AGENDA BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEEboardarchives.metro.net/Other/BOS/BOS_1_018.pdf · Metropolitan...

MetropolitanTransportation

Authority

One Gateway Plaza

LosAngeles, CA

90012-2952

AGENDABUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2000 )~)~ 9:30 - 11:30 A.M.

ONE GATEWAY PLAZALOS ANGELES, CA 90012

o

o

m

Call to Order

Approval of May 30, 2000 Minutes(Attachment 1, Page@

Chair’s Comments

Legislative Update(Attachment 2, Page 3)

MTA Long Range Plan Presentation(Oral Presentation)

Call for Projects Update(Attachment 3, 2)

Fare Policy/Coordination With Transit Operators(Attachment 4, Page 30)

MTA Strategic Business Plan Update(Attachment 5, Page 33)

Municipal Operator Document Status(Attachment 6, Page 39)

David Feinberg, Chair

Michael Turner

Cosette Stark

Heather Hills

Nalini Ahuja

April MeKay

Andy Galindez

10. New BusinessApproval of Proposition A 40% Discretionary MOU

11. Information ItemsMTA Labor Negotiations Update

ADJOURN TO JULY 25, 2000

ATTACHMENT "1"

Approval of May 30, 2000 Minutes

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTESMEETING OF MAY 30, 2000

Meeting called to order at 9:40 a.m.

Members Present:

Fernando Mendoza, Commerce Municipal Bus LinesSamantha Blackshire, Culver CityAndre Colaiace, Foothill TransitBob Hildebrand, Gardena Municipal Bus LinesDavid Rzepinski, LADOTBryrm Kemaghan, Long Beach TransitKathtyn Engel, Montebello Municipal Bus LinesJosee Larochelle, MTA OperationsNicole Kvarda, Santa Cladta TransitDavid Feinberg, Santa Monica’s Big Blue BusJoseph Voigt, La Mimda TransitBrad Lindahl, Redondo Beach WaveAnthony Rose, Torrance Transit

1. CHAIR REMARKS

David Feinberg called for approval of the minutes of the April 25, 2000 meeting. Joseph Low of Gardenanoted that he had not requested a change of date for Transit Week but had asked when it was held. Withthis change noted, Kathryn Engel moved for approval of the minutes and Brynn Kemaghan motioned tosecond the approval. The minutes were approved. David and Brynn went to Sacramento to convey theBOS support for AB 2643, which deals with the fair share of the Proposition C - 40% Discretionarymonies. The bill was approved in the Assembly by a 70 to 3 vote and was sent to the Senate. David andBrynn also made a presentation to the MTA Board at their May 25, 2000 meeting in support of this bill.The MTA Board said it was neutral and would continue to work with operators. The MTA Board alsoapproved the FY 2001 funding marks at their May meeting.

2. NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE REVIEW

Scott Greene of MTA noted that the reporting of transit data would be submitted via the Interact. Cdngress :asked the FTA to look into fixing the 2 year lag in data reporting. This data would include fare revenue, "number of vehicles, cost of operations, ere .... The purpose of ref’ming the reporting system for this data isto get more real time data. The FTA will go back to Congress later this year to relay their fmdings. ̄ ¯ ’ ’

/~.’7~ ,,...,3. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE ,..: .. .

Michael Turner of MTA gave the legislative update. The assembly approved the budget on FridaY. AB1612 has various stipulations. It would increase the PTA account and add funds for street and road repair.There was a move by State Senator Tom Hayden to include language into the amendment that wouldresa’ict money to the MTA for consent decree purposes. SCA 3 would reduce the voting requirements topass transportation sales taxes from two thirds to a simple majority.

4. FY2000 ABBREVIATED CALL FOR PROJECTS STATUS UPDATE/FUNDING MARKS

Heather Hills of MTA discussed the upcoming Abbreviated Call for Projects. There will be a meeting withthe executive staff next week to approve projects. The colored information sheets will be released on

Monday, June 12, 2000. They will be delivered over night to TAC members. BOS members that desirethis information can call Heather on Monday, June 12, and she will distribute/mail hard copies. There are$170 million allocated in the call for projects for transit capital.

5. RE-CERTIFICATION OF CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR 2000-01

Wanda Knight of MTA gave an update on the re-certification of projects from previous Call for Projects.The re-certification process involves annual re-approval of projects that have been approved through thenormal call. This year, the MTA will be re-approving projects programmed for FY2000-01. The processinvolves the de-obligation of funds that have lapsed and that are no longer being used. There will be achange in the lapsing policy. The lapsing of funds will be revised to match STIP policy that allows 4 yearsto draw funds. There will be a Prop C-40% fund swap for projects that were approved as Prop C-25%. Iraproject is de-obligated, the recipient will be able to appeal to TAC as well as the MTA board.

6. UNIVERSAL FARE SYSTEM UPDATE

Jane Matsumoto of MTA gave a briefing on the Universal Fare System (UFS). The Board directed MTAstaffto combine the specifications for the bus fare boxes and rail ticket vending machines (TVM).Approval from the board was obtained to proceed with the RFP. The contract will be awarded in early2001. The fare boxes will be install from mid-2001 throughout 2002. The TVMs will be in place by 2003.Jane said that in order to address all of BOS concerns she had invited the BOS committee to participate inthe procurement selection process. She said that the process was on schedule.

7. FARE POLICY/COORDINATION WITH TRANSIT OPERATORS

Nalini Ahuja of MTA said that there would be new fare boxes for the rail system. Julian Burke wants toinstitute seamless travel throughout the County. This means joint passes and a more unified fare policywith perhaps a countywide pass. Kathryn Engel wants the policy discussions to be brought to the BOS.Arum Prem from ASI wants a broader based fare system and ASI is interested in participating in itsimplementation. Nalini will prepare a fare policy work plan and will fax it to members a week before thenext BOS meeting.

8. GOVE1LNOR’S STIP ADVANCE INITIATIVE

Vic Kamhi of MTA discussed the Governor’s STIP plan. The Govemor’s plan specifies that $400 milliona year for 7 years would be given to local cities for street and road maintenance. $100 million would begiven to CALTRANS for their maintenance program. He also proposed moving $100 million of statemoney and moving it into the PTA account. Bob Hildebrand asked Kamhi to return to BOS when the billpasses the legislature to explain the new guidelines.

9. NEW BUSINESS

Doug Kim of MTA said that air quality conformity is not achievable in Los Angeles County because thesmog check program did not work as proposed. All plans that the MTA proposes must remain within airquality specifications established by AQMD. The MTA cemented the fate of AB 1992 with the votes tobuy 370 CNG buses instead of clean diesel, as MTA staffhad proposed. Andy Galindez of MTA handedout the latest version of the Proposition A - 40% Discretionary MOU. There will be a conference callbefore the next BOS meeting to agree on the MOU and to place it in next month’s agenda for approval.Meeting adjourned until June 27, 2000 at MTA headquarters.

ATTACHMENT "2"

Legislative Update

Local, ~tate and l~ederal Legislative Matrix (2nd Session) Page 1 of 10

The following is an update ofmaj6r legislation that affects you and your transportation needs. Thispage will be periodically updated as needed.

1999/00 LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVEMATRIX

(2nd Session)

Last Update - June 5, 2000

l’roposal/Actions$200 IVhllionAgreement with th~City of Los Angeles

Valleytransportation Zone

LOCALDescription

lhe MTA and the LosAngeles City Council signedan agreement July 24, 1997,that committed the City toproviding the MTA $200million over eight years toassist with the construction ofthe MTA’s rail program.

On September 29, the MTABoard of Directors voted toapprove a draft amendment tothe Agreement. Discussionsbetween the MTA and theCity of Los Angeles arezontinuing.On August 26, 1998, the LosAngeles City Councilapproved a motion to exploredae feasibility of atransportation zone in the SanFemando Valley.

~4tatusOn February 16 the Los Angeles City Correctvoted to approve the City TransportationCommittee report which recommends paying theMTA the balance of $34.1 million for the MetroRail North Hollywood extension project.Approval is contingent upon the provision of250 parking spaces for the Universal CityStation.

Dn January 5, 2000, the Transportation2ommittee of the City of Los Angeles approved:he Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) andDepartment of Transportation (LADOT) reports;vhich recommend that the City enter into an:nterim Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with eight)ther cities and the County of Los Angeles, andzontinue the process of establishing the Zone.

On January 11, 2000 the Los Angeles City2ouncil authorized entering into an interim JPA.Fhe interim JPA provides that the City of Losa, ngeles shall have four of the nine votes on theZone Board.

On February 8, 2000 the City and County of LosAngeles submitted a list of representativesnamed to serve on the interina Joint Powers

http://www.mta.net/eorporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 6~1/00

of 10

101 - 405 FreewayInterchange

lhe Los Angeles CityCouncil established a taskforce to identifyimprovements and studysolutions that could be inplace within five years torelieve the traffic congestionat the interchange.

Agreement (JPA) zone board to determine thefeasibility of establishing a transit zone in theSan Fernando Valley.

On April 10, the JPA elected its first officerswith Los Angeles County Supervisor ZevYaroslovsky as President and Los Angeles CityCouncilman Alex Padilla as Vice-President.

On July 29, 1999, the MTA Board adopted the1999 TIP Call for Projects which includes $8.2million in funding for two lane additions at. the101-405 interchange.

On January 7, 2000 the Los Angeles CityCouncil will consider a motion by CouncilMembers Laura Chick and Hal Bernsoninstructing LADOT, in conjunction withCaltrans, the Metropolitan Transit Authority andthe Southern California Association ofGovernments, to prepare and present a report toCouncil, addressing all studies or researchcurrently underway about relieving congestionalong the 101 Freeway Corridor, by February 1,2000.

On April 19, 2000, the LA City Councilapproved the LADOT report on an analysis ofTransportation Improvements for the 101Freeway Corridor.

Any inquiries regarding MTA’s local legislative program may be directed to Wilbur Babb, Jr. [email protected].

I Bill / Author

M$ 44

MeClintock)

8/16/99

STATE ASSEMBLYl)cscrlptlOli i, . ,: " " ~:y~::. "

OpposeMandates the re-designation of allexisting High OccupancyVehicles (HOV) mixed flow-lanes anddirects a study beconducted on theefficacy of HOV lanes.

Faded passage ~n Assemblytransportation Committee,lanuary 10, 2000

Died in Assembly February 1,2000

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 6/21/00

lyyy/uu Local, ~tate ana Peaerai Legislatlve Matrix (2nd Session)

Wildman/

Hertzberg)

357

’Calderon)

LA3~/00

~irebaugh)

..A $/14/99

AB 958

(Scott)

LA 8/17/99

AB 1303

(Florez)

LA 3/1/00

-nmnl~t~. onnqf~n~otinn of

~ Amended biiiallows MTA to provideeha~er bus se~iee forDemoe~tie NationalConvention in August2000, Urgency clause isincluded.Original bill added $43~llion to $15 million~ffthe top of StateHi#way Accountf~ding for gradesep~ation projects~oughout the state.~ended bill for a:epo~ on the sufficiency9f ~rade sep~ation~rojects.

Directs a studyConducted to assesstraffic congestion onRoute 710, the LongBeach Corridor. TheMTA Board Urged thebill be amended to be~ermissive not amandate. The bill wasamended to make it~ermissive.

Provides a clearer)rocess for the utilizationby local agencies of the:lesign-build~rocurement authorityestablished in 1996.

Would reallocate a9ortion of the statewidegas tax to specifiedaccounts.

Support

Sponsor

No position

Support withAmendment

Support

Work w~thAuthor ifamended

tn Senate Transportation2ommittee, 6/6

Amended in Senate

Re-referred to Senaterransportation Committee

Withdrawn from Senate Rules3ommittee, 4/25

~ereferred to Senate!Governmental OrganizationCommittee, 4/25

In Senate TransportationCommittee

this bill has passed thedeadline to be considered forthis session

Amended in Senate

Re-referred to Senatel’ransportation Committee

Page 3 of 10

o5http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 6/21/00

AB 1425

LA 8/16/99

1612

Todakson)

LA 5/23100

1765

Maddox )

1776

fMcClintock)

AB 1871

(Runner)

LA 5/15100

?rovldes that fundingidentified as the federal:egional surfacexansportation programfunds would not merely~e added to the overallBTIP for distribution, butFather be apprrtioned tometropolitan planning~rganizations, or inSouthern California, to:ounty transportation:ommissions based uponpopulation. Committeeamendment added toapportion 20% of thefunds to environmental;nhancement programs.

Creates theTransportation andCongestion relief andlocal road improvementacconnt in StateTransportation Fund.

Makes substantivechanges to theLACMTA’s benefitassessment districts.

Allows the ¢dovernor todeclare a state oftransportation "gridlock"~mergency.

Prohibits any high-?ccupancy vehicle lanefrom being established)n State Route 14between the City SantaClarita and City of)almdale.

Sponsor

Work withAuthor/Return

to Board

Oppose

Neutral

No position

in Senate AppropriationsCommittee, suspense file,8/16/99

This bill has passed thedeadline to be considered forthis session

Amended in Senate

Re-referred to SenateAppropriations Committee

Died in AssemblyTransportation Committee,April 3

Failed passage in AssemblyTransportation Committee,April 10

Passed Assembly, 5/30

In Senate

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 6/21/00

Local, btate and Vederal Leglslative Matrix (2nd Session)

931 sponsored 0y the Support!Southern California

(Longville) Regional Rail Authority(Metrolink) and proposing an increase infunding for Metrolinkservices.

AB 2373

(Longville)

2607

y, Znox)

5/15100

2643

(Calderon)

AB 2742

(Baugh andStfickland)

Redistributes the locallygenerated Call Boxfunding on a statewidebasis. The Call Boxprogram is funded by a$1 surcharge on vehicleregistration in countieswhich voted for theincrease. This bill wouldredistribute those fundsbased on highway milesand population.

:ompeas,atXa~ Amendedbill does not directlytmpact the MTA.

Measure sponsored bvnunicipal operators inLos Angeles Countyaddressing fundingallocations by the MTA.~kmended bill specifies:ertain fundin~ sourcesand identifies that~ITA can not divertt’unding sources andIhat earmarked MTA[’unding is not subjectIo the requirements ofIhe bill.Would shxtt the sales:axes on gasoline sales to:ounty transportation:ommissions (CTC) and:egional/trausportation)lanning agencies(RTPA) based population. The bill

Oppose

Neutral

No positionon amended

bill

Work w~thAuthor

Passed in Assembly, 5/30

In Senate

Amended in Assembly, 5/22

[-Ieard in Assembly~xppropriations Committee,5/24, remains in committee

Passed in AssemblyAppropriations Committee,5/24


In Senate


In Senate

Assembly Transportation andRevenue and TaxationCommittees

Page 5 of 10

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/g~ 99 00 matrix.htm 6/21/00

AB 2816

(Kuehl)

At3 2835

(Hertzberg)

~,A 5/8/00

51$14

(Rainey)

~A 9/I0/99

SIS 315

Burton/

Kamette)

LA 9/1/99

a~ould also allocate $156~aillion annually from:he General Fund for:ransportation purposes:o CTC’s and RTPA’s in:he fiscal years 2001 to2005

Would authorize theMTA to conduct a study~fthe 101 Freeway in aspecified portion of theSan Fernando Valley

Measure 1s apparently a"spot" bill and wouldmake non-substantivechanges to theCongestion ManagementProgram Statutes.

Requires tile Departmentof Transportation(Caltrans) to complete study setting forthcriteria for determiningthe "effectiveness" ofHOV lanes. Mandatesthat Caltrans cannotdesignate or constructany new HOV lanes untilstudy is completed.Amended to a study billonly. Tiffs bill has beenamended to beunrelated to the MTA.

?rovldeS that a bondaaeasure be placed on the~allot. Part of a packet otmeasures, SCA 3 and SR8, relating to funding tbrCalifornia’stransportation capitalaeeds.

Support withAmendments

Neutral

Oppose,unless

amended

As alnended,now neutral

Support

In Assembly TransportationCommittee


[n Senate

Senate unfinished business

2-year bill

2onference Committee

~.-year bill

rage

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 6/21/00 C)~

I VVV/OO Local, State and _Federal Legislative Matrix (2nd Session)

~tl 1101 Demgnates transportation Opposecones as organizational

(Murray) anits of the MTA withits employees; to be part~fthe same collectivebargaining agreements as

LA 5/31100 :epresented by theVITA. Provisionsmaended into SB 372.

111)2

(Murray)

LA 1/24/00

SB 1426

,’Rainey)

LA 3/8/00

5B 1427

~ainey)

~,A 4/27/00

Amended Bill wouldapply the AB 89restrictions to any newtransit zones. Amended~n Senate TransportationCommittee, "held off thefloor," to provide that thefour-year retroactive~rovision does not applyto the Transit Zoneentities and contractorsdoing business withthose entities.

Would shirt tax tundsfrom the PublicTransportation Accountto cities and counties forstreet and road repair.

Would reinstate a taxcredit for employers xvho~rovide transit passes fortheir employees.

No position

Work withAuthor

Support

Read and amended inAssembly, 5/31

Re-referred to AssemblyAppropriations Committee

Hearing in AssemblyFransportation Committee,5112

Failed in SenateTransportation Committee,4/25

Reconsideration granted

Heard in Senate Revenueand Taxation Committee,5/17, remains in committee

Page 7 of 10

http://www.mta.neffcorporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 6/21/00

1428

"Kamette)

Burton)

.A 8/16/99

Repeals the sunset~rovision on FreewayService Patrol programsand makes other~mprovements.

Original measure~rovided that localtransportation sales taxescan be approved by amajority vote, rather thanthe 2/3rds vote requiredby state Constitution fortax measures. Amendedmeasure provides for a;tatewide sales tax with arequirement that "non-transportation sales taxcounties" must submit anexpenditure plan tovoters on a countywideballot. Currenttransportation sales taxcounties could extendtheir measures with avote of the CountyTransportation AuthorityBoard. This measure ascurrently written, has noimpact on Los AngelesCounty transportationsales tax measures. Partof a packet of measures,SR 8 and SB 315,relating to funding forCalifornia’stransportation capital:needs.

bnpport/Co-Sponsor

Suppog

[’assed in Senate, 5/31100

In Assembly

~’mled passage ~n Assembly,-)/7

t’age not 10

Deferred = bill will be brought up at another time: Chaptered = bill has become law; LA = Last Amended; Enrolled = billsent to Governor for approval or veto; and. Held in Committee = bill is dead for this calendar year, could beconsidered next calendar year

Any inquiries regarding MTA’s state legislative program may be directed to C.A. Moody [email protected].

http://www.mta.netlcorporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 00 matrix.htm 6/21/00 [C)

,,, Iy~V/UU,, LOCal, btate aria _vederal Legislative Matrix (2nd Session) Page 9 of 10

FEDERAL LEGISLATION1~111 / AutllOr ~ ~ ~scr.~ptlol,

[I gtatusFY 2001 lhe MIA has submitted the tollowing P’Y 2001 The House

Transportation ~ppropriations request: AppropriationsAppropriations Committee received

Request $50 million in Section 5309 Fixed Guideway- submitted testimonyDiscretionary Funding to be used toward the March 31; the Senateconstruction of the Metro Rail North Hollywood AppropriationsExtension; Committee received

MTA Fact submitted testimony onSheet ;50 million in Section 5309 Bus and Bus Related April 7.

Facilities Program-Discretionary Funding;Passed the House

;15 million for the Eastside and Mid-City Transit AppropriationsMTA draft Corridors in Section 5309 Fixed Guideway- Subcommittee on

letter of Discretionary Funding for this FFGA projects; transportation, 5/8support

~5 million for the San Femando Valley Transit Corridor [n Senate AppropriationsMTA draft [n Section 5309 Fixed Guideway-Discretionary Subcommittee onresolution ?unding; l’ransportation, 6/6

~4 million in Section 5309 Funds for ATTB; [n Senate Appropriations2ommittee, 6/8

~6 million in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)?unding;

$5 million in Reverse Comlnute/Jobs Access Funding;and,

$1.15million in Transportation and Community andSystem Preservation Program Funds.

lt.R. 4475 (In May ~ the ilouse ApproprnUions Subcommittee Passed on House Floor,on Transportation marked up the following 5/19

[louse earmarks for the MTA:rransportation In SenateA.ppropriations $50 million in Section 5309 Fixed Guideway- Appropriations

Discretionary Funding to be used toward the Subcommittee onconstruction of the Metro Rail North Hollywood transportation, 6/6Extension;

1;9 million in Section 5309 Bns aud Bus RelatedFacilities Program-Discretionary Funding; and,

t;4 million for the Eastside aud Mid-City TransitCorridors in Section 5309 Fixed Guideway-Discretionary Funding for this FFGA projects.

Any inquiries regarding MTA’s federal legislative program may be directed to C.A. Moody [email protected] or Marisa Valdez Yeager at y_ct3g(:rm~mta net.

Government RelationsLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

http://www.mta.net/corporate/depts/govtrela/gr_99 O0 matrix.htm 6/21/00

Attachment "3"

Call for Projects Update

PROJECTTITLEPROJ PROJECTSPONSOR

MODE NUM PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1 6 7018 Transit Vehicle Procurement to Implement theNo,walk/Whittier Shuttle Project and to ReduceHeadwaysNorwalk

Procurement of Four (4) Transit Vehicles

MTA 2000 STIP CALL FOR PROJECTSPROJECT APPLICATION SUMMARY

INFLATED $ (IN $000)

MAXIMUM EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLE80 30 20

REG SIG, PROJTOTAL AMOUNT BENEFIT AND COST PROJECT

FISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI-YEAR EXPENSE REQ’D

FY01 $1,346 $1,019

FY02 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0

Total $1,346 $1,019

MENDED INTEGRATION TIVENESS NES8

$t,019

CUM-AMOUNTTOTAL RECOMMENDEDSCORE FY01 -FY04

2 6 7020 Additional parking at Newhall Metrolink Station

Santa Claflta

To provide for adequate parking at NewhallMetrolink Station including Park & Ride, Kiss &Ride and Handicap-access spaces.

FY01 $2,246 $1,413 $1,413

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $2,246 $1,4t3 $1,413

3 6 7039 The Palmdale Transportation Center

Palmdale

Multimodal Transportation Center linkingMetroLInk, future High Speed Rail, Local andRegional Bus se~,lce, Palmdale ReglonalAirport, along with other clmulation modes.

FY01 $5,396 $3,778 $2,992

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $5,396 $3,778 $2,992

Thumday, June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM Page 1

MODE

4 6

PROJECT TITLEPROJ PROJECT SPONSORNUM PROJECT DESCRiPTiON

7008 Long Beach Transit Expansion Buses

Long Beach Transit

Purchase 11 buses to expand service onseveral Long Beach Transit routes.



TOTAL AMOUNTFISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM-YEAR EXPENSE REQ’D MENDED

FY01 $4,099 $3,279 $3,279

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 , $0 $0

MAXIMUM EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLES0 30 20

REG SIG, PROJBENEFIT AND COST PROJECTINTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI- TOTALiNTEGRATION TWENESS NESS SCORE

Total $4,099 $3.279 $3,279

CUM-AMOUNTRECOMMENDEDFY01-FY04

8 6 7008 Pumhase of Three Expansion, Local Fixed-RouteTransit Buses

Antelope Valley Transit Authority

Purchase end place three expansion, localfixed-route transit buses into Immediate revenueservice to relieve peak-period overcrowding oncore routes.

FY01 $866 $693

FY02 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0

Total $886 $693

~$693

~ $0

6 6 7023 Get About Fleet Improvement

Pomona Valley Transportation Authoflty

Purchase of eighteen, 21-passenger vehicles toincrease capacity of Po.,m~_ .he ValleyTransportation Authority $ Get Aboutsubregional paratranslt system.

FY01 $1,192 $834 $834

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $1,192 $8~4 $834

Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM Page 2

PROJECT TITLEPROJ PROJECT SPONSOR


7 6 7002 Athens/Lennox/Willowbrook/FIorence, Et Ah BusShelter Installation

Los Angeles County

The installation of bus benches and shelter Inthe unincoq)orated County area ofAthens/Lennox/WillowbrooWFIorence.





FISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI-YEAR EXPENSE REQ’D

FY01 $621 $1,594

FY02 $0 $0

FY03 . $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0

MENDED INTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS

Total $621 $1,$94 $931

CUM-AMOUNTTOTAL RECOMMENDEDSCORE FY01-FY04

8 6 7009 Antelope Valley Line Improvements

SCRRA

Increase rail passenger service by providingsignal improvements, alignment changes on theAntelope Valley Line.

FY01 $2,360 $2,360 $662

FY02 $9,084 $9,084 $1,671

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $11,~.~. $11,~.~~. $2,333

9 6 7012 Local NTD Rep0dera’ Bus Fleet ExpansionProgram

Baldwin Park

Purchase buses to expand service capacityalong the fixed mutes of local NTD reporters(dries of Eatdwin Park, Compton, Et Monte,Monterey Park and West Covina).

FY01 ~1,056 $845 $845

FY02 $1,093 $874 $874

FY03 $687 $550 $550

FY04 $861 $689 $689

Total $3,696 $2,957 $2,957

Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM ~age 3



I0 6 7004 Veh~cte Acqu~sitlon for East Los Angeles FixedRoute Shuttle Service - Phase II

Los Angeles County

Purchase 3 vehicles to increase servicefrequency of the existing three shuttle serviceroutes to shopping centers, schools, andcommunity centers in the unincorporated EastLos Angeles area of Los Angeles County.

11 6 7019 Santa Clarita Regional Transit Center

Santa Clarita

The Transit Center will serve as a timed transferfacility for all local bus routes. It will providepassenger amenltites such as rostrooms,coveredwaitlng areas and security.




FY01 $776 $518 $518 "

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $778 $818 $5t8

FY01 $3,101 $1,035 $1,035

FY02 $0 $0 $0

W03 S0 S0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

MAXIMUM EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLE80 ~o 2o

REG SIO, PROJBENEFIT AND COST PROJECTINTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI- TOTALINTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS SCORE

Total $3,10"1 $1,035 Sl,038

CUM-AMOUNTRECOMMENDEDFY01 -FY04

12 6 7034 Sun Valley Intermodal Transit Center-PedestrianCrosslng/Bt~s Stop Improvement

Los Angeles Depadment of Transportation

Project is located on San Femando Road WestIn the Sun Valley community of Los Angeles Inthe northeast San Femando Valley between themajor Intersections of Sunland Boulevard andPenrose Street. Ollnda Street, locatedapproximately midway between these majorintersections, is the present location of theunimproved bus stop and the new MetrolinkStation.

FY01 $311 $248 $248

FY02 $750 $600 $600

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 S0 S0 $0

Total $1,060 $848 $848

Thursdav. June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM

MODE

13 6

14 6

PROJECT TITLEPROJ PROJECTSPONSORNUM PROJECT DESCRIPTION

7024 Metro Red Line - Melrose Shuttle

7112

Los Angeles City

Acquisition of two low-floor, propane powered,30 foot buses to be used in the operation of newshuttle linking the Hollywood-Vine Red Linestation and the Wllshlre.Westam Red LineStation with major employment sites inHollywood.

Avalon Cabdllo Mole Ferry Terminal Expansion

Avalon

Expansion of the floats, upgrading of the wharfand addition of a fender system to eccomodatanew larger boats.




FY01 $518 $414 $414

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $518 $414 $414

MAXIMUM EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLE80

REG SIG, PROJBENEFIT ANDINTER-MODALINTEGRATION

30 20

COST PROJECTEFFEC- READI- TOTALTIVENESS NESS SCORE

FY01 $1,211 $969 $259

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $1,211 $969 $259


15 6 7026 Metro Red Line - West Hollywood/Beverty Center-Cedar Sinai Shuttle

Los Angeles City

Acquisition of seven low-floor,propane powered,30-foot buses to be used in operation of newcommunity shuttles.

FY01 $1,911 $1,449 $1,449

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $t,811 $1,449 $1,449




16 6 7029 Mid-Cities et al Transit Hubs

Los Angeles City

The Mid-Cities Los Angeles Bus TransitRestructuring Study, jointly sponsored by MTAand LADOT, recommended enhancedpassenger facilities for bus stops with thegreates| number of daily boardings.



MAXIMUM EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLE60’ 30 20


FISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI-YEAR EXPENSE REQ’D MENDED INTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS

FY01 $103 $83 $58

FY02 $750 $600 $240

FY03 $776 $621 $310

CUM-AMOUNTTOTAL RECOMMENDEDSCORE FY0t -FY04

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $t,629 $1,304 $608

17 6

16 6

7047 Inglewood Bus Transit Center Phase 2

Inglewood

Bus shelter and combined-use security, businformation and public restroom building toserve FTA-Funded Transit Center for MTA andshuttle buses.

~ II JB ¯

7000 Torrance Courthouse Park-and-Ride Lot

Los Angeles County

Constructing a park-and-ride lot at the nodhwestcorner of C vtc Center Drive and Map!e Avenuein the City of Torrance.

FY01 $495 $395 $395

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $495 $395

FY01,1,035$569 $0FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $t,035 $869 $0

’ 1:14:10.83 PM PageThursday, June 08, 2000

MODE

19 S

PROJECT TITLEPROJ PROJECT SPONSORNUM PROJECT DESCRIPTION

7030 Advanced Transit Management System forCommuter Express andDASH Services

Los Angeles City

This project will fund the estabflshment of anAdvanced Transit Management and PassengerInformation System for Commuter Express andDASH services In the City of Los Angeles.



TOTALFISCAL PROJECT AMOUNTYEAR EXPENSE REQ’D


REG SIC, PROJAMOUNT BENEFIT AND COST PROJECTRECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFECo READI- TOTALMENDED INTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS SCORE

FYO1 $559 $447

FY02 $279 $223

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $837 $670 $0


20 6 7032 DASH Downtown Enhancements

Los Angeles City

DASH Downtown vehicle enhancement - A"smart" technology vehicle retrofit of the newDASH Low Floor vehicles.

FY01 $402 $337 $0~

FY02 $21 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $423 $331 ~9

21 6 7017 Santa Monlca College Ride Share

Santa Monica College

Provides a Park & Ride for commuters travelingacross town via Plco Blvd or the 10 Fwy andlocal shuttle service to major business areas inSanta Monlca.

FY01 $210 $107 $0 ~FY02 $3,337 $1,757 $0

FY03 $1,583 $506 $0

FY04 $734 $0 $0

Total $S,865 $2,369 $0

Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM Page



22 6 7011 Metrolink Systemwlde PlatformExtensions/Additlons

SCRRA

Evaluate Metrolink stations to determine whichones need platform extensions or additionalplatforms and construct the highest priodtypassenger platform extenslonsJeddJtloneo




MAXIMUM EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLES0 30 20

REG SIG, PROJAMOUNT BENEFIT AND COST PROJECTRECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI-MENDED INTEGRATION TNENESS NESS

FY01 $19,044 $9,315 $0

FY02 $11,922 $0 $0

FY03 $2,217 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $33,t84 $9,315 $0

CUMoAMOUNTTOTAL RECOMMENDEDSCORE FY01-FY04

23 6 7015 Calabasas Smart Park Faci;ity

Calabasas

Acquire land owned by private owner, McCoy &Sons, to construct a Park-&-Ride andPark-&-Blke Facilities. Serve cerpoola,vanpoola, shuttle service, transit users, cyclistsand other modes to reduce congestion endimprove air quality.

FY01 $0 $0 $0

F¥02 $1,992 $1,173 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $1,992 $1,173 $0

24 6 7027 Chatsworth Metrolink Shuttle

Los Angeles City

Thls fundJng request w|ll finance the acquisitionof one low-floor, propane powered, 30 foot longbus to be used in operating a new communitycirculator route. The bus will have 26 seats or20 seats plus two wheelchair positions when inuse. This in not a replacement bus.

FY01 $259 $207 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Tote! $2S9 $207 $0

Thursday. June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM Page ~ - .

MODE

25 6

PROJECT TITLEPROJ PROJECT SPONSORNUM PROJECT DESCRIPTION

7025 Nodhddge Metrolink StatlonlNodhddge Shuttle

Los Angeles City

Acquisition of two buses for operation of newcommunity shuttle in Northridge.




FY01 $518 $414 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0


REG SIG, PROJAMOUNT BENEFIT AND COST PROJECTRECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI- TOTALMENDED INTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS SCORE


Total $518 $414 $0

26 6

27 6

7010

7031

Storage Yards nearSan Bema~lno and LosAngeles

SCRRA

Conduct sitin~ studies for new commuter trainstorage facilities and build facilities andconnecting tracks in the Inland Empire near theeastern terminus of either the MetrofinkRiverside, San Bemardino or the Inland Empireto Orange County lines and also near LosAngeles.

West Valley Park-and-Ride Lot at Pierce College

Los Angeles City

Develop a park-and-ride facility in conjunctionwith Pierce College that will serve vadous transitlines along Victo~J Boulevard. A portion of thePierce College Lot 7 parking area will beredeveloped for the park-and-ride facility.

FY01 $3,364 $3,364 $0 ~FY02 $12,587 $1,018 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $15,950 $4,381 $0

FY01 $279 $224 $0 ~FY02 $1,960 $1,568 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $2,240 $1,792 $0

Thursday. June 08. 2000 1:14:10.83 PM Page 9



28 6 7007 Long Beach Transit Replacement Buses

Long Beach Transit

Puchase 12 40-foot buses to replace those atthe end of their useful life.



MAXIMUM EVALUATION cRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLE80 30 20

REG SIG, PROJTOTAL AMOUNT BENEFIT AND COST PROJECt

FISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI.YEAR EXPENSE REQ’D

FY01 $0 $0

FY02 $0 $0

FY03 $4,790 $3,832

FY04 $0 $0

MENDED INTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS

$o

Total $4,790 $3,832 $0


29 6 7021 4-Fody-Foot CNG Low Floor Buses to ReplaceAging Diesel Buses "

Culver City Municipal Bus Line

Acquisition of 4 forty-foot CNG low-floor busesto repiece 4 older diesel buses. This will serve "to improve regional air quality and reduce fuelcosts.

FY01 $1,490 $1,192 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

.FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $1,490 $1,192 $0

3O 6 7005 Commuter Rail Station/UPRR Track (Siding)Extension

Pomona

Proposed to construct 8,300 TF of new sidingtrack south of the UPRR mainline, fromMileposts 510.87 to Mileposts 512.44.

FY01 $1,444 $777 $0

FY02 $975 $975 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $2,4t9 $1,752 $0

Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM Page lO ~ ,



31 6 7022 Clammont Transit Cen~r/Bikepath Restmom

Claremont

Constmctlon of a restmom and changing facilitylocated at the Claremont Transit Center andadjacent to a regional bike path.



MAXIMUM EvALUATION CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLE80 30 20,

REG SlG, PROJTOTAL AMOUNT BENEFIT AND COST PROJECT

FISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI-YEAR EXPENSE REQ’D MENDED INTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS

FY01 $16 $12 $0r~ ~ ~

FY02 $204 $163 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0


Total $219 $175 $0

32 6 7014 Downey Depot Traveler Information System

Downey

Assist regional and intra-communlty transitusers traveling through the Downey Depottransit center or the Lakewood Green L=neStation.

FY01 $200 $158 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $200 $158 $0

33 6 7035 Pan Pacific Park/Stanley Avenue Shuttle andIntermodal Center

Los Angeles City

Design and construction of an Intermodal Centeron Stanley Avenue to enhance the commutingexperience with a pleasant transfer and waitingenvironment, including shelters, benches,lighting, trees, bike Iobkers and transitinformation.

FY01 $0 $0 $0

FY02 $2,464 $1,607 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $2,464 $1,607 $0



MODE NUM PROJECTDESCRIPTION

34 6 7036 San Pedro Waterfront Red Car Line

Pod of Los Angeles

The Red Car Line is a public rail transportationline from the World Cruise Center to PodsO’Call the waterfront shopping/dining center andthen extending to commercial shoppingdevelopment at 22nd St,



TOTALFISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM-YEAR EXPENSE REQ’D MENDED

FY01 $6,863 $3,961 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0


REG SIG, PROJAMOUNT BENEFIT AND COST PROJECT

INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI-INTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS

Total $6,863 $3,961 $0


35 6 7016 Compton MLK Transit Center Expansion-MultiModal Transportation Building

Compton

The Compton Regional Multi ModalTransportation Building will house the ComptonRegional Traffic Management and OperationCenter (TMOC) and Renaissance Bus TransitSystem.

36 6 7001 East Los Angeles Bus Shelter Installation

Los Angeles County

The installation of bus benches and shelters inthe unincorporated County area of East LosAngeles.

FY01 $916 $0 $0

FY02 $402 $0 $0

FY03 $1,863 $1,663 $0

FY04 $1,945 $1,721 $0

Total $5,t25 $3,384 $0

FY01 $621 $435 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $62t $435 $0

Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM Page 12 ~.



37 6 7003 Nodh County Bus Shelter Installation

Los Angeles County

The installation of bus benches and shelters inthe unincorporated north County area of LosAngeles County.





FISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI-YEAR EXPENSE REQ’D MENDED INTEGRATION TWENESS NESS

FY01 $1,035 $725 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $1,035 $725 $0


38 6 7013 MTA Blue Line 3-Car Traln Mitigation

Long Beach

Mitigations for MTA Blue Line expansion to3-car train operation including train detection,software development, traffic s gna t ruing,clrculation improvements.

FY01 $1,139 $673 $0

FY02 $161 $161 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $1,299 $833 $0

39 6 7028 South Bay and Gateway Transit Hubs

Los Angeles City

The South Bay and Gateway Bus TransitRestructuring Study, jointly sponsored by MTAand LADOT, recommended enhancedpassenger facilities for bus stops with thegreatest number of daily boardings.

FY01 $124 $99 $0

FY02 $621 $497 $0

FY03 $887 $710 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $1,632 $1,306 $0


MODE

40 6

PROJECT TITLEPROJ PROJECTSPONSORNUM PROJECT DESCRIPTION

7033 Windward Circle Transit Hub

Los Angetes City

The Sixth Distdct Councilmember Officerecommended enhanced passenger facilities fortransit hubs with the greet number of dailyboardings. This project was with project number7029.





REG SIG, PROJAMOUNT BENEFIT AND COST PROJECTRECOM- INTER-MODAL EFFEC- READI- TOTALMENDED INTEGRATION TIVENESS NESS SCORE

FY01 $21 $17 $0~

FY02 $107 $86 $0

FY03 $89 $71 $0


FY04 $0 $0 $0

To~l $217 $173 $0

Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:14:10.83 PM Page 14 ~ .



t 6 7043 Transit CNG Fueling and Maintenance Center

Pasadena

Master Plan and Architectual and EngineeringDesign for a transit CNG fueling andmaintenance facility for the Pasadena ARTS andDial-A-Ride services.

MTA AB1012 CALL FOR PROJECTSPROJECT APPLICATION SUMMARY



TOTAL AMOUNTFISCAL PROJECT AMOUNT RECOM- PROJECTYEAR EXPENSE REQ’D MENDED READINESS

FY01 $673 $336 $336

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

COST PROJECT CUM-AMOUNTEFFEC- NEED AND TOTAL RECOMMENDEDTIVENESS PURPOSE SCORE FY01-FY04

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $673 $336 $336

2 6 7037 Compressed Natural Gas and Maintenance Facility FY01

Glendale FY02

This funding request will allow the City of FY03Glendale to obtain the environmental review,dPermlts project approvals, environmental FY04ocuments, plans, specifications and estimates

for the construction of a compressed natural gasfueling and maintenance faci~ity. Total

$3,622 $362 $362

$o $o $o

$o $o $o

$o $o $o

$3~22 $362 $362

3 6 7041 Circulator Bus Study within City of South Pasadena FY01

South Pasadena FY02

Provide a study and environmental analysis to FY03determine route for Circulator Bus for City ofSouth Pasadena related to the operation of the FY04Los Angeles to Pasadena Blue Line Light Railproject |n South Pasadena. Types and number ofbuses would be determined as well as hours of Totaloperation and frequency.

$181 $145 $145

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$181 $t45 $146

Thursday, June 08, 2000 1:11:14.85 PM ¯



4 6 7046 Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility, Design

Santa Clarita

Project consists of the design of a new transitmaintenance facility of 72 000 square feet toaccommodate 150 trans t vehic es to rep aceinadequate current facility.

5 6 7054 Bus Stop and Street Furnishing Design Guide

West Hollywood

Development of design guide, includingspecifications and custom designs for all busstop and pedestrian furnishings whichcomplement street design and identity of the city.





AMOUNTRECOM- PROJECTMENDED READINESS

FY01 $1,242 $745 $745~

FY02 $364 $219 $219

FY03 $o $o $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $1,606 $964 $964

~ 9 a~

FY01 $137 $109 $0 ’~

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0


Total $137 $109 $0

6 6 7045 Burbank Media DIstdct Transit Center

Burbank

Project development of transit center/bus transferfaclltles with bus/shuttle loading bays,information kiosks, passenger shelters andfacilities.

FY01 $82 $65 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $82 $65 $0

Thursday, June 08, 20001:11:14.85 PM Page


MODE NUM PROJECT OESCRIPTION

7 6 7038 MTA Blue Line 3-CarTralnMitlgatlonin City ofLong BeachLong Beach

Design of mitigations for MTA Blue Lineexpansion to 3-car train operation, includingsoftware development, traffic signal timing,intersection improvements.

MTA AB10t2 CALL FOR PROJECTSPROJECT APPLICATION SUMMARY




AMOUNTRECOM- PROJECTMENDED READINESS

FY01 $259 $207 $0

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $259 $207 $0


8 6 7040 The Palmdale Transpodatton Center

Palmdale

Multimodal Transportation Center linkingMetroLInk, future High Speed Rail, Local andRegional Bus service Palmdale Regional Airporta ong with other circulation modes.

FY01 $4,595 $322 $0 ~FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $4,595 $322 $0

g 6 7044 Gateway Cities Orange Line

Gateway Cities Council of Governments

Deployment of a fixed guideway transit system,connecting the Gateway Cities in Southeast LosAngeles County with downtown Los Angeles andwith Orange County.

FY01 $52 $52

FY02 $3,642 $54

FY03 $7,207 $0

FY04 $114,750 $0

Total $t2~650 $t05

$o

$o

$o

$o




10 6 7130 LARC Hlstorc Trolley- Central City, Echo Park, RedCar ParkLARC Comm Partners

I_ARC feasibility study includes relevant costs,benefits, environmental and other issues relatedto operating a hlstodc trolley to promoteciroulatlon of people in downtown L.A.





AMOUNT COST pRO~JECTRECOM- PROJECT EFFEC- NEED ANDMENDED READINESS TIVENESS PURPOSE

FY01 $124 $93 $0

FY02 $279 $225 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $403 $318 $0


11 6 7132

12 6

I.ARC Histodc Trolley - Central City, Chinatown,Little TokyoI.ARC Comm Partners

LARC feasibility study includes releveant costsbenefits, environmenta and other Issues relatedto operating a hlstodc trolley to promotecirculation of people in downtown L.A,

7133 LARC Hlstodc Trolley-Central Clty~ Fashion Dist.Expo ParkI.ARC Comm Partners

LARC feasibility study Includes relevant costs,benefits, environmental end other Issues relatedto operating a histodc troltey to promoteclruclatlon of people In downtown L.A.

FY01 $124 $93 $0

FY02 $279 $225 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $403 $318 $0

FY01 $124 $93 $0

FY02 $279 $225 $0

FY03 $0 $0 $0

FY04 $0 $0 $0

Total $403 $318 $0


Attachment "4"

Fare Policy/Coordination

With Transit Operators

June 21, 2000

MetropolitanTransportation

Authority

One Gateway PlazaLosAngeles, CA

90012-2952

MEMO TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEELOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE

NALINI AHUJA

FARE POLICY WORK PROGRAM

MTA Fare Policy consists of two elements:

1. Fare structure2. Regional integration

A. FARE POLICY OBJECTIVES

¯ MTA will continue to recognize the special fare needs of the elderly, disabled,students and other groups that have unique public transit requirements.

¯ Fares should be kept as simple and understandable as possible.¯ Passenger boarding times should be minimized.

The security of MTA’s services should be ensured (i.e., fare evasion potentialshould be considered)

¯ In the next five years the MTA will promote a seamless ride for customers of allpublic transportation services within and adjacent to Los Angeles County bydeveloping clear and consistent inter-operator and inter-agency agreements thatmaximize fare policy integration, allow local fare structure flexibility andencourage service coordination.

¯ When adopting increases in fares, MTA policy recognizes that users must pay areasonable share of the costs of services utilized.

B. WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS CHANGES OR ADDITIONS

FARE POLICY TASK FORCEJune 21, 2000Page Two

C. FARE STRUCTURE CHANGES CONSISTENT WITH ABOVEOBJECTIVES OR REVISED OBJECTIVES. POSSIBLE CHANGES TOBE CONSIDERED:

Distance-based fares on bus and rail¯ Review of discount token with respect to cash fare

Peak/off peak differential¯ Pricing of cash fare and passes¯ Adoption of day pass¯ Consent Decree constraints¯ Group to discuss and suggest additional options to be modeled by the consultant

for revenue and ridership impacts

D. CONSULTANT TO RECOMMEND SHORT/LONG TERM FARESTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS - GROUPING ALTERNATIVES INPACKAGE 1, 23 OR 3 - SHOWING REVENUE/RIDERSHIP/FAREBOXRECOVERY OF EACH ALTERNARTIVE AND THE PACKAGE.

CONSULTANT TO DEFINE A FORMAL METHODOLOGY FORGUIDING FARE RELATED DECISION MAKING IN THE COMING 5YEARS.

¯ Should MTA raise fare every year based on CPI?¯ Should MTA evaluate fare increases in relation to certain indicators like farebox

recovery or other evaluation criteria?

F, REGIONAL INTEGRATION

Form a task force consisting of transit operators, Metrolink, and local transitoperators to develop a regional fare policy which includes (but is not limited to):

Integration of farebox/farecard technology with those operators withfarecard capabilities; currently being discussed as part of the UFS effort.Work with operations planning to upgrade to UFS technology to commit tobuy technology compatible with MTA;Work towards a joint pass for operators without the UFS capabilities;

FARE POLICY TASK FORCEJune 21, 2000Page Three

Work with operators to commit their CMAQ technology funds towardsUFS;Develop a timeframe and report to the Board with an implementation plan,milestones and progress to date;Policies to optimize current sales/distribution networks, expand jointmarketing/card/distribution pass efforts;Implementation &joint-fare media with operators to developadministrative issues such as data collection, revenue sharing capabilities.

G. NEXT STEPS

Clarify what information gets included in the LRP Update.Clarify next task for the consultant.Form a task force (item on May 30 BOS agenda) to address the regionalintegration issues.Develop a workplan with timeline for (1) MTA fare change-short-term; (2)regional integration-short-term/long-term; and (3) anything else.

CM:~:FAREPOLICYoNA

Attachment "5"

MTA Strat~ gic Business Plan

STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANMission, Vision and Goals

June 27, 2000

COMPONENTS OF A STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN

What we are Where we Our immediaterequired to do want to go priorities and focus vision, goals and

MTA Team Mission

Our team is responsible for the continuous improvement of an efficient and effectivetransportation system for Los Angeles County.

Our team members provide expertise and leadership based on their distinct roles:

Transit Operations¯ Operating transit system elements for which the agency has delivery responsibility

Countywide Planning and Development¯ Planning the countywide transportation system in cooperation with other agencies

Engineering and Construction¯ Managing the construction and engineering of transportation system components

Support Services¯ Delivering timely support services to the MTA organization

MTA Team Vision

Our purpose is to be the visionary source of leadership for realizing transportationimprovement opportunities and solving transportation problems in Los Angeles County.

Our position as a premier transportation agency will be established by:

¯ A vigilant pursuit of cost effective, high quality mission critical service delivery

¯ An extraordinary record of excellence in planning, construction and engineering

A proven competency for innovations in transportation development, and,

¯ An exemplary work environment providing team members with needed services

Balanced Scorecard Approach to Goals

The Balanced Scorecard approach presents a sound method for organizing strategic goals.¯ Used successfully by private and public enterprises¯ Balanced financial and operational measures that are mutually reinforcing and address all aspects

of a typical organization to ensure the success of the enterprise

Four perspectives:

Customer - Focuses on the marketplace and delivery of services and products which meet customer needs

Internal Processes - Focuses on the business processes, tools, information and employees needed to perform therelevant work

Innovation/Learning-Focuses on every organization’s need for renewal and growth

Financial Management - Focuses on revenue generation and cost management activities

MTA Team Goals

Customer¯ Increase the availability of customer responsive transportation options

internal Processes¯ Increase accountability for planned results

Innovation/Learning¯ Increase operational and organizational performance

Financial Management¯ Increase effective and efficient utilization of resources.

Attachment "6"

Municipal Operator Document Status

FY 2000 MUNICIPAL OPERATOR DOCUMENT STATUSAS OF June 20, 2000

DATE DUE

An~e_lope Valley Transit Authority

Arcadia Transit

FY 2000-2004SRTP

31-Jul-99

Received

Received

FY 1999NTD Report

15-Nov-99

Received

Received

Claremont Dial-A-Ride Received Received

Commerce Municipal Bus Lines Received

Culver CityBus Received Received

Foothill Transit

Gardena Municipal Bus Lines

La Mirada Transit

LACMTA

LADOT

Long Beach Transit

~lontebello Bus Lines

Norwalk Transit

Redondo Beach Dial-A-Ride

Santa Clarita Transit

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus

Torrance Transit

Mr. Alex ~’erez provlcles M 1 A aoeuments.Foothill I ranslt Contractors have not yet submitted N 1 D reports.

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

FY 99 Certified

Finance and ComplianceAudit

30-Dec-99

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

FY 1999

State ControllerReport

15-Nov-99

Received

FY 2000

TDA/STA

CLAIM

17-Sep-99

Not Required

Received Received

Received Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received Received

Received Received

Received Received

Not Required Not Required

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Required

Received

Received

Received Received

Received Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Received

Not Required

Received

Received

NEW BUSINESS

]~~~~alProposition A 40% Discretionary MOU

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGProposition A 40% Discretionary Grant Funds

This Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOW’) is entered into by and between the(the "GRANTEE") and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority ("MTA").

WHEREAS, on November 4, 1980, the voters of Los Angeles County approved by majorityProposition A, an ordinance establishing a one-half percent sales tax for public transitpurposes; and

WHEREAS, the MTA is the agency responsible for administering the tax; and

WHEREAS, each year the MTA may, but it is not obligated to, include in its annual budgetprocess an allocation of Proposition A 40% Discretionary Funds (the "Funds") to theGRANTEE; and

WHEREAS, the GRANTEE is an eligible operator and desires to receive the FUNDS fromMTA for public transit purposes; and

WHEREAS, MTA and GRANTEE desire to agree to the terms and conditions of the grantof FUNDS to the GRANTEE ("MOU").

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions contained herein,MTA and Grantee hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. TERM

1.0 This MOU shall be in effect from July 1, 2000 until June 30, 2010,unless: (a) the Proposition A Discretionary Guidelines adopted April24, 1991 (the Guidelines") are revised by MTA prior to theexpiration date, in which case this MOU shall terminate on theeffective date of the revised Guidelines; or, (b) teiaiiinated early: (i)by either party for any reason upon six months prior written notice;or (ii) by the MTA upon its decision not to include the Funds in itsannual Budget.

ARTICLE 2.

2.0

USE OF FUNDS SERVICE ADJUSTMENTS ANDSTANDARDS

Grantee shall utilize the Funds in accordance with the MTAProposition A 40% Discretionary Fund Guidelines (the "Guidelines")adopted, and in accordance with the MTA Board’s action inapproving this grant of Funds. The Grantee agrees to comply with

2.1

2.2

2.3

all applicable provisions of the Guidelines, including withoutlimitation, all applicable service adjustments, standards, warrantiesand conditions specified in Sections 1A. through 8.4 of theGuidelines.

Grantee shall use the Funds only for operating assistance of publictransit and shall not use the Funds to substitute for any other funds,service, or project not specified in this MOU.

Grantee agrees to continue reporting Transit PerformanceMeasurement (I’PM) data to MTA as required under the TPMGuidelines adopted pttrsuar~t to AB 103 (PUC Section 130380). TheTPM data will be evaluated as needed by MTA. Only the servicesincluded in the TPM program are eligible for the Funds.

In order to receive the Funds, Grantee warrants that it will:

Ao Cooperate and coordinate with other operators in thedevelopment of an integrated county wide transportationsystem;

Bo Make every effort to improve upon the existing span and scopeof their transit service (minimum standards are detailed inSection 8.1 of the Guidelines);

Ensure that service quality improvements are implementedwhenever possible (e.g. added service to meet demand; routingand scheduling improvements);

D° Ensure that the existing level of service is maintained and thatmajor service changes are subject to the adopted ServiceNotification Policy;

E. Make every effort to ensure that the total number of linkedpassengers (riders) is maintained or increased:

Fo Certify that Grantee is not effectively precluded by anycollective bargaining agreement which is in effect on or afterJuly 1, 1988, from contracting existing, new or restsacturedservices;

G. Agree to secure a local contribution as described in Section 8.3of the Guidelines.

ARTICLE 3.

A.

PAYMENT OF FUNDS - REIMBURSEMENT TO GRANTEE

Each fiscal year, to the extent the Funds are available, MTA maymake to Grantee a grant of the Funds in an amount approved andauthorized by the MTA Board as part of the MTA budget for suchfiscal year. The authorized annual grant amount for each fiscal yearwill be specified in the Annual Funding Marks for that fiscal yearas approved by the MTA Board. Attached as Exhibit A is theapplicable Annual Funding Marks for GRANTEE’S Proposition A40% Discretionary funds for FY 2001. IfMTA staff, in coordinationwith the Eligible/Included Operators, develops a mid-yearreallocation of any Annual Funding Marks that is approved by theMTA Board, GRANTEE hereby directs and authorizes MTA tomake such mid-year adjustments to its Annual Funding Marks, asapproved by the MTA Board, if applicable.

Requests for reimbursement to Grantee shall be made by the Granteeannually using the Proposition A Discretionary Grant WorksheetExhibit B. However, the MTA will disburse 1/12 of the Grantee’smaximum eligible funding mark each month, provided funds areavailable.

Reconciliation will occur annually in May, based upon estimatedactual expenses and revenues. All disbursements will be consideredan estimate subject to adjustment upon receipt of reporting and auditcompliance requirements (see Article 4 contained herein). The auditmust be submitted within 120 days of the dose of the fiscal year.

If the audit indicates that the Grantee did not expend all the Fundsreceived during the fiscal year of allocation, such unexpended Fundsmust be returned to MTA within 60 days of the completion of thefinancial and compliance audit(s). Such unexpended Funds will treated as carryover funds and held by MTA on behalf of Grantee fora period of two years.

Grantee may carryover for two years, one hundred percent (100%) its annual funding mark minus any portion expended during thefiscal year. The carryover funds will be calculated after theDiscretionary Grant formula fund program’s fiscal year close-out,and will be based on audited expenses.

Only carryover Program formula funds can be used for capitalprojects. Grantee must follow the existing MTA approval processwhen applying program carryover funds to capital projects.

Go

no

Jo

After two years, any unused carryover funds will be transferred tothe Proposition A 40% Fund and will be available forreprogrmmrfing by the MTA.

Under no circumstances will the amount of money transferred to theGrantee under this MOU exceed the monthly, (1/12) fundingallocation as listed in the applicable Annual Funding Marks.

Each year, GRANTEE shall submit one (1) invoice to MTArequesting the Funds. All invoices must include infoi-mationdocumenting the cost of the project for the upcoming fiscal year.

An invoice and the Proposition A Discretionary Grant Worksheet(Exhibit B) must be submit annually by Grantee indicating maximumannual allocation and estimated monthly payments.

ARTICLE 4. REPORTING AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

For the te,. of this MOU, Grantee shall comply with allTransportation Development Act (TDA), State Transit Assistance(STA) and National Transit Database (NTD) reporting requirementsand shall annually submit a completed copy of said reports to MTA.Grantee agrees to commit all TDA, STA and NTD operatingsubsidies prior to committing the Funds.

IF Grantee receives the Funds in lieu of STA and or TDA funds, theportion of Proposition A Discretionary funds received in lieu of STAfunds ("In-Lieu-Funds") are subject to the STA efficiency test; and Grantee fails the STA test, Grantee may not use the In-Lieu-Fundsfor transit operating purposes. A Grantee in receipt of In-Lieu-Fundsis not required to submit a TDA Article 4 claim fob-m, and istherefore not subject to the TDA reporting requirements. However,Grantee must comply with the audit requests as prescribed by MTA(see Article 4.3), and comply with all other Proposition Discretionary Guideline provisions.

By November 1 st of each year, the Grantee shall submit to the MTAa completed TPM form which separately reports data pertaining tothese Funds and to the applicable fiscal year.

Each fiscal year, MTA or its designee shall have the right to conducta financial and compliance audit(s) of the Project. Grantee agrees establish and maintain proper accounting procedures and cash

management records and documents in accordance with conditionsdefmed by this MOU and the Guidelines.

ARTICLE 5.

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT

In accordance with the Proposition A Local Retum Guidelines, theGrantee agrees to secure continued financial support from any fundsderived from a property tax. In addition, the Grantee agrees to securelocal fmancial support.

The actual amount of local support will be equivalent to the lesser of:(i) five percent (5%) of the current fiscal year operating budget, (ii) twenty-five percent (25%) of the current fiscal year Local Returnfunds received by the Grantee or Grantee’s sponsoring municipality,as applicable. The Grantee agrees that the above requirementsequate to a local contribution as stated in the fiscal worksheet ExhibitB. This amount will be adjusted upon receipt of the financial andcompliance audit(s).

Only local contributions made to the operating budget are eligible tomeet the Local Conlribution Requirement.

Any Grantee not expending an amount equal to or greater than fiftypercent (50%) of the annual Proposition A Local Remm allocationduring the year ended June 30 will have the Funds described in theAnnual Funding Marks for the applicable fiscal year reduced by theamount of unexpended annual Proposition A Local Return fundsallocated which exceed fifty percent of that year’s allocation.

If the Local Contribution Requirement is not met, the Grantee mustmake a full refund of the Funds for the applicable fiscal year toMTA.

ARTICLE 6.

6.0

6.1

CONDITIONS

This grant is subject to the terms and conditions agreed herein and inthe Guidelines. The MTA, at its discretion, may withhold all or partof the Grantee’s discretionary grant allocation if all conditionsidentified if Section 8 of the Guidelines are not met. This grant doesnot imply nor obligate any future funding commitment on the part ofMTA.

Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federallaws, rules and regulations in the provision of public transit services.

6.2

6.3

6.4

Grantee understands and agrees that in programming these Fundsand entering into this MOU, MTA is acting pursuant to its statutoryauthority and shall have no liability in connection with the use ofthese Funds for public transit purposes. Grantee agrees to indemnifyMTA for all liability arising out of Grantee’s use of the Funds andGrantee’s performance in the provision of public transit services paidfor by these Funds.

Grantee is not a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA. Granteeshall not represent itself as a contractor, agent or employee of theMTA and shall have no power to bind the MTA in contract orotherwise.

No amendment or modification to this MOU shall be binding uponeither party unless such amendment or modification is in writingduly executed by both parties. This MOU shall not be amended ormodified by any acts or conduct of the parties.

ARTICLE 7.

7.0

7.1

PENALTIES

The MTA reserves the right to terminate this MOU and withholdFunds if it is determined that the Grantee has not made every effortto adhere to all warranties and conditions identified in theGuidelines. In addition, the MTA reserves the right to terminate thisMOU in the event of continued and/or gross violations of this MOU.

Any withholding of Funds, termination of the MOU, or imposition ofany fmancial penalty against Grantee under the Guidelines is subjectto a two-thirds affirmative vote of the MTA governing board.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum ofUnderstanding to be duly executed as of the dates below with all the formalities required bylaw.

GRANTEE: LOS ANGELES COUNTYMETROPOLITANTRANSPORTATIONAUTHORITY

By:.

DATE:

By:JULIAN BURKEChief Executive Officer

DATE:

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: LLOYD W. PELLMANCOUNTY COUNSEL

NAME:

TITLE:

By:DEPUTY

DATE:

INFORMATION ITEMS

*MTA Labor Negotiations Update

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

UTU Holds "Strike Authorization Vote" on Monday June 19, 2000

On Monday, June 19, 2000, the United Transportation Union (UTU) will hold

"strike authorization vote." The UTU is the largest of the Los Angeles County

Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) labor unions, representing

approximately 4,268 bus and train operators. A strike cannot occur until after the labor

contract with this union expires at midnight on June 30, 2000.

UTU labor leaders are asking their members to give the union r~resentatives the

authority and sole discretion to take the membership out on strike after the contract

expires. No strike date has bccn set. If union members authorize a strikc, the MTA plans

to ask Governor Gray Davis to intervene and impose a 60-day "cooling off" period.

MTA negotiators arc disappointed that the union leadership has not participated

in any substantive bargaining prior to asking its members for a "strike vote." The MTA

has proposed that the UTU and the MTA extend the contract by 60 days. The MTA

believes that a mutual extension would demonstrate good faith efforts by both parties to

reach a~reement and would allow enough time to discuss all of the issues important to

customers and employccs. However, the UTU has rejected this offer.

The MTA is taking all reasonable precautions to avoid a strike, and will continue

to negotiate with the unions. After June 30, 2000, four courses of action could occur:

¯ Both sides can still mutually agree to extend the current contract for a definiteperiod of time until a~reemcnts can be reached;

¯ The Governor can impose a 60-day cooling off period as early as July 1;

¯ The MTA can choose to enforce its last best offer and union employees couldchoose to work under those terms; or

* The unions can strike.

Should a strike occur, bus and rail riders will need to identify alternatives to MTA

bus and rail transportation services. A number of municipal bus operators will continue

to serve downtown Los Angeles as will Metrolink, the regional commuter rail system.

The MTA is arranging to provide limited bus service with private contractors, however,

such service levels will not be adequate to support the needs of most Los Angeles County

transit customers.

Parallel negotiations continue with two other MTA unions, the Amalgamated

Transit Union (representing approximately 1,854 bus and rail mechanics and facilities

staff) and the Transportation Communications Union (represent’mg approximately 638

clerical staff, stock clerks, and customer service agents). Discussions of more

substantive issues are taking place in these negotiations. Earlier this year the MTA and

its newest union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

(AFSCME, representing approximately 510 bus, rail and maintenance supervisors and

other supervisory support staff), reached agreement through a Memorandum of

Understanding.

The MTA’s goals in these labor negotiations are to ensure a qualified and

experienced workforce is in place; provide more and better customer service; operate

more competitively and efficiently; and use public funds wisely. The MTA believes that

these benefits can be achieved through meaningful negotiations without layoffs, with

reasonable increases in wages and while maintaining equivalent employee benefits.

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS UNTIL’ CONTRACTS EXPIREJune 19, 2000

UTU Turns Down-MTA’s Offer to ExtendContractLast week, the UTU rejected the MTA’s proposal tomutually extend the current labor agreement untilthe last week of August. This extension wasproposed in response to the union’s complaint thatthe MTA notified the union of its intent to terminatethe existing contract. The offer to extend thecontract also came as a result of the MTA receivinglittle to no response from the UTU on the MTA’sproposals to amend the contract.

The MTA has made repeated attempts to get theUTU to respond to the MTA’s proposals and itsrequests for additional information, such as thedetails of the Health & Welfare fund managed bythe union. The UTU refuses to provide the MTAwRh information necessary to proceed withbargaining, despite a legal requirement to do so.The other unions have provided similar informationwithout objection.

UTU Not Present During Most ofScheduled NegotiationsThe UTU negotiating team has only been presentand ready.to negotiate a total of approximately fourand a half hours over the last two weeks. This is inspite of the union’s written assertion in a letterdated June 7t~ that the UTU is willing to "negotiatearound-the-clock, seven days a week."

MTA negotiators have attempted to get Unionofficials to respond to their proposals withsubstantive input since May 16~, scheduling regularnegotiating sessions. Union officials haveconsistently arrived between one and two hours lateto scheduled bargaining sessions, despite the shortperiod of time left before the expiration of theUTU’s contract on June 30, 2000.

UTU Holds Strike VoteOn Monday, June 19, 2000, the UnitedTransportation Union (UTU) is holding a "strikevote." A strike cannot occur until after the laborcontract with this union expires at midnight on June30, 2000. Through this vote, UTU officers areasking their members to give them the authority andsole discretion to take the membership out on strikeafter the contract expires. No strike date has beenset.

substantive bargaining prior to asking the membersfor a "strikevote." Such an action allows theUnion’s officers to take the union out on strikewithout providing the Union members with any .additional information, including any "last best.offer" that the MTA could propose. ̄

ATU & TCU Negotiations Moving AlongDespite the delay at the UTU bargaining table,negotiations with the ATU and TCU areprogressing. To date, both of these Unions havemet over 20 times and have reached tentativeagreement on a number of issues. (Note, AFSCMEnegotiations were settled earlier this year with aMemorandum of Understanding.)

MTA Identifies Opportunities for Savingsthat Could Translate into IncreasedWagesThe MTA has a higher Workers Compensationclaim rate than Los Angeles County or any transitcompany in the United States. In fact, MTA’sWorkers Compensation claim payment rate is sixtimes that of New York City Transit (the largest inthe country). "If we can reduce lost time, includingWorkers Compensation time off, the MTA canprovide opportunities for extra dollars foremployees in the form of wages, contribution tohealth and welfare or pension contributions," statedTom Webb, the MTA’s chief negotiator.

Changes made in other transit properties throughoutU.S., including Philadelphia and Honolulu, havegreatly reduced costs. Such changes include:¯ Increased union participation in identifying

solutions to the problem¯ Joint labor/management safety committees with

real authority to identify and implement systemsto prevent future claims

¯ Transitional duty programs maintaining contactwith employees after injuries occur and work tomaximize ~ltemative oppo~anifies for injuredemployees

¯ Sharing lost time savings with union employe~s

MTA negotiators have expressed disappointmentthat the union has not participated in any

AGENDA BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEEboardarchives.metro.net/Other/BOS/BOS_1_018.pdf · Metropolitan...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEEboardarchives.metro.net/Other/BOS/BOS_1_018.pdf · Metropolitan...