DOCSLIB.ORG

TCRP Report 173: Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TCRP Report 173: Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple APPENDIX A Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ FINAL REPORT TCRP H-49: Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Transit Providers APPENDIX A: PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA, AZ INTRODUCTION The Maricopa County’s Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), also known as Valley Metro, is the regional transit authority for the majority of the Phoenix metro area. According to the U.S. Census, Maricopa County had a population of 3.9 million in 2012, th making it the 12 largest metropolitan The Valley Metro brand on the street. region in the United States. Phoenix is Photo: courtesy of Vally Metro webpage by far the largest municipality in the region, with nearly 1.5 million people. In addition to the City of Phoenix, the region includes three Native American Communities and 25 municipalities, several of which have populations of 250,000 or more. The history and development of regional transit services in Maricopa County and Valley Metro are tied closely to a series of successful and unsuccessful funding initiatives. In 1985, the Arizona State Legislature passed a law that allowed citizens of Maricopa County to vote on a sales tax increase to fund transportation. Later the same year, county residents approved a proposition for a half-cent regional sales tax with money dedicated to regional freeway improvements, plus seed money for a new regional transit authority (Regional Public Transportation Authority, or RPTA). The sales tax also included $6 million to develop a regional transit plan, find dedicated funding, and develop and operate a regional transit system. Prior to the 1985 authorization and vote, all funding for public transportation was local and the City of Phoenix operated the vast majority of transit service in the region. Appendix A: PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA, AZ A-1 FINAL REPORT TCRP H-49: Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Transit Providers Figure A-1 Map of Phoenix Area Building on the planning work funded by the 1985 tax initiative, the RPTA went back to Maricopa County voters in 1989 with a transit funding proposal, known as ValTrans, that included significantly expanded bus service and 103 miles of elevated, automated rail. This regional proposal was defeated as was a subsequent regional transit proposal in 1994. On the heels of the failed regional initiatives, however, several municipalities were able to pass local sales taxes for transit. The City of Scottsdale passed a dedicated local transportation tax in 1989, which included funding for transit. Several years later in 1996, voters in the City of Tempe approved a ½ cent sales tax for local transit service, followed by successful initiatives in Phoenix (2000) and Glendale (2001). A regional tax was finally approved by the voters in 2004, when Maricopa County residents reauthorized the original 1985 tax. This time the regional tax includes significantly more revenues for transit with $2.8 billion allocated for transit service development, including light rail. The system of regional and local funding for transit made the development of regional transit services in Maricopa County complicated. Nearly all of the region’s most populated cities A-2 Appendix A: PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA, AZ FINAL REPORT TCRP H-49: Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Transit Providers operate local transit services. The regional services that connect communities are funded and operated separately by the RPTA, or Valley Metro. As a regional service operator, Valley Metro’s initial role was fairly small; however, as regional services are added and light rail built, the agency is playing an increasing role in developing a cohesive regional network. Some of Valley Metro’s early success was to coordinate the appearance of the system by consolidating passenger systems such as service branding, fares, and some capital projects. As a result of continued effort over the years to consolidate transit operations in Maricopa County, there are currently two very large transit operators in the region: the City of Phoenix and Valley Metro. There are also several small-to-medium sized fixed-route systems in the region, as well as numerous dial-a-ride operators. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW In the past few decades, Phoenix and Maricopa County have been and continue to be among the fastest growing regions in the United States. Between 1970 and 1980, Maricopa County’s population increased by more than 50%, growing from around 970,000 to more than 1.5 million. Growth has continued since 1980, such that the County’s population is now nearly four million residents. Meeting the needs and expectations of such a rapidly growing population is inherently challenging, and among the biggest challenges is simultaneously developing, planning and managing new services and infrastructure. In the 1980’s, the City of Phoenix was the primary transit operator in the region with the Phoenix Transit System. As such, it also was the designated recipient of federal transit funds and manager of the regional transit programs. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) was responsible for regional planning but much of the transit service planning and development was led by the City of Phoenix. In 1985, the Arizona State Legislature authorized Maricopa County to tax itself to improve regional transportation systems, including public transportation. This authorization was exercised almost immediately and county residents approved a sales tax primarily to fund regional freeway improvements. The tax also included a relatively smaller pot of money dedicated to creating a Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA). Among other tasks, the RPTA worked on developing a regional transit system plan, which it brought to the voters in 1989. This first sales tax initiative was defeated, as were two subsequent efforts. Given the region’s reluctance to vote for a regional tax, several individual municipalities – Appendix A: PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA, AZ A-3 FINAL REPORT TCRP H-49: Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Transit Providers including Scottsdale, Glendale, Tempe and Phoenix -- were able to pass local tax initiatives to develop local transit services 1. Consequently, local transit networks and interests outpaced development of regional services. Despite a lack of success in the voting booths, the RPTA was able to make progress toward a regional transit network by operating service and assuming responsibility for several regional transit service functions. In 1993, the RPTA began operating regional bus services and branded itself as Valley Metro. The RPTA also encouraged several regional systems, including the cities of Phoenix and Mesa, to join the Valley Metro brand at this time. The goal of the regional brand was to remove visual distinctions between the services for riders. When Valley Metro was first branded, the cities of Scottsdale and Tempe did not join the brand. However, as the Valley Metro services expanded so did the value of the unified brand and visual continuity of the system. Nearly ten years later, in 2002, the cities of Tempe and Scottsdale also joined the Valley Metro system, further regionalizing the system. Another critical step toward strengthening the regional transit network occurred in 2004 when Maricopa County residents voted to reauthorize the original tax and allocated a larger percentage to transit. Proposition 400 (or Prop 400) authorized $2.8 billion for transit over the 20-year authorization period, including funding for bus and light rail transit improvements, development of a “supergrid” bus network and development of 27 additional miles of light rail or other high capacity transit service 2. Prop 400 was a major step forward in creating a regional transit network because it called for a restructuring of the bus service into a regional grid system and for incorporating the City of Phoenix’s plans for light rail into a regional system. Light rail development was incorporated into the Valley Metro system but is managed and governed as a separate entity, Valley Metro Rail (METRO). The light rail system opened in December, 2008 with 20 miles of “starter” track and 28 stations, providing service in Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa. Most recently (2012), METRO and Valley Metro merged into a single organization headed by a single Chief Operating Officer, although there are still separate boards governing each organization. The merger was motivated by a recognized need for 1 Note not all local tax initiatives were successful. In 1997, the City of Phoenix defeated a half-cent sales tax for transit service improvements, but a 2000 effort was successful. After passing a transportation tax in 1989, the City of Scottsdale defeated a subsequent effort in 1997. The City of Chandler also had an unsuccessful tax effort in 1999. 2 Valley Metro – Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA). 2012. Short Range Transit Plan: FY 2012-2016. Phoenix, AZ. A-4 Appendix A: PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA, AZ FINAL REPORT TCRP H-49: Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Transit Providers more integration between the bus and rail services; a desire to more closely coordinate service goals; and the potential to reduce costs. Given that both boards will continue, the merger also identified a conflict resolution process: if the boards provide conflicting instructions, a subcommittee of an equal number representatives from each board will meet to review the concern; the subcommittee will have advisory authority only. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Project Purpose The original goal of creating a Regional Public Transportation Authority was to create a regional public transit system for Maricopa County. Project Leadership and Partners Developing a regional transit system in Maricopa County has been an ongoing effort since 1985 and, thus, the role and individual representatives participating in the process have evolved in the more than 25 years since that time. The RPTA is a member organization. All members contribute financially to the development and provision of regional transit services, thus all members participate in the governance of the system. The governance structure is comprised of representatives from 16 communities, including Maricopa County 3 and board members are elected officials in their home communities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Regional Park-And-Ride System
    2019 ANNUAL REGIONAL PARK & RIDE SYSTEM REPORT JANUARY 2020 Prepared for: Metropolitan Council Metro Transit Minnesota Valley Transit Authority SouthWest Transit Maple Grove Transit Plymouth Metrolink Northstar Link Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared by: Ari Del Rosario Metro Transit Engineering and Facilities, Planning and Urban Design Table of Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................................................3 Capacity Changes........................................................................................................................................6 System Capacity and Usage by Travel Corridor .........................................................................................7 Planned Capacity Expansion .......................................................................................................................8 About the System Survey ............................................................................................................................9 Appendix A: Facility Utilization Data .......................................................................................................10 Park & Ride System Data .....................................................................................................................10 Park & Pool System Data .....................................................................................................................14 Bike & Ride
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2016 Edition Join MPTA at Transportation Day at the Capitol
    Winter 2016 Edition Join MPTA at Transportation Day at the Capitol 2016! Don’t miss your chance to be heard on transportation issues and funding needs by state legislators! MPTA staff is available to arrange appointments. March 16, 2016 from 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM Regional Council of Carpenters - Great Hall 710 Olive Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55130 Registration is Only $35 for MPTA Members! Register Today President’s Column Craig Rempp What does the future of transit look like? More and more we seem to be confronted by the prospect of a new future that is coming quickly. More transit systems are merging together and offering new ways for people to get around. New services will be available to people soon such as rides provided by Uber or Uber Assist or Lyft. New funding has been approved at the federal level and local options or new funding partnerships may be happening in the very near future. All of these trends will change how we think about mobility and how we provide public transit service. The Minnesota Public Transit Association will be working to help you track all the changes and to assist our member systems as we navigate a new future. MnDOT’s Office of Transit continues to work on updating the Greater Minnesota Transit Investment Plan, the 20-year vision for transit in Greater Minnesota. As we think about the future, it’s critical for all of us to provide feedback on the Transit Investment Plan including information on what is needed in our communities. We can’t predict the future, but we can put some ballpark numbers around unmet needs for transit service in the immediate future.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Resources
    763-424-0845 MN Relay: 1800 818-0395 Your On Campus Connection to Resources in the Community”. Transportation Resources North Hennepin Community College Community Connections does not assume responsibility for the quality of services provided by outside agencies or websites listed above. Inclusion on the list does not imply endorsement nor does omission indicate disap- proval. This information can be made available in alternate formats by contacting the Access Services Office at 763-493-0555 or by TTY at 763-493-0558 HELPFUL RESOURCES MAPLEGROVE DIAL A RIDE PLYMOUTH METROLINK DIAL-A-RIDE LYFT https://www.maplegrovemn.gov/services/ 763-559-5057 M-F 6am to 6pm LYFT.com transit/dial-a-ride/ http://www.plymouthmn.gov/departments/ Sign-Up online for a new and faster way to get The Dial-a-Ride program is an advance reserva- administrative-services-/transit/plymouth- around, then upload app to your smartphone. tion, shared-ride, curb-to-curb van service availa- metrolink-dial-a-ride Price can vary depending on time of day, how ble to the general public. many in a vehicle and distance. You can sched- Dial-A-Ride $3 each way Service Area: Within City of Maple Grove bounda- ule up to 7 days in advance. ries, plus service to City of Osseo, Hennepin Tech- Rides may be reserved up to 5days in ad- vance nical College/North Hennepin Community College UBER and Starlight Transit Station (next to Cub Foods in Serves Plymouth and surroundings areas Uber.com Brooklyn Park) Fares: $1.75 cash per one way ride Sign-Up online for a new (exact change, no checks) METRO TRANSIT—TWINS CITIES and faster way to get 612-373-3333 around, then upload app to METRO MOBILITY www.metrotransit.org your smartphone.
    [Show full text]
  • Easy Come, Easy Go. on Transit
    Easy come, easy go Register your EASY Card and enjoy Easy come, easy go. with the EASY Card • Free balance protection against loss or Think of the EASY Card as a debit card to theft – For your peace of mind, register your On Transit. pay your transit fare. The EASY Card lasts EASY Card for balance protection against three years and will replace all existing loss or theft. We will cancel your lost or transit tokens, Metropasses, discount-fare stolen card, issue a new one, and transfer permits and paper transfers. the balance available at the time you contact us. You pay only a $2 card-replacement fee. With the EASY Card, you won’t have to look for nickels and dimes every time you ride. • Automatic loading – Enjoy the convenience Add up to $150 in stored value to your card of setting up your EASY Card account for to pay your transit fares, including transfers, automatic loading by calling 3-1-1 or online or load your EASY Card with a 1-Month at www.miamidade.gov/transit. Have your (calendar month), 7-Day, or 1-Day pass and credit card information ready. take advantage of unlimited rides. • The EASY Ticket cannot be registered for The EASY Card, which costs $2, has an automatic loading or balance protection. embedded computer chip that automatically deducts the fare when you tap the card on Where to purchase and add value Metrobus fareboxes and on the Metrorail or a pass to EASY cards and tickets faregates. You don’t need an EASY Card or – At EASY Card sales outlets located EASY Ticket to ride Metromover, which will throughout Miami-Dade County.
    [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]
  • Initial Transit Agency Outreach Summary
    Memorandum SRF No. 12758 To: Cole Hiniker, AICP Metropolitan Council From: Joseph Kapper, AICP SRF Consulting Group Date: May 20, 2020 Subject: Metropolitan Council Service Allocation Study Initial Transit Agency Outreach Summary Executive Summary Introduction One of the first tasks associated with the Service Allocation Study involved a report on existing conditions for transit service within the Minneapolis – St. Paul region. In addition to documenting the scope of transit service and socioeconomic data, the consultant team conducted outreach to each transit provider to understand the scope of their services and gain general input on the study. In March and April of 2020 several video and tele-conferences were held with individuals responsible for service monitoring, planning, and allocation at each agency. The content of each meeting included the following topics: • Offering an overview of the Service Allocation Study and gathering initial feedback on work to date and potential successful outcomes. • Transit agencies provide a summary of their current services. • How are transit operating resources allocated today? o How does the agency currently approach service allocation decisions? o What policies currently exist to guide service expansion or reduction? o Are there separate performance guidelines or goals for different types of service? • Agency planning and service development priorities. As of this memo’s completion, interviews have been conducted with Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, SouthWest Transit, the City of Plymouth, Maple Grove Transit, and Metropolitan Transportation Services. Prior to each stakeholder interview, the consultant team reviewed the transit services currently offered by each agency, as well as relevant survey results, internal procedures, and long-range planning documents provided for the purposes of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan
    Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the-Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the- Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02142 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounder Commuter Rail (Seattle)
    Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Final Report PRC 14-12 F Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 14-12 F December 2014 Authors Jolanda Prozzi Rydell Walthall Megan Kenney Jeff Warner Curtis Morgan Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 10 Sharing Rail Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 10 Three Scenarios for Sharing Rail Infrastructure ................................................................... 10 Shared-Use Agreement Components .................................................................................... 12 Freight Railroad Company Perspectives ............................................................................... 12 Keys to Negotiating Successful Shared-Use Agreements .................................................... 13 Rail Infrastructure Relocation ................................................................................................... 15 Benefits of Infrastructure Relocation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Move... Miami-Dade County's Pocket
    Guide Cover 2013_English_Final.pdf 1 10/3/2013 11:24:14 AM 111 NW First Street, Suite 920 Miami, FL 33128 tel: (305) 375-4507 fax: (305) 347-4950 www.miamidade.gov/mpo C M On the Y CM MY Move... CY CMY K Miami-Dade County’s Pocket Guide to Transportation Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 4th Edition Table of Contents Highway Information Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) p. 1 FDOT’s Turnpike Enterprise p. 2 Florida Highway Patrol p. 2 95 Express Lanes p. 3 Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (MDX) p. 4 SunPass® p. 5 511-SmarTraveler p. 5 Road Rangers p. 5 SunGuide® Transportation Management Center p. 6 Miami-Dade Public Works and Waste p. 7 Management Department Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) p. 8 Driving and Traffic Regulations p. 8 Three Steps for New Florida Residents p. 9 Drivers License: Know Before You Go p. 9 Vehicle Registration p. 10 Locations and Hours of Local DMV Offices p. 10-11 Transit Information Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) p. 12 Metrobus, Metrorail, Metromover p. 12 Fares p. 13 EASY Card p. 13 Discount EASY Cards p. 14-15 Obtaining EASY Card or EASY Ticket p. 15 Transfers p. 16-17 Park and Ride Lots p. 17-18 Limited Stop Route/Express Buses p. 18-19 Special Transportation Services (STS) p. 20 Special Event Shuttles p. 21 Tax-Free Transit Benefits p. 21 I Transit Information (Continued) South Florida Regional Transportation Authority p. 22 (SFRTA) / TriRail Amtrak p. 23 Greyhound p. 23 Fare & Schedule Information p. 24 Local Stations p.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Performance Characteristics Stations Mixed Traffic Lanes* Service Characteristics Newest Corridor End‐to‐End Travel Departures Every 'X' Travel Speed (MPH) City Corridor Segment Open length (mi) # Spacing (mi) Miles % Time Minutes BRT Systems Boston Silver Line Washington Street ‐ SL5 2002 2.40 13 0.18 1.03 42.93% 19 7 7.58 Oakland San Pablo Rapid ‐ 72R 2003 14.79 52 0.28 14.79 100.00% 60 12 14.79 Albuquerque The Red Line (766) 2004 11.00 17 0.65 10.32 93.79% 44 18 15.00 Kansas City Main Street ‐ MAX "Orange Line" 2005 8.95 22 0.41 4.29 47.92% 40 10 13.42 Eugene Green Line 2007 3.98 10 0.40 1.59 40.00% 29 10 8.23 New York Bx12 SBS (Fordham Road ‐ Pelham Pkwy) 2008 9.00 18 0.50 5.20 57.73% 52 3 10.38 Cleveland HealthLine 2008 6.80 39 0.17 2.33 34.19% 38 8 10.74 Snohomish County Swift BRT ‐ Blue Line 2009 16.72 31 0.54 6.77 40.52% 43 12 23.33 Eugene Gateway Line 2011 7.76 14 0.55 2.59 33.33% 29 10 16.05 Kansas City Troost Avenue ‐ "Green Line" 2011 12.93 22 0.59 12.93 100.00% 50 10 15.51 New York M34 SBS (34th Street) 2011 2.00 13 0.15 2.00 100.00% 23 9 5.22 Stockton Route #44 ‐ Airport Corridor 2011 5.50 8 0.69 5.50 100.00% 23 20 14.35 Stockton Route #43 ‐ Hammer Corridor 2012 5.30 14 0.38 5.30 100.00% 28 12 11.35 Alexandria ‐ Arlington Metroway 2014 6.80 15 0.45 6.12 89.95% 24 12 17.00 Fort Collins Mason Corridor 2014 4.97 12 0.41 1.99 40.00% 24 10 12.43 San Bernardino sbX ‐ "Green Line" 2014 15.70 16 0.98 9.86 62.79% 56 10 16.82 Minneapolis A Line 2016 9.90 20 0.50 9.90 100.00% 28 10 21.21 Minneapolis Red Line 2013 13.00 5 2.60 2.00 15.38% 55 15 14.18 Chapel Hill N‐S Corridor Proposed 8.20 16 0.51 1.34 16.34% 30 7.5 16.40 LRT Systems St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Smart City Observer
    Equity Research Global Industrial Infrastructure May 23, 2019 Industry Report Louie DiPalma, CFA +1 312 364 5437 [email protected] The Smart City Observer Please refer to important disclosures on pages 13 and 14. Analyst certification is on page 13. William Blair or an affiliate does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. This report is not intended to provide personal investment advice. The opinions and recommendations here- in do not take into account individual client circumstances, objectives, or needs and are not intended as recommen- dations of particular securities, financial instruments, or strategies to particular clients. The recipient of this report must make its own independent decisions regarding any securities or financial instruments mentioned herein. William Blair Overview “Smart city” technology innovations and regulatory developments are occurring at a rapid pace. In The Smart City Observer, we observe how cities are using sensors to observe (monitor) and automate processes across transportation, security, and payments. We analyze leading smart city technologies related to our coverage of AeroVironment, Cubic, FLIR, and Verra Mobility that in- clude connected car, public transit payments, vehicle payments that use surveillance technologies (for deliveries and safety), facial recognition surveillance, and urban surveillance (safe city). The key(tolling/red-light themes that we cameras/speed highlight are ascameras), follows. congestion and traffic management, drones/robotics • Recent M&A activity in surveillance, transportation tech, and payments has been robust, with vendors positioning themselves to take advantage of a surge in urban RFPs and innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Disadvantaged Program
    Miami-Dade County Department of Transportation & Public Works TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM The Miami-Dade County Department of Transportation and Public Works is the 15th largest public transit system in the country (based on annual vehicle revenue miles) and the largest transit agency in the State of Florida. The Department of Transportation and Public Works also: • Transports an average (FY 16) of 320,000 passengers weekdays on Metrobus, Metrorail, Metromover, and Special Transportation Services (STS) combined FY 16 Breakdown: Bus 208,010 / Rail 72,896 / Mover 33,511 / STS 5,542 • Has 23 accessible Metrorail stations (25-mile dual track system) • Serves 21 conveniently-located Metromover stations (4.4 miles) • Has more than 96 Metrobus routes Provides approximately 28 million miles of bus route revenue service per year using over 845 buses • Contracts complimentary paratransit service, STS, using 382 Vehicles • Provides a 20-mile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line that is among the longest in the United States Department of Transportation & Public Works TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM Miami-Dade County has many sponsored programs that are currently in place to assist portions of the state recognized TD populations. The following Transportation Disadvantaged populations are eligible to be assisted by the CTD’s Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund. Transportation Disadvantaged Mobility EASY Card Program: The distribution of annual EASY Cards to those individuals who are TD eligible. Program participants must adhere to the following certification requirements: • Clients must complete a "TD Easy Card Program Application" form. • Clients must provide a valid state‐issued Florida Driver's license or Florida ID showing a Miami‐Dade County physical address.
    [Show full text]