September 2, 2015 - Agenda - Technical Advisory Committee …media.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/agenda_tac_2015-09… · Lorenzo 8. Ridership Trends (Handout) (10 minutes)

Wednesday, September 2, 2015 9:30 AM

Agenda

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

William Mulholland Conference Room

1. Call to Order/Roll Call Action (Fanny Pan, Brian Lam)

2. Agenda Reports by Standing Committees Information

Bus Operations (Joyce Rooney) Local Transit Systems (Sebastian Hernandez) Streets and Freeways (Marianne Kim) TDM/Sustainability (Mark Yamarone) Attachment 1: Subcommittee Agendas Attachment 2: Subcommittee Actions 5 min

3. Chairperson’s Report Information

July Board Recap (Handout) (Fanny Pan)

4. Consent Calendar Action

Approval of Minutes Attachment 3: Draft July 1, 2015 Minutes Attachment 4: Draft July 22, 2015 Minutes Attachment 5: Draft July 28, 2015 Minutes

5. Long Range Transportation Plan/Potential Information Ballot Measure Update (Wil Ridder/Rena Lum) 15 min

6. Call for Projects Information 5 min (Rena Lum)

7. Active Transportation Program (ATP) Information

15 min (Wil Ridder)

8. Wayfinding Signage Grant Pilot Program Information Attachment 6: Application (Teresa Wong)

5 min

9. CTC Update Information 5 min (Patricia Chen)

10. Legislative Update Information Federal (Michael Turner/Raffi Hamparian) State 15 min

11. Other Business

12. Adjournment

TAC Minutes and Agendas can be accessed at: http://www.metro.net/about/tac/ Please call Brian Lam at (213) 922-3077 or e-mail [email protected] with questions regarding the agenda or meeting. The next TAC meeting will be held on October 7, 2015 at 9:30 AM in the William Mulholland Conference Room on the 15th floor.

http://www.metro.net/about/tac/

mailto:[email protected]

Attachment 1

Subcommittee Agendas

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Agenda


BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Union Station Conference Room – 3rd Floor 9:30 am

1. Call to Order

(1 minute) Action Joyce Rooney

2. Chair’s Report (5 minutes)

Information Joyce Rooney

3. Metro Report (5 minutes)

Information Annelle Albarran

4. Approval of June 16, 2015 Minutes (1 minute)

Action BOS

5. Call for Projects Recommendations (30 minutes)

Action Rena Lum/Michael Richmai

6. BOS Board Nominations Committee (5 minutes)

Action Joyce Rooney

7. FTA Update (10 minutes)

Information Jonathan Klein/Charlene Lee Lorenzo

8. Ridership Trends (Handout) (10 minutes)

Information Conan Cheung/Parvaneh Ahmadi

9. FTA Section 5337 & Section 5339 Opt-Out Grant Award Certification (Handout) (10 minutes)

Information Ashad Hamideh/Cosette Stark

Information Items:

90-day Rolling Agenda Summary of Invoices FY 2015 Summary of EZ Pass Invoices Subsidy Matrix FY 2015 TDA-STA Capital Claims TDA-STA Claims Regional Pass Sales FY2012 Section 5307 Balance as of 3.31.15 FY2013 Section 5307 Balance as of 3.31.15 FY2014 Section 5307 Balance as of 3.31.15 FY2015 Section 5307 Balance as of 3.31.15 Combined FY2012-2015 Section 5307 Balances Ridership Trends Metro Notice Opt-Out and Grant Execution Forms

BOS Agenda Packages can be accessed online at: http://www.metro.net/about_us Please call ANNELLE ALBARRAN at 213-922-4025 or JOHN GREEN at 213-922-2837 if you have questions regarding the agenda or meeting. The next BOS meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 15, 2015, at 9:30 am in the University Conference Room, 4th Floor of the Metro Headquarters Building.

10. Access Services Update (10 minutes)

Information Andre Colaiace/Matthew Avancena

11. Legislative Update (15 minutes)

Information Raffi Hamparian/Marisa Yeager Michael Turner

12. New Business Information All

13. Adjournment

http://www.metro.net/about_us

NOTE TIME: 1:30 PM Thursday, July 16, 2015, 1:30 P.M.

AgendaLos Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE

TAP Conference Room – 4th Floor

1. Call to Order ActionSebastian Hernandez, Chair

2. Approval of Minutes – (Handout) ActionSebastian Hernandez, Chair

3. Call for Projects ActionRena Lum, Metro

4. TAC alternate(s) ActionSebastian Hernandez, Chair

5. Prop A 5% Incentive FY15 & 16 updates InformationSusan Richan, Metro

6. New Business, Date of Next LTSS Meeting Sebastian Hernandez, Chair

Thursday, July 16, 2015 9:30 a.m.

Agenda


Streets and Freeways Subcommittee

Mulholland Conference Room, 15th Floor

1. Call to Order 1 min

Action (Bahman Janka)

2. Approval of Minutes Attachment 1: June 18, 2015 Minutes

Action (Subcommittee)

3. Chair Report 5 min

Information (Bahman Janka)

4. Metro Report 5 min

Information (Teresa Wong)

5. Caltrans Update 5 min

6. 2015 Call for Projects Update 45 min

7. Arterial ITS Committee Update 10 min

Information (Caltrans) Action (Rena Lum/Modal Leads) Information (Reinland Jones)

8. State and Federal Legislative Update5 min

Information (Raffi Hamparian/ Marisa Yeager/Michael Turner)

9. CTC Update 10 min

Information (Patricia Chen)

10. Bikeshare Update

15 min

Information (Avital Shavit)

11. Bicycle Safety Education 10 min

Information (Julia Salinas)

12. New Business 5 min

13. Adjournment 1 min

The next meeting for the Streets and Freeways Subcommittee will be held on August 20th at 9:30 a.m. on the 15th floor, Mulholland Conference Room. Please contact Teresa Wong at (213) 922 – 2854 should you have any questions or comments regarding this or future agendas.

Agendas can be accessed online at: http://www.metro.net/about/sfs/

NOTE TIME: 1:30 PM Thursday, August 20, 2015, 1:30 P.M.

AgendaLos Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE

TAP Lab – 4th Floor

1. Call to Order ActionSebastian Hernandez, Chair

2. Approval of Minutes – (Handout) ActionSebastian Hernandez, Chair

3. Discussion for the potential Ballot Measure and Long RangeTransportation Plan (LRTP) Update

DiscussionPatricia Chen, Metro

4. Prop A 5% Incentive FY15 & 16 tables InformationSusan Richan, Metro

5. New Business, Date of Next LTSS Meeting Sebastian Hernandez, Chair

Attachment 2

Subcommittee Actions

Disposition of Subcommittee Actions

July 2015

Bus Operations Subcommittee:

Approved the June 16, 2015 meeting minutes

A motion was made by Dana Pynn (Long Beach Transit) and seconded by JudyVaccaro-Fry (Antelope Valley Transit) to approve the preliminary fundingrecommendations for the 2015 Call for Projects Transit Capital mode. The motion wasunanimously approved.

A motion was made by Dana Pynn (Long Beach Transit) and seconded by MichelleCaldwell (Foothill Transit) to approve David Feinberg (Santa Monica BBB) as thecommittee lead for BOS Board nominations. The motion was unanimously approved.

Local Transit Systems Subcommittee:

Approved the preliminary funding recommendations for the 2015 Call for Projects.

Nominated Justine Garcia (City of Glendora) and Linda Evans (City of Los AngelesDepartment of Transportation) as Alternate TAC Representatives for LTSS.

Streets and Freeways Subcommittee:

Approved the June 18, 2015 meeting minutes

Approved the preliminary funding recommendations for the 2015 Call for Projects

TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee:

Approved the preliminary funding recommendations for the 2015 Call for Projects

August 2015

Bus Operations Subcommittee:

Did not meet in August

Local Transit Systems Subcommittee:

Approved the July 16, 2016 meeting minutes

Streets and Freeways Subcommittee:


TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee:


Attachment 3

July 1, 2015 TAC Minutes

July 1, 2015 Sign-In Sheets

TAC Minutes, July 1, 2015 1

Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:30 A.M.

Meeting Minutes

Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority


1. Call to Order/Roll CallBrian Lam (Alternate Chair) called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m., took roll and declared aquorum was present.

2. Agenda Reports by Standing CommitteesBus Operations Subcommittee (BOS)

Last met on June 16, 2015

Received updates on:o FTA Section 5310 Appeals Processo Metro Orange Line Enhancements and the San Fernando Valley/San Gabriel

Valley High Capacity Transit Corridoro Active Transportation Strategic Plan

Created a Working Group to develop the FTA Section 5307 Funding Guidelines

Next meeting is scheduled for July 14, 2015

Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS)

Did not meet in June


Streets and Freeways Subcommittee

Last met on June 18, 2015

Elected Alan Abramson (County of Los Angeles) as Vice Chair

Received updates on:o Future Call for Projects (Call) Processo 2015 Call Recertification/Deobligation/Extensiono Active Transportation Strategic Plan



Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Sustainability Subcommittee

Did not meet in June

Next meeting is scheduled for July 15, 2015 to review the 2015 Call preliminary staffrecommendations (Rainbow Report)

3. Chairperson’s Report (Fanny Pan, Metro)A handout of the June 25th Metro Board meeting recap was distributed in lieu of an oralreport.

Ms. Pan reminded the TAC members that there will be special TAC meetings in July inaddition to the regularly scheduled meeting. A meeting on July 22, 2015 at 9:30 AM in theGateway Conference Room will be held to review the Rainbow Report, and the 2015 Call TACAppeals will be held on July 28, 2015 at 9:30 AM in the William Mulholland Conference Room.

Ms. Pan announced that in June 2015, the Board approved the annual Call Recertification/Deobligation/Extension item. Staff is preparing letters to project sponsors regarding theBoard action and the execution deadlines for funding agreements and lapse date extensionamendments.

Ms. Pan noted that TAC is typically dark in August. She asked if any TAC members wished tocancel the August TAC meeting and resume in September.

MotionJoyce Rooney (BOS) made a motion to cancel the August 2015 TAC meeting. John Walker(County of Los Angeles) seconded the motion. The motion passed with no objections.

Mohammad Mostahkami (League of California Cities – Gateway Cities COG) asked when theRainbow Report would be released? Rena Lum (Metro) replied that hard copies of the reportwere mailed to TAC members on June 30th. The Rainbow Report can also be viewed online athttp://media.metro.net/projects_studies/call_projects/images/rainbowdraft_2015_0625.pdf.

4. Consent CalendarA motion to approve the June 3, 2015 TAC minutes was made by Rich Dilluvio (BicycleCoordinator) and seconded by Mr. Mostahkami. The minutes were approved with noobjections.

5. Revised TAC Appeals Protocol Guidelines (Fanny Pan, Metro)Ms. Pan reported that staff revised the TAC Appeals Protocol to add clarification that TAC isnot only the appealing body for the Call, but also for other competitive grant programsincluding the Transit Oriented Development (TOD), FTA Section 5310, and any future grantprograms. The revision also clarifies that TAC members are to listen to the merit of theappealing projects and make funding recommendations, not rescore the applications.

Mike Behen (League of California Cities – North Los Angeles County) asked if an applicationis eligible for appeals if it scored below 70 points? Ms. Pan replied yes. Any project sponsor


can appeal their project. If TAC believes a project has merit during the appeal, TAC canrecommend funding for those projects regardless of the score.

Mr. Behen asked if a project that scored 50 points could be recommended for funding above aproject that scored 70? Ms. Pan replied yes; however, the Call Appeals Guidelines notes that,“As a first priority, TAC should first consider funding those qualifying projects for whichfunding is not available. This consideration should be made with or without an appeal. Thesecond priority should be those projects below the qualifying line of 70. In this priority, onlyprojects that have an appeal before TAC can be considered for funding.”

MotionEllen Blackman (Citizen Representative on ADA) made a motion to approve the revised TACAppeals Protocol. The motion was seconded by Mr. Walker. The motion passed with noobjections.

6. Financial Plan addressing Motion 5.1 (David Yale, Metro)Mr. Yale reported that the Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP) Financial Update looksannually at Metro’s financial condition based on the SRTP and the Long Range TransportationPlan (LRTP). Metro has a robust SRTP that covers FY 15 – FY 24. Los Angeles County investsa total of $84.8 billion in transportation investments, $54.5 billion which Metro controls. Thefunding plan for the SRTP includes $6.8 billion of borrowing, and the financial plan projectsthat approximately $2.8 billion in Propositions A and C bonds are at risk.

Mark Yamarone (TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee) asked why there is a footnote that states“Excludes Beginning Balances”? Mr. Yale replied that the chart only shows Metro controlledrevenues. It does not include Local Return beginning balances that are used in the financialmodel, but are not in this chart.

Mr. Yale reported that Metro has an ambitious financial strategy with a $14 billion CapitalImprovement Program. The Board has added $1.8 billion in cost increases to the SRTP sinceMarch 2014 which is pushing Metro against the debt limit and contributing to a $900 millionshortfall. The shortfall is still manageable, but if costs continue to rise every year it willbecome unsustainable. Metro’s new CEO, Phil Washington, is very focused on this problemand is taking steps to proceed forward in a financially stable manner.

Mr. Yamarone asked what can Metro do to fix the shortfall? Mr. Yale replied that Metro hasone of the lowest fare box recovery rates in the world because of the sales tax subsidies fortransit fare. Metro needs to work towards getting the fare box recovery to a worldwidestandard.

Jane Leonard (BOS) asked if Metro is evaluating significant fare restructuring? Mr. Yalereplied that fare recovery is a combination of cost controls and raising fares. Focusing ononly fare increases is not the best way to achieve financial sustainability. The SRTP has a largeinvestment in operations, and this is an area that Metro must evaluate to bring costs down.The Board will have to consider fare adjustments periodically and will need to tailor fares tothe level of service provided. As Metro’s rail system expands, a distance based fare systemmight be an option.


David Kriske (League of California Cities – Arroyo Verdugo Cities) asked how a future ballotmeasure affects the financial plan? Mr. Yale replied that he believes the next measure shouldpay for service expansion promised in the ballot measure. It does not relieve the need tomanage prior operations.

Jessica Meaney (Investing in Place) asked what other metrics can be used to analyze thesuccess of a transit system other than fare box recovery? Mr. Yale replied operating costsrising faster than inflation or operating cost by service mile, to name a few.

7. Call for Projects (Rena Lum, Metro)2015 CallMs. Lum reported that at the June 25, 2015 meeting, the Board approved the 2015 Callfunding marks. The Rainbow Report will be posted online by July 2nd. Staff will now conduct aseries of Special Committee meetings with TAC and each of the Subcommittees to review theRainbow Report. TAC’s Special Rainbow Report review meeting will be held on July 22, 2015in the Gateway Conference Room, and the TAC Appeals will be held on July 28, 2015 in theWilliam Mulholland Conference Room. Staff will take the full 2015 Call fundingrecommendations to the Board in September 2015.

Mr. Mostahkami asked what is the funding source breakdown for the 2015 Call? Ms. Lumdistributed the funding source breakdown, which is also available online at:https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=3824873&GUID=EF5D68AA-87A3-4C70-B00E-1D270130C9B2.

Mr. Yamarone asked what is the purpose of the Special Rainbow Report review meeting onJuly 22nd? Ms. Pan replied that the meeting will help prepare TAC members for the Appealson July 28th.

Larry Stevens (League of California Cities – San Gabriel Valley COG) asked how much fundingis available in the TAC Appeals Reserve? Ms. Lum replied approximately $6.5 million.

Future Call ProcessMs. Lum reported that at the June 25, 2015 meeting, the Board directed staff to giveadditional thoughts to revising the Call process to build upon the considerable effortsunderway within the Subregions to identify and prioritize projects through the variousMobility Matrices processes. Staff was directed to: 1) continue addressing the use ofSubregional project allocations through a process that meets State and Federal mandates andbuilds upon the transportation mobility matrix process underway for the LRTP update; 2)work with the COGs to develop a viable subregional category that will encourage/facilitatecoordination, collaboration, and creation of multijurisdictional or programmatic projects thatimprove mobility; and 3) report back to the Board every six months on the developmentchanges to the Call structure and processes.

Staff will begin discussions internally next week on how to proceed and will be contacting theSubregions in the near future.


Pat DeChellis (County of Los Angeles) commented that the motion seems to make it so allfuture Call projects are chosen by the COGs/Subregions. It seems as though individual citiesand the County of Los Angeles will not be submitting applications anymore. Renee Berlin(Metro) replied the idea is to get the COGs/Subregions more involved with the Call processand rating projects; cities will propose projects and the COGs/Subregions who would thenprioritize them. Then as a separate effort, Metro staff will evaluate the applications.

Mr. DeChellis noted that his concern is that each of the cities, except the City of Los Angeles,is generally in one COG/Subregion. The County and City of Los Angeles are in multipleCOGs/Subregions which multiplies the number of applications required to submit. Ms.Berlin replied that the process is still evolving, but one idea may be to have eachCOG/Subregion to utilize the same basic application.

Mr. Stevens commented that the staffing structure of most COGs/Subregions is not preparedfor a thorough review and prioritization of Call applications. He noted that prioritization atthe COG/Subregional level tends to be more political than technical. Ms. Lum acknowledgedMr. Stevens’ comment. Staff will be meeting with the COGs/Subregions individually whichwill provide an opportunity to discuss these concerns with them.

Marianne Kim (Automobile Club of California) noted that the Streets and FreewaysSubcommittee debated this issue a lot and many of Mr. Stevens’ comments were echoed bythe members as well.

Kevin Minne (City of Los Angeles) requested that in addition to meeting with theCOGs/Subregions, staff schedule meetings with the City and County of Los Angeles. Ms.Lum agreed to the request. Mr. DeChellis replied that since the City and County are withinmultiple COGs/Subregions, they should also be invited to the meetings with theCOG/Subregion Executive Directors. Ms. Lum replied that staff will invite the City and Countyof Los Angeles to each of the COG/Subregional meetings.

Ms. Lum reported that at the June 25, 2015 meeting, the Board passed a separate motionrelating to Metrolink that impacts the 2015 Call. The motion states that, “the Board defersapproving the inclusion and/or debt encumbrance of Prop C 10% as a funding source for the2015 Call, except for projects which have a clear and direct nexus to a current or plannedMetrolink station as determined by the CEO, until which time the Program is completed andcapacity for Prop C 10% is determined to be available. Should such Prop C 10% capacity notbe available, the Board directs the CEO to provide an alternative funding plan, excludingfunding eligible for Metrolink and Metro bus and rail operations, for projects that would nolonger have Prop C 10% available as a funding source”.

Prop C 10% funds can be used for Metrolink, freeway bus stops, and park and rides. Staffhas identified projects recommended for funding in the 2015 Call that could potentially befunded by Prop C 10%, and will be finding alternative sources of funding for those projects.For instance, Transit Capital projects that were going to be funded by Prop C 10% will insteadbe funded by Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. One potential sourcethat staff has identified for any shortfall in the 2015 Call are future deobligation funds,including the 2015 deobligation funds.


Mr. Stevens asked for clarification on where the funds are being taken from? Ms. Lum repliedthat funds are not being taken from anyone, but rather different sources of funding will beused. As directed by the Board, Metrolink will be receiving Prop C 10% funding to addressState of Good Repair and maintenance needs, and any 2015 Call projects that were potentiallygoing to receive Prop C 10% dollars will be funded with alternative sources that do not meetthe intent of the motion.

Mr. DeChellis asked where do Call deobligation funds usually go? Ms. Pan replied that thedeobligation funds are allocated back into the mode from which it was deobligated from. Ms.Berlin clarified that the first priority of the deobligated funds is to fund the three previouslyapproved, but deferred County signal forum projects, and the City of Palmdale North CountyITS Project as the second priority. Ms. Pan added that the 2015 deobligated funds totalapproximately $29 million, which is enough to fulfill the three County signal forum projectsand the City of Palmdale North County ITS Project. With the remaining deobligated funds,Metro should be able to fulfil the 2015 shortfall. If not, future deobligated funds will be used.

Mr. Minne asked if there is still a deficit in the Call from the Transportation EnhancementActivity Mode? Ms. Pan replied that TE projects that were not funded through the ActiveTransportation Program (ATP) were reprogrammed for funding in the June 2015Recertification/Deobligation/Extension Board Report.

Mr. DeChellis provided a status on the TAC Working Group to discuss the future Call process.Mr. DeChellis reported that numerous TAC members are interested in forming a WorkingGroup to discuss revisions to the future Call process. He proposed to have the first WorkingGroup meeting or call on July 8, 2015.

8. FTA Section 5310 Funding Recommendations (Annelle Albarran, Metro)Ms. Albarran reported that consistent with TAC’s recommendation, staff has re-evaluated andrescored the Traditional Capital application for the City of Gardena Senior Citizens Bureauusing the information provided by the Other Capital and Operating application. Thereevaluated application scored 58 points. Therefore, it is not recommended for funding. Theagency has been notified of the revised score.

Jim Lefton (City of Los Angeles) asked what were the original scores? Ms. Albarran replied 36for the Traditional Capital application, and 76 on the Other Capital and Operating application.

Mr. Mostahkami asked what happens to the funding? Ms. Albarran replied whatever was leftin the Appeals funds is being recommended to be redistributed to those projects that receivedreduced funding within that category.

9. Metro Joint Development Program (Jenna Hornstock, Metro)Ms. Hornstrock reported that the Joint Development Program is a real estate managementprogram where Metro works with qualified developers to build Transit-OrientedDevelopments (TODs) on Metro-owned properties. These are often parcels of land that haveMetro station portals, have excess land or platforms, or properties that were purchased for


parking or construction staging for transit projects. The major difference between TOD andJoint Development is that Joint Development occurs on Metro-owned property.

Some of Joint Development’s primary goals are to reduce auto use, increase transit use,support density while remaining consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, and increaseuses linked to transit. Metro generally utilizes long-term ground leases that may range from55-65 years and are coordinated with the developers.

Mr. Stevens asked if affordable housing is incorporated into Joint Development projects? Ms.Hornstock replied that in March 2015, the Board directed staff to create a portfolio-wide goalof 35% affordable units and to adopt proportional discounts for projects that have affordablehousing.

Mr. Stevens asked if Joint Development is on surplus land that was intended for transit useand is no longer necessary? Ms. Hornstock replied yes. Joint Development only occurs onproperty Metro already owns; however, it is not surplus land. For example, Metro owns landin Boyle Heights that was originally purchased when the alignment was going to be a Red Lineextension. It later became the Gold Line along a different alignment, so the property wasused as construction staging. On other parcels, such as the 1st and Soto Station on the GoldLine, there is enough land to build behind the station.

Ms. Hornstock noted that the first step in the Joint Development process is to do initialcommunity outreach and create development guidelines that reflect both what the communitywants and what is allowed in the zoning code. The second step is issuing a request forproposals (RFP). Once a developer is selected, Metro negotiates an Exclusive NegotiationAgreement (ENA) which lasts approximately 18-months. After this, the developer goesthrough the entitlements and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. A JointDevelopment Agreement (JDA) and Ground Lease (GL) are then executed, after whichconstruction can begin.

Additional information on Metro’s Joint Development Program can be found online at:http://www.metro.net/projects/joint_dev_pgm/

Mr. Yamarone asked if Metro has formalized First/Last Mile criteria into the JointDevelopment process? Ms. Hornstock replied that First/Last Mile connections are addressedduring the development guidelines process.

Mr. Stevens asked if the local municipality is involved during the development agreement?Ms. Hornstock replied no, typically the local municipality is not a party to the agreement.

Mr. Stevens asked how many properties does Metro currently have that have potential tobecome Joint Development sites? Ms. Hornstock replied that Metro currently has 15properties designated as “Opportunity Sites” for Joint Development. A map of these sites,along with those that are completed, under construction, and in negotiations can be found athttp://www.metro.net/interactives/gmaps/joint_project/.


10. Metrolink Annual Work Program/Budget (Yvette Reeves, Metro)Ms. Reeves reported that Metrolink is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that consists of fivecounties, with Metro being the largest. Metro funds approximately 51% of Metrolink.Metrolink transmitted the FY 16 budget on April 17, 2015 and a revised budget on May 28,2015. Their operating cost is $230 million, an increase of approximately $7 million from FY15, which includes the insurance deductible from the Oxnard Accident, the extension of the 91Line to Perris Valley, and Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) stock and maintenance amongstother costs. The member agencies are providing $128 million, a 9% increase from FY 15.Metro will provide a total of $87.6 million subsidy for FY 16 to help fund operations ($65.6million), TVM purchases ($13.1 million), ROTEM reimbursement ($5.8 million), right-of-waysecurity ($2.6 million), and capital projects ($0.5 million). There will not be a fare increase inFY 16.

Mr. DeChellis asked why Metro is paying 25% of the operational cost for the new 91 LinePerris Valley Extension? Jay Fuhrman (Metro) replied that the 91 Line runs between LA andRiverside. Before the Perris Valley Extension, Metro, Orange County, and Riverside Countyeach paid approximately a third of the operating cost. Since the Perris Valley Extensionservice is entirely in Riverside County, it reduces Metro’s operating percentage from 33% to25%.

Mr. DeChellis asked if Metro is funding any portion of the Perris Valley Extensionconstruction? Mr. Fuhrman replied no, the construction cost is funded entirely by theRiverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC).

Ms. Kim asked if surveys have been conducted to determine the trip origin of riders on the 91Line? Ms. Reeves replied yes, surveys have been conducted, but the vast majority of the 91Line’s ridership originates outside of Los Angeles County.

Ms. Kim asked what is the fare box recovery for Metrolink? Mr. Fuhrman repliedapproximately 45%.

Mr. Stevens noted that part of the reason why Metrolink revenues are down is that the TVMsare frequently out of order and that some cities that own the park-and-rides near Metrolinkstations have begun charging for parking.

Mr. Fuhrman reported that a 6-month pilot program has begun to reduce all fares on theAntelope Valley Line by 25% along with a $2 short distance fare. The State announced theawards of the Cap and Trade funding, Metrolink received $41.2 million, more funds than anyother successful grantees statewide.

11. Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan (Tham Nguyen, Metro)This item was rescheduled to the September 2, 2015 TAC meeting.

12. CTC Update (Patricia Chen, Metro)Ms. Chen reported that the Road User Charge TAC meetings are still on-going with 75% of theparticipants being residents from Northern California. To show that there is equal interest


and attention from all areas of the state, Ms. Chen urged TAC members to visitwww.californiaroadchargepilot.com to comment on the program, obtain information, andvolunteer.

13. Legislative Update (Raffi Hamparian/Michael Turner, Metro)No update was provided.

14. Other Business

AdjournmentMs. Pan reported that the next scheduled TAC meeting is a special meeting to review theRainbow Report on July 22, 2015 in the Gateway Conference Room, on the 3rd floor at 9:30AM. If you have questions regarding the next meeting, please contact Brian Lam at (213) 922-3077 or email [email protected].

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEESign in SheetJuly 1, 2015

AGENCY MEMBER/ALTERNATE

AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF CALIFORNIA 1,

Marianne Kim/Stephen Finnegan

BICYCLE COORDINATOR 1. ~~/ °°-

Rich Dilluvio Michelle owe

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE (BOS)

1.

2.

Jp c ooney/Susa Lipmani~'

n eonard G oria Gallardo

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 1.

S Dave Nelms O~'' " -- ^ft

CALTRANS

1.

2.

Alberto Angelini/Jimmy Shin

David So Vi'a cram

CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE ON ADA 1

Ellen Blackman Vacant

CITY OF LONG BEACH 1 ~i/~~C—~'

Nathan Baird Derek Wieske

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEEAttendance Roster — 7/1/2015Page 2


1.J es Lefton/Corinne alph

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 2

Dan Mit ell/Carlos Rios

3.Ferd Chan Kevin Minne

~-----

a Fung/Ayala Be Yehuda

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 2. //~ ~ ~ ~° V

3.

ohn W er nez Yeung

A~/i ~ ~ ~l ~/. CS/~ ~ ~

P trick V. DeChellis Allan Abramson

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIESArroyo Verdugo Cities 1.

David Kriske/Ro ik Golanian

Gateway Cities COG 2.Mo a ad ostahkami/Lisa Rapp

Las Virgenes Malibu COG 3.obe Brager/Ra ' o Adeva

North Los Angeles County 4.Mike Behen/All Thompson

San Gabriel Valle COGy 5.L tevens /Craig Bradshaw

San Fernando Valley COG 6.Rolle an/ Wayne Ko

South Bay Cities COG 7.Robert Beste d Semaan

Westside Cities COG

~~

8David Feinb Sharon Perlstein


AGENCY MEMBER~ALTERNATE

1.SeUastian Hernandez/Kathryn Engel

LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE (LTSS)

Per ' s joe Barrios

1.Fa y Pa rian Lam

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Countywide Planning &Development

(Metro)2. l~l~~,lX~~~~~R.~

Diane Corral-Lopez/Carolyn KreslakeMetro O erations

PEDESTRIAN COORDINATOR 1 t~/or

Valerie Watson Dale Benson

PUBLIC HEALTH REPRESENTATIVE (Ex-Of~'icio) 1

Susan Price Vacant

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAILAUTHORITY (SCRRA - Ex-Officio) 1•

Anne Louise Rice Karen Sakoda

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD -- Ex-Of~i.cio) 1-

E o e monds ath Hi ins

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAASSOCIATION O~ GOVERNMENTS (SCAG -- Ex-Officio) 1•

Warren Whiteaker Annie Nam

GOODS MOVEMENT REPRESENTATIVE (Ex-Officio) 1.

Lu e Valdez a n DiCamillo

1.Mark amar %Ph' Aker ~"TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/

SUSTAINABILITY SUBCOMMITTEE2.

Mark Hunter Vacant

TAC Audience At

tend

ance

July 1, 2015

Name

Agency

Phone Number

E-Mail

2~"'— eresa W

~YY1 e-t-ro

2 t 3) ~ 22 - 2 ASS ~

Wan -te

m e-Fro . n e-

F-

3.S~'U~ Novo

~C/~L~/~k~'~"~ ~ 3 g ~7 - ̀~

~$s'r~~~

~~mr

~~°~

~o~,

~`i~

f~~v

4~sS~~

/nom

~~~s

5j

f~~ ,

~,~

~.

5/~

.~

CG'

~l ~C ~%~-

~e~

~~~~

-` ~

SLR ~G~ ~ Cry

•.

6 7 8 9 10

11 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Attachment 4




Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:30 A.M.

Meeting Minutes

Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority


1. Call to Order/Roll CallBrian Lam (Alternate Chair) called the meeting to order at 9:35 A.M., took roll and declared aquorum was present.

2. Chairperson’s Report (Fanny Pan, Metro)Ms. Pan announced that there are new alternate TAC members. Elizabeth Shavelson (City ofMalibu) will be the new alternate member for the Las Virgines/Malibu COG. Justine Garcia(City of Glendora) and Linda Evans (City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation) willbe new alternate members for the Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS).

Ms. Pan reminded TAC that the 2015 Call for Projects (Call) TAC Appeals will be held on July28th at 9:00 AM in the William Mulholland Conference Room.

3. 2015 Call for Projects (Rainbow Report) (Rena Lum/ Modal Leads, Metro)Ms. Lum reported that 178 applications were received. Staff recommended 84 projects forfunding, totaling $192.8 million. Each application was reviewed by an evaluation team of 3-5members assembled by the modal leads. The final score of each application, as shown in thepreliminary staff recommendations (Rainbow Report), was determined by averaging eachevaluator’s score. Each modal category in the Rainbow Report has two dividing lines. Thesolid line represents projects that scored above 70 points and are qualified for funding.However, some modes did not have enough money to fund all the qualified projects. Thedashed line represents projects that will receive funding through the 2015 Call. Projectslocated between the dashed and solid lines are projects for which additional funding isrequired.

Pat DeChellis (County of Los Angeles) asked if projects that scored below 70 have any reasonto appeal? Ms. Lum replied any project sponsor has the right to appeal if they wish to do so.Ultimately, the Appeals funding recommendations are at the discretion of TAC.


Mohammad Mostahkami (League of California Cities – Gateway Cities COG) asked if the $6.6million available in the TAC Appeals Reserve can be allocated to any mode? Ms. Lum repliedthat TAC can allocate the funds to any mode.

Robert Beste (League of California Cities – South Bay Cities COG) asked where thedistribution of funds per modal category is determined? Ms. Lum replied that the Long RangeTransportation Plan sets percentage distribution.

Larry Stevens (League of California Cities – San Gabriel Valley COG) asked if TAC has everreduced funding for a project that has been recommended by staff in order to fund a projectbelow the line? Heather Hills (Metro) replied that it has been done in the past. However,staff may or may not concur with TAC’s recommendation. Mr. DeChellis commented thatsince not all project sponsors are present during the Appeals, TAC does not know if a projectwould still be viable with reduced funding.

Mike Behen (League of California Cities – North Los Angeles County) asked if the TACAppeals Reserve can be distributed to any project regardless of the score it received? Ms. Panreplied yes; however, the Call Appeals Guidelines notes that, “As a first priority, TAC shouldfirst consider funding those qualifying projects for which funding is not available. Thisconsideration should be made with or without an appeal. The second priority should be thoseprojects below the qualifying line of 70. In this priority, only projects that have an appealbefore TAC can be considered for funding.”

Sebastian Hernandez (LTSS) asked for clarification on the time when TAC reduced funding ona project above the line. Ms. Lum replied that the only time a project was removed fromabove the funding line was at the request of the project applicant.

Mr. Stevens asked if all projects above the dashed line are fully funded? Ms. Lum replied theprojects above the dashed line are recommended for funding; however, multiple projectsreceived reduced funding than what was requested. All project sponsors were notified andagreed to the reduced funding.

Mr. Beste noted that some of the Bicycle mode projects seem recreational from thedescription. He asked how Bicycle projects are evaluated in terms of transit connections.Avital Shavit (Bicycle modal lead, Metro) replied that all bicycle mode applications wereevaluated based on ability to serve utilitarian trips, regional connectivity, and connections totransit. The majority of the projects recommended for funding have a strong connection totransit and serve the First/Last Mile.

Ms. Lum noted that a mistake was made in the Transit Capital mode; however, the change isalready reflected in the Rainbow Report. Staff allocated an additional $276,957 to projectF9404 – Electric Bus Charging Infrastructure Improvements (Antelope Valley TransitAuthority) using 2015 Call Deobligated funds from the Transit Capital Mode.

Mr. Mostahkami asked for clarification on why some projects have funding available in FY 17?Ms. Lum replied that typically the Call covers a five-year period with the bulk of fundingavailable in the last two years. The bulk of funding for the 2015 Call will be available in FY 20


and FY 21; however, staff tried to program funds in earlier years as well. In some cases, staffcan work with project sponsors to accelerate funding availability.

Ms. Lum reported that staff remains in a black out period and is not allowed to discussproject evaluations until the Board adopts the 2015 Call funding recommendations inSeptember 2015.

Regional Surface Transportation Improvements (Matt Abbott, Metro)Mr. Abbott reported that:

33 applications were received, requesting $120.3 million (inflated);

19 projects scored above the qualifying funding line;

Staff is recommending funding for 12 projects, totaling $39.3 million (inflated);o Eight of the project applicants agreed to receiving reduced funding, allowing

additional RSTI projects to be funded. For projects receiving less than whatwas requested, all but one project sponsor indicated that they will be able tomaintain the original scope of work without downscoping.

Types of projects received in the RSTI category include: roadway widening, gapclosure, bridge replacement and widening, intersection improvement, and completestreets; and

All 12 projects that are recommended for funding are multi-modal and include one ormore of the following elements: bicycle, pedestrian, signal improvements, and/ortransit components. Complete streets components were also a component of severalof the recommended projects.

Mark Yamarone (TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee) asked if the Streets and FreewaysSubcommittee approved the staff recommendations? Mr. Abbott replied yes.

Mr. Stevens asked if the evaluation process considered potential right of way (ROW) issues?Mr. Abbott replied that ROW acquisition was a component of the evaluation criteria and wasconsidered during the scoring of the projects.

Mr. DeChellis asked if the new lapsing date extension policy will be retroactively applied topast Call projects? Ms. Pan replied no, only the 2015 Call and beyond.

Mr. DeChellis noted that Project F9122 – Telegraph Road Bridge Replacement (Pico Rivera)seems to be requesting Call funding to be used as a match for a Highway Bridge Program(HBP) grant. He commented that this should not be allowed as the project is already fundedby another grant which takes Call money away from other projects. Mr. DeChellis stated thathe thinks Metro should only fund half the match of any project that is using the Call as a localmatch for other grants. Ferdy Chan (City of Los Angeles) replied that $2.3 million for a localmatch could be a lot for certain cities. Mr. Chan noted that TAC cannot impose a restriction ifit was not stated on the application. Renee Berlin (Metro) agreed and noted that if a TACmotion is made, it should not affect the 2015 Call.


Ms. Berlin commented that Metro does not know what was in the HBP application. Perhapsthe requested Call funds are paying for long approaches which are not eligible for funding inthe HBP.

Mr. DeChellis requested that Mr. Abbott inform the City of Pico Rivera that they should have apresence at the Call Appeals. Mr. Stevens replied that staff should find out more informationon the project before assumptions are made.

Mr. Mostahkami asked how can staff determine if other projects are using Call funds as amatch? Mr. DeChellis requested that staff scan through the applications and note whichprojects appear to be requesting Call funds to be used as a local match for other Federalgrants.

Goods Movement Improvements (Teresa Wong, Metro)Ms. Wong reported that:



Staff is recommending funding for 7 projects, totaling $29.6 million (inflated);

Types of projects received in the Goods Movement category include: arterial widening,intersection widening for the purpose of accommodating truck turning movements,arterial operational and multi-modal components such as turning pockets or theaddition of missing sidewalks.

Mark Hunter (TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee) asked why Project F9200 – Eastern AvenueCapacity and Operational Improvements (City of Bell) is considered a Goods Movementproject and not an RSTI project? Ms. Wong replied the project area has significant trucktraffic and the project improves truck movements in addition to being multi-modal.

Mr. Stevens asked if all the projects were fully funded or downscoped? Ms. Wong replied thatone project was downscoped to integrate better with the Rail to River project.

Mr. Mostahkami asked if staff knows the local match source of Project F9203 – Pier B StreetFreight Corridor Reconstruction Project (Port of Long Beach)? Ms. Pan replied that the Pier Bproject was partially funded by Metro in previous Calls. Metro allows Call funding for up to17% of the total cost for large Goods Movement projects.

Jane Leonard (BOS) asked why the majority of the amount recommended for funding ishigher than the requested amount? Ms. Pan replied that the Metro recommended amount isescalated to the programmed years.

Mr. Beste asked how installation of a bicycle facility has merit in a Goods Movement project.Ms. Wong replied the project also provides truck movement improvements at threeintersections.

Mr. Beste noted there is currently a lawsuit on the Hyperion Bridge project which may causeissues with project F9206 – Intersection Improvements on Hyperion Avenue and Glendale


Boulevard (City of Los Angeles). Ms. Berlin replied that the bulk of funds are allocated to lateryears, so conditions can be placed on the funding. Mr. Beste asked how does Metro know ifthe project will be completed with so many unknown factors? Ms. Berlin replied that theapplications are evaluated on the merits of the project. Metro must make the assumptionthat any uncertainties will be overcome, such as ROW acquisition.

Signal Synchronization and Bus Speeds Improvements (Reinland Jones, Metro)Mr. Jones reported that:

16 applications were received, requesting $48 million (inflated);


Staff is recommending funding for 15 projects, totaling $43.7 million (inflated);o 3 projects were downscoped in coordination with the project sponsors;

Types of projects received and funded include: changeable message sign, adaptivetraffic control system, traffic management system and enhancement, and integratedcorridor management projects.

Mr. Stevens asked where on the I-210 does project F9301 – I-210 Connected Corridors ArterialSystems Improvements (Caltrans) propose traffic management systems? Mr. Jones repliedthat the project limits are between the SR-134 and I-605.

Transportation Demand Management (Neha Chawla, Metro)Ms. Chawla reported that:



Staff is recommending funding for 8 projects, totaling $7.2 million (inflated); and

Many proposed projects built upon existing systems and infrastructure;

All funded projects are cost effective and support First/Last Mile, multi-modalmobility, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support Metro’s sustainability goals.

Bicycle Improvements (Avital Shavit, Metro)Ms. Shavit reported that:



Staff is recommending funding for 15 projects, totaling $30.1 million (inflated);o 7 projects recommended for funding are directly connected to a rail transit

station;o 8 of the projects recommended for funding are within the FTA recommended

transit bike shed (3 miles);

Types of projects received include: cycle track, protected bike lane and route, bikeshare projects, and filling in gaps in the existing bike network.

Mr. Stevens asked how many appeals are in the Bicycle Mode? Ms. Shavit replied five.


Mr. Stevens asked how many of the projects are also eligible for Active TransportationProgram (ATP) funding? Ms. Shavit replied that she would have to evaluate the specifics ofeach application in order to determine ATP eligibility.

Mr. DeChellis asked for clarification on what Metro’s current practice is for Call and the ATP?Ms. Hills replied that the idea is to grow the overall pot of funding in Los Angeles County.Any project recommended for funding in the Call that is eligible for ATP will submit an ATPapplication with the help of a consultant hired by Metro.

Ms. Pan reminded TAC that in June 2015, Metro reprogrammed funds to for those Callprojects that applied, but were not awarded funds through the first cycle of ATP.

Mr. DeChellis asked where does the money from the Bicycle mode go if awarded projects arefunded through the ATP? Ms. Hills replied that she does not know the specific approach forthis cycle, but Mr. Ridder can provide more detail at the September 2, 2015 TAC meeting.

Mr. Stevens commented that knowing if a project has a good chance of being funded througha different grant, such as ATP, could affect how TAC decides to allocate the TAC AppealsReserve. Mr. DeChellis replied that a different point of view would be to use the TAC AppealsReserve to fund the best projects. Then if those projects later getting funding from anothersource, then the Call funds are put back into the pot for the next Call.

Nate Baird (City of Long Beach) noted that the Call and the ATP are entirely differentprograms with separate funding years, evaluation criteria, and application processes so aproject that does well in the Call may not do well in the ATP.

Kevin Minne (City of Los Angeles) noted that the ATP application requirement began becausethe Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) program was eliminated which caused adeficit in Call funding. Mr. Minne explained that he believed that once the deficit had beenresolved, the ATP requirement would end. It seems that now the ATP has become a methodof sub-planting funds for the Call which creates an issue where cities are self-competing withnew projects in the ATP and Call projects which were already funded through the Call. Mr.Baird added that there is a lot of additional work required to compile new information for theATP application since the Call and ATP applications are so different. The Metro consultanthelps, but applying to the ATP still requires staff time.

Mr. DeChellis replied that applying for ATP funds allows Metro to fund other projects. Forinstance, one project may compete well in the ATP, which will allow Metro to fund a worthyproject through the Call that may not have done well in the ATP. If the first project was notsubmitted to the ATP, the second project would have never gotten funding. From a regionalperspective it makes sense to try and get as much money to the region as possible. LosAngeles County did very well in ATP Cycle 1, which filled the deficit in the Call. Future ATPCycles will be providing additional money to fund more projects.

Mr. Baird agreed with Mr. DeChellis. He noted that due to differing evaluation criteria, BicycleBoulevard projects tend to score poorly in the ATP but better in the Call. These types ofprojects are an example of projects that the Call can fund. Ms. Shavit added that the ATP


criteria are very different, particularly when looking at bicycle crashes and safety data. Thehighest scoring projects in the Call may not do well in the ATP.

Mr. Mostahkami asked what are the sources of money funding the Bicycle mode? Ms. Lumreplied it could be a combination of Prop C 25%, State Regional Improvement Program, andFederal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds.

Pedestrian Improvements (Silva Mardrussian, Metro)Ms. Mardrussian reported that:



Staff is recommending funding for 13 projects, totaling $23 million (inflated);o 2 projects were downscoped in coordination with the project sponsors;

Types of projects funded in the Pedestrian category include: adding or wideningsidewalk, landscape improvement, pedestrian lighting, crosswalk improvement, streetfurniture, curb extension, bus stop improvement, and wayfinding signage. Manyprojects funded included multi-modal elements, complete streets, and First/Last Mileelements; and

The projects recommended for funding have good linkages between transit facilitiesand activity centers, high transit ridership and pedestrian activity.

Ms. Lum reported that a mistake was made on project F9623 – Beverly Boulevard, VermontAvenue to Commonwealth Avenue Pedestrian Improvements (City of Los Angeles). It wasrecommended for funding with $564,254; however staff had intended to fully fund the project.The project is short approximately $2.2 million. If this mistake was not made, project F9626 –Midtown Commercial Corridors Improvement Project (City of Burbank) would have beenpartially funded and F9624 – Glendale Train Station 1st/Last Mile Regional Improvements(City of Glendale) would not be funded.

Staff presented potential options to correct the mistake to TAC:

Take money from the $6.6 million available in the TAC Reserve;

Appeal during the TAC Appeals to request additional funding for Project F9623;

Take money from the 2015 Deobligation funds.

Mr. Stevens asked if the Cities of Burbank and Glendale were made aware of the mistake?Ms. Pan replied no.

Mr. Stevens asked how much 2015 Deobligation funds are available? Ms. Pan replied that the2015 Deobligation funds total approximately $29 million. This will be used to fund threepreviously approved, but deferred County signal forum projects, and the City of PalmdaleNorth County ITS Project. Approximately $12 million remains after funding these projects.$11 million out of the remaining $12 million is the City of Los Angeles project F3148 – NorthMain Street Grade Separation. Funds will be available once the City Council (tentativelyscheduled for October 2015) approves the project deobligation.


MotionMr. Stevens made a motion to fund projects F9626 – Midtown Commercial CorridorsImprovement Project (City of Burbank) and F9624 – Glendale Train Station 1st/Last MileRegional Improvements (City of Glendale) using 2015 Deobligation Funds. The motion wasseconded by Mr. Mostahkami. The motion passed with no objections.

Transit Capital (Michael Richmai, Metro)Mr. Richmai reported that:



Staff is recommending funding for 14 projects, totaling $21 million (inflated);o The majority of the projects were downscoped in order to fund as many

projects as possible;

Types of projects funded in the Transit Capital category include: capital improvementprojects and bus procurement;

Mr. Hernandez asked what formula was used for escalation? Steven Mateer (Metro) repliedthat the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) forecast was used. Mr. Hernandez askedif the same forecast was used for all modes? Ms. Lum replied yes.

Mr. Hernandez asked if any evaluation has been done to determine how actual cost comparesto the estimated escalation? Mr. Mateer replied that he would need to check with themodeling team.

Ms. Shavit commented that many project sponsors find that their estimated project costs aremuch lower than the actual final costs. This is simply due to the nature of estimating.

4. Other BusinessMs. Lum reported the TAC Appeals will be held on July 28, 2015. There are currently 18appealing projects. The Appeals will begin at 9:00 AM in the William Mulholland ConferenceRoom. After all the appeals are heard, there will be TAC discussions and recommendations.Request for appeals were due on July 20th and fact sheets are due to Metro by July 23rd. Afterthe appeals, staff will present the staff and TAC recommendations to the Board for adoptionin September 2015.

Mr. Mohammad asked what is the total requested value of the 18 appealing projects? Ms.Lum replied approximately $44.6 million.

AdjournmentMs. Pan reported that the 2015 Call TAC Appeals is on July 28, 2015 in the WilliamMulholland Conference Room, on the 15th floor at 9:00 AM. If you have questions regardingthe next meeting, please contact Brian Lam at (213)922-3077 or email [email protected].

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEESign in SheetJury 22, Zo1s


AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF CALIFORNIA 1.

Marianne Kim/Stephen Finnegan

BICYCLE COORDINATOR 1

Rich Dilluvio Michelle Mowe

1.

j 1

d

Jo ~ ce /Sus Lip nBUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE (BOS)

2.e Leonard Gloria Gallardo

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 1,

S t. Dave Nelms Ofc. Christian Cracraft

1. ~jL~~~

CALTRANS Alberto Angelini ~mmy Shih

David Sosa i'a Ko ara

ON ADACITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE 1.

Ellen Blackman acant

CITY OF LONG BEACH 1 ~✓'~/,`<~~,




1.es Lefton/Corinne R ph

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 2

Dan Mitchell/Carl 'os ~._,_,~

3~~ ~Ferd Chan Kevin Minne

1.

_.. -~--

2.

Tina Fun /Ayal Ben-Yehuda

`,~ ~~COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3.

ohn alke~' nez Ye

~~~ ' / o

P 'ck V. DeChellis Allan Abramson

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIESArroyo Verdugo Crt~.es 1.

David Kriske/RouUik Golanian

Gateway Cities COG 2.Mo , mm d Mostahkami/Lisa Rapp

Las Virgenes Malibu COG 3.~~~~~-C.°~.~--

North Los Angeles County 4.

RoUert Brager/Ramiro Adeva

`r ~ ~" h~6'"Q.Mike Behen/Allen Thompson

San Gabriel Valley COG 5.Larry St ens /Craig Bradshaw

San Fernando Valley COG G

7.

Robert Newman/ Wayne Ko

ti A"South Ba Cities COGy

Westside Cities COG 8.

obert Beste/Ted Semaan

~r'~'~'G-~David PeinUer S ron Perlstein



1.

—~

LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE (LTSS)SeUastian Hernandez/Justine Garcia

2.e Perkins-Yin Linda Evans

1.~`'y~

Fa y Pan/ 'an Lam

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY C tywide Pla g & elopment

(Metro)2.

Diane Corral-Lop arol KreslakeMetro O erations

PEDESTRIAN COORDINATOR 1 ~~~ V V


PUBLIC HEALTH REPRESENTATIVE (Ex-Of~'icio) 1

Susan Price Vacant



SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD -- Ex-Officio) 1•

E onne Drummonds Kath Hi ins

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG -- Ex-Officio) 1•


GOODS MOVEMENT REPRESENTATIVE (Ex-Officio) 1.

Lu e Val La onna DiCamillo

1.Mark arone/Phil erTRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/

SUSTAINABILITY SUBCOMMITTEE2.

Mark H ter Vacant

TAC Audience At

tend

ance

July 22, 2015

Name

Agency

Phone Number

E-Mail

~~ r

Vt~.

yt u.

D ~~~

2~

vn

3~.

Ca,

rC~,~ r ~.

~

~°

oCJ

~~.

~' \ r- J Wi

t° ~,

C'

~~r . ~ .

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Attachment 5



TAC Member Attendance

2015 CALL FOR PROJECTS TAC APPEALS RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Regional Surface Transportation Improvements (RSTI)

TAC Recommendation: Fund project F9111 – Florence Avenue Improvement at Ira Avenueand Jaboneria Road (City of Bell Gardens) with $992,072 of the 2015 Call for Projects TACReserve Fund. Approve all other preliminary staff funding recommendations for this mode.

II. Goods Movement Improvements

TAC Recommendation: Approve the preliminary staff funding recommendations for thismode.

III. Signal Synchronization and Bus Speed Improvements


IV. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)


Va. Bikeway Improvements

TAC Recommendation: Fund project F9502 – Monterey Pass Road Complete Streets BikeProject (City of Monterey Park) with $1,993,627 and F9532 – Atherton Bridge and CampusConnections (City of Long Beach) with $1,876,800 of the 2015 Call for Projects TAC ReserveFund. Approve all other preliminary staff funding recommendations for this mode.

Vb. Pedestrian Improvements


VI. Transit Capital

TAC Recommendation: Fund project F9434 – Bus Replacement (Santa Monica Big Blue Bus)with $1,765,345 of the 2015 Call for Projects TAC Reserve Fund. Approve all other preliminarystaff funding recommendations for this mode.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEESign in SheetJuly 28, 2015

AGENCY MEMBERJALTERNATE

AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF CALIFORNIA 1, ~~~[~j~~Marianne Kim/Stephen Finnegan

BICYCLE COORDINATOR 1 ~~:~ - ~

Rich Dilluvio Michelle Mowe

BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE (BOS)

1. ~~

2.

yc ooney- usan an

~:~`

Ja nard ria Gallardo

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 1.

S elms craft

CALTRANS

1.

2.

c

Al gelini/Jimmy Shih

David Sosa Vi'a Ko aram

CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE ON ADA 1

Ellen Blackman Vacant

CITY OF LONG BEACH 1 ~~'~~~~z~'~~




1.Ja efton/Corinne Ralph

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 2.Dan Mit ll rlos Rios

3.Ferd Chan Kevin Minne

1.~ ~ 11 ~~""`Tina Fun Ayal Ben-Yehuda

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 2

3.

hn Walker . nez Yeung

~ ~`G ~ ~• ~~~ l~P trick V. DeChellis Allan AUramson

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ~— —'~~Arroyo Verdugo Cities 1.

~!~"--~David Kriske/Roubik Golanian

Gateway Cities COG 2. OCR Lf~. IK~a~—Mohamm Mostahkami/Lisa Rapp

-,

La.s Virgenes Malibu COG 3.e Brag izabeth Shavelson

North Los Angeles County 4.Behen/Alle ompson

San Gabriel Valley COG 5.Larry Stevens /Craig Bradshaw

San Fernando Valley COG 6.RoUert wman/ Wayne o

South Bay Cities COG 7.Robert Beste/ ed Semaan

Westside Cities COG 8David FeinUer haron Perlstein



LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE (LTSS)

1.

2.

'~Sebas ' J Hernandez/Justine Garcia

e Perkins-Yin Linda. Evans

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY(Metro)

1.

2.

Fa y Pan rian La.mCountywide Planning &Development

Diane Corral-Lopez/Carolyn KreslakeMetro O erations

PEDESTRIAN COORDINATOR 1 / v'~'~~


PUBLIC HEALTH REPRESENTATIVE (Ex-Officio) 1

Susan Price Vacant



SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD -- Ex-Of~'i.cio) 1-

E onne Drummonds Kath Hi ins

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG -- Ex-Officio) 1•


GOODS MOVEMENT REPRESENTATIVE (Ex-Officio) 1.Lu e de L onna DiCamillo

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/

SUSTAINABILITY SUBCOMMITTEE

1.

2.

Mark Y marone/Phil Aker

C~ark Hunter Vacant

TAC Aud

ienc

e At

tend

ance

July 28,

2015

Name

Agency

Phone Number

E-Mail

~Ir.S.Q~~I

Y 1

~,.~

G~'t"~

l.~'i;~ ~

2~o

~st,

,c)

h~o~rt~~a~

-( ~P

c~ ~- l3

N cJ

~-a

,t~-

~yv

~o G

4~ `~A

J~) i

L ~ ly

~C7

`~f3

R(~AI~Z.e

~ i~ .

~ ~I~b~-~~`~

~ve~d ~ ' ~..~,q, ' b z/

6~i

~l~

Pj%+

~ ~ei~~

~C;as~'~

'ZC ~ • 27~a ~

r~ t~

e~ca

~1~~,~~ ~ 4Cc'os~ ~ .,

~e~

TJ

o~~;

a~ e~.~~~

~ E `7 ~ ~f

' ~ 7 ~ ~

~"c?-

~ wt' l's'~t

c$

S.~ J,r

(., ~

~` ~~

`7 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'

sir,

~ ~..

~ ~

c:~'

~~~

~s~.~<

.,9 10

11 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

~.~

ME

MB

ER

SA

ND

AL

TE

RN

AT

ES

AG

EN

CY

Ju

lS

ep

Oc

tN

ov

Ja

nF

eb

Ma

rA

pr

Ma

yJ

un

Ju

l-1

Ju

l-2

2J

ul-

28

(Nam

e)

20

14

20

14

20

14

20

14

20

15

20

15

20

15

20

15

20

15

20

15

20

15

20

15

20

15

Ma

ria

nn

eK

im/S

tep

he

nF

inn

eg

an

(A)

AU

TO

CL

UB

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Ric

hD

illu

vio

/Mic

he

lleM

ow

ery

(A)

BIC

YC

LE

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Jo

yce

Ro

on

ey/S

usa

nL

ipm

an

(A)

BO

SS

UB

CO

MM

ITT

EE

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Ja

ne

Le

on

ard

/Glo

ria

Ga

llard

o(A

)B

OS

SU

BC

OM

MIT

TE

EX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Sg

t.D

ave

Ne

lms/O

fc.C

hri

stia

nC

racra

ft(A

)C

HP

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Alb

ert

oA

ng

elin

i/Jim

my

Sh

ih(A

)C

AL

TR

AN

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Da

vid

So

sa

/Vija

yK

op

pa

ram

(A)

CA

LT

RA

NS

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Elle

nB

lackm

an

/Va

ca

nt(A

)C

ITIZ

EN

RE

PO

NA

DA

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Na

tha

nB

air

d/D

ere

kW

ieske

(A)

LO

NG

BE

AC

HX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Ja

me

sL

eft

on

/Co

rin

ne

Ra

lph

(A)

CIT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Da

nM

itch

ell/

Ca

rlo

sR

ios

(A)

CIT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Fe

rdy

Ch

an

/Ke

vin

Min

ne

(A)

CIT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Tin

aF

un

g/A

ya

laB

en

-Ye

hu

da

(A)

CO

UN

TY

OF

LO

SA

NG

EL

ES

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Jo

hn

Wa

lke

r/In

ez

Ye

un

g(A

)C

OU

NT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Pa

tric

kD

eC

he

llis/A

llan

Ab

ram

so

n(A

)C

OU

NT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Da

vid

Kri

ske

/Ro

ub

ikG

ola

nia

n(A

)A

RR

OY

OV

ER

DU

GO

CIT

IES

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Mo

ha

mm

ad

Mo

sta

hka

mi/L

isa

Ra

pp

(A)

GA

TE

WA

YC

ITIE

SC

OG

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Ro

be

rtB

rag

er/

Ra

mir

oA

de

va

(A)

LA

SV

IRG

EN

ES

MA

LIB

UC

OG

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Mik

eB

eh

en

/Alle

nT

ho

mp

so

n(A

)N

OR

TH

L.A

.C

OU

NT

YX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

La

rry

Ste

ve

ns/C

raig

Bra

dsh

aw

(A)

SA

NG

AB

RIE

LV

AL

LE

YC

OG

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Ro

be

rtN

ew

ma

n/W

ayn

eK

o(A

)S

AN

FE

RN

AN

DO

VA

LL

EY

CO

GX

XX

XX

XX

X

Ro

be

rtB

este

/Te

dS

em

aa

n(A

)S

OU

TH

BA

YC

ITIE

SC

OG

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Da

vid

Fe

inb

erg

/Sh

aro

nP

erl

ste

in(A

)W

ES

TS

IDE

CIT

IES

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Se

ba

stia

nH

ern

an

de

z/J

ustin

eG

arc

ia(A

)L

TS

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

An

ne

Pe

rkin

s-Y

in/L

ind

aE

va

ns

(A)

LT

SS

XX

XX

XX

X

Fa

nn

yP

an

/Bri

an

La

m(A

)M

ET

RO

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Dia

ne

Co

rra

l-L

op

ez/V

aca

nt(A

)M

ET

RO

XX

XX

XX

XX

Va

leri

eW

ats

on

/Da

leB

en

so

n(A

)P

ED

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Su

sa

nP

rice

/Va

ca

nt(A

)P

UB

LIC

HE

AL

TH

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

XX

X

An

ne

Lo

uis

eR

ice

/Ka

ren

Sa

ko

da

(A)

SC

RR

AX

X

Eyvo

nn

eD

rum

mo

nd

s/K

ath

ryn

Hig

gin

s(A

)S

CA

QM

DX

XX

X

Wa

rre

nW

hite

ake

r/A

nn

ieN

am

(A)

SC

AG

Lu

pe

Va

lde

z/L

aD

on

na

DiC

am

illo

(A)

GO

OD

SM

OV

EM

EN

TR

EP

XX

Ma

rkY

am

aro

ne

/Ph

ilA

ke

r(A

)T

DM

/SU

ST

SU

BC

OM

MIT

TE

EX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Ma

rkH

un

ter/

Va

ca

nt(A

)T

DM

/SU

ST

SU

BC

OM

MIT

TE

EX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Wa

rnin

g!

Wa

rnin

g!

Wa

rnin

g!

Wa

rnin

g!

Wa

rnin

g!

Wa

rnin

g!

Attachment 6

Wayfinding Signage Grant Pilot ProgramApplication

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityWayfinding Signage Grant Pilot Program

Application Instructions

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) Wayfinding Signage Grant Program (“Program”) provides funds to eligible agencies wishing to install static wayfinding signage within one mile to and from Metro fixed guideway stations that will be open by June 30, 2017. Signage on Metro property and within the stations and park-and-ride lots themselves are not eligible. Eligible agencies includes: cities, County of Los Angeles, Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, municipal and local transit operators, and Caltrans.

Pilot Overview

At the November 2014 meeting, the Board directed the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to create a two-year pilot Wayfinding Signage Grant Program to implement components of Metro’s First/Last Mile Strategic Plan. The Pilot Program provides $500,000 over a two year period, Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 and 2016-17 (see attached map) to assist agencies in designing and implementing static Wayfinding signage systems on non-Metro properties within one mile to and from transit stations. Funding for FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 will be awarded through this application process.

Wayfinding signage projects should have a meaningful impact on improving the usability of the transportation system. Metro developed Station Wayfinding Signage Guidelines in December 2014. They are available for viewing at http://www.metro.net/projects/call_projects under the Guidelines and Manuals section, to assist agencies who wish to develop static signage and wayfinding improvements. These guide-lines serve as the basis for signage funded through this program. Since the Wayfinding Signage Grant Program is a two-year pilot program, an evaluation will be conducted at the end of the demonstration period to assess its needs and benefits.

The submission deadline will be Friday, November 13, 2015 by 3:00pm. Applications must be received by Metro’s Project Manager, Teresa Wong, either by mail or in person by 3:00 pm. Below is the list of application materials, instructions on how to submit an application, as well as a timeline of important dates.

Application Materials

> Application Instructions > Application > Program Guidelines > Metro Rail System Map by end of FY 2016-17

All materials can be accessed at http://www.metro.net/projects/call_projects. An application workshop will be held September 9, 2015 at 9:30am. Subregional workshops are being scheduled. Please contact Teresa Wong at [email protected] or 213.922.2854 if interested in attending.

Application Submission

Submit ONE (1) hard copy of the application and ONE (1) CD-R or DVD containing the completed application form in PDF, Application Parts 1 & 2, Application Signature Page, and Project Location and Map to Teresa Wong, Transportation Planning Manager, Subregional Planning, by Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:00pm.

Do not spiral or machine-bound the application and do not add a cover or title page to the front of the application package. No postmarks fax, or e-mail applications will be accepted.

Submit the completed application package through one of the following methods:

By Mail: In Person:ATTN: WAYFINDING SIGNAGE GRANT PROGRAM– TERESA WONG LACMTA One Gateway Plaza, MS 99-22-4 Los Angeles, CA 90012

ATTN: WAYFINDING SIGNAGE GRANT PROGRAM– TERESA WONG LACMTA One Gateway Plaza, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

Important Dates

August 26 2015 Application Available

September 9, 2015 – 9:30am Application Workshop*

November 13, 2015 – 3:00pm Application Submission Deadline

November 16, 2015 – January 6, 2016 Application Evaluation Period

January 2016 Preliminary Funding Recommendations

February 2016 TAC Meeting to Hear Project Appeals

April 2016 Metro Board Award Approvals

*Subregional Workshops being scheduled

3

Project Information

title

nearest metro fixed guideway transit line/station (must be within one mile)

project limits (street names, city)

project priority: priority no. _____ of _____

Applicant Information

sponsor

contact person name* & title

mailing address

city and zip code

email address

phone

*Please note that the designated “Contact Person” is the only contact point for all Grant communications from Metro. The contact person designated to serve as the liaison between Metro and the Project Applicant must be an employee of the Project Applicant and cannot serve as a consultant or contractor to the sponsoring agency. All Metro correspondence, questions, inquires soliciting clarification of information contained in the application, etc. will be directed to the identified contact person. If the above designated contact person no longer functions in this capacity (i.e. vacation, illness, etc.), then it is the responsibility of the project applicant to contact the Metro project manager with the newly designated person who will function as the liaison between Metro and the Project Applicant. Metro is not responsible for being unable to reach the designated “contact person”.

WAYFINDING SIGNAGE GRANT PILOT PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATIONdeadline: november 13, 2015 at 3:00pm

part 1: project information

4

Project Eligibility

Does the Project replace, renovate or install new static way>nding signage within one-mile of a Metro >xed guideway station? This program does not fund digital signage.

o YES o NO

Does the project follow Metro’s Station Way>nding Signage Guidelines? o YES o NO

Signage that follows Metro guidelines will be given priority. Metro will consider exceptions which must be fully explained and justified below.

Is the project consistent with applicable local, state, federal laws, guidelines and/or standards as well as wind load considerations?

o YES o NO

Project Type

What type of signage will this project include? Please mark all that apply.

o New Sign o Replacement Sign o Stand-alone Sign o Joint Sign

Project Milestone Schedule

projects

Phase Start (Month/Year) End (Month/Year) Comments

Public Outreach

Design

Fabrication

Installation

Other:(Procurement, etc.)

Please note that if this project is funded, this schedule will be included in the grant agreement and the grantee will be held to this schedule and lapsing deadline for the purposes of project oversight by Metro.

5

Project Funding Request

Year of funding requested. Please select all that applies.

o FY 2016 o FY 2017

Project Funding (in FY-16 dollars)

Deliverable/Phase Total (actual $)

Local Agency Funds (Match actual $)

Local Agency In-Kind Funds (Match actual $)

Requested Funds(actual $)

*Administrative costs (e.g., overhead and project management) are limited to a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the total project budget.

*Wayfinding signage that is part of a larger project will require the grantee to fund a proportionate share of the project cost. Metro will be responsible for funding up to fifty percent (50%) of the total cost of the wayfinding signage consisting of directional signage within one mile to and from Metro fixed guideway stations. Metro reserves the right to downscope or partially fund a project funding request as long as the project remains feasible.

*Non-eligible costs includes right-of-way acquisition, equipment, furniture, vehicles, office leases or space cost allocations, food or similar costs, staff overtime costs, mileage reimbursements, use of pool cars, on-going maintenance costs of signage, signage solely for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, and signage to or from Metro Parking Facilities.

6

Project Scope/Description

In the space provide below and limited to 300 words, brie?y describe the proposed project area and targeted communities. Please identify speci>c Metro >xed guideway transit line/station area(s) within one mile of project location and nearby key destinations (attractions, landmarks, etc.) the proposed project may bene>t. Way>nding signage is for non-Metro property locations and for signage to and from Metro stations, but not within the stations or park-and-ride themselves.

Please also include a description and signage design speci>cations, including, but not limited to the materials, quantity of signage, and size of the signage. Identify if the project will include new signs, sign replacement or renovation, and if the signs are stand alone or joint. Please attach any renderings, if available.

Attach a proposed project area map(s). Ensure that way>nding signage opportunity sites (see enclosed “Go Metro” map) are identi>ed on the map(s) and illustrate the one mile radius around the qualifying station(s) to demonstrate project eligibility.

7

SECTION 1: Demonstration of Need (up to 30 points)

a. Describe the need and purpose of the project in terms of signi>cance to the local community and larger region including importance of wayfinding to and from the transit network and the affect on ridership.

b. Identify Metro >xed-guideway transit lines that will benefit from this project. Ridership data can be requested directly from Metro’s Records Management at [email protected].

Transit Line(s) Name of Transit Station(s) Ridership (avg. weekday boardings)

part 2: project evaluation criteria

8

c. Identify the project area’s existing level of pedestrian and bicycling activity and the projected activity levels resulting from the proposed improvements. Please provide justification including methodology and source used in determining this estimate.

d. Please answer either i. or ii. based on project type in order to explain why the project is needed in the context of Metro’s First Last Mile Strategic Plan and Planning Guidelines. Metro’s plan can be accessed at http://media.metro.net/docs/First_Last_Mile_Strategic_Plan.pdf.

i. If the project involves new signage, what challenges/issues does this project address, i.e. access, visibility?

ii. If the project involves the replacement of existing signage, describe the current condition of the signage, on non-Metro property and the extent to which this project will address de>ciencies and the need for replacement (deferred maintenace is not a justification).

iii For either new or replacement of existing signage, is there su;cient sidewalk width for the signage as right-of-way acquisition is not eligible for funding.

9

section 2: Integration with First/Last Mile Strategies (up to 30 points)

In line with Metro’s First Last Mile Strategic Plan and Planning Guidelines and other >rst/last mile strategies, the Way>nding Signage program aims to improve the usability of the Metro system throughout Los Angeles County by increasing visibility and awareness of transit stations and providing helpful navigation and paths of travel within one mile to and from Metro >xed guideway stations.

a. How does the project promote the use of transit and >rst last mile strategies?

b. Describe how the project promotes increased visibility, awareness, and ease of access to and from transit stations within one mile.

c. Explain how the project provides helpful navigation for potential and existing Metro riders.

10

SECTION 3: Project Readiness and Cost Effectiveness (up to 35 points)

Points will be applied based on how quickly the project can be implemented. The project’s cost e=ectiveness will be based on its demonstrated ability to meet regional mobility bene>t in relationship to the total cost of the project.

a. Describe any existing implementation plans for static way>nding signage on non-Metro property that the applicant currently has that are compliant with local, state, federal laws, guidelines and/or standards, as well as wind load considerations. (limited to 300 words)

b. Has the applicant identified signage locations or consolidation of new/existing signs? Will the project be using existing posts/poles for installing sign(s)? Does applicant have the authority to implement signage or will approvals and permits need to be obtained? If yes, has the applicant started the permitting/approval process?

11

c. Identify all communities and stakeholders a=ected directly or indirectly by the proposed project. Describe the public participation and outreach program that has been completed, comments received, and future outreach that will be conducted to bring the project forward. Please attach any supporting documentation including letters of support (optional and should be addressed to the Metro Chief Planning O;cer), recorded comments at public meetings, meeting minutes, etc.

d. If this is a joint project, do all involved parties support the project? Explain the role of each party and provide proof of support.

12

e. Cost E=ectiveness. Using the table below as a template, please complete an itemized cost estimate for all expenses based on best information. Provide the source of information. Be as accurate as possible to avoid future cost overruns as these will be the responsibility of grantee if awarded funding. Metro does not fund cost overruns. **Make sure to include any relevant line items that are not listed in this table. Please provide costs in FY-16 dollars.

Item Quantity Unit Price Total

Design

Preliminary Design $

Final Design/Bid Package $

Total Design Cost $

Fabrication of Signage

Materials $ $

Labor Costs $ $

Other: $ $

Total Fabrication Cost $

Installation

Labor Costs $ $

Poles and Footings $ $

Brackets $ $

Remove/Repair Old Signage $ $

Other: $ $

$ $

$ $

Total Construction Costs $

Administrative Cost (maximum of ten percent (10%) of total project budget)

Total Administrative Costs $

Other Costs

$ $

$ $

$ $

Total Other Costs $

Total Estimated Project Costs $ $

Cost Per Sign

Total Estimated Project Costs Total Number of Signs Cost Per Sign

$ ÷ = $

13

SECTION 4: Local Match (up to 5 points)

A minimum >ve percent (5%) Local Match is required and the match may be monetary/hard, in-kind materials or services directly required for completing the project. Overmatch funding must be hard local match in order to receive additional points.

Total Local Match Awarded Points

> 9% 5

8 – 8.99% 4

7 – 7.99% 3

6 – 6.99% 2

5.1 – 5.99% 1

Less than 5% total contribution will be disqualified

Total Estimated Project Cost $ %

Funding Request $ %

Local Match: $ %

A) Minimum Match Amount – Hard $ %

B) Minimum Match Amount – In-Kind $ %

C) Hard Overmatch $ %

Total Local Match commitment (A+B+C) $ %

14

A person duly authorized to sign for the organization (city manager, general manager, executive director, planning director, or high-ranking officer) must sign and certify the application.

If recommended for funding, the information contained in this application will become the foundation for the funding agreement with Metro. Applicants should be aware that the scope approved by the Metro Board may differ from that contained in the original application in that Metro sta= may recommend a reduced funding amount Metro may place special conditions as part of funding approval. These conditions will be discussed with the applicant prior to funding recommendation.

I certify that I have reviewed the Eligibility Guidelines and that the information submitted in this application is true and correct and in accordance with the guidelines. If awarded a grant from Metro, I agree that I will adhere to the requirements and guidelines of the program.

name: title

signature date


application signature page

15

Required Documentation

o Application Parts 1 & 2o Application Signature Pageo Project Location and Map – project location and project limits, preferably 8.5” x 11”

Submit one (1) hard copy of each application (Parts 1 &2) along with the required documentation and one (1) CD-R or DVD to Teresa Wong, Transportation Planning Manager, by November 13, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.

Do not spiral or machine-bound the application and do not add a cover or title page to the front of the application package. no postmarks fax, or e-mail applications will be accepted.

Submit the completed application package through one of the following methods:

Failure to include any of the required documents will result in a reduced score and potential ineligibility.No late submittals will be accepted.


submission instructions

By Mail: In Person:ATTN: WAYFINDING SIGNAGE GRANT PROGRAM– TERESA WONG LACMTA One Gateway Plaza, MS 99-22-4 Los Angeles, CA 90012

ATTN: WAYFINDING SIGNAGE GRANT PROGRAM– TERESA WONG LACMTA One Gateway Plaza, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

Documents

September 2, 2015 - Agenda - Technical Advisory Committee …media.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/agenda_tac_2015-09… · Lorenzo 8. Ridership Trends (Handout) (10 minutes)