 101 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 1000. This meeting can be attended via teleconference. Please contact Rosalia Castro 602-262-7433 for the call-in information. If you have any questions regarding the information in this packet, please let me know. Validated parking is available onsite and parking can be accessed via the entrance on Adams Street (see enclosed map). If you need detailed directions, please contact the receptionist at 602-262-7433. Thank you.

To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at 602-262-7433 for the dial-in-information.

The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: www.ValleyMetro.org. 1

March 30, 2011

Transit Management Committee

Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 1000

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 11:00 a.m.

Action Recommended

1. Consent Agenda

The TMC will consider items A through H on consent.

1. For action

A. Summary Minutes

Summary minutes from the February 2, 2011 meeting of the TMC are presented for approval.

A. For action

B. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Fare Vending Machines (FVMs) Maintenance Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to issue a RFP for FVMs maintenance.

B. For action

C. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Fare Revenue Counting and Securement Services

Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to issue a RFP for fare revenue counting and securement services.

C. For action

D. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with METRO for Fare Vending Machines (FVMs) Revenue Service Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to execute the MOU with METRO for FVMs revenue service.

D. For action



E. Contract Award for the Bus Stop Decal Installation Project for NextRide (formerly MYStop)

Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to enter into a contract with ShelterClean of Arizona Inc. for the installation of NextRide decals for bus stops in participating jurisdictions, for an amount not to exceed $118,750.

E. For action

F. FY 2011 Contract Change Order #2 for City of Phoenix Fixed Route Transit Service (Contract #127858) Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, approval of the FY 2011 contract change order #2 for city of Phoenix fixed route transit service.

F. For action

G. Valley Metro RPTA Human Services Transportation Coordination Policy Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to execute the Valley Metro RPTA Human Services Transportation Coordination Policy.

G. For action

H. Contracts with the City of El Mirage and the Town of Youngtown Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to enter into contracts with the City of El Mirage and the Town of Youngtown for shared-ride, door-to-door transportation services for eligible clients.

H. For action

2. Transit Financing Alternatives David Boggs, Executive Director will introduce Kurt Freund, Managing Director of RBC Capital Markets, who will provide information on different financing alternatives.

2. For information

3. FY 2010/2011 Origins and Destinations Survey Update David Boggs, Executive Director will introduce Carol Ketcherside, Director of Planning, who will provide an update on the FY 2010/2011 Origins and Destinations Survey Study.

3. For information

4. Legislative Update David Boggs, Executive Director, will introduce Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, who will provide an update on current legislative issues.

4. For information



5. Future TMC Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

Chair Greg Jordan will request future TMC agenda items from the TMC members and TMC members may provide a report on current events.

5. For information

6. Executive Director’s Report David Boggs, Executive Director, will brief the TMC on current issues.

6. For information

7. Public Comment An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker.

7. For information

8. Next Meeting The next meeting of the TMC is scheduled for May 4, 2011 at 11:00 a.m.

8. For information

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 602-262-7433 or TTY at 602-251-2039.

1

1

Transit Management Committee Information Summary

Agenda Item 1

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Consent Agenda Summary The Transit Management Committee (TMC) will consider items A through H on consent. Fiscal Impact Please refer to individual items for this information. Considerations Please refer to individual items for this information. Prior Committee Action Please refer to individual items for this information. Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC approve the items listed on the consent agenda and forward to the Board of Directors for consideration. Contact Person David Boggs Executive Director 602-262-7433 Attachments Consent Agenda Items

1


Agenda Item A

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Summary Minutes from the February 2, 2011 Transit Management Committee Meeting Summary Summary Minutes from the February 2, 2011 Transit Management Committee meeting are presented for review and approval. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation Approval of the Summary Minutes from the February 2, 2011 TMC meeting. Contact Person David Boggs Executive Director Attachments Summary Minutes from February 2, 2011

2

Summary Minutes Valley Metro RPTA Transit Management Committee

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 100

Phoenix, AZ

Members Present Jason Hartong for Greg Jordan, City of Tempe, Chair David Moody, City of Peoria, Vice Chair Debbie Cotton, City of Phoenix Rogene Hill, City of Avondale Paul Ward, Town of Buckeye RJ Zeder, City of Chandler Terry Johnson for Jamsheed Mehta, City of Glendale Mike James, City of Mesa David Meinhart, City of Scottsdale Karen Savage for Dave Kohlbeck, City of Surprise Mitch Wagner for Mike Sabatini, Maricopa County John Farry for Steve Banta, METRO Chris McMurdy for Cato Esquivel, City of Goodyear Members Not Present Mike Normand, ADOT Leah Hubbard, City of El Mirage Tami Ryall, Town of Gilbert Chris Hagen, City of Tolleson Vice Chair David Moody called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m. 1. Consent Agenda

The following items were presented on the consent agenda: A. Summary Minutes from January 5, 2011 B. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance Coverage Renewal C. Authorization to Procure Employee Benefits Medical Insurance D. FY 2009/10 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Single Audit

Report

3

Mr. Jungwirth said there is a date change to the termination date in item B – it should read February 29, 2012. IT WAS MOVED BY DAVID MEINHART, SECONDED BY RJ ZEDER AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. 2. Transit Life Cycle Program Final Policy Recommendations Paul Hodgins said the financial model was rebuilt using Access and has been reviewed by the technical group and they helped verify inputs, calculations, etc. Results of the new model allowed the group to develop a recommendation for the remaining policy issues. He said the following recommendations are being put forward by the Working Group:

Implement blended rates for the purpose of allocating bus operation costs to jurisdictional equity for the Express/BRT, Local/Supergrid, and Rural service types beginning in FY 2017.

Incorporate the Glendale Avenue adjustment into jurisdictional equity by recalculating the original jurisdictional equity percentages adding the $24.7 million adjustment to Glendale and the total and using those amended percentages to implement the TLCP.

Establish the threshold for jurisdictional equity variance at an amount not to exceed +/- 2.5% for each of the sub-regions and with the provision that no individual jurisdiction be under allocated by more than $7.5 million without that jurisdiction’s expressed consent.

Exclude federal funds from jurisdictional equity calculations. (Not a policy change)

He said this recommendation represents a consensus of the working group and staff supports it. The recommendation is reflected in the modified TLCP policies. With this recommendation we can move forward with the TLCP Update to address the shortfall in forecasted revenues. Dave Meinhart and Debbie Cotton thanked the working group for their efforts during this process. IT WAS MOVED BY DEBBIE COTTON, SECONDED BY DAVE MEINHART AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR CONSIDERATION, APPOVAL OF THE UPDATED TLCP POLICIES WHICH INCORPORATE THE TLCP WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REMAINING POLICY ISSUES. 3. FY 2010 Transit Performance Report (TPR) Carol Ketcherside said the report is made up of data that is collected from members and noted that some data still needs to be submitted. She said that Prop. 400 funded projects are reported separately. She said the goals are inflated annually but how they

4

are inflated and the timing of the information will be reviewed by the Regional Transit Advisory Group (RTAG). Jason Hartong requested that data be segmented by operating agency. He also noted that the fare recovery ratio is distorted if circulators are included. He said the data is incomplete and asked if the group will be reorganizing how the data is collected. Dave Meinhart asked why the information would be delayed until February. Ms. Ketcherside said the information is asked for in October and with cities trying to close their financial books, it is difficult for them to enter their data. She also noted the amount of time it takes RPTA staff to compile the data for the report. Ms. Cotton thanked staff for their work on this report. She said she is interested in the performance of routes – the “watch” list. She said she would like to know how the TPR relates to the TLCP. She also suggested a column be added that shows the previous year’s data to allow for a better comparison from year to year. Ms. Cotton requested an expanded glossary which would include what is considered “on-time” and “cost per mile”. Ms. Ketcherside said the ranking has been completed again this year and is being used by the TLCP Working Group as a reference point. Rogene Hill asked what is the intent of the report. She asked if it was being used in the decision making process. She asked if the drop in total ridership is due to the cutting of routes? She also asked if we continue to cut service will we end up in a downward spiral. Ms. Ketcherside said the report is being used during the TLCP process. She said the drop in ridership on certain routes may be because of frequency or unemployment. She said we could experience a downward spiral but we also have to deal with the financial realities. Mr. Meinhart said we need some level of assessments of the targets. He said we should be paying attention to certain measurements. Ms. Ketcherside said she would like RTAG to look at the data that is being collected and how that data is used. IT WAS MOVED BY DAVE MEINHART, SECONDED BY DEBBIE COTTON AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR CONSIDERATION, APPORVAL OF THE FY 2010 TPR AND ANY ADDITIONAL OR CORRECTED DATA THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE PRIOR TO THE FINAL ADOPTION, TO BE ADDED TO THE DRAFT AS IT IS REPORTED AND TO MOVE THE REPORT PRESENATION TO FEBRUARY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

5

4. Legislative Update Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, said the Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica announced his commitment to writing a full six-year bill this year, and outlines four guiding principles for the legislation. Chairman Mica plans to introduce legislation that will achieve the following: Stabilize the Highway Trust Fund Recapture unspent federal funds in the transportation program Utilizing public private partnerships and other alternative financing mechanisms

to leverage federal funds Streamline programs and speed project delivery

He said the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer has also set the passage of the surface transportation bill as the top priority for her Committee in the coming months. She has set the goal of moving a bill through her Committee by Memorial Day. She noted that this will take cooperation from a number of other committees that have jurisdiction over different components of the transportation program including the Senate Banking Committee, which must write the transit title. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said that the Obama Administration hopes that a bill will be completed by August. While the President called for a new commitment to rebuilding America’s infrastructure during the State of the Union address, including access to high speed rail for 80 percent of Americans within the next 25 years, the President also stated that he would veto any legislation sent to him that includes earmarks. Mr. Jungwirth said the Continuing Resolution will expire March 4. Republican leaders have continued to express their desire to reduce the federal deficit by cutting funds within the federal discretionary budget including transportation programs. He noted that Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced that the House will vote on a slimmed down CR the week of February 14 that will reduce non-security discretionary spending to FY 2008 levels. This item was presented for information only. 5. Future TMC Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events Members requested informational papers on TIFIA and GANS. Ms. Hill asked for information regarding the Origin and Destinations Study status and what is the methodology of the study. Mr. Meinhart said the city of Scottsdale has introduced a winter tourist trolley service with 50 percent being paid by sponsors and 50 percent being paid by the bed tax. He said it is hourly service downtown, to the Princess Resort, Westworld and TPC.

6

Ms. Cotton said the I-17 Happy Valley park-and-ride has opened and there were 75 vehicles that first day, 100 cars on the 25th and 200 vehicles on the sixth day it was open. She thanked RPTA staff for their participation in the grand opening. 6. Executive Director’s Report Mr. Jungwirth said speaking points will be developed for Board members to use in Washington DC. He also updated TMC members on the Board agenda items for February which includes an Executive Session. This item was presented for information only. 7. Public Comment None received. With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:41 a.m.

1


Agenda Item B

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Fare Vending Machines (FVMs) Maintenance Background Fare Vending Machines (FVMs) are being installed on the two arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes in the East Valley, (Main Street and on Arizona Avenue). FVMs are being supplied by Scheidt & Bachmann and will operate essentially the same as the FVMs do on the METRO light rail system. A maintenance contractor is needed to conduct preventative maintenance and repairs as well as servicing the machines with change, receipt paper, ink, media, and back office issues. It is anticipated that service will begin in May 2011. Budget Source The estimated annual cost to provide FVM maintenance services for the 25 FVMs is $237,000, and will be funded by Public Transportation Funds (PTF) through a project dedicated specifically for this activity. Impacts The maintenance agreement is needed to insure that there is ongoing support for the machines so that the revenue collections from these routes are never in jeopardy, and that fare evasion is minimized. Committee Action Process RTAG – March 22, 2011 for review TMC – April 6, 2011 for action Board – April 21, 2011 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to issue a RFP for Fare Vending Machine Maintenance.

2

Contact Person Jon Medwin Manager of Contracts & Procurement 602-523-6033 Attachments None

1


Agenda Item C

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Fare Revenue Counting and Securement Services Background A recent audit of RPTA processes recommended improvements in Veolia Transportation’s, RPTA’s fixed-route contracted operator, cash handling and revenue reconciliation process. Specifically, the audit report recommends that RPTA develop cash handling procedures that are consistent with public transportation industry standards. In order to comply with the audit recommendation in the most cost-effective and efficient manner, the cash handling process should be contracted to a bonded security firm. The auditor, as part of its review, recommended following “public transportation industry standards” to improve the cash handling process. The standard in the industry is to separate the cash handling (counting) from staff members responsible for financial reporting/accounting and farebox maintenance/repairs. Locally, the City of Phoenix has assigned city staff to perform its cash handling process for all of its operating facilities. Contracting cash handling is the best solution for RPTA’s situation due to limited staff resources available to perform the cash handling function. Budget Source The funding for this contract service will be included in the FY2012 budget for RPTA fixed route operations operating from the RPTA’s Mesa Operations Facility. The expense will be budgeted in Project 2015 – Fixed Route Operations and Project 2030 East Valley Dial-a-Ride in FY2012. The cost for this service is unknown, but is estimated to be under $100,000 annually. The cost for the service will be determined through the procurement process. Impacts Contracting for cash handling services with a bonded vendor will allow for the cash counts to be reconciled daily to the farebox reports by Veolia staff, independent of the

2

cash receipts and cash counting functions. Recent improvements in the fare revenue building to increase the security of cash fares include the installation of several digital cameras in and around the building. In addition, other facility security improvements are currently under construction, including a guard kiosk that will have the capability to monitor the cameras in the fare building. The combination of a professional security firm to perform cash handling and the facility security improvements will significantly improve fare security and accuracy of cash deposits. This additional contracted service may increase fixed route operating expenses beginning in FY2012. The RPTA - Veolia FY2012 contract rates will be modified to accommodate for the reduction in the current scope of service provided by Veolia. Committee Action Process RTAG – March 22, 2011 for review TMC – April 6, 2011 for action Board – April 21, 2011 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to issue a RFP for fare revenue counting and securement services. Contact Person Jim Wright Director of Operations 602-262-7433 Attachments None

1


Agenda Item D

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with METRO for Fare Vending Machines (FVMs) Revenue Service Background Valley Metro RPTA is installing twenty (20) FVMs as a part of the Arizona Avenue Link service. Additionally five (5) FVMs will be installed; four (4) on the Mesa Main Street Link route and one (1) at the Chandler Fashion Center Transit Center. METRO will provide the following services to RPTA: Provide cash processing and other revenue services Notify RPTA if any of fare vending machines are out of service Provide RPTA with monthly accounting summaries of all fare vending machines Notify RPTA, promptly, of any transmission problems relating to these specific

fare vending machines.

Budget Source Operations funding will be provided through Public Transportation Fund (PTF) monies as part of the TLCP. It is anticipated the assignable costs to operate the fare vending machines will be $1,500 per fare vending machine per year. Impacts Fare vending machines will speed boarding at stops by allowing for off vehicle fare collection. These machines will help to provide an experience that closely approximates the LRT experience. There was a commitment to the stakeholders that fare vending machines would be provided if there was adequate capital budget. Committee Action Process RTAG – March 22, 2011 for review TMC – April 6, 2011 for action Board – April 21, 2011 for action Recommendation

2

It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to execute the MOU with METRO for FVMs revenue service. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Director of Planning 602-262-7433 Attachments The METRO MOU is available upon request.

1


Agenda Item E

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Contract Award for the Bus Stop Decal Installation Project for NextRide (formerly MYStop) Background On December 6, 2010, Valley Metro RPTA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the installation of bus stop identification stickers. The recommended contractor will install NextRide stop ID decals with unique numbers at bus and Light Rail stops throughout the Valley Metro service area. Valley Metro staff developed a NextRide stop ID decal designed to fit standard flag stop signs and two other formats of NextRide stop ID decals to fit various shelter types located throughout the region. The default location for labeling each stop is the flag stop sign. If no flag stop sign is present at a particular stop, the decal will be installed on the shelter. The reason why an RFP was used was because this was a new service and we wanted to see the approaches of the firms that proposed, while still having price as the most significant evaluation factor. After the project is completed, the Contractor will be retained on an as needed basis to replace damaged decals or to install decals at new stops. Please note that once a stop has been labeled with a unique NextRide stop ID that number remains with the stop. If the stop is damaged or vandalized, a duplicate decal will be produced by Valley Metro and provided to the Contractor so it can be installed at that location as part of the ongoing maintenance program. The evaluation criteria used was as follows: Experience & Technical Expertise 10% Quality Assurance Plan 20% Ability to Meet Project Timeline 10% Cost for initial Installation & On-Going Maintenance 60% In response to the solicitation, proposals were received from two firms: SDB Contracting Services and ShelterClean of Arizona Inc. A review panel comprised of staff members from the cities of Tempe, Scottsdale, Glendale, and Valley Metro RPTA evaluated the proposals. Through the evaluation process, SDB

2

Contracting Services was awarded 15.3 points and ShelterClean of Arizona Inc. was awarded 17.7 points. Both firm’s proposals met the minimum requirements described in the RFP, but overall, the committee determined that ShelterClean of Arizona was the most responsive to this RFP. ShelterClean also presented the lowest price for the project. The low priced proposer also received the award, so it was truly a “best value” procurement.As a result, the evaluation committee is recommending contract award to ShelterClean of Arizona Inc. Budget Source Valley Metro staff submitted the NextRide project for funding provided under the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program. In May 2010, Valley Metro was notified that the NextRide project had been approved for funding from the JARC grant. The grant provides 80% of the total cost of the project with a 20% local match. The local match will be paid from Public Transportation Funds (PTF). The “not to exceed” cost for the bus stop sticker identification installation portion of the NextRide ID project is detailed in Table I below: Table I – NextRide Project Cost Elements

Project Activity Estimated Cost Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Upgrade (existing contract) $ 50,000 Web and Mobile application upgrades (existing contract) $106,250 Printer, materials and custom signs for NextRide labels $ 25,000 Contractor to install decals & verify/update inventory $118,750 Total Project Costs $300,000

Funding: Public Transportation Funds (PTF) – $23,749 (20%) Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Grant – $94,997 (80%) The cost of the project is programmed in the FY 2010/11 Capital Budget in Project 9390, Page 137 of the document. The project costs include estimated maintenance costs for the duration of the contract. Impacts If approved, the contractor will be able to start installing NextRide decals in April and complete this portion of the project by July 2011. This will result in fewer calls being routed to live customer service agents, shorter hold times, and more accurate results for next bus schedule inquiries. Committee Action Process VMOCC – March 23, 2010 approved request to issue RFP for installation contractor VMOCC – September 21, 2010 for additional information TMC – October 6, 2010 approved request to issue RFP for installation contractor Board – October 21, 2010 approved request to issue RFP for installation contractor RTAG – February 15, 2011 for review TMC – April 6, 2011 for action Board – April 21, 2011 for action

3

Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to enter into a contract with ShelterClean of Arizona Inc. for the installation of NextRide decals for bus stops in participating jurisdictions, for an amount not to exceed $118,750. Contact Person Scott Wisner Customer Service Manager 602-495-5518 Attachments None

1


Agenda Item F

Date March 30, 2011 Subject FY 2011 Change Order #2 for City of Phoenix Fixed Route Transit Service (Contract #127858) Summary Contract change order #2 with City of Phoenix is for 932,656 revenue miles to operate local routes Grand Avenue Limited (GAL), 50, 59, 67, 70, 106, and express routes 560, 570, 581, 582, and 590 and ADA Dial-a-Ride service. Fiscal Impact Change order #2 is valued at $11,564,905. This amount includes costs for fixed route transit service including ADA dial-a-ride trips. The original estimated annual fixed route miles for FY2010-11 was 925,763, with the reduction in service and changes in funding for Route 59, the new estimated annual fixed route miles for FY 2010-11 are 932,656. The original estimated cost to the RPTA for FY 2010-11 was $4,981,420. The estimated new cost to RPTA reflecting all changes to fixed route service in change order #2 is $4,935,962. The expense is included in the FY 2011 budget in activity 7000, project 2010. Included in change order #2 is the reallocation of Prop 400 operating funds. Due to express service reductions implemented on January 24, 2011, the city of Phoenix has requested a transfer of approximately $313,000 of Prop 400 funds to its ADA dial-a-ride service. This reallocation will change the total ADA Public Transportation Fund (PTF) allocation for Phoenix to approximately $6,628,943. The expense is included in the FY 2011 budget in activity 7901, project 2046. Considerations These routes serve the entire region crossing most local communities. Brief descriptions of the routes are provided below. Express Routes: GAL- Operates between the cities of El Mirage, Glendale, Peoria and downtown Phoenix 50- Operates between the cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale

2

59- Operates between the cities of Glendale and Phoenix 67- Operates between the cities of Glendale and Phoenix 70- Operates between the cities of Glendale and Phoenix 106- Operates between the cities of Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Sun City 560- Operates between the cities of Avondale, Goodyear, Tolleson and downtown Phoenix 570- Operates between the cities of Glendale and Phoenix 581- Operates between the cities of Glendale and Phoenix 582- Operates in the city of Phoenix 590- Operate in the city of Phoenix If this item is not approved, passengers using the service will be forced to find alternative transportation or RPTA would need to contract with a different service provider. Prior Committee Action RTAG – February 15, 2011 for review TMC – March 2, 2011 for action Board – March 17, 2011 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, approval of the FY 2011 contract change order #2 for city of Phoenix fixed route transit service. Contact Person Teri Collins Program Supervisor for Operations 480-287-5982 Attachments Change Order #2 is available upon request.

1


Agenda Item G

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Valley Metro RPTA Human Services Transportation Coordination Policy Background Valley Metro RPTA has a long history of support and commitment to Human Services Transportation Coordination which is defined as the sharing of resources to minimize redundancy and gaps; increase the quality and accessibility of services; and to assist agencies in fulfilling their mission. This policy publicly affirms that commitment. Budget Source No impact. Impact Subrecipients applying for New Freedom and Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds are required to have a signed Human Services Transportation Coordination Policy documenting their support and commitment to Human Services Transportation Coordination. The signed Human Services Transportation Coordination Policy will allow Valley Metro RPTA the opportunity to continue applying for New Freedom and JARC funds on behalf of itself and its members. Prior Committee Action RTAG – February 15, 2011 for review TMC – April 6, 2011 for action Board – April 21, 2011 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to execute the Valley Metro RPTA Human Services Transportation Coordination Policy. Contact Person Jim Wright Operations Director 602-523-6055 Attachments Valley Metro RPTA Human Services Coordination Policy

February 2011

Human Services Transportation Coordination Policy

Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) is committed to Human Services Transportation Coordination which is defined as the sharing of resources to minimize redundancy and gaps; increase the quality and accessibility of services; and to assist agencies in fulfilling their mission. Background: Federal transportation authorization legislation SAFETEA-LU requires the creation of locally developed coordination plans as an eligibility requirement for three Federal Transit Administration funding programs. This requirement affects the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Transportation Program, or Section 5310; Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, or Section 5316; and New Freedom Program, or Section 5317. This region has responded to this federal requirement through coordination plans developed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). The 2008 MAG Human Services Coordination Transportation Plan identified the development of a coordination policy template to assist agencies in working together better. Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to affirm RPTA’s commitment for collaboration, cooperation, and coordination in the delivery of human services transportation whenever practicable. Through this policy, RPTA expresses its intent to coordinate by sharing resources such as vans, drivers, training, and related equipment when practicable. The RPTA’s potential partners for coordination include other public transit agencies; other agencies or businesses with similar missions; private sector, faith-based or community groups; volunteers; and people from the community in need of human services transportation. Seamless and effective coordination will maximize the resources currently available and provide more rides for the transportation disadvantaged. Goals: The RPTA incorporates the three goals of United We Ride into all coordination efforts. The goals are as follows:

1. To provide more rides for target populations for the same or fewer assets, to simplify access and to increase customer satisfaction.

2. To provide mechanisms for the integration of services provided by community providers to ensure a comprehensive coordinated service delivery system.

3. To maintain the integrity of each human service provider’s mission while enhancing specialized support services contributing to that mission.

Regional Public Transportation Authority101 N. First Avenue, Suite 1100, Phoenix, Arizona 85003

602-262-7433, Fax 602-523-6099

1

February 2011

4. To explore methods will ensure maximum feasible coordination between and among human services agencies receiving federal transportation dollars.

Activities:

1. Actively identify barriers to coordination. Barriers may be found in a range of areas including, but not limited to, insurance, funding, capacity, and mission. Explore and implement resolutions to barriers as possible.

2. Actively explore opportunities for coordination. This includes a fleet management analysis to identify deadhead, or down time, of our vehicles and/or drivers. Priority will be given to transporting RPTA’s own passengers and to activities that support RPTA’s mission. If underutilized capacity is found within the fleet, RPTA will actively seek opportunities to provide additional transportation services and to identify people needing transportation that fit within the geographic, financial, and target population capacity of the agency.

3. Support the development of regionally responsive solutions for successful coordination by sharing barriers and opportunities with MAG for consideration in future Human Services Coordination Transportation Plans. This information will be reflected in the gaps analysis and resources sections of the plans. Strategies to address the barriers and promote the opportunities will be developed and included in the plans. Assistance in matching partners for coordination will be provided by MAG as needed by the agencies.

4. Consider coordination a priority. This includes, but is not limited to, sharing resources, drivers, equipment, and training. The mission of RPTA will be held in primary importance with coordination used as an effective tool to support the mission.

The undersigned person agrees to implement this policy within relevant programs of the following agency: ________________________________________________ David A. Boggs, Executive Director Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority ________________________________________________ Signature / Date

2

1


Agenda Item H Date March 29, 2011 Subject Contracts with the City of El Mirage and the Town of Youngtown Background Total Transit, Inc. shall provide shared-ride, door-to-door transportation services for eligible clients. The City and Town will provide a list of clients eligible for the service. The list of eligible clients will be updated on a monthly basis by City and Town. Total Transit, Inc. will be responsible for receiving, through its phone center utilizing its equipment, all service requests. Total Transit, Inc. will also be responsible for all trip routing and dispatching. Budget Source The city El Mirage shall pay RPTA monthly any for services provided at the costs as set forth in in the contract not to exceed a total aggregate amount of $52,000.00 over the term of this Agreement. The town of Youngtown shall pay RPTA monthly for any Services provided at the costs as set forth in the contract not to exceed a total aggregate amount of $6,536.00 over the term of this Agreement. Impacts Services will be provided by RPTA’s Maricopa County Demand Response Transportation Service Program budgeted as project 2048 on page 63 of the FY 2011 budget book. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service will be forced to find alternative transportation and may have no other options available to them. Committee Action TMC for approval, April 6, 2011 Board of Directors for approval, April 21, 2011

2

Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Executive Director to enter into contracts with the City of El Mirage and the Town of Youngtown to provide shared-ride, door-to-door transportation services for eligible clients. Contact Person Jon Medwin 602-262-7433 Attachments None

2

1


Agenda Item 2

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Transit Financing Alternatives Summary At the February 2nd Transit Management Committee (TMC) meeting, members requested a presentation on transit financing alternatives to include a discussion on the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA), Buy America Bonds (BAB), Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs), and Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs). Kurt Freund, Managing Director of RBC Capital Markets, has been invited to present and discuss the different financing alternatives that will include an explanation of the funding mechanism, how it works, and some examples of projects that used these alternatives. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Committee Action Process None Recommendation This item is provided for information. No action is required. Contact Person Mike Taylor Acting Finance Director 602-262-7433 Attachments Powerpoint Presentation

Valley MetroRegional Public Transportation AuthorityTransit Financing Discussion

April 2011

2

Types of Transit Revenues Securitized and Assets Financed

Revenues Securitized

Sales tax revenues

Federal formula funds (Section 5307 funds)

Full Funding Grant Agreements (Section 5309 New Starts)

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (“CMAQ”) funds

Farebox revenues/user charges

Assets Financed

Rolling Stock (buses and rail vehicles)

Farebox equipment

Technology hardware

Administration buildings

Maintenance and operation facilities

Intermodel centers

4

Why Have Issuers Borrowed Against Their Federal Transportation Funding?

The mismatch of Federal receipts and scheduled construction expenditures often results in a desire to borrow against future receipts to match near term cash flow expenditures

Interest is often times reimbursable from Federal grants

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

$40,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Federal Grants

Project ExpendituresIssue Bonds

or Notes Today to Capitalize

Funding Gap

Pay Debt Servicefrom Future

Federal ReceiptsFunding

Gap

1

Reasons to Consider Financing Assets

Dollar size of projects

Capital funding shortfalls or deficiencies

− And impact on operating dollars if used for capital purposes

Project acceleration

− To provide services more quickly to meet needs

− To take advantage of construction costs savings

Long term nature of projects/assets

− Future population growth helps pay for cost

Low financing costs

5

What are GARVEEs/GANs?

GARVEES or GANs are debt issues that are secured by Federal funds expected to be received under a Federal grant agreement

− Can be secured solely by Federal funds to be received; or

− Can be further secured by other available funds (e.g. a subordinate or back-up pledge of Transportation Excise Tax Revenues)

Use of GARVEES/GANs is a credit-worthy financing approach due to the long-term history of Federal funding under various programs

− However, the greater the pledged security, the stronger the credit

Can be financed over any allowable financing term, but generally restricted to no more than 3 Federal authorization periods due to credit concerns and impact on ratings

3

“Innovative” Transportation Financing Strategies

Financing approaches used in addition to Transportation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, include:

− Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEES)/Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs)

− Lease financings through Certificates of Participation

− TIFIA credit assistance

− Public-private partnerships

− Transit-oriented developments

6

Leveraging Section 5307, Surface Transportation Program (“STP”) and CMAQ Funds

A number of transportation agencies have leveraged their future Section 5307 funds (Transit GARVEEs) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to provide interim financing

The established history of formula grants and the relative stability of urban areas are positive credit considerations for the Section 5307 and CMAQ credit; rating agencies have generally rated the Section 5307 and CMAQ credits in the “A” to “AA” categories

Life of bonds typically corresponds to that of the projects financed but final maturity typically within three reauthorization cycles

These financings are relatively easy to execute with fairly standard documentation

More transit agencies are expected to advance their Federal funds through bonding given local budget shortfalls

7

Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) Financing Structure

Structure to leverage FFGA receipts needs to address two possible risks associated with annual Congressional appropriation:

− Delay, and

− Haircut

Prior to the market dislocation, two structures were viable to provide interim funding for FFGA supported projects

− Variable rate bonds secured by sales tax revenues but repaid by FFGA receipts provided flexibility of repayment as grants are received

− Fixed rate bonds could be secured solely by FFGA receipts or by a back-up pledge of sales taxes, thereby protecting the sales tax credit, and maximizing project proceeds

In the current market, a fixed rate structure secured by FFGA receipts and a subordinate lien on the sales tax can provide a strong credit accepted by the market that maximizes leverage capacity and minimizes the impact on the sales tax credit

8

Transit Certificate of Participation (COPs) Financings

Certificates of Participation (COPs) provide a mechanism to securitize, or sell participation interests in, a governmental entity’s lease or lease-purchase transaction

COPs are sold in the municipal debt markets like bonds, with wider market access than traditional vendor financings or bank private placements

Security can be specific revenues stream (i.e. sales tax, Section 5307 funds, etc.) or all available funds (general fund credit)

Term of the COPs represents average life of assets financed

− Typically 12 years for buses and longer for “bricks and mortar” facilities

9

Certificates of Participation (COPs) Financing Structure is an Alternative to Finance Acquisition of Capital Assets

Authority Trustee

COP Holders

Principal and Interest

COPProceeds

AssetPurchase

Installment Sale Lease Agreement

COP Proceeds

Lease Payments

Leasing Entity

COP Proceeds

Assignment Agreement

10

TIFIA Program Assistance

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) provides the following types of credit assistance:

− Direct loans

− Loan guarantees

− Standby lines of credit

Eligible TIFIA applicants and projects include full range of transportation projects:

− Highways and bridges

− Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

− Intermodal connectors

− Transit vehicles and facilities

− Intercity buses and facilities

− Freight transfer facilities

− Passenger rail vehicles and facilities

11

TIFIA Program

TIFIA Program offers credit assistance on terms that are very competitive, if not sometimes unavailable, in the market

− Long term, fixed cost, up-front financing

− Senior or subordinate lien structures

− Ability to capitalize interest for up to 5 years after construction

− Flexibility for no principal repayment for up to 10 years after construction

− Flexible amortization or repayment schedule

− No pre-payment penalty

− Low interest rates

− Up-front commitment that locks in interest rates at no cost

− Draw as needed – no negative arbitrage

Key objectives of the TIFIA Program include:

− Facilitate projects with significant public benefits

− Encourage new revenue streams and private participation

− Fill capital market gaps for secondary/subordinate capital

− Be a flexible, “patient” investor willing to take on investor concerns about investment horizon, liquidity, predictability and risk

− Limit Federal exposure by relying on market discipline

12

TIFIA Program – Requirements and Fees

The TIFIA Program has several requirements

− Intended for large surface transportation projects (generally at least $50 million, or $15 million for ITS projects)

− TIFIA contribution is limited to 33% of the project cost

− The issuer’s senior lien debt must be rated investment grade (BBB-category or above)

− TIFIA requires a dedicated revenue stream for repayment

− Certain federal requirements apply, including Civil Rights, NEPA, Uniform Relocation, Titles 23/49

− Public or private highway, transit, rail and port projects are eligible to apply for TIFIA loans

The TIFIA credit selection process is extremely competitive

13

TIFIA Approved Projects (in millions)

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

14

Public/Private Partnerships

Joint contractual arrangement between public and private sectors

− Typically 50 years or longer

Private party generally provides equity and financing to develop and implement the project

− But re-paid with public monies/taxes/fees

Strong focus nationally particularly as a possible funding source of road projects

For transit agencies, primary value is with real estate that can be monetized to support transit oriented development or other projects

15

New Federal Infrastructure Bank Proposals

Two new infrastructure bank proposals being discussed in Congress

− Senator Kerry (D-MA) bill (SB 652) – the BUILD Act - just introduced in the Senate

− Senator Wyden (D-OR) proposal – Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Projects(TRIPs) – not yet introduced

The BUILD Act

− Proposes $10 billion of federal seed money to newly created American Infrastructure Finance Authority (AIFA)

− Funding to grow to $160 billion through annual federal appropriations over 10 years

− Modeled after US Export-Import Bank (also State Revolving Fund program)

− Provides loans and loan guarantees, rather than direct grants

− Loans available for nationally or regionally significant transportation, water and power projects of $100 million or larger

− Loans are secured by a dedicated revenue stream or backed by state or local government

− Bank designed to be self-perpetuating as loans are repaid

− Proposed to be able to finance 50% of the cost of a project

− With remainder of financing being provided by private market

16

New Federal Infrastructure Bank Proposals

The TRIPs Proposal

− Proposed to be available only for transportation purposes or projects only

− Proposed to be a tax credit financing program where “value” of tax exemption benefit is achieved through selling tax credits to businesses/investors

− Similar to New Markets Tax Credits and other federal tax credit programs

− Unlike Build America Bonds which provided for direct interest rate offset payments from federal government

− Unclear when legislation may be introduced

− Less likely to be widely used given difficulty in completing tax credit financing programs

Case StudiesAppendix

18

Extensive cashflow modeling and ridership forecast and validation, including analysis of ridership “cannibalization” from existing stations

Evaluation of the project using the internal rate of return of project cashflow; stress tests with 50% initial ridership haircut was conducted

Optimally transferred a portion of the ridership risk to key stakeholders by “trading” future ad valorem taxes for “backstop” by the Cities and County for a five-year period if revenues from the new station are insufficient to cover debt service and operating expense

The bonds were structured with debt service ascending proportionally to the projected net incremental farebox revenues

Although bonds are legally secured by BART’s sales tax revenues, the repayment source will be farebox revenues from the new station

Credit strategy crafted to achieve upgrade with Standard & Poor’s

− Reinforced underlying strength of the revenue stream

− Stress tested revenue using a scenario three times as worst as the 2001-02 recession and illustrated BART would meet debt service even at the ABT level

− Illustrated that BART will never leverage down to the theoretical ABT level given the requirement from the revenue stream to support operation and maintenance expenses

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”)

WDP TOD Financial Strategy

19


$485,350,000 Revenue Bonds – Extension Project, 2001 Series A

Sale Date: February 23, 2001

BART issued $485 million of fixed rate bonds to accelerate the funding of the SFO extension and refund the Commercial Paper notes

The Bonds were secured solely by the FFGA grant receipts to preserve debt capacity of BART’s sales tax revenues

The Bonds were structured to ensure that each year’s expected appropriation in the FFGA was received one year later, and that the appropriation in each year was reduced

FFGA Case Study

* The Bonds were fully redeemed early since the grants were received in full

FederalFiscal Year

StatedDebt Service

OriginalGrant Commitment

ActualGrant Receipts

2001 $7,643,256 $80,000,000 $80,000,000

2002 81,624,769 80,605,331 74,920,000

2003 61,908,494 100,000,000 100,000,000

2004 76,951,544 100,000,000 100,000,000

2005 76,948,669 91,076,820 99,200,000

2006 76,948,919 81,257,000

2007 56,095,919 2,424,694

2008* 58,551,919

2009* 108,674,919

Total $605,348,408 $451,682,151 $537,801,694

20


West Dublin/Pleasanton Station Transit-Oriented Development (“WDP TOD”)$64,915,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006Sale Date: June 20, 2006

Case Study

Tax-Exempt Bonds$57.5 million

Regional Grant Funds$13.9 million

Land Proceeds and Pre-paidGround Lease Rental

$15.8 million

New “infill” station between East Dublin station and the Castro Valley station

Two parking garages with 1,100 spaces

− 14.3 acre mixed-use transit village

− Residential units (apartments and condominiums)

− Retail outlets

− A 150-240 room hotel

− Office Building

Public/private participants include BART, Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County and West Dublin/Pleasanton Station Joint Venture, Inc. (Master Developer)

Development rights were granted by BART to the Master Developer in exchange for $15.8 million in real estate revenues in the form of land sale proceeds and pre-paid ground rental

Public Improvement Funding Sources

21

Case Study: Victor Valley Transit Authority

VVTA’s operations handled through contracts with Veolia Transportation Inc. and McDonald Transit Associates, Inc.

Inaugural financing to fund construction of a new administration, operations and maintenance facility totaling as much as $44.7 million

Financing structured as COPs with a lease agreement between VVTA and the California Transit Finance Corporation serving as the leasing corporation

Certificates of Participation secured by all legally available revenues including Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 capital grant funds, Local Transportation Fund (“LTF”) funds, State Transit Assistance (“STA”) funds and VVTA’sfarebox revenues

30-year term to correspond to expected useful life of facility

22

Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas

Case Study

$45,785,000 Lease Revenue Certificates of Participation

Series 2008B

Bond Ratings: (A2/AA-/NR)

RBC Role: Book Running Manager

Inaugural financing Series (2008A) funded acquisition of 98 buses totaling $64 million in July 2008 and the second issuance in December 2008 (2008B) funded an additional 60 buses totaling $42 million

Lease Purchase Program structured using a Master Lease with individual Lease Agreements for each subsequent financing

COPs secured by sales tax revenues – structured to secure highest possible rating

12-year term to correspond to expected useful life of buses acquired

RBC committed capital and underwrote $28 million of the bonds into inventory in an extremely difficult market environment for Series 2008A and located a non-traditional buyer to purchase the balance of the 2008B bonds at an aggressive level

23

The Sprinter commuter rail is a 22-mile line between Oceanside and Escondido, with 15 stations, 12 commuter trains, and a maintenance facility

Original committed funding of $80 million from the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (“TCRP”) was temporarily suspended by the State

SANDAG committed an allocation of $10.5 million of CMAQ funds annually for 10 years through a Memorandum of Understanding with NCTD

$114 million of bonds secured primarily by Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (“CMAQ”) funds were issued to provide interim financing, the first CMAQ bond issue

Variable rate structure allowed early retirement of debt when State’s TCRP funding reinstated

North San Diego County Transit District SPRINTER Project Funding

$114,000,000 Certificates of Participation, 2004 Series-A (North County Transit District Sprinter Project)Sale Date: July 28, 2004

Case Study

Federal FullFunding Grant Agreement

$152.1

Regional Congestion Mitigationand Air Quality Fund

$4.9

Proposition 108$17.6

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

$6.6

TransNet$90.3

Series 2004Bond Proceeds

$104.0

Total Cost of $375.5 million($ in millions)

Disclaimer

This presentation was prepared exclusively for the benefit of and internal use by the recipient for the purpose of considering the transaction or transactions contemplated herein. This presentation is confidential and proprietary to RBC Capital Markets Corporation (“RBCCM”) and may not be disclosed, reproduced, distributed or used for any other purpose by the recipient without RBCCM’s express written consent.

By acceptance of these materials, and notwithstanding any other express or implied agreement, arrangement, or understanding to the contrary, RBCCM, its affiliates and the recipient agree that the recipient (and its employees, representatives, and other agents) may disclose to any and all persons, without limitation of any kind from the commencement of discussions, the tax treatment, structure or strategy of the transaction and any fact that may be relevant to understanding such treatment, structure or strategy, and all materials of any kind (including opinions or other tax analyses) that are provided to the recipient relating to such tax treatment, structure, or strategy.

The information and any analyses contained in this presentation are taken from, or based upon, information obtained from the recipient or from publicly available sources, the completeness and accuracy of which has not been independently verified, and cannot be assured by RBCCM. The information and any analyses in these materials reflect prevailing conditions and RBCCM’s views as of this date, all of which are subject to change.

To the extent projections and financial analyses are set forth herein, they may be based on estimated financial performance prepared by or in consultation with the recipient and are intended only to suggest reasonable ranges of results. The printed presentation is incomplete without reference to the oral presentation or other written materials that supplement it.

Employees of RBCCM are expressly prohibited from directly or indirectly: (a) offering any company favorable research coverage as an inducement for the receipt of investment banking business; or (b) threatening to retaliate with adverse coverage or comments if such business is not awarded. All recommendations, ratings, price targets and opinions regarding a company are determined independently by RBCCM’s Research Department.

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: RBCCM and its affiliates do not provide tax advice and nothing contained herein should be construed as tax advice. Any discussion of U.S. tax matters contained herein (including any attachments) (i) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties; and (ii) was written in connection with the promotion or marketing of the matters addressed herein. Accordingly, you should seek advice based upon your particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

3

1


Agenda Item 3

Date March 30, 2011 Subject FY 2010/2011 Origins and Destinations Survey Update Background The Origins and Destinations Survey Study (also known as the Transit On-Board Survey) collects data about passenger travel patterns on bus routes and light rail transit (LRT). Valley Metro RPTA has been conducting these surveys since 1986, typically once every five years. The last Origins and Destinations survey was conducted in 2007. The survey results are used by Valley Metro and its member agencies for several purposes: gain market research insights to enable better understanding of customer travel patterns; record demographic characteristics; gauge customer satisfaction with the service; and fulfill 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 2008. Data collected through origin-destination surveys is also used for calibration of the regional travel model, as well as for network simulation for required air quality forecasting and long range planning by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). ETC Institute was selected to assist RPTA in the development and implementation of the 2010/2011 Origins and Destinations Survey Study. RPTA worked closely with a technical advisory group and FTA in the development of project methodology and survey instruments for Bus and LRT. The project goal was to collect 13,794 valid weekday surveys which consist of 9,962 bus surveys and 4,132 Rail surveys. Individual goals were set for each bus route. Also, individual goals were set for each METRO light rail station by time of the day. The consultant conducted a pilot test from September 28 to September 30 to test the survey instruments on both LRT and bus. Minor adjustments were made to the survey instruments based on the results from the pilot study. The first phase of data collection was conducted from November 2 through December 9. The consultant collected approximately 7,770 bus surveys and 4,132 rail surveys. The data is currently being processed. The second and final phase of data collection began on Jan 19 and concluded on February 2. Due to January 2011 route change on the I-17 RAPID, a need was identified to survey this route specifically. The additional data was collected in February.

2

During mid-December some of the survey participants were randomly selected for prizes. The prize drawing served as an incentive to encourage riders to participate in the survey. There will be more prize drawings after the second phase of data collection in February. The tentative timeline for final data delivery is May 15 and the final report is June 1, 2011. Budget Source The budgeted cost for this project is $825,000. Funding sources include METRO Rail planning funds, FTA 5309 funds, FTA 5307 planning funds, and Regional Area Road Funds (RARF). Impacts None Committee Action Process RTAG – March 22, 2011 for review TMC – April 6, 2011 for action Board – April 21, 2011 for action Recommendation This item is provided for information. No action is required. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Director of Planning 602-523-6040 Attachments None

4

1


Agenda Item 4

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Legislative Update Summary David Boggs, Executive Director, will introduce Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, who will provide an update on current legislative issues. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Committee Action Process None Recommendation No formal action is required. Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Chief of Staff 602-262-7433 Attachments None

5

1


Agenda Item 5

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Future TMC Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events Summary Chair Greg Jordan will request future TMC agenda items from TMC members and TMC members may provide a report on current events. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation None Contact Person David Boggs Executive Director 602-262-7433 Attachments None

6

1


Agenda Item 6

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Executive Director’s Report Summary David Boggs, Executive Director, will provide an update on agency issues. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Committee Action Process None Recommendation No formal action is required Contact Person David Boggs Executive Director 602-262-7433 Attachments None

7

1


Agenda Item 7

Date March 30, 2011 Subject Public Comment Summary An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation None Contact Person None Attachments None

8

9

10

Documents

MEETING OF THE Transit Management Committee · To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at 602-262-7433 for the dial-in-information. The supporting information