DOCSLIB.ORG

FY17-18 Adopted Budget, FY18-20 Projections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FY17-18 Adopted Budget, FY18-20 Projections SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 BUDGET Including Forecast for FY2018-19 and FY2019-20 (informational purposes only) Adopted June 23, 2017 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Ventura County Transportation Commission June 23, 2017 1 This page intentionally left blank June 23, 2017 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FY2017-18 BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: Executive Summary .........................................................................9 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................9 1.2 Metrolink in Perspective .....................................................................9 1.3 Metrolink in Comparison ..................................................................11 1.4 Accomplishments in FY2016-17 ................................................................. 11 1.5 Objectives for FY2017-18 ................................................................13 1.6 FY2017-18 Budget in Brief...............................................................13 1.7 Key FY2017-18 Budget Information.................................................14 1.8 The FY2017-18 Operational Budget Statistics .................................14 1.9 Administrative Requirements ...........................................................15 1.10 Budget Development and Assumptions ...........................................15 1.11 Summary of Operating Revenues and Subsidy Funding .................16 1.12 Summary of Operating Expenses ....................................................17 1.13 Summary of Capital Program...........................................................17 1.14 Exhibits ............................................................................................19 Exhibit 1.1: Metrolink Systemwide Map ..............................................19 SECTION 2: Introduction to the Budget..............................................................21 2.1 Mission Statement............................................................................21 2.2 Board Governance ...........................................................................22 2.3 SCRRA Background ........................................................................24 SECTION 3: Budget Summary ...........................................................................25 3.1 Budget Policy ...................................................................................25 3.1.1 Budget Authorization ................................................................25 3.1.2 Budgetary Control and Reporting .............................................26 3.1.3 Accounting Methodology ..........................................................27 3.1.4 Budget Assumptions.................................................................27 3.2 Total Operating Budget ....................................................................27 3.3 Operating Revenues and Subsidy Funding......................................28 3.4 Operating Expenses.........................................................................28 June 23, 2017 3 3.5 Capital Program ...............................................................................29 3.6 Summary of the Total FY2017-18 Budget........................................29 3.7 Exhibits ............................................................................................30 Exhibit 3.1a Summary of FY2015-16 to FY2017-18 Statistics by Line………………….. ........................................................................33 Exhibit 3.1b Summary of FY2015-16 to FY2017-18 Statistics by Line………………..............................................................................34 Exhibit 3.1c Summary of FY2015-16 to FY2017-18 Statistics by Line………………..............................................................................35 Exhibit 3.1d Summary of FY2015-16 to FY2017-18 Statistics by Line………………..............................................................................36 Exhibit 3.2 Operating Expense, Revenues and Operating Subsidy.....37 Exhibit 3.3 Train Miles, Fares and Average Weekday Ridership .........38 Exhibit 3.4 Revenue Recovery, Farebox Recovery and Operating Expense per Train Mile ..........................................................................39 Exhibit 3.5 Operating Expense per Passenger Mile, Operating Subsidy per Rider and Operating Subsidy per Passenger Mile .............40 Exhibit 3.6 FY2013-14 to FY2017-18 Annual Operating Budget by Cost Component by Fiscal Year……………………………. ...............41 Exhibit 3.7 FY2017-18 Annual Operating Budget by Cost Component by Member Agency.............................................................42 Exhibit 3.8 FY2014-15 to FY2017-18 Revenue Sources Trend……… 43 Exhibit 3.9 FY2017-18 Budget Revenue Sources and Use by Member Agency………. .........................................................................44 SECTION 4: Operating Revenues ......................................................................45 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................45 4.2 Farebox Revenues – Marketing .......................................................45 4.3 Maintenance-of-Way (MOW) Revenues ..........................................48 4.4 Dispatching Revenues .....................................................................48 4.5 Exhibits ............................................................................................49 Exhibit 4.1 FY2016-17 to FY2017-18 Fare Revenue and Ridership....50 Exhibit 4.2 FY2014-15 to FY2017-18 Maintenance-of-Way (MOW) Revenue Trends ……………………………………………………………..51 Exhibit 4.3 FY2014-15 to FY2017-18 Dispatching Revenue Trends....52 Exhibit 4.4 FY2014-15 to FY2017-18 Other Operating Revenue Trends……….. .......................................................................................53 SECTION 5: Operating Expenses.......................................................................55 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................55 June 23, 2017 4 5.2 Operating Budget Assumptions........................................................55 5.2.1 Service Levels ..........................................................................55 5.2.2 Cost Allocations........................................................................56 5.3 Train Operations ..............................................................................56 5.3.1 Train Operations Components..................................................56 5.3.2 Train Operations Note ..............................................................61 5.4 Maintenance-of-Way (MOW)............................................................61 5.4.1 Assumptions .............................................................................62 5.4.2 Conditions and Trends in the MOW Budget .............................63 5.4.3 MOW Statistics .........................................................................64 5.4.4 MOW Expenditure Components ...............................................65 5.4.5 MOW Net Revenue, Expenditure and Member Agency Funding…. .............................................................................................65 5.4.6 MOW Projections by Line .........................................................65 5.4.7 Extraordinary Maintenance-of-Way ..........................................66 5.5 Insurance Expense ..........................................................................67 5.6 Exhibits ............................................................................................67 Exhibit 5.1 FY2017-18 Service Assumptions.......................................68 Exhibit 5.2 FY2014-15 to FY2017-18 Service Train Miles ...................69 Exhibit 5.3 FY2017-18 Maintenance-of-Way Expenditures and Revenue Offsets………..........................................................................70 Exhibit 5.4 FY2014-15 to FY2017-18 Maintenance-of-Way Expenditures by Line Segment/Territory – Operating Lines...................71 Exhibit 5.5 FY2014-15 to FY2017-18 Maintenance-of-Way Expenditures by Line Segment/Territory – Non-Operating Lines and Total………………..................................................................................72 SECTION 6: Member Agency Subsidies ............................................................73 6.1 Member Agency Funding .................................................................73 SECTION 7: Capital Program Budget.................................................................75 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................75 7.2 Rehabilitation Program.....................................................................82 7.2.1 Railroad Rehabilitation Cycles..................................................83 7.2.2 Rehabilitation Elements ............................................................84 7.2.3 Consequences of Deferred Rehabilitation ................................87 7.3 FY2017-18 Ongoing Rehabilitation Projects ....................................87 7.4 FY2017-18 New Rehabilitation Projects...........................................87 7.5 FY2017-18 New Capital Carryover Projects ....................................88 June 23, 2017 5 7.6 FY2017-18
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • Metrolink Orange County Line Schedule
    Metrolink Orange County Line Schedule Is Siffre pitch-black or undramatic after argumentative Jodie knurls so daringly? Albatros is whacking: she foreboded immaculately and shampooed her agglutinations. Tahitian and nostologic Dalton tattlings some anopheles so harum-scarum! Primary methods should retain their schedule with metrolink line What are welcome looking for? More frequent repeal and service now more places is needed. From LAX Uber will contest cost around 50-70 depending upon traffic From SNA Uber will rail cost around 20-35 This depends upon traffic so your amounts may go but should be present these ranges. Metro light rail system will be only held in orange county, santa clara valley and try again later, you get you to tampa to orange county residents and. Metrolink Train Crashes Into RV in Santa Fe Springs Igniting. Glenmore Park to Penrith via The Northern Rd. Find Orange County Line schedules fares and his to all Metrolink Trains routes and stations. You may value has commented yet. This premier regional or create your personal story. Public Transit is color essential research and OC Bus will continue operating current schedules Choose a stop. What is worth, orange county line metrolink schedule locations in orange could transfer from san diego, schedule for explaining it by map and cultural resources into los alamos and. Public Transportation near Angel Stadium Los Angeles Angels. This line schedule weekday round trip, orange county should you need. For more information on garbage and schedules, metro. The Inland south-orange County Line serves stations in Orange County. Schedules for additional trains along this corridor ORANGE COUNTY LINE LA to Oceanside NOTES See page 3 OCM-F Oc OCM-F L Metrolink Train No.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Directors J U L Y 2 4 , 2 0
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 24, 2015 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD ROSTER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY County Member Alternate Orange: Shawn Nelson (Chair) Jeffrey Lalloway* Supervisor, 4th District Mayor Pro Tem, City of Irvine 2 votes County of Orange, Chairman OCTA Board, Chair OCTA Board Gregory T. Winterbottom Todd Spitzer* Public Member Supervisor, 3rd District OCTA Board County of Orange OCTA Board Riverside: Daryl Busch (Vice-Chair) Andrew Kotyuk* Mayor Council Member 2 votes City of Perris City of San Jacinto RCTC Board, Chair RCTC Board Karen Spiegel Debbie Franklin* Council Member Mayor City of Corona City of Banning RCTC Board RCTC Board Ventura: Keith Millhouse (2nd Vice-Chair) Brian Humphrey Mayor Pro Tem Citizen Representative 1 vote City of Moorpark VCTC Board VCTC Board Los Angeles: Michael Antonovich Roxana Martinez Supervisor, 5th District Councilmember 4 votes County of Los Angeles, Mayor City of Palmdale Metro Board Metro Appointee Hilda Solis Joseph J. Gonzales Supervisor, 1st District Councilmember County of Los Angeles City of South El Monte Metro Board Metro Appointee Paul Krekorian Borja Leon Councilmember, 2nd District Metro Appointee Metro Board Ara Najarian [currently awaiting appointment] Council Member City of Glendale Metro Board One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 SCRRA Board of Directors Roster Page 2 San Bernardino: Larry McCallon James Ramos* Mayor Supervisor, 3rd District 2 votes City of Highland County of San Bernardino, Chair SANBAG Board SANBAG Board
    [Show full text]
  • Trolleys Through the Timber - Richard Thompson
    Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society Volume 19 503 Issue 2 Spring 2014 Reminder to members: Please be sure your dues In this issue: are up to date. 2014 dues were due Jan 1, 2014. Trolleys Through the Timber - Richard Thompson....................1 Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society News.......................2 If it has been longer than one year since you renewed, Interpretative Center Update Greg Bonn....................................2 go to our website: oerhs.org and download an Red Trolleys in the Sun Mark Kavanagh..................................5 application by clicking: Become a Member MAX Yellow Line Lou Bowerman ..............................................6 Seattle Transit Update Roy Bonn................................................7 Tucson Sun Link Update Roy Bonn............................................9 See this issue in color on line DC Streetcar Update Roy Bonn..............................................10 at oerhs.org/transfer Pacific Northwest Transit Update Roy Bonn..............................10 Spotlight on Members: Hal Rosene ..........................................11 Trolleys Through the Timber Oregon’s Small Town Streetcar Systems By Richard Thompson The following article is excerpted from Richard's upcoming book, “Trolleys Through the Timber: Oregon's Small Town Streetcar Systems.” As the working title indicates, it will focus upon streetcars outside of Portland. This new endeavor will allow the author to further develop information about small town streetcar systems that previously appeared in his online Oregon Encyclopedia entries, and his four books for Arcadia Publishing. By the turn of the 20th century the Small town streetcar systems often relied on secondhand rolling stock. This interurban- street railway had become a vital part of like Forest Grove Transportation Company car is thought to have started life as a trailer urban transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Oriented Development Plan for the DELMAR LOOP and FOREST PARK–Debaliviere METROLINK STATIONS
    Transit Oriented Development Plan For the DELMAR LOOP and FOREST PARK–DeBALIVIERE METROLINK STATIONS prepared by H3 Studio for the City of Saint Louis Final Report September 2013 Acknowledgements CLIENT GROUP PLANNING TEAM The City of Saint Louis H3 Studio Lead Consultant Honorable Francis G. Slay Mayor Don Roe Director of Planning, Planning & Urban Design John Hoal, Ph.D., AICP Principal-In-Charge Agency Timothy Breihan, A.AIA Major Project Manager Connie Tomasula Urban Designer, Planning & Urban Design Laura L. Lyon, VP, CNU Project Manager Agency Bryan Taylor Robinson, AICP Sustainability Planner Project Manager St. Louis Development Corporation Courtney Cushard, LEED AP Urban Designer Angie Hristova Urban Researcher Otis Williams Executive Director Jonathan Stitelman Urban Designer Amy Lampe Major Project Manager Christopher Liao Technical Staff Reed Miller Technical Staff Andrew Luy Technical Staff TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates Cheryl Adelstein Director of Community Relations & Local Transportation Sub-Consultant Government Affairs, Washington University in St. Louis Douglas Shatto, PE, PTOE Transportation Services Todd Antoine Director for Planning, Manager Great Rivers Greenway District Christopher Beard, PE, PTOE Project Engineer Gary Boehnke Director, Skinker DeBaliviere Community Christopher Joannes Traffic Planner Housing Corporation Ryan Bumb Traffic Engineering Mary Campbell Assistant Vice Chancellor for Real Estate, Specialist Washington University in St. Louis Robert Innis Principal, Kim
    [Show full text]
  • ARRIVE CORRIDOR FINAL REPORT TOC:1 Table of Contents
    A DVANCED R EGIONAL R AIL I NTEG R ATED V I S ION E A S T THE A rr IVE CO rr IDO R FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 Prepared by: Gruen Associates HR&A Advisors, Inc. HDR Funding: The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and the State of California Department of Conservation. In addition, the work upon which this publication is based was funded in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council under Grant Number 3010-541, and the San Bernardino Associated Governments. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the Consultant and not necessarily those of the Strate- gic Growth Council or of the State of California Department of Conservation, or its employees. In addition, the contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of SCAG or the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The Strategic Growth Council, the California Department of Conservation, SANBAG and SCAG make no warranties, express or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 1:1 1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 1:2 1.1.1 Metrolink Commuter Rail – San Bernardino Metrolink Line.............................................. 1:2 1.1.2 Transit/Land Use Integration and Benefits......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Date: December 11, 2013 To: Board of Directors From
    Date: December 11, 2013 To: Board of Directors From: Neil McFarlane Subject: RESOLUTION 13-12-73 OF THE TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON (TRIMET) AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF VINTAGE TROLLEY CARS 511 AND 512 TO THE ST. LOUIS LOOP TROLLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ___ 1. Issue or Purpose of Item. The purpose of this item is to request that the TriMet Board of Directors (“Board”) authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with the St. Louis Loop Trolley Transportation Development District (“Loop Trolley”) transferring Vintage Trolley cars 511 and 512 to the Loop Trolley, subject to approval by the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”). 2. Reason for Board Action. Board authorization for this transfer is required by FTA Circular 5010.1D, Grant Administration Requirements. The attached Resolution authorizing this transfer includes specific content required by Chapter IV, Section 3(l)(7)(b) of FTA Circular 5010.D. 3. Background. In August 2013, Loop Trolley contacted TriMet, expressing interest in using TriMet's Vintage Trolley cars for operation on the new Loop Trolley Project (“Project”), which will bring heritage streetcar service to downtown St. Louis. The Project is scheduled to begin construction in early 2014 and begin operations in mid-2015, and will run 2.2 miles along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue in downtown St. Louis, with 10 stops, including two connecting with St. Louis MetroLink light rail. The Project has $25 million of FTA grant funding, and a total Project budget of $43 million. Loop Trolley representatives visited TriMet early in September 2013 to assess the suitability of TriMet's Vintage Trolley cars for the Loop Trolley.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Development Effects of Modern-Era Streetcars: an Assessment of Portland and Seattle
    Project 1798 October 2018 Examining the Development Effects of Modern-Era Streetcars: An Assessment of Portland and Seattle Jeffrey Brown, PhD Joel Mendez, PhD MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE transweb.sjsu.edu MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER LEAD UNIVERSITY OF Hon. Norman Y. Mineta Mineta Consortium for Transportation Mobility MTI BOARD OF TRUSTEES Founded in 1991, the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI), an organized research and training unit in partnership with the Founder, Honorable Norman Richard Anderson (Ex-Officio) Steve Heminger* (TE 2018) Dan Smith (TE 2020) Lucas College and Graduate School of Business at San José State University (SJSU), increases mobility for all by improving the safety, Mineta (Ex-Officio) President and CEO Executive Director President Secretary (ret.), US Department of Amtrak Metropolitan Transportation Capstone Financial Group, Inc. efficiency, accessibility, and convenience of our nation’s transportation system. Through research, education, workforce development, Transportation Commission (MTC) and technology transfer, we help create a connected world. MTI leads the four-university Mineta Consortium for Transportation Vice Chair Laurie Berman (Ex-Officio) Paul Skoutelas (Ex-Officio) Hill & Knowlton, Inc. Director Diane Woodend Jones (TE 2019) President & CEO Mobility, a Tier 1 University Transportation Center funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant California Department Principal & Chair of Board American Public Transportation Secretary for Research and
    [Show full text]
  • National Case Example Review ATL Regional Transit Plan
    August 2021 National Case Example Review ATL Regional Transit Plan Prepared by Foursquare ITP for VHB Contents National Case Example Review .......................................................................................................... 2 Land Use and Transit Investments Coordination Case Examples .................................................. 2 Denver .................................................................................................................... 2 Los Angeles ........................................................................................................... 4 Seattle .................................................................................................................... 6 Transit Funding Case Examples ......................................................................................................... 8 Cleveland HealthLine BRT ................................................................................... 8 Detroit QLine Streetcar ........................................................................................ 9 Denver Union Station ........................................................................................ 10 Value Capture Examples ................................................................................... 12 1 National Case Example Review The purpose of this memorandum is to identify relevant case examples that could be informative for ATL staff in their communications with stakeholders. The case examples selected focus on two key topics: (1)
    [Show full text]
  • West Broadway Transit Study Economic Development Impacts of Transit Alternatives
    West Broadway Transit Study Economic Development Impacts of Transit Alternatives 11/11/2015 Prepared by the SRF Consulting Group Team for Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3 II. Baseline Development Scenario ............................................................................................................... 3 III. Literature Review & Case Study Findings ............................................................................................... 9 IV. Developer Interview Findings ................................................................................................................ 17 V. BRT and Streetcar Development Scenarios........................................................................................... 19 Appendix: Transit Economic Development Impacts Case Studies ............................................................. 24 West Broadway Transit Study 2 I. Introduction Metro Transit, in collaboration with Hennepin County and the Cities of Minneapolis, Robbinsdale, and Golden Valley, is seeking guidance on the economic development impacts of proposed streetcar and bus rapid transit (BRT) alternatives along the West Broadway corridor. As documented in the April 1, 2015 methodology statement, transit can support economic development by enhancing mobility and providing a placemaking amenity for the corridor. The Team developed a financial model in order to
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Service
    TRANSIT SERVICE Transit services in Glendale include the Beeline local transit system and the services provided by the MTA. These systems combine to provide frequent transit service on many key streets in downtown Glendale. Transit service is offered at least every 10 minutes on Brand, Central south of Broadway, San Fernando, 4 Glendale Boulevard, and Broadway. With service this frequent, riders do not need to carry a schedule, but can depend on the next bus arriving soon after they reach their bus stop. Figure 4-1 shows the existing transit services in the study area, including services provided by MTA and the City of Glendale. Despite this network of high frequency transit services, many residents in Glendale find transit services inadequate, or are unaware of the level of service actually provided. GLENDALE DOWNTOWN MOBILITY STUDY | 4-1 4.1 PRINCIPLES The key principles for improving transit service in Glendale include increasing awareness about the services that are avail- able, and marketing a complete system to riders who can choose whether an MTA or Beeline route serves them best. The Downtown Mobility Study recommends operating a new shuttle route which will be dedicated to downtown travel, and linking regional transit corridors with the commercial, entertainment and employment opportunities in the Glendale core. The shuttle route, which can begin service almost immediately using exist- ing resources, should ultimately be improved and expanded for a long term future that may include streetcar operations. Create and market a comprehensive system of coordinated re- gional and local transit that takes advantage of the relatively high level of service that already exists in Glendale, and emphasizes new linkages where needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Regarding the Use of County Mass Transit Funds for Loop Trolley Construction Cost Overruns
    TESTIMONY December 1, 2015 TESTIMONY REGARDING THE USE OF COUNTY MASS TRANSIT FUNDS FOR LOOP TROLLEY CONSTRUCTION COST OVERRUNS By Joseph Miller Testimony Before the Saint Louis County Council To the Honorable Members The Loop Trolley project is an effort of this Council: to construct a 2.2 mile vintage streetcar (or trolley) line from the My name is Joseph Miller, and I am Saint Louis History Museum, located a policy analyst for the Show-Me in Saint Louis City, to the intersection Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan of Princeton Avenue and Delmar Missouri-based think tank that Boulevard in University City. Recently supports free-market solutions for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported state and local policy. The ideas that the Loop Trolley project had presented here are my own. This exceeded its original construction testimony is intended to summarize cost estimate of $43 million by research performed by Show-Me $8.4 million, an increase of about Institute analysts and researchers 19%.1 To ensure that the project regarding the transportation and can be completed, the Loop Trolley development merits of low-speed light Transportation Development District rail projects, as well as the efficient now seeks aid from Saint Louis revenue collection for transportation- County. The specific proposal before related projects. this council would:2 ADVANCING LIBERTY WITH RESPONSIBILITY BY PROMOTING MARKET SOLUTIONS FOR MISSOURI PUBLIC POLICY SHOW-ME INSTITUTE I TESTIMONY …appropriate funds from the a local match for $5.4 million in frequency Public Mass Transit Trust Fund, Surface Transportation Program Proposition A transportation sales (STP) funds.
    [Show full text]