Board of Directors | Executive Committee Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. Zoom Attendee Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83055129752?pwd=TjFiUk9aeGVKVG44V2FGek5STlVtUT09 By Phone: +1 646 558 8656 Webinar ID: 830 5512 9752 Passcode: 929503
MEETING AGENDA
ACTION or AGENDA ITEM PRESENTER INFORMATION Belinda Ray, N/A 1. Call Meeting to Order (4:30) Committee Chair 2. Public Comment (4:30-4:35) Belinda Ray, Information The Executive Committee welcomes public comment. For items NOT Committee Chair listed on this agenda, the chair will recognize speakers at this point on the agenda. For items on the agenda, the chair will recognize public comment following the staff presentation. There is a three- minute time limit per citizen. 3. Meeting Minutes (4:35-4:40) Belinda Ray, Action The committee will be asked to approve meeting minutes from the Committee Chair September 9, 2020 meeting of the Executive Committee. 4. Next Steps on Confronting Racism (4:40-5:00) Greg Jordan, Information The Board approved a resolution in June committing the agency to METRO General confront and work toward rooting out systemic racism. Staff will Manager update the committee on how staff is commencing this work. 5. Advertising Policy (5:00-5:30) Greg Jordan Information Staff will provide an overview of the current policy and procedures METRO General and Possible related to revenue generating advertising on buses and bus shelters. Manager Action 6. PACTS Initiatives and Reforms (5:30-5:50) Greg Jordan, Information PACTS is in the process of advancing several important initiatives and METRO General and Possible governance reforms that bear directly on regional transit and Metro. Manager Action Staff will summarize these items and invite input and discussion from the committee. 7. Agency Organizational Development (5:50-6:25) Greg Jordan, Information Staff will discuss recommendations for agency positions and METRO General and Possible organizational structure. This effort was partially motivated by the Manager Action Executive Committee’s concurrence that an additional senior position is needed to help optimize the agency’s performance in light of past and anticipated growth. The committee may vote to enter into executive session to discuss the General Manager’s contract and any related items pursuant to 1 MRSA Section 405 (6) (A).
8. Future Agenda Items (6:25-6:30) Belinda Ray, Information Committee members may request future agenda items. Committee Chair • Update on Study of Portland Transportation Center (Nov) • FTA Triennial Review Report (Nov) • Strategic Planning- “Metro 2025” (Deferred to 2021)
9. Upcoming Meetings (6:25-6:30) Belinda Ray, Information • Finance Committee – November 4, 2020, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. Committee Chair • Ridership Committee – October 15, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. • Board of Directors – October 22, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. • Executive Committee – November 11, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. - TBD
10. Adjournment (6:30) Belinda Ray, N/A Committee Chair
G:/Board/Executive Committee/2020/9. October/Executive Committee Agenda 101420.docx
2
Board of Directors – Executive Committee DRAFT Meeting Minutes September 9, 2020
Minutes of the Board of Directors Executive Committee Meeting of Wednesday, September 9, 2020, held at 4:00 p.m. via Zoom
Committee Members Present: Staff and Guests: Belinda Ray, President Greg Jordan, General Manager Hope Cahan, Vice President Joshua Crooker, IT Coordinator Paul Bradbury, Treasurer Lauren Shaw, Executive Assistant John Thompson, Secretary Andrew Clark, GPCG
Non-Committee Members Present Public: Ed Suslovic None
1. With a quorum in place, the meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Belinda Ray, President.
2. Public comment No members of the public were present.
3. Meeting Minutes May 13, 2020 John Thompson moved, seconded by Hope Cahan, to accept the minutes of the May 13, 2020 Executive Committee meeting as written once the information regarding Executive Session exit has been added. A roll call vote was taken by Belinda Ray. With approval by Hope Cahan, John Thomson, and Belinda Ray, the motion passed unanimously by all those present.
4. Process for Approving Collective Bargaining Agreements This item rose from a concern voiced by the Board last year when a summary of the proposed CBA was presented for approval, rather than the full version. A full version, showing edits as well as a clean version, will be provided going forward in closed session. It must be acted on in open session. The usual CBA process begins in August with negotiations and the proposed CBA is brought to the Board when a tentative agreement has been reached. The next negotiations will be in 2022.
5. Advertising Policy This policy was last revised in 2012. Earlier this year, after a political ad was posted, the Board voiced its concern on Metro’s Advertising Policy and its allowance of political ads. Discussion followed as to whether the policy needs to be updated. Political advertising is 0-5% of annual ad
1 9/9/2020 Executive Committee
revenue in any given year. It was determined that Greg will work with Metro’s attorneys and bring back an analysis next month.
6. Next Steps on Confronting Racism As an organization, Metro needs help from external support to advance this action. GPCOG recommended working with NLC. Greg is looking into the cost and is to meet with the group for more information; they may be able to scale down to our size. Suggestions for other groups, such as GARE (Government Alliance on Race and Equity), are being asked for. We may be able to receive a member discount if any of our communities are already involved with such an organization.
7. Agency Organizational Development
8. General Manager Performance Evaluation Motion made by John Thompson, seconded by Hope Cahan, to enter into executive session to discuss the General Manager’s contract pursuant to 1 MRSA Section 405 (6) (A). A roll call vote was taken by Belinda Ray. With approval by Hope Cahan, John Thomson, Paul Bradbury, and Belinda Ray, the motion passed unanimously by all those present.
The Committee entered into Executive Session at 4:27 p.m.
The Committee exited Executive Session at 5:25 p.m.
9. Future Agenda Items: • General Manager Contract • Outcomes MTA I-95 Main Line Study – Transit Potential • Update on Study of Portland Transportation Center • FTA Triennial Review Report • Strategic Planning (“Metro 2025”) • Use of funding – Executive Committee
10. Upcoming Meetings • Board of Directors – September 24, 2020 – 4:00 p.m. • Ridership Committee – September 17, 2020 – 4:00 p.m. • Finance Committee – September 16, 2020 – 4:00 p.m. • Executive Committee – October 14, 2020 - 4:30 p.m.
11. Adjournment Hope Cahan moved to adjourn, seconded by Paul Bradbury. A roll call vote was taken by Belinda Ray. With approval by Hope Cahan, John Thomson, Paul Bradbury, and Belinda Ray, the motion passed unanimously by all those present, and the meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
2 9/9/2020 Executive Committee
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM 4
DATE October 14, 2020
SUBJECT Confronting Racism
PURPOSE Review a program provided by the National League of Cities as a possible application for Metro.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS As a public transit agency, the advancement of social and economic equity is a core value and objective. In response to the recent incidents of racial injustice in multiple US cities and the associated renewed focus on the issue of race in this country, the Board passed resolution 2020.01 in June 2020. The resolution committed the agency to work on ways in which we can engage both internally and externally to help address and uproot institutionalized racism and implicit bias and offer spaces for dialogue, trainings, and understanding. Ultimately, our goal is to be a productive force in helping to cure systemic racism in our communities.
To that end, Metro staff is evaluating various programs and support services to assist the agency in advancing productive conversations and taking appropriate and effective action. One highly recommended program is offered by the National League of Cities (NCL). NLC’s Race, Equity, And Leadership (REAL) initiative is designed to “strengthen local leaders’ knowledge and capacity to eliminate racial disparities, heal racial divisions, and build more equitable communities. Through training and online resources, REAL helps NLC members build safe places where people from all racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds thrive socially, economically, academically and physically.”
Metro staff met with NLC staff on September 16 to gather additional information including how to the REAL Program could be adapted to Metro’s needs as well as information on costs and time commitments. Information on costs for the various levels of the program are included in Attachment C. Additionally, NLC informed Metro staff that it is in discussion with the City of Portland to deliver all or a part of this program. As a result, Metro may be able to participate in a larger city contract.
FISCAL IMPACT Information on program costs for a stand-alone program is included in Attachment C. Participation with the City of Portland would likely lower the actual cost to Metro. At present, Metro will include the cost of 50% of the Intermediate program in the proposed 2021 budget.
RECOMMENDATION This item is for information and input.
CONTACT Greg Jordan General Manager (207) 517-3025 [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – National League of Cities REAL Program Attachment B – Board Resolution 2020.01
2
Item 6 - Attachment A
REAL Proposed Scope of Services for Your City
Dear City Leader,
Thank you for your interest and commitment to advancing a racial equity agenda in your city. The National League of Cities (NLC) Race, Equity And Leadership (REAL) department offers a scope of services to support your city’s interest and commitment that balances local government leadership and community engagement to address systemic and structural inequities. Our experience suggests that improving the racial equity in these systems and structures requires political will, a readiness among all participants to not do business as usual, and commitment from top local leaders, public agencies, civil society, and the community.
Background
NLC created the Race, Equity, And Leadership (REAL) department to strengthen local government leaders’ knowledge and capacity to eliminate racial disparities, heal racial divisions, and build more equitable communities. REAL does this through several intervention channels and support systems with the understanding that local government leaders may not know where or how to start. REAL has three focus areas to support cities:
1. Provide Training & Technical Assistance that builds the capacity of local government leaders to identify racial disparities and effectively challenge and address issues through policy and practice. 2. Offer Network Building opportunities that promote peer-to-peer learning and showcase local government leaders who are advancing efforts through REAL. 3. Establish a Field of Practice that leverages new and existing partnerships, and shares knowledge and resources across cities that promote innovative solutions to racial equity challenges in local government.
All of our workshops include:
▪ Interactive and experiential components. Adult learning styles vary. We use varied forms (including exercises and small group discussions) to share information to ensure learning objectives are met. ▪ Explicit conversation and facilitation to illuminate the connection between individual, institutional, and structural racism. Our training methodology allows participants to make connections between individual experiences and the broader societal and structural ways in which race is constructed. We focus on institutional and structural strategies, as those are most effective for leveraging change. ▪ Strong, expert facilitation. Conversations about race can sometimes be difficult. We have a team of expert facilitators who are prepared to lead and guide conversation and to re- design activities in the moment to ensure participants’ time and experience is maximized. ▪ Applying learning. Racial equity concepts can, at times, be abstract. Our workshops focus on the application of learning in the work place. Doing is often the best teacher.
REAL recognizes the importance of responding to unique situations. Context matters. We tailor workshops and learning activities to best meet the needs of participants and organizations. All of our workshops are informed by:
▪ Context setting to understand how best to tailor content and exercises ▪ Background research to ensure content is relevant and focused on connections between institutional and structural change ▪ Interviews with a selection of participants to ensure design meets needs and expectations of participants
Leadership and staff must normalize racial equity as a key value and have clear understanding and shared definitions, operationalize equity via new policies and by transforming the underlying culture of our organizations, and finally, organize, both internally and in partnership with other institutions and the community.
The deliverables and actions described in this scope provides the core areas of our services. We are strong believers in co-design; if any of our proposed options is either more, or less extensive than your desired direction, we would welcome the opportunity to adjust our scope to meet the scale of your expectations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected].
Proposed Scope of Available Services
Assessment Establishing an understanding of the context for action is essential for building an effective institutional transformation strategy. We recommend four steps in developing a shared analysis of how work within the city should proceed.
Survey of Staff. Key to program design and implementation is the collection of data from a broad cross-section of jurisdiction employees to understand perspectives on racial equity, areas of momentum upon which new work can be built, and places where challenges need be addressed. REAL will work with your city leadership and staff to review, refine, and customize any instruments (i.e., surveys) used in collecting data. The initial survey process is often foundational, allowing for bi-annual redelivery of the instrument to track progress over time.
Institutional Assessment. As part of the training process, the city leadership team is provided with an assessment continuum that can be used to chart the progress toward creating an equitable workplace. The continuum is employed during the training cycle.
Stakeholder Mapping. REAL works closely with local community partners to assess, design, and develop an approach for engaging a catalytic segment of community leaders to embody in attitude and action the traits that promote racial equity and racial healing. The approach will reflect an intent for significant collaboration and appropriate integration or alignment with kindred initiatives that may already exist in the school districts, faith institutions, business sector, or community organizations.
Data Governance. An initial assessment will be provided that examines what data across agencies is collected and disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Analysis will be provided on the available disaggregated data to identify potential patterns disparities. Recommendations will also be offered for improvements to infrastructure and processes to support disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, including potential framing questions for discussion with your city department leaders.
Training
REAL offers a four-part training series on racial equity. Each session is described briefly below but will be subject to modification based on new virtual learning or developments from conversations with our city partners.
Leadership Training Session Objectives:
• Understand promising practices in local government to advance racial equity • Develop a shared understanding and common definitions for advancing racial equity • Identify opportunities to use a racial equity tool and data to drive results • Build an internal infrastructure for racial equity that includes opportunities to partner with the community
REAL 100: Normalizing Racial Equity in Local Government (8 hours minimum) These sessions provide an introductory overview for city leaders and staff on the history of institutional and structural racism in America. This training will equip leaders and staff with a shared language for racial equity, examine existing racial disparities in cities and its implication for advancing racial equity, and introduce important concepts and tools for organizing and operationalizing racial equity.
Key learning topics: equity versus equality, implicit and explicit bias, individual and institutional bias, levels of racism, racial equity tools, disaggregating data, community engagement strategies
REAL 200: Operationalizing Racial Equity in Local Government (8 hours minimum) These sessions will explore the implications and impacts of institutional and structural racism for members and staff. City leaders and staff will spend a significant amount of time learning how to use a racial equity tool as they explore structural changes to daily operations, budgeting, communications, community engagement, and decision-making.
Key learning topics: institutional and structural racism, racial equity tools, racial equity goals, community engagement strategies, head versus heart strategies, inside versus outside strategies, communication tools for talking about race ▪ Using a Racial Equity Tool – Instruction and practice on how to use a racial equity toolkit within policy, program, and budget decision-making processes. Participants will gain skills by using the tool with their own lines of business that they would like to assess from a racial equity perspective.
▪ Communicating for Racial Equity – Communicating about race can sometimes be a challenge, but preparation and strategy make a big difference. This training provides tools for both interpersonal communication and communicating with the media and broader outside audiences.
REAL 300: Organizing Racial Equity in Local Government (16 hours minimum) These sessions will be an opportunity for city leaders and staff to review the topical issues identified from the previous sessions and current issues shared during the sessions. City leaders and staff will learn and apply the racial equity tool to these priorities and determine an approach for advancing racial equity in their city and could include the development a racial equity plan.
Key learning topics: Racial equity tools, racial equity goals, racial equity plan, case studies ▪ Developing a Racial Equity Action Plan – Developing a Racial Equity Action Plan entails putting ideas and understanding into action, including building organizational infrastructure across the breadth (all functions) and depth (up and down hierarchy), using a Racial Equity Tool, and developing and implementing strategies. ▪ Tools for Organizational Change – This workshop provides hands-on exercises to discuss moving organizational change within government. Content is tailored to meet participants’ needs, and includes stakeholder analysis, power and politics, and tipping point theory.
REAL 400: Train the Trainer in Advancing Racial Equity in Local Government (8 hours minimum) • Share curriculum that builds on the existing and growing field of governmental practices to advance racial equity. Participate in “train-the-trainer” sessions, so that internal capacity is built to implement and sustain training.
Technical Assistance and Capacity Building
Normalizing conversations about race includes developing and sharing a racial equity framework as well as operating with urgency and accountability. REAL will offer recommendations for developing a Core Team drawn from across departments that will sustain the engagement and build leadership that can facilitate greater commitment to advancing racial equity throughout the jurisdiction. The training that REAL offers is more effective when it is balanced with technical assistance and the capacity building of a Core Team that is created and responsible for ensuring the sustainability of the city’s commitment to advancing racial equity.
Your city does not have to commit to all of the services described above to begin moving forward. REAL can work with your city to explore different levels of investment – Short-Term, Intermediate, Long-Term, and Sustained. Each level of investment identifies the four critical components of support REAL offers that was briefly described above – Assessment, Training, Technical Assistance, and Capacity Building. We look forward to discussing further what makes the most sense for moving forward based on the village’s current capacity and opportunity.
What we are proposing will support the creation of deeper shared understanding among leadership and increased staff capacity for implementation across key projects. Our approach incorporates proven practices and replicates success, changing the norm of what is expected and possible from government.
We appreciate your leadership and are excited about the possibility of working with your city. Please contact us at [email protected] with questions or to discuss next steps.
Sincerely yours,
Leon T. Andrews, Jr., Director Racial Equity And Leadership National League of Cities
Item 6 - Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO. 2020.01
RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE GREATER PORTLAND TRANSIT DISTRICT (“GPTD”), CONDEMNING RACISM AND HONORING AHMAUD ARBERY, RAYSHARD BROOKS, GEORGE FLOYD AND BREONNA TAYLOR AND COMMITING GPTD TO CONFRONTING AND ROOTING OUT INSTITUTIONAL RACISM.
WHEREAS, recent incidents of racial injustice have again shone a light on systemic racism and the current and historic disparate treatment of African Americans and Black people in our country; and
WHEREAS, we recognize that, as public servants, we have an even greater responsibility to stand against and confront racism, discrimination, bias, and hatred while helping promote our core American value that no one should be targeted because of their identity; and
WHEREAS, we recognize that, as a provider of public transportation, GPTD has an obligation to continually work toward greater social and economic equity in our region and state; and
WHEREAS, we support all employees, passengers, visitors, and residents of the region no matter their ethnicity, race, color, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, sex, physical or mental disability, or gender identity;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that GPTD’s staff and Board of Directors believe Black lives matter and wholeheartedly condemn the actions and injustices that have again wrought division and crisis in our community and across these United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that GPTD joins with our member municipalities to affirm and commit to protecting the rights of all people, including members of the Black Lives Matter Movement, and justice allies and activists in our community who speak up and protest and demand justice for all; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that GPTD recommits to working on ways in which we can engage our communities to address and uproot institutionalized racism and implicit bias and offer spaces for dialogue, trainings, and understanding; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND REAFFIRMED that GPTD’s staff and Board of Directors will maintain constant vigilance with regard to its policies and actions as it relates to planning and operating a public transit system in order to make sure the system and agency are productive forces in helping to cure systemic racism in our communities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GREATER PORTLAND TRANSIT DISTRICT, this _____day25 of ______,June 2020.
ENGAGEMENT PACKAGE OPTIONS SHORT TERM INTERMEDIATE LONG TERM SUSTAINED Assessment: Assessment: Assessment: Assessment: Staff & Elected Staff; institutional Staff, institutional and Staff, institutional, stakeholder Leadership stakeholder mapping mapping and data governance
Training: Training: Training: Training: REAL 100 REAL 100 and 200 REAL 100, 200, and 300 REAL 100, 200, 300, 400
Technical Assistance: Technical Assistance: Technical Assistance: Technical Assistance: (up to 5 hours) (up to 10 hours) (up to 20 hours) (up to 30 hours)
Capacity Building: Capacity Building: Capacity Building: Capacity Building: Recommend options for Support and Counsel Schedule in-person Facilitate a Train the Trainer continuity, sustainability Core Team planning meeting with session with Core Team Core Team
1 ENGAGEMENT PACKAGE PRICING PACKAGE OPTIONS SHORT TERM INTERMEDIATE LONG TERM SUSTAINED Assessment $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 33,500.00 Training $ 12,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 48,000.00 Technical Assistance $ 750.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 4,500.00 Capacity Building $ 1,125.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 12,000.00
0.1 $ 17,875.00 $ 35,750.00 $ 56,000.00 $ 98,000.00 Admin (10%) $ 1,787.50 $ 3,575.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 9,800.00
Total -- Large City $ 19,662.50 $ 39,325.00 $ 61,600.00 $ 107,800.00
Medium City Discount (25%) $ 4,915.63 $ 9,831.25 $ 15,400.00 $ 26,950.00 Total -- Medium City $ 14,746.88 $ 29,493.75 $ 46,200.00 $ 80,850.00
Small City Discount (40%) $ 7,865.00 $ 15,730.00 $ 24,640.00 $ 43,120.00 Total -- Medium City $ 11,797.50 $ 23,595.00 $ 36,960.00 $ 64,680.00
2
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM 5
DATE October 14, 2020
SUBJECT Advertising Policy
PURPOSE Review Metro’s existing policy and procedures for exterior advertising on the agency’s buses and bus shelters.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Metro allows external parties to advertise on Metro’s buses and bus shelters. This is a revenue generating venture that has provided approximately $250,000 - $290,000 in revenue during the last several fiscal years. This amount equates to about 3% of the agency’s total operating budget. For added context, Metro has sought to rebalance the scope of advertising on its fleet in recent years in order to allow the updated Metro brand to gain prominence. Currently, about 40% of the fleet is made available for exterior advertising. In staff’s thinking, displaying a positive, strong and clean brand for public transit pays dividends in the form of improving the image of public transit, enhancing community support, and building ridership and revenue. These goals outweigh the relatively small revenue loss associated with not advertising on 100% of the fleet.
Metro contracts with the firm ATA Outdoor to manage all elements of the process to install advertising on Metro’s buses and bus shelters. The major elements include solicitation, reviewing and approving content, establishing independent contracts with advertisers, coordinating available ad space among Metro’s assets as well as materials production, installation and removal. Under Metro’s current contract with ATA, the firm retains 30% of the revenue generated by advertising and pays Metro 70%. ATA’s rate card (Attachment C) includes information on the fees for different types on bus and shelter advertising as well as standard production costs.
All advertising content must comply with Metro’s Advertising Policy (Attachment A). The policy was last revised in 2012 and has proved successful from the standpoints of appropriate process and positive outcomes. In practice, and in accordance with Metro’s contract with ATA, the normal process allows ATA to independently review and approve most advertising submitted by prospective advertisers. In cases of political advertising, or commercial advertising which could potentially violate the policy, then ATA will submit the material to Metro staff for review and decisions on approval.
Metro allows political advertisements on its buses and bus shelters as long as the ad content complies with the agency’s advertising policy and guidelines. As stated in Article I(A) of the policy, Metro’s “buses, vans, shelters, bus stops and transit facilities constitute nonpublic forms that are subject to the viewpoint-neutral restrictions” as set forth in the policy.
Since Metro began advertising on its assets, numerous ads have been placed by political candidates, referendum campaigns and issue advocacy groups. However, political advertising makes up 0-5% of total annual advertising contracts in any given year. When political advertising is requested, Metro ensures the ad content complies with its policy, is factually accurate, and includes the proper disclaimer stating that display of the ad on Metro’s assets does imply endorsement of the message. In certain instances, Metro staff will engage legal counsel to assist with the process of vetting the ad content for compliance with the policy and the law.
Because displaying political advertising can create controversy for a transit agency, some agencies either try to limit political advertising or restrict it all together. At the September 9, 2020 meeting of the Executive Committee, members reviewed the information provided above, along with the agency’s current advertising policy. The committee determined that it would like to receive a legal review on the options and issues pertaining to a ban on political advertising. In response to this request, Metro staff engaged with its legal counsel at Drummond Woodsum. Attachment B provides a legal assessment of this issue and DW attorney Aga Pinette Dixon will attend the October 14 meeting of the Executive Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT Prior to the pandemic, Metro received approximately $250,000 - $290,000 in annual revenue from advertising on buses and bus shelters. This amount equates to about 2.5-3.0% of the agency’s total bus operating budget (excluding ADA paratransit). With political advertising making up a small portion of all advertising displayed, the revenue impacted associated with its elimination is small.
RECOMMENDATION This item is for information and input.
CONTACT Greg Jordan Executive Director (207) 517-3025 [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Advertising Policy Attachment B – Drummond Woodsum Legal Memorandum Attachment C – ATA Outdoor Rate Card
2
Item 5 - Attachment A
Greater Portland Transit District METRO Operations and Promotions Greater Portland Transit District METRO has the unqualified right to display, on or in its facilities, advertisements and notices that pertain to METRO operations and promotions consistent with the provisions of its agreement with the Advertising Contractor. METRO reserves the right, in all circumstances, to require that that advertisements on or in its facilities includes a disclaimer indicating that it is not sponsored by, and does not reflect the view of METRO.
Article I. Advertising Standards
A. Greater Portland Transit District METRO buses, vans, shelters, bus stops and transit facilities constitute nonpublic forms that are subject to the viewpoint-neutral restrictions set forth below. Certain forms of paid and unpaid advertising will not be permitted for placement or display on or in METRO facilities.
B. Greater Portland Transit District METRO shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories:
a. Demeaning or disparaging. The advertisement contains material that demeans or disparages an individual or group of individual as determined by METRO.
b. Tobacco. The advertisement promotes the sale or use of tobacco or tobacco-related products, including depicting such products.
c. Profanity. The advertisement contains profane language.
d. Firearms. The advertisement contains an image of a firearm anywhere in the overall advertisement.
e. Violence. The advertisement contains an image or description of graphic violence, including but not limited to (1) the depiction of human or animal bodies or body parts, or fetuses, in states of mutilation, dismemberment, decomposition, or disfigurement, and (2) the depiction of weapons or other implements or devices used in the advertisement in an act or acts of violence or harm on a person or animal.
f. Unlawful good or services. The advertisements, or any material contained in it, promotes or encourages, or appears to promote or encourage, the use or possession of unlawful or illegal goods or services as determined by Greater Portland Transit District METRO.
g. Unlawful conduct. The advertisement, or any material contained in it, promotes or encourages, or appears to promote or encourage, unlawful or illegal behavior or activities as determined by Greater Portland Transit District METRO.
h. Obscenity or nudity. The advertisement contains obscene material or images of nudity.
i. Prurient sexual suggestiveness. The advertisement contains material that describes, depicts, or represents sexual activities or aspects of the human anatomy in a way that the average adult, applying contemporary community standards would find appeals to the prurient interest of minors or adults in sex.
j. Endorsement. The advertisement or any material contained in it, implies or declares an endorsement by Greater Portland Transit District METRO of any service, product or point of view, without prior written authorization of METRO (through its Administrator).
k. False, misleading, or deceptive commercial speech. The advertisement proposes a commercial transaction, and the advertisement, or any material contained in it, is false, misleading or deceptive as determined by Greater Portland Transit District METRO.
l. Libelous speech, copyright infringement, etc. The advertisement, or any material contained in it, is libelous or an infringement of copyright as determined by Greater Portland Transit District, or is otherwise unlawful or illegal or likely to subject METRO to litigation.
m. “Adult” – oriented goods or services. The advertisement promotes or encourages, or appears to promote or encourage, a transaction related to, or uses brand names, trademarks, slogans or other materials which are identifiable with films rated “X” or “NC- 17,” adult book stores, adult video stores, nude dance clubs and other adult entertainment establishments, adult telephone services, adult Internet sites, and escort services.
C. Review of advertisement. The Advertising Contractor shall review each advertisement submitted for display or in METRO facilities to determine whether the advertisement falls within, or may fall within, one or more of the categories set forth in (B) above. If the Advertising Contractor determines that ad advertisement falls within may fall within, one or more of the categories set for in (B) above, then:
a. Referral to Contract Administrator. The Advertising Contractor shall promptly send the advertisement – along with the name of the advertiser, the size and number of the advertisements, and the dates and locations of the display – to the Contract Administrator for review of the advertisement by METRO.
b. Initial Review by METRO. Upon the Contract Administrator’s receipt of the advertisement and supporting information, the Contract Administrator shall review the advertisement and supporting information to determine whether the advertisement falls within one or more of the categories set forth in (B) above. In reaching this determination, the Contract Administrator may consider any materials submitted by the advertiser and may consult with the Advertiser Contractor. In the event that the Contract Administrator determines that advertisement does not fall within any of the categories set forth in (B) above, the Contract Administrator shall advise the Advertising Contractor that the advertisement is in conformity with METRO’s Advertising Guidelines.
c. Final Review by METRO. In the event that the Contract Administrator determines that the advertisement falls within, or may fall within one or more of the categories set forth in (B) above, then the Contract Administrator shall, in writing, specify which of the categories the advertisement falls within or may fall within, and shall refer the advertisement and supporting information to the METRO administrator. Likewise, the METRO Administrator shall review the advertisement and supporting information to determine whether the advertisement falls within one or more of the categories set forth in (B) above. In reaching this determination, the Administrator may consider any materials submitted by the advertiser and may consult with the Contract Administrator and General Counsel. In the event that the METRO Administrator determines that the advertisement does not fall within one or more of the categories set for in (B) above, the Contract Administrator shall advise the Advertising Contractor that advertising is in conformity with METRO’s Advertising Guidelines. In the event that the Administrator determines that the advertisement falls within one or more of the categories set for in (B) above, then the METRO Administrator shall, in writing specify which of the categories the a advertisement falls within and the Contract Administrator shall advise the Advertising Contractor that METRO has determined that the advertisement is not in conformity with its Advertising Guidelines. The determination of the METRO Administrator shall be final. d. Opportunity for Revision by Advertiser. In the event that the METRO Administrator determines that the advertisement falls within one or more of the categories set for in (B) above, the Advertising Contractor may, in consultation with the Contract Administrator, discuss with the advertiser one or more revisions to the advertisement, which if undertaken, would bring the advertisement into conformity with METRO’s Advertising Guidelines. The advertiser shall then have the option of submitting a revised advertisement for review by METRO. e. Removal of Non-Complying Advertisements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Contract Administrator determines at any time that an advertisement already accepted for display by the Advertising Contractor falls within one or more of the categories set forth in (B) above, he/she shall (1) in writing, specify which of the categories the advertisement falls within, (2) notify the advertiser Administrator determined that the advertisement is not in conformity with its Advertising Guidelines and that the advertisement shall be promptly removed and (3) instruct the Advertising Contractor to remove the advertisement. Upon such instruction, the Advertising Contractor shall promptly remove the advertisement, shall provide the advertiser with a copy of these Guidelines, and may, with the Contract Administrator, discuss with the advertiser revisions to the advertisement which, if undertaken, would bring the advertisement into conformity with METRO Advertising Guidelines. The advertiser shall then have the option of submitting a revised advertisement for review by METRO. In the event that METRO and the advertiser do not reach agreement with regard to a revision of the advertisement, the METRO Administrator will issue a final written notice of its decision, which shall then be relayed to the advertiser. The METRO Administrator’s determination shall be final.
C. Public Service Announcements. METRO may, from time to time, make unsold advertising space available for public service announcements proposed by non-profit corporations that are exempt from taxation under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code or by federal, state, or local government agencies or subdivisions thereof. Each such non-profit corporation shall provide the Advertising Contractor or METRO with documentation demonstrating that it currently qualifies for non-profit status under the above-referenced provision of the Internal Revenue Code. A public service announcement shall not contain a message that is retail or commercial in nature and shall comply with the Advertising Standards set forth in these Guidelines. A public service announcement may be required to bear the following legend if the sponsor is not readily or easily identifiable from the content or copy of the proposed advertisement: “This message is sponsored by .______.”
Article II Distribution of Revenue from Advertising
A. Revenue Disbursement Revenue from bus advertising is part of the District’s operating budget. Net revenue derived from bus shelter and/or bus stop advertising within a membership municipality is used as an offset to a membership municipality subsidy to the District.
Rev. Jan. 2012 Agnieszka A. Dixon 207.253.0532 Admitted in ME [email protected]
84 Marginal Way, Suite 600 Portland, Maine 04101-2480 207.772.1941 Main 207.772.3627 Fax MEMORANDUM October 8, 2020
To: Greg Jordan, General Manager Greater Portland Transit District | METRO From: Aga Dixon, Esq. Drummond Woodsum Re: METRO Advertising Policy Analysis
You have asked me whether Greater Portland Transit District (METRO) may amend its advertising policy to prohibit all political advertising on its buses, shelters, and transit facilities. As explained next, although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, in my view METRO may do so. Because such a policy would be very difficult to consistently implement in a manner that is both reasonable and viewpoint neutral, however, METRO should consider adopting a policy that eliminates all manner of advertising from its property. METRO’s Advertising Policy As you know, METRO has an advertising policy that establishes standards and procedures to evaluate ads proposed for display in METRO facilities, including its buses and shelters. The policy excludes ads that are determined to fall within one or more of thirteen different categories, including ads containing materials that demean or disparage an individual or group of individuals; promotes the sale or use of tobacco; or contains profanity, obscenity, or nudity. I understand that METRO is considering adding a fourteenth category to that list to either exclude or limit ads determined to be “political.” The policy also states that revenues from advertising are part of METRO’s operating budget and serve to reduce the local assessments for its member municipalities. My understanding is that the revenues derived from advertising have historically constituted a small portion (approximately 3%) of METRO’s total operating budget. Constitutional Considerations When transit agencies regulate speech by setting policies and practices that limit advertising on their buses and other transit properties, they risk running afoul of the constitutional protections that guarantee free speech. Most lawsuits against transit agencies that concern their advertising policies—and there are many such suits—are filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and plaintiffs typically assert that the agency’s advertising policy offends the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.1 Plaintiffs in those cases usually seek injunctive relief
1 Section 1983 provides a private right of action for a violation of constitutional rights by persons acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1988 directs district courts to exercise jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters alleging violations of civil rights “in conformity with the laws of the United States” and allows for an award of attorney's fees in such actions. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The First Amendment states, in relevant part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech ....” U.S. Const. amend. I. The Fourteenth Amendment extended
800.727.1941 | dwmlaw.com METRO Advertising Policy Analysis | October 8, 2020 Page 2 which, if granted, force the transit agency to display the rejected advertisement and to also pay attorneys’ fees and costs. Forum Analysis When a government entity such as a transit agency acts as a proprietor of its own property to regulate speech, courts afford such private speech different levels of protection depending on the “forum” in which the speech occurs.2 In a “traditional public forum” (for example, public streets or parks), speech restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest—an exceedingly difficult standard to meet.3 That same high standard governs speech restrictions within a “designated public forum,” which exists whenever government property that has not traditionally been regarded as a public forum is intentionally opened up for that purpose (for example, municipal theaters or school board meetings).4 But if an agency creates a “nonpublic forum” (also called a limited public forum)— that is, a space limited to use by certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects—then speech restrictions need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.5 Courts usually distinguish between designated and nonpublic forums based on the transit agency’s intent, as evidenced by its policies and practices as well as the “nature of the [transit agency’s] property and its compatibility with expressive activity.”6 While a written statement by the transit agency on what type of forum it believes it is creating is not dispositive, it is often useful and relied on by courts in making the determination. For this reason, METRO’s policy states that “METRO buses, vans, shelters, bus stops and transit facilities constitute nonpublic for[u]ms that are subject to viewpoint-neutral restrictions.” Indeed, nearly every court to consider this question has concluded that advertising space that categorically prohibits political advertising on public transit systems is a nonpublic forum.7 Courts are divided, however, on what type of forum is created when transit authorities open their advertising spaces to political speech or other categories of “controversial” speech.8 In parts of the country, courts have held that transit authorities that open their advertising spaces to political messages have created a designated public forum and therefore must provide compelling
this prohibition to the states. See, e.g., Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 44 (1983). The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in relevant part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. XIV. 2 See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 469-70 (2009). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985). 7 See Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 304 (19874); see also Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 698 F.3d 885, 891 (6th Cir. 2012); Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 82 (1st Cir. 2004); Uptown Pawn & Jewelry, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 337 F.3d 1275, 1278–79 (11th Cir. 2003); Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1998). 8 See American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, Wash., 136 S.Ct. 1022, 1024–25 (U.S., 2016) (J. Thomas, joined by J. Alito, dissenting from the denial of certiorari and enumerating the “especially stark divisions among federal courts of appeals” in identifying the type of forum implicated by advertising in public transit spaces). METRO Advertising Policy Analysis | October 8, 2020 Page 3 justification for restricting the ads, and must narrowly tailor any restrictions to those justifications.9 In other jurisdictions, including in the First Circuit Court of Appeals—Maine’s federal court of appeals, these types of advertising spaces are considered nonpublic forums, and transit agency restrictions on advertising are upheld so long as those restrictions are viewpoint neutral and reasonable, as discussed next.10 Viewpoint Neutrality Courts have long recognized that governmental agencies may impose content-based restrictions on speech in nonpublic forums so long as those restrictions are viewpoint neutral.11 The legal test for viewpoint discrimination is “whether—within the relevant subject category—the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed.”12 In other words, transit agency policies and practices with respect to its advertising decisions must not discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of the speaker.13 The difficulty in meeting this constitutional standard lies in defining what advertising content is “political” versus “not political” without disfavoring a particular political perspective or a particular group and in applying such a definition consistently over time. A recent case out of Virginia, White Coat Waste Project v. Greater Richmond Transit Co. (GRTC), is illustrative.14 In that case, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia held that a transit agency that adopted a policy banning “all political ads” engaged in viewpoint discrimination because it had no identifiable standards to apply the policy in a consistent way.15 The court found, for example, that GRTC had accepted ads promoting a vice presidential debate on grounds that it advertised a debate where “all sides” were invited to participate in a moderated public discussion, despite the debate’s overtly political nature and even though the debate restricted participation to the two majority political parties.16 The court noted that GRTC tended to view noncontroversial statements of a political nature as “public service announcements” while controversial statements were viewed as “political,” leading to the inclusion of mainstream views and the exclusion of more controversial or minority views.17 In short, the court concluded that GRTC had accepted political ads under the guise of public service announcements “based on a rather haphazard interpretation of [its advertising policy] by one person whose viewpoint affects decisions.”18 The court therefore held that GRTC’s advertising
9 Id. 10 Id.; see also AFDI v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 781 F.3d 571, 580 (1st Cir. 2015). 11 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S. Ct. 1876, 1885–86 (U.S. 2018); Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 806 (1985). 12 Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (U.S. 2017). 13 The policies and practices must also be reasonable in light of the purposes for which the forum was established— that is, a transit agency must select advertising content that reasonably serves its overriding purpose of generating revenue without adversely affecting ridership numbers or quality. 14 2020 WL 22813402 (E.D.Va., 2020). 15 Id., at *34. 16 Id., at *32. 17 Id. 18 Id., at *34. METRO Advertising Policy Analysis | October 8, 2020 Page 4 policy was unconstitutional because it had been applied to the plaintiffs in a way that “discriminates not just on the perceived political nature of the advertisement, but on GRTC’s perceived political nature of the speaker.”19 Reasonableness In addition to being viewpoint neutral, transit agency policies and practices must be reasonable in light of the purposes for which the forum was established20—that is, for the purposes of generating revenue without adversely affecting ridership numbers or quality. For content-based policies and practices to be reasonable, they must be sufficiently clear and objective to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory application.21 As with viewpoint neutrality, drafting and implementing an advertising policy that meets this legal reasonableness standard is not easy. In a recent case out of Washington State, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1015 v. Spokane Transit Authority (STA), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals discussed this reasonableness requirement in light of an advertising policy amendment adopted by STA, a transit agency.22 After facing rider complaints and operational disruptions arising from controversial bus ads, STA adopted an advertising policy that limited ad space to only two categories of ads: “commercial and promotional advertising” and “public service announcements.”23 The new policy expressly prohibited so-called “public issue” advertising, which STA defined as advertising “expressing or advocating an opinion, position, or viewpoint on matters of public debate about economic, political, religious or social issues” and which STA’s general manager interpreted as constituting subjects that would create a negative impression of the STA.24 Under this policy, STA rejected proposed ads intended to promote the services of a local labor union on grounds that the ads were “public issue” advertising that could provoke responses from the “right to work” movement.25 The court ultimately concluded that the STA unreasonably applied the policy to ban the labor union ads because STA had provided no written guidance on how to assess whether an ad is a “public issue” and its decisions seemed entirely driven by the general manager’s belief of what would reflect badly on STA.26 Likewise, in a case hot off the presses in Pennsylvania, Center for Investigative Reporting v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a transit agency’s policy prohibiting ads that are “political in nature.” In that case, SEPTA rejected a proposed ad for display on its buses that discussed a watchdog group’s investigation into mortgage lending trends because SEPTA had concluded that the ad violated its policy, which prohibited “advertisements that are political in nature or contain political messages,
19 Id., at *33. 20 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S. Ct. 1876, 1885-86 (U.S. 2018). 21 American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, 796 F.3d 1165, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2015). 22 929 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2019). 23 Id., at 647. 24 Id. 25 Id., at 650. 26 Id., at 654-56. METRO Advertising Policy Analysis | October 8, 2020 Page 5 including advertisements involving political or judicial figures and/or advertisements involving an issue that is political in nature in that it directly or indirectly implicates the action, inaction, prospective action or policies of a government entity.” 27 The court found that the absence of guidelines in determining what constitutes a political ad under this policy left advertising decisions susceptible to SEPTA’s own politics to shape its views on what counts as “political.”28 Accordingly, the court concluded that the advertising standards were not capable of reasoned application.29
Conclusion and Recommendations Litigation involving transit agency decisions accepting or rejecting proposed ads is quite common, and METRO is not immune from suit under either its current policy or any changes to that policy that would limit or ban political ads. In weighing this risk of litigation against its business interest in generating revenue from advertising, METRO should consider the following: 1. A court is likely to classify METRO’s advertising space as a nonpublic forum, but this forum classification could change in the future. In evaluating any challenge to METRO’s advertising policy, a court would first need determine whether or not its advertising space—that is, its buses, shelters, and other transit property— should be characterized as a designated or a nonpublic forum. This would set the standard of review that a court would use to decide whether METRO’s policies and practices are unconstitutional. As discussed, the leading case in the First Circuit—Maine’s federal circuit court—holds that a transit agency’s advertising space is a nonpublic forum, even if advertising on controversial issues is prohibited. There is, however, a circuit split over this classification, meaning the matter is ripe for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the U.S. Supreme Court take up this question in a future case, it is not clear how it would resolve the inter-circuit conflict. If the Court were to adopt the classification of several other circuit courts, then METRO’s advertising spaces would be classified as a designated public forum and its advertising policy would need to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest—an exceedingly difficult constitutional standard to meet. Relatedly, it bears mention that when a transit agency prohibits categories of advertising (much like METRO’s advertising policy does), the transit agency is said to be restricting speech on the basis of “content.” Such content-based restrictions within nonpublic forums have historically been upheld by the courts (so long as those restrictions do not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint or are unreasonable, of course). A recent U.S. Supreme Court case has raised new legal questions, however, as to whether all such content-based restrictions are constitutional per se.30 Although the matter at this juncture is not clear, when taking into
27 Id., at *1. 28 Center for Investigative Reporting v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 5509709, at *9 (3d Cir. 2020). 29 Id. 30 See Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (holding that a sign ordinance that established different rules for commercial and non-commercial signs was not content-neutral). METRO Advertising Policy Analysis | October 8, 2020 Page 6
account a long line of U.S. Supreme Court speech cases,31 it appears to me that an advertising policy that prefers commercial speech over noncommercial speech remains constitutional—at least so long as the advertising space is classified as a nonpublic forum. In short, if METRO’s advertising space were characterized by a court as a designated public forum, its current advertising policy, as well as any contemplated policy amendment banning political advertising, would probably be unconstitutional. 2. A court is likely to find that a METRO policy banning political advertising is facially constitutional, but METRO’s implementation of the policy must not result in viewpoint discrimination and must be reasonably applied. Based on my review of the relevant case law, a METRO policy amendment banning political advertising could be drafted in a way that would probably withstand a constitutional challenge. But a court could nonetheless conclude that METRO’s policies and practices are unconstitutional as applied to a particular individual or group attempting to use its advertising space if METRO’s interpretation of the policy is not viewpoint neutral or is unreasonable, as was the case for GRTC, STA, and SEPTA. To avoid a similar fate, METRO would need to clearly specify in its advertising policy—and then consistently carry out in its interpretations of that policy—exactly what is and what is not a “political ad.” As discussed above, this is not an easy task. In sum, although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, in my view METRO could adopt an advertising policy banning political ads. Because such a policy would be very difficult to consistently implement in a manner that is both reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and in light of the small revenue stream that advertising provides, METRO might instead consider adopting a policy that eliminates all manner of third party advertising (this would not foreclose METRO’s ability to display its own ads and messages). I trust this memo is responsive to your question. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. /AAD
31 See, e.g., Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974); Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981). PORTLAND MAINE Item 5 - Attachment B
TRANSIT AND BUS SHELTER ADVERTISING
4-WEEK NET RATE PER UNIT PRODUCTION COSTS 12+ 26+ 4-WEEK 52 WEEKS PER UNIT WEEKS WEEKS SERVICE AREA BOTH SIDES Full Bus Wrap $2,400 $2,300 $2,200 $1,900 $6,800 Population: 348,921 Note: Population does not include commuters, the Half Bus Wrap $1,850 $1,750 $1,650 $1,350 $3,500 thousands of annual tourists, or thousands of college students in the area. King Kong $1,250 $1,150 $1,050 $750 $1,575 Bus Wrap 2015 Bus Ridership: 1.6 million passengers Number of Buses: 26 DMA: Portland-Auburn Rear Bus Wrap $1,250 $1,150 $1,050 $750 $1,000 DMA Rank: 80 28"h x 144"w $350 $340 $330 $300 $118 Males: 175,158 (50.2%) Street Females: 173,762 (40.8%) 28"h x 88"w $325 $315 $305 $275 $77 Median Resident Age: 35.8 years Curb
Median Household Income: $40,806 21"h x 67"w $275 $260 $250 $220 $64 Rear
BUS SHELTER LOCATION MAP Box Shaped Curb $545 $535 $525 $495 $550 Number of Bus Shelters: 10 Side Bus Wrap ataoutdoormedia.com/portland-shelters-3-16 L-Shaped Street $595 $585 $575 $525 $550 Side Bus Wrap TRANSIT ROUTE MAP Bus Headliner & $575 $565 $555 $525 $350 ataoutdoormedia.com/portlandtransit King Bus Sign
11"h x 28"w Image Not Available $50 $45 $35 $25 $20 Interior Bus Sign
69"h x 48"w Coverage Area Image Not Available $450 $440 $430 $400 $70 Bus Shelter Sign Falmouth, Portland, Westbrook, South Portland/ Maine Mall area, Portland International Jetport and Portland High School
TC | 19
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM 6
DATE October 14, 2020
SUBJECT PACTS Initiatives-Reforms
PURPOSE PACTS is in the process of advancing several important initiatives and governance reforms that bear directly on regional transit and Metro. Staff will summarize these items and invite input and discussion from the committee.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Metro staff is providing several attachments that describe current status and direction associated with the following PACTS initiatives. The attachments include excerpts from PACTS committee meeting packets which include information on the items noted below. At the October 14 meeting, staff will provide summary information that succinctly covers the core issues on each of these items.
• CARES Act Funding Strategy • Transit Together • PACTS Committees Reform • PACTS Integrated Funding Prioritization • Direct Recipient Designation and Project Programming • Transit Tomorrow
FISCAL IMPACT N/A
RECOMMENDATION This item is for information and input.
CONTACT Greg Jordan Executive Director (207) 517-3025 [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS • Attachment A – October 8, 20202 PACTS Transit Committee Packet Excerpt (PACTS CARES Act Funding Strategy) • Attachment B – October 6, 2020 PACTS Executive Committee Packet Excerpt (Transit Together) • Attachment C – October 6, 2020 PACTS Executive Committee Packet Excerpt (PACTS Committees) • Attachment D – October 8, 20202 PACTS Transit Committee Packet Excerpt (Federal Funding Priorities) • Attachment E – Direct Recipient Designation and Project Programming • Attachment F – Transit Tomorrow
2
ATTACHMENT A
PACTS Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System
5 A-1 ATTACHMENT A
PACTS Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System
6 A-2 ATTACHMENT A
PACTS Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System
Table 1: Priority Projects for Consideration
7 A-3 ATTACHMENT B
• o ▪ ▪ o
o o
• o
o
o • o o
6 B-1 ATTACHMENT B
7 B-2 ATTACHMENT B
8 B-3 ATTACHMENT B
Figure 1: Transit Together, Draft Schedule
Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 1. Reimagining 1a. Preliminary Assessment ① 1b. Analysis ② 1c. Recommendations ④ □ 2. System Efficiency 2a. Existing Conditions ① 2b. Analysis 2c. Recommendations ③ ④ □ 3. Guided Facilitation 3a. Stakeholder Engagement ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ *Public and stakeholder engagement to occur throughout the entire planning process
Proposed Stakeholder Meetings (see above) ① Project Kickoff - Visioning □ Deliverables ② Reimagining - Prelim. Assessment & Broad Recommendations ③ Efficiency - Prelim. Assessment & Draft Recommendations ④ All - Draft Recommendations ⑤ Implementation Strategies and Next Steps
9 B-4 ATTACHMENT C
•
• o
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ o o o o o o
o
• • *
•
*Key changes in yellow
22 C-1 ATTACHMENT C
• • o o o o o o
o o
o o o •
o
o
•
•
•
•
• • •
23 C-2 ATTACHMENT C
• • o o
o
•
o
o
o o
o
o o
24 C-3 ATTACHMENT C
o
o
• • •
•
•
25 C-4 ATTACHMENT C
• •
26 C-5 ATTACHMENT D
PACTS Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System
•
•
3 D-1 ATTACHMENT D
PACTS Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System
4 D-2 ATTACHMENT D
PACTS Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System
5 D-3 ATTACHMENT E
To: GPCOG/PACTS
From: AECOM
Date: 9/28/2020
Re: Direct Recipient Designation and Project Programming
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the direct recipient designation process for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding and the role of PACTS in programming and allocating that funding to transit operators in greater Portland.
The primary document outlining the funding process is FTA Circular 9030.1E, Urbanized Area Formula Program: Program Guidance and Application Instructions (The Circular). This document primarily deals with administration of Federal Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding, and provides guidance to states, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), designated recipients, direct recipients, and subrecipients of FTA funding on program administration. A secondary reference document for this memorandum is FTA Circular C-5300.1, State of Good Repair Grants Program: Guidance and Application Instructions which provides guidance on Federal Section 5337 State of Good Repair funds.
The Role of PACTS and the Transit Agencies The purpose of Section 5307 funding is to provide assistance to urbanized areas (UZAs) in running public transportation services. Funds are apportioned to the nation’s 497 UZAs based on a formula that takes population, population density, level of transit service, and several other factors into account. The funding is managed by one or more “designated recipients” in a UZA, which have multiple functions described below. Designated Recipient vs. Direct Recipient The guidance in The Circular recommends that each UZA has only one designated recipient, which may then identify other direct recipients through a split letter.
As per The Circular, a designated recipient is:
“(i) an entity designated . . . by the governor of a state, responsible local officials, and publicly owned operators of public transportation, to receive and apportion amounts under Section 5336 to urbanized areas of 200,000 or more in population” [emphasis added] (page I-3)
The language in The Circular indicates that a designated recipient not only directly receives funding from FTA, but also apportions funding through a split letter to other eligible entities in the UZA as “direct recipients.”
The Circular defines a direct recipient in this way:
“For purposes of this circular, a direct recipient is an eligible entity authorized by a designated recipient or state to receive Urbanized Area Formula Program funds directly from FTA.” (page I-3)
24 E-1 ATTACHMENT E
The Frequently Asked Questions section on the FTA website offers some clarification on the distinction between a designated recipient and a direct recipient:
“Direct recipients receive funding directly from FTA. Designated recipients have been designated by the state governor or his/her designee to receive and/or sub-allocate.” (https://www.transit.dot.gov/03-what-difference-between-direct-recipient-and-designated- recipient)
More clarity on the relationship between designated recipients and direct recipients is found in the section of The Circular dealing with the development of a split letter:
“A state or designated recipient may authorize another public entity to be a ‘direct recipient’ for Section 5307 funds . . . The designated recipient must inform FTA of the arrangement in a ‘split letter,’ which establishes the allocation of Section 5307 funds in a large UZA.” (page II-5)
The Circular goes on to note that a split letter should be developed cooperatively by public transit providers, the MPO, and the designated recipient(s) for the UZA. Analysis The distinction between a designated recipient and a direct recipient is subtle and not clearly spelled out in The Circular. One key difference is that a designated recipient may designate direct recipients to receive funding directly through a UZA split letter. In the context of PACTS, the distinction is somewhat ambiguous based on the authorizing documentation from the PACTS and the MaineDOT designation letters.
The PACTS letter to FTA dated January 17, 2013 indicates that the PACTS Policy Committee voted to confirm the five urban transit agencies and MaineDOT as “designated recipients”, with MaineDOT being the designated recipient for RTP and YCCAC rural transit funding.
The letter from MaineDOT Commissioner David Bernhardt to FTA dated February 22, 2013 uses the following terminology:
“I have designated [the five urban Portland transit operators] as direct grant recipients for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds.” [emphasis added]
A literal reading of the February 2013 letter could indicate that no designated recipient has been identified by the state, and so the state is the de facto designated recipient.
Finally, it should be noted that regardless of which entity or entities are the designated recipient(s) for the region, The Circular does indicate:
“The amount of funds available to direct recipients is determined cooperatively by public transit providers, the MPO, and the designated recipient(s) for the UZA.” [emphasis added] (page II-5)
Functionally, it may not make a difference if the state, PACTS or the five urban transit operators are the designated recipients in terms of developing the split letter. The circular requires all entities to cooperate in allocating funding.
AECOM 2
25 E-2 ATTACHMENT E
Federal Guidance on Allocating and Programming Transit Funding It is important to understand the role of the MPO in the transit funding allocation process. The Circular specifies that any project using federal funding must be in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):
“Projects included in an FTA grant application must be derived from that part of a metropolitan area’s TIP (approved by the MPO, found to be consistent with the metropolitan area’s long-range plan by FTA, and approved by the governor) that is within an approved STIP.” [emphasis added] (page V-4)
The Circular notes that transit projects in the TIP are developed through the designated recipient’s Program of Projects (POP):
“Although the MPO develops and adopts the TIP, the designated recipient, which may in some cases also be the MPO, is responsible for developing the program of projects (POP) for the Section 5307 funds apportioned to a UZA for inclusion in the TIP.” [emphasis added] (page V-3)
Therefore, The Circular indicates that: A) Federally funded transit projects must be in the TIP, and B) The MPO is responsible for developing and adopting the TIP.
According to the Transportation Improvement Program Policies and Procedures document for PACTS, in order for a project to be included in the TIP, PACTS has developed a three-step process (pages 22 – 23):
1. The Transit Committee develops the annual FTA funding allocation recommendations for the PACTS federal urbanized area; 2. The Executive Committee votes on whether to endorse the Transit Committee’s recommendations and submits to the Policy Committee to vote on ratification; 3. The Policy Committee votes on whether to ratify the Executive Committee’s final draft MPO Allocation list of projects and then votes on whether to endorse the final PACTS TIP document.
Assuming that the five urban transit agencies are designated recipients, they are responsible for developing the POP for their agencies and submitting to the MPO (presumably through the Six Year Transit Capital and Operating Plan) for inclusion in the TIP. It is then the responsibility of the Executive Committee and Policy Committee to vote on whether to include the recommendations into the TIP. The TIP is then incorporated into the STIP by MaineDOT.
The Circular is clear that any transit project for which formula grant funding is sought must be included in the TIP and STIP. While it is the role of the designated recipient to develop the POP, it is the role of the MPO to develop the process for inclusion of those projects into the TIP. Without inclusion in the TIP and STIP, a grant will not be approved by FTA and funding cannot be obligated by the transit agency.
The Circular does not address an instance where the MPO and designated recipient do not agree on a project or projects included in a POP. Presumably, in this case, the POP would not be programmed into the TIP until the disagreement is resolved. The Circular does however require a cooperative process for allocating funding, which the above-described process would fulfill.
AECOM 3
26 E-3 ATTACHMENT E
PACTS is currently revising its process for including projects into the TIP. This revised process is dealt with in greater detail below, but should similarly fulfill and will likely expand upon the requirement for a cooperative process required by FTA.
Options Based on the above analysis and the practices of other regions, there are four options for moving forward:
1. Take no action 2. Clarify the five urban transit operators as designated recipients 3. Clarify PACTS as the designated recipient and the five urban transit operators as direct recipients 4. Designate one transit provider as the designated recipient and the four other urban transit operators as direct recipients 1. Take No Action The simplest option is to take no further action. The federal guidance specifies that regardless of which entity or entities in the region are the designated recipient(s), the split letter and Transportation Improvement Program are developed cooperatively by the MPO, transit providers, and the designated recipient(s). This language suggests that a consensus must be reached between those three parties in order for a split letter to be executed. The current practice of developing the split in federal funding through the SYCOP process as a cooperative effort would fulfill that requirement. 2. Five Urban Transit Operators as Designated Recipients The Transportation Commissioner could draft a new letter clarifying the language in the designation letter to FTA that the five urban transit operators are direct recipients. This is the approach taken by the Chicago UZA, where the four transit providers in the Chicago area (CTA, RTA, Metra, and PACE) act as designated recipients of federal funding for the Chicago UZA.
This designation letter from the Maine Transportation Commissioner letter should read:
“I have designated South Portland Bus Service, Casco Bay Island Transit District, Greater Portland Transit District, Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority and Biddeford, Saco, Old Orchard Beach Transit as designated recipients for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds.”
This would remove all ambiguity about the status of the five urban transit operators as designated recipients. With this designation, the five transit operators would be required to submit the Program of Projects to FTA annually as a part of the federal funding obligation process. 3. PACTS as the Designated Recipient It may make things administratively simpler to designate PACTS as the designated recipient. This is the approach taken by the San Francisco region, where the Bay Area MPO, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, is the designated recipient for the region, with the transit operators acting as direct recipients.
FTA guidance indicates:
AECOM 4
27 E-4 ATTACHMENT E
“FTA encourages the designation of a single designated recipient for each UZA 200,000 or more in population . . . in order to streamline the administration of the program and foster coordination.” (page II-4)
It may be preferable to ask the Governor and Transportation Commissioner to change the designated recipient to PACTS in accordance with this guidance. Process changes following this new designation would be:
• The Split Letter would be developed by PACTS in cooperation with the five urban transit operators, and would designate these transit operators as direct recipients. • GPCOG would develop the Program of Projects and submit to FTA as a part of the obligation process of federal funding. The POP would presumably be generated from the SYCOP, and the process for developing the SYCOP would presumably remain unchanged.
The five transit operators would still be responsible for all other aspects of utilizing federal funding, such as compliance activities, funding draw downs, etc. 4. One Transit Agency as the Designated Recipient Other regions have designated a single transit operator (typically the region’s largest) as the designated recipient and with the other transit operators in the UZA as direct recipients. One example of this is GoRaleigh, which acts as the designated recipient for federal funding while smaller agencies (GoTriangle and C-Tran) are direct recipients.
If PACTS chooses to take this approach, a new letter from the Transportation Commissioner and the MPO would need to be submitted to FTA making that designation. In this arrangement, a single transit agency would be responsible for submitting the Program of Projects to FTA on behalf of the other direct recipient agencies. The single transit operator would be able to act as the designated recipient for both 5307 and 5337 funding regardless of whether the agency runs high-capacity fixed guideway services, as per FTA Circular C-5300.1, page II-2. Preferred Option It is the recommendation of AECOM, as per the federal circular, to designate a single transit agency operating in southern Maine as the designated recipient for 5307 and 5337 funding, in line with the recommendation of FTA. On page II-4 of Circular 9030.1E, they state:
“FTA encourages the designation of a single designated recipient for each UZA 200,000 or more in population, including such UZAs that span more than one state, in order to streamline the administration of the program and foster coordination.” [emphasis added]
Similarly, federal circular C-5300.1 states on page II-2:
“The designated recipients of the State of Good Repair Grants Program [Section 5337] are generally the same as under the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program, 49 U.S.C. 5307”
Designating a single designated recipient for federal funding for the region would streamline administrative functions, as noted by the circular. Designating a current operator is the simplest option because transit agencies already have the staff infrastructure and relationship with FTA for submitting the POP to FTA, whereas PACTS would have to develop that staff capacity.
AECOM 5
28 E-5 ATTACHMENT E
Importantly, the choice of designating a single operator as the UZA’s designated recipient would have no bearing on the requirement for a cooperative process for determining how federal transit funding is to be allocated across the region.
Funding Prioritization Framework and Federal Transit Funding GPCOG/PACTS is finalizing a new process for scoring and allocating federal transportation funding based on a consolidated project prioritization framework. FTA Circular 9030.1E does not specify a particular process for determining the split in federal funding among direct and designated recipients within a UZA, as noted above (“The amount of funds available to direct recipients is determined cooperatively by public transit providers, the MPO, and the designated recipient(s) for the UZA.” (page II-5)).
The Circular goes on to emphasize the need for a cooperative process in instances where a single UZA has multiple designated recipients. Underscoring the requirement for all POP projects to be programmed into the TIP and STIP using a cooperative process in order to be eligible for federal funding, the Circular states:
“In the case of multiple designated recipients or multiple MPOs, the designated recipient or designated recipients must work with the MPO to ensure that the POP requirements are met by inclusion of all projects in the TIP or TIPs. The MPO and the designated recipient must work cooperatively to develop the TIP and agree on how to spend Section 5307 funds.” [emphasis added] (page V-3)
This language in The Circular requires that the process for incorporating the POP (in the case of PACTS, the SYCOP) into the TIP must be cooperative in nature.
Importantly, the local process for developing the POP, the federal apportionment split, and the TIP is not prescribed by FTA. The only mandate contained in the Circular is that the process is cooperative between transit operators, the MPO, and the designated recipient(s). Within that mandate is considerable latitude for the region to determine the most appropriate method of allocating its federal apportionment.
The new funding prioritization process, which is being developed by a committee consisting of state officials, regional municipal officials, and all seven transit operators, will include a system of scoring transportation projects and then allocating funding based on scores, in-person presentations, and deliberations of the MPO governing body (which will include the transit operators). This new framework, which has been developed through a collaborative process with state, MPO, and transit agency representatives, fulfills this requirement for regional cooperation outlined in The Circular.
AECOM 6
29 E-6 ATTACHMENT E
CARES Funding As a final note, based on the guidance from a webinar conducted by the Federal Transit Administration on April 6th 2020, CARES funding does not need to be programmed into the TIP, STIP, or Long-Range Transportation Plan if it is being used for operating projects or “routine” capital expenditures like replacement bus purchases. However, this does not suggest that the funding allocation is exempt from typical local processes used to allocate funding in a multi-provider environment. It should be presumed that whatever local process is used to develop the Split Letter and POP should be followed when allocating CARES funding.
AECOM 7
30 E-7 ATTACHMENT F
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 25, 2020 F-1 ATTACHMENT F
Introduction / Project Status TODAY’S AGENDA Review of Recommendations/Costs
Discussion of Priorities / Implementation
Public Comments
Next Steps
F-2 ATTACHMENT F
PROJECT TASKS & Existing Conditions (Spring 2019)
SCHEDULE Vision Statement (Summer 2019)
Scenario Planning (Spring 2020)
Recommendations (Summer 2020)
Draft / Final Plan (Fall 2020)
F-3 ATTACHMENT F
Recommendations
+ +
MAKE CREATE INTRODUCE Transit Frequent Rapid Easier Connections Transit Smart Land Use
F-4 ATTACHMENT F
Smart Land Use
Recommendations
F-5 ATTACHMENT F
PRIORITIES Expand housing choices and jobs near transit.
Smart Land Use
F-6 ATTACHMENT F
RECOMMENDATIONS
Smart Land Use
F-7 ATTACHMENT F
RECOMMENDATIONS
Smart Land Use
F-8 ATTACHMENT F
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning: Create TOD plans for all priority centers served by transit.
Amend Zoning: Adopt zoning and policy changes that allow for higher density walkable neighborhoods served by transit.
Target Investments: Target investments to priority transit centers and corridors to encourage growth and development in RECOMMENDATIONS places where people already live, work, and visit. Improve Access: Build walkable and bikeable streets to ensure safe access to transit for all users regardless of age or ability.
Protect Open Spaces: Protect natural resources and agricultural lands through regional conservation planning.
Reward Municipalities: Reward municipalities who take action to expand housing choices and jobs in priority centers with Smart Land Use PACTS transit and transportation investments.
F-9 ATTACHMENT F DRAFT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Priority Transit Corridors & Centers Map
F-10 ATTACHMENT F
Make Transit Easier
Recommendations
F-11 ATTACHMENT F
Adopt a unified mobility platform: Provide fare payment, trip planning, and real-time vehicle information in one app.
Encourage employer-driven initiatives: Launch a Transportation Management Association (TMA). TMAs are non-profit or municipal agencies working within a designated area to promote transit, work towards sustainability goals, and improve communication among stakeholders.
Enhance first and last mile connections: Enable more RECOMMENDATIONS people to use fixed route transit through access to shared mobility services and better bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Strengthen coordination among providers: Engage community partners and provide avenues for better coordination among transportation providers of all modes including community transportation, volunteer driver programs, and MaineCare brokers.
Improve door to door options: Expand options for riders who need door-to-door service (because of mobility challenges or Make Transit Easier geography) including microtransit and other same-day service options like expanded volunteer driver programs.
F-12 ESTIMATED COSTS ATTACHMENT F Make Transit Easier
Estimated 10-Year Costs (Total = $9.5M)
ADA Improvements at 100 Stops Transit Mini-Hubs (5) Additional Benches (200) Volunteer Driver $4,000,000 $1,000,000 and Shelters (50) Program ADA Improvements for approximately $200,000 per mini-hub $950,000 $750,000 100 stops identified in the TSAP report. $1,000 per bench $75,000 per year for one (Approximately $40,000 per stop). $15,000 per shelter community
TMA $700,000 Unified mobility platform Mobility Manager $200,000 initial + $50,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 per year (can be $500,00 initial + $50,000 per year supplemented by employer $80,000 per year for one dues or parking revenues) Based on similar projects from Mobility Manager IndyGo and Memphis Area Transit Authority Ridematch Technology $300,000 $200,000 initial + $10,000 per year
F-13 ATTACHMENT F
Create Frequent Connections
Recommendations
F-14 RECOMMENDATIONS 2020–2050 ATTACHMENT F Create Frequent Connections
• Improve frequency / service hours of Naples existing routes
Brunswick 10 min peak / 20 min off-peak
Freeport 6am to midnight, 7 days per week
Yarmouth Cumberland Standish • Add new high frequency circulator routes Windham Falmouth Westbrook • Expand transit service to new locations Gorham Portland
Scarborough South Portland
Cape Elizabeth Saco
Old Orchard Beach
Biddeford Downtown Circulator New Route F-15 ATTACHMENT F Improve Frequency / Service Hours of Existing Routes
Estimated Vehicle and 1-Year Operating Costs
Vehicle Cost Operating Costs
$6 Improve frequency by 25% ESTIMATED COSTS $5
$12 Improve frequency by 50% $10
$18 Improve frequency by 75% $15
Create Frequent Connections $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 Estimated Costs (millions)
F-16 ATTACHMENT F Expand Local Transit Service
Estimated Vehicle and 1-Year Operating Costs
Vehicle Cost Operating Costs
$32 15-min peakDowntown / 30-min Circulators off-peak (15-min(most peak proposed / 30-min routes) off peak) ESTIMATED COSTS $25
Downtown Circulators $64 10-min+ New peak Local / 30-min Connections off peak (all proposed routes) (10-min peak / 20-min off peak) $48
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80
Estimated Costs (millions) Create Frequent Connections
F-17 ATTACHMENT F
Introduce Rapid Transit
Recommendations
F-18 INTRODUCE RAPID TRANSIT ATTACHMENT F Rapid Transit Options
Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Commuter Rail Health Line, Cleveland, OH MAX Light Rail, Portland, OR Amtrak Downeaster, ME, NH, MA
F-19 INTRODUCE RAPID TRANSIT ATTACHMENT F Bus Rapid Transit Examples
Richmond, VA
Cleveland, OH
Example Bus Rapid Transit Rendering Forest Avenue, Portland F-20 INTRODUCE RAPID TRANSIT ATTACHMENT F Bus Rapid Transit Examples
Richmond, VA BRT Length: 7.6 mi Construction: $69M
TIGER Grant Municipalities $29M $8.3M
State $32M F-21 RECOMMENDATIONS 2020–2050 ATTACHMENT F Introduce Rapid Transit
10 minutes peak/20 minutes off-peak
Brunswick 6 am – midnight, 7 days per week
Freeport
Windham
Cumberland Yarmouth
Falmouth 39% of people
Gorham 40% of jobs Portland
Scarborough South Portland
Cape Elizabeth 34% of older adults Saco Old Orchard Beach 58% of racial/ethnic minorities Biddeford 54% of people living in poverty F-22 ATTACHMENT F Bus Rapid Transit Corridors
Estimated Capital Costs
Low Range High Range
North Windham $2.5 $83.5
ESTIMATED COSTS South Portland $2.4 $120.6
Gorham/Westbrook $3.3 $142.9
Brunswick $5.6 $213.2
Biddeford-Saco $7.3 $330.5
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 Introduce Rapid Transit Estimated Capital Costs (millions)
F-23 ATTACHMENT F Light Rail Transit Corridors
Estimated Capital Costs
Low Range High Range
Westbrook/Gorham $.8 $1.3
ESTIMATED COSTS Biddeford-Saco $3.8 $6.3
Brunswick $5.0 $8.5
$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0
Estimated Capital Costs (billions)
Introduce Rapid Transit
F-24 ATTACHMENT F Increased Downeaster Service
Estimated Track Improvement Costs
Low Range High Range
Westbrook $29.0 $44
Brunswick to Wells $24.0 $100
$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 ESTIMATED COSTS Estimated Costs (millions)
Estimated Station Costs
Thompson's Point $1
Rock Row $1
Downtown Westbrook $1
Deering Junction $1 Introduce Rapid Transit West Falmouth $3 Portland $20
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 Estimated Costs (millions) F-25 ATTACHMENT F
Invest in low-cost, high-return initiatives in the short term
Phase projects and programs FUNDING Work together STRATEGIES Quantify return on investment
Leave no funding stone unturned – anything is possible
F-26 ATTACHMENT F
DISCUSSION What are the most important actions the region should take over the next 10 years?
Transit Tomorrow
F-27 RECOMMENDATIONS ATTACHMENT F Overview of Estimated Costs
Make Transit Easier Create Frequent Connections Introduce Rapid Transit Mobility Improvements Improve Frequency Bus Rapid Transit $4M ADA improvements (100) $11M Improve frequency by 25% $7M - $331M Biddeford-Saco $1M Unified mobility platform $22M Improve frequency by 50% $6M - $213M Brunswick $1M Transit mini-hubs $33M Improve frequency by 75% $3M - $84M North Windham $950k Benches (200) shelters (50) $3M - $143M Gorham Expand Service $800k Mobility Manager $2M - $120M South Portland New routes (most) $750k Volunteer driver program $57M New routes (all) Light Rail Transit $700k Transp. Management Association $111M $3.8B - $6.3B Biddeford-Saco $300k Ridematch technology $5B - $8.5B Brunswick $782M - $1.3B Westbrook Increased Downeaster Service $29M - $44M Westbrook $24M - $100M Brunswick -Wells
*Estimated 10-yr costs *Estimated 1-yr costs (vehicle and operating) *Capital costs only F-28 ATTACHMENT F
Online Survey ADDITIONAL Forthcoming FEEDBACK? Email Project Manager Rick Harbison, Senior Planner [email protected]
Transit Tomorrow
F-29