MEETING OF THE Transit Management Committee · PDF fileQualified sign language interpreters...

MEETING OF THE

Transit Management Committee

MEETING DATE January 4, 2012

TIME 11:00 a.m.

LOCATION Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room

101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor Phoenix

December 28, 2011 TO: Members of the Valley Metro RPTA Transit Management Committee FROM: Bryan Jungwirth Acting Executive Director RE: January 4, 2012 TMC Packet Notes Attached is the January 4, 2012 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. Parking is available onsite and parking can be accessed via the entrance on Adams Street. Parking validation will be available at the meeting. Transit tickets are also available to those who attend the meeting using transit. 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

December 28, 2011


Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 1000 Wednesday, January 4, 2012

11:00 a.m.

Action Recommended

1. 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.

1. For information

2. Consent Agenda The TMC will consider items A through I on consent.

2. For action

A. Summary Minutes Summary minutes from the November 2, 2011 TMC meeting are presented for approval.

A. For action

B. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with METRO for LINK Fare Vending Maintenance

Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to enter into an IGA with METRO for fare vending machine maintenance.

B. For action

C. Change Order to Extend Expiration Dates of Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements

Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to amend the IGAs with the City of Phoenix to extend the expiration dates.

C. For action

http://www.valleymetro.org/


2

D. Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for Valley Metro RPTA to continue participating in the LGIP.

D. For action

E. Contract Award to SJ Anderson and Company for Concrete Rehabilitation at the East Mesa Facility Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to enter into a contract with SJ Anderson and Company for Concrete Rehabilitation at the East Mesa Facility at a cost not to exceed $284,859.

E. For action

F. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Phoenix for Reimbursement of Capital Projects

Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to enter into an IGA with the City of Phoenix for PTF funded capital projects for FY 2012 through 2016.

F. For action

G. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Phoenix for Narrowbanding the Regional Fleet Communication System to Meet the Federal Communications Commission Mandate Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to enter into an IGA with the City of Phoenix for narrowbanding the regional fleet communication system to meet the Federal Communications Commission mandate.

G. For action

H. Authorization to a Conduct Public Involvement Process for the July 2012 Region Service Changes Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to implement the public involvement process for the July 2012 region service changes.

H. For action

I. 2010/11 Origins and Destinations Survey Final Report Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, acceptance of the 2010/11 Origins and Destination Survey Final Report.

I. For action



3

3. Auditor General Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Audit Recommendations

Bryan Jungwirth, Acting Executive Director, will review the RTP Audit recommendations and RPTA’s response that will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for approval.

3. For information

4. Contract Award for East Valley Dial-a-Ride Paratransit Services Broker Bryan Jungwirth, Acting Executive Director, will introduce Jim Wright, Director of Operations, who will request the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, approval of a contract award to Total Transit for regional paratransit brokerage services.

4. For action

5. Proposed Changes to the Reduced Fare Photo ID Program

Bryan Jungwirth, Acting Executive Director, will introduce Scott Wisner, Manager of Customer Service, who will request the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, direction and/or approval of changes to the reduced fare ID card policy.

5. For action

6. Public Involvement Program Summary for the Regional Fare Policy Proposal Bryan Jungwirth, Acting Executive Director, will introduce Mario Diaz, Chief Marketing Office, who will review the information received during the fare policy public hearing process.

6. For information

7. Legislative Update

Bryan Jungwirth, Acting Executive Director, will provide an update on current legislative issues.

7. For information and possible action

8. 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.

8. For information

9. Executive Director’s Report Bryan Jungwirth, Acting Executive Director, will brief the TMC on current issues.

9. For information



4

10. Next Meeting The next meeting of the TMC is scheduled for February 1, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

10. 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 December 28, 2011 Subject Public Comment Background An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker. Budget Source None Impacts None Committee Action Process None Recommendation For information only. Contact Person None Attachments None

2

1


Agenda Item 2

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Consent Agenda Background The Transit Management Committee (TMC) will consider items A through I on consent. Budget Source Please refer to individual items for this information. Impacts Please refer to individual items for this information. Committee Action Process 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 Bryan Jungwirth Acting Executive Director 602-262-7433 Attachments Consent Agenda Items

1


Agenda Item A

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Summary Minutes from the November 2, 2011 Transit Management Committee Meeting Summary Summary Minutes from the November 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 November 2, 2011 TMC meeting. Contact Person David Boggs Executive Director Attachments Summary Minutes from November 2, 2011

2

Summary Minutes Valley Metro RPTA Transit Management Committee

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 1000

Phoenix, AZ

Members Present Greg Jordan, City of Tempe, Chair David Moody, City of Peoria, Vice Chair Debbie Cotton, City of Phoenix Kristen Sexton for Rogene Hill, City of Avondale Paul Ward, Town of Buckeye Dan Cook for RJ Zeder, City of Chandler Terry Johnson for Jamsheed Mehta, City of Glendale Mike James, City of Mesa David Meinhart, City of Scottsdale Dave Kohlbeck, City of Surprise Mitch Wagner, Maricopa County Cato Esquivel, City of Goodyear Ken Maruyama for Tami Ryall, Town of Gilbert John Farry for Steve Banta, METRO Lance Calvert, City of El Mirage Members Not Present Chris Hagen, City of Tolleson Mike Normand, ADOT Chairman Greg Jordan called the meeting to order at 11:06 a.m. 1. Public Comment None 2. Consent Agenda The following items were presented on the consent agenda:

a. Summary minutes from October 5, 2011 b. Authorization to Issue and Invitation for Bids (IFB) for Closed Circuit

Television Cameras

3

c. Commercial Property and Liability Insurance Coverage d. Change Order to IGA with the City of Phoenix for FTA Pass Through Grant

Reimbursements (Grant AZ-57-X001, New Freedom Grant) e. IGA with the City of Phoenix for FTA Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements

(Grant AZ-58-0003) f. ADOT FTA Section 5311 Application and IGA for Rural Transportation

Program g. FY 2011/2012 Budget Revision for METRO Rail to Transition the

Performance Vehicle Maintenance from Contracted to In-House Staff h. 2010/11 Origins and Destinations Survey Final Report i. Change Order to the IGA between RPTA and the Gila River Indian

Community j. Change Order with Valu-Trans for New Fixed Route Service k. Change Order to IGA with the City of Phoenix for 700/800 MHz

Communications Project l. Contract with Barrow Neurological Institute/St. Joseph’s Hospital and

Medical Center for Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety and Education Activities

Debbie Cotton requested items H, I and J to be removed from the consent agenda. IT WAS MOVED BY DAVID MOODY, SECONDED BY TERRY JOHNSON AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A THROUGH G AND ITEMS K AND L AND TO FORWARD THESE ITEMS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR CONSIDERATION. H. 2010/11 Origins and Destinations Survey Final Report Ratna Korepella reviewed the presentation that was included in the meeting materials. Dan Cook asked if there was any data for where the trips start and end. Ms. Korepella said more detailed information will be included in the Board presentation. Ms. Cotton said that Transit Book usage has declined by 37 percent. She asked if printing of the Transit Book has also been reduced. Mario Diaz said the Transit Book printing has already been reduced by 60% over the past few years because there are more technology options available to the customer. He noted that the books that are being printed are all being used one to two weeks prior to new books being printed. Ms. Ketcherside said the report is available to all TMC members for final comments. She also noted that the FTA has requested to use this study for its Best Practices website.

4

The TMC asked several questions regarding the data being reported. It was suggested that the TMC review the report and the information be brought back through the committee process and to the Board for acceptance in January 2012. I. Change Order to the Intergovernmental Agreement between RPTA and the Gila

River Indian Community Ms. Cotton asked what the current term of the agreement with the Gila River Indian Community is and is the IGA being extending or amended. Mr. Jungwirth said the IGA is for five years and is being amended to add a new route. J. Change Order with Valu-Trans for New Fixed Route Service Ms. Ketcherside said this service is being implemented to continue service south on 51st Avenue to the Vee Quiva Casino. The service is being paid for by the Gila River Indian Community. The route extension will be included in the public hearing process that will be taking place early next year. IT WAS MOVED BY DAN COOK, SECONDED BY DEBBIE COTTON AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS H, I AND J. 3. Change Orders for the Arizona Avenue and Mesa Main Street Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT) Projects Ms. Ketcherside reviewed the presentation that was included in the meeting materials. She noted that once it was determined that the project was coming in under budget, it was decided to add enhancements to the project which include: Fiber optic connectivity for both Arizona Avenue LINK and Mesa Main Street

LINK routes Installation of FVMs and CCTV cameras on both LINK routes BRT shelter improvements at Chandler Blvd/Country Club Drive Implementation of real time bus arrival information

Ms. Ketcherside said the budget amendment also includes other costs associated with the project which is being funded out of Prop 400 dollars and ARRA funds. She said the costs are being tracked through jurisdictional equity and the detailed list of costs will be included in the Board presentation. Mike James thanked staff for their continued work on this project. IT WAS MOVED BY DEBBIE COTTON, SECONDED BY DAN COOK AND UNANIMOULSY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS AND THE BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $2,130,000 TO THE FY 2011/12 CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET.

5

4. Legislative Update Mr. Jungwirth provided the following update: Reauthorization

• Six month extension of SAFETEA-LU through March 2012 • Senate EPW marks up a two year bill on November 9 with current (FY11 funding)

plus inflation but without funding from Senate Finance Committee • House T&I will mark up six year bill with current (FY11 level funding) plus

inflation. Looking at taxes/fees/bonds on new oil and gas drilling leases as a revenue source.

FFY12 Appropriations • Approved funding through November 18, 2011 • House THUD appropriations bill provides only $7.04B (limited to HTF receipts) • House Republicans now want STP funding flat @ $8.36B • Senate voted Nov. 1 on three FY 2012 appropriations bills, including the

appropriations bill for the DOT. Currently included in the bill is $10.6 billion for FTA programs and $100 million for high-speed and intercity passenger rail

• The final outcome of FY 2012 transportation appropriations is expected be resolved in an minibus FY 2012 appropriations bill, probably by November 18.

• President Obama's proposal to create a national infrastructure bank and spend $50 billion on transportation to stimulate job growth will be up for a vote in the Senate this week.

• The infrastructure bank proposal, which calls for spending $10 billion to start it was incorporated into the President’s proposal for a $447 billion jobs act, which the Senate is now voting on in pieces after its rejection as a package.

LTAF II

• The monthly receipts for ticket sales in Maricopa County (as a percentage of total state-wide Powerball ticket sales) will be deposited monthly based upon the formula. For example, October would be $1.2 million based upon the calculation and ticket sales in September. For the twelve month period, it will cap out at the $10.75M

• Subsequent to receipt of applications by jurisdictions, RPTA would distribute LTAFII funding after the $10.75M is received.

This item is presented for information. No action was taken. 5. Future TMC Agenda Items Request and Request on Current Events

None 6. Executive Director’s Report Mr. Jungwirth said the Board Member Working Group is continuing to meet regarding the selection of the executive director.

6

TMC requested that current ridership information be included in the Executive Director’s Report each month. Mr. Jordan said the next meeting of the TMC is scheduled for Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

1


Agenda Item B

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Intergovernmental Agreement with METRO for LINK Fare Vending Machine Maintenance Background Valley Metro will be installing fare vending machines (FVM) at LINK bus rapid transit stations, park-n-rides and selected activity centers in the cities of Chandler and Mesa and the Town of Gilbert in spring 2012. The FVMs being installed are the same model currently in use on the METRO station platforms. The Intergovernmental Agreement with METRO to provide FVM maintenance details the level of maintenance activity that METRO will provide. METRO will provide both preventive and repair maintenance activities for Valley Metro’s 26 FVMs. METRO will provide maintenance support for the FVMs on weekdays. In order to keep expenses as low as possible, weekend maintenance will not be provided. Because the LINK vehicles are equipped with fareboxes, passengers can pay their fares on-board the LINK vehicles or purchase fare media at other retail outlets for if a FVM is inoperable. METRO is uniquely qualified to provide this support service. METRO is responsible for maintaining all of its existing FVMs along the light rail corridor. METRO has extensive experience with the FVM equipment and clearly understands the maintenance practices required to keep the equipment fully functional. METRO will begin providing the maintenance, and warranty management, of the FVMs as soon as the installation is complete. Fare collection and cash handling services for the FVMs have been included in a separate agreement. Budget Source It is estimated that for the remainder of FY2012 the cost for FVM labor and parts will be less than $54,000. The annual cost for fare vending machine maintenance is estimated to be $150,000.

2

In November 2011, the Board of Directors approved a budget amendment establishing a $250,000 initial allocation for LINK station FVM spare parts. A significant portion of the spare parts funding ($180,000) is American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. METRO will monitor and report the use of FVM spare parts in accordance with ARRA requirements. Funding for FVM maintenance is budgeted for FY2012 in Project 2012 Activity 7210 (page 64). Impacts METRO will add one technician to accommodate the additional work that the 26 Valley Metro FVMs will require. The additional technician will be provided training and supervision by current METRO employees maintaining the existing FVMs. The additional technician will insure that METRO’s FVM maintenance program is not negatively impacted by the addition of 26 LINK FVMs. Committee Action Process TMC – January 4, 2012 for action Board – January 19, 2011 for action Recommendation It is recommended the TMC forward to the Board of Directors, for consideration authorization for the Acting Executive Director to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with METRO for Fare Vending Machine maintenance activities at a cost not to exceed $129,000 in FY 2012. Contact Person Jim Wright Operations Director 602-262-7433

1


Agenda Item C

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Change Order to Extend Expiration Dates of Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements Summary RPTA, as the lead agency, is requesting extensions to intergovernmental agreements with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) pass-through funds for the following grants:

• AZ-95-X004 (Extend to June 30, 2012) • AZ-90-X074 (Extend to June 30, 2012) • AZ-90-X080 (Extend to June 30, 2012)

The City of Phoenix is the designated recipient for all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant funds for the region. Agencies region-wide undertake projects approved for FTA grant funding. Agencies then submit requests to Phoenix for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred and the Phoenix executes drawdown of funds from FTA to pass-through reimbursement to agencies for their expenses. Grant IGAs with the City include expiration dates to accumulate expenses and receive reimbursements for activities included in each grant. At this time, RPTA desires authorization to execute a change order to the existing Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix to extend the expiration dates of FTA pass-through grants to allow RPTA to continue to incur expenses against eligible projects and allow the City to reimburse RPTA for project expenditures. Fiscal Impact The RPTA is reimbursed the federal share of expenses by the City of Phoenix for projects undertaken as listed in the approved grants. The reimbursements approved in these grants are funded with FTA funding. Local match for the projects is in the approved FY2010/2011 and FY2011/2012 operating budgets. Reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amount.

2

Considerations Without this approved change order, Phoenix cannot reimburse federal funds to RPTA for any expenses covered by the grant. Committee Action Process TMC – January 4, 2012 for action Board – January 19, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to execute a change order to the existing Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst 602-523-6038 Attachments A copy of the IGAs with the City of Phoenix for each grant is available upon request.


Agenda Item D

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Local Government Investment Pool Summary The State Treasurer requires that the Board annually update its authorization for Valley Metro RPTA participation in the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP). Those Valley Metro RPTA personnel authorized to deposit, transfer and withdraw funds would be the Board Treasurer, Executive Director and the Director of Finance. Fiscal Impact None Considerations Adopting the resolution updating the Valley Metro RPTA authorization to participate in the LGIP will allow our continued participation in the LGIP. Committee Action Process TMC – January 4, 2012 for action Board – January 19, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for Valley Metro RPTA to continue participating in the Local Government Investment Pool. Contact Person Michael Taylor Acting Director of Finance 602-262-7433 Attachments Resolution 2012-01

RESOLUTION 2012-01 AUTHORIZING OFFICERS/AGENTS TO DEPOSIT, TRANSFER

AND WITHDRAW MONIES IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL

WHEREAS, the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority has resolved to participate in the Local Government Investment Pool; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following officers/agents be authorized to order the deposit, transfer and withdrawal of monies in the Local Government Investment Pool. Treasurer Name Title Signature Acting Bryan Jungwirth Executive Director Name Title Signature Acting Michael Taylor Director of Finance Name Title Signature Passed and accepted by the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority’s Board of Directors of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, on January 19, 2012.

Chair of the Board

1


Agenda Item E

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Contract Award to SJ Anderson and Company for Concrete Rehabilitation at the East Mesa Facility Background The RPTA Operations Facility’s entrance driveway on Greenfield Road has experienced multiple concrete panel failures. Also, within the bus parking area there are several concrete storm water catch basins that have failed. Pictures of damaged areas are shown under the attachments section of this report. The deteriorating concrete requires immediate repairs. SJ Anderson Company is recommended to be retained to perform the required repairs. SJ Anderson Company was selected through the State of Arizona’s Job Order Contract system with a price proposal of $284,859.85. An additional fee of $14,242.99 for Gordian Consulting to perform the management of the Job Order Contracts awarded by the State of Arizona will be added to bring the total project cost to $299,102.84. Budget Source Funding of $300,000 has been budgeted in the project 9110 located on page 111 of the FY 2012 Operating and Capital Budget. Impacts The concrete failures will soon impact buses entering the operations facility. The failures in the bus yard have already impacted bus parking, storm water drainage, and have created tripping hazards for pedestrians. Failure to repair/replace will exacerbate the issues in the bus parking areas, storm water runoff, and tripping hazards for personnel. Committee Action Process RTAG – December 20, 2011 for review TMC – January 4, 2012 for action Board – January 19, 2011 for action

2

Recommendation It is recommended the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to executive a contract with SJ Anderson Company for $299,102.84 to perform the RPTA Operations Facility Concrete Replacement/Repair. Contact Person David Hyink Program Supervisor Fleet & Facilities 480-287-5983 Attachments Photos are available upon request Price proposal detail and summary Summary of Costs

www.eziqc.com

Summary Of Costs

Statewide General Contracting JOC

Concrete RepairJOC Project Name:

12-RPTA-0001.00JOC Project Number:

Amount of Proposal: $284,859.85

Gordian Invoice: $14,242.99

Total Commitment: $299,102.84

S. J. Anderson CompanyContractor:

Purchase Order Amount to Consultant

Contractor: Consultant:

The Gordian Group

140 Bridges Road, Suite E

Mauldin SC, 29662

602-317-1433 office

Contract #ADSPO10-000406

S. J. Anderson Company

9107 W Southern Ave

Suite 103

Mesa, AZ 85209

480-539-4187

Purchase Order Amount to Contractor

12/12/2011

Price Proposal Summary - CSI

Job Order Contract

www.eziqc.com

Statewide JOC Contract

Concrete RepairJob Order Title:

Job Order Number:

Contract Number:

Date:

ADSPO11-013763

12-RPTA-0001.00

December 12, 2011

$284,859.85


RPTA concrete entrance replacement

Contractor:

Proposal Value:

Proposal Name:

Detailed Scope: Scope of Work

GeneralSummary of Costs for M E EZIQC Projects for the Replace Cooling Tower

Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) desires to accomplish the following repair tasks.

1. Remove and replace damaged concrete panels

2. Remove and replace deteriorating water ways and catch basins in multiple areas

3. Crack fill all cement joints to protect from surface water intrusion

The Valley Metro Operations Facility is located at 3320 N. Greenfield Rd mesa, Arizona 85215.

The areas that are in need of concrete and catch basin replacement are located at the bus

entrance from Greenfield Rd and within the yard of the bus storage area. All joints throughout the

entrance and in the yard to be sealed against surface water intrusion between and under all

cement panels.

Parking lots are located north and east side of the facility. There is also a staff vehicle asphalt

parking area located inside the bus storage area.

The repairs in operations facility may have to be done in several different move-ins. This

requirement is to minimize the disruption of RPTA operations. The flow of traffic and the size of

the yard prohibit all areas to be done at once.

Successful contractor will need to coordinate the work schedules with RPTA. It is anticipated that

each area will be done in approximately seven (7) working days, with the additional 48 hours of

curing time to drive on. All work shall be warranted by the Contractor against defective

workmanship and materials for a period of 1 year from the date the Work was completed. The

Contractor shall replace or repair any such defective work in a manner satisfactory to RPTA, after

notice to do so from RPTA, and within the time specified in the notice. If the Contractor fails to

make such replacement or repairs within the time specified in the notice, RPTA may perform this

work and the Contractor (or its sureties) shall be liable for the cost thereof.

Demolition

The Contractor shall inform the Project Manager at least 48 hours in advance of the beginning of

demolition work. Demolition shall include all items to be removed, which includes, but is not limited

to, the following work:

• The Contractor shall neatly and accurately saw cut proposed construction limits necessary to

replace the concrete (to be decided upon by RPTA Project Manager prior to work

commencement).

1.00

Page 1 of 5

12/12/2011


Concrete Repair

12-RPTA-0001.00Job Order Number:

Job Order Title:

Price Proposal Summary - CSI Continues..

• The Contractor shall perform saw cut work with experienced personnel, collect and remove

debris, and legally dispose of it offsite.

• The Contractor shall coordinate work with facility personnel to insure uninterrupted working of

the facility.

• Before saw cutting, Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect the utilities. If

existing lines are encountered which have not been identified, the Contractor shall immediately

notify the Project Manager. If service is interrupted as a result of the work, Contractor will

immediately notify the Project Manager, and restore service by repairing the damaged utility line.

• Barricade open excavation and post warning lights around excavated area.

• Warning lights shall be operated during the hours from dusk to dawn, and as otherwise

required.

• Install yellow warning tape between barricades.

• Protect other structures, utilities, sidewalk, pavement, and facilities from damage caused by

settlement, lateral movement, undermining, washout, and other hazards created by excavating

operations during construction.

Excavation

• The Contractor shall perform excavation of every type of material encountered within the limits

of the area described in the scope of work.

• Remove and dispose of material including concrete pavement and base material encountered

to obtain the required sub-grade elevations.

• Remove all roots, organic material, base material, and other deleterious material encountered

during the excavation.

• Remove and replace soil that is too wet to compact to the required density.

• The natural sub-grade shall be removed to a depth as to allow 6” of Class II aggregate base,

with 1” maximum size crushed aggregate.

• The sub-grade shall be broken, pulverized, moistened to a workable mixture, and then rolled,

compacted to 95% or better, and graded to receive the base material.

• Verify that the sub-grade is dry and in suitable condition to support the concrete and the

imposed loads. Alternative methods of obtaining proper ground compaction such as a pre-slurry

cement coat may be used upon RPTA approval.

• Proof-roll the sub-base using heavy, pneumatic-tired rollers to locate areas that are unstable

or require further compaction.

• All unsatisfactory conditions must be corrected prior to re-pouring new concrete.

• Contractor shall provide equipment to pump water from the excavation in case inclement

weather causes flooding of the excavation.

Page 2 of 5

12/12/2011


Concrete Repair


Job Order Title:


• The Contractor shall install dykes or berms to prevent normal run off from the bus wash from

entering the excavation.

• If water does flood the excavation, the Contractor shall provide equipment to pump water from

the excavation and insure compaction at no extra charge.

• Use base material free of clay, debris, vegetable matter, and waste materials. A minimum of

6” of Class II aggregate base shall be placed in layers and moistened to provide optimum density

compaction.

Material Specifications

Reinforcing Steel (Re-Bar)

• Re-bar shall be ASTM A 615, grade 60, #5 (5/8”) in size.

• Re-bar shall be spaced 24” on center and tied at all intersecting or overlapping points with 16

gage steel wire.

• Wire ends shall be tied so they point down into concrete not toward exposed concrete surface.

• Re-bar pre-cast concrete supports with embedded wire ties conforming to ACI-315 shall be

used to support re-bar spaced 6’ on center.

• Supports shall be properly sized to insure re-bar will be stable and held at a depth of 4” in the

concrete.

• Re-bar splices and overlaps shall be staggered and located at points of minimum stress.

• Where new concrete will tie into existing concrete that will not be replaced, re-bar pins will be

set with epoxy adhesive at 24” on center.

• The pin holes shall be drilled no less than 6” into the existing concrete, or to code, whichever

is deeper.

• No re-bar that has kinks, bends where no bend is required, or that are soil encrusted or oily

shall be used.

Concrete

• Mix design for concrete shall be 6000 psi with 1-inch maximum coarse aggregate size.

• Affidavits from the batch plant stating that all concrete furnished conforms to mix design shall

be furnished to the Project Manager.

• Before setting steel or pouring concrete, compact and roll base of slab smooth and level.

Dampen base just before pour.

• Concrete shall not be poured if inclement weather is forecasted.

• Two random samples, each from a different truck, shall be taken from each section, by a

certified laboratory, for testing. Results will be supplied to the Project Manager immediately after

testing is complete.

Page 3 of 5

12/12/2011


Concrete Repair


Job Order Title:


• Concrete shall be compacted by vibration to obtain a uniform density and uniform aggregate

distribution throughout the entire slab area.

• Vibration shall continue until effects of vibration appear to the surface of pour.

• Vibrate concrete just ahead of the final screed.

• Concrete shall be a minimum of 8” in depth, poured to match existing concrete.

• Level the surface of the concrete using surface leveling floats (No steel float blades).

• Surface of concrete shall slope in the direction of existing flow patterns on the site.

• Concrete shall be level with maximum variation of ¼” when measured with a ten foot straight

edge.

• Expansion joints shall be placed not more than 45’ apart; 3” deep contraction joints shall be

placed not more than 12’ apart.

• Exposed joints shall be tooled with a groover. Groover bit shall penetrate one quarter of the

slab thickness in depth (2”).

• The joints shall be tooled twice first during leveling operations to remove aggregates from the

joint, and then during finish work. Finished joint shall be smooth, even, neat, and perfectly straight.

• The final finish for the concrete will be medium to heavy broom, and match existing finish.

• Concrete shall cure to 2500 psi within three (3) days and to 6000 psi by 28 days.

• Contractor shall provide barriers and or steel plates as needed for safety, and to not adversely

affect RPTA’s normal operation during the cure time.

• Curing of concrete shall conform to ACI 308.

• During the initial cure, the concrete shall be treated to prevent cracking, according to industry

standard practices.

Joint Sealant

• Sealing of the joints shall be with a two components, non-sag or self-leveling, electrometric,

polyurethane sealant such as Sikaflex-2c or RPTA approved equal, traffic grade sealant with

Sikaflex-primer 429 or RPTA approved equal.

• Sealant must have a 5 year warranty and be installed by a manufacturers certified installer.

• The backing rod shall be extruded closed cell polyethylene foam rod, such as Minicel backer

rod manufactured by Industrial Systems Plastic Products Group of Hercules, or Ethafoam SB

manufactured by Dow Chemical; other materials may be used upon approval from RTA.

• The joint and the adjacent concrete shall be clean, dry and free from moisture. Remove all

dirt, grease, old sealant, and other bond inhibiting materials from the surface and within the joint.

Page 4 of 5

12/12/2011


Concrete Repair


Job Order Title:


• Concrete must have a 28-day cure time prior to installation of joint sealant material.

Work added from Dave Hyink, on 12/07/11

The work is on the East side of the bus wash area.

#1) saw cut and removeexisting valley gutter and all necessary concrete in drive area

#2) Demo and remove from site all concrete and over excavation from work area ( haul off )

#3) over excavate 24", compact and bring in 24" of 1 sack slurry

#4) excavate and modify existing 8' deep concrete catch basin to include doweling and epoxy

necessary. and re bar to tie-in new concrete apron

#5) install frame and grate on catch basin

#6) dowel 24" O C of existing concrete perimeter

#7) place # 5 grade 60 re bar on 24" OC

#8) form place and finish 6000 psi and install curing material to a depth of 8" with broom finish

#9) saw cut and install required joint sealant

#10) provide all necessary barricades and caution tape

#11) re install all loop dectors

#12) clean up and haul off of all construction debris and broom clean

01 - General Requirements: $16,990.35

02 - Site Work: $65,926.92

03 - Concrete: $165,907.97

31 - Earthwork: $22,429.33

32 - Exterior Improvements: $11,402.55

33 - Utilities: $2,202.73

$284,859.85Proposal Total

This proposal total represents the correct total for the proposal. Any discrepancy between line totals,

sub-totals and the proposal total is due to rounding of the line totals and sub-totals.

The Percent of NPP on this Proposal: 0.00%

Page 5 of 5

12/12/2011


Price Proposal Detail - CSI

Job Order Contract

December 12, 2011

12-RPTA-0001.00

ADSPO11-013763

Date:

Job Order Title:

Job Order Number:

Contract Number:

Concrete Repair

1.0000-No Adjustment, 1.1146-Owner-Funded Projects Normal Working HoursAdjustment Factor(s) Used:

Contractor:

Proposal Value:

Proposal Name: RPTA concrete entrance replacement


$284,859.85

CSI Number Line TotalDescriptionUOMMod.Rec#

01 - General Requirements

01 22 16 00 0002 Reimbursable FeesNote: Reimbursable Fees will be paid to the contractor for

the actual cost of all permits, without mark-up, for which a receipt or bill is

received. The Adjustment Factor applied to Reimbursable Fees will be 1.00.

The labor cost involved in obtaining all permits is in the Adjustment Factor. The

base cost of the Reimbursable Fee is $1.00. The quantity used will adjust the

base cost to the actual Reimbursable Fee (e.g. quantity of 125 = $125.00

Reimbursable Fee). If there are multiple Reimbursable Fees, each one shall be

listed separately with a comment in the "note" block to identify the Reimbursable

Fees (e.g. sidewalk closure, road cut, various permits, extended warrantee,

expedited shipping costs, etc.). A copy of each receipt shall be included with the

Proposal.

1 $16,518.65EA

Installation =x x $16,518.65FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.0000$1.00 16,518.65

User Note: sales tax is based on 65% of the total job cost mulitplied 9.8%= the sales tax for this contract.

01 74 19 00 0029 Hauling On Paved Roads, First 15 Miles2 $471.70CYM

Installation =x x $471.70FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.1146$0.46 920.00

Subtotal for 01 - General Requirements: $16,990.35

02 - Site Work

02 41 13 13 0033 Break-Up And Remove >9" To 14" Thick Concrete With Reinforcing Rod.3 $65,698.79SY


1.1146$34.21 1,723.00

02 41 13 13 0033 For Quantities > 1000 To 2500, Deduct4 Mod -$11,830.01

Installation =x x $-11,830.01FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.1146$-6.16 1,723.00

02 41 19 13 0005 Saw Cut Concrete Slab Or Paving Up To 4" (10 cm) Depth5 $2,580.88LF


1.1146$1.44 1,608.00

02 41 19 13 0005 For Quantities > 250, Deduct6 Mod -$215.07

Installation =x x $-215.07FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.1146$-0.12 1,608.00

02 41 19 13 0007 Saw Cut Rod Reinforced Concrete Slab Up To 4" (10 cm) Depth7 $6,690.94LF


1.1146$2.90 2,070.00

02 41 19 13 0007 For Quantities > 250, Deduct8 Mod -$599.88

Installation =x x $-599.88FactorUnit PriceQuantity Total

1.1146$-0.26 2,070.00

2.00

Page 1 of 4

12/12/2011


Concrete Repair


Job Order Title:

Price Proposal Detail - CSI Continues..


02 - Site Work

02 41 19 13 0020 Drill 1" (25 mm) Diameter Core In 4" (10 cm) Concrete9 $3,601.27EA


1.1146$21.54 150.00

Subtotal for 02 - Site Work: $65,926.92

03 - Concrete

03 11 13 00 0037 >12" High Slab Edge and Block-Out Metal Framed Formwork10 $30,402.00SF


1.1146$2.71 10,065.00

03 15 16 00 0016 1/2" x 6" Premolded Cork Expansion Joint With Resin, In Slabs Or Walls11 $845.76LF


1.1146$2.71 280.00

03 21 11 00 0006 Grade 60 Reinforcing Steel, Footings And Slabs, #3-#612 $27,895.39TON


1.1146$1,978.44 12.65

03 31 13 00 0029 >6", By Concrete Pump, Place 3000 PSI Concrete Slab On GradeExcludes

pumping equipment.

13 $38,322.62CY


1.1146$110.20 312.00

03 31 13 00 0029 For 6000 PSI (420 Kg/Cm2) Concrete, Add14 Mod $9,399.82


1.1146$27.03 312.00

03 31 13 00 0029 For High Early Strength, Type 3 ASTM C150, Add15 Mod $3,481.03


1.1146$10.01 312.00

03 31 13 00 0040 Direct Chute, Place 1200 PSI Concrete Slurry16 $13,894.27CY


1.1146$115.96 107.50

03 31 13 00 0092 170' Boom Truck For Concrete Placement (100 CY Per Hour Rating)17 $9,621.58HR


1.1146$359.68 24.00

03 35 16 00 0001 Concrete Floor Finishes, Screed18 $5,383.07SF


1.1146$0.40 12,074.00

03 35 16 00 0001 For Quantities > 7500 SF, Deduct19 Mod -$1,076.61


1.1146$-0.08 12,074.00

03 35 16 00 0002 Concrete Floor Finishes, Darby20 $6,594.26SF


1.1146$0.49 12,074.00



1.1146$-0.10 12,074.00

Page 2 of 4

12/12/2011


Concrete Repair


Job Order Title:



03 - Concrete

03 35 16 00 0003 Concrete Floor Finishes, Broom22 $7,267.15SF


1.1146$0.54 12,074.00



1.1146$-0.11 12,074.00

03 35 16 00 0004 Concrete Floor Finishes, Final Float24 $8,612.92SF


1.1146$0.64 12,074.00



1.1146$-0.13 12,074.00

03 35 16 00 0005 Concrete Floor Finishes, Steel Trowel26 $9,554.95SF


1.1146$0.71 12,074.00



1.1146$-0.14 12,074.00

03 35 26 00 0002 Concrete Grooving For Handicapped Ramps28 $755.70SF


1.1146$2.26 300.00

03 39 00 00 0006 Concrete Curing, Sprayed Membrane Curing Compound29 $1,413.75CSF


1.1146$12.96 97.87

Subtotal for 03 - Concrete: $165,907.97

31 - Earthwork

31 05 16 00 0026 Aggregate PlacementNote: Includes Spreading, Grading, Compaction Rolling30 $7,995.86CY


1.1146$19.13 375.00

31 23 16 36 0028 Load Excess Material For Removal From Excavation For Building Foundations

and Other Structures by Machine

31 $1,736.10CY


1.1146$3.30 472.00

31 23 16 36 0028 For Quantities > 250 To 500 (> 192 To 382 M3), Add32 Mod $263.05


1.1146$0.50 472.00

31 23 16 36 0029 Load Excess Material For Removal From Excavation For Building Foundations

and Other Structures by Hand

33 $733.50CY


1.1146$36.56 18.00

31 23 23 23 0002 Compaction Water, Water Truck And OperatorNote: Use this task in situations

where fill, base material, etc. requires additional moisture to comply with the

compaction specification. Includes delivery up to 15 miles. (Per 1000 Gallons)

34 $3,185.97MGL


1.1146$95.28 30.00

Page 3 of 4

12/12/2011


Concrete Repair


Job Order Title:



31 - Earthwork

31 32 13 19 0010 8" Thick Lime Stabilized Subgrade, 33#35 $8,272.83SY


1.1146$7.52 987.00

31 32 13 19 0010 For 6% Lime Instead Of 5%, Add36 Mod $242.02


1.1146$0.22 987.00

Subtotal for 31 - Earthwork: $22,429.33

32 - Exterior Improvements

32 13 73 00 0002 Pavement Sealing, Roads Resealing Joints In Concrete Pavements For Roads37 $11,402.55LF


1.1146$4.37 2,341.00

Subtotal for 32 - Exterior Improvements: $11,402.55

33 - Utilities

33 44 13 13 0050 4' Inside Dimension Precast Catch Basin, 8' Deep38 $1,128.70EA


1.1146$1,012.65 1.00

33 44 13 13 0141 24"x 36" Cast Iron Catch Basin Frame And Cover39 $1,074.03EA


1.1146$963.60 1.00

Subtotal for 33 - Utilities: $2,202.73

$284,859.85Proposal Total

This proposal total represents the correct total for the proposal. Any discrepancy between line totals,

sub-totals and the proposal total is due to rounding of the line totals and sub-totals.

The Percent of NPP on this Proposal: 0.00%

Page 4 of 4

12/12/2011


1


Agenda Item F

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Phoenix for Reimbursement of Capital Projects 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. This IGA is a 5 year agreement with the City of Phoenix for Public Transportation Fund (PTF) funded capital projects for which Phoenix is the Lead Agency. Fiscal Impact The amounts in the agreement are consistent with the approved TLCP financial model and are consistent with the approved RPTA operating and capital budget. It is anticipated that reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Reimbursements for FY 2013 and later years are estimated and subject to Board approval through the annual budget and TLCP financial model update process. Considerations Phoenix is the Lead Agency for several capital projects in the TLCP. Projects included in this IGA are fleet, including fixed route and paratransit buses, and two park and ride lots that support services in the Regional Transportation Plan. Should the projects in the TLCP change as a result of the on-going balancing efforts, this IGA would be amended to reflect any changes to Phoenix’ projects. Committee Action Process TMC – January 4, 2012 for action Board – January 19, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to execute an IGA with the City of Phoenix for reimbursement of Capital Projects.

2

Contact Person Paul Hodgins 602-262-7433 Attachments The IGA is available upon request.

1


Agenda Item G

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Phoenix for Narrowbanding the Regional Fleet Communication System to Meet the Federal Communications Commission Mandate Summary The City of Phoenix has a contract with ACS to narrowband the region’s fleet communication system to comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate to narrowband radio frequency communications by December 31, 2012. This intergovernmental agreement is needed to allow ACS to access RPTA’s fleet in order to upgrade the radios and onboard communications software. Fiscal Impact The funds to complete the projects are in the current capital budget and the project is included in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). The funding IGA was approved by the Board of Directors in November 2011. This IGA has no fiscal impact. Considerations Without this IGA in place, Phoenix’ contractor cannot complete work on RPTA’s fleet. This work is needed to ensure that the region complies with the FCC narrowbanding mandate by December 31, 2012. Committee Action Process TMC – January 4, 2012 for action Board – January 19, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to execute the IGA for Narrowbanding the Communications System with the City of Phoenix. Contact Person Paul Hodgins 602-262-7433 Attachments The IGA is available upon request.

1


Agenda Item H

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Request for a Public Involvement Process for July 2012 Service Changes Background RPTA continues to work on balancing planned projects in the Transit Life Cycle program (TLCP) with the revised ADOT revenue forecast over the remaining life of the Program. In an ongoing effort to identify opportunities for cost savings and efficiencies. The TLCP Working Group has been working diligently to identify reductions in expenditures to balance the model. In reviewing service operations, the focus has been on, but is not limited to, express bus service. The group is looking closely at existing services and whether there are unproductive or inefficient services that could be modified or eliminated and it will take time to complete that task and get through the approval process. In order for the RPTA Board to consider recommendations for service changes, staff is requesting permission to conduct a public involvement process on proposed changes. Budget Source The approximate cost to conduct the public involvement process is up to $15,000. This is not currently budgeted in the FY 2011/12 operating budget. Impacts Express routes and other routes are being considered for service changes to make them more efficient. The route analysis includes:

Grand Avenue Limited, Routes 510, 511, 512, 520, 521, 531, 532, 540, 541, 542, 560, 562, 563 (new service), 571, 573, 575, 581, and 251 (new service)

Options being considered for reductions range from one or more selected trips to entire routes. We will also seek input on new service that is being implemented in January as experimental. The full details by route will be available for public input. Emphasis is being given to eliminating unproductive or inefficient service. With the opening of several new park and ride lots, some express routes or trips could be consolidated to provide more efficient service.

2

The timeline for approving service reductions is as follows:

Service Changes TMC recommends approval to proceed with public hearings 4-Jan-12

Board to approve proceeding with public hearings 19-Jan-12 RPTA to coordinate public hearings

Notice of public hearing published Feb-12 Public involvement process Mar-12 Recommendation finalized at RTAG 17-Apr-12 TMC to recommend approval of changes in PTF funded service 2-May-12 RPTA Board to approve changes in PTF funded service 17-May-12

Approved service changes will be implemented no sooner than July 2012. If a later effective date is recommended for any change, that will be noted in the final recommendation. Committee Action Process RTAG – December 20, 2011 for review TMC – January 4, 2012 for action Board – January 19, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for:

• the Acting Executive Director to proceed with a public involvement process on potential service reductions, additions, and adjustments.

• a FY 2011/12 operating budget revision in the amount of $15,000 to cover the cost of the public involvement process.

Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Planning Director 602-523-6040 Attachments None

1


Agenda Item I

Date December 28, 2011 Subject 2010/2011 Origins and Destinations Survey Final Report Background In the Fall of 2010 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), with consulting support from ETC Institute Inc., conducted a Transit On-board Study (also known as the Origin/Destination (O/D) survey) of Valley Metro riders. The survey was conducted via face-to-face interviews using tablet computers. Surveys were conducted among riders of METRO Rail and fixed-route bus service: Local, Circulator, Limited, Rural, Express, and some RAPID bus routes. Surveying took place on weekdays during the morning, midday and evening. Data collection was performed from Fall of 2010 through Spring of 2011. A total of 15,780 completed and usable surveys were collected. Of the 15,780 surveys, 11,048 were completed with bus passengers and 4,732 were completed with rail passengers. The study project involved designing the survey instrument; developing a sampling plan; collecting, processing, and geocoding the collected data; weighting and expanding the data; analyzing the data; comparing the results with 2007 O/D survey data; and reporting the results. Throughout the survey process, the 2010 O/D Survey was guided by a Technical Advisory Group that includes representatives of MAG, METRO, the cities of Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale, Tempe, RPTA staff, and other Valley Metro RPTA member agencies. The objectives for this study are as follows:

– Collect data on transit ridership and transit service levels for the Before and After Study as required by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on New Starts Major Capital Investments (such as the METRO Rail project)

– Update travel patterns for the Regional Travel Demand Model – Target transit markets that have been underrepresented in the previous surveys – Improve the quality of data collected for valid Origin and Destination Pairs

Budget Source The budgeted cost of this project is $703,553. It is funded by 80% Federal funds (Section 5307 Formula Funds) and 20% local match (Regional Area Road Funds).

2

Impacts The 2010/2011 Transit On-Board Study output will be used to calibrate the regional transportation model. Since this survey includes 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 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. Committee Action Process TMC – November 2, 2011 for action – TMC requested additional information be provided before presenting the final report for approval. Board – November 17, 2011 for information TMC – January 4, 2012 for action Board – January 19, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the RPTA Board of Directors for consideration, acceptance of the 2010/2011 Origins and Destinations Survey Report. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Planning Director 602-523-6040 Attachments Powerpoint Presentation 2010/2011 Transit On-Board Study Draft Report is available upon request or can be downloaded at http://www.valleymetro.org/publications_reports/info/origin_and_destination_survey

http://www.valleymetro.org/publications_reports/info/origin_and_destination_survey

Transit Management Committee January 4, 2012

2010/2011 Origins and Destinations Survey Final Report

Overview

• Primary Objectives • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Members • Study Timeline • Study Details • Major Findings

– Origins and Destinations of Trips – Trip Characteristics – Profile of Transit Users

• Questions

2

Primary Objectives

• Collect data on transit ridership as part of the “Before and After Assessment of Light Rail project” as required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Final Rule on Major Capital Investment Projects – The “Before Survey” was conducted in 2007 – This survey provides the “After” data

• Update travel pattern data for the region’s travel demand computer model to reflect current transit system ridership

3

Technical Advisory Committee Members

• Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) • METRO • Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) • City of Glendale • City of Phoenix • City of Scottsdale • City of Tempe • Other Valley Metro RPTA member agencies

4

Study Timeline

• Project Start: August 2010 • Pilot Study: September 2010 • Main Study: October 2010 - February 2011 • Process Survey Results: March - September

2011 • Draft Final Report: September 2011 • Final Report Acceptance: January 2012

5

Study Details • The project involved

– Development of sampling plan – Design of survey instrument – Processing and geo-coding the collected data – Data weighting and expansion – Data analysis – Comparison of the 2010/2011 results with the 2007 results – Development of a final report

• The survey was administered as an in-person interview with riders on METRO light rail and fixed-route bus service: local, circulator, limited, rural, express, and RAPID – Interviewers used tablet PCs to record survey responses

6

Study Details • Types of Data Collected

– Home address – Trip Origin & Trip Destination – Boarding and Alighting – Mode of access and egress from transit system – Transfers – Vehicle Availability – Employment status – Age – Annual Household Income – Drivers license status

• Detailed list is provided in the Survey Design section of the report

7

Study Details • Sampling goals were met or exceeded on all bus routes

and light rail stations – Percent of Riders surveyed

o Metro Rail Stations -10% o Express and Rapid routes – 15% o Local, Collector and Rural Routes – 4.75%

• 15,780 surveys were completed, compared to 7,600 surveys in 2007

– Exceeded the contractual goal of 13,750 complete surveys – 15,780 surveys include 11,048 bus surveys and 4,732 rail

surveys – Data was collected on weekdays only from Tuesday to

Thursday 8

Study Details

• The overall response rate to the survey was 90.8% compared with 17.2% in 2007

• FTA has requested permission from RPTA to publish the final report on their website as an example of “best practices” in doing surveys of this type

9

MAJOR FINDINGS #1:

ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS

10

11

Top 100 Origin and Destination TAZ’s (Traffic Analysis Zones)

LEGEND

Top 100 TAZs

Streets

Bus Routes

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Line

LRT Stations

12

LEGEND

Bus Routes

Light Rail (LRT) Line

LRT Stations

Top 100 TAZs

<lower [Volume] higher>

Top 100 Origin and Destination TAZ’s (Traffic Analysis Zones)

LEGEND

Top 100 TAZs

Bus Routes

Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line

LRT Stations

Desire Lines

Desire Lines indicative of trip volume between the top 100 Origin TAZs and the top 100 Destination

TAZs. Showing larger desire lines

Trip Patterns

14

LEGEND

Top 100 TAZs

Bus Routes


LRT Stations

Desire Lines

Desire Lines indicative of trip volume between the top 100 Origin TAZs and the top 100

Destination TAZs. Showing larger desire lines

Higher Volume Trips

15

LEGEND

Top 100 TAZs

Bus Routes


LRT Stations

Desire Lines

Desire Lines indicative of trip volume between the top 100 Origin TAZs and the top 100

Destination TAZs. Showing larger desire lines

Highest Volume Trips

MAJOR FINDINGS #2:

TRIP CHARACTERISTICS

16

Home-Based Work (HBW): trips that began at home and ended at work or began at work and ended at home Home-Based University (HBU): trips that began at home and ended at a university or began at a college/university and ended at home. If the respondent worked at a college/university, the trip was classified as a HBW trip. Home-Based Other (HBO): trips that began at home and ended at any other location not previously listed or began at any location not previously listed and ended at home. Non-Home-Based (NHB): trips that did not begin or end at home. Non-Home-Based Work (NHBW): trips that did not begin at home and ended at work or started at work and ended at home 17

Trip Purpose Definitions

Trip Purpose • Local bus is almost half HBO, and 1/3 HBW • Express & Rapid are all HBW • Rail is diverse, with 1/3 ASU, 1/3 HBO, and 1/3

everything else

18

Linked Trips by Purpose Mode HBW ASU HBU HBO NHBW NHBO SKY Total

Local Bus 37,880 10,127 10,636 55,694 4,354 8,870 63 127,55

9 Express Bus 2,702 31 4 82 48 0 0 2,867 Rapid Bus 2,744 0 0 51 47 0 0 2,841 Rail 9,040 12,396 1,544 14,217 1,569 2,477 123 41,243

Total 52,365 22,554 12,184 70,044 6,017 11,346 186 174,51

0 Percent

Mode HBW ASU HBU HBO NHBW NHBO SKY Total Local Bus 30% 8% 8% 44% 3% 7% 0% 100% Express Bus 94% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 100% Rapid Bus 97% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 100% Rail 22% 30% 4% 34% 4% 6% 0% 100% Total 30% 13% 7% 40% 3% 7% 0% 100%

Access/Egress Mode • Local bus is 93% walk access

19

Mode Access - Egress Bike Walk Dropped of Drove alon Share ride Other Total PercentLocal Bus Bike 3,738 723 24 - - - 4,484 4%Local Bus Walk 374 112,517 2,190 158 134 162 115,534 91%Local Bus Dropped off 47 3,526 329 - 7 9 3,918 3%Local Bus Drove alone - 3,048 11 16 - 14 3,089 2%Local Bus Share ride - 273 - - - - 273 0%Local Bus Other - 152 14 - - 156 322 0%

Total 4,158 120,239 2,568 174 141 341 127,622 100%Percent 3% 94% 2% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Access/Egress Mode • Express & rapid bus are dominantly drive-access

20

Mode Access - Egress Bike Walk Dropped of Drove alon Share ride Other Total PercentExpress Bike 79 33 - - - - 112 4%Express Walk - 764 9 6 - - 779 27%Express Dropped off 4 373 3 - - - 380 13%Express Drove alone - 1,560 - 4 - - 1,564 55%Express Share ride - 28 - - 5 - 33 1%Express Other - - - - - - - 0%

Total 83 2,758 11 10 5 - 2,867 100%Percent 3% 96% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Mode Access - Egress Bike Walk Dropped of Drove alon Share ride Other Total PercentRapid Bike 15 6 - - - - 21 1%Rapid Walk - 60 2 29 8 - 98 3%Rapid Dropped off - 321 15 2 - - 338 12%Rapid Drove alone - 2,163 40 125 - 8 2,336 82%Rapid Share ride - 45 - - 2 - 48 2%Rapid Other - 3 - - - 1 3 0%

Total 15 2,598 56 156 10 9 2,845 100%Percent 1% 91% 2% 5% 0% 0% 100%

Access/Egress Mode • Rail has highest share of bike access, and a good share

of drop offs neither of which are focused on formal park and ride lots

21

Mode Access - Egress Bike Walk Dropped of Drove alon Share ride Other Total PercentRail Bike 2,291 508 22 80 - - 2,901 7%Rail Walk 109 26,763 848 157 17 134 28,028 68%Rail Dropped off 7 3,854 345 - - 53 4,258 10%Rail Drove alone 64 5,472 45 71 - 15 5,668 14%Rail Share ride 12 174 10 - 5 - 201 0%Rail Other - 266 10 - - 33 309 1%

Total 2,484 37,037 1,280 308 22 235 41,366 100%Percent 6% 90% 3% 1% 0% 1% 100%

Time of Day • Rail looks similar to local bus with high midday share, but

shifted somewhat later in the day

22

Mode 6-9 AM9 AM-3

PM 3-6 PM6 PM-6

AM Total Local Bus 22,780 57,336 28,528 18,979 127,622Express Bus 1,323 62 1,184 298 2,867Rapid Bus 640 0 606 273 1,520Rail 6,165 16,897 9,990 8,315 41,366Total 30,908 74,294 40,308 27,865 173,374

Mode 6-9 AM9 AM-3

PM 3-6 PM6 PM-6

AM Total Local Bus 18% 45% 22% 15% 100%Express Bus 46% 2% 41% 10% 100%Rapid Bus 42% 0% 40% 18% 100%Rail 15% 41% 24% 20% 100%Total 18% 43% 23% 16% 100%

Linked Trips by Time Period

Percent

Access Distances • PNR trips have average

distance of 7 mi • KNR trips have average

distance of 4 mi • 93% of reported walk

egress distances are less than ½ mile

• 89% of reported walk access distances are less than ½ mile

23

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

up to 1/4 mile (0-2 blocks)

1/4 - 1/2 mile (3-4 blocks)

1/2 - 3/4 mile (5-6 blocks)

3/4 - 1 mile (7-8 blocks)

1 - 2 miles (9-16 blocks)

more than 2 miles (17+

blocks)

Perc

ent o

f Trip

s

Network Distance to Boarding TAZ

Reported Walk Access Distance by Mode

Local

Express

Rapid

Rail

Total

MAJOR FINDINGS #3:

PROFILE OF RIDERS

24

Household Size – All Riders • Household size has not change significantly since 2007 • 18% of riders lived alone in 2011 which is the same

percentage that lived alone in 2007 • 22% of riders lived in households with 5 or more occupants in

2011 compared with 20% in 2007

25

HOUSEHOLD SIZE

Demographic Category 2011 2007

% of householods with 5+ occupants 22% 20%

% of householods with 1 occupants 18% 18%

Age – All Riders

26

• 40% of riders were under age 25 in 2011 compared to 33% in 2007

• 50% were age 25-54 in 2011 compared to 57% in 2007 • 9% were 55 or older in 2011 compared to 10% in 2007

AGE Demographic Category 2011 2007 % of transit riders under age 18 11% 10% % of transit riders under ages 18-24 29% 23% % of transit riders under ages 25-54 50% 57% % of transit riders under ages 55-64 7% 8% % of transit riders under age 65+ 2% 2%

Vehicle Availability – All Riders • 47% of riders lived in households without cars in 2011

compared with 51% in 2007 • 24% of riders lived in households with two or more

vehicles in 2011 compared with 22% in 2007

27

VEHICLE AVAILABILITY Vehicles 2011 2007 Zero 47% 51% One 29% 27% Two 16% 15% Three 6% 5% Four 2% 2%

Sources of Information – All Riders

28

• The percentage of transit users who rely on the printed transit schedule book has declined significantly since 2007

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

Demographic Category 2011 2007

Transit schedule book 37% 65%

Valley Metro website 35% 17%

Customer service telephone number 19% 13%

Posted schedule at bus stop 7% 3%

Other 2% 2%

Other Characteristics – All Riders • 44% of transit users were White • 29% were Hispanic • 18% were Black/African American • 40% had annual household incomes under $20,000 • 24% were college students • 13% were students in grades K-12 • 58% were employed • 21% were seeking work • 53% did not have a valid driver’s license

29

PROFILES BY LOCATION

30

GROUPINGS • East Valley Apache Junction Case Grande City of Chandler City of Mesa City of Scottsdale City of Tempe Coolidge Fountain Hills Paradise Valley Pinal County San Tan Valley Town of Gilbert Town of Guadalupe Tucson

31

• Central Valley Phoenix

• West Valley Ajo City of Avondale City of El Mirage City of Glendale City of Goodyear City of Peoria City of Surprise Gila Bend Litchfield Park Town of Buckeye Tolleson Youngtown

Central Valley Riders (60% of All Riders) • Significantly more likely to be under age 18 than riders from the

East and West Valley (14% CV, 6% EV, 8% WV) • Nearly two-thirds (62%) of riders are from a minority population

group – 20% Black/African American – 34% Hispanic – 8% Other (Asian, American Indian, Other)

• More likely than East and West Valley riders to have annual household incomes under $15,000 (35% CV, 30% EV, 29% WV)

• More likely than East and West Valley riders to use transit for home-based school trips (12% CV, 5% EV, 8% WV)

• More likely to access transit by walking than riders in other areas of the region (91% CV, 84% EV, 85% WV) 32

East Valley Riders (30% of all Riders) • More likely to be age 18-24 than riders in other areas (26% CV,

36% EV, 27% WV) • A majority (55%) of riders are White

– 13% Black/African American – 21% Hispanic – 11% Other (Asian, American Indian, Other)

• More likely than Central and West Valley riders to have annual household incomes above $100,000

• More likely than Central and West Valley riders to use transit for college/university related trips(6% CV, 16% EV, 8% WV)

• More likely to access transit by driving alone (Park & Ride) and by bike than riders from other areas(1% CV, 6% EV, 5% WV)

• Less likely to transfer than riders from other areas (29% CV, 22% EV, 29% WV)

33

West Valley Riders (10% of All Riders) • Slightly more likely to be age 35 or older than riders in other areas

(40% CV, 35% EV, 43% WV) • A majority (53%) of the riders are from a minority population group

– 19% Black/African American – 26% Hispanic – 8% Other (Asian, American Indian, Other)

• More likely than Central and East Valley riders to have annual household incomes between $35,000-$79,999 (23% CV, 28% EV, 30% WV)

• Slightly more likely than Central and East Valley riders to use transit for work-related trips (30% CV, 32% EV, 35% WV)

• Slightly more likely to access transit by being dropped off (KNR) than riders in other areas of the region (4% CV, 4% EV, 5% WV)

34

PROFILES BY MODE

35

Rail Users • More likely than bus users to access transit by modes other

than walking: – Bike (8% rail vs. 3% bus); Drive Alone (11% rail vs. 2% bus); Drop off

(10% rail vs. 3% bus)

• More likely to use transit to travel to colleges/universities or recreation/sightseeing destinations (college/university 16% rail vs. 6% bus; recreation/sightseeing 3% rail vs. 1% bus)

• More likely to have started using transit during the past two years (44% rail vs. 31% bus)

• More likely to get transit information from the Valley Metro website than bus users (51% rail vs. 27% bus)

• More likely to have a vehicle available to their household (70% rail vs. 52% bus)

• More likely to be age 18-34 (68% rail vs. 48% bus)

36

Bus Users • More likely than rail users to access transit by walking (91%

bus vs. 70% rail) • More likely to have an annual household income under

$25,000 (53% bus vs. 36% rail) • More likely to use transit to travel to work or medical

destinations (work 20% bus vs. 11% rail; medical 3% bus vs. 1% rail)

• More transit dependent than rail users – 29% of bus users indicated that they could not have made their trip if

transit were not available vs. 8% of rail riders

• More likely to get transit information from the Transit Schedule Book (33% Bus vs. 20% Rail)

• Less likely to have a drivers license (44% Bus vs. 72% Rail) 37

CONTACT

Ratna Korepella, Project Manager

Office: 602-523-6044 E-mail: [email protected]

38

mailto:[email protected]

3


Agenda Item 3 Date December 28, 2011 Subject Auditor General Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Audit Recommendations Summary As required by state statute with the passage of Proposition 400, the Auditor General’s office contracted with Sjoberg Evashenk last year to conduct a performance audit of the RTP. The results, as they pertained to RPTA and transit, were favorable. RPTA-specific related findings dealt primarily with memorialization of decisions, agreements, and rationale behind local project reprioritization decisions and program changes. Based on these findings, jurisdictions will need to provide the rationale behind their local project reprioritization decisions to the RPTA, so that documentation is in place to ensure compliance with the Auditor General’s recommendation on this issue (RTP Audit Report Recommendation 13). Additionally, the performance audit report recommended that project file documentation become more transparent and be provided to Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) oversight committees. It was noted in the RTP Audit Report that “RPTA worked collaboratively with METRO and developed a comprehensive performance measurement system soon after Proposition 400 passed that establishes targets and tracks performance data for both bus transit and rail projects” (p. 25). Additionally, RPTA was credited with “studying best practices relating to bus transit and rail performance measures, setting new targets, and establishing protocols to consistently track progress” (p. 31). The Auditor General noted that the auditors would return in six months to evaluate the implementation of the recommendations and then may return in another 18 months for additional follow-up. A significant recommendation stated to “work towards realizing more benefits from regionalizing bus transit activities by strengthening the regional entity role and implementing regional activities that have potential for cost savings or better outcomes for riders such as route scheduling, fleet planning and purchasing, fare inspection and collection, coordinated automated tools, and regional service hearings.”

The complete audit report is available at www.azauditor.gov Fiscal Impact Currently, no fiscal impact is identified; however, the additional level of detailed documentation and research required may result in a need for increased staffing. Considerations According to ARS §28-6313.E, Within forty-five days after the release of the audit, the regional public transportation authority, the citizens transportation oversight committee, the state transportation board and the county board of supervisors, by a majority vote of each entity, shall submit written recommendations to the MAG transportation policy committee that the findings are agreed to or disagreed with and the recommendations should be implemented, implemented with modification or not be implemented.” RPTA has provided the requisite response to each of the required recommendations for Board consideration. Staff will develop an action plan to address each of the recommendations and will update the Board on implementation progress at an appropriate time. Prior Committee Action None. Recommendation This item is being presented for information only. The Board will be asked take action and approve the staff response to the audit recommendations at its January 19, 2012 meeting. Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Acting Executive Director 602-523-6003 Attachments Attachment A - Auditor General’s recommendations and RPTA’s Responses Attachment B – Summary Statements

http://www.azauditor.gov/

Attachment A December 13, 2011 Mr. Kurt Sjoberg, Partner Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Response to Revised Draft Performance Audit Report Dear Mr. Sjoberg: In response to your letter dated November 21, 2011, below and on the subsequent pages are responses for each audit recommendation. Please note our responses are contingent upon Valley Metro Board of Directors approval. Recommendation Response Recommendation 6. Communicate results and analysis from MAG’s Performance Measurement Framework and RPTA’s Transit Performance Report to committees and the public on a more frequently basis, such as quarterly. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be implemented. RPTA agrees; currently most financial data is not available on a more frequent basis than annually, as the operating agencies do not have this available for dissemination. However, ridership data is available and RPTA will work with MAG to post this on MAG’s website. Recommendation 7. Continue to implement the current transportation system and strive to continually reassess system performance to make modifications as necessary. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. Recommendation 8. Develop and use a “report card” type feature to provide, 1-page project snapshots summarizing project budget and schedule by development phase, actual costs against estimated budget and schedule, project performance measures and progress toward targets, financial assumptions and highlights of project changes to scope, schedule, or cost. Moreover, these report cards could feature a brief project description, project manager contacts, project risks, and percent completion as well and provide a history of each project from the 2003 RTP proposed to the voters.

Mr. Kurt Sjoberg December 13, 2011 Page 2 Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. RPTA will work with MAG to develop a report card framework for the transit element of the RTP and will include a reporting requirement into the IGAs with the requisite jurisdictions for Proposition 400 projects. Recommendation 9. Ensure consistency in data reported and facilitate the tracking of totals and data between the annual Proposition 400 reports and RTP Updates in addition to the various LCP reports published, as well as adding footnotes to clarify data sources in the reports and reasons for amounts that vary between the reports. Additionally, consider:

• Clarifying terms used in the reports or using the term “open to traffic” rather than using “programmed for final construction related to project schedule;”

• Providing explanation of timing of expenditure data and that some “actual” data is just estimated for the fourth quarter of the year reported;

• Consistently report projects and expenditure information from year to year, and fully explain whether revenues and costs are reflective of full RTP funding sources or only the Proposition 400 portion of project funds; and

• Making necessary corrections in future reports, to communicate past inaccuracies noted by the auditors in previous reports relating to typos and incomplete information from missing projects completed to ensure that future reports reflect the most accurate information.

Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. Recommendation 11. Ensure documentation exists linking projects selected and changes suggested with the priority criteria, quantifying a technical ranking of corridors or projects by performance measures, and discussing the rationale behind changes. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. Recommendation 13. Use a performance based model as part of project change and reprioritization processes on a go forward basis to enhance both transparency of the process and accountability to legislative mandates and the public, and document efforts, deliberation, and decisions to show consideration of performance factors such as volume, capacity, and/or delays. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be implemented. The methodology will follow the Board-approved TLCP policies, including a policy that specifically states jurisdictional equity will be maintained.

Mr. Kurt Sjoberg December 13, 2011 Page 3 Recommendation 14. Ensure documentation is maintained describing basis, source, deliberations, outcome, and rationale for resulting actions and decisions related to project and RTP changes. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. Recommendation 15. Communicate substantive data to MAG oversight committees providing details on options available, alternatives considered, risk and opportunities for each alternative, and rationale behind final recommendations to stimulate more extensive committee questioning and deliberations as well as ensure committee presentation packets summarize key discussions and actions taken by prior committees in addition to their voting results. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. Meeting summaries with relevant discussions of all RPTA Proposition 400-related meetings will be provided to MAG oversight committees, as well as the rationale/criteria provided by the relevant jurisdiction. Recommendation 18. Develop detailed provisions for the MOU agreements between the four RTP Partners, and possibly the City of Phoenix, guiding the practical aspects of the working relationships between the agencies where coordination and collaboration is needed for planning and expenditure of federal and Proposition 400 funds including specific codes of conduct, conflict resolution, and communication protocols. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be implemented based on participation with the RTP partners as appropriate. Recommendation 19. Similarly, strengthen the existing transit planning MOU to describe the mechanics and specificity of process behind the level of cooperation required in terms of communication frequency, timing, and content as well as the level, timing, and weight of input into agency activities. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be implemented. The current planning agreement has not been in place for long and effectiveness results are not yet available; however, RPTA will work with the RTP partners to strengthen the agreement once viable information is available and the agreement will be modified as appropriate.

Mr. Kurt Sjoberg December 13, 2011 Page 4 Recommendation 20. Memorialize and maintain key meeting discussions at RTP partner meetings to document items discussed, agreements reached, and action items and owners for future meetings as well as attendees of the meetings. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. Recommendation 24. Continue investigating cost efficiencies that could result from a combination of RPTA and METRO and implement measures as soon as practical to realize maximum value from initiatives. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. This item is in process and discussions of a single CEO between the two agencies are occurring between the METRO Board and the RPTA Board. Recommendation 25. Work towards realizing more benefits from regionalizing bus transit activities by strengthening regional entity role and implementing regional activities that have potential for cost savings or better outcomes for riders such as route scheduling, fleet planning and purchasing, fare inspection and collection, coordinated automated tools, and regional service hearings. Response: The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be implemented. The RPTA agrees; however, this will take time and agreement from the Valley Metro RPTA member agencies. The Valley Metro Board resolution from April 2007 directs the “Executive Director to work with Valley Metro member agencies toward the development of a single regional transit agency, which over time integrates fixed route, paratransit and rail operations within Valley Metro RPTA.” Thank you for allowing RPTA the opportunity to respond to the Final Draft findings. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 602-523-6002. Sincerely, David A. Boggs Executive Director Emailed on 12/13/2011 Electronic copies: C. Brady, Sjoberg Evashenk

A. DeVore D. Boggs B. Jungwirth

Attachment B Joint Summary Statements (developed in collaboration with MAG and METRO) • We appreciate the efforts of the audit team. We recognize the value of the audit to the

residents of our region. We welcome any opportunity to improve our processes and to increase efficiency and effectiveness wherever possible.

• The partners will continue to evaluate performance on an ongoing basis to ensure that we are implementing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in the most efficient and effective way possible.

• The RTP partners will bring the audit recommendations forward to their respective policy committees, which have the ultimate decision-making authority regarding the implementation of proposed recommendations.

• Many of the audit recommendations reference documentation and communication efforts

among the partners. While we are already working closely together, we are open to exploring ways to improve in these areas.

General RPTA Statement: RPTA-specific related findings dealt primarily with memorialization of decisions, agreements, and rationale behind local project reprioritization decisions and program changes. Specific recommendations and RPTA responses can be found in the letter to the audit firm of Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc.

4

1


Agenda Item 4

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Contract Award for East Valley Dial-a-Ride Paratransit Services Broker Background In May 2011, the Board of Directors authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit a paratransit service broker for the East Valley Dial-a-Ride. The contract with the current service delivery provider (Veolia Transportation) for East Valley Dial-a-Ride will expire on June 30, 2012. Following approval to issue the RFP, RPTA, with assistance from the participating East Valley members, developed the RFP that outlined all of the service parameters and expectations that the broker and service providers will be required to meet. The contracted broker will be required to ensure, among other stringent requirements, that all sub-contract service providers comply with all applicable Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements including Drug & Alcohol and National Transit Database Reporting. RPTA issued the RFP on September 15, 2011. The solicitation sought proposals from interested companies to change the current service delivery model (traditional dial-a-ride service utilizing 12-14 passenger accessible mini-buses) to a brokerage model in which multiple providers would use a mixed-fleet of vehicles including wheelchair-accessible vans based on customer need. The proposers were required to utilize up to three (3) sub-contracted service delivery providers and at least one non-profit organization. The RFP detailed three (3) service options that proposers could select from in developing their proposals.

• Service Option A was designed as a straight brokerage in which the selected contractor would provide service delivery entirely through sub-contracted providers.

• Service option B was designed to allow the selected contractor to directly provide up to 50% of the service and the remaining 50% of the service through sub-contractors.

2

• Service Option C was designed to allow the selected contractor to directly provide up to 75% of the service and the remaining 25% of the service through sub-contractors.

• All three (3) service options required that at least 5% of the service be provided by private non-profit agency(ies).

The RFP instructions required that firms submitting proposals for either Option B or C also must submit a proposal for Option A. RPTA received a total of eight (8) proposals from five (5) firms. Those firms were American Logistics Company, First Transit, MV Transportation, Total Transit, and Veolia Transportation. The proposals were evaluated by a panel comprised of staff members from the participating cities of: Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, the Town of Gilbert and RPTA. All of the panel members have experience and understanding of paratransit service operations. Proposals were evaluated through three (3) rounds of assessment: written, oral interviews, and best-and-final offers (BAFO). The panel evaluated price (the highest weighted criterion) through a mathematical formula. Technical criteria (experience & technical expertise, management approach, driver and sensitivity training, safety & security, responsiveness to the RFP, and implementation date) were objectively evaluated to assess each proposal regardless of the service option. Following a review of the written proposals, the evaluation panel eliminated two (2) firms. The panel interviewed the remaining three firms and requested BAFOs from each firm for each of their submitted proposal options. A final scoring of the firms was completed following the review and evaluation of the BAFOs. At the end of the evaluation process, the panel reached consensus that Total Transit’s Option B proposal would be the most advantageous for the East Valley Dial-a-Ride’s new brokerage service model. Total Transit has the existing capacity to provide the East Valley Dial-a-Ride brokerage. Based in the City of Glendale, Total Transit has a vibrant state-of-the art call center that schedules and dispatches thousands of demand-response transportation trips every day throughout Arizona. Total Transit will primarily rely on its existing Mesa-based fleet of vehicles that are dispatched from its Glendale headquarters. Total Transit has developed relationships with numerous experienced sub-contracted service providers including East Valley based social service agencies. The panel identified that Total Transit’s Option B is the best value solution moving forward because it provides a reasonable mix of directly operated and sub-contracted services and does not “put all the eggs in one basket”. Through its Option B proposal, Total Transit will provide all capital equipment, including wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and fuel during the term of the contract. Total Transit’s Option B will make dial-a-ride trips less costly by utilizing smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Total Transit has committed to provide an opportunity for current Veolia employees, working in the East Valley Dial-a-Ride system, to work for Total Transit as independent contractors.

3

RPTA staff will monitor service delivery by Total Transit and the other contractors very closely for all aspects of the contract. RPTA has recently conducted a staff reorganization and created the Mobility Services group to prepare for the management and oversight of the brokerage service. Budget Source Funding for the East Valley Dial-a-Ride brokerage program will be included in the FY 2013 budget (program 2030) utilizing funds from Chandler, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, the Town of Gilbert and RPTA. The five (5) year cost for this program utilizing Total Transit is $33,584,541.57. Impacts The selection of Total Transit to operate the East Valley Dial-a-Ride will significantly reduce costs to RPTA and the participating member agencies while providing more customized service to riders based on need. Table 1 below details the estimated cost savings by comparing FY2012’s program budget with FY2013’s estimated budget based on Total Transit’s brokerage cost. Table 1 – Estimated East Valley Dial-a-Ride Cost Savings

In addition to the cost savings detailed in Table 1, replacement of vehicles for East Valley Dial-a-Ride will no longer be necessary. Total Transit will be responsible for providing all service vehicles. It is estimated that over the term of the contract, RPTA will save $1,900,000 in replacement vehicle capital costs. Committee Action Process TMC – January 4, 2012 for approval Board – January 19, 2012 for approval

FY2012 Budget - Veolia

FY2013 Budget - Total Transit

FY2013 Estimated Cost Savings

Operating Contract Cost 7,750,755$ 5,883,492$ 1,867,263.00$ Fuel 1,086,000$ -$ 1,086,000.00$ Facility & Consultant Costs 423,130$ 50,000$ 373,130.00$ Staff Salaries & Fringes 165,686$ 207,186$ (41,500.00)$ Agency Overhead 53,254$ 54,852$ (1,597.62)$

Totals 9,478,825$ 6,195,530$ 3,283,295.38$

4

Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to execute a contract with Total Transit for the East Valley Dial-a-Ride brokerage contract, at a cost not to exceed $5,883,492, in the first year of up to a five year contract beginning on July 1, 2012. Contact Person Arleen Schenck Mobility Services Program Supervisor 602-251-2032 Attachments Powerpoint Presentation


Contract Award for East Valley Dial-a-Ride Paratransit Services Broker

January 4, 2012

Background • At its May 2011 meeting, the Board of Directors

authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit a paratransit service broker for the East Valley Dial-a-Ride.

• RPTA issued the RFP on September 15, 2011. • The proposers were required to utilize up to three

(3) sub-contracted service delivery providers and at least one non-profit organization.

2

Background

• The RFP detailed three (3) service options that proposers could select from in developing their proposals. – Service Option A was designed as a straight

brokerage – Service option B contractor to directly provide up to

50% of the service – Service Option C contractor to directly provide up to

75% of the service

3

Background • RFP instructions required that firms submitting

proposals for either Option B or C also must submit a proposal for Option A.

• RPTA received a total of eight (8) proposals from five (5) firms. – American Logistics Company, First Transit, MV

Transportation, Total Transit, and Veolia Transportation • The proposals were evaluated by a panel

comprised of staff members Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Gilbert and RPTA.

4

Background • Proposals were evaluated through three (3)

rounds of assessment: written, oral interviews, and best-and-final offers (BAFO).

• Technical criteria were objectively evaluated: – experience & technical expertise, management

approach, driver and sensitivity training, safety & security, responsiveness to the RFP, and implementation date

• The panel evaluated price, the highest weighted criterion, through a mathematical formula.

5

Background • The points awarded by the evaluation panel for

each of the options reviewed are detailed below:

6

Company Option PointsALC A *MV A *Total Transit B 2,636.5Veolia A 2,605.0Total Transit C 2,578.9Total Transit A 2,510.8First Transit A 2,468.1First Transit B 2,420.2

Background

• Total Transit’s Option B is the best value solution. • Total Transit will provide all capital equipment,

including wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and fuel during the term of the contract.

• Total Transit will make dial-a-ride trips less costly by utilizing smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

• Total Transit has committed to provide an opportunity for current Veolia employees to work for Total Transit as independent contractors.

7

Impacts • Total Transit operation of the East Valley Dial-a-

Ride will significantly reduce costs to RPTA and the participating municipalities while providing more customized service to riders based on need.

• It is estimated that the East Valley Dial-a-Ride program will cost $3,283,395 less in FY2013 compared to the FY2012 budget.

• Because Total Transit will provide all service vehicles, it is estimated that over the term of the contract, RPTA will save $1,900,000 in replacement vehicle capital costs.

8

Impacts • Estimated cost savings through Total Transit

Option B compared to FY2012 budget:

9

FY2012 Budget - Veolia

FY2013 Budget - Total Transit

FY2013 Estimated Cost Savings

Operating Contract Cost 7,750,755$ 5,883,492$ 1,867,263.00$ Fuel 1,086,000$ -$ 1,086,000.00$ Facility & Consultant Costs 423,130$ 50,000$ 373,130.00$ Staff Salaries & Fringes 165,686$ 207,186$ (41,500.00)$ Agency Overhead 53,254$ 54,852$ (1,597.62)$

Totals 9,478,825$ 6,195,530$ 3,283,295.38$

Recommendation • It is recommended that the TMC forward to the

Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Acting Executive Director to execute a contract with Total Transit for the East Valley Dial-a-Ride brokerage contract, at a cost not to exceed $5,883,492, in the first year of up to a five year contract beginning on July 1, 2012.

10

Questions?

11

5

1


Agenda Item #5

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Proposed Changes to the Reduced Fare Photo ID Program Background As a recipient of federal funding, Valley Metro is required, during non-peak hours, to provide a reduced fare to elderly and individuals with disabilities at a rate of not more than 50% of the regular, peak fare. Valley Metro has extended this discount to youth ages 6-18, and allows eligible customers to pay a reduced fare during all operating hours (peak and non-peak periods). Under the current program, an individual with a disability is defined as …“those individuals who, by reason of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other permanent or temporary incapacity or disability, including those who are non ambulatory wheelchair-bound and those with semi-ambulatory capabilities, are unable without special facilities or special planning or design to utilize mass transportation facilities and services as effectively as persons who are not so affected.” (Title 49 Section 37.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations) Please note that pregnancy, obesity, drug or alcohol addiction, and certain other conditions, taken alone, do not qualify as disabilities eligible for reduced fare under the Federal guidelines. (See 49 C.F.R. § 609, Appendix A.) However, Valley Metro has recognized drug and alcohol addiction as an eligible disability for the half fare program. Passengers must have valid proof of eligibility to pay a reduced fare on buses or trains. Proof of eligibility includes: • Persons with disabilities: Valley Metro Reduced Fare ID or Medicare card • Seniors age 65 and older: Valley Metro Reduced Fare ID, Driver’s License, or State

issued ID card, or Medicare card • Youth ages 6 through 18: Valley Metro Reduced Fare ID, Driver’s License, State

issued ID, or high school photo ID with current school year • Medicare cardholder: Proof of identity may be requested by operator to verify

eligibility

2

The Reduced Fare Photo ID program was originally established by the city of Phoenix in the 1980s and administered by their private contractor for over 20 years. In 2002, the responsibility for the administration of this program was transferred to the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA). Over the years, the guidelines established for this program became more and more ambiguous and difficult to administer and a recent audit of this program identified several problems associated with issuing reduced fare photo ID cards. The issues included the following: • Application is poorly designed and lacks sufficient information or guidelines • Incomplete applications

– International Classification of Diseases code (ICD-9) missing or incorrect – Duration of disability not listed – Applications forged or copied – Applications signed by unqualified individuals – Applications submitted by unqualified agencies

• Program guidelines and/or policies were being abused by customers and agencies signing applications

• No formal agreements in place with photo ID outlets • Difficult to verify accuracy of disability One of the most difficult eligibility criteria to administer is drug and alcohol applicants. Photo sites located in Tempe, Scottsdale, and Phoenix routinely have issues from customers that submit applications that are not filled out properly, not signed by licensed professionals, or from agencies that are not legitimate. In addition, staff has no way to know or verify if the applicant is currently enrolled in a legitimate drug and alcohol rehabilitation program or if the applicant is clean and sober. A recent survey of our peer transit agencies indicates that the majority of transit systems exclude this category from their reduced fare program because of similar issues. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations allow transit systems to exclude this type of disability from the reduced fare program, along with a few other conditions that are normally covered under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Since January 2011, photo sites have processed approximately 3,660 reduced fare applications. A breakdown of the categories of applicants is listed below: • January 2011 – Present

– Senior = 512 (14%) – Youth = 183 (5%) – Disabled = 2965 (81%)

• Drug and alcohol dependent = 1098 (37% of disabled applications) Total Applications Received = 3,660 The high percentage of drug and alcohol dependant applicants validate the audit findings, which indicated the majority of issues reported by staff at photo ID outlets were related to drug and alcohol dependent applicants and/or the issuing agencies that sign off on these applications. Proposed options to address these issues are outlined in the Recommendation section of this memo.

3

The audit findings as well as the recommendations to reduce fraud and improve the administration of the Reduced Fare Photo ID Program have been presented to the Regional Transit Advisory Group (RTAG) over the past several meetings beginning in May 2011. In addition to the proposed changes outlined under the Recommendation section of this memo, a request was made at the last RTAG meeting to have RPTA staff explore the possibility of strictly limiting the reduced fare to only those eligibility categories that are federally mandated. This includes eliminating the following eligibility categories that are currently in place: • Eliminate youth (ages 6—18) from reduced fare category • Restrict reduced fare to non-peak hours only • Eliminate the reduced fare option for applicants with drug or alcohol dependency or

restrict eligibility to individuals enrolled in a certified drug and alcohol program In order to eliminate youth from the reduced fare program or change the hours in which reduced fare is offered to customers, a change to the current fare policy would have to be approved and implemented. As a result, staff is seeking input and guidance from the Transit Management Committee, as well as the Valley Metro Board of Directors to determine if there is support to move these proposed changes forward to the Fare Policy Working Group to flesh out the pros and cons associated with each change. For the purposes of moving forward on the more immediate problems associated with the current Reduced Fare Photo ID program, staff is seeking direction from the Transit Management Committee, as well as the Valley Metro Board of Directors on the following options: Option 1 • Discontinue issuing reduced fare IDs to excluded disabilities (pregnancy, obesity)

outlined in regulations including drug and alcohol applicants Pros • Potential increase in farebox revenue • Decreases problematic applications that are currently being processed at outlets • Gives outlets and RPTA staff better institutional controls over program Cons • Impacts social service agency budgets • Potential backlash from agencies and customers affected by this change • Most applicants under this category are low income and attempting to rebuild their

lives • Previous practice has been in place for 20+ years Option 2 • Restrict issuing reduced fare IDs to customers in a certified drug and alcohol program

which tracks the following steps to ensure the applicant is complying with program requirements:

4

– Attend meetings – Counseling – Job training or actively seeking employment

• Issuing agencies must be pre-approved by RPTA staff • Applications must be signed by a licensed therapist; psychologist; psychiatrist; or

social worker • Limit eligibility duration not to exceed one year (not eligible for renewal) Pros • Potential increase in farebox revenue • Decreases problematic applications that are currently being processed at outlets • Restricts application signee levels to licensed professionals—which decreases fraud

Cons • Same as option to eliminate reduced fare benefit, but it affects a fewer number of

applicants Budget Source In order to implement the proposed changes outlined in this report, a new application will have to be designed and printed and all changes will have to be communicated to customers beginning in February, 2012. Staff estimates the cost for printed materials is $7,000. The ADA budget, Project 6040 will incur the expense. Impacts A thorough and accurate Reduced Fare ID Program is a critical component of the reduced fare program that is federally mandated. The impact to farebox revenue can be significant if customers obtain a reduced fare ID card fraudulently. A breakdown of ridership, which includes reduced fare customers for fiscal year 2011, is listed below: • 67,607,530 total boardings in 2010/2011 • 20,136,044 reduced fare boardings • 29.8% of total boardings • Breakdown per category (based on O & D Study):

– Seniors (2%) = 1,352,151 – Youths (12%) = 8,101,904 – Disabled (15.8%) = 10,681,989

• $1,650 lost revenue over 5 years for a single card obtained fraudulently ($27.50/month

revenue reduction x 12 months x 5 years) Committee Action Process May 2011—RTAG Meeting – program overview August 2011—RTAG Meeting – preliminary audit findings and recommended course of action October 2011—RTAG Meeting – Preliminary recommendations to improve program November 2011—RTAG Meeting – Update on recommendations to improve program December 2011—RTAG Meeting – Final list of recommendations to improve program

5

Recommendation The following is a list of recommendations that address all issues outlined in the recent audit and improve the administration of the Reduced Fare Photo ID Program. • Revise application to include the following:

– Detailed instructions for applicants and issuing agencies – Add medical consent form to application so staff can verify disabilities as

needed – Eliminate ICD-9 code. An improved application eliminates the need for this

code – List eligible disability categories and disabilities excluded from reduced fare

program – List eligible signee approval levels – Applications must be filled out completely and signed by a licensed professional – Applications with a stated disability must also have a recent prescription or

statement on issuing agency letterhead verifying disability • Provide revised guidelines and training to outlets • Establish formal agreements with outlets • Raise fee for ID card from $2.50 to $5 to help cover program costs associated with ID

production • Launch communications plan to educate customers about changes In addition to these recommendations, staff is seeking direction on the following issues: • Eliminate youth from reduced fare category

– Need direction to forward to Fare Policy Working Group for review • Restrict reduced fare to non-peak hours only

– Need direction to forward to Fare Policy Working Group for review • Eliminate reduced fare option to drug or alcohol dependent applicants (Option 1)

– Need approval to implement this change effective March 1, 2012 • Restrict reduced fare option for drug and alcohol dependent applicants enrolled in a

certified drug and alcohol treatment program (Option 2) – Need approval to implement this change effective March 1, 2012 in lieu of

Option 1 In summary, it is recommended that the Transit Management Committee (TMC) provide direction on pending issues and forward this information to the Valley Metro Board of Directors to receive direction and approval of the recommendations outlined in this report. Contact Person Scott Wisner Customer Service Manager (602-251-2021) Attachments Audit of Reduced Fare Media Reduced Fare ID Card Audit Powerpoint

Valley Metro is proposing changes to the fare structure that guides the price of transit service for: Local, LINK, Express and RAPID service, Rural Route 685, METRO light rail service and Phoenix, East Valley and Sun City ADA Dial-a-Ride.

Fares pay for about 25% of the cost to operate service. The remaining 75% is paid by local sales tax revenues, state and federal funds.

Currently, passengers are paying about 23% of the cost to ride bus and light. This amount continues to decrease as the cost of operations continues to rise.

We would like your input on a 25 cent increase to the 1-Ride fare. This 25 cent change increases the price of all fare types because they are based on the 1-Ride fare. Please review the chart and provide your input by filling out this survey.

1. Overall, which ONE of the following two items is MORE IMPORTANT to you as a transit user? CIRCLE ONE.

A. The cost to use public transit B. The level of transit service available

2. Using a 1 to 10 scale where “1” means little impact to your budget and a “10” which means a big impact to your budget. Please circle the number that reflects the impact a 25 cent fare increase every 3 years would have to your budget.

3. Using a 1 to 10 scale where “1” means little impact to your budget and a “10” which means a big impact to your budget. Please circle the number that reflects the impact a 75 cent to $1.00 fare increase every 5 years would have to your budget.

4. Using a 1 to 10 scale where “1” means you strongly oppose this fare change and a “10” which means you strongly support this fare change. Please CIRCLE your level of support for the fare changes presented in the chart to the right.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name ___________________________ Email ____________________________ Meeting Location _____________________

Fare TypeCurrenT

Fareproposed Fare For

July 1, 2012

Full local Bus/lInK/light rail

1-Ride $1.75 $2.00

All-Day Off-Board $3.50 $4.00

All-Day On-Board $5.25 $6.00

3-Day $10.50 —

7-Day $17.50 $20.00

15-Day — $33.00

31-Day $55.00 $64.00

express/rapId Bus

1-Ride $2.75 $3.00



31-Day $85.00 $96.00

reduced Bus/lInK/light rail

1-Ride $0.85 $1.00



3-Day $5.25 —

7-Day $8.75 $10.00

15-Day — $16.50

31-Day $27.50 $32.00

ada dial-a-ride*

1-Ride $3.50 $4.00

rural route

1-Ride $3.25** $4.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Little

impact to budget

Big impact to

budget

Fare Change Comment Card

What comments or suggestions regarding fares would you like to share with Valley Metro?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Little

impact to budget

Big impact to

budget

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Strongly oppose

Strongly support

* Impacts various Dial-a-Ride systems including the East Valley, Sun City and Phoenix. Pricing for this service is two times the 1-Ride fare.

** Average fare

Reduced Fare ID Program

Transit Management Committee January, 4, 2012

1

Background • Reduced fare offered to Seniors, Youth, and

Persons with Disabilities • Customer must be prepared to show proof of

eligibility at time of boarding • Acceptable forms of ID include:

– Medicare Card – Arizona Driver’s License or State Issued ID

Card – Valley Metro Reduced Fare ID Card – ADA Platinum Card

2

Program Audit Findings • Application is poorly designed and lacks sufficient

information or guidelines – ICD-9 Code missing or incorrect – Duration of disability not listed – Applications copied – Applications signed by unqualified individuals or

submitted by unqualified agencies • Program guidelines and/or policies were being abused

by customers and agencies • No formal agreements in place with photo ID outlets • Difficult to verify accuracy of disability or validity of

issuing agency

3

FTA Requirements

• Persons with disabilities are defined by FTA as persons “who by reason of illness, injury, age congenital malfunction, or other incapacity or temporary or permanent disability (including any individual who is a wheelchair user or has semi-ambulatory capabilities), cannot use effectively, without special facilities, planning, or design, mass transportation service for a mass transportation facility

4

Exclusions To The Law • 49 CFR Ch. VI (10-1-03 Edition) Part 609.3

– 3. Question: Can the definition of handicap be limited in any way?

– Answer: FTA has allowed applicants to exclude some conditions which appear to meet the functional definition of handicap provided in section 5302(a)(5) of the Federal transit laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). These include pregnancy, obesity, drug or alcohol addiction, and certain conditions which do not fall under the statutory definition… 5

Demographics of Reduced Fare Customers

• 67,607,530 total boardings in 2010/2011 • 20,136,044 boardings paid a reduced fare • 29.8% of total boardings • Breakdown per category (based on 2011 O & D

Study): – Seniors (2%) = 1,352,151 – Youths (12%) = 8,101,904 – Disabled (15.8%) = 10,681,989

6

Breakdown of Reduced Fare Applications

• January 2011 – Present – Senior = 512 (14%) – Youth = 183 (5%) – Disabled = 2965 (81%)

• Drug and alcohol related = 1098 (37%)

Total Applications Received = 3,660

7

Peer City Analysis • Eight (8) Peer Cities contacted • Six (6) do not use ICD-9 Codes • Five (5) exclude individuals from program due to obesity,

pregnancy, acute or chronic alcoholism or drug addiction • All Peer Cities extended reduced fare to youth passengers • Seven (7) require customers to obtain ID card in person; (1)

had by mail process • Eligibility periods—temporary, permanent or up to five (5)

years • Variable validation process for accepting application

– Good faith – don’t verify with issuing agency – Must come through certifying agency – Signature cards-only those signatures are authorized

8

Short Term Recommendations • Revise application to address deficiencies outlined in

audit and by outlet staff • Applications with stated disability must have a recent

prescription or statement on issuing agency letterhead verifying disability

• Provide guidelines and training to outlets • Establish formal agreements with outlets • Raise fee for ID card from $2.50 to $5 to help cover

program costs • Launch communications plan to educate customers

about changes

9

Options for Exclusions to Reduced Fare Policy

Option 1 • Eliminate youth from reduced fare category Option 2 • Offer reduced fare only during non-peak hours Option 3 • Discontinue issuing IDs to drug and alcohol applicants Option 4 • Restrict issuing IDs to drug and alcohol applicants

enrolled in a certified drug and alcohol program

10

Fare Policy Implications

Option 1 – Eliminate youth from reduced fare program

Option 2 – Offer reduced fare only during non-peak

hours • Both options must be forwarded to the Fare Policy

Working Group to determine impact this change would have on farebox recovery and ridership

11

Option 3 Discontinue issuing IDs to drug and alcohol applicants

– Potential increase in farebox revenue – Decreases problematic applications that are currently being

processed at outlets – Gives outlets and RPTA staff better institutional controls over

program – Impacts social service agency budgets – Potential backlash from agencies and customers affected by this

change – Most applicants under this category are low income and

attempting to rebuild their lives – Previous practice has been in place for 20+ years

12

Option 4

Restrict issuing IDs to drug and alcohol applicants enrolled in a certified drug and alcohol program – Attend meetings – Counseling – Job training or actively seeking employment

• Issuing agencies must be pre-approved by RPTA staff

• Applications must be signed by a licensed therapist; psychologist; psychiatrist; or social worker

• Limit eligibility duration to program duration not to exceed one year (not eligible for renewal)

13

Direction on Options Option 1 and Option 2 • Need input and direction to determine if there is support

to forward to Fare Policy Committee for review Option 3 and 4 • Need direction on which option to implement now

– Option 3 eliminates drug and alcohol applicants from program; Option 4 continues to allow drug and alcohol applicants to pay reduced fare with tighter controls when obtaining reduced fare ID card

• Need approval to increase fee from $2.50 to $5

14

Timeline

• Short term solutions (October 2011—April 2012) – Providing Valley Metro Board approves

recommendations at January meeting • Long term solutions (July 2012—January 2013)

– Providing there is support for Fare Policy Working Group to study impacts of Options 1 and 2

15

Questions Send comments or suggestions to:

Scott Wisner [email protected]

602-251-2021

16


6

1


Agenda Item 6

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Public Involvement Program Summary for the Regional Fare Policy Proposal Background Over the last few years Valley Metro agencies along with the RPTA have implemented service changes to streamline transit service and cost cutting measures to significantly reduce administrative costs. This has helped to maintain fare recovery revenues near the Board adopted 25 percent target. As the cost of providing transit increases, the portion that riders pay will continue to decline. In order to help minimize service reductions, a fare increase has been proposed. The proposed increase is forecasted to generate approximately $6 million in revenue which can be applied to local and regional transit service. Without this added revenue, Valley Metro RPTA and its member agencies will be required to implement significant service reductions. It is our understanding that the following transit program deficits exists: Entity Deficit Term City of Phoenix (T-2000) $60 million 8 years City of Tempe (Local Transit Tax) $14 million 4 years RPTA (Prop. 400 Bus Transit Element) >$63 million 13 years Regardless of a fare increase, it is likely that additional service reductions to the regional bus system will need to be made. If the fare increase is not approved, it is estimated that 2.6 million revenue miles of transit service will be reduced from the transit system which equates to approximately 8.2 percent of the system that exists today based upon the region not realizing the $6 million in additional revenue that could be generated from a fare increase. As a side note, the regional bus system was already reduced by ten percent in July 2009 due to the repeal of the Local Transportation Assistance Funds and the downturn in the economy. In addition to monitoring the cost paid by riders, an analysis was conducted of eight regions across the country with similar transit systems to better understand the pricing of transit across the United States. After further review, the pricing for transit services in Maricopa County are some of the lowest among larger cities.

2

City 1 Ride Fare 1-Day Pass (Local) 31-Day Pass (Local)

Dallas $1.75 $4.00 $65.00 Los Angeles $1.50 $5.00 $75.00 Minneapolis * $2.25 $6.00 $85.00

Portland ** $2.40 $5.00 $92.00 Sacramento $2.25 $6.00 $100.00 Salt Lake City $2.25 $5.50 $75.00

San Diego $2.25 $5.00 $72.00 San Jose $2.00 $6.00 $70.00

Valley Metro *** $1.75 $3.50 $5.25 $55.00

Sources: Transit agency Web Sites (October 2011) * Minneapolis – peak time pricing. ** Portland – All zone pricing. *** Valley Metro - $5.25 is the price paid onboard fixed route buses To develop the recommendations, the Fare Policy Committee met over the last year (Oct. 8, Dec. 12, Feb. 15, March 22, April 19, Aug. 2, and Sept. 15) to discuss the fare policy program goals and structure. The program goals included: • Recommend policies that encourage transit use while achieving the adopted 25%

fare revenue target to help manage service • Consider the negative and positive impacts to ridership • Consider the impacts of route performance on the fare revenue target • Target implementation by July 1, 2012 CH2M Hill (formerly Booz Allen Hamilton), a third party consultant, was contracted to work with the Valley Metro Fare Policy Committee to conduct the analysis and help identify and recommend fare policies that achieve the objectives. The following information includes the fare policy recommendations that were approved by the Board of Directors for public input. The Regional Fare Policy Proposal It is recommended that every fiscal year Valley Metro review the fare box recovery rate to determine if a fare increase is needed. The goal is to implement periodic fare increases to minimize the impact to customers and to maintain the 25% fare recovery target. The fare goals will help evaluate the regional fare box recovery and determine if a fare increase is needed based on attaining the 25 percent fare revenue target to help manage transit service. Any change must be approved by the Board of Directors prior to a fare change being implemented. The proposed revisions to the fare policy incorporate an increase to the 1-ride fare however maintain the existing Valley Metro pricing rules which apply to all fare products and fare programs. The Valley Metro fare programs include the East Valley, Phoenix and Sun City

3

ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Dial-a-Ride fares, ASU U-Pass, Semester Pass, and Platinum Pass. The proposal includes the elimination of the 3-day pass and the addition of a 15-day pass. and changes to the rural route fare. The rural route 685 provides service between Ajo/Gila Bend, Buckeye and Phoenix. The following chart shows the proposed fare changes. Proposed fare changes presented during the Public Involvement process

Fare Type Current Fare Proposed Fare for July 1, 2012

FULL LOCAL BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES

1-RIDE $1.75 $2.00

ALL-DAY Off-Board $3.50 $4.00

ALL-DAY On-Board $5.25 $6.00

3-DAY $7.50 -

7-DAY $17.50 $20.00

15-DAY - $33.00

31-DAY $55.00 $64.00

EXPRESS/RAPID BUS FARES

1-RIDE $2.75 $3.00



31-DAY $85.00 $96.00

REDUCED BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES

1-RIDE $0.85 $1.00



3-DAY $5.25 -

7-DAY $8.75 $10.00

15-DAY - $16.50

31-DAY $27.50 $32.00

OTHER PASSES

ADA DIAL-A-RIDE $3.50 $4.00

RURAL ROUTE 685 *$3.25 $4.00

* Average fare

4

Public Involvement Process and Results The Board of Directors approved the implementation of a Public Involvement process on October 27, 2011. The program to obtain public input began on November 14. Public messages were delivered on buses and light rail, Valleymetro.org, and in local newspaper and online advertisements. A press release and related information was provided to the local media. Much of the local media promoted the public involvement process and some carried the information on their web sites. The public outreach included: − 200,000+ passengers per day over two weeks: “bus and light rail” announcements − 2,100 customers: email notices to Valley Metro customer database − 1,200 Employers representing 600,000+ commuters: email announcements,

webinars, meetings and newsletters − Customer service - “On hold” messages − 8 public hearings in Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix and Tempe − Social Media based communications using Facebook and Twitter − 2 advertisements in the Arizona Republic − Online advertisements on AZFamily.com over a 3 week period Public Participation The public had the following options to provide input regarding the proposed fare changes. − Mail their comments to Valley Metro − Email their comments to [email protected] − Phone in comments to Customer Service − Online survey at ValleyMetro.org − Attend a Public Hearing held in Glendale, Mesa, Tempe and five in Phoenix − Business community via Transportation Coordinator Meetings and outreach by

Valley Metro Business Services Representatives A survey was created to help capture and organize the public input. The survey was made available at the public hearings and on ValleyMetro.org. The results where then tabulated and summarized. The following summarizes the participation using the various public input options. • ValleyMetro.org online survey and comment system

– 1,907 visitors to “Fare Change Input” section on ValleyMetro.org – 98 participated in the electronic survey

• Input via mail and email – 138 comments received

• Input via Public Hearings and printed surveys – 71 participants


5

• Input via Customer Service Phone line – 3 registered comments

A survey was created with input from member agencies and the customer service team. The goal was to keep the survey as simple as possible to collect the most relevant and accurate information possible to help in the decision making process. The survey was made available in printed form at public meetings and used by customer service representatives. The survey was also made available online at the ValleyMetro.org web site. The following is a summary of the input received. Please note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding Q1: Overall, please indicate which ONE of the following two items is MORE IMPORTANT to you as a transit user?

Total n=169; Web n=98; Hard Copy n=71 While a higher percentage of respondents indicated that the cost to use public transit is more important to them than the level of transit service available (54% vs. 46%), this difference is not statistically significant. Q2 and Q3: Using a 1 to 10 scale where “1” means little impact on your budget and a “10” means a big impact on your budget, please select the number that reflects the impact of: - A $0.25 increase every 3 years - A $0.75 to $1.00 increase every 5 years

54% 46%

56% 44%

52% 48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cost to use public transit Level of transit service available

Total Response Web Hard Copy

6

Total n=195 The majority of respondents indicated that either proposed increase in fare would have a big impact on their budget (64% considered an increase of $.25 every three years to be a big impact, and 72% considered an increase of $.75-$1.00 every 5 years to be a big impact). Q4: Using a 1 to 10 scale where “1” means you strongly oppose this fare change and a “10” means you strongly support this fare change, please select your level of support for the fare changes presented in the chart.

Total n=195 The majority of respondents indicated strong opposition to the proposed fare changes (69%). However, 30% are neutral or support the fare change.

64% 72%

20% 19% 15% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$.25 increase every 3 years $.75 to $1.00 increase every 5 years

Big Impact 8 to 10 4 to 7 Little Impact 1 to 3

12% 18%

69%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly Support 8 to 10 4 to 7 Strongly Oppose 1 to 3

7

Q: What comments or suggestions regarding fares would you like to share with Valley Metro? *Note: web respondents did not provide open-ended comments.

Total n=58

Among those providing open-ended comments, the most common responses included “do not raise the prices/keep fares the same” (mentioned by 38%), and “It’s too expensive” (mentioned by 19%). Public Involvement Program Conclusions The public interest level regarding the proposed fare change is less than that of the previous fare policy change in 2009.

• The public outreach included a variety of methods used to help drive awareness regarding the input process for the proposed fare changes. This included local TV and printed news as well as Transit vehicle messages over a two week period.

• 1,907 citizens visited the “Proposed Fare Change” page on ValleyMetro.org and 300+ participants provided input. Very few local organizations provided input.

The cost to use transit versus the level of service available is slightly more important to those surveyed (54% vs. 46%). The difference is not statistically significant. A frequent, smaller fare increase has less of a budgetary impact to customers than less frequent, larger increases.

• 64% considered an increase of $.25 every three years to be a big impact. • 72% considered an increase of $.75-$1.00 every 5 years to be a big impact.

30% of respondents are neutral or strongly support the proposed fare change.

• The majority of respondents (69%) indicated strong opposition to the proposed fare changes.

21%

3%

3%

3%

5%

5%

5%

9%

9%

19%

38%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Service in Tucson is 24 hours a day

Service in Tucson is cheaper

It will make people upset/stress them out

I understand they have to raise the faires

Fares have gone up but service is the same

Cheaper fares means more riders

Run the service more hours/later hours

Expand service/more routes

It's too expensive

Do not raise the prices / keep fares the same

8

With fare increases, it is imperative to not reduce or cut service. The public expects improved and expanded service for their money. Program Schedule • January-February: review public involvement results and finalize recommendations

• February-April: Valley Metro Board and City of Phoenix Council approvals

• March-June: implement and test new fare tariff and customer communications

• July 1: launch revised fare policy and increase Budget Source The budget to conduct the study, fare modeling, recommendations and public involvement program is $75,000. This is programmed in the approved FY 2011/ 2012 RPTA administrative budget and is paid for by Public Transportation Fund (PTF) revenues. Impacts The recommended fare policy is forecasted to create an additional $6 million per year which can be applied to local and regional transit service. It is also forecasted to achieve the Valley Metro Board adopted 25% fare recovery target through July 2014. Committee Action Process • Fare Policy Committee meetings took place on October 8, 2010, December 12,

2010, February 15, March 22, April 19, August 2 and September 15.

• Regional Transit Advisory Group – September 20, 2011

• Transit Management Committee – October 5, 2011

• Budget and Finance Subcommittee – October 6, 2011

• Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors – October 20, 2011 for action

• Transit Management Committee – January 4, 2012 for information • Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors – January 19, 2012 for information Recommendation For information. Contact Person Mario Diaz Chief Marketing Officer 602-534-7391 or [email protected] Attachments A. Valley Metro Fare Policy - Public Involvement Program Summary presentation B. Fare Change Comment Card (survey instrument)


Proposed Regional Fare Policy Public Involvement Program

Summary

January 2012

• Local bus and light rail service

• Express/RAPID bus service

• Rural route service

• ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) paratransit (Dial-A-Ride)

• City of Phoenix • East Valley • Sun City

Proposed fare changes

2

Public Outreach • Board approved the process on October 27, the public input program

began November 14

• Public Relations and News Media campaign generated multiple news stories

• Advertisements - AZFamily.com online advertisements linked to ValleyMetro.org - AZ Republic – legal notices

• Public Outreach - 200,000+ riders per day over two weeks: transit vehicle announcements - 2,100 customers: email notices to Valley Metro customer database - 1,200 Employers representing 600,000+ commuters: email

announcements, webinars, meetings and newsletters - 8 public hearings in Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix (5) and Tempe - Social media: Facebook and Twitter messages announcing the public

hearings

3

Proposed Fare Changes

For July 1, 2012

Fare Type Current Fare Proposed Fare for

July 1, 2012 FULL LOCAL BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES

1-RIDE $1.75 $2.00



3-DAY $7.50 -

7-DAY $17.50 $20.00

15-DAY - $33.00

31-DAY $55.00 $64.00

EXPRESS/RAPID BUS FARES

1-RIDE $2.75 $3.00



31-DAY $85.00 $96.00

REDUCED BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES

1-RIDE $0.85 $1.00



3-DAY $5.25 -

7-DAY $8.75 $10.00

15-DAY - $16.50

31-DAY $27.50 $32.00

OTHER PASSES

ADA DIAL-A-RIDE $3.50 $4.00

RURAL ROUTE 685 *$3.25 $4.00 * Average fare

We would like your input on a 25 cent increase to the 1-Ride fare. This 25 cent change increases the price of all fare types because they are based on the 1-Ride fare.

4

Survey and Input Instruments Survey – Public Meetings and Customer Service AZFamily.com Web Banner

Linked to a survey at ValleyMetro.org

5

Public Input Participation • Online survey and comment system

– 1,907 visitors to “Fare Change Input” section on ValleyMetro.org – 98 participated in the electronic survey

• Input via mail and email – 138 comments received

• Input via Public Hearings and printed surveys – 71 participants

• Input via Customer Service Phone line – 3 registered comments

6

Q: Overall, please indicate which ONE of the following two items is MORE IMPORTANT to you as a transit user?

Total n=169; Web n=98; Hard Copy n=71

The cost to use transit versus the level of service available is slightly more important (54% vs. 46%)

7

Survey Results

Total n of those responding to $.25 increase: 196 Total n of those responding to $.75-$1.00 increase: 195

8

Frequent, smaller fare increases have less of a budgetary impact than less frequent, larger increases

Survey Results

Total n =195 9

69% oppose the fare increase. However, 30% are neutral or strongly support it.

Survey Results

Total responding = 58 *Note: web respondents did not provide open-ended comments.

Q: What comments or suggestions regarding fares would you like to share with Valley Metro?

10

Survey Results

With fare increases, it is imperative to not reduce or cut service.

The public expects improved and expanded service for their money.

Conclusions • The interest level regarding the proposed fare change is less than that of the

previous fare policy change in 2009. – 1,907 people visited the “Proposed Fare Change” page on ValleyMetro.org – 300+ participants provided input. – Very few local organizations provided input.

• The cost to use transit versus the level of service available is slightly more important (54% vs. 46%).

• Frequent, smaller fare increases have less of a budgetary impact than less frequent, larger increases ($.25 every three years vs. $.75-$1.00 every 5 years)

• 30% of respondents are neutral or strongly support the proposed fare change.

• With fare increases, it is imperative to not reduce or cut service. The public expects improved and expanded service for their money.

11

Program schedule • January: review public input and finalize recommendations

• February-April: City of Phoenix Council and Valley Metro Board approvals

• March-June: implement and test new fare tariff

• July 1: launch new fare policy and increase

12

QUESTIONS?

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us:

Mario Diaz, Chief Marketing Officer Office: (602) 523-6064

E-mail: [email protected]

13


7

1


Agenda Item 7

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Legislative Update Background Bryan Jungwirth, Acting Executive Director, will provide an update on current legislative issues. Budget Source None Impacts None Committee Action Process None Recommendation No formal action is required. Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Acting Executive Director 602-262-7433 Attachments None

8

1


Agenda Item 8

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Future TMC Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events Background Chair Greg Jordan will request future TMC agenda items from TMC members and TMC members may provide a report on current events. Budget Source None Impacts None Committee Action Process None Recommendation For information only. Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Acting Executive Director 602-262-7433 Attachments None

9

1


Agenda Item 9

Date December 28, 2011 Subject Executive Director’s Report Background Bryan Jungwirth, Acting Executive Director, will provide an update on agency issues. Budget Source None Impacts None Committee Action Process None Recommendation For information only. Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Acting Executive Director 602-262-7433 Attachments None

10

Date post:	28-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phunganh
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

MEETING OF THE Transit Management Committee · PDF fileQualified sign language interpreters...

Documents