Transit Management Committees

MEETINGS OF THE Transit Management Committees

Transit TMC/RMC Management Rail Management Joint Meeting Committee (TMC) Committee (RMC)

Date Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Starting time 11:00 a.m.

Meetings to occur sequentially

Location Valley Metro Lake Powell Conference Room (10A) 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor Phoenix

If you require assistance accessing the meetings on the 10th floor, please go to the 13th floor or call 602-262-7433.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433 July 27, 2017 Joint Meeting Agenda Transit Management Committee and Rail Management Committee Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m.

Action Recommended

1. Items from Citizens Present (yellow card) 1. For information

An opportunity will be provided to members of the public at the beginning of the meeting to address the TMC/RMC on non- agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker or a total of 15 minutes for all speakers.

2. Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO) Report 2. For information

Scott Smith, CEO, will brief the TMC/RMC on current issues.

3. Minutes 3. For action

Minutes from the June 7, 2017 Joint TMC/RMC meeting are presented for approval.

4. Public Comment on Agenda Action Items (blue card) 4. For information

The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the TMC/RMC on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

Consent Agenda 5A. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals for Federal 5A. For action Legislative Consulting Services

Staff recommends that the TMC/RMC forward to the Boards of Directors authorization for the CEO to issue a Request for Proposals for Federal Legislative Consulting services.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433 5B. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals for State 5B. For action Legislative Consulting Services

Staff recommends that the TMC/RMC forward to the Boards of Directors authorization for the CEO to issue a Request for Proposals for State Legislative Consulting services.

5C. Purchase of Nimble Storage Solutions; and Other Related 5C. For action Software Licenses

Staff recommends that the TMC/RMC forward to the Boards of Directors authorization for the CEO to purchase the data storage management solution; and related data protection, management software and licenses from authorized resellers through the NASPO State of Arizona Contract, at a cost not to exceed $540,000.

Regular Agenda Items 6. Fiscal Year 2017 Quarterly Reports 6. For information

Quarterly Reports for Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail are provided as an informational update of Valley Metro activities.

7. Travel, Expenditures and Solicitations 7. For information

The monthly travel, expenditures and solicitations for Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail are presented for information.

8. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current 8. For information Events

Chairs Basha and Brady will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

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 Valley Metro at 602-262-7433 or TTY at 602-251-2039. To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact the receptionist at 602-262-7433 for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can be found on our web site at www.valleymetro.org.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Items from Citizens Present

PURPOSE An opportunity will be provided to members of the public at the beginning of the meeting to address the TMC/RMC on non-agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker or a total of 15 minutes for all speakers.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Chief Executive Officer’s Report

PURPOSE Scott Smith, Chief Executive Officer, will brief the TMC/RMC on current issues.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3 July 27, 2017 Minutes of a Joint Meeting of Transit Management Committee and Rail Management Committee Wednesday, June 7, 2017 11:00 a.m.

Transit Management Committee Meeting Participants Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix, Chair Kristen Taylor for Gina Montes, City of Avondale Roger Klingler, City of Buckeye Ryan Peters for Marsha Reed, City of Chandler Marc Skocypec, Town of Gilbert Kevin Link for Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Rob Bohr for Brian Dalke, City of Goodyear Reed Kempton, Maricopa County Chris Brady, City of Mesa Stuart Ken for Jeff Tyne, City of Peoria Paul Basha, City of Scottsdale Steven Methvin, City of Tempe Martin Soto for Nicole Lance, City of Surprise Sara Allred, ADOT

Members Not Present James Shano, City of El Mirage City of Tolleson

Rail Management Committee Meeting Participants Steven Methvin, City of Tempe, Chair Scott Butler for Chris Brady, City of Mesa, Vice Chair Ryan Peters for Marsha Reed, City of Chandler Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix

Chair Zuercher called the meeting to order at 11:04 a.m.

1. Public Comment

Mr. Crowley said one of the jobs of government is transportation. And that's more than just building roads. And part of the reason that transportation is one of your jobs is one of the others is the environment and the ability to breathe with the air quality.

Over the last eight days, your county facility of air quality has given, what, six days in a row we are not in the warning area, we're in the unhealthy area. In fact, we've gotten

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

very close to the unhealthy for everybody. And each time they do that, you guys get a knock on what you're going to get for funding, because supposedly, those aren't going to happen being that you are doing what it is to make the air cleaner.

Well, we've only gotten to 108 and part of the ozone is the temperature. June 26, 1990, any of you happen to be around? That's when it got to 122, so when I see that part of the equation and knowing that I believe that if we happen to just get around one of the those it's gonna be worse than it should be.

Which then takes me back to another part of the thing that I keep on banging the drum about, why is it that y'all feel that putting people in injurious situations during the summer is the way you do it being that it's gonna be -- it's at 11 today for UV index, that means it's under 10 minutes for any of you white folks with white skin that wanna be out there in the direct sunlight that that is injurious and can hurt and kill you.

Well, if you happen to be using our transit system, being the logistics are such that it is, remember that if you're going to be at any stop that doesn't have a cover, which is one-third of them, and being that if you transfer from one bus to the other and the logistics within our system you know is such that if it's priority on one direction, the other's going to be waiting there, what, twenty minutes to a half hour before the next one comes by on that transfer. That we had one death this week, and they didn't say what it was caused by, but if that unfortunate person at the bus stop that passed on was from exposure, who didn't build a bus stop. Thank you

2. Chief Executive Officer’s Report

Mr. Smith provided an update on the following items:

 Tempe Streetcar  50th Street Station Kick-off  New Paratransit contract on July 1  Dump the Pump Day  Safety/Security Training Video  Work Place Safety

Mr. Smith also thanked Mr. Zuercher and Mr. Methvin who have served as chairs of TMC and RMC.

3. Minutes

Minutes from the May 3, 2017 Joint TMC/RMC meeting were presented for approval.

IT WAS MOVED BY ROGER KLINGLER, SECONDED BY KEVIN LINK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE MAY 3, 2017 JOINT TMC/RMC MEETING MINUTES.

4. Public Comment

Mr. Crowley said I love it I've got the vision that's 'twixt. It's between nearsighted and farsighted, so that means I'm blind both ways.

The fare policy partnerships I think that that should be just something we could go along with and be appreciative of and I am. And then the uniform fare policy, I haven't seen anything on any of the buses letting them know that that is now the norm that it's -- you aren't getting the surcharge.

And it's a uniform fare policy throughout the system. And that I asked, a couple times, what were you guys going to do to put the word out there. And so far it's serendipitous for anybody getting on the bus, especially when they're thinking they're gonna be spending six, and they bring it with a five, and then are told, well, you know, that thing won't give change. Sorry. Thanks for the extra dollar.

The ridership trends, the connection between ASU here downtown and ASU West, is that going to be, those numbers, is that what the City of Phoenix wants to use to continue to push for the alignment to go on the rail to Peoria and I-17 rather than across and heading to the other colleges that are around there, such as, Glendale, Grand Canyon.

With the amount of changes also that you've got coming up, but that will be on the one that I’m doing on just the bus, I note that with what you've put forth here on joint that you continue to avoid what it is that one of the things you need to be doing and that is getting it to be what we wrote it down as back in the ‘80s.

And I know that with the expenses et cetera that you've been doing, where are those east-west extensions proposed and coming up that would do according to what you had proposed. It said there was going to be a Litchfield bus. I don't see that anywhere. There was also the expansion of the Bell Road to Litchfield. I believe Camelback does go there now, but we need to keep on doing what we need to do.

And part of that is to reevaluate how the money is expressed to each of the different cities. It needs to be redone on population, as in what Surprise has pointed out over and over again that Mesa, it's nice that you got everything that you needed, because those are the things you needed to build other than freeways, but we need to reevaluate and re-cut the money so that some of the buses get within the region.

5. Fare Policy Change Regarding Ticket Partnerships

Mr. Smith said if you recall we talked a few months ago about looking at the way that we handle our fares for large events and conventions that come into town. As part of that, we discussed one of the aspects that we've had which is basically an event-based ticket policy and that is the agreement we've had with Talking Stick Resort Arena. And, actually, this goes back to 2009. We've had a very successful partnership with them where if you have a ticket to any event at Talking Stick that includes your fare on the

light rail.

Now, how that works is that for each event we calculate or estimate the number of attendees that will be using light rail. And then there's a bill and they pay for it. It's been successful.

And in 2015, the Arena extended that for at least another seven years. It's about $300,000 to $400,000 a year. We believe a lot of that is gained revenue is incremental revenue. We would really like it if we could do the same thing with Chase Field. And we've had many talks and would love to do that.

And I think the Diamondbacks said that if we would agree to help pay for the construction upgrades of the thing that they'd be more than happy, but 187 million was a little bit steep for us.

But one thing it brought up is that as we looked at our fare policy, we realized that actually our fare policy does not -- is not broad-based and does not allow us to enter into comparable deals as we did with Talking Stick. We had come to you and to the Board of Directors for specific approval.

Since that has been so successful and since we have a track record and know how to administer it and work with our partners of the City of Phoenix administering that, we are asking for your approval to move forward for the Board a change in our overall fare policy that would allow us to enter into these kind of agreements with other venues and other organizations without having to come back to the Board each time.

The first one we've been talking to is, for example, the Lost Lake Festival is interested in a similar type of arrangement where a ticket to the festival would also provide for light rail fare and would be accepted as a fare for that day.

We have some guidelines and it's in your packet as it relates to the wording. It talks about the extents – and it's pretty straightforward as to what staff would be able to do in order to enter into these agreements. They would not deviate from the guidelines that are in the fare policy, but basically, it's to ask for an overall fare policy amendment so that we can seek out and enter into other agreements.

So, if there's any questions, I would love to answer those for you at this time.

Mr. Klingler said Chair, Mr. Smith, this Title VI equity analysis, I assume that we do this in this regard in relation to the fare recovery target. Is that part of the way we would do that?

Mr. Smith said it's part of our overall fare policy – it falls within the Title VI purview. And so this does fit within that realm.

Mr. Kent said in the definition it talks about a qualifying event generates a minimum of 5,000 attendees. The Lost Lake Event, because I looked it up on the Website, it's a

three-day event. So, I guess, I'm curious was the thought that it was 5,000 per individual day of an event, or does a three-day event mean they need to generate, you know, 1,800 people total and they're good. Just a clarification that we may want to look at it later unless it was already thought through.

Mr. Smith said I do not know that. My assumption would be 5,000 a day. Usually when we look at these events, multi-day -- and Tyler's shaking his head. So, yes, it was discussed. Usually when you look at these, we look at this as really three separate events each day.

And since it's easy to look at that because the event actually issues different tickets for each day or a three-day pass, and so we can -- our fare inspectors can recognize which day it relates to.

And that's something we would ask them to do. If we're gonna have different days, you're gonna have a different color or something that makes it easy to recognize about that.

Mr. Kent said right now it's a three-day pass and it's $240 to go to the event. So that got me to the next question which was the 31-cent per ticket fee for Talking Stick, is that what's being proposed for this, the same fee, or is it a different fee based on the event?

Because I could some events where maybe we're having to run additional trains or buses so there's an upcharge in our cost to get people delivered that maybe we're not recovering through the 31-cent fee, but I was just curious.

Mr. Olson said good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I believe we can negotiate that based on the expected attendance, depending on the venue, depending how far the event is off of maybe the closest station.

Ridership could vary from any TSRA event, so we could also build steps in the contract to reassess attendance based on ridership, all of our ABC's, record this information, boardings and alightings of the event for those days to where we could reassess those rates and come up with a negotiated revenue per boarding -- or ticket. Sorry.

Mr. Kent said so, do you have a sense of what the range is? I mean, are you expecting it to be -- not for this individual, but sort of going forward, is it typically in that 30-cent-a- ticket range, is it -- could it be a dollar a ticket? Could it be five cents a ticket?

Mr. Olson said you know, we could probably get some examples and get back to the committee. I'm not exactly certain on that, but I really think it's driven by ridership for the event and the expected attendance.

Mr. Smith said Ms. Foose is on phone.

Ms. Foose said thank you. Tyler did a nice job in setting the stage. It would stay around 31 cents and the Lost Lake agreement that we're working toward is exactly that

31 cents. It works well based on their attendance and our ridership estimates from that attendance.

But we could customize a calculation based on meeting our fare recovery goals as a region based on specific event and their ridership and their estimated attendance. But they usually -- they will -- and I've done this analysis several times, several events who are curious, and it usually stays in that 30-cent range.

Mr. Smith said so you would not anticipate going below the 30 cents a ticket?

Ms. Foose said no.

Chair Zuercher said thank you. Other questions? So, this is -- just so I'm clear, this is distinct from the special event pass? Because with the special event pass they’re actually getting a ticket -- a Valley Metro ticket?

Mr. Smith said yes.

Chair Zuercher said in the ticket partnership program, your Suns ticket shown to a fare inspector is proof that you have a right to be on the train or the bus. Same with Lost Lake.

Mr. Smith said that's exactly right.

Chair Zuercher said so your Lost Lake badge or whatever will be proof that you can be riding that bus that day.

Mr. Smith said that is the difference. And the other difference is on the other one, we print those up and the event actually pre-purchases the event passes. Whereas these ones, we estimate the attendance and the ridership, and then we build them based on that calculation.

Chair Zuercher said okay. All right. I would entertain a motion to pass this to the Board of Directors.

IT WAS MOVED BY REED KEMPTON, SECONDED BY ROGER KLINGLER AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE REGIONAL FARE POLICY TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL TICKET PARTNERSHIPS WITH EVENTS AND EVENT VENUES TO OPERATE SIMILAR TO THE ARRANGEMENT WITH TALKING STICK RESORT ARENA.

6. Customer Service Call Center and Next Ride Technology Awards

Mr. Smith said we recently were hit with an unexpected event with one of our critical vendors, a vendor that offers critical service to our customer service. And Rob Antoniak and Hillary and Ray and Diana, out at our customer service, have been scrambling to

try to find a solution for the situation.

This literally came up in the last couple weeks and has not been resolved until -- so many things literally this morning, so this is sort of a semi-emergency item. That's why you didn't have it a long time before. But I'll turn it over to Rob to explain to you what the situation was and what our decision has been to -- as far as how to rectify that.

Mr. Antoniak provided a presentation which included the following:

 Interactive Voice Response and NextRide (chart)  IVR & NextRide Existing Contract  IVR Solution  NextRide Solution  Cost Scenario  Recommendation

Mr. Smith said and I'll also mention, continue on at a cost $300,000 higher than what they're currently charging us, so we could continue for another year by paying an additional $300,000. We would still have to be developing a replacement system that would be implemented as of July 1, 2018, or before depending on the service level of the existing provider.

Mr. Antoniak said so we really compared all those costs assuming they would all be burdened in the same fiscal year. They might adjust a little bit, but the reality is we'd have to get working right away anyhow on these two solutions to be able to stand them up.

And so what it came down to was, Scenario 1 was continue, as Scott explained. Scenario 2 was to accept their cancellation and move on and own our destiny, own our phone number, own our equipment, own our solution, and get a service level agreement in place for three years on the IVR. And for the texting solution, it's an existing contract with a contractor that manages our customer assistance system, and we would have a contract with them to help us manage that system. And if we can bring that knowledge in-house to understand how to run that, then we'll be able to run it ourselves at the end of twelve months. But if not, a code terminates, and then we'll evaluate at the end of that twelve months who would help us manage the texting solution.

But ultimately, we own our phone number, and we own the whole technology solution behind it. And Diana's staff hopefully can sleep on July 1st knowing that the calls are being handled and we’re moving forward. So the delta on was that roughly estimated about 303, $305,000 dollars if we were to let the cancellation take effect and move on to the other two solutions.

Mr. Smith said one of the things, you know, the risk and the reward. This is no small task to replace this critical of a system in literally a matter of weeks. And Rob and his team are to be accommodated for, for example, just finding a new number. Not controlling that short code number was critical. And actually, it makes you somewhat of

a captive audience or a prisoner of the person that does own that number, so to be able to find something that short was an accomplishment.

There is a risk. We are putting together a fairly complex system that handles, as you can see, a large volume of calls of automated calls in a short period of time. When we get to -- we'll be able to test out the texting system throughout the month of June and we'll be able to work out the bugs, because we basically are having parallel systems: the existing provider and our new provider. So as we change 8,000 signs with the new code, you can actually access either code, and so we can ease into that.

The voice recognition system is a bit different, because on July 1st, we are switching, and it probably will not be a hundred percent, but the vendor has told us it will be 75 to 85 percent. We may not have all the bells and whistles, but we'll be able to handle the basic news or the basic -- not news, but the basic functions.

So there is a risk of some disruption of our customer service. We believe, though, that the risk was manageable and that the degradation in service would be short-term. And then when you're looking at the uncertainty of a provider that's already telling you is trying to basically squeeze a good chunk of money out of you and has told you that they are in a wind-down situation and will be out of business completely within twelve months, we believe that risk is worth $300,000 savings that we'll have and the ownership of our system and the control of our system. And that's why we're moving ahead with our own system with the new system as of July 1st.

Mr. Antoniak said one note, last note I'll add is your staffs have been fantastic. I've probably talked to over half a dozen of the cities in terms of being a resource to me and to the rest of the staff. I know we're going to collaborate with the City of Phoenix has a cleaning contract on the bus stops to help us on those stickers and everybody's been fantastic. I know I've had conversations late at night with several of your folks.

So this has not gone without -- it hasn't been done just by us. I wouldn't have been able to get to this point or we wouldn't have been able to get to this point as a team if it weren't for the extended that we all have in your various city organizations, so I appreciate that.

Mr. Smith said the recommendation that you have is quite complex, but it is merely the various contracts that we need to put into place and expenditures that we need to put into place to do everything from buy the hardware and software and technology and support for both the voice recognition system and the texting system and also to replace or to put adhesive stickers on 8,000 bus stops from literally Wickenburg to Queen Creek and all points in between.

So I would echo what Rob has said. Your staffs have been wonderful in offering to help in figuring out we can get those adhesive stickers up in way that creates a minimal of disruption to our customers and to everyone. So that's the recommendation that's before you today.

Mr. Antoniak last one. Hot Shot is identified as Item No. 3 is the provider that will do the stickers. I would like everybody to understand that we're gonna leave that open-ended. We're still evaluating the bids, and in all likelihood we will go with the one that's associated with the Phoenix cleaning contract because they have the most knowledge of our system.

So if you have a motion that includes names, I would just ask that you leave that open-ended to the procurement process. We thought we were heading down that path. We got some information late yesterday, so I wasn't able to change it.

Chair Zuercher said so it's still not to exceed $50,000. And the final specific plan will be ready for the Board meeting.

Mr. Smith said yes.

Mr. Link said Rob, can you guys move forward without formal board action on this item yet, or is there any issues there without work formally --

Mr. Smith said we can move forward. This is an emergency situation. It does allow us to go to the Board for ratification purposes. We have to move forward with the action.

Many of those things are actually within my signing authority, so we don't need Board approval to actually sign them, but we certainly would like to let know what's going on and have a concurrent process where if there was a problem, we certainly wouldn't move forward with this, but right now the die has been cast. We had to let the company know whether we were going to move forward with their cancellation notice or not. And there was not a day to spare, so

Chair Zuercher said what's the timing of your next Board meeting?

Mr. Smith said August 22.

Mr. Methvin said Mr. Smith, I think this is more of a question for you. So this system is critical to our customer service levels. And we have in the contract a 30-day cancel -- notification of cancellation. I'm wondering not really attached to this as much, but if there should be a review if there's value in reviewing some of those, because had that company actually given us thirty days, would you have been able to do what you've done, you know, up to this point.

Mr. Smith said well, they actually did give us 60 days. And the answer was --

Mr. Methvin said I'm just wondering if 30 days is really a number we should be including in our contracts and it's not more like a three month or -- and I know it's after the fact, but I'm just bringing up --

Mr. Smith said one of the first discussions we had with Mike Minnaugh and Rob and all of our others has said we need to look at all of our contracts, because we recognize that

we're at risk.

This is a very critical function. It doesn't sound that important until you start looking at those numbers. I mean -- and Rob sort of overstated wait times. Can you imagine if all of a sudden our call center had double the calls. We physically could not handle that.

So, we're put in a position where we literally could not perform a function. So we had a meeting. And we are actually reviewing all of our contracts right now on critical components to see what those terms are because it came up that there very next day, because, yeah, it does worry us. I think sometimes when we put these cancellation, we sort of assume that this won't happen

I mean, this is a big company, things are going ahead, everyone's happy. We have no idea what that company is going through. And there's a long story behind why this company is taking the steps they are, totally out of our control. And we recognize that we are at risk.

So, Mike and his contract side and our operations, we are actually doing a review of our contracts to see where we are. And believe me, as we move forward, we will not enter into a contract on a critical issue with such a limited time frame.

That still doesn't totally protect you. Companies can go out of business. But at least on a manageable we can manage that risk.

One of the things we've done here that Rob explained is that we recognize that certain critical issues like who would have known that owning that short code would have such a dramatic impact on your ability to provide that service.

And we, actually, when we first explored the marketplace as to what it would take to get our own that we owned, we were told that it was a minimum of six to eight weeks, and Rob did it in about six to eight hours through a lot of phone calls and some arm twisting and things like that. We found a code that was sitting like some phone numbers are sitting out there and they aren't being used. We found somebody who was willing to basically let us buy their code. We now own that. So we're not at anyone's mercy

So if one of our service providers who's helping us were to do the same thing that this does, the system would not go down. We could be able to manage through that and just bring on another support or service provider, but we basically now own the system.

So that was one of the critical things of this is recognizing that we have to own certain things and we can contract other things, but let's make sure that we're not put at the mercy of a critical service provider.

Mr. Methvin said it's good to hear that you're reviewing those contracts. Thank you.

IT WAS MOVED BY DAVE KOHLBECK, SECONDED BY STUART KENT AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CEO TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH: 1. EXTREME INTEGRATION INC.: a. TO PROVIDE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY FOR INTERACTIVE VOICE RECOGNITION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $50,000 FOR USE AS A CONTINGENCY FOR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND b. TO PROVIDE UPGRADES TO THE CISCO CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER HARDWARE AND LICENSES THROUGH THE STATE OF ARIZONA APPROVED MOHAVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC., AT A COST OF $86,000; AND c. FOR EXTREME CARE TO PROVIDE SOFTWARE AND TECHNOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR THREE YEARS AT A COST OF $149,100 ($49,676/YEAR); AND 2. ALESIG CONSULTING LLC TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER ON AN EXISTING CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY FOR NEXTRIDE TEXTING SERVICES FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2018 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $79,000 PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $7,900 (10%) FOR USE AS A CONTINGENCY FOR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND 3. EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO INSTALL ADHESIVE STICKERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPDATING THE NEXTRIDE TEXT CODE ON APPROXIMATELY 8,000 NEXTRIDE SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE REGION FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.

Chair Zuercher said motion passes. Good work on a short time frame. Thank you.

Mr. Antoniak said thank you. I think you'll be excited. I'll footnote this in probably six months I think we'd love to come back and share with you our GIS coordinator is very excited about this. We're going to get a lot of data that we didn't get before on this system. We're going to where they texted us from, times of day, all kinds of things that will go into all of our planning processes. So it will be exciting to see that work. Thank you.

7. Arizona State University

Chair Zuercher said that takes us to third item here which is an information item. Follow-up from requests of the committee to understand more about the ASU student ridership trends and its impact on Metro Rail and Valley Metro bus.

Mr. Smith said thank you, Mr. Zuercher, and based on the committee and other requests, we have looked carefully at ASU, their program, since they are such an important customer for us provides really almost the majority -- more than any single party, our riders, we wanted to better understand the changes in our ridership. And our crack staff went out and got some really good data. And Carol Ketcherside will now provide that for you.

Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Director, Capital and Service Development provided a presentation which included the following:

 Valley Metro Origin & Destination Studies  ASU Student Ridership on Valley Metro  ASU Factors Impacting VM Ridership  ASU Campuses (map)  ASU Shuttles (map)  ASU Shuttle Amenities  Student Complimentary Services (2 slides)  ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus (where students attending Phoenix campus live, 10K 2008/2017)  ASU Downtown Campus (additional housing)  ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus (2008/2017 50K students)  Student Parking and Transit Passes  ASU Shuttle Ridership – Maroon & Gold  ASU Shuttle Ridership  ASU Online Enrollment  Next Steps Discussion

Chair Zuercher said thank you. Questions or comments? I think the concept of an ASU management ex officio participant would be something that I think if we could get ASU interested in that, I think it would be useful. And even the graduate classes, particularly, are always looking for projects. And if you're talking about doing some research here, that might be a way to collaborate with the school's public policy to get some research done. Other thoughts? Yeah, Steve.

Mr. Methvin said well, I think Ms. Ketcherside probably said it best, it's hard to compete with free. I'm sorry. I think you said it, but I forgot. What is the frequency between the shuttles between Tempe's campus and the Downtown Campus on a daily basis?

Ms. Ketcherside said I don't know if I have that in my notes or not. I'm looking if -- Jodi, do you know off the top of your head the frequency of the service? It runs --

Mr. Smith said I think it's every half hour. And I know one of the issues when we met with ASU, we did a little bit of the story on that on this issue was -- well, they basically get to -- they'd rather ride the bus -- I get it, the Wi-Fi, those kind of things -- but it's so much faster than light rail. And I said, well, let's look at the schedules. We found out that light rail is actually much faster than the bus, but there's a lot of perception issues, but, you know, it's hard to compete with free.

Mr. Methvin said so the question I have, Ms. Ketcherside, when speaking with ASU, why did they create the system in the first place, because they were obviously involved as a stakeholder in the creation of light rail, but somewhere along the lines of 2008, 2010, they decided they were going to create a shuttle system. Was it in response to their students telling them something?

Ms. Ketcherside said Mr. Methvin, members of the committee, I really -- I don't know the answer to that. We have -- ASU has not spoken for themselves on that question.

Mr. Smith said we have discussed some with them, and we can't get a clear answer. And it's sort of muddled. There was a change in ASU management at the time. There were some retirements. And those who worked with us to be a stakeholder in the system retired, and a new management came in, and that's the time is when the shuttle system was established and was put on, so there was a transition at the time.

There was also, you know, I remember as mayor meeting with ASU about actually -- I don't know, Chris, if you remember -- was building parking garages on our Park-and-Rides because there was a -- ASU's long-term plan was to eliminate -- they recognized they were going to eliminate parking as they built buildings, so the idea was to make the, for example, the bus and the light rail an integral part of their system to park people off campus and ship them in. That program is completely gone.

And so there was that transition of leadership, which was pretty significant about three years -- three or four years ago, that led us to today. And there's no real connection between the two. It's just one group had one vision. The next group had another vision. And what we have now is this group's leadership's vision.

Mr. Methvin said so as the stadium district starts to take shape, I think it's worthwhile to be having these conversations with ASU. Is there discussions on their end right now that I would assume a number of those folks will be commuters, will they also be opening that up, though, it's right now for just students and faculty, will they be opening that up to downtown residents to commute to the stadium district via these buses. And what I would hate to see is that we further reduce the ridership of our light rail system or our bus system.

Mr. Smith said Mr. Methvin, the interesting thing is when you talk to ASU I ask about long-term plans as far as development happens and is there a parking plan, for example, is there this. And surprisingly, there's not.

What we've seen -- and you see basically ASU before our eyes has transformed from a commuter school into a non -- more of a traditional non-commuter school, where you see those densities. And while all this happened in downtown Phoenix, all of this happened in Tempe, and even out at Polytechnic, it's a lot more of a live nearer on campus and that has basically happened organically.

You know, I was a little surprised, but as far as I know, there is no specific plan or work in place that would address the issue you're talking about. Things have just happened as they've happened.

Mr. Methvin said and ASU was serving a dual purpose now. They're not only an institution of higher learning, they're now a developer. So it might be worthwhile. There might be some value in having those discussions of how do they plan on growing their system and who their future riders might be.

Mr. Smith said I agree with you. And our, as Carol, I think, said, our goal is not to shut things off, but actually to use this as a spring board for further discussion, because

13 there's no doubt that as ASU fills in, the stadium district goes out with the construction of the streetcar and how that might expand further back east that we need ASU to be a partner with us. And we're looking forward to working with them on some of these issues. So we'll continue the dialogue with them.

This was good for us so we could better understand what reality was. And there's no doubt that, regardless of what ASU's plans are, the demographics have changed, our living patterns have changed, a lot of things have changed since 2008.

I was amazed when saw this the number of multi-family units that have been built both in Tempe and Phoenix in the last six, seven years. It just blew me away. You know, you see it happening, but until you really look at the dates around those buildings, it's really mind boggling to see the development that's happened. That's not going to slow down. That's going to continue to happen.

So we're going to continue our discussions with them and our meetings with them on a more formalized basis to address issues.

Mr. Methvin said one last question, comment. Are we also talking -- is ASU using these shuttles to shuttle their students to downtown and other locations for special events? So, for instance, the festivities around Super Bowl or Final 4 are they using these buses out to that where they can tell their students, by the way, we're going to have four shuttles to these special events and we'll get you there and back, which again, doesn't help our ridership on our light rail.

Mr. Smith said I am not aware that they use these for anything other than the regular scheduled services that they have on the maroon, gold, and other lines.

Ms. Ketcherside said however, I think those shuttles were running on their regular schedule. But during Final 4, so they were there.

Mr. Methvin said thank you. I appreciate the work.

Chair Zuercher said other questions, comments? I would just say I think it would be good to do a little more analysis on the inviting ASU as an ex officio participant and perhaps have that on the next agenda so we can talk about that as its own thing. And then maybe, Scott, you and Steve and I can talk about sitting in with someone at ASU. Who that might be and start having that conversation about several of those things. I think there's something to be done there with ASU more engagement.

Mr. Smith we agree.

Chair Zuercher said that's for information. Anything further from any member? Seeing none, hearing none, we go to the next item Travel, Expenditures and Solicitations.

8. Travel, Expenditures and Solicitations

Chair Zuercher said are there any questions for the CEO on those reports?

Mr. Link said just a quick question. Mr. Smith, on the purchase of the acquisition of the vehicles for the paratransit contract, is Valley Metro going to retain ownership of those vehicles, or is Transdev going to reimburse you guys, or do you know?

Mr. Smith said no. Transdev has ownership of those. Those are included in the rate base that they retain ownership.

Chair Zuercher said what are you referring to, Kevin? Is there an item in the expenditures report you're referring to?

Mr. Link said yes, sir. They bought expenditures a bunch of vans or buses.

Mr. Smith said these are other buses we bought, and a lot of those vans are for vanpool. This is all the Creative Bus Sales, these are not related to the paratransit. These are Rideshare and mostly vanpool.

Chair Zuercher said vanpool and Valley Metro does own those?

Mr. Smith said yes, we do own those.

9. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

Chair Zuercher said any requests for Future Agenda Items or Report on Current Events? Seeing none, hearing none, I will adjourn that meeting of the joint session, and we’ll go to the Transit Management Committee.

With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:14 p.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Public Comment on Agenda Action Items

PURPOSE The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the TMC/RMC on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5A July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals for Federal Legislative Consulting Services

PURPOSE To request authorization to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to retain consultant services to assist Valley Metro with activities associated with the U.S. Congress and Administrative branch that impact Valley Metro.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Until December 2015, Valley Metro retained federal legislative consulting services to represent the agency and region in Congressional authorizations and appropriations since 1997. At the end of 2015, staff determined that federal relations efforts could be handled with existing in-house staff and outside services were not reprocured. The primary factor in this decision was the passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act at the end of 2015, which established set public transportation programs and funding levels through 2020. Accordingly, the need for representation in Washington was minimized.

The situation in Washington has changed drastically since the end of 2015. Disregarding the funding authorized in the FAST ACT, the Trump Administration has proposed eliminating the funding of rail transit capital projects. In both the 2017 and 2018 budget proposals, the Administration proposed no new funding for Capital Investment Grant (CIG) projects (New Starts), and eliminating the TIGER grant program. In FY 2017, Congress ignored the Administration proposal and appropriated transit funds at FAST Act levels. For FY 2018 and beyond, it is apparent that Congress will need to take the lead in transit funding. Many members in Congress on both sides of the aisle do not agree with the Administration’s position. Our ability to obtain federal funding for projects in development will be determined in large part by taking part in the deliberations and negotiations in Congress.

Additionally, the FAST Act will expire in 2020. The FAST Act authorizes all transportation programs and funding through that time period. Not only will current public transportation programs need to be reauthorized, but a stable revenue source will need to be identified for the next reauthorization. Gas tax revenues deposited into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) are not keeping up with needed expenditures. The FAST Act used several revenue streams outside of the HTF to fund the legislation, but those revenues are not permanent. Congressional hearings will likely begin within the next year to begin FAST Act reauthorization and the associated funding mechanism.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Due to the current situation, staff is recommending that Valley Metro retain legislative consulting services based in Washington D.C. to represent our issues in Congress and the Administration that will keep the region informed of grants and pending legislation, coordinate multi-agency lobbying efforts, and provide strategies to secure discretionary transit funding and maintain the overall viability of federal public transportation programs.

The previous contract was with Capitol Strategies as a five-year contract (two initial years, with three one-year options). Staff requests the ability to solicit a RFP for this service and will seek a five-year contract.

COST AND BUDGET The cost is estimated to be $80,000 to $120,000 each year, on average, for an amount not-to-exceed $500,000 for a five-year period.

Funds are accounted for annually in the agency’s FY18 Operating and Capital Budget. Future funding is identified in the Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program.

The source of funding is the Public Transportation Fund and will be divided equally between RPTA and Valley Metro Rail.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information TMC/RMC: August 2, 2017 for action Boards of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020: • Goal 1: Increase customer focus o Tactic C: Enhance customer service to member cities • Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Tactic C: Communicate availability, attractiveness and safety of transit service • Goal 4: Focus on economic development, regional competitiveness and financial resources o Tactic A: Secure dedicated, sustainable, long term funding to advance the total transit network o Tactic B: Pursue all available funding opportunities for transit projects and services o Tactic C: Seek opportunities for revenue generation • Goal 5: Advance the value of transit o Tactic C: Maintain sound relationships with federal, state, regional, and local agencies

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC/RMC forward to the Boards of Directors authorization for the CEO to issue a RFP for Federal Legislative Consulting services.

CONTACT John Farry Government Relations Officer 602-744-5550 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5B July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals for State Legislative Consulting Services

PURPOSE To request authorization to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to assist Valley Metro with activities at the Arizona State Legislature, Governor’s Office and various state agencies that impact Valley Metro.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro’s current contract for state legislative consulting services will expire on December 31, 2017. Valley Metro continues to have a need for government relations consulting support to successfully address activities at the state level. Consulting services may include but not be limited to:

• Governmental Relations – The primary duty of the legislative consultant will be to monitor, track, and lobby public transit issues at the state legislature, the Governor’s office, and/or state agencies.

• Strategic Planning – Assist with strategic planning by identifying challenging or potentially challenging issues, proactively advising Valley Metro on issues which may impact public transit policies or programs or other emerging long range issues and providing practical plans/initiatives to respond.

The current contract was issued in 2013 to a joint venture with HighGround Public Affairs Consultants and The Kruse Group as a five-year contract (three initial years, with two one-year options). Staff requests the ability to solicit a RFP for this service and will seek a five-year contract.

COST AND BUDGET The cost is estimated to be $60,000 to $80,000 each year, on average, for an amount not-to-exceed $400,000 for a five-year period.

Funds are accounted for annually in the agency’s FY18 Operating and Capital Budget. Future funding is identified in the Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program.

The source of funding is the Public Transportation Fund and will be divided equally between RPTA and Valley Metro Rail.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information TMC/RMC: August 2, 2017 for action Boards of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC/RMC forward to the Boards of Directors authorization for the CEO to issue a RFP for State Legislative Counsel services.

CONTACT John Farry Government Relations Officer 602-744-5550 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5C July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Purchase of Nimble Storage Solutions; and Other Related Software Licenses

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to purchase data storage management solution; and related data protection, management software and licenses from authorized resellers through the NASPO State of Arizona Contract, at a cost not to exceed $540,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro currently utilizes several data storage solutions and licenses to run its essential information management and backup systems. Without adequate capacity and professional support, fundamental business processes would fail. This infrastructure supports daily Agency internal and external operations.

Current storage solutions are nearing their end of life, support cycles, performance or capacity limits. Maintenance costs for the current equipment are more costly, compared to purchasing new equipment with guaranteed maintenance. In order to ensure our data storage infrastructure functions at the highest levels of integrity and dependability, replacing existing infrastructure is essential.

For the storage solution, existing vendor Nimble Storage, will replace the aging hardware at our off-premises and on-premises data storage locations. Having multiple locations, with operational redundancy creates a full service system ensuring staff’s ability to manage technology interruptions. Additionally, Valley Metro requires a software solution providing data security, protection, integrity, and increased access to business critical applications. Veeam, a state approved vendor will provide the Agency with the Veeam Availability Suite, satisfying these needs in accordance with industry best practices and legal requirements.

As our data and information management needs and complexity grow, this hardware and software solution also allows for scalable growth and interaction with virtual and cloud based solutions. In order to ensure business continuity, Nimble Storage and Veeam professionals familiar with the Agency systems will provide IT staff with the installation, essential support, training, and assistance for the new equipment.

COST AND BUDGET The proposed cost is included in Valley Metro’s approved FY 2018 Budget. The costs of this project are split into hardware and software. The hardware includes a five-year maintenance and performance agreement beginning immediately and extending through June 2022. The software includes two years of support, with annual renewal options available in future years.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Purchase Detail Total Hardware & Licenses (NimbleStorage) $408,779.18 Software & Licenses (Veeam) – final quote anticipated July 31, 2017 $130,000.00 Total $538,779.18

The costs are evenly split between the agencies and will be funded from: • RPTA (IT Infrastructure) using Regional Area Road Funds (RARF) • METRO (Systemwide Improvements) using Public Transportation Funds (PTF)

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information TMC/RMC: August 2, 2017 for action Boards of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC/RMC forward to the Boards of Directors authorization for the CEO to purchase the data storage management solution; and related data protection, management software and licenses from authorized resellers through the NASPO State of Arizona Contract, at a cost not to exceed $540,000.

CONTACT Rob Antoniak Chief Operating Officer 602-495-8209 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 6 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Fiscal Year 2017 Quarterly Reports

PURPOSE To provide an informational update of activities at Valley Metro.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Quarterly Reports are provided as an informational update of Valley Metro activities:

• Operations • Communication & Marketing • Safety and Security • Finance • Capital and Service Development

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS TMC/RMC: August 2, 2017 for information Boards of Directors: August 17, 2017 for information

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Ray Abraham Hillary Foose Operations and Maintenance Director Director, Communication & Marketing 602-262-7433 602-262-7433 [email protected] [email protected]

Adrian Ruiz Paul Hodgins Director Safety and Security Chief Financial Officer 602-262-7433 602-262-7433 [email protected] [email protected]

Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Capital and Service Development 602-322-4420 [email protected]

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433 7/25/2017

Operations & Maintenance FY17 Q4 Report August, 2017

Regional Ridership

6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 - July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Bus 3,341,716 4,259,040 4,326,018 4,352,671 4,276,931 4,125,767 4,204,020 4,127,769 4,495,970 4,145,548 4,191,439 3,599,371 Light Rail 1,215,44 1,403,21 1,431,38 1,458,675 1,387,584 1,335,413 1,395,420 1,333,557 1,478,554 1,514,456 1,374,231 1,203,112 FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4 Bus 12,827,759 11,741,501 11,936,358 Light Rail 4,207,531 4,087,871 4,091,799 Total 17,035,290 15,829,372 16,028,157

1 7/25/2017

Fixed Route Bus – East Valley

Performance Indicator Target FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

On-Time Performance ≥ 92% 91% 93% 93% Complaints Per 100,000 ≤ 45 49 50 49 Boardings Mechanical Failures Per ≤ 12 5 14 4 100,000 Revenue Miles Revenue Service ≥ 99.85% 99.94% 99.80% 99.96% Completed Preventable Accidents per ≤ 0.90 0.45 0.81 0.65 100,000 Miles

Ridership -- 3,699,278 3,338,766 3,266,115

Fixed Route Bus – West Valley

Performance Indicator Target FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

On-Time Performance ≥ 92% 90% 95% 94% Complaints Per 100,000 ≤ 45 44 38 50 Boardings Mechanical Failures Per ≤ 12 8 5 9 100,000 Revenue Miles Revenue Service ≥ 99.85% 99.96% 99.93% 99.99% Completed Preventable Accidents per ≤ 0.90 0.76 0.00 0.00 100,000 Miles

Ridership -- 133,017 125,615 126,023

2 7/25/2017

Light Rail

Performance Indicator Target FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

On-Time Performance ≥ 95% 94% 94% 93%

Complaints Per 100,000 Boardings ≤ 3.0 0.4 0.9 0.3

Preventative Maintenance ≥ 80% 100% 100% 100% Inspections - % On-Time (LRV) Preventative Maintenance ≥ 80% 100% 100% 99% Inspections - % On-Time (Systems) Preventable Accidents per 100,000 ≤ 0.90 0.37 0.10 0.00 Miles

Ridership -- 4,207,531 4,087,871 4,091,799

Customer Service – Call Center

Performance Indicator Target FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

Calls Received -- 307,382 291,611 295,737

Complaints Processed -- 6,582 8,651 7,891

NextRide Inquiries Handled by Interactive Voice Response -- 296,667 308,165 260,579 (IVR) NextRide Inquiries Handled by -- 485,252 458,461 437,110 Text Messaging Average Talk Time -- 2:08 2:15 2:09

Average Speed of Answer ≤ 1.00 0:18 :20 :19

3 7/25/2017

Safety, Security & Quality Assurance FY17 Q4 Report

August 2017

Bus Accidents

These include all contacts made

1 7/25/2017

Dial-a-Ride Accidents

Total NTD

5 4 3 No NTD Reportable Incidents 11 FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4 Total 435 NTD 110

Police Incidents - Bus

12 10 7 8 3 4

FY17 Q3 FY17 Q4

Total Incidents Criminal Dagage Other

2 7/25/2017

Rail Accidents

16 15

11 11 10 10

FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4 Total 16 11 10 NTD 15 11 10

Fares Inspected

16.2% 14.2% 13.4% 664,999

562,062 581,856

FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

% of total ridership 6

3 7/25/2017

Fare Inspections and Fare Evasions

Inspection and Fare Evasion Percentage 22.0%

17.0%

12.0%

7.0%

2.0%

July‐16 Aug‐16 Sep‐16 Oct‐16 Nov‐16 Dec‐16 Jan‐17 Feb‐17 Mar‐17 Apr‐17 May‐17 Jun‐17 ‐3.0%

Percentage Inspected Fair Evasion

Fare Compliance Total Inspections for Q4= 581,856

94% 94% 92%

FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

4 7/25/2017

Citations Issued by Allied Barton

447 391

273

FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

Top Violations

397

194 207

94 86 84 81 49 61

FY17 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q3

Occupy Any Transit Vehicle Without Paying Fare Disobey Traffic Signals, Security Notice Fail to Exhibit Proof of Fare Payment

5 7/25/2017

Fare Sweeps Total Activity

The purpose of a fare sweep is to ensure Fare Compliance and Revenue Recovery 11

Quality Assurance Documents under review by PMOC or in revision DRAFT for projects-pending signature:

• Program Management Plan (PgMP) • Project Management Plan(s) • Safety Security Management and Security Plan (SSMP/SSCP) • Quality Management Plan(s) • VM Buy America Plan • Tempe Street Car Design Criteria Manual

6 7/25/2017

Quality Assurance

• Resident Engineer Manual • Still in draft form with comments received. Pending final from Capital Services and Development • SSCVR for NWE and CME • 2 item(s) currently remain open: Current expected closure dates are July 2017 and August 2017. Final closure of both reports remains with ADOT.

Quality Assurance • NWE TPSS Audit and related QAR Status – Items remain open and outstanding at this time. No new data has been received. • The following Audits were either performed or drafted – Performed the 50th St. 90% Design Deliverable Audit. QAR issued – Drafted the TSC Designer QA/QC Plan Audit – Drafted the TSC Designer Buy America Plan Audit

7 7/25/2017

Quality Assurance • Drafted the TSC Designer 30% Design Deliverable Audit

• Drafted Buy America Audit

• Drafted QA/QC Plan Audit

• Performed the GRE Construction Contractor Buy America Audit  Results: Contractor updated their QA/QC Plan based upon audit findings • Performed the GRE PMCM QA/QC Plan Audit  Results: Executed copy of the RE Manual was not available at the time of the audit • Performed the City of Mesa (COM) compliance audit  Results: Satisfactory 16

8 7/25/2017

Capital and Service Development FY17 Q4 Report August 2017

Service Development FY17 Q4 Report

1 7/25/2017

KC3 Transit Planning Projects Completion Project/Study Name Status Date Mesa Five-Year Transit • Received feedback from Mesa staff October 2017 Plan • Updating based on preliminary feedback Light Rail Incident Hot • Developed concept with Safety and Security July 2017 • Completed reporting structure and updated Spot GIS Mapping schedule Transit Stop Ridership July 2017 • Complete Data Portal

Short Range Transit May • Final report approved by Board. • Published on Valley Metro web-site Program 2017 • Complete

Transit Planning Projects Completion Project/Study Name Status Date • Completed bus stop inventory field data Transit Stop Inventory August 2017 collection. and Accessibility Study • Completed draft final report. Transit Stop Inventory • Verifying bus stop amenities and locations for Reconciliation with October 2017 use in on-line maps. Bus Stop Database • Preparing bus stop photos for on-line publishing. Grand Avenue Transit May • Completed draft final report. Feasibility Study 2016

2 7/25/2017

Transit Planning Projects

Completion Project/Study Name Status Date

April 2017 Fixed-Route April 2017 • Complete Service Changes October 2017 Fixed • Final changes approved by Valley Metro Board. Route Service October 2017 • Implementation underway. Changes Northwest Valley • Finalized VM staff recommendations. Express Routes April 2018 • Internal review underway. Reconfiguration Regional Transit • Fulfilled data requests from MAG’s consultant. Framework Study June 2018 • Began building future local bus network based Update on existing local and sub-regional studies. 5

Accessible Transit Services FY17 Q4 Report

3 7/25/2017

Dial-a-Ride – East Valley

Performance Indicator Target FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

One-Way Trips -- 69,222 80,583 67,831

On-Time Performance ≥ 95% 95% 98% 95%

Complaints Per 1,000 Trips ≤ 1.5 2.3 2.2 2.8

Cost Per Trip -- $26.72 $27.00 $27.74

Dial-a-Ride – West Valley

Performance Indicator Target FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

One-Way Trips* -- 29,006 28,444 30,064

On-Time Performance* ≥ 95% 96% 97% 97%

Complaints Per 1,000 Trips* ≤ 1.5 .90 .91 .82

Cost Per Trip* -- $27.65 $25.93 $28.04

*Mobility Center trips are included in this data

8 8

4 7/25/2017

Dial-a-Ride – Regional

Performance Indicator Target FY17 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q4

One-Way Trips -- 37,696 N/A 41,837

On-Time Performance ≥ 95% 97% N/A 96%

Complaints Per 1,000 Trips ≤ 1.5 1.76 N/A 1.35

Cost Per Trip -- $46.66 N/A $46.27

9 9

Other Accessibility Services

Performance Indicator FY17 Q3 FY 16 Q4 FY17 Q4 RideChoice Trips 10,028 11,939 10,693 Cost Per Trip $11.06 $10.94 $10.81 Platinum Pass Trips 37,325 32,896 39,576 Cost Per Trip $0.74 $0.75 $0.74 ADA Applicants 1,338 1,166 1,173 Unconditional 74% 71% 78% Conditional 14% 18% 12% Temporary 10% 9% 8%

Denials 2% 2% 2% 10

5 7/25/2017

Accessible Transit Services Highlights • Partnered with Total Transit and Transdev to execute paratransit contract transition. • Worked with Transdev to complete paratransit start-up activities, including: – Outfitting of the paratransit facility – Acquisition of a 100% wheelchair-accessible paratransit fleet – Deployment of a new paratransit scheduling system – Recruitment, hiring and training of Transdev and subcontractor personnel • Partnered with MJ Management to expand RideChoice program in the East Valley and to launch service in Surprise. • Developed and distributed customer materials on new paratransit and expanded RideChoice programs. • Conducted approximately 40 community meetings to explain planned paratransit and RideChoice service changes.

Accessible Transit Services Highlights • Valley Metro Accessibility Advisory Group Activity – Paratransit contract changes and transition – Expansion of the RideChoice program – October Valley Metro service changes –50th Street Station design – Tempe Streetcar project overview – Light rail vehicle and streetcar interior design

6 7/25/2017

Capital Planning FY17 Q4 Report

Future Transit Corridors

7 7/25/2017

South Central LRT

Project Complete Current Phase Phase Complete

2023 Project Development Fall 2017

Status

. FTA rated the project “Medium” in the FY18 Annual New Starts Funding Recommendations Report . Continued coordination with PMOC on project readiness . Selected AECOM as the final design team . Selected Kiewit as the CM@R team . Public artist RFQ issued – selection process underway . Completed Preliminary Engineering . Subsurface utilities engineering began 15

Northwest LRT Extension Phase II

Project Phase Current Phase Status Complete Complete

2023 Environmental/ Fall . Revising EA based on FTA’s comments and completed draft 15% Plans Preliminary 2017 . Received approval from FTA to enter New Starts Project Development – Engineering June 1, 2017 . Continue coordination with ADOT & MAG

8 7/25/2017

Capitol/I-10 West LRT Extension Project Phase Current Phase Status Complete Complete 2023 (Phase I) Environmental Spring . ADOT, County and City coordination on-going Assessment (EA) 2018 . Revising the EA based on construction phasing and downtown configuration . Anticipate public review of EA by early 2018 . Finalizing the I-17 Change of Access Report

West Phoenix/Central Glendale Project Phase Current Phase Status Complete Complete 2026 Alternatives Spring 2018 . Continued coordination with ADOT, GCU and other stakeholders Analysis . Continue to identify options to cross I-17, transition into Downtown Glendale and crossing Grand Avenue.

9 7/25/2017

OMC Expansion Project Phase Current Phase Status Complete Complete . Completing the final planning study report. Preliminary . Developing internal building configuration and trackwork designs 2017 Fall 2017 Engineering as part of the Preliminary Engineering phase. . Began siting analysis of a future satellite O&M facility.

Peoria Park-and-Ride

Project Current Phase Phase Complete Complete

Summer 2019 Final Design December 2017

Status

• Received concurrence from FTA on a categorical exclusion to environmental requirements • City of Peoria initiating right-of-way acquisition • Finalizing scope for Final Design services

10 7/25/2017

Fiesta-Downtown Chandler Transit Corridor Study Project Current Phase Phase Complete Complete 2017 Feasibility Study June 2017

Status • Submitted the Final Report and accompanying Executive Summary to the Project Management Team • Initiating Fiesta/Downtown Chandler Phase I AA in Q1 of FY18

Northeast LRT Feasibility Study

Project Current Phase Phase Complete Complete 2034 Feasibility Study Summer 2018

Status • Analyzed engineering feasibility for the two corridors • Conducted ridership assessment for the two corridors • Targeted stakeholder outreach

11 7/25/2017

I-10/I-17 Direct Access Bus Ramp Project Complete Current Phase Phase Complete

TBD Planning Fall 2017 Status . Revising Categorical Exclusion . Revising I-17 Interstate Change of Access Methods and Assumptions document for ADOT, FWHA, and Phoenix approval . Coordinating with ADOT and Phoenix on next steps . Developing and evaluating conceptual designs for various operating options

Design and Construction FY17 Q4 Report

12 7/25/2017

50th Street Light Rail Station

Project Phase Current Phase Status Complete Complete 2019 Construction Ongoing . Design, Artist and CMAR working together (100% design . CM@Risk GMP in place complete) . Private utility construction is underway

50th Street Project Progress

•Design – Public Artist, Design Consultant and CM@Risk Contractor worked together to deliver the 100% design – Real estate acquisition continues • Construction – CM@Risk Contractor Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) has been executed and the groundbreaking ceremony was held June 7, 2017 – The contractor has access to all critical parcels for the early utility work on the south side of Washington Street – Private utility construction is underway

13 7/25/2017

50th Street Project Cost and Budget

Description Budget Expended % Forecast ($M) ($M) Earned ($M)

Contracted Services $ 19.0 $ 1.3 6.6% $ 19.0 Right of Way $ 0.7 $ 0.1 9.6% $ 0.7 Professional Services $ 3.2 $ 1.4 42.6% $ 3.2 Total $ 22.9 $ 2.7 11.8% $ 22.9

50th Street Project Contingency

Description Dollars ($M) Total Contingency Available $ 4.5

Executed Change Orders $ 1.0

Total Project Contingency Remaining $ 3.5

14 7/25/2017

50th Street Project Schedule Description Baseline Current % Complete

Construction 03/05/19 02/19/19 0%

Utilities 05/01/18 05/01/18 30%

Right of Way 10/13/17 02/01/18 21%

Public Art 7/18/18 11/19/18 20%

Design/Mgt. 7/03/19 7/29/19 45%

Test and Startup 05/03/19 05/29/19 0% 29

Gilbert Road Extension Project Phase Current Phase Status Complete Complete 2018 Construction Spring 2019 • Construction continues on the following items: • Waterlines and associated Gas relocations • Joint trench (electrical & 3rd party utilities) • Century Link vaults • Catch basin storm drain laterals • Building environmental mitigation & demolition • Business sign relocations

15 7/25/2017

Gilbert Road Extension (GRE) Project Progress • Design - 100% completed. • Early Construction Activities (GMPI) completed • Full Construction Activities (GMP II) - beginning water & joint trench • Artwork – per public comment, switched art between Gilbert Rd. and Stapley stations 31

GRE Project Cost and Budget

Current Expended Forecast Description %Earned Budget ($M) ($M) Contracted Services $143.5 $24.9 17.3% $143.5 Light Rail Vehicles $16.9 $3.1 18.7% $16.9 Right of Way $14.8 $0.9 6.0% $14.8 Professional Services $10.9 $5.1 47.3% $10.9

Total $186.0 $34.0 18.3% $186.0

16 7/25/2017

GRE Project Contingency Description Dollars ($M) Total Contingency Available $ 10.7

Executed Change Orders $ 0.9 Funds returned to contingency ($ 0.7) Total Project Contingency Remaining $ 10.5

GRE Project Schedule Description Baseline Current % Complete

Construction 09/17/18 04/15/19 17.0% Utilities 08/15/18 07/15/18 13.0% Right of Way 12/25/17 12/29/17 70.0% Public Art 07/19/18 06/19/18 19.0% Vehicles 09/14/18 02/28/20 2.0% Design/Mgt. 03/16/19 07/17/19 30.0% Test and Startup 11/19/18 05/17/19 0.0% 34

17 7/25/2017

Tempe Streetcar

Project Phase Current Phase Status Complete Complete 2020 Final Design and Spring 2018 . Final Design 60% to be delivered August 10, 2017 Pre-Construction . Selected Brookville as vehicle manufacturer and SWI as CMAR contractor . Continued weekly Value Engineering and CMAR cost cut meetings – 60% estimate due end of Sept 2017

Tempe Streetcar Project Progress

• Final Design – 60% delivery August 10, 2017 – 100% delivery Jan 23, 2018 – Still working the APS Rio Salado median running issues and 4 Tribal issues on South side alignment – to be resolved in Aug 2017 • Procurement – Streetcar vehicle contract award June 2017 – NTP to Brookville Equipment as manufacturer; kickoff meeting held July 10-12 – Final project design interface meeting July 12th. • Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) – Requested LONP from FTA to advance special track work, running rail, rail welding to begin track slab work Spring 2018

18 7/25/2017

Tempe Streetcar Project Schedule Description Baseline Current % Complete Construction 12/26/19 1/28/20 0.0% Utilities 12/10/18 8/08/18 0.0% Right of Way 7/31/18 1/24/18 0.0% Public Art 8/30/19 1/28/20 3.0% Vehicles 2/20/20 5/6/20 0.0% Design/Mgt. 5/19/21 1/28/20 17.0% Test and Startup 8/20/20 11/30/20 0.0% 37

Tempe Streetcar Project Cost and Budget Description Budget Expended % Earned Forecast ($M) ($M) ($M) Contracted Services $ 107.8 $ - 0.0% $ 107.8 Vehicles $ 35.0 $ - 0.0% $ 35.0 Right of Way $ 3.9 $ - 0.0% $ 3.9 Professional Services $ 39.3 $ 5.6 14.1% $ 39.3 Total $ 186.1 $ 5.6 3.0% $ 186.1

19 7/25/2017

Tempe Streetcar Project Contingency Description Dollars ($M) Total Contingency Available $ 37.4

Executed Change Orders $ 0.1 Budget Transfers $ 0.7

Total Project Contingency Remaining $ 36.6

20 7/25/2017

Communication & Marketing FY17 Q4 Report

August 2017

Communications Update • Developed “Driving for Books” donation event with First Transit operator • Built & executed communication & outreach plan for paratransit start-up • Received $40k from AZ Office of Highway Safety to enhance ped safety program • Supported APTA’s national media pitch sharing benefits of public transportation – Generated national op-ed featuring Jose, Route 685 rider • Conducted bus operator surveys to gain feedback on operational refinements 2

1 7/25/2017

Community Relations Update

• Continued support for GRE businesses: – Initiated health assessments w/ Local First – Conducted 5/6 Shop On Main St. event – Took part in Mesa’s Celebration of Freedom • Executed significant outreach & focus groups for key TSC decisions & early construction work • Celebrated groundbreaking for 50th Street Station • Honored two-time award winner, Sofia Garcia, in Design a Transit Wrap contest 3

Commute Solutions Update

• Held Valley Bike Month w/ following results: – 8.2 million estimated impressions – 12 news stories; ~4 million reached – 1,463 new ShareTheRide.com users – Approximately 240 tons of pollution saved • Continued execution of Change Your Game Plan marketing campaign, w/ spring results including: – 13.4 million estimated impressions – 1,970 new ShareTheRide.com users – 187k+ alternative mode commute trips logged • Shared Clean Air Campaign award winner testimonials via social media/web • Conducted annual Transportation Demand Management phone survey 4

2 7/25/2017

Marketing Update

• Assisted in execution of NextRide text code change as of July 1 • Updated Ride Guide and all print & online materials for paratransit start-up – Also conducted customer & vehicle photo shoot • Assisted COP with marketing for April bus service enhancements & Sips on 7th event • Added next installment of ArtsLine rotating series w/ artwork by Lauren Lee • Conducted bi-annual non-rider survey 5

3 7/25/2017

Finance Division FY17 Q4 Report

August 2017

Valley Metro RPTA Operating Results – Q4

RPTA Budget vs. Actual Report $ Millions For the quarter ending June 30, 2017 4th Quarter Year to Date

Variance Variance Operations Expenditures Budget Actual (Unfav.) Budget Actual (Unfav.) Fixed Route Bus 22.2 22.0 0.2 88.6 86.1 2.5 Paratransit 9.1 9.3 (0.2) 36.3 35.1 1.2 Vanpool 0.2 0.3 (0.1) 1.0 0.9 0.1 Regional Services 3.0 3.3 (0.3) 11.9 10.3 1.6 Planning 0.6 0.6 0.0 2.2 1.7 0.5 Administration 0.6 0.9 (0.3) 2.5 2.3 0.2 METRO Rail (Salary, Fringe, OH) 4.4 3.4 1.0 17.6 15.3 2.3 Total Operations Expenditures 40.1 39.8 0.3 160.1 151.7 8.4

1 7/25/2017

Valley Metro RPTA Capital Results – Q4

RPTA Budget vs. Actual Report $ Millions For the quarter ending June 30, 2017 4th Quarter Year to Date

Variance Variance Capital Expenditures Budget Actual (Unfav.) Budget Actual (Unfav.) Bus Purchases Valley Metro 4.2 0.9 3.3 16.9 5.2 11.7 Lead Agency 1.9 0.0 1.9 7.6 9.3 (1.7)

Paratransit Vehicles Lead Agency 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 Vanpool Vehicles 0.5 1.2 (0.7) 2.2 2.0 0.2 Other Capital 3.1 1.5 1.6 12.5 2.4 10.1 METRO Rail 21.5 81.5 (60.0) 86.0 72.7 13.3 Total Capital Expenditures 31.3 85.1 ‐53.8 125.5 91.6 33.9 3

Valley Metro Rail Operating Results – Q4

VMR Budget vs. Actual Report $ Millions For the quarter ending June 30, 2017 4th Quarter Year to Date

Variance Variance Operations Expenditures Budget Actual (Unfav.) Budget Actual (Unfav.) Rail Operations 11.2 11.9 (0.7) 44.9 40.7 4.2 Future Project Development 3.0 2.7 0.3 11.9 10.5 1.4 Agency Operating 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 Total Operating Activities 14.5 14.9 ‐0.4 57.9 52.3 5.6

2 7/25/2017

Average Rail Fare FY 2016 History / FY 2017 4th Quarter Average Fare - 12 Months Rolling by Quarter $1.00

$0.95 Budget $0.92 $0.90 $0.86 $0.85 $0.84 $0.85 $0.81 $0.80 $0.76 $0.75 $0.70 $0.65 Average Fare Per Ride $0.60 $0.55 $0.50 FY16‐Q4 FY17‐Q1 FY17‐Q2 FY17‐Q3 FY17‐Q4

Q4 Q4 Fare Revenue Budget $3,876,000 Fare Recovery Budget 34.5% Fare Revenue Collected $3,358,000 Fare Recovery Actual 30.1% Variance ($518,000) 5

Valley Metro Rail Capital Results – Q4

VMR Budget vs. Actual Report $ Millions For the quarter ending June 30, 2017 4th Quarter Year to Date

Variance Variance Capital Expenditures Budget Actual (Unfav.) Budget Actual (Unfav.)

Rail Projects Central Mesa 1.9 0.6 1.3 4.8 1.1 3.7 Northwest Extension PH1 0.0 0.6 (0.6) 3.2 1.3 1.9 Tempe Streetcar 6.8 4.1 2.7 17.0 5.9 11.1 Gilbert Rd 14.2 13.7 0.5 47.2 27.2 20.0 50th St LRT Station 1.7 0.9 0.8 6.7 2.8 3.9 South Central 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.1 0.0 3.1 System‐wide Improvements 5.7 8.9 (3.2) 16.9 9.5 7.4

Total Capital 33.4 28.8 4.6 98.9 47.8 51.1 6

DATE AGENDA ITEM 7 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Travel, Expenditures and Solicitations

PURPOSE The monthly travel, expenditures and solicitations are presented for information.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Paul Hodgins Chief Financial Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENTS Valley Metro Travel Reimbursement Report Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Monthly Accounts Payable over $25,000 Active Requests for Proposals, Qualifications and Invitations for Bids

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433 Valley Metro Travel Reimbursement Report For Travel Completion Dates 6/26/17 through 7/25/17

Total Travel Other Name Job Title Purpose of Travel Location Dates Traveled Airfare Lodging Meals Misc. Cost Transport Luke Aboud Operator APTA Rail Rodeo Baltimore, MD 6/7/17-6/12/17 $2,157.20 $888.80 $0.00 $900.90 $317.50 $50.00 2 Chief Operations 4 Ray Abraham Officer APTA Rail Rodeo Baltimore, MD 6/6/17-6/12/17 $1,719.67 $260.00 $0.00 $1,081.08 $320.50 $58.09 Chief Operating Rob Antoniak Officer AZTA Board Retreat Prescott, AZ 6/22/17-6/23/17 $253.45 $106.24 $0.00 $110.21 $37.00 $0.00 Carlene Marketing Program WTS Annual Armstrong Coordinator Conference New York, NY 5/16/17-5/19/17 $1,836.37 $553.40 $94.30 $929.67 $259.00 $0.00 Alex Caron Operator APTA Rail Rodeo Baltimore, MD 6/7/17-6/12/17 $1,589.05 $444.40 $0.00 $900.90 $193.75 $50.00 2 Michael Dechant Operator APTA Rail Rodeo Baltimore, MD 6/7/17-6/12/17 $2,058.45 $888.80 $0.00 $900.90 $193.75 $75.00 2 Rail Activation 2 Dan Filippino Manager APTA Rail Rodeo Baltimore, MD 6/6/17-6/12/17 $1,831.64 $444.40 $26.66 $1,081.08 $254.50 $25.00 Director 5 Communications Hillary Foose and Marketing APTA Rail Rodeo Baltimore, MD 6/7/17-6/12/17 $1,675.48 $444.40 $0.00 $1,081.08 $0.00 $150.00 Environmental APTA Rail 1, 4 Robert Forrest Program Manager Conference Baltimore, MD 6/11/17-6/14/17 $1,529.45 $519.40 $0.00 $793.55 $207.50 $9.00 Ken Superintendent LRV 2 Raghunandan Maintenance APTA Rail Rodeo Baltimore, MD 6/6/17-6/12/17 $1,856.47 $444.40 $26.49 $1,081.08 $254.50 $50.00 Marketing Graphic Creative Pro Week Michelle Saylor Designer Conference Atlanta, GA 5/21/17-5/27/17 $2,077.28 $564.40 $7.00 $1,222.38 $283.50 $0.00 Don Transit Security TSI-Transit Rail Schneidmiller Manager System Safety Dallas, TX 6/18/17-6/23/2017 $1,437.55 $454.40 $117.00 $514.15 $352.00 $0.00 Chief Executive APTA Rail 1 Scott Smith Officer Conference Baltimore, MD 6/11/17-6/16/17 $1,381.99 $596.41 $67.08 $529.00 $145.50 $44.00 Quality Assurance Transit System 2 Jonathan Sorrell Manager Security Course Boston, MA 5/21/17-5/26/17 $2,439.70 $436.50 $0.00 $1,573.70 $379.50 $50.00

Community Rail-volution Steering Howard Steere Relations Manager Committee Pittsburgh, PA 6/20/17-6/23/17 $1,391.24 $514.40 $0.00 $633.84 $243.00 $0.00 Communications WTS International 2,6 Susan Tierney Manager Annual Conference New York, NY 5/16/17-5/20/17 $2,041.96 $372.40 $101.00 $1,239.56 $229.00 $100.00

Report reflects Out of State (AZ) Travel 1 Airport Parking 2 Baggage 3 Tips 4 Shipping 5 Rail Rodeo Banquet Ticket, S. Smith 6 Conference Tour Valley Metro Travel Reimbursement Report For Travel Completion Dates 5/26/17 through 6/25/17

Total Travel Other Name Job Title Purpose of Travel Location Dates Traveled Airfare Lodging Meals Misc. Cost Transport Chief Financial 1 Paul Hodgins Officer TFLEx Workshop Denver, CO 4/23/17-4/25/14 $798.42 $218.40 $0.00 $408.52 $138.50 $33.00

Kyle Marshall Planner I NTI Planning Course Tucson, AZ 4/19/17-4/21/17 $320.06 $0.00 $0.00 $172.56 $147.50 $0.00 3 Sr. Project TSI-Transit Rail Compliance Incident Investigation Kathy Bergren Coordinator Course Houston, TX 4/16/17-4/21/17 $1,509.50 $353.88 $32.55 $793.90 $324.50 $4.67 Manager, APTA Bus & 1 Accessible Transit Paratransit Ron Brooks Services Conference Reno, NV 5/6/17-5/10/17 $1,160.32 $292.40 $10.43 $542.49 $260.00 $55.00 Bus Operations Program Parviz Mehin Representative NTD Training Oakland, CA 4/17/17-4/19/17 $1,016.56 $207.88 $0.00 $623.68 $185.00 $0.00 Fleet and Facility Larry Joyner Coordinator Pilot Bus Inspection St. Cloud, MN 5/8/17-5/10/17 $652.00 $319.96 $0.00 $204.54 $127.50 $0.00

Business Services Scott Wisner Delivery Manager Pilot Bus Inspection St. Cloud, MN 5/8/17-5/10/17 $652.00 $319.96 $0.00 $204.54 $127.50 $0.00 Director, Capital & APTA Bus & 1 Service Paratransit Wulf Grote Development Conference Reno, NV 5/6/17-5/10/17 $960.00 $258.40 $0.00 $361.60 $288.00 $52.00

Manager, Financial 111th GFOA Annual Jane Boyd Reporting Conference Denver, CO 5/18/17-5/24/17 $1,767.73 $157.67 $34.00 $1,225.56 $350.50 $0.00 APTA Bus & Chief Executive Paratransit Scott Smith Officer Conference Reno, NV 5/7/17-5/10/17 $808.52 $268.40 $0.00 $372.12 $168.00 $0.00

Report reflects Out of State (AZ) Travel 1 Airport Parking 2 Baggage 3 Tips 4 Shipping 5 Rail Rodeo Banquet Ticket, S. Smith 6 Conference Tour Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Monthly AP Payments over $25,000 June 21, 2017 to July 20, 2017

Document Number Name Transaction Description Effective Date Transaction Amount 20170703W FirstGroup America, Inc. May 2017 Express, Circulator, Local & Flash Routes 7/3/2017 5,141,055.56 37072 Scheidt & Bachmann June 2017 Farebox Upgrades 7/14/2017 1,094,330.36 20170630W003 New Flyer USA Inc. 8521 - 1st Milestone (80%) Pymt New Flyer Bus Model SR-2120 6/30/2017 727,132.91 20170707W008 Total Transit Enterprises, LLC April 2017 NW Valley ParaTransit/Regional Transportation Svc 7/7/2017 641,289.36 20170707W008 Total Transit Enterprises, LLC April 2017 East Valley Paratransit Services 7/7/2017 611,273.64 20170707W ADP PPE 7-2-17 Wages Payable - Reverse Wire 7/7/2017 453,679.58 20170623W ADP Wages Payable-Reverse Wire PPE 6-18-17 6/23/2017 452,886.17 20170714W002 United Healthcare July 2017 EE Dental, Medical & Vision Coverage 7/14/2017 350,138.51 20170707W008 Total Transit Enterprises, LLC April 2017 Northwest Valley Paratransit Services 7/7/2017 231,239.68 20170707W ADP PPE 7-2-17 Federal, State, SS/Med EE/ER Tax - ACH 7/7/2017 192,495.75 20170623W ADP Federal, State, SS/Med EE/ER Tax PPE 6-18-17 6/23/2017 190,546.53 20170630W003 New Flyer USA Inc. 8521 - Remainder (20%) on New Flyer Bus Model SR-2120 6/30/2017 181,783.23 37072 Scheidt & Bachmann June 2017 Farebox Upgrade 7/14/2017 141,068.33 20170630W007 Total Transit Enterprises, LLC May 2017 Zoom (Avondale) Bus Run 6/30/2017 128,804.43 20170707W001 ASRS PPE 7-2-17 ASRS Contributions Employee 7/7/2017 81,835.35 20170707W001 ASRS PPE 7-2-17 ASRS Contributions Employer 7/7/2017 81,835.35 20170623W001 ASRS ASRS Contributions Employee PPE 6-18-17 6/23/2017 81,446.72 20170623W001 ASRS ASRS Contributions Employer PPE 6-18-17 6/23/2017 81,446.72 20170630W007 Total Transit Enterprises, LLC May 2017 Vee Quiva Bus run 6/30/2017 77,989.79 20170630W007 Total Transit Enterprises, LLC May 2017 Glendale Express Bus Run, Maintenance Costs 6/30/2017 76,596.11 37093 Extreme Integration, LLC June 2017 IVR Replacement Project 7/20/2017 75,000.00 37006 American Public Transportation Association FY 18 Membership Dues for APTA 7/7/2017 69,950.00 7152017 Wells Fargo June 2017 Wells Fargo Credit Card Purchases 7/15/2017 61,931.19 20170630W004 Second Generation, Inc. dba Ajo Transportation May 2017 Rural Connector Route-Ajo Transportation 6/30/2017 53,945.11 37117 vRide, Inc. April 2017 Vanpool Services 7/20/2017 52,878.40 20170630W CopperPoint Mutual Insurance Company July 2017 Rent Call Center, Mobility Center 6/30/2017 48,579.68 20170630W012 City of Mesa June 2017 Utilities 6/30/2017 47,536.19 36975 C.A.R.E Evaluators, Inc. April 2017 Paratransit Evaluation Costs 6/29/2017 42,760.15 36974 AzTA (Arizona Transit Association) July 2017 to June 2018 AzTA Membership Dues 6/29/2017 37,750.00 20170707W008 Total Transit Enterprises, LLC April 2017 Mobility Center Transportation 7/7/2017 34,988.39 37011 Career Growth Associates Microsoft Classes provided by New Horizons 7/7/2017 30,000.00 37010 Camelback Ford 2017 Ford Transit Van VIN 1FTYE1YM7HKA39749 7/7/2017 29,505.00 20170630W005 Senergy Petroleum LLC West Valley Diesel Fuel 6/30/2017 29,320.93 20170630W019 SRP June 2017 Utilities 6/30/2017 25,492.80 11,658,511.92 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Monthly AP Payments over $25,000 June 21, 2017 to July 20, 2017

Document Effective Transaction Number Name Transaction Description Date Amount 20170628W Siemens Industry, Inc. June 2017 Mobilization LRV Acquisition Program 6/28/2017 11,522,661.60 20170714W003 Stacy and Witbeck-Sundt JV GRE May 2017 Stacy and Witbeck Gilbert Road Extension 7/14/2017 1,348,010.15 20170630W001 Alternate Concepts Inc. May 2017 Transportation Services 6/30/2017 863,299.66 029039 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. May 2017 Tempe Streetcar Design Services 7/14/2017 539,274.49 029058 Cannon & Wendt Electric Co. OMC Emergency Generator Purchase and Install 7/20/2017 537,260.35 20170630W Allied Universal Security Services May 2017 Fare Inspection and Security Services 6/30/2017 397,757.52 20170623W003 HDR/SR Beard & Associates April 2017 HDR Planning and Community Relations 6/23/2017 376,958.21 20170707W002 Stacy and Witbeck 50th St/Tempe SC May 2017 50th ST Station 7/7/2017 299,169.65 20170623W006 Stacy and Witbeck 50th St/Tempe SC May 2017 Tempe Streetcar Project 6/23/2017 279,227.27 20170714W001 Jacobs Engineering March 2017 GRE Design Services 7/14/2017 264,107.05 20170630W008 APS June 2017 Utilities 6/30/2017 220,093.87 028992 B & C Transit, Inc. June 2017 SCADA Upgrade 7/14/2017 220,000.00 20170623W001 DMS - Facility Services, Inc. May 2017 Facilities and LRV Cleaning Services 6/23/2017 171,905.44 20170714W001 Jacobs Engineering April 2017 GRE Design Services 7/14/2017 168,996.67 20170630W005 PB-Wong Joint Venture May 2017 Task 19 Gilbert Rd Project Management 6/30/2017 159,028.99 20170623W007 USBC Real Estate LLC July 2017 101 Bldg Rent 6/23/2017 123,573.14 028967 Hill International, Inc. May 2017 Task 2 Tempe Streetcar Program Management 7/6/2017 121,142.03 028946 SRP Miscellaneous Accts Receivable Gilbert Rd Extension Utilities 6/28/2017 108,707.14 029069 SRP Miscellaneous Accts Receivable Gilbert Road Extension Utilities 7/20/2017 84,221.11 20170623W003 HDR/SR Beard & Associates April 2017 Planning Support Services 6/23/2017 74,215.56 20170630W027 SRP June 2017 Utilities 6/30/2017 69,700.12 20170630W004 Gannett Fleming, Inc. May 2017 50th ST Design Services 6/30/2017 65,294.90 028967 Hill International, Inc. May 2017 Task 4 Program Management 7/6/2017 60,883.03 20170630W002 ARCADIS May 2017 Task 16 Consulting Support Services 6/30/2017 60,125.13 028967 Hill International, Inc. May 2017 task 3 S Central Program Management 7/6/2017 54,958.86 20170623W001 DMS - Facility Services, Inc. May 2017 Facilities Maintenance Services 6/23/2017 54,064.99 20170714W DMS - Facility Services, Inc. June 2017 Facilities Maintenance Services 7/14/2017 54,064.99 20170707W001 PB-Wong Joint Venture May 2017 Task 1 Program Management 7/7/2017 50,231.92 20170707W003 URS Corp Feb 2017 Capitol I-10 Planning, Conceptual Engineering 7/7/2017 45,000.10 028933 Hubner Manufacturing Corporation Front Bumpers 6/28/2017 41,481.00 029028 Qognify Inc. Suspect Search Software Module 7/14/2017 37,500.00 7152017 Wells Fargo June 2017 Wells Fargo Credit Card Purchases 7/15/2017 36,895.07 20170707W003 URS Corp March 2017 Capitol I-10 Planning, Conceptual Engineering 7/7/2017 33,084.86 028948 United Right-of-Way May 217 Facilities Landskeeping Services 6/28/2017 32,042.00 028967 Hill International, Inc. May 2017 Task 1 50th ST Station PMCM Services 7/6/2017 31,832.97 20170630W012 City of Mesa June 2017 Utilities 6/30/2017 30,604.29 20170630W Allied Universal Security Services May 217 Fare Inspection and Security Services 6/30/2017 29,203.08 20170707W003 URS Corp Jan 2017 Capitol I-10 Planning, Conceptual Engineering 7/7/2017 28,575.65 028940 Nelson Engineering Company HVAC Bracket 6/28/2017 27,600.00 18,722,752.86 Valley Metro Monthly RTAG Solicitation Update ACTIVE SOLICITATIONS

Solicitation Type Solicitation Title Release Date Proposal Due Date Targeted Board Award Date

RFP Northwest Extension CM@R 5/17/2017 6/27/2017 8/17/2017 RFQ Northwest Extension Design 4/25/2017 7/6/2017 9/21/2017 RFQ South Central LRT Extension - Artwork 5/8/2017 7/19/2017 8/17/2017 RFQ System Design Services 5/12/2017 6/27/2017 9/21/2017 RFQ JOC/Construction Contract 5/12/2017 7/6/2017 9/21/2017 RFP Transit Book Printing 6/1/2017 6/27/2017 8/17/2017 RFQ Northwest Extension II - Public Art 6/23/2017 8/4/2017 9/21/2017 RFP Agency Owned Vehicle Fleet Maintenance 6/19/2017 7/24/2017 9/21/2017

UPCOMING SOLICITATIONS

Solicitation Type Solicitation Title Release Date Proposal Due Date Targeted Board Award Date

RFP CARE Evaluation TBD TBD 3/15/2018 RFP Ride Choice TBD TBD 3/15/2018 IFB Center Truck Overhaul Parts TBD TBD TBD IFB Motor Truck Overhaul Parts TBD TBD TBD IFB Mobile Sand Filling Machine TBD TBD TBD RFP OMC Expansion - 2 step Design/Build 8/10/2017 1/24/2018 4/19/2018 RFP Government Relations Consulting Services 8/24/2017 9/22/2017 11/16/2017 RFP Transit Book Storage & Distribution 9/14/2017 10/12/2017 12/21/2017 RFP Federal Legislative Consulting Contract 8/24/2017 9/22/2017 11/16/2017

DATE AGENDA ITEM 9 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

PURPOSE Chairs Basha and Brady will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Pending Items Request

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date

July 27, 2017 Transit Management Committee Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m.

Action Recommended

1. Public Comment on Agenda Action Items (blue card) 1. For information

The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the TMC on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

2. Minutes 2. For action

Minutes from the June 7, 2017 TMC meeting are presented for approval.

CONSENT AGENDA 3A. Contract Options Years for Investment Management 3A. For action Services (IMS)

Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to exercise the first one-year option to the contract with PFM Asset Management LLC for Investment Management Services for a not-to-exceed cost of $60,000.

3B. Financial Audit Services Contract Authority 3B. For action

Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to procure the additional required financial audit services for Valley Metro (for RPTA) from CliftonLarsonAllen LLP utilizing a Cooperative Agreement through the State of Arizona Contract ADSP013-046756. The additional FY18 portion is included in the overall budget established for audit services. The RPTA portion for the additional contract services will be $20,000 and to establish a 10% contract change contingency of $2,000. The FY18 portion is included in the overall budget established for audit services.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

3C. Transit Book Printing Contract Award 3C. For action

Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Director authorization for the CEO to execute a Contract Change Order extending the period of performance with Trend Offset Printing Services, Inc. through October 31, 2017 for an amount not to exceed $140,000.

REGULAR AGENDA 4. Remix Service Planning Tool Contract Award 4. For action

Scott Smith, CEO, will introduce Joseph Gregory, Service Analyst II, who will provide a presentation using the Remix Service Planning tool and will request that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a three-year contract with Remix Software Inc. for transit planning sketch software for an amount not to exceed $137,400.

5. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current 5. For information Events and discussion

Chair Basha will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

6. Next Meeting 6. For information

The next meeting of the Board is scheduled for Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Public Comment on Agenda Action Items

PURPOSE The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the TMC on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 July 27, 2017

Summary Minutes Valley Metro RPTA Transit Management Committee Wednesday, June 7, 2017 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 11:00 a.m.

Members Present Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix, Chair Kristen Taylor for Gina Montes, City of Avondale Roger Klingler, City of Buckeye Ryan Peters for Marsha Reed, City of Chandler Marc Skocypec, Town of Gilbert Kevin Link for Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Rob Bohr for Brian Dalke, City of Goodyear Reed Kempton, Maricopa County Chris Brady, City of Mesa Stuart Ken for Jeff Tyne, City of Peoria Paul Basha, City of Scottsdale Steven Methvin, City of Tempe Martin Soto for Nicole Lance, City of Surprise Sara Allred, ADOT

Members Not Present James Shano, City of El Mirage City of Tolleson

Chair Zuercher called the meeting to order at 12:14 p.m.

1. Public Comment on Agenda Action Items

Mr. Crowley said you want to add some of the ex post facto. You already have one that didn't even make the meeting. And I would figure that the 3B would be something that we could discuss and check with them on, but then also that each one of you represents an elected. The ex post facto don't because it would have convoluted the whole situation if we had people from ADOT on the elected board, they said, or if the State had somebody there. But what I find real fascinating is the electeds, Wickenburg, has somebody there. Where is he sitting here?

One of the things that the ex post facto and Carol did a couple years back is they thought the Wickenburg connector wasn't bringing in its percentage, and they kicked it to the curb.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

At the time, I didn't know that when we put it in the plan and said we wanted the rural connectors out there that it would be the State that was funding it because we had wrote it so that the Prop 400 moneys would be doing that. And we never, when we were putting it together, wanted the things to be by percentage of profit.

So myself and Everett Sickle, the mayor of Wickenburg, have been trying to get some documentation to give to Wulf. He said, you know, it had to be markets, so we've been hitting the Taco Tuesday out there in Aguila to get signatures of people saying we want this done, because that's the market out there. And that's also where a major portion of the 700 residents of that area congregate on Tuesday.

But then when we are changing the transit plan to make sure we get those freeways, I find it fascinating that you guys are the ones that are doing it. And I also would like to know where CTOC checked that out, you know, the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee.

Where and what has it done and why isn't it reviewing these and is it the fault of the County for not appointing or is it on account of the State not appointing a chairman or an at-large, but these are parts of what is needed to be done and looked at.

And then the last one, No. 4, the recommended service changes, I appreciate some of them, especially Avondale, but wouldn't it be nice if that 29 bus went all the way down and was able to connect to it, because when I look at the map and it shows that the 29 is not going to meet up with that, that's not efficient, that's not blending the system, that's not multimodal and that ain't getting the job done.

So y'all have a pleasant, and give me some more buses, bus stops and get this thing done right.

2. Minutes

Minutes from the May 3, 2017 TMC meeting were presented for approval.

IT WAS MOVED BY KRISTEN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY CHRIS BRADY AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE MAY 3, 2017 TMC MEETING MINUTES.

3. Consent Agenda

The following items were presented on the consent agenda:

A. Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Intergovernmental Agreements B. Major Amendments to the Regional Transportation Plan C. Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grants D. Total Transit Enterprises Regional Paratransit (Dial-a-Ride) Services Contract

Change Order E. Manufacture and Delivery of Heavy Duty Transit Buses Contract Award

Mr. Zuercher requested that item 3E be removed from the consent agenda.

IT WAS MOVED BY ROGER KLINGLER, SECONDED BY PAUL BASHA AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3A-3D.

Agenda Item 3E

Mr. Smith said this is a fairly large joint procurement between Valley Metro and the City of Phoenix. And I'll introduce Mr. Scott Wisner who is Director of our Bus Operations and led the effort on this procurement, and he'll give a report on it. Scott.

Mr. Wisner said thank you, Mr. Smith, and members of the committee. Just a little background to share with you. We started this process quite a while ago. We got approval to issue a joint RFP back in September 2016, but due to a lot of other projects that were ahead of it, we had to wait to release this one, this particular project. The RFP was 30 and 40 and 60-foot buses for both the City of Phoenix and Valley Metro services. And the procurement was based on a best value selection process. The selection process we used, this best value, we formed an evaluation committee consisting of City of Phoenix members, Tempe, and Valley Metro, as well as technical staff from all agencies to make sure we did a thorough job of evaluating the proposals.

We looked at the technical review. We did a best value trade-off analysis and a fair and reasonableness assessment. The scoring was broken down into four categories: product support, schedule, and schedule credibility, technical specifications, and then price for a total of 1,000 possible points per proposal.

In January we received four proposals from four of the biggest manufacturers in the industry. They're listed here on the screen. The committee developed many questions. Each of these proposals were a large binder probably about six-inches thick with numerous technical specifications, so it was big effort to go through these and really evaluate them in a very thorough manner to make sure they met what we were asking for.

And based on the responses, we went back and forth with the proposals and just determined a competitive range, and then we also went through a BAFO and best value trade-off analysis. The trade-off analysis really focused on price, what would be the greatest value of price and meeting the technical needs. And once we finished with that, we were able to come to a final conclusion.

The committee selected two manufacturers for a recommendation for award. One of which is El Dorado National for the 30-foot bus award. They are also the current manufacturer of our 30-foot buses that we’re buying for the City of Tempe for their Orbit service. The other one is New Flyer. Both agencies have a significant number of New

Flyer buses in their current fleet. And they are recommended for the 40 and 60-foot buses.

The scores and rankings are listed on your screen here. In all three cases El Dorado was ranked No. 1 and also had the lowest price. And New Flyer was ranked No. 1 and offered the lowest price on 40 and 60-foot buses. So it was a very clean evaluation, things just fell into place very nicely.

The cost for each bus type and the award recommendations are based on what's on your screen here with El Dorado getting the 30-footers, like I said earlier, and then New Flyer for 40s and 60s. The amount is a not to exceed amount of $169,751,370.

So the recommendation is to award two separate contracts to El Dorado National and New Flyer for the purchase of heavy-duty transit buses. And I'd be happy to take any questions you have for me.

Mr. Brady said can you go back to the scoring? I'm trying to read this. So, like, what I'm seeing is a difference between New Flyer and -- how do you say? -- Gillig of just two points in the pricing point, so how does that scale up? I mean, does two points -- how does that work?

Mr. Smith said if I could answer that. On a best value -- here we go again with best value --basically, it becomes a pass/fail. And the two points is really not determinative as much as is there – as we evaluate the best value, is that which one of these meet our expectations and standards and is there a big difference in that.

The two points basically met that both Gillig and New Flyer would have been acceptable to the team, because they're close enough that you can't really differentiate between that. Then it does come down to a price, because -- if they're both acceptable, and then you look at the bid. Then the one with the better price will represent the best value because the difference in scoring and overall quality is imperceptible. It's a rounding error almost.

Chair Zuercher said I guess the question, though, that I take from Chris, and I would agree, so 400 points means they had the lowest price. They got all the points. They set the benchmark.

Mr. Wisner said yes. And the rest of it is a formula based that awards the points based on how close it was.

Chair Zuercher said does the two points between Gillig and New Flyer equate to $20,000 per bus, $50,000 per bus? $2,000 per bus? I think that's the question.

Mr. Wisner said it's based on formula, and the difference of the two when you factor in not only the bus, but all the options was about $15,000 a bus. And once you add that over 200 buses it adds up to, roughly, you know, almost $1 million.

Mr. Brady said so, because I'm curious how on the technical points work in theory because the way you weighted the scores, someone could come in at a lesser technical points but make up for it by having a lower cost.

Mr. Smith said that's where the best value comes in. Because as you look at it, yes, they could, but if they don't meet the standards and if there's a broad enough difference, then you go to the secondary calculation which is what happened with our light rail vehicles and our other vehicles.

And in this one and, as Scott said, as we reviewed the analysis of all the panel members, we realize that either Gillig or New Flyer would have been equally acceptable. So, if one tried to have gained the system and said, listen, we're going to come in and maybe under spec it that would have shown up in the evaluation and would have raised questions as far as the pricing.

Mr. Brady said El Dorado National, I'm trying to make sure I understand this, has a score of 538 on the technical points meaning they were superior.

Mr. Smith said yes.

Mr. Brady said but because their cost was, I don't know, whatever, much significantly higher their total score ended up being less.

Mr. Wisner said yes. Exactly. El Dorado actually was about $60,000 more per bus and so their pricing took them out of the game. Whereas Gillig and New Flyer were really neck and neck on technical scores and pretty close on price. And that's what threw El Dorado out of the running for the overall award.

Chair Zuercher said so my question goes to the 30-footers, and I understand the scoring and the system how it worked, I'm just curious because my understanding is we don't have any El Dorado buses; we only have Gilligs and New Flyers in our system now.

Mr. Wisner said that's true for Phoenix. Valley Metro is buying eight El Dorado buses right now for the Orbit service. They're going to be coming in in August. And these buses are -- 90 percent of these on this RFP are slated for additional Orbit service.

So in the case of this procurement, El Dorado will give us the ability to continue on with that fleet so the buses will look exactly the same, same style, same functionality, and also they happen to have the lowest price and the best technical scores. So, that, again, was in our analysis was the best value to continue on with El Dorado.

Chair Zuercher said okay. And so a large part is these are going to be Tempe's buses, so I'm not going to get too far into it, but it strikes me, I don't know if we evaluate the fact of going to a third manufacturer, a third set of parts, a third set of training for mechanics

as opposed to consolidating around a couple. To me, I don't know if that's factored into the pricing that with El Dorado you've got to have a whole separate thing now for them sort of like -- we evaluated with the rail cars and it worked out that the value was still better.

I don't know if you did the same thing here with El Dorado versus whoever was second, Gillig, which you already have people trained in Gillig buses and Gillig parts, I would guess.

Mr. Wisner said yes, and that's a good point. And we did do that evaluation. One thing is that we were already going down the path of selecting El Dorado, so we're going to have to stock some parts for those eight vehicles anyways.

But secondly, El Dorado's proposal included having their parts being stocked locally, so they have a relationship with Creative Bus Sales who has a large warehouse of parts about two miles from our facility, so they'll be stocking a great deal of parts for us.

And all the tooling that we need for those vehicles are going to be purchased or were purchased with the first eight buses that we bought, so that's kind of not a factor any longer. So even with that, it's still -- we still deemed them to be the best.

Mr. Smith said and the one thing about El Dorado, unlike light rail, the vehicles, there's a lot of El Dorado buses used in a lot of different things, mainly by, you know, resorts, and RV villages.

Most of the buses that you see that run those shuttles around, there's a lot of El Dorado. So we have local support, as Scott said, from dealership and are able to actually store offsite and call upon them for dealer support that we don't get in some of these other products that are unique to transit.

Chair Zuercher said that was very good. That was my question. Anything else from anyone? If not, I'd entertain a motion.

IT WAS MOVED BY KEVIN LINK, SECONDED BY STEVEN METHVIN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3E TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CEO TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH EL DORADO NATIONAL INC. AND NEW FLYER OF AMERICA, INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $169,751 (BASE BUS, OPTIONAL COMPONENTS, TOOLS) PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $8,500,000 (5%) CONTINGENCY FOR PRODUCER PRICE INDEX (PPI) INCREASES AND OTHER ANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

4. Recommended October 2017 Transit Service Changes

Mr. Smith introduced Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Director, Service Planning & Accessible Transit, provided a presented which included the following:

 Overview  Proposed Service Changes (map)  Proposed Service Changes (list)  New Route: Route 140 – Ray Road  New Route: Route Orbit – Saturn  New Route: ZOOM – North  Frequency Improvement  Route Change: Route 67 – 67th Avenue  Route Change: Route 112 – Country Club/Arizona Avenue  Route Change: Route 104 – Alma School  Route Change: Route 136 – Gilbert  Public Input  Recommendation

IT WAS MOVED BY ROGER KLINGLER, SECONDED BY STUART KENT AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CEO TO AMEND SERVICE OPERATOR CONTRACTS AND MEMBER AGENCY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS, AS NECESSARY, TO ACCOMMODATE THE RECOMMENDED OCTOBER 2017 SERVICES CHANGES.

5. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

None.

With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3A July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Contract Option Year Two for Investment Management Services (IMS)

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute the second one year option to the contract with PFM Asset Management LLC for Investment Management Services for a not to exceed cost of $60,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro RPTA executed a contract with PFM Asset Management LLC (PFM) in September 2015. The goal for the investment contract is to maximize return on cash and investments in accordance with the RPTA Investment Policy and ARS Title 35. The contract was approved by the Board of Directors in August 2015 for a term of one year with four one year options. The Board authorized the first one-year option in August 2016.

PFM was authorized to begin investments in October 2015 with an initial transfer of $30 million into the investment account. An additional $20 million was subsequently transferred into the investment account and the full $50 million was invested in securities by March 2016. Subsequent to Board approval of the updated Investment Policy, PFM has diversified the portfolio to include Corporate Notes and Commercial Paper, up to the maximum identified in the policy. PFM continues to actively pursue investment opportunities that stretch the average maturity within the constraints of RPTA’s cash flow needs.

Fiscal Impact Funds kept in the agency’s savings accounts currently are earning no more than 15 bps. Debt service funds are kept in the Treasurer’s Local Government Investment (LGIP) Pool 7. The LGIP Pool 5 yields have improved significantly and Pool 5 was used more in FY17 leaving smaller balances in the WF savings accounts. The table below shows average balances (in millions), interest earnings (in thousands) and calculated yields for each of these three investment types over the past three fiscal years. The yield calculated for PFM is based solely on interest earned relative to the average market value and does not take into account changes in market value or any premiums or discounts when the securities were purchased.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Average Interest Yield Balance Earned FY15 WF savings $100.4 $167.0 17 LGIP $19.2 $23.0 12 FY16 WF savings $79.4 $127.7 16 LGIP $9.9 $26.7 27 PFM $40.5 $431.6 107 FY17 WF savings $34.2 $47.8 14 LGIP $60.3 $367.6 61 PFM $45.1 $679.4 151

The additional earnings from the higher yield are used to pay the base cost (4bps) and incentive (8bps). Based on Managed Funds of $50 million with the maximum incentive paid, and annual custodial fee of $15,000, the net earnings to RPTA were estimated in FY17 conservatively at $206,000. Actually interest earnings recorded were nearly $680,000.

COST/BUDGET Funding for the Investment Management Services contract is a portion of the investment earnings generated by the RPTA investment pool. The fee for assets under management (currently $50 million) is as follows:

• 4 basis points (bps) base fee, ($20,000) • Up to 8 bps incentive fee (maximum $40,000) o Incentive is earned when the portfolio managed by PFM outperforms the established benchmark (BofA Merrill Lynch 1-Year Treasury Note Index). PFM earns 50% of the total return improvement over the benchmark, not to exceed 8 bps.

In addition to the fee paid to PFM, there is an annual fee paid to Wells Fargo for custodial services, in the amount of $15,000.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 189, 2017 for information TMC: August 2, 2017 for action AFS: August 10, 2017 for action Board of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020: • Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro’s long- term sustainability. • Goal 4: Focus on economic development, regional competitiveness and financial resources o Tactic C: Seek opportunities to increase revenue generation.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to exercise the second one year option to the contract with PFM Asset Management LLC for Investment Management Services for a not-to-exceed cost of $60,000.

CONTACT Paul Hodgins Chief Financial Officer 602-523-6043 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3B July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Financial Audit Services Contract Authority

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to increase the Financial Audit Services contract authority for CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) utilizing a Cooperative Agreement through the State of Arizona Contract ADSP013-046756. The period of service will cover FY18 for an additional amount of $20,000 to complete the FY17 Financial Statement and Federal Single Audit Act audits for Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) and to establish a 10% contract change contingency of $2,000 that is included in the overall budget established for audit services.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In FY17, the Boards approved a two-year Cooperative Agreement for Financial Audit Services for Valley Metro Rail Inc. (VMR) and the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) collectively (Valley Metro) to CLA. In FY17, the audits included additional procedures for supplemental testing of several accounting areas which included travel expenses, credit card expenditures, reimbursements to employees and contracts and procurement. In addition, as this was CLA’s first year auditing Valley Metro, additional test work was completed to enable CLA to establish a baseline. The additional test work resulted in audit costs that were higher than anticipated for RPTA. As a result, additional contract authority is needed to allow CLA to complete the audits for FY17.

These audits are performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the standards set forth for financial audits in the General Accounting Office's (GAO) Government Auditing Standards, the provisions of the federal Single Audit Act of 1996 and U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations or the new requirements in OMB Uniform Guidance, in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as applicable.

COST AND BUDGET The additional cost to complete financial audit services for Valley Metro from CliftonLarsonAllen LLP on a cooperative agreement on the State Contract ADSP013- 046756 is in the amount of $20,000 for the RPTA audits. A additional 10% contract contingency of $2,000 is requested, that is included within the overall budget for the services.

Costs for the financial audit services are included within the RPTA FY18 Operating and Capital Budgets. The costs for RPTA will be funded through the overhead allocation pools.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

• Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro’s long- term sustainability.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information TMC: August 2, 2017 for action Board of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to procure the additional required financial audit services for Valley Metro (for RPTA) from CliftonLarsonAllen LLP utilizing a Cooperative Agreement through the State of Arizona Contract ADSP013-046756. The additional FY18 portion is included in the overall budget established for audit services. The RPTA portion for the additional contract services will be $20,000 and to establish a 10% contract change contingency of $2,000. The FY18 portion is included in the overall budget established for audit services.

CONTACT Paul Hodgins Chief Financial Officer 602-523-6043 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3C July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Contract Change Order for Transit Book Printing, Contract 1250020-S

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a Contract Change Order extending the existing printing contract with Trend Offset Printing Services, Inc. an additional four months through October 31, 2017 and to order a onetime printing of Transit Books for an amount not to exceed $140,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION To support customers who do not have internet or smart phone access, the Valley Metro Transit Book is printed twice per year (April and October) and contains all transit schedules, maps and educational content for how to use the regional bus and rail system. Valley Metro prints 125,000 copies of each Transit Book (250,000 annually). For the past five years, Trend Offset Printing has printed the Transit Book under a contract that expired June 30, 2017.

Valley Metro issued an Invitation for Bid on June 1, 2017, for the purchase of Transit Book Printing Services for a 5-year contract term with the initial order to be printed and delivered in time for Valley Metro’s October 2017 service changes. A pre-bid conference was held on June 13, 2017 with three vendors in attendance with sealed bids due on June 19, 2017. At the bid opening, a single bid was received from Trend Offset Printing Services, Inc.

Concurrent with the bid process, Valley Metro staff recognized inadequacies in the proposed terms and conditions for the new contract related to printing frequencies and quantities. In addition, staff recognized that a 5-year contract term may not be in the best interest of Valley Metro at this time. As a result, staff has decided to cancel the current procurement, and to reissue a revised bid invitation at a later date.

In order to print the October book, the contract with Trend Offset Printing Services, Inc. needs to be extended through October 31, 2017. This extension will also allow sufficient time to assess the overall transit book printing needs of Valley Metro.

COST AND BUDGET For the October printing, Trend Offset Printing Services, Inc. has quoted a price of $125,000. The sources of funding are Proposition 400 and rail member city contributions.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information TMC: August 2, 2017 for action Board of Director: August 17, 2017 for action

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020: o Goal 1: Increase customer focus. • Tactic A: Improve customer satisfaction. • Tactic B: Improve passenger information systems. • Tactic C: Enhance services and facilities for seniors & people with disabilities. o Goal 3: Grow transit ridership. • Tactic C: Communicate availability, attractiveness and safety of transit service.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Director authorization for the CEO to execute a Contract Change Order extending the period of performance with Trend Offset Printing Services, Inc. through October 31, 2017 for an amount not to exceed $140,000.

CONTACT Hillary Foose Director, Communication and Marketing 602-322-4468 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

A copy of the Transit Book Printing Scope of Work is available upon request.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Remix Service Planning Tool Contract Award

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a three-year contract with Remix Software Inc. for transit planning sketch software for an amount not to exceed $137,400.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Remix Software Inc. (www.remix.com) is an online web browser-based public transportation planning platform that facilitates collaborative transit planning for Valley Metro. Remix allows for “on-the-fly” route design as well as for the modification of existing transit routes in order to create complex service planning scenarios and communicate those scenarios visually, quickly and simply to elected officials, member agency staff, stakeholders and the public. As routes are designed or modified in Remix, the software immediately provides updated route maps, draft cost estimates, demographic ridership impacts, rider travel time impacts (known as isochrones) and fleet estimates. Route designs can be shared between divisions and modified easily through shared web links. Users can export data into Microsoft Excel, KML (Google Earth), shapefile, and General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS). Outputs from the Remix sketch planning platform, and even a live display of the tool, can be used as visuals for stakeholder and public outreach on planning projects as well as for route detours.

Valley Metro has been piloting the software since September 2016. The pilot period has allowed staff to work more efficiently and add various projects to the annual task list, as well as in-depth context to such projects. Examples of such projects include the recent Short Range Transit Program Update, April 2017 Service Changes, October 2017 Service Changes, Autonomous Vehicle Route Analysis, Route Detours, Regional Transportation Plan Updates and Scenario Planning for the Service Planning Working Group and sub-groups. The pilot period will conclude on August 30, 2017.

This software product is a sole source procurement. In order to achieve similar results without this product, the results of various computer programs at our disposal would have to be manually spliced together and additional programs would have to be purchased. Even with additional programs, staff could not produce the results available from Remix. Staff has explored other products on the market and there are no other products available that meet the description of this product as described above or that can execute the sketch planning functions needed by Valley Metro.

The price to Valley Metro is fair and reasonable based on the one-year pilot demonstration recently undertaken. The all-inclusive price for the one year pilot test period was $45,800. The price for the three-year extension for Valley Metro will be held at the pilot demonstration price given for the one-year pilot demonstration. The three- year extension will be for $45,800 per year with no additional costs. Without the special pilot pricing the cost per year for a new three-year agreement would be $78,000 per year.

COST AND BUDGET The total contract amount for the three-year software support and maintenance agreement is an amount not to exceed $137,400. Cost per year is $45,800 and is included in the RPTA Proposed FY18 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY18 have been incorporated into the RPTA Proposed Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2018 thru FY2022).

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item addresses three goals in the Board-adopted FY16-20 Strategic Plan: • Goal 1: Increase customer focus o Tactic A: Improve customer satisfaction • Goal 2: Advance performance based operations o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high-performing transit system

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information TMC: August 2, 2017 for action Board of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a three-year contract with Remix Software Inc. for transit planning sketch software for an amount not to exceed $137,400.

CONTACT Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Capital and Service Development 602-322-4420 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Appendix A –Screenshots of Remix Software

Appendix A – Screenshots of Remix Software

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

PURPOSE Chair Basha will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Pending Items Request

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date

July 27, 2017

Rail Management Committee Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m.

Action Recommended

1. Public Comment on Agenda Action Items (blue card) 1. For information

The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the Board on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

2. Minutes 2. For action

Minutes from the June 7, 2017 RMC meeting are presented for approval.

CONSENT AGENDA 3A. South Central Extension Public Art Services Contract 3A. For action Awards

Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute 14 contracts, selected by the Stakeholder Art Review Committees, for the South Central Extension Public Art Services for a sum total $3,000,000 plus an additional $300,000 (10%) contingency for unforeseen circumstances.

3B. Tempe Streetcar Construction Manager at Risk Contract 3B. For action Amendment

Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a contract amendment for the Tempe Streetcar Construction Manager at Risk contractor, Stacy & Witbeck, to procure track work and construct a second early utility work package for an amount not to exceed $14,996,866, plus an additional $1,499,687 (10%) contingency for unforeseen circumstances.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

REGULAR AGENDA 4. Tempe Streetcar Paint Scheme 4. For action

Scott Smith, CEO, will introduce Hillary Foose, Director of Communication and Marketing, who will request that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors approval of the streetcar vehicle paint scheme.

5. Light Rail Vehicle Paint Scheme 5. For action

Scott Smith, CEO, will introduce Hillary Foose, Director of Communication and Marketing, who will request that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors approval of the light rail vehicle paint scheme.

6. Light Rail Collision Analysis 6. For information

Scott Smith, CEO, will introduce Omar Peters, Planner II, who will provide an overview of trends involving collisions on the Light Rail Transit system between 2009 and 2016.

7. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events 7. For information

Chair Brady will request future RMC agenda items from members and members may provide a report on current events.

8. Next Meeting 8. For Information

The next meeting of the RMC is scheduled for Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Public Comment on Agenda Action Items

PURPOSE The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the RMC on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 July 27, 2017

Minutes from the Rail Management Committee Wednesday, June 7, 2017 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 11:00 a.m.

Members Present Steven Methvin, City of Tempe, Chair Scott Butler for Chris Brady, City of Mesa, Vice Chair Ryan Peters for Marsha Reed, City of Chandler Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix

Chair Methvin called the meeting to order at 12:40 p.m.

1. Public Comment on Agenda Action Items

Mr. Crowley said the actions on the Northwest Light Rail Extension, I continue to try to bring forth an awareness to both the City of Phoenix and to you people in general that the alignment going from 19th Avenue, when I hear, well, we couldn't take it across Dunlap because of the expense. I go, well, what's the expense is when you cross the freeway. Wherever you do it there's going to be an expense. And if it was for reinforcement of the concrete of that bridge, that would have been minimal there at Dunlap.

I also looked at you could have gone below the freeway area by taking it through the AC/DC or by tunneling, because you already have tunnels there one for the canal and there's one for bikes. So, when I look at where you've got it coming there at Peoria and the I-17, I go, Ed, how close is that to the bus facility there? Oh, yeah, it isn't. Why, if we're being multimodal, wouldn't you have the light rail going by the 500-unit Park-and-Ride and the transit center that facilitates how many of the buses in the area. Or is it that, as in what Thelda said, well, we want to make sure the rail makes it to ASU West. That's fine and dandy, but that's not making the system the way it should be.

I also don't see where we are getting it across Grand Avenue. What's the problem? Don't you understand that where the west side in Glendale a lot of the things are west of Grand Avenue including, oh, yeah, Glendale's offices for the transit department. You guys are over there on Myrtle.

And so, when I don't see that you are being as regional as possible and you get parochial in your mentality that that's not the way it's supposed to get done.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Now, I'm only allowed to speak on the action items, but if you look at your South Central Light Rail Extension construction manager at risk contract award, does that cover on the design my bike lanes that are supposed to be there?

And I still have not gotten from staff the reason it takes $300,000 to deal with SRP on canals, irrigation that if I look at where you're doing it, those already should have been lowered.

2. Minutes

Minutes from the May 3, 2017 RMC meeting were presented for approval.

IT WAS MOVED BY ED ZUERCHER, SECONDED BY CHRIS BRADY AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE MAY 3, 2017 RMC MEETING MINUTES.

3. Consent Agenda

The following items were presented on the consent agenda:

A. Aconex Project Controls Software – Contract Amendment B. City of Mesa Fiesta-Downtown Chandler Corridor Study Intergovernmental Agreement C. Northwest Phase II Light Rail Extension Third Party Utility Agreements for Design Activities

IT WAS MOVED BY CHRIS BRADY, SECONDED BY ED ZUERCHER AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

4. South Central Light Rail Extension Construction Manager at Risk Contract Award

Mr. Smith said Mr. Methvin, thank you. We went through an exhaustive process to interview and to choose a construction manager for a very, very important project, the South Central Extension.

There were four qualified firms that went to the last round. The committee, which included Valley Metro, City of Phoenix, and an outside independent contractor, enthusiastically recommended Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. as the construction manager at risk. And this award is presented for your consideration to advance to the Board along with approval of $2.4 million dollars in the pre-construction work. Chair Methvin said do you have any questions for Mr. Smith or staff?

Mr. Zuercher said Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions. I'm comfortable. Our staff's been involved. I want to thank Scott, Sonia, and the staff at Valley Metro for their 2

engagement in South Central with the community. It's made a big difference. I think we've picked a good contractor and I move approval.

IT WAS MOVED BY ED ZUERCHER, SECONDED BY KEVIN LINK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CEO TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL LIGHT RAIL EXTENSION CM@R CONTRACTOR FOR PRE- CONSTRUCTION SERVICES WITH KEIWT INFRASTRUCTURE WEST CO. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,400,000 PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $240,000 (10%) CONTINGENCY FOR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES.

5. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

None.

With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3A July 27, 2017

SUBJECT South Central Extension Public Art Services Contract Awards

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute 14 contracts, selected by the Stakeholder Art Review Committees (SARCs), for the South Central Extension Public Art Services for a sum total $3,000,000 plus an additional $300,000 (10%) contingency for unforeseen circumstances.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The South Central Extension consists of building 5.5 miles of new trackway along First and Central Avenues from Washington Street down to Baseline Road. The project will create 8 station platforms and up to 5 Traction Power Substations (TPSS).

The South Central Extension has three major procurements: Design Services, Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) Services and Public Art Services. To date the procurement process has been completed for design service and CM@Risk. This action is only for the Public Art Services Contracts.

The Public Art Services Contracts will develop, design and install artwork at all of the station platforms, as well as at the Baseline Park and Ride and all five of the TPSS sites. The artists will work with the community to develop artwork that works within the environment and reflects the spirit of the project. The artists will collaborate with Valley Metro and City of Phoenix staff, the Design Consultant and the CM@Risk Contractor through the process of design and construction.

A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for South Central Extension Public Art Services was issued on May 9, 2017. The RFQ solicited information in the form of Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) from experienced and emerging artists. In conjunction with Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture (POAC) and various local organizations, Valley Metro reached out to the arts community via workshops and seminars. Additionally, 8 SARC’s were developed to select the artists. The SARCs are comprised of individuals active within the community. Deadline for the SOQs was extended three weeks because of community interest in the project and concerns that local artists needed more time to develop their submittals.

Valley Metro received 129 SOQs on July 19, 2017. The SOQs will be evaluated and ranked by the SARC’s to determine Offerors who could successfully deliver the public art. The selection process by the SARC’s is anticipated to be complete on August 14, 2017, at which time the 8 evaluation panels will select the 14 artists best qualified to design, fabricate and install the art for Valley Metro.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

COST AND BUDGET The South Central Extension Art Program is funded by regional Public Transportation Funds. The total budget for the Project is $3,000,000. The cost for the 14 contracts for Public Art Services is included within the overall budget established for the project. There are eight station art contracts, one park and ride art contract, and five Traction Power Substation art contracts. Other contracts necessary within this total budget will be brought to the Board as design progresses.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

Goal 2: Advance performance based operation • Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget.

Goal 3: Grow transit ridership • Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. • Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information RMC: August 2, 2017 for action Board of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute 14 contracts, selected by the SARCs, for the South Central Extension Public Art Services for a sum total $3,000,000 plus an additional $300,000 (10%) contingency for unforeseen circumstances.

CONTACT Wulf Grote, P.E. Director Capital and Service Development 602-322-4420 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3B July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Tempe Streetcar Construction Manager at Risk Contract Amendment

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract amendment for the Tempe Streetcar Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) contractor, Stacy & Witbeck, to procure track work and construct a second early utility work package for an amount not to exceed $14,996,866, plus an additional $1,499,687 (10%) contingency for unforeseen circumstances.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The Tempe Streetcar project is approximately three miles in length extending along Rio Salado Parkway, through a one-way couplet loop in downtown Tempe on Mill and Ash Avenues, then on Mill Avenue south of University Drive, and east on Apache Boulevard to the current Dorsey Lane Light Rail Transit (LRT) station.

Stacy and Witbeck initially entered into a CM@Risk contract with Valley Metro in January 2017. This contract involves two primary phases: pre-construction services, which occurs parallel to the project’s design process, and the construction phase. Stacy and Witbeck is working closely with the design consultant to coordinate design (which is approximately 60% complete) to minimize risks and assure constructability.

The Board authorized an early work package for utility relocations in downtown Tempe in May 2017. This work commenced on June 1, 2017 and will be complete on August 12, 2017. Full construction of this project is anticipated to start in early 2018.

The proposed second early work package includes two elements: 1. Utility relocations along Mill Avenue, south of University, and along Apache Boulevard. Work is proposed to start in early September. 2. Acquisition of track work, which is a long lead item. This procurement needs to be initiated early so that materials will be available to the contractor when they are needed. Rail welding is also included. Initiation of this procurement is contingent upon Federal Transit Administration approval of a Letter of No Prejudice.

Proceeding with this second early work package will allow construction to continue seamlessly. This phased approach also accommodates the schedule goals set for this project and will minimize schedule and cost risks.

In collaboration with Valley Metro and the design team, Stacy and Witbeck developed a not-to-exceed cost estimate for this second early work package. Valley Metro also prepared an independent cost estimate to assist in price negotiations. Board authorization of this request will allow Valley Metro to execute this change order. Staff VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433 will request Board authorization for full project construction in early 2018, when design will be nearly complete.

COST AND BUDGET The Tempe Streetcar project is funded by the federal government, the city of Tempe, and regional Public Transportation Funds (PTF). The price for this second advanced utility package and the procurement of track work was negotiated with the CM@Risk contractor for an amount not to exceed $14,996,866. An additional 10% contingency to be held by staff, in the amount of $1,499,687 (10%), is also needed to address unforeseen changes and circumstances that may arise during construction. The total amount for this request is $16,496,553.

All costs identified herein are within the Tempe Streetcar’s project cost forecast and expenses expected within FY18 are included in the Valley Metro Rail Adopted FY18 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY18 are incorporated into the Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY18 thru FY22).

A Federal Transit Administration Small Starts grant for $75 million is anticipated for this project in spring of 2018. In July 2017 Congress allocated $50 million of the total amount through the federal FY17 appropriations process. The remaining $25 million are anticipated to be available through future appropriations, date to be determined.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020: • Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget. • Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information RMC: August 2, 2017 for action Board of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a contract amendment for the Tempe Streetcar CM@R, Stacy & Witbeck, to procure track work and construct a second early utility work package for an amount not to exceed $14,996,866, plus an additional $1,499,687 (10%) contingency for unforeseen circumstances.

CONTACT Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Capital and Service Development 602-322-4420 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Tempe Streetcar Vehicle Paint Scheme

PURPOSE To request approval of the streetcar vehicle paint scheme.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In April, the Valley Metro Rail Board awarded the streetcar vehicle contract to Brookville Equipment to manufacture six, off-wire-capable vehicles for use on Tempe Streetcar. With the introduction of a new vehicle and mode in the region, the staff assessed several aspects to help make this paint scheme decision.

As a regionally-significant project, Valley Metro and city staff recognized that the streetcar vehicle paint scheme needed to connect with the rest of the Valley Metro fleet. This familial connection was a primary objective, in addition to goals relative to the following takeaways: • Desire to create a high-visibility design that is sensitive to operational and safety concerns and adheres to brand standard colors • Based on research from other national and international transit systems, consistency is key and bold color(s) assist in wayfinding • Unified branding helps to convey connectivity, build customer and stakeholder equity and create an impression of high-quality • Recognition of other related branding decisions, including the industry research and January Board discussion of the future rail system naming strategy (i.e. primary letters/secondary colors for the multi-lined system) • Could allow for exterior advertising, in a variety of dimensions, if the city so approved

With these objectives in mind and the support of branding experts, Valley Metro developed several paint scheme design concepts that were vetted with rail member city staff. Across a handful of meetings, the following design was landed upon, creating a regionally-consistent, yet modally-unique design.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

COST AND BUDGET No additional cost – paint scheme selection is part of the streetcar vehicle contract award.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020: • Goal 1: Increase customer focus o Tactic A: Improve customer satisfaction o Tactic C: Evaluate and enhance passenger safety and security • Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system • Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets o Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: July 18, 2017 for information RMC: August 2, 2017 for action Board of Directors: August 17, 2017 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors approval of the streetcar vehicle paint scheme.

CONTACT Hillary Foose Director, Communication & Marketing 602-322-4468 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Branding Strategy Applied to Fleet

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Light Rail Vehicle Paint Scheme

PURPOSE To request approval of the updated light rail vehicle paint scheme.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In May, the Valley Metro Rail Board awarded the light rail vehicle contract to Siemens Industry Inc. to manufacture up to 78 vehicles across the 7-year term. This large vehicle order prompted a regional discussion regarding paint scheme. Additionally, this fall, staff is required to provide Siemens with a paint scheme direction in order to maintain the schedule of the first vehicles arriving in FY20.

The discussion of paint scheme centered on the opportunities to create a stronger visual connection between transit modes and to re-consider if a higher-visibility design could be achieved. With the support of branding experts, national and international industry research and several discussions with rail member agency staff, a new paint scheme was identified.

Additionally, this new paint scheme can be achieved on the existing fleet as part of an already-scheduled state of good repair plan that entails re-painting the vehicles’ exterior. See below for photos and additional content on rationale.

Existing Train | Existing Paint Scheme

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Existing Train | New Paint Scheme

New Train | New Paint Scheme

This paint scheme is preferred based on the following rationale: • Creates a greater familial connection across the Valley Metro fleet. Purple already a strong color being used by new bus fleet in Phoenix and East Valley. • Creates a higher-visibility, higher-contrast design that supports system awareness and safety • More closely adheres to the Valley Metro brand standards and color palette • Continues to be sensitive to operational environment and maintenance concerns • Holds true to the 2004 Board-established criteria of tying in with the existing system, having a metallic silver (or similar) base, avoiding trendy and complicated designs and working to convey a higher-end image

The above paint scheme is recommended for new vehicles as well as the existing fleet as timed with scheduled lifecycle maintenance. As part of the state of good repair program and beginning in FY20, re-painting of the current car bodies is already scheduled to ensure the fleet can meet its useful life expectancy of another 20 years. The need to re-paint is especially required in this climate with significant sun exposure that causes the paint to fade, exposing and deteriorating the fiberglass car bodies.

As such, re-painting is a cost-neutral activity and is scheduled to occur across FY20, FY21 and into FY22, which is well-timed with the early integration of new fleet. See below chart for how the rail fleet paint scheme would transition and its status at the end of each fiscal year.

120 LRV Paint Scheme Transition

100

80 49 35 35 35 60 11 11 3 40 18 36 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 20 Total Number of TrainsNumber Total 32 14 0 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 Existing Trains/Current Scheme Existing Trains/New Scheme

Re-painting labor support is available in this timeframe and the plan is to paint three trains every two months. The re-painting equipment lives on site at the Rail Operations

& Maintenance Center and is available even as this facility undergoes an expansion, also scheduled for this timeframe.

COST AND BUDGET The paint scheme for new vehicles is part of the light rail vehicle contract award. The cost to re-paint an existing vehicle is estimated to be $22,000 ($1,100,000 for the 50 vehicles). However, re-painting the existing fleet will be cost-neutral as the work will be completed as part of the normal lifecycle and state of good repair vehicle maintenance plan. The work will be completed during the FY20 – FY22 state of good repair maintenance program. The source of funding is rail member city contributions.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors approval of the updated light rail vehicle paint scheme.

CONTACT Hillary Foose Director, Communication & Marketing 602-322-4468 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT See attachment referenced in Agenda Item 4

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Light Rail Vehicle Collision Analysis

PURPOSE To provide an overview of trends involving collisions on the Light Rail Transit system between 2009 and 2016.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION This analysis examined collisions between light rail vehicles and automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists to identify trends in the causation and location of collisions. The analyzed data primarily included information on the collisions that occurred from 2009 through 2016. Staff will provide a presentation that summarizes findings resulting from the analysis.

COST AND BUDGET Not applicable.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Not applicable.

COMMITTEE ACTION RTAG: July 17, 2017 for information RMC: August 2, 2017 for information Board of Directors: August 17, 2017 for information

RECOMMENDATION This item is for information only.

CONTACT Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Capital and Service Development 602-322-4420 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

7/25/2017

Collision Definition

. Contact with a light rail vehicle or Light Rail Collision Analysis amenity (example: OCS pole) 2009 to 2016 . Details collected by Valley Metro at scene of incident Rail Management Committee August 2, 2017

Data Source Eight Years of Collisions (2009-2016)

. Collision details collected by Valley Metro at scene of incident 53 43 . LRT videos reviewed for additional 259 32 28 28 29 details 25 total collisions 21 . Data collected since LRT opening from 2009 thru 2016

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

3 4

Uptick in 2016 Collisions Collisions in 2016

Extensions Open 53 Possible Factors: 43 . Six new LRT miles . First full year of Central Mesa Ext. 32 28 28 29 . Opening of Northwest Ext. 25 21 4 1 collisions occurred on collision occurred on Central Mesa Ext. Northwest Ext. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

5 6

1 7/25/2017

Collisions in 2016 Collision Locations

53 5 On CME/NW-I 2014 38 32 Collision 28 28 29 Density 25 21 On CP/EV

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 7 8

Collision Locations Collision Locations

2015 2016 Collision Collision Density Density

9 10

More Driving More Roadway Crashes

102 2.4 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Crashes per million 99 Vehicle Miles Traveled 2.3 96 Millions 11% 93 12% 2.2 90 increase in vehicle miles crash rate increase in 2.1 traveled in Maricopa Co. 87 Maricopa Co. from from 2009 to 2015 84 2009 to 2015 2.0 81 1.9 11 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201512 Data from ADOT (HPMS, 2016) Data from ADOT (HPMS, 2016)

2 7/25/2017

Rail Ridership Types of Collisions (2009-2016) 3% 1% 55,000 Average Weekday Boardings 10% 50,000 Auto & LRV 45,000 42% Pedestrian & LRV increase in rail 40,000 259 Auto & LRT Facility boardings from 35,000 2009 to 2016 Bike & LRV 30,000 85%

13 14

Collisions by City per Collisions by City (2009-2016) Track Mile Central Phoenix/East Valley (2009-2014) 186 8.2 8.0

7.5 59 14

Phoenix Tempe Mesa 15 Phoenix Tempe Mesa 16

Collisions by City per Collisions by Month Track Mile (2009-2016) (2009-2016)

10.7 9.2 29 24 25 24 February 21 21 20 20 19 20 20 had the highest 16 number of collisions 3.5 Jul Oct Apr Jan Jun Feb Mar Aug Sep Nov Dec May

Phoenix Tempe Mesa 17 18

3 7/25/2017

Contributing Factors – Auto Contributing Factors – (2009-2016) Pedestrian Other (2009-2016) Other 7% 3%

Ran Red Falling/Stumbling Light 29% 15% Improper 227 Improper 28 Right Turn Left/U-Turn Jaywalking 16% 62% Across Tracks “Other” includes: 68% . Speeding/loss of control . LRV operator error (1) . Driving on tracks 19 20

Severity of Collisions Severity of Injuries – Auto (2009-2016) (2009-2016) Unknown Fatal Treated on 4% <1% Scene 8%

31% Person Transported 30% of collisions None 36% 36% 19% 227 Reported 33% 34% led to an injury 29% 31% 68% 21%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 21 22

Severity of Injuries – Persons Injured Pedestrian (2009-2016) (2009-2016) Unknown Fatal Minor/Treat 4% 3% ed on Scene 25 26 11% None 24 Reported 20 43% 148 18 28 13 12 persons injured in 10 eight years Person Transporte 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 d Includes LRT passengers & 39% 23 other road users 24

4 7/25/2017

Persons Injured on LRV Cost of Damages to (2009-2016) Valley Metro (2009-2016) Other Road Users/Unknown 62% 38% $21 On LRV $2.9M $16 of persons injured were 38% $13 on a light rail vehicle 148 total eight-year cost of $12 damages to LRT $10 $8 $6 $2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 . “On LRV” includes passengers and operators Cost per Collision (in thousands) . “Unknown” if injured person was on LRV 25 26

Collisions by Location - Auto Collisions by Location - Pedestrian (2009-2016) (2009-2016)

Other 10% Station 10

90% Intersection 10 of auto collisions Pedestrian occurred in intersection 227 Crossing 4 Along Guideway 3

“Other” locations included: Intersection . Along guideway, 90% Crossing Gate 1 . Stations, and . Pedestrian crossings 27 0 5 10 15 28

Top Collision Intersections Central / Catalina Dr Three-year analysis: 2014-2016

.Five intersections

.Three or more collisions per location

total collisions .Four in Phoenix, one x2 3 (2014-2016) in Tempe

direction of LRV direction of auto 29 30

5 7/25/2017

Central / Van Buren St Jefferson / 7th St

total collisions total collisions 3 (2014-2016) 3 (2014-2016)

direction of LRV direction of LRV direction of auto direction of auto Insufficient 31 details for third 32 collision

Washington / 44th St Apache / Fire Station 1 Signal

P total collisions total collisions 3 (2014-2016) 3 (2014-2016)

direction of LRV direction of LRV direction of auto/ped direction of auto 33 34

Special Events – Downtown Phoenix Central Mesa Extension (2012-2016) . Five collisions in first year of CME

Convention Center . Two collisions at Extension Rd/Main St midblock crossing – two illegal left turns 13 . Three collisions in downtown Mesa collisions occurred – two illegal turns, one pedestrian in events area 2012-2016

Arena Convention Center 8 of those collisions 2x occurred on Special Event Days

35 36

6 7/25/2017

Central Mesa Extension Northwest Extension Indicator of drivers illegally crossing guideway at curb- . Two collisions in first year less section of Central Mesa (March 2015 – March 2016)

. One pedestrian on tracks . One automobile illegal left turn

37 38

Making Safety Improvements Making Safety Improvements

. Train Activated No Left/Right Turn signs . Opportunity to install No Left Turn signs near . Signs used in few locations Extension Rd/Main St midblock crossing (CME) . Provides motorists with . reason for prohibition Signs in use at Tempe Canal Path crossing

39 40

Making Safety Improvements Making Safety Improvements

Signal Timing Peer City Countermeasur Description Application . Plastic Pylons at e Portland, Houston, pedestrian crossings to . All-red Phase No motorist movement as Los Angeles, deter vehicle crossing LRV goes through Phoenix (downtown) . Pylons in use on Terrace Rd . LRV given a 2 to 4 seconds head start in Tempe LRV Head Start N/A . Establishes LRV presence in intersection . Turns permitted after green through phase Lagging Left . Houston 41 Turn Phase Reduces motorists 42 anticipation to turn before

7 7/25/2017

Peer Cities Comparison Peer Cities Comparison (2010-2015) (2010-2015)

20 Average Collisions per 20 Average Collisions per million Train Revenue million Train Revenue Miles (2010-2015) 15 15 Miles (2010-2015) 10 Houston & 10.8 10 5 Sacramento 5 collisions for every have similar semi- 0 million train revenue exclusive guideways miles in Phoenix 0 Dallas Seattle Denver Phoenix Houston Portland St. Louis Charlotte Sacramento Minneapolis 43 44 Data from National Transit Database (2016) City Lake Salt Data from National Transit Database (2016)

Houston METRO Houston METRO

. Similar semi-exclusive guideway . Comprehensive countermeasures strategy . 23 system miles . 6 & 12-min peak frequency

. 108 collisions in 2016 . Left-turn collisions . Auto, bicycle, pedestrians High-visibility crosswalks Additional Pedestrian Signage

45 46

Houston METRO Houston METRO

High-visibility Vehicle Wraps

High-visibility Crosswalks & Pedestrian Fencing 47 48

8 7/25/2017

Houston METRO Lessons Learned

. Opportunity for intersection improvements

Embedded LED . Opportunity for safety campaigns Lights in Pavement . Localized campaigns for new extensions . Specialized campaign for streetcar

. Operator rarely at fault Embedded LED Lights on . One recorded occurrence in eight years Signal Heads 49 50

Improve Reports Next Steps

. Road name direction . North, South, West, East . Monitor recent uptick in collisions . Train, Non-LRV direction . Ex: Westbound . Monitor top-collision intersections . Injuries on LRV vs Non-LRV . Identify possible improvements . Contributing Actions . Expand collision analysis . Ran Red Arrow, . Ran Bar Signal, . Pedestrian incidents near bus stop/stations . Jaywalking, etc. 51 52

Omar J. Peters Planner II 602.744.5557 ValleyMetro.org

DATE AGENDA ITEM 7 July 27, 2017

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

PURPOSE Chair Brady will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Pending Items Request

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date