appendix -- metro 2013 draft title vi program...

Appendix S

Las Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

Metro

One Gateway Piaza zi3.gzz.z000Los Angeles, CA gooi2-2952 metro.net

REVISEDSYSTEM SAFETY &OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

MARCH 15, 2012

SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO METRO BUS SERVICE

ACTION: APPROVE PROPOSED CHANGES TO TIER I BUS SERVICE FOR

JUNE 24, 2012

RECOMMENDATION

A. Approve finding of no disparate or disproportionate adverse impacts from theoperation of the Orange Line Extension to Chatsworth; and,

B. Approve finding that the proposed headway changes due to the reallocation of

articulated and standard size buses on Lines 40, 710 and 740 to better meetpassenger demand with capacity utilization will have a disparate impact on Line 40

riders, but there is substantial justification for proceeding with this major service

change in order to meet Metro's goals of achieving a balanced operating budget

and complying with adopted service standards, and that the studied alternatives to

this service change of added service on Line 40 or higher fares for all riders wouldhave a more severe adverse effect on Title VI protected populations than theindicated service change.

ISSUE

Public hearings were held at each Metro Service Council in early February 2012 to

receive a staff presentation and public comments on proposed service changes to be

implemented June 24, 2012 or later. For those who could not attend the public

hearings, they were able to contact Customer Relations, or email their comments to

servicechanges(a~metro. net.

The staff proposals and maps, with any modifications made as a result of the public

hearings, are shown in Attachments A and B. Staff proposals also include thereallocation of bus sizes as part of the service change (Attachment C). At their March

Proposed Changes to Metro Bus Service

meetings, the Councils received a presentation of staff's final proposals, along with Title

VI and Environmental Justice Equity Evaluations (Attachment D) of the proposed major

changes. Based on this information, the Councils approved the proposed service

changes, and recommended Board approval of the necessary equity evaluation

findings.

The Board-approved Metro Service Council Bylaws require that all bus service

modifications approved by the Service Councils should be presented to the Metro

Board of Directors (Board) for information. The Metro Board also is required to take

action on any Title VI and Environmental Justice findings and recommendations

pertaining to these service changes.

DISCUSSION

The proposed June 2012 service plan focuses on the following four service categories:

• Opening of the Metro Orange Line extension to Chatsworth Station;

• Reallocating articulated and standard size buses on Lines 40, 710 and 740 to

better meet passenger demand with capacity utilization;

• Adjusting Metro Local Routes 163/363, 177, 202, 607 and 620; and,

• Improving service on the Metro Silver Line, including more weekday trips and

better headways on weekends.

The following describes the individual proposals contained in each service category:

Proposed Service Structure for Opening of Metro Orange Line Extension to

Chatsworth Station

The Metro Orange Line extension to Chatsworth Station will open during summer

2012. Four service alternatives were included in the public hearing. Based on

public input, staff presented the following proposal to the Service Council and

received approval for implementation.

Two separate branch routes will operate during the day, one between North

Hollywood and Warner Center, and a second between North Hollywood and

Chatsworth Station. In addition, a peak hour shuttle service will operate between

Chatsworth Station and Warner Center, providing direct service between the two

terminal locations by eliminating the need to transfer at Canoga Station. During

late evening hours, buses will operate directly to Warner Center and then

continue to Chatsworth Station. This configuration provides a one seat ride to

Chatsworth Station and maintains current service frequencies to Warner Center

as operated today. Weekend service will be provided with two separate

branches and also will include a similar late night service as proposed for

weekdays.

Proposed Changes to Metro Bus Service 2

Each branch would operate every 8 minutes in the peak period, and every 20minutes in the base period. Service from North Hollywood to the Canoga Stationwill still operate every 4 minutes in the peaks and 10 minutes in the base period.The proposed shuttle would operate every 8 minutes in the peak period.

Reallocate Articulated and Standard Size Buses

As a function of improving productivity, cost effectiveness, and utilizing existingavailable capacity, Metro service planning staff regularly reviews the routenetwork to identify proper vehicle allocation based on ridership. The followingvehicle assignment modifications were included in the Public Hearing:

Line 40 (Downtown LA-South Bay Galleria via ML King-Hawthorne)Replace standard size buses with articulated buses.

Line 710 (Wilshire Center —South Bay Galleria via Crenshaw BI.)Replace articulated buses with standard size buses.

• Line 740 (Crenshaw Station —South Bay Galleria via Hawthorne BI.)Replace articulated buses with standard size buses.

Adjust Metro Local Routes

A recent Board motion instructed staff to study the lowest performing lines. A

major component of the motion included a community outreach effort viaestablishment of a working group of riders using six ridership routes: Lines 126,177, 202, 442, 607 and 620. A "Public Workshop on Improving Service" wasconducted on November 15 at the Metro Gateway building. For those who couldnot attend the workshop, they were able to email their suggestions toservicechangesCa~metro. net.

The workshop was held from 5-7 p.m. in the Union Station Room and wasattended by approximately 50 patrons. Attendees came in greatest numbers to

discuss Line 620. A smaller group of patrons had interest in Lines 177 and 442.Also, Customer Relations received 21 emails.

Based on the meeting results, listed below are four route changes proposed byriders during the workshop and were included in the Public Hearing.

• Line 177 (Sierra Madre Gold Line Station - JPL): Discontinue servicebetween Sierra Madre Gold Line Station and Pasadena City College.Travel time savings will allow the addition of one new peak trip.


• Line 202 (Metro Local - Willowbrook - Compton - Wilmington viaAlameda St.): Modify route to serve new shopping center on AlamedaSt. across from Artesia Blue Line Station.

• Line 607 (Metro Local - Windsor Hills - Inglewood Shuttle): Modify route

to serve Ladera Center at La Tijera BI. and Centinela Av.

• Line 620 (Boyle Heights Shuttle): Modify route to 1St St. and Mott Av. to

serve the Food for Less Market.

At the request of the San Fernando Valley Service Council, it also was proposed to

discontinue Limited Line 363 and replace the service with Local Line 162.

Metro Silver Line Service Improvements

As planned with the future opening of the ExpressLanes project, funding

is available to enhance the Metro Silver Line Metro. Selected peak hour

weekday trips will be added, along with new 20 minute (currently 40minute) Saturday and 30 minute (currently 60 minute) Sunday service.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The proposed changes have been included in the FY12 proposed budget. If not

implemented as presented, the financial impact would vary depending on specific

changes made to the service adjustments.

Impact to Budget

The funding for implementing the proposed changes will come from various Enterprise

Funds such as fare revenues, sales tax, and TDA4. The funds are eligible to be used

for bus and rail operations. No other sources of funds were considered because the

proposed changes will be implemented by reallocating the designated fund for bus

operations.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Metro is currently completing construction of the Metro Orange Line extension to

Chatsworth Station. Should no service concept be approved at this time, no service

would operate on the completed right-of-way, as the next scheduled service change will

not be implemented until December 2012.

The proposed vehicle allocation changes are a function of improving productivity, cost

effectiveness, and utilizing existing available capacity. Should articulated buses remain

on Line 740 (after the opening of Expo Line) and Line 710, analysis shows these lines

would be over served. Line 40, in turn, would experience overloads. Additional service


could be added to Line 40; however, this alternative would not be an efficient use ofresources.

In November 2011, planning staff conducted a community workshop that focused on sixlines with low ridership. The proposed changes to Lines 177, 202, 607 and 620 evolvedfrom this process. The alternative to these changes is to keep the lines as currentlyrouted; however, there is no benefit derived from not implementing the changes.

The proposal to convert Limited Line 363 to Local Line 162 improves access for all

patrons along Sherman Way to the North Hollywood Metro Rail Station. If the servicewere to remain the same as operated today, this benefit would not be realized.

The ExpressLanes project provides funding to improve service on the successful Silver

Line. Currently the morning and afternoon peak periods are experiencing overloads.Ridership on Saturday and Sunday is growing, and late night schedules requireenhancements. The alternative to not implement the proposed changes would be tocontinue operating the existing service and not take advantage of available funding toimprove the service for our patrons.

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

The proposed service changes are expected to have a positive impact on safety with

further improvements of service and quality for passengers.

NEXT STEPS

With Board approval, all of the proposed changes will begin on June 24, 2012 or later.

ATTACHMENTS

A. June 2012 Service ProposalsB. Maps of June 2012 Service ProposalsC. Proposed Vehicle Size AssignmentsD. Title VI and Environmental Justice Equity Evaluations

Prepared by: R. Scott Page, Manager of Service PlanningDana Woodbury, Manager of Strategic Service PlanningConan Cheung, DEO of Service Planning &Development


'e Mitchellief Operations Officer

Arthur T. LeahyChief Executive Officer


ATTACHMENT A

Listed below are the service proposals that were considered at the hearings:

METRE WESTSIDE/GENTRAI.

~1NE L[NE NAME SERVICE CHANGE

40 Downtown LA -South Bay Reduce frequency and assign larger articulated vehicles toGalleria via ML King-Hawthorne maintain seat capacity.

620 Boyle Heights Shuttle Adjust route to serve 1St St. and Mott Av. Discontinueservice to Indiana Gold Line Station.

710 Wilshire Center -South Bay Assign smaller 40-foot vehicles and increase frequency toGalleria via Crenshaw BI. maintain seat capacity.

740 Crenshaw Station -South Bay Assign smaller 40-foot vehicles and increase frequency toGalleria via Hawthorne BI. maintain seat capacity.

LINE LINE NAME SERVICE CHANGE

163/363 Metro Local and Limited —West Discontinue Limited Line 363 and replace with new LocalHills Medical Center —Sun Line 162, serving all stops on Sherman Wav and

Lankershim BI.Valley/North Hollywood Station viaSherman Way, LankershimLimited

901 Metro Orange Line Extend service to Chatsworth Metrolink Station in Summer2012. Four different operating concepts were consideredfor service between North Hollywood and Warner Center,North Hollywood and Chatsworth, and Chatsworth andWarner Center.

f i'~l~ ~3~It7_ti~~~~~L\'(~1~ ilk:

L.fNE ~~NE NAME SERVICE CHANGE

202 Metro Local - Willowbrook - Adjust route to serve new shopping center on Alameda St.Compton - Wilmington via across from Artesia Blue Line Station.Alameda St.

~ 1 ~ i l ~ ~ ' i Z~ ~.' ~ _ 1 ~ C ~ 3 =1- 3:71= I ~ T / ~ 1 ~ ~ ~'1

LINE LINE NAME SERVICE CHANGE

177 La Canada - Sierra Madre Villa via Discontinue service east of Pasadena City College.-210, California BI. and WalnutSt.


SilverLine

EI Monte —Los Angeles — Artesia Improve service frequencies on Daily, Saturday and SundayTransit Center schedules.

11 ~`'rw !

LINE LINE NAME SERVICE CHANCE

40 Downtown LA -South Bay Galleria Reduce frequency and assign larger articulated vehicles to

via ML King-Hawthorne maintain seat capacity.

607 Windsor Hills - Inglewood Shuttle Adjust route to serve Ladera Center at La Tijera BI. andCentinela Av.

710 Wilshire Center -South Bay Assign smaller 40-foot vehicles and increase frequency to

Galleria via Crenshaw BI. maintain seat capacity.

740 Crenshaw Station -South Bay Assign smaller 40-foot vehicles and increase frequency to

Galleria via Hawthorne BI. maintain seat capacity.


Attachment B Maps

Line 163/363 Proposal: Discontinue Limited Line 363 andReplace with New Local Line 162 along Same Route during Weekday Peaks

Mefro Line 16313f:3 (SFV)...

EastE~Qtand ~o~,,,,~~

~~~ ~~°".~„ . _,.Sum- 6.023 Baardir~s # '"w~~~, r_

. ..

___ __~_ 4¢ ~`~`.>

..:. n

.. ~g .....

_. r

.~~.a~~ t

~ .

<. _. s

......... ~~_.. _.. y°tarj~ - 7 '.

~~ ~ .,... .i~er..w~ _ .. ....

~ _..... .... _N,.

o vrcnwirw~p/ y~YYEr.S~~.iFGI.IIl£~ ,~~.,,

_-. ~ S

rianawna ~"~,,.. _~

a wnxw;~wr

,..gum- beQt3 B~rdin~' `'gig ~`~.

~,< I

~*P-CF.~...+~a.-a{..~3.`:f:5 <3 R3 ~~~''^~.~~a.:,x rn eF~.m~a ~ ~- 1

a tl y

~`:.~cyf3" fir+.

~S'' a~,~rA~ res-. ~~t%fd I ..

.. fib.. ...j

p u+twarc

$ -

~ ~: iy

~ wJdu AK A`r ~ ~

:.......... w.... .... .... MR:tiw.M:a

~B.AkWFFNk i..repr'

..~.,~,~~_~,,.....__..=w

~...~.~°~,.°, -

6 , _o ~.,r~..,~x.„a.,

~ zN4~~zc a,~.ca,;.zCJlf Coe~Yw3,%ktiacumt

': ZI. OmMktsa B.d 1.N~fs

i tY {qry pyYA Ylmt

r pu.»,o~v.aax

~

S!

.,» _.. ._.._ ~.u~

Propo:

1.5 8 des~ I I 1 1 1—~

~a~~,pen~,~~~~;~, PROPOSEDMODIFICATION

43a

a~

7 Yflmina;on. <eE~=; ~

.Ga~.ac.i...,.,_. ,,,_.. t*ywwt~t

c •Existing Routa 0 ~ NewShapeing Center

] - Discantinued Segm~rt ~ _ ~~5„~

~~ ~Y~ ~ -Neva Route~ :~ 0 -Artesia Station

."~ s,,,,,,~„ 1 - Discoatinaed Stops-- ~..+ro..~ i Q -Campton Cnliege

— € m w.~.«,o ~ <" - Alternative Serice

W> v:kb`::H M` Uws]RtANCtuy~ ~

9

Melrti

Line 607 Proposed Reroute

Line 607

~~ ~ --ti ~~~

............................. ....................... ~ .. suu~ax

__..__ l

t ~

r ~ ~{}~~t FFIPVIE't1

~ Sum: 93 Boardings

....,....~-- / .,....... i

'/ ' iL ENG!

~_ .~,~J

//

,~ /

,\,Y/~.3//

/f 33

~ ]~.~ ~

W

///f'

/

~/

R~EIR

~V'

~

V

' ~'

y ... _ ... ..............................:

..........,/~ , i__; ....... ........... ......._ .... -~ons ~ t,l~ a ..

~\ ; ~Offs

9 4 2

7,farruao B~ tf&gas° Llne 607 (Current Route)

~~ Line 607 (New Rero ute)

~~ Line 607 (fo Discontinue)

O.A 08 P.tiles *. 4—i—~.--b._....... ~


Line 620 Proposed Reroute

Line ~2~

cans~` ~Cms ~-'

T,~Bf ~E lJ1~GM

Sum: ~3!~2 ~oar~~n~s

~i~ f```~~s

line 6'217 CC ~!'Tert Rou{ej

..,•..~— Une82U(Nev+sRerauTe~ ~ ~.4~ 1~.9 M6Ess _.,r.

—~i;--~ Lina 82U €To gisrarRin~e~ `..


r.~

Orange Line E~ension Proposal

0 1.5 3 Miles


Attachment C

Proposed Vehicle Size Assignments

JUNE 2012 SERVICE CHANGE PROGRAM

LINE 40 -EXISTING WITHSTANDARD SIZE BUSES

Headway (in min.)

MiddayPak Pak

NB 8 11 13DX

SB 10 12 8

N B 14SA

SB 16

NB 17-18SU

SB 17-18

LINE 40 -PROPOSED WITHARTICULATED BUSES

Headway (in min.)

MiddayPak Pak

NB 10-15DX

SB 10-15

N B 15-20SA

SB 15-20

NB 15-20SU

SB 15-20

LINE 710 -EXISTING WITHARTICULATED BUSES

Headway (in min.)

MiddayP ak Pak

NB 12-15 30 12-15DX

SB 11-17 30 15

NB 30SA

SB 30

LINE 710 -PROPOSED WITHSTANDARD SIZE BUSES

Headway (in min.)

P akMidday Pak

NB 8-11 20 8-11DX

SB 8-12 20 8-11

NB 20SA

SB 20

Proposed Changes to Metro Bus Service 1 ~

ATTACHMENT C (CONTINUED)

LINE 740 — EXISTING WITHARTICULATED BUSES

Headway (in min.)

AM Peak Midda y

PMPeak

NB 12 27-33 15-16DX

SB 18 30 14-17

NB 22-25SA

SB 22-25

LINE 740 — PROPOSED WITHSTANDARD SIZE BUSES

Headway (in min.)

PMAM Peak Midda

y Peak

N B 9 19-24 12DX

SB 12 22 11-13

NB 15-18SA

SB 15-18

Proposed Changes to Metro Bus Service ~ 4

Attachment D

Title VI and Environmental Justice Equity Evaluations

EQUITY EVALUATIONORANGE LINE (LINE 901) CHATSWORTH EXTENSION

The Metro Orange Line is approximately 14.5 miles long operating on exclusiveguideway, mostly at grade, with the exception of the western most segment betweenCanoga Station and the Warner Center terminal which operates along city streets.Because the corridor is primarily an exclusive guideway, fare collection has beenremoved from vehicles. Passengers not possessing pre-paid fare media mustpurchase their fare from a Ticket Vending Machine, located at station platformentrances, before boarding vehicles. The pricing structure for Orange Line usage is thesame as for Metro bus and rail basic fare services. Due to the exclusive guideway anddedicated stations with fare vending equipment, the Orange Line functions like a rubbertired rail line. The Orange Line Extension to Chatsworth adds approximately 4.0 milesrunning on exclusive guideway at-grade except for an overcrossing just south ofChatsworth Station. The extension is planned for operation in summer 2012.

~""°~ Qrange Line {BEFORE)~~~~.

...,...,...ILYY~P. ~, cIUYtlER.......

I

! ~! ~ Gx[xNR~W~ I' .....................__......_. _. ___....

~ f - ~~ ~,.

'~~ ~~__ ~........_ l---

~ t~uam.xui

~ ~ ~ eair.+~xw

/~......_. ~~ i

, \~~~°

.\

i . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~3: ~ ~ `. I

~~{~, u\ ~`~ ~ WBLYE ~ K3 ~....~' ~ "'~.__.a

_.. _ _ .._.

-HEP lV I! :HEPI.I:N-H EP I.1 a

r. -

':HEP Ii-lI '. ~HEPM1y ~~rI~

~ti i

~:,s w:,~K~EN :.... ._

.~; ~ it

.0 ~ i— ~r.p

~!!MiL qnE

W.gi

'.....L........ .... WONO M

~~rp

,~,.~......

..,..__... ~ D]0~. ARK _....'

u1 i' t ...~F

~- .....~„q 1~

W

~

/ ~ •'

~` t `'w... ...1~'.~ ,..

y ~~~ 5ie1.Y~.y\ ,~~....~

~ r y ., .,~.. ../~1Ab/

T6 Tracts ~ "' * f ̀~~, ~ tx:

~j~py' ~. ] Hospitals

"...~.. ,w,.~..,

e'h`"" ~ Schools

~^'~"".~7 314 Mlle Ratllus (Orange Llne) 0 0.5 1 P~liles ~(},~h++i-f-F-I ~.: 7 s

Figure 1


The existing Orange Line corridor and its relation to schools and hospitals, and the

demographics of the surrounding population, are shown in Figure 1. Only 13.2% of

current ridership boards in minority Census tracts, so the line is not characterized as

Title VI sensitive. However, 63.7% of ridership boards in Environmental Justice Census

(EJ) tracts, so the line is characterized as EJ-sensitive.

~"'~° Orange Line {AFTER)

~~ ~~"~tf//~

':~•

rte.

~N ,d:;: ~:

VA HJ ~4'EN ~~

~1CTJ RY j ~~

j ~( Hos rtals ~.,,, , ,' p 3!4 Mile Radius (Orange Line) U its 1 ~v1:les

Schools ~~~

Figure 2

As can be seen in Figure 2, the Orange Line Extension itself should be considered both

Title VI and EJ-sensitive by virtue of having three of four added stations in minority

Census tracts, and all added stations in EJ tracts.

Metro guidelines for a service equity evaluation consider the impact of a service change

upon three attributes of service provision: (1) travel time including wait time; (2) walk

access, and (3) cost.


Travel Time Impacts

Since the Orange Line Extension provides connectivity that did not exist previously with

a single service, several representative trips will be evaluated within the corridor. The

trips to be evaluated include:

1) Warner Center to Chatsworth Station;2) West Hills Medical Center to Chatsworth Station; and,3) Pierce College to Chatsworth Station.

Trip 1 — Warner Center to Chatsworth Station

This trip is directly served by the Orange Line extension. Planned operation providesfor an 8-minute peak and 12-minute off-peak headway, and a 20 minute running time

between these terminal points for a total peak trip time of (.5*8 + 20) 24 minutes (off-

peak would be 26 minutes).

Using Metro's Trip Planner, all trips without the Orange line would use Metro Line 245

via Topanga Canyon BI to Chatsworth Station. Line 245 runs every 30 minutes peak

(60 minutes off-peak) and takes 24 minutes running time in the peak and 29 minutes in

the off-peak. Therefore, under the most favorable circumstances this trip would require

(.5*30 + 24) 39 minutes in the peak period, and up to 59 minutes in the off-peak. The

Orange line extension reduces travel time from 39 minutes to 24 minutes, or 38% (from

59 minutes to 29 minutes off-peak, or 51 %).

Trip 2 —West Hills Medical Center to Chatsworth Station

This trip requires accessing the Orange Line extension via Line 163 to Sherman Way

Station and a transfer to the Orange Line to complete the trip. The bus line operates

with a 12-minute peak headway (30-minutes off-peak) and takes 12 minutes to get to

the Sherman Way Station. Connecting service on the Orange Line extension would

operate every 8 minutes in the peak period (12-minutes off-peak) and take 10 minutes

to get to Chatsworth Station for a running time of (.5*12 + 12 + .5*12 + 10) 34 minutes.

In the off-peak this becomes (.5*30 + 12 + .5*12 + 10) 43 minutes.

Without the Orange Line extension riders must take Line 163 to Line 245 on Topanga

Canyon BI. As before, Line 163 operates every 12 minutes peak, and every 30 minutes

off-peak, and takes 10 minutes to get to Topanga Canyon BI. Service on Line 245

operates every 30 minutes peak, and hourly off-peak, with 15 minutes running time to

Chatsworth Station. This results in a travel time of (.5*12 + 10 + .5*30 + 15) 46 minutes

using alternate bus service (.5*30 + 10 + .5*60 + 15, or 70 minutes off-peak). The

Orange Line Extension results in travel time reductions of 26%during peak periods,

and 39% in the off-peak.


Trip 3 — Pierce College to Chatsworth Station

This trip can be made entirely on the Orange Line when the extension becomesavailable. Service would operate every 8 minutes peak, and 12 minutes off-peak, withrunning time from Pierce College to Chatsworth Station of 19 minutes. The total traveltime would be (.5*8 + 19) 23 minutes in the peak period (.5*12 + 19, or 25 minutes off-peak).

Without the Extension this trip requires riding the Orange Line one stop to Desoto Avand taking Route 244 north on Desoto to Chatsworth Station. The Orange Lineoperates every 4 minutes for this trip during peak periods and every 12 minutes off-peak taking 3 minutes to make the one station trip. Route 244 operates every 15minutes peak and hourly off-peak taking 25 minutes to get to Chatsworth. The runningtime for this trip is (.5*4 + 3 + .5*15 + 25) 37.5 minutes during peak periods, and (.5*12+ 3 + .5*60 + 25) 64 minutes off-peak. The Orange Line Extension saves 39% duringpeak periods, and 61 % at other times.

Walk Access Impacts

The Orange Line Extension will increase walk access to bus services because noexisting service will be removed or rerouted. There are currently 50,449 people withinone-quarter mile of all Orange Line stations. This will increase to 68,566 people whenthe Extension opens. Since several Orange Line stations are park/ride stations, athree-mile buffer also was considered for this facility. The number of people who arewithin three miles of the Orange Line will increase from 871,676 to 928,721 when theExtension opens.

Travel Cost Impacts

The Orange Line Extension will either reduce travel cost (see trip 3 above) by providingdirect service, or cost the same as with existing services (see trips 1 & 2 above). Thereis no instance that we are aware of in which the Orange Line Extension would increasethe cost to a patron.

Conclusions

There are no disparate or disproportionate adverse impacts from the planned operationof the Orange Line Extension.


EQUITY EVALUATIONHEADWAY ADJUSTMENTS TO LINES 40, 710 & 740

This service change would resize the buses assigned to each of these bus lines. Rapidlines 710 and 740 use 32 60-foot buses (plus spares) which would be replaced with 4640-foot buses. In order to maintain seating capacity the headways on these routeswould be reduced to provide more frequent service that is consistent with Rapid busoperational standards (midday service on these routes was as infrequent as every 30minutes). Line 40 would have its 39 40-foot buses replaced with 28 60-foot buses. Itsheadway would be widened to maintain constant seating capacity with the resultingservice still operating every 11-16 minutes (depending on the time of day) because Line40 has much greater passenger demand than the two Rapid routes combined.

Metro Line 40'. i~

_ aPoQ ~t ~'~

f` ~° /°i'",v ~~,.

,c :h/ /~} .w~ r ~,a

~ .x ~....~£, ~,~,~ ; --~ ,,, `~ ,.

_.,...."°fie '~ ~ ~/ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.s ~b

f ~y' }~

~~Y

'spyt lC

~( MMCMB7lR ,y ~ /,f~/j 4~ ~ t ~ -`t~•

( t Y ~ ~~~~ ~ '~ ~. ~ 1

1 ..IW4P !. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~~`t;~U80 ~ ~~e

C~C ~y.

~,.~... Fes...

.. ~~~,,'3' ;__ --~—~K '--

y"-'"-.v:.. ,` ± f1 ~~

aomV m ~ ~ ast~i I,

' ~ ~ ~ :~m X13. ~ ~c... _ .._...... ~ - - - ....-" -- ..........

rYFNIATAY,~lKM ....

l> i...r ~ -.. .- _._~.....i.

v ~/~% T6 Tracts ~~~~ ~" ° .. { ~ ~ r~!s

v _ ~ EJ Tracts ~~. _ ,_ ~ ~ x` ; ~:_~~..... ya C ~~~-...- t

a n . :> ~ , isofH ~ ~ i '. sours ~~ _.__ _.....

r~

7xaecruBri~s frlr~oa' +~ Line 40 Stops ~ Schools

Q Hospitals 3/4 Mile Radius (Line 40) ~~~ h~iles

Figure 1

Line 40 (Figure 1) operates seven days a week serving high passenger demand.Despite operating in the same corridor as a Rapid bus line (Line 740) it serves nearly27,000 weekday riders. The line's ridership consists of 84% of boardings occurring in

minority Census tracts and 99% of boardings in EJ tracts making it both Title VI and EJ-

sensitive. The northernmost portion of the line when it turns onto Martin Luther King BI.


to its northern terminal operates within the corridor of the Expo light rail line and theMetro Red/Purple lines.

Line 710F, .- y ~~? ~~° }t~• / rz

~.

y~' .. ,~~

•~ ., / µ ~~g~ \~h ~.~~{~ 1r ~w;€~../ ~ ~ ~'„~ '~(~`..,~`f ti,. .--. ce~ineCiasez

i _

.. - ;• -.~ .. G ..'•

f,~ ,. ~~ .:....... 1~. ._......~~s*.,, ~.. ~. ,. -.,~.. SwF ,~t~ 7 `~i

I:~

~~ r

„- .L ~ s ^~~~r

N ,.

W ~`~ 14P ERliI F.

~ 'sh:?

~~;~`JY?.. ~ ~ ~~

_ ~. ~e ~., y .. .. .. .....t.. _,A,~ j

ar f ~~

m

a 3 ,&~T, ~.h~l ~ 6D MPIGM .. .. ~`

J/ T~► Tracts '_,, ,U ~/ .WNXRTT~v1~E E!iX i) ~f' ~ `` ~

4

EJ Tracts. f ~ 'F ~ _ ~ n~fe~?a 5 ~

`~„ _ ....~....3x ~ am ', ;, - t" y 1I

a __. - _ _. :. ft ~ ._

{f~ ~ SCI1005 1,.° ~".'. Line 710 Sto s 0 1 2^ 2 = tt Ins ~-{ A--..- ~ p 3I4 Mile Radius [Line 710) x-

Hospitals p.....,.....,.._..~.....t...._~......~

Figure 2

Line 710 (Figure 2) provides weekday and Saturday service to slightly more than 8,000weekday riders. local line (Line 210) operates along Crenshaw BI. serving the samecorridor carrying nearly 16,000 daily riders. The line serves a high minority corridor withabout 97% of boardings occurring in both minority and EJ-sensitive Census tractsmaking the line both Title VI and EJ-sensitive.


AA s1. Line 740

,~~; ¢~; ",~r~/ e

t fr mss.., ~k ~ : `~` ~G ~' `* sr y

~ ~ ~~ ~nf t ~ `/ ~

~~~/ rA' s

`~~,, ,

i O~~ t ,,sue. _...

pGTbN

~~wE~i

JER/CR9JN

_

..

s:E ~ tJ/~

fl...~Y ~4

. _

'~~\ ~y~.T, ~ _ MQ

S ; ,~ I

4 ~

i i

.~..

~E Ri .,

~i.......~.~.

s

4s ~.,t

nsicnesrert f

f4 ~ ~ _

v /

~ i

'

~ ~.

~

~~` ~.. ,.

~ ~' ~t

a

F j

~

~i /...~... / .'...1

~:. ~

~

~ ,.~.......

~

....

i

CE MfU T' ~~.:~

~

~

` 1 41CG

i

..t...

Fes_`N ~ .. 3 N'.~'" was,....

... _..,...,~..,..., ._,_

m

~ °_~~asa;u'tfV'

~ /~ ~,~ ,

;> d

~ s

asx4x.+ea?~~

t

`;~ ~~•

a\ `

`

......

i~ii i i

...,1 '

y ..... .. ._...... ~`... _ ......._ _ ~'~a.'~.;-F~..... ~i..... .._~:....~.

t..~

m ~.,. ......... ': i i'f ik 1. .. ...wxrfix~. .7.

C'[

~p

a

lti NX=TTr.M EESIM ?~~'~~

.:..

~`i .~l

t~~ I _. ..•.~.

v ~f/~ T~ Tract$

i ~C

~

'~~~...~nE~~ y

~ E.! Tracts4~ ~'

..'ti,~

'- -

,~~~_S muiM

9 y IyGT}" o

a # 2 ~ PRa ~i

7N.~rrr¢<73~~s frla~a° ♦ Line 740 Stops f~$ Schools 3!d Mile Radius (Line 740}. ~... D 1 2 Mi!e, ~..°~^

- Q Hospitals f—+--~—~—~--~ -1

Figure 3

Line 740 (Figure 3) is shown as it will operate after the start of operation of the Expolight rail line (expected in spring 2012). Service will operate weekdays and Saturdaysserving nearly 4,700 weekday riders. Over 95% of boardings will occur in minorityCensus tracts and all boardings will originate from EJ-sensitive tracts making the lineboth Title VI and EJ-sensitive.

The changes to these three bus lines meet the proposed definition of a major servicechange and require an equity evaluation. Metro guidelines for a service equityevaluation consider the impact of a service change upon three attributes of serviceprovision: (1) travel time including wait time; (2) walk access, and (3) cost. For thisanalysis, ridership and service has been adjusted to account for the impacts of the startof Expo light rail operation as this is the condition that will exist when the proposedservice change is put into effect.

Travel Time Impacts

Resizing the buses assigned to a line affects the frequency of service, but other serviceattributes remain unchanged. The impact of frequency of service changes on travel


time is an increase or decrease in the wait time portion of the trip. The impacts of thesechanges were evaluated assuming that the capacity of the service provided would bemaintained, so seats per hour remains constant before and after the changes.

Hoardings

Avg Headvray (min}

Avg Passenger Trip €ength tmij

Avg Bus 6pereYing Speed (mRhj

Avg Passenger 7reve1 Time {mint

Qaify Passenger Minufes

NumericCFarsge

°h thange

Baarctings

Avg Heac9.vay (minj

Avg Passenger Trig Lengf§~ (mij

slug $us Oaera#ing Speed {mph]

trvg ➢assenger Travet i3me {min}DaiEy Pa~sznger Rritnu#es

h'pmeric Change

9E.Cnange

8o~ardeng5

Avg Headmvs~+{mir.}

Avg Passenger Trig Lengtfi ~mi}

Avg 9U5 Operafing Speed {mph}

Avg Passenger Sravet Tim {min}

laity Passenger 3a9irsuies

Nuroeris £hange

gb C?~aryge

Table 1 -Line 40

BEFORE AfTE~

AM19 PFak t~Aidday PM Peak Evening SA SU A4A Peak Pflidday CfA Peak Evening SA SU

7,1~ ?1.3Q6 8,353 2,09Y L4,53& 27,259

S it I9 NP YF Y2

3.84 3.84 3.84 3.89 4.Y2 4.3&

11 IS 1U 92 Idt T3

25 23 28 ~ 3ff 28

277274 238,idd I38,456 fi1,586 59tJ,638 A52,1B3

Table 2 -Line 710

7,IA(Y 14,3II6 6,353 'x,692 19,338 87.269

I1 Sfx S4 29 i6 i7

3.89 3.84 3.89 3.89 412 436

F1 IS 1@ }2 1Q 13

2fi 23 34 34 32 29

1&7.924 23,343 192.162 R7~467 634,399 494,242

57,681 ~23,9bi 43,173

3% 7% 3D%

B'cFiJRE Rf"fER

kM Peak hdidday PR6 Peal: Evening 5& SU AM Peak ~ddaq PPo9 Peae Eveain SA St9

~._..,_ - e~c.,~rn aav r..ft.,z~-n

2,256 2,553 2.748 d411 3.9P37

IS 3U 14 3D SO

4.76 4.74 4.7$ 3.7d A.7o

35 i6 i3 15 17

27 83 2& 33 32

57,322 94.52; 76,QiII I3,294 124,243

Table 3 -Line 740

2,SSfi 2,885 2.Ri8 407 3.~7

fs u sa za a~-0.7A 4.7A 4.7A 4.7$ 4.3fi

15 lb E3 16 17

25 Z8 27 28 25

34;627 31.545 72.353 11.463 95,837

-?Tn567 -25,3%

_~gy

8£F4Rf ~~=~

AM P?ak Mlds#ey PM Peak 'cvening SA SU AM Peak hY€dd PM PeaK Evenir~ SA Sts

„_..._ -,... ._.:.._ ~:__~~.~__r_a"__~._e..___:.:_.. rr,.._.G~..., a,...b ~an_c.,i:.ve...e taa....&,s.~.d,... c.~..~:t:...,h~.ancA~wt

i,33•t I.C86 8.Cs25 18U 4~27~

1B 3Q i6 34F 24

5.38 5.3:8 5.38 5.38 SZi

i5 17 13 F6 15

31 34 32 35 3+S

42,41fi 3Q,4&G 53,Y15 6,'s(76 293,353

1,384 F>4$6 1,625 230 4>274

13 31 11 21 17

5.38 5.3& 5.38 5.38 5.?3

15 fl7 73 26 SS

2S ?9 36 32 36

38,b10 45,7@7 44,@52 5,436 1F&,394

-15,366 '24,959

-413% -1Q%

Table 4 -Combined Impacts


Gt-~A."dtiE tEti P,+aSSE'dGER ~~IIP'JUTES

,~P.n beak Midday Px.~1 FeaF Evening SA SU

714 -2,645 -12.973 -4,Db~ -1,832 -25,396

74{3 -3,8fl6 -6,6&7 -4,063 -fiID -13,959

4Q [email protected] 25,39 12,7ti6 ~.~3~7 ~B~,9b1 =R3,~73

Ca~mb[ned ~,£~9 S„77~ ~,53p b,2~.5 3,606 ~3>S73

2G.7G9

2~c - 0% 3Q

As can be seen in Tables 2 & 3, changing to smaller buses on the two Rapid routesreduces headways and travel time. On the other hand, increasing the size of buses onRoute 40 (Table 1) widens headways and increases travel time.

There are overall adverse impacts on travel time on weekdays and Sundays with asmall (less than one percent) adverse impact on Saturdays. This is a consequence ofthe much higher patronage served by Line 40. The adverse impacts experienced by its

riders affect a much greater number of passengers than the benefits that accrue to thepatrons of the two Rapid routes. While there is a disproportionately high adverse impacton EJ riders on line 40 this is mitigated by the increased level of service on Line 740,operating within the same corridor, the continued maintenance of passenger loadingstandards on Line 40, and the addition of the Expo light rail line which is expected to beimplemented about 2-3 months prior to these studied service changes. The combinedoverall impact of these changes is disparate for Title VI riders, but not disproportionatefor EJ riders.

Walk Access Impacts

The resizing of buses assigned to these bus lines has no impact on walk accessbecause all stops will continue to be served.

Travel Cost Impacts

There is no impact on travel cost from the studied changes, because there is no changeto the routing or pricing associated with the impacted bus routes.

Alternatives Considered

The proposed actions resulted in a disparate adverse impact on travel time for Line 40riders. One way this could be addressed is the operation of more frequent service on

Line 40 to offset the adverse impact of wider headways. However, it was found thatapproximately 11 %more service would have to be operated on weekdays to offset the

net travel time impact, and this greatly exceeds the net savings estimated for theresizing which amounts to about 3-4% of Line 40 revenue hours. The higher cost of


offsetting adverse travel time impacts could be addressed through higher fares, but this

would adversely impact all system riders not just those in the studied corridors.

Conclusions

There is a disparate impact on Line 40 riders from the proposed service change. The

change addresses significant agency objectives of maintaining a balanced operating

budget and scheduling service in accordance with adopted standards and policies.

Each of the studied alternatives resulted in greater adverse impacts to riders.

Therefore, the studied action should be approved for implementation.


Thursday, March 22, 201 2 9:00 A.M. 2

MINUTES Regular Board Meeting Board of Directors

One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room

Called to Order at 9:31 a.m.

*Via Telephone CalEPA Building Room 240 1001 1 Street Sacramento, CA 9581 4

Directors Present:

Antonio Vjllaraigssa, Chair Michael Antonovich, 1 Vice Chair Diane DuBois, 2nd Vice Chair John Fasana Jose Huizar Richard Katz Don Knabe Gloria Molina Ara J. Najarian Pam O'Connor: Mark Ridley-Thomas Mel Wilson Zev Yaroslavsky Michael Miles, non-voting member

Officers

Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer Michele Jackson, Board Secretary Karen Gorman, Ethics Officer Karen Gorman, Acting Inspector General County Counsel, General Counsel

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

@ Metro

1. APPROVED Consent Calendar Items: 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 26, 46, 48,49, 50 and 55.

Consent Calendar Items were approved by one motion.

~ N ~ J F ~ ~ T P ~ -- -. -. ZY DD I I A V ~ R K / _-_a- MRT ! DK MW/GMT-~

2. APPROVED ON CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of Regular Board Meeting held February 23, 201 2.

3. RECEIVED Chair's Weport.

4. RECEIVED Chief Executive Officer's Report.

5. APPROVED ON CONSENT CALENDAR adding a San Fernando Valley Council of Governments member and alternate to our legislatively mandated Technical Advisory Committee.

AN

LEGEND: Y = YES, N = NO, C = CONFLICT, ABS =ABSTAIN, A =ABSENT, P = PRESENT

AN = A. Najarian JF = J. Fasana JH = J. Huizar PO = P. O'Connor

JF RK P

MW MRT / DK

ZY = Z. Yaroslavsky DD = D. DuBois AV = A. Villaraigosa MA = M. Antonovich

JH GM j P P P I

RK = R. Katz MRT = M. Ridley-Thomas DK = D. Knabe MW = M. Wilson

PO

GM = G. Molina

P ZY

A DD / AV

P MA

P / P ~ P , P A P

6. APPROVED ON CONSENT CALENDAR recertifying the Measure R Highway Operational Improvement Project Lists for projects for the Highway Operational Improvements in Arroyo Verdugo and Las VirgenesIMalibu Subregions, and for lnterstates 405, 1 10, 105 and SR- 91 Ramp and lnterchange Improvements.

7. AUTHORIZED ON CONSENT CALENDAR the CEO to enter and execute a Cooperative Agreement with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments for administration of the Approved Project List for lnterstates 405, 1 10, 105 and SR-91 Ramp and lnterchange Improvements.

8. AUTHORIZED ON CONSENT CALENDAR the CEO to enter into a Funding Agreement with Caltrans in the amount of $100,000 for development of the Project Study Report for the Highway 101 Auxiliary Lane Project.

10. CARRIED OVER TO APRIL REGULAR BOARD:

A. Amending the Measure R Contingency Policy to stipulate that it applies to net bond interest costs after:

1. Adding Measure R interest earnings, and

2. Exempting interest costs for the Build America Bondltax exempt bond package that predated the policy;

B. Amending the Fiscal Year 201 1 Budget Policy to Reimburse Funding Sources Used as Advance Funding to Accelerate Measure R Projects to:

1. Permit reimbursements at the end of the Measure R scheduled funding period for each project;

(Continued on next page)

(Item 10 - continued from previous page)

2. Permit the planned use of the funds reimbursed to the State Repayment of Capital Project Loans funds for subsequent project segments included in the funded Long Range Transportation Plan, but require that such planned uses be brought to the Board for specific approval when a life of project budget including such funds is adopted;

3. To include the definitions and assumptions described; and

C. Receiving and filing report, which includes a summary status on the use of authority delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.

11. AUTHORIZED ON CONSENT CALENDAR the Chief Executive Officer to amend MOU POOISJPA with the 1-5 Joint Powers Authority to include an additional pre-construction mitigation project and extend the period of performance.

14. APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the MTA CEO direct staff to present to the Board within 30 days the following:

A. An assessment of how to implement a Metrolink station on the Antelope Valley Line at the Bob Hope Airport with recommended actions to accomplish this important multimodal connection;

B. A plan to advance segments of the Antelope Valley Line Corridor to preliminary engineering and environmental work;

C. A proposal to develop a comprehensive grade crossing and grade separation safety program for Metrolink-operated lines in Los Angeles County;

D. A proposal to increase the staffing levels of the Regional Rail group to manage regional rail capital improvement programs;

E. The next step in establishing a Regional Rail Bench of engineering consultants qualified in the engineering of commuter rail facilities;



F. An assessment of the potential for "tilt train" technology that might allow Metrolink to operate at faster speeds within the constrained Antelope Valley Line corridor;

G. A legislative action plan to acquire the "intercity rail" designation for the Antelope Valley Line north of the Downtown Burbank station to Lancaster;

H. An assessment of what would be necessary to provide rail service between the Antelope Vajley and Bakersfield along current railroad right-of-way, whether it would be Metrolink or Amtrak service;

I . An assessment of what would be necessary to provide seamless rail service between the Antelope Valley and San Diego; and

J. An assessment of what would be necessary to provide seamless rail service between Ventura and Indio.

26. AUTHORIZED ON CONSENT CALENDAR:

A. The Chief Executive Officer to award a 27 month, firm fixed price, contract under RFP No. PS63502579 to Zanett Commercial Solutions, for development and implementation of a Contract lnformation Management System, for an amount not to exceed $6,231,032 inclusive of sales tax, and

B. Increase the Life-of-Project (LOP) Budget for the Contract lnformation Management System by $2,247,850 from $5,313,400 to $7,561,250, and combine CP207096 (CIMS Ph I) and CP207130 (CIMS Ph 11).

27. APPROVED WILSON MOTION THAT the MTA Board of Directors adopt and direct the CEO to:

A. Implement a performance management system on the following core FYI2 Board adopted budget themes:

1. Improve Bus and Rail Transit Service

2. Renewed Focus on Customer Service

3. Advance MTA's Bus and Rail Projects

4. Advance the Highway and Freeway Projects

5. Increase emphasis on Safety and Security

6. Civil Rights Compliance

B. Create performance standards that include, but are not limited to, measurements on life-of-project budgets and project contingencies according to local and national standards for all major MTA rail and highway projects.

C. Create a single-page document that lists all core budget themes on item A with columns that quantify past performance, current year goal and current year-to-date performance (e.g. Los Angeles Unified School District - Performance Meter).

D. Provide a monthly review of up to three core themes listed on item A at the Finance, Budget and Audit Committee meeting and ensure each goal is reviewed at least twice per year when new data becomes assailable.

E. Report back to the Finance, Budget and Audit Committee in April 2012 with a proposed Performance Meter that includes all core themes on item A.

F. Report back at the May 2012 MTA Board meeting with the first Performance Review.

36. RECEIVED Civil Rights Progress Update.

37. APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the MTA Board request that the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority and the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority take action to implement the full set of recommendations made by the Inspector General within 45 days. Should these recommendations not be implemented within that timeframe, the MTA CEO will bring to the MTA Board recommendations on how the MTA Board can make the implementation of these recomrxendations mandatory as each construction authority is a direct recipient of Measure R and other monies controlled by the MTA.

46. AUTHORIZED ON CONSENT CALENDAR the Chief Executive Officer to:

A. award a 5 year firm fixed labor rateltask order contract under Request for Proposal No. OP39602795, to LTK Engineering Services for Element A, Consultant for Light Rail Vehicle Acquisition, Technical Support Services, for an amount Not To Exceed $1 5,236,445 for the base contract, exclusive of three (3) one year options;

B. execute up to three (3) one year options to Contract No. OP39602795, to LTK Engineering Services for Element A, Consultant for Light Rail Vehicle Acquisition, Technical Support Services, in an aggregate amount of $5,972,304, for a total Contract Not To Exceed amount of $21,208,749;



C. award a 5 year firm fixed labor rateltask order contract under Request for Proposal No. OP39602795, to CH2M Hill, Inc. for Element B, Consultant for Light Rail Vehicle Acquisition, Program Management Support Services, for an amount Not To Exceed $6,087,246 for the base contract exclusive of three (3) one year options; and

D. execute up to three (3) one year options to Contract No. OP39602795, to CH2M Hill, Inc. for Element B, Consultant for Light Rail Vehicle Acquisition, Program Management Support Services, in an aggregate amount of $2,291,639, for a total Contract Not To Exceed amount of $8,378,885.

48. AUTHORIZED ON CONSENT CALENDAR the Chief Executive Officer to award a firm fixed price contract under Bid No. 12-0024 with Valley Power Systems, Inc., the single lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the procurement of 75 engine rebuild kits for an amount not-to-exceed $2,230,779 inclusive of sales tax.

49. APPROVED ON CONSENT CALENDAR finding that:

A. no disparate or disproportionate adverse impacts will result from the operation of the Orange Line Extension to Chatsworth; and,

B. the proposed headway changes due to the reallocation of articulated and standard size buses on Lines 40, 710 and 740 to better meet passenger demand with capacity utilization will have a disparate impact on Line 40 riders, but there is substantial justification for proceeding with this major service change in order to meet Metro's goals of achieving a balanced operating budget and complying with adopted service standards, and that studied alternatives to this service change of added service on Line 40 or higher fares for all riders would have a more severe adverse effect on Title VI protected populations than the indicated service change.

50. AUTHORIZED ON CONSENT CALENDAR a life-of-project budget of $297,070,000 for procurement of up to 550 forty foot transit buses.

54. SYSTEM SAFETY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FORWARDED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION:

A. Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to award a 53 month, firm fixed price contract under Request for Proposal No. P3010, to Kinkisharyo

contract escalation; and

C. Approving an increase of $6,940,000 in the life-of-project budget for CP#206035 - Light Rail Vehicle Procurement from $335,410,000 to $342,350,000.

55. ADOPTED ON CONSENT CALENDAR the staff recommended positions:

A. AB 1532 (Perez) -Would establish a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account to fund measures and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SUPPORT

C. AB 1706 (Eng) -Would amend current law to clarify vehicle weight limits. SUPPORT WORK WITH AUTHOR

E. AB 2245 (Smyth) - Would exempt certain bike-lane projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. SUPPORT

G. AB 2440 (Lowenthal) -Would amend current law affecting Metro's procurement process. SUPPORT

H. AB 2477 (GARRICK) - Would clarify state law specific to placement of video event recording equipment in vehicles. SUPPORT WORK WITH AUTHOR



I. SB 1225 (PADILLA) -Would provide a local control mechanism of Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner Corridor. SUPPORT

55. ADOPTED the staff recommended positions as amended:

B. AB1600 (Torres) - Would allow the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority to plan, design and construct the Foothill Extension into San Bernardino County. S&WWXT WORK WlTH AUTHOR

D. AB 2147 (Cedilio) - Would clarify the statutes related to Metro's red-light photo enforcement program. $%UWWFS WORK WlTH AUTHOR

F. AB 2405 (Blumenfield) - Would authorize alternative-fuel vehicles to use the Express Lanes without being subject to a toll. QP-PQSE WORK WlTH AUTHOR

56. APPROVED HUIZAR, KNABE, AND NAJARIAN Motion that the MTA Board of Directors direct the CEO to:

& Continue the certification of the Regional Connector FEIRIFEIS for an additional 30 davs to detail the enhanced mitigations.

B. Include the following mitigation measures when approvina the - proiect's FEIRIFEIS:

1. Consider and continue using a tunnel boring machine (TBM] - construction method along Flower Street from the north to south of 5th Street. During construction, w surface disruption shall be minimized and/or mitigated td-bwed along Flower Street from 4th Street through the southerly crosswalk at 5th Street and Flower Street intersections recognizing work will need to be performed on the 4th Street Bridge.



2. Along Flower Street, limit cut-and-cover construction south of the - 5th Street intersection while maintaining pedestrian, vehicle access and circulation through the 5th Street and Flower Street intersection. Specificallv:

a. The width, length and height of construction worksite south of - 5th Street shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

b. Construction worksite area south of 5th Street adjacent to the - libraw shall be fullv enclosed and aestheticallv and acousticallv treated. An electric gantrv shall be used in the Library worksite rather than a traditional crane to reduce noise.

c. South of 5th Street, construction decking shall be no higher - than 1 O", if feasible, above the existinq grade, and flush with existing curb on the east and Westside of Flower Street with a maximum cross gradient of 3%.

d. Maintain four travel lanes on Flower Street (5th Street to 6th - Street) between 6AM and 8PM during weekdays for the "steadv state". [The "steadv state" is defined as the period between the completion of the decking installation to the commencement of removal of decking.] Between 8PM and 6AM maintain no less than two travel lanes on Flower Street, except for those times when further street restrictions are required to facilitate decking installation and removal. No surface disruption shall occur other than truck trips, utility relocation, decking installation and removal, street restoration, or TBM removal, unless otherwise additionally detailed in the enhanced mitigation measures.

3. Preserve the opportunity to install a future station north of 5th - Street and Flower Street, while taking into consideration plafform widths and rail gradients.



4. Restore Flower Street travel lanes to the existing six lane - condition from 4th Street to the 6th Street and the existing four lane condition from south of 6th Street to 7th StreetIMetro Station after construction.

5. Accelerate the construction schedule to the greatest extent - feasible, consistent with budgetaw and other constraints. Along Flower Street, worksite south of 5th Street shall be removed at the earliest feasible time.

C. All the mitigations and construction related costs described above - shall not change and be less than or equal to $1.366 billion in vear- of-expenditure dollars (proiect's cost submitted to the Federal Transit Administration as part of the New Starts application).

56. CARRIED OVER:

A. Approving the Project Definition, which is based on the Locally Preferred Alternative of a 1.9 mile Light Rail project with three stations previously designated by the Board in October 2010 and which incorporates several design refinements, including:

1. Creating an enhanced pedestrian walkway along the east side of Flower Street between 4th and 7th Streets;

2. Relocating the Little TokyoIArts District underground station to minimize property required and eliminate the cut-and- cover segment on 2nd Street in Little Tokyo originally required for construction;

3. Launching the Tunnel Boring Machine from the northeast corner of 1st and Alameda Streets, the Mangrove property formerly known as the Nikkei development, instead of 2nd Street;



4. Tunneling to Flower and 4th Streets in the Financial District, further reducing cutlcover in the area.

B. Certifying the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Final Environmental Impact StatementJFinal Environmental Impact Report; The full report is available upon request or at www.metro.net1re~ionalconnector.

C. Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to file a Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles County Clerk and State of California Clearinghouse.

D. Adopting the:

I. Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Mitigation Monitoring &Reporting Plan (MMRP) as modified by the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

3. Per EJ-3 in the MMRP and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, two acres of land shall be provided on the Mangrove property for the purposes of providing alternative parking services during construction which would include satellite parking served by shuttle buses or other parking services in the business area of Little Tokyo. Any parking services shall be operated by a licensedlbonded parking company selected through a Request for Proposal process. The appropriate parking service provided will be determined with the participation of the Regional Connector Community Leadership Council (RCCLC) andlor other subcommittee. Through the RCCLC, LTCC, and other community groups it shall be assessed the feasibility of establishing a shuttle service connecting local parking lots and Little TokyoIArts District with destinations in downtown.



4. Per EJ-16 in the MMRP and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, targeted advertising and marketing campaigns shall be provided determined by the RCCLC, LTCC and/or other community based groups. An MOU agreement shall be developed to implement and compensate the process. The MOU will include but not limited to provide the following:

Marketing and Merchant Support

Technical and Business Assistance

Business Interruption Program to provide an expeditious standard for claims resolution and reimbursement

Marketing Services and Branding Campaign

Merchant Discounts and Incentives/Rewards Program

Signage (for businesses and access)

Special Event Planning (including support)

5. The designation of a Construction Relations Manager to serve as the point person for all community concerns regarding the project prior to construction. This person will be responsible for the entire project area and funded from the project budget.

6. Reports will be made to the Board in April and June 2012 with the implementation strategy for the above activities, with quarterly reports to the Board thereafter, and throughout the duration of the construction period.



E. Authorizing the CEO to:

1. Exercise modification No. 14 to Contract No. PS4320-1985 with Camp Dresser & McKee for assistance with our application for entry into Final Design and preparation of documents related to the Full Funding Grant Agreement after receipt of the Record of Decision from the Federal Transit Administration for the period of 17 months in the amount not-to-exceed $850,324, increasing the total contract amount from $15,702,178 to $16,552,502.

2. Increase contract modification authority for Contract No. PS4320-1985 in the amount not-to-exceed $127,549, increasing the total contract modification authority from $2,071,179 to $2,198,728 to cover the cost of any potentially unforeseen issues that may arise.

57. APPROVED FASANA MOTION that the Metro Board of Directors directs the CEO to report to the System Safety and Operations Committee and the full Board within 90 days on what is in place today and a plan for future actions that will improve the distribution of customer friendly, real time freeway incident information to the public. The report shall address the following components:

A. Identification of existing systems, protocols, procedures, responsibilities, etc. regarding the collection and distribution of freeway information, in particular incident information and planned closures, to the public;

B. Development of a strategy to

1. improve the coordination between Metro, LA SAFE, Caltrans, CHP and any other stakeholder; and



2. improve the dissemination of customer friendly freeway incident information in a safe and efficient manner (i.e. minimizing driver distractions), including the integration of the information into the Metro website, the use of new technologies, mobile applications and social media, and the developments and use of an open data platform;

C. Summary of current USDOT (FHWA and RITA-Research and Innovative Technology Administration) strategies on how to use intelligent transportation systems to better distribute freeway information to the public in a safe and expedient manner;

D. A realistic timeline and resource requirements to implement short, medium and iong term strategies to improve the quality and the distribution of freeway information to the public.

58. APPROVED ANTONOVICH, NAJARIAN and WILSON MOTION as amended that the MTA Board of Directors initiates an evaluation of the CEO to be completed by dune Mav 30, 2012. This evaluation will:

Be conducted by an outside, independent consultant

Seek input from each board member on the performance of the CEO as well as direct reports to the CEO

Develop for the Board performance objectives, goals and criteria for the CEO to meet for the next 12 months and on which to be evaluated in the following performance evaluation

Maintain confidentiality

Be monitored and guided by the Chair, Vice Chair and 2" Vice Chair of the Board for successful, on-time completion



ALSO that the MTA Board adopt as a required policy an annual independent performance evaluation of the CEO. This evaluation process will commence no later than March 3oth of each year and be completed by &me May 3oth of each year, starting in 201 3.

59. APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors recognizes the High Desert Corridor as a Strategic Multipurpose Corridor which provides mobility, economic and environmental benefits for the people of Los Angeles County, and directs the CEO to have staff clear the project environmentally as such a project, with the provision that San Bernardino County provides its share of the funds for this work.

60. APPROVED RIDLEY-THOMAS MOTION as amended that the Metro Board:

A. Instruct the Chief Executive Officer and staff to prepare the following:

1. A brief summary of best practices for Value Capture in transit agencies around the world.

2. Identification and a brief summary of existing statutory authority that permits financing of transportation infrastructure through Value Capture or tax increment.

3. An estimate of the enhanced value to property owners proximate to existing Measure R-financed projects.



4. A comprehensive list of Value Capture options for consideration in the Los Angeles County Metro system and currently underfunded projects that could be financed by this mechanism.

5. Report back to the Planning and Programming Committee and Board in 9Q 60 days in writing with an analvsis and - recommendations for mrr\llnrc Value Capture . . programs at Metro,, 2

61. CLOSED SESSION:

A. Conference with Labor Negotiator - G.C. 54957.6 Agency Representative: Richard Hunt and designated staff Employee Organizations: ATU, UTU, TCU, Teamsters, AFSCME

No reportable action.

RECEIVED public comment.

ADJOURNED at 1.35 p.m.

Prepared by: Collette Langston Board Specialist

u Board Secretary

Appendix T

Fare Change Analysis Methodology & Results

Method of Appendix K FTA Circular 4702.1B

Service Planning and Scheduling Civil Rights Programs Compliance

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority November 9, 2012

Contents 1. Approach ............................................................................................................... 1 2. Step by Step Methodology .................................................................................... 3 3. Result …………………………………………………………………………………….4 Attachment #1 – General Fare Increase of July 1, 2007 ....................................... 4 Attachment #2 – Silver Line Fares of December 13, 2009 .................................... 5 Attachment #3 – Regular Fare Increase of July 1, 2010 ....................................... 6 Attachment #4 – K-12 Student Cash Fare Reduction of August 1, 2011 .............. 7 Attachment #5 – Day Pass Price Reduction of August 1, 2011 ............................. 7 Attachment #6 – End of Day Pass Price Reduction of August 1, 2012 ................. 7 Attachment #7 – Reduced Fare Increase Pending for July 1, 2013 ...................... 8

1

1. Approach The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has requested fare change impact analyses for the fare changes adopted by Metro since May 2007. The purpose of these analyses is to determine if the fare changes created disparate impacts for minority (Title VI) passengers or a disproportionate burden on low income passengers (Environmental Justice passengers). A methodology for performing these analyses was finalized on July 12, 2012. A revised Title VI Circular became effective on October 1, 2012 necessitating a revised methodology for fare impact analyses. This document contains a methodology consistent with the requirements of the updated Circular as illustrated in Appendix K. What will be Evaluated Metro has adopted seven fare changes (described in Attachments 1 through 7) since May 2007 that will be evaluated using this methodology. Two of these changes were approved by the Board of Directors but have not yet been implemented. These include the restoration of the Day Pass price to $6.00 in August, 2012 (an action which has been deferred until the results of this analysis are finalized and approved by the FTA), and across the board price adjustments to reduced fare payment categories on July 1, 2013. What Data Will Be Used for the Evaluation Annual boardings by method of payment are provided in annual Fare Mix Reports. These reports also provide monthly unit sales for prepaid fare media enabling determination of average fare per boarding for each method of payment. Annual Customer Satisfaction surveys provide data on minority participation by method of payment, and limited Household Income data. Beginning with the 2007 survey, customers were asked if their Household Income exceeded $26,000. This is the only income data available from these surveys, and therefore as a consequence Environmental Justice (EJ) analyses will be based upon a low income designation (indicating a Household Income of $26,000 or less). How Will the Analyses Be Performed An array will be constructed for each fare change. The array will show each method of fare payment and its associated annual boardings before the change and the fare before and after the change. A Title VI analysis will be performed using minority participation data by method of payment, and an EJ analysis will be performed using low income participation data by

2

method of payment. The EJ analysis for the July 1, 2007 fare change will use low income data from the 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey because prior surveys did not inquire about household income. The percentage difference between the share of minority and low income boardings and the share of overall boardings will also be provided in order to determine whether there is disproportionate use of a particular fare by minority or low income riders. For each method of payment the percentage change in the fare, the minority share of riders for that method of payment, the low income share of riders for that method of payment, and the method’s share of overall riders will be provided. A disparate impact or disproportionate burden on minority or low income riders shall be established when the method’s share of minority or low income riders absolutely exceeds the method’s share of all riders by 5% or the percentage difference between the share of minority and low income usage or the percentage of minority or low income usage exceeds overall usage by 35%. If either of the thresholds is met, then a disparate impact or disproportionate burden will be established. An example of the Title VI analysis using illustrative data is shown below to demonstrate the process:

Category Boardings

Before

Fare

After

Fare Absolute Percent

Minority

Boardings

Low Income

Boardings

Overall

Boardings

Share of

Minority

Boardings

Share of

Low Income

Boardings

Share of

Overall

Boardings

Percent

Difference

Between

Minority

and

Overall

Percent

Difference

Between Low

Income and

Overall

Cash 5,000,000 $1.25 $1.50 $0.25 20.0% 4,250,000 3,000,000 5,000,000 9.9% 9.0% 10.0% -1.2% -10.8%

Day Pass (1) 20,000,000 $4.50 $6.00 $1.50 33.3% 19,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 44.2% 45.1% 40.0% 9.5% 11.3%

7-Day Pass (2) 10,000,000 $17.00 $22.00 $5.00 29.4% 8,500,000 7,000,000 10,000,000 19.8% 21.1% 20.0% -1.2% 5.0%

30-Day Pass (3) 15,000,000 $62.00 $75.00 $13.00 21.0% 11,250,000 8,250,000 15,000,000 26.2% 24.8% 30.0% -14.7% -20.9%

Totals 50,000,000 43,000,000 33,250,000 50,000,000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

EXAMPLE Fare Change

ABSOLUTE USAGE PERCENT USAGECHANGE PERCENT DIFFERENCE

3

2. Step by Step Methodology

1. Prepare details of fare changes to be evaluated Include fare changes from the following:

o July 1, 2007 General Fare Increase o December 13, 2009 Silver Line fares o July 1, 2010 Regular Fare Increase o August 1, 2011 K-12 Student Cash fare Reduction o August 1, 2011 Day Pass Price Reduction o August 1, 2012 End of Day Pass Price Reduction o July 1, 2013 Reduced Fare Increase

2. Determine available methods of payment and annual boardings from appropriate

fiscal year Fare Mix Data.

3. Determine each method’s fare from before and after fare structure pricing and calculate the absolute and percentage change in price for each payment method.

4. Perform Title VI & EJ analysis

Determine minority and low income shares of boardings for each method of payment from relevant Customer Satisfaction survey (for methods not specifically included in survey, use systemwide average share)

Calculate before and after fare by method of payment Calculate absolute and percentage change in fare by method of payment Display minority share of riders for each method of payment Display low income share of riders for each method of payment Display overall share of riders for each method of payment Display overall minority and low income shares of riders for all methods of

payment Display overall share of riders for all methods of payment Display percentage difference between the share of minority usage and

overall usage. Display percentage difference between the share of low income usage and

overall usage. Determine whether any method of payment is disproportionately used by

minority or low income riders based upon whether or not the minority and/or low income share of riders for each method of payment is at least 5% greater than each method’s share of all riders or the percentage difference between the minority usage or the overall rider usage is greater than 35%. If either of the thresholds is met a disparate impact or disproportionate burden will be established.

4

3. Result

Although there are fares that are disproportionately used by low income riders, the analysis shows that no fare change since 2007 has resulted in a disproportionate burden on low income riders. Furthermore, the analysis also found no disparate impact to minority populations.

5

Attachment #1 General Fare Increase of July 1, 2007

Fare Element Prior Fare Adopted Fare

Regular

Cash

$1.25

$1.25

Token

$1.10

$1.25

Day Pass

$3.00

$5.00

Weekly Pass

$14.00

$17.00

Semi-Monthly Pass

$27.00

Discontinued

Monthly Pass

$52.00

$62.00

EZ Transit Pass

$58.00

$70.00

Regular - Other

Cash Zone 1

$0.50

$0.60

Cash Zone 2

$1.00

$1.20

Monthly Zone Premium

$15.00

$18.00

Owl/Late Night/Off-Peak

$0.75

Discontinued

Metro to Muni Transfer

$0.25

$0.30

Senior/Disabled/Medicare

Cash - Peak

$0.45

$0.55

Cash - Off Peak

$0.45

$0.25

Cash Zone 1

$0.25

$0.30

Cash Zone 2

$0.50

$0.60

Day Pass

$1.50

$1.80

Monthly Pass

$12.00

$14.00

EZ Transit Pass

$29.00

$35.00


$7.50

$9.50


$0.10

$0.10

Student Passes

Cash (K-12)

$1.25

$1.25

K-12 Monthly Pass

$20.00

$24.00

College Monthly Pass $30.00 $36.00

6

Attachment #2 Silver Line Fares of December 13, 2009


Regular

Cash

$1.25

$2.45

Token

$1.25

+ $1.20

Day Pass

$5.00

Accepted

Weekly Pass

$17.00

+ $1.20

Monthly Pass

$62.00

+ $1.20

EZ Transit Pass

$70.00

+ $1.20

Regular - Other


$18.00

1-zone + $0.60 2-zone Accepted


$0.30

$0.30


Cash - Peak

$0.55

$1.15

Cash - Off Peak

$0.25

$0.85

Day Pass

$1.80

Accepted

Monthly Pass

$14.00

Accepted

EZ Transit Pass

$35.00

Accepted


$9.50



$0.10

$0.10

Student Passes

Cash (K-12)

$1.25

$2.45

K-12 Monthly Pass

$24.00

Accepted

College Monthly Pass $36.00 Accepted

Values preceded by a “+” sign are co-payments required when the indicated fare instrument is tendered

7

Attachment #3 Regular Fare Increase of July 1, 2010


Regular

Cash

$1.25

$1.50

Token

$1.25

$1.50

Day Pass

$5.00

$6.00

Weekly Pass

$17.00

$20.00

Monthly Pass

$62.00

$75.00

EZ Transit Pass

$70.00

$84.00

Regular - Other

Cash Zone 1

$0.60

$0.70

Cash Zone 2

$1.20

$1.40


$18.00

$22.00


$0.30

$0.35

Silver Line - Regular

Cash

$2.45

$2.45

Token

$1.25+$1.20

+ $0.95

Day Pass

$5.00

Accepted

Weekly Pass

$17.00+$1.20

+ $0.95

Monthly Pass

$62.00+$1.20

+ $0.95

EZ Transit Pass

$70.00+$1.20

+ $0.95

Silver Line - Regular - Other


$18.00


Metro to Muni Transfer $0.30 $0.35

Values preceded by a “+” sign in the Prior Fare column are co-payments required when the indicated fare media is tendered Values preceded by a “+” sign in the Adopted Fare column are co-payments required when the increased price media are tendered Elderly, Disabled, Student (K-12) and College fares were not affected by this change

8

Attachment #4 K-12 Student Cash Fare Reduction of August 1, 2011


Student

Cash (K-12)

$1.50

$1.00

No impact on Silver Line as Cash fare remains $2.45 except for Elderly & Disabled

Attachment #5 Day Pass Price Reduction of August 1, 2011


Regular

Day Pass $6.00 $5.00


Day Pass $6.00 Accepted

Attachment #6 End of Day Pass Price Reduction of August 1, 2012


Regular

Day Pass $5.00 $6.00


Day Pass $5.00 Accepted

9

Attachment #7 Reduced Fare Increase Pending for July 1, 2013



Cash - Peak

$0.55

$0.65

Cash - Off Peak

$0.25

$0.30

Cash Zone 1

$0.30

$0.35

Cash Zone 2

$0.60

$0.70

Day Pass

$1.80

$2.15

30-Day Pass

$14.00

$17.00

EZ Transit Pass

$35.00

$42.00

30-Day Zone Premium

$9.50

$9.50


$0.10

$0.10

Student Passes

K-12 30-Day Pass

$24.00

$29.00

College 30-Day Pass $36.00 $43.00

Silver Line - Senior/Disabled/Medicare

Cash - Peak

$1.15

$1.35

Cash - Off Peak

$0.85

$1.00

Day Pass

$1.80

Accepted

30-Day Pass

$14.00

Accepted

EZ Transit Pass

$35.00

Accepted

30-Day Zone Premium

$9.50



$0.10

$0.10

Silver Line - Student Passes

K-12 30-Day Pass

$24.00

Accepted

College 30-Day Pass $36.00 Accepted

Only Reduced Fare media will be affected by this fare change Elderly & Disabled EZ-Pass users without 2-zone stamps must make a co-payment of $0.35 per missing zone

1

ADDENDUM

NOVEMBER 9, 2012 FARE CHANGE ANALYSIS

A) DESCRIPTION OF DISPARATE IMPACT AND DIPROPROTIONATE BURDEN DIFFERENTIAL

In the fare change analysis example provided in the Title VI Guidance, Appendix K it is notionally

suggested that if a fare product is being used by more than 5% (4.8%) greater than the system wide

average (for minority or low income) the fare product is disproportionately minority or low income. This

means that an increase to a fare product disproportionately used by Minority populations would create

a disparate impact, or a disproportionate burden on low income populations. Metro concurs with this

judgment, and the 5% was endorsed at the public outreach sessions.

Metro also believes that an additional assessment tool is required as some fare products in the

example, and many fare products at Metro have very small market shares. Metro has more than 30 fare

products of which 16 have market shares of less than 3%, and only one has a share of more than 20%.

In the fare analysis example in Appendix K only 3.2% of passengers are low income seniors compared to

a 2.1% share for all seniors. At this level it would be impossible to have an absolute 5% difference

between the low income and overall share. However it is still possible for senior fare products to be

disproportionately used by minorities or low income groups. When the difference is measured as the

difference between the percentages rather than an absolute difference this becomes obvious.

In the case shown in Appendix K the percentage of low income seniors is actually 52% ((3.2%-

2.1%)/2.1%=52%) greater than the overall rate of seniors which is clearly disproportionate. However

the narrative in Appendix K does not suggest that senior fares are disproportionately used by seniors

since the difference does not reach 5% (3.2%-2.1%=1.1%). The narrative of Appendix K does suggest

that low income riders are disproportionately represented among 1 day pass users. 25.7% of day pass

users are low income, but overall 20.1% of users buy day passes – a 5.6% absolute difference, but only a

28% difference in the percentages. The 28% percent difference between low income and all passengers

for 1 day passes is actually less disproportionate than the difference between low income and overall

passengers for senior fares (52%).

Appendix K appears to imply that percentage differences as great as 52% can be described as not

disproportionate. Metro disagrees and at public outreach session proposed that disproportionate

difference be set at 35%. This figure was accepted at the public outreach sessions held in early

December. Overall the importance of this standard is more significant for Metro since the relatively

large number of fare products means that the percentage market share of each product is relatively

small, and an absolute threshold of 5% would rarely be an issue. Measuring the percentage difference

between the population groups will give a better indication of whether or not there is disproportionate

use and therefore a disparate impact.

2

Figure 1 shows an example similar to the data provided in Appendix K of the Guidance. It is analyzed

using the proposed Metro thresholds of 5% absolute and 35% differential. The yellow highlighted cells

have a disparate impact and the blue highlight shows cells with disproportionate burden. In this

example the Adult 31 Day pass is disproportionately not minority or low income, but the fare is

decreased. This also results in disparate impact and disproportionate burden.

Figure 1 - Example Using 5% Absolute and 35% Difference Threshold

Sample Fare Equity Analysis

Fare Type Minority Riders

Low Income Riders

All Riders

Absolute Difference Minority

(>5%)

Minority Difference

from Overall (>35%)

Absolute Difference

Low Income (>5%)

Low Income

Difference from

Overall (>35%)

Cost Existing

Cost Proposed

Fare Change

Absolute

Fare Change

%

Cash 29.2% 26.4% 20.2% 9.0% 44.6% 6.2% 30.8% $1.50 $ 1.55 $ 0.05 3.3% 1 Day Pass 21.1% 25.7% 20.1% 1.0% 5.0% 5.6% 28.0% $4.50 $ 5.50 $ 1.00 22.2% Senior 1.3% 3.2% 2.1% -0.8% -38.1% 1.1% 52.4% $0.50 $ 0.50 $ - 0.0% Disablity 2.1% 6.5% 1.7% 0.4% 23.5% 4.8% 282.4% $0.50 $ 1.00 $ 0.50 100.0% Adult 31 Day 22.6% 11.4% 33.4% -10.8% -32.3% -22.0% -65.9% $57.00 $ 50.00 $(7.00) -12.3% Student 31 Day 14.0% 17.6% 14.4% -0.4% -2.8% 3.2% 22.4% $30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00 16.7% Adult 7 Day 9.6% 9.1% 7.6% 10.0% 26.3% 1.5% 19.7% $15.00 $ 17.00 $ 2.00 13.3% Stored Value 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% -0.4% -80.0% -0.5% -100.0% $13.50 $ 18.00 $ 4.50 33.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Disparate Impact Disproportionate Burden Cash Disproportionately minority, (fare change is 3.3%) Disproportionately EJ, (fare change is 3.3%)

1 Day Pass Not disproportionately minority Disproportionately EJ, (fare change is 22.2%)

Senior Not disproportionately minority Disproportionately EJ but no fare change

Disablity Not disproportionately minority Disproportionately EJ & (fare change is 100%)

Adult 31 Day Disproportionately non-minority (fare change -12.3%) Disproportionately not EJ (fare change is -12.3%)

Student 31 Day Not disproportionately minority Not disproportionately EJ

Adult 7 Day Disproportionately minority (change is 13.3%) Not disproportionately EJ

Stored Value Not disproportionately minority Not disproportionately EJ

Red Text = Disparate Impact Blue Text = Disproportionate Burden

3

B) NARRATIVE OF FARE CHANGES WITH GRAPHS

1) General Fare Increase - July 1, 2007

The General Fare Increases of July 1, 2007 are shown in Attachment #1 and analyzed for disparate

impact and disproportionate burden on the accompanying Excel spreadsheet, Tab 7-1-07 Both. All of

the system fares were analyzed by determining the percentage share of overall usage for all methods of

payment and the percentage share of minority and low income usage for all methods of payment. The

percentage of overall usage for each particular fare was then compared to the usage by minority and

low income ridership for the corresponding fare. Metro’s threshold for disparate impact and

disproportionate burden is 5% greater absolute usage by minority or low-income ridership than overall

ridership for a particular fare method or 35% greater differential usage between minority and low

income usage and overall usage. Of the 21 types of fare media that experienced a change in July 1,

2007, no fare change resulted in a 5% or more difference in absolute usage or a 35% or greater

differential. Therefore none of the fare changes resulted in a disparate impact or disproportionate

burden.

Fare Type

Minority

Riders

Low

Income

Riders All Riders

Absolute

Difference

Minority

Minority

Difference

from Overall

Absoloute

Difference

Low

Income

Low

Income

Difference

from

Overall

Cash - Regular (Owl) 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Cash - E&D Peak 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% -0.1% -20.0% 0 0.0%Cash - E&D (Off Peak) 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% -0.1% -20.0% 0.0% 0.0%Token 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 0.1% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0%Cash Express - Reg. 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Cash Express-E&D Peak 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Cash Express-E&D Off -Peak 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Trasnfer to Muni - Regular 1.4% 1.2% 1.4% 0.0% 0% -0.2% -14.3%Day Pass Regular 30.9% 31.0% 29.3% 1.6% 5% 1.7% 5.8%Day Pass E&D 1.2% 1.6% 1.4% -0.2% -14% 0.2% 14.3%Weekly Pass 9.8% 9.1% 8.8% 1.0% 11% 0.3% 3.4%Semi-Monthly Pass 4.4% 3.8% 4.2% 0.2% 5% -0.4% -9.5%Monthly Pass 10.9% 9.8% 10.6% 0.3% 3% -0.8% -7.5%Monthly Express Pass 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0% -0.1% -16.7%E&D Monthly Pass 12.7% 15.7% 15.6% -2.9% -19% 0.1% 0.6%K-12 Monthly Pass 5.8% 5.7% 5.2% 0.6% 12% 0.5% 9.6%College Monthly Pass 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 0.1% 7% 0.0% 0.0%EZ Pass Monthly - Regular 1.5% 1.1% 1.6% -0.1% -6% -0.5% -31.3%EZ Pass Monthly - Express 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%EZ Pass Monthly - E& D 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 85.3% 85.6% 84.8%

July 1,2007 Fare Equity Analysis

4

Cash - Regular (Owl)

Cash - E&D Peak

Cash - E&D (Off Peak)

Token

Cash Express - Reg.

Cash Express-E&D Peak

Cash Express-E&D Off -Peak

Trasnfer to Muni - Regular

Day Pass Regular

Day Pass E&D

Weekly Pass

Semi-Monthly Pass

Monthly Pass

Monthly Express Pass

E&D Monthly Pass

K-12 Monthly Pass

College Monthly Pass

EZ Pass Monthly - Regular

EZ Pass Monthly - Express Not disproportionately minority

Not disproportionately EJ











Not disproportionately minority

























Disparate Impact Disproportionate Burden


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Share ofMinority

Boardings

Share ofLow IncomeBoardings

Share ofOverall

Boardings

7-1-07 Fare Change

Cash - E&D (Off-Peak)(3)Day Pass - Regular

Weekly Pass

Monthly Pass

E&D Monthly Pass

5

2) Silver Line Fares – December 13, 2009

The Silver Line began running December 13, 2009. The fare change that resulted from the addition

of this Line are shown in Attachment #2 and analyzed for disparate impact and disproportionate burden

on the accompanying Excel spreadsheet, Tab 12-13-09 Silver Line Both. All of the Silver Line fares were

analyzed by determining the percentage share of overall usage for all methods of payment and the

percentage share of minority and low income usage for each particular fare method. The percentage of

overall usage was them compared to the percentage of usage by minority of low income and minority

riders for the corresponding fare. Metro’s threshold for disparate impact and disproportionate burden is

5% greater absolute usage by minority or low-income ridership than overall ridership for a particular

fare method or 35% greater differential usage between minority and low income usage and overall

usage. Of the types of fare media that experienced a change in July 1, 2007, no fare change resulted in a

5% or more difference in absolute usage or a 35% or greater differential. Therefore, none resulted in a

disparate impact or disproportionate burden.

Fare Type

Minority

Riders

Low

Income

Riders

All

Riders

Absolute

Differenc

e

Minority

Minority

Differenc

e from

Overall

Absolout

e

Differenc

e Low

Income

Low

Income

Differenc

e from

OverallCash Express - Regular (1) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Cash Express - E&D (Peak) (2) (3) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Cash Express - E&D (Off-Peak) (2)(3)0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Transfer to Muni - Regular (4) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Transfer to Muni - E&D (4)(5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Day Pass - Regular 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Day Pass - E&D 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Weekly Pass (7) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%Monthly Express Pass (6) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%E&D Monthly Pass 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%K-12 Monthly Pass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%College Monthly Pass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%EZ Pass Monthly Express - Regular (6)0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%EZ Pass Monthly - E&D 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Cash Express - Regular (1)Cash Express - E&D (Peak) (2) (3)Cash Express - E&D (Off-Peak) (2)(3)Transfer to Muni - Regular (4)Transfer to Muni - E&D (4)(5)Day Pass - RegularDay Pass - E&DWeekly Pass (7)Monthly Express Pass (6)E&D Monthly PassK-12 Monthly PassCollege Monthly PassEZ Pass Monthly Express - Regular (6)EZ Pass Monthly - E&D

Not disproportionately minority Not disproportionately EJ












Silver Line December 13, 2009 Fare Equity Analysis




6

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

Share ofMinority

Boardings


Share ofOverall

Boardings

12-13-09 Silver Line Only

Cash Express - E&D (Off-Peak)(2)(3)Day Pass - Regular

Weekly Pass (7)

Monthly Express Pass (6)

E&D Monthly Pass

7

3) General Fare Increase – July 1, 2010

The General Fare Increases of July 1, 2010 are shown in Attachment #3 and analyzed for disparate

impact and disproportionate burden on the accompanying Excel spreadsheet, Tab 7-1-10 Both. All of

the system fares were analyzed by determining the percentage share of overall usage for all methods of

payment and the percentage share of minority and low income usage for all methods of payment. The

percentage of overall usage for each particular fare was then compared to the usage by minority and

low income ridership for the corresponding fare. Metro’s threshold for disparate impact and

disproportionate burden is 5% greater absolute usage by minority or low-income ridership than overall

ridership for a particular fare method or 35% greater differential usage between minority and low

income usage and overall usage. Of the types of fare media that experienced a change in July 1, 2010,

no fare change resulted in a 5% or more difference in absolute usage or a 35% or greater differential.

Therefore, none resulted in a disparate impact or disproportionate burden.

Fare Type

Minority

Riders

Low

Income

Riders

All

Riders

Absolute

Difference

Minority

Minority

Difference

from

Overall

Absoloute

Difference

Low

Income

Low

Income

Difference

from

OverallCash - Regular 22.7% 21.5% 23.0% 0% -1.3% -2% -6.5%Cash Express - Regular 1.3% 1.8% 1.6% -0.3% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Transfer to Muni - Regular 1.5% 1.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Day Pass - Regular 12.0% 11.3% 11.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Weekly Pass 18.6% 18.9% 17.6% 1.0% 0.0% 1% 0.0%Monthly Pass 15.0% 14.2% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% -1% 0.0%Monthly Express Pass 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%EZ Pass Monthly - Regular 2.5% 2.1% 2.4% 0.1% 4% -0.3% -12.5%EZ Pass Monthly Express -Regular 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0%SL Transfer to Muni - Regular 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SL Day Pass - Regular 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SL Weekly Pass 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SL Monthly Express Pass 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%SL EZ Pass Monthly - Regular 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 74.7% 72.2% 73.3%

SL = Silver Line

Cash - RegularCash Express - RegularTransfer to Muni - Regular Day Pass - RegularWeekly PassMonthly PassMonthly Express Pass EZ Pass Monthly - Regular EZ Pass Monthly Express -Regular SL Transfer to Muni - RegularSL Day Pass - RegularSL Weekly PassSL Monthly Express PassSL EZ Pass Monthly - Regular













July 1, 2010 Fare Equity Analysis




8

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

Share ofMinority

Boardings


Share ofOverall

Boardings

7-1-10 Fare Change

Cash - E&D (Off-Peak) (2)Day Pass - Regular

Weekly Pass

Monthly Pass

E&D Monthly Pass

9

4) K-12 Cash Student Fare Reduction – August 1, 2011

The change in cost of K-12 Student fares is shown in Attachment #4 and analyzed for disparate

impact and disproportionate burden on the accompanying Excel spreadsheet, Tab 8-1-11 Both (1).

Although only one fare was changed, all of the system fares were analyzed by determining the

percentage share of overall usage for all methods of payment and the percentage share of minority and

low income usage for all methods of payment. The percentage of overall usage for each particular fare

was then compared to the usage by minority and low income ridership for the corresponding fare.

Metro’s threshold for disparate impact and disproportionate burden is 5% greater absolute usage by

minority or low-income ridership than overall ridership for a particular fare method or 35% greater

differential usage between minority and low income usage and overall usage. The change in fare did not

result in a 5% or more difference in absolute usage or a 35% or greater differential. Therefore, no

disparate impact or disproportionate burden was found to have occurred as a result of this fare changes.

Fare Type

Minority

Riders

Low

Income

Riders

All

Riders

Absolute

Differenc

e

Minority

Minority

Differenc

e from

Overall

Absolout

e

Differenc

e Low

Income

Low

Income

Differenc

e from

Overall

Cash K-12 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 0% 3.2% 0% 3.2%

Cash - K-12

August 1, 2011 K-12 Cash Fare Equity Analysis



0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Share ofMinority

Boardings


Share ofOverall

Boardings

8-1-11 K-12 Reduced Cash Fare


Weekly Pass

Monthly Pass

E&D Monthly Pass

10

5) Day Pass Price Reduction – August 1, 2011

The change in cost of the Day Pass is shown in Attachment #5 and analyzed for disparate impact and

disproportionate burden on the accompanying Excel spreadsheet, Tab 8-1-11 Both (2). Although only

one fare was changed, all of the system fares were analyzed by determining the percentage share of

overall usage for all methods of payment and the percentage share of minority and low income usage

for all methods of payment. The percentage of overall usage for each particular fare was then

compared to the usage by minority and low income ridership for the corresponding fare. Metro’s

threshold for disparate impact and disproportionate burden is 5% greater absolute usage by minority or

low-income ridership than overall ridership for a particular fare method or 35% greater differential

usage between minority and low income usage and overall usage. The fare change did not result in a 5%

or more difference in absolute usage or a 35% or greater differential. Therefore, no disparate impact or

disproportionate burden was found to have occurred as a result of this fare changes.

Fare Type

Minority

Riders

Low

Income

Riders

All

Riders

Absolute

Differenc

e

Minority

Minority

Differenc

e from

Overall

Absolout

e

Differenc

e Low

Income

Low

Income

Differenc

e from

Overall

Day Pass 9.3% 8.6% 8.8% 1% 5.7% 0% -2.3%

Day Pass

August 1, 2011 Day Pass Fare Equity Analysis



0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Share ofMinority

Boardings


Share ofOverall

Boardings

8-1-11 Day Pass Reduction


Weekly Pass

Monthly Pass

E&D Monthly Pass

11

6) End of Day Pass Price Reduction (Pending) – August 1, 2012

The pending change in cost of the Day Pass is shown in Attachment #6 and analyzed for disparate

impact and disproportionate burden on the accompanying Excel spreadsheet, Tab 8-1-12 Both Pending

(2). Although only one fare change is analyzed, all of the system fares were analyzed by determining the






differential usage between minority and low income usage and overall usage. The fare changes would

not result in a 5% or more difference in absolute usage or a 35% or greater differentia. No disparate

impact or disproportionate burden will occur as a result of this fare changes.

Fare

Type

Minority

Riders

Low

Income

Riders

All

Riders

Absolute

Difference

Minority

Minority

Difference

from Overall

Absoloute

Difference

Low

Income

Low

Income

Difference

from

Overall

Day Pass 9.3% 8.6% 8.8% 1% 5.7% 0% -2.3%

Day Pass

August 1, 2012 Day Pass Fare Equity Analysis



0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Share ofMinority

Boardings


Share ofOverall

Boardings

8-1-12 $6 Day Pass Restored


7-Day Pass

30-Day Pass

E&D 30-Day Pass

12

7) General Fare Increase (Pending) – July 1, 2013

The Proposed General Fare Increases for July 1, 2013 are shown in Attachment #7 and analyzed for

disparate impact and disproportionate burden on the accompanying Excel spreadsheets, Tab 7-1-13

Both Pending(1) and 7-1-13 Both Pending (2). Tab 7-1-2013 Both Pending (1) analyzes the proposed fare

changes assuming that the Day Pass increase (discussed above) has not been implemented. Tab 7-1-

2013 Both Pending (2) analyzes the proposed fare changes assuming that the Day Pass increase

(discussed above) has been implemented. All of the system fares were analyzed by determining the






differential usage between minority and low income usage and overall usage. Of the 20 types of fare

media that would experience a change on July 1, 2013, no fare change resulted in a 5% or more

difference in absolute usage or a 35% or greater differential. Therefore, none would result in a

disparate impact or disproportionate burden.

Fare Type

Minority

Riders

Low

Income

Riders

All

Riders

Absolute

Difference

Minority

Minority

Difference

from

Overall

Absoloute

Difference

Low

Income

Low

Income

Difference

from

OverallCash - E&D (Peak) 2.2% 2.5% 2.6% 0% -15.4% 0% -3.8%Cash - E&D (Off - Peak) 2.2% 2.5% 2.6% -0.4% -15.4% 0% -3.8%Cash Express - E&D (Peak) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%Day Pass - E&D 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 0.2% 9.1% 0% 4.5%E&D 30 Day Pass 12.7% 14.7% 14.1% -1.4% -9.9% 1% 4.3%E&D Annual Pass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0%K-12 30 Day Pass 6.0% 5.8% 5.5% 0.5% 9.1% 0.0% 5.5%College 30 Day Pass 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 9.1%EZ Pass Monthly - E&D 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% -0.1% -14% 0.0% 0.0%

Cash - E&D (Peak)Cash - E&D (Off - Peak)Cash Express - E&D (Peak)Day Pass - E&DE&D 30 Day PassE&D Annual PassK-12 30 Day PassCollege 30 Day PassEZ Pass Monthly - E&D SL Transfer to Muni - Regular









July 1, 2013 General Fare Equity Analysis




13

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Share ofMinority

Boardings


Share ofOverall

Boardings

7-1-13 Pending Fare Change w/$5 Day Pass


7-Day Pass

30-Day Pass

E&D 30-Day Pass

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Share ofMinority

Boardings


Share ofOverall

Boardings

7-1-13 Pending Fare Change w/$6 Day Pass


7-Day Pass

30-Day Pass

E&D 30-Day Pass

appendix -- metro 2013 draft title vi program...

Documents