Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street

Denver, CO 80202-1399

303-299-2306

Board of Directors

Chair – Larry Hoy, District J

First Vice Chair - Tina Francone, District N

Second Vice Chair – Barbara Deadwyler, District B

Secretary – Jeff Walker, District D

Treasurer – Natalie Menten, District M

Lorraine Anderson, District L Ken Mihalik, District G

Ernest Archuleta, District C Chuck Sisk, District O

Bob Broom, District F Paul Daniel Solano, District K

Dr. Claudia Folska, District E Doug Tisdale, District H

Judy Lubow, District I Kate Williams, District A

M I NUTES Operations & Customer Service Committee

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Rooms R, T, & D

5:30 PM

Conference Dial-in # 303-299-2663

Conference ID: 15120

Operations and Customer Service Committee

Chaired by Committee Vice Chair Williams

A. Call to Order

Committee Vice Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived

Lorraine Anderson Committee Chair Remote

Ernest Archuleta Director, District C Present 5:24 PM

Bob Broom Director, District F Present 5:10 PM

Barbara Deadwyler Director, District B Present 4:54 PM

Claudia Folska Director, District E Present 5:12 PM

Tina Francone Director, District N Present 5:26 PM

Larry Hoy Director, District J Present 5:28 PM

Judy Lubow Director, District I Present 5:14 PM

Ken Mihalik Director, District G Present 5:27 PM

Natalie Menten Director, District M Present 5:21 PM

Chuck Sisk Director, District O Present 5:23 PM

Paul Solano Director, District K Present 5:34 PM

Doug Tisdale Director, District H Present 5:25 PM

Jeff Walker Director, District D Present 5:19 PM

Kate Williams Committee Vice-Chair Present 5:08 PM

Director Anderson participated via phone.

Staff Present: Bruce Abel, Susan Altes, Ivonne Aranda, Rolf Asphaug, Mike Barnes,

Martha Bembry, Larry Buter, Gina Callahan, Jessie Carter, Susan

Cohen, Carolyn Conover, Chuck Culig, Nate Currey, Joey Davidson,

Jeet Desai, Kevin Diviness, Terry Emmons, Ron Enserro, Eric

Farrington, Bret Feddersen, David Genova, Bob Grado, Dawn Greco,

Svetlana Grechka, Kim Heldman, Ali Imansepahi, Jeff Kay, Mitch

Kuharski, Russ Larson, Samantha Loucks, Doug MacLeod, Brian

Matthews, John McKay, Heather McKillop, Mike Meader, Michael

Millage, Allen Miller, Tai-Shrae Parish, Walter Pierce, Scott Reed,

Jenifer Ross-Amato, Jannette Scarpino, Greg Smith, Lindsey Smith,

Kevin Steele, Henry Stopplecamp, Mark Tieman, Jeri Torsak,

Tanzania Trout, Lisa Trujillo, Bill Van Meter, Ashland Vaughn, Jyotsna

Vishwakarma

Others Present: Doug Brockwell, William Gross, Tom Peterson, Dave Sachs, R. Paul

Williamson, Gary Van Dorn, 9News

B. Recommended Actions

Committee Vice Chair Williams stated that there were no recommended actions.

C. Updates

• North Metro - N Line Operation 9 12 17

Henry Stopplecamp, Assistant General Manager of Capital Programs,

introduced the team that has been working on North Line (North Metro)

operations. He stated that the agency is in the process of the construction

of the North Metro Rail line from Denver Union Station out to 124th Avenue

and then beyond. He said that back in 2015, the agency went to the Board

to discuss how they wanted to operate North Metro and decided would

handle operations: RTD, Denver Transit Partners (DTP), or a third party. DTP

already had operations in their contract on the Eagle P3 project as an option

and that, if the agency wanted to exercise the option, the agency would

have to negotiate the price. He further stated that the agency would need

DTP to continue to do vehicle maintenance and dispatching to Denver Union

Station, where all the corridoes tie in, and that BNSF and Amtrak should be

handled by one dispatcher.

He said that the Board previously authorized additional funds to cover

expansion of the facility and the fleet that the agency was putting into the

North Metro. He further stated that, based on the agency’s financing

strategy, all the agency could do based on the IRS ranks is a ten year. He

said the agency finished those estimates, then finalized the scope of the

project and the scope of the vehicle operations, then went forward, and in

2017 the formal direction was to develop an option B. He said the agency

was seeing stuff from Denver Transporters and the option B basically was

what would happen if RTD would go forward with it. He stated that the

agency received estimates from DTP and performed an Internal Cost

Estimate (ICE) to compare RTD numbers. He stated that the agency looked

at the outside industry to get a trend around the United States. Then the

agency went through a very detailed cost comparison between what RTD

does, what DTP would do, and how the agency would go forward.

Terry Emmons, Assistant General Manager of Rail Operations, spoke about

the assumptions that the agency used in the analysis. He said that one of

the items the agency reviewed was dispatching. He stated that the agency

wanted one area to control the movement of all trains and that under the

RTD option the agency would have to negotiate that option with DTP, but

under DTP option, DTP was already responsible for moving the trains. He

said that for vehicle maintenance DTP is currently responsible for the

agency’s North Metro Rail Line vehicles and that there are already contracts

through 2044. He stated that RTD could mobilize in 24 months, whereas

DTP could mobilize in 18 months because they would already have the

facility, the training department, and some of the vehicles placed to help put

the agency in action.

Mr. Emmons stated that, the agency would procure a rescue train in the

RTD option because the Skyway bridge is one of the longest bridges in the

state, and that the agency would need be proactive to be able to rescue a

train from the bridge. He stated that, under the RTD option, RTD would have

to acquire and renovate a facility where the agency could keep spare parts,

the agency’s maintenance of way employees, and large equipment. He

added that, DTP option would already have the Commuter Rail Maintenance

Facility (CRMF).

Mr. Emmons said that, for the 711 building, the agency would need a

location where the agency can house staff and would also need to have a

location for the agency’s operators. He said that the 711 building, located

by Coors Field, has a bay 711 for the operators to be housed between the

Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility (CRMF) and Denver Union Station.

Mr. Stopplecamp said that the Board would be given cost estimates at a

future committee meeting and that the costs associated with the North

Metro operation would be rolled into the Strategic Budget Plan (SBP) and the

Annual Program Evaluation (APE).

Mr. Emmons stated that the RTD rollout would take 24 months because

there are many elements the agency is going to have to prepare, such as the

system testing training of operators and training of the employees involved

with the North Metro. He said the agency would have to be prepared and

conduct inspections during the systems integration. He stated that the

agency would have to hire a total of 121 full time employees and prepare

and have in place a new starts matrix, which is a Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) requirement.

He also said the agency would have to work on the run board and make sure

the agency would have the integration to work interlaced vehicles between

existing systems. He added that the agency would have to purchase or

prepare facilities spare parts, and support vehicles and would also need to

coordinate between DTO and DTP. He said that the 24 months is broken

down into four quarters. He said the first quarter would be used to put

together a transition team and refine the mission’s critical items. He said

that in the second, third, and fourth quarters, RTD would incrementally hire

additional staff to operate the line. He noted the talented pool of existing

RTD employees who could provide expertise. He also noted some of the

challenges with respect to interagency coordination.

Mr. Stopplecamp stated that these challenges would be the same if the

agency brought in a third party. He added that a lot of the value that RTD

would bring to the table would also be challenges for a third party. He said

that a third party would not have the institutional knowledge. He stated that

when the agency looked at a third party and DTP, it became pretty apparent

that a third party would have a lot more challenges than RTD for establishing

a commuter rail operation. He said that the agency basically narrowed the

choice down to DTP or RTD. He noted that as of right now the staff is

strongly considering a recommendation for RTD to operate the line but noted

can change as the agency finalizes the evaluations. He said that he would

like to hear the Board’s pros and cons on October 3, 2017. He said that the

agency is looking at a 10-year contract for the DTP option or a 20-25 year

forecast for the RTD option. He stated that the staff would come back to

the Board for approval for the SBP and APE, which then would cover

authorization to go forward on option A or B. He noted that RTD staff would

continue to present to the Board regardless of which operator is selected.

Director Folska thanked staff for the overview. She asked Rolf Asphaug,

General Counsel, if the agency has resolved the challenges with DTP.

Mr. Asphaug, General Counsel, stated that the dispute resolution process

with DTP is still ongoing.

Director Folska asked if RTD would be taking over North Metro operation in

29 years.

Mr. Stopplecamp remarked that that is correct, RTD’s contract with DTP

expires in 29 years. He said that the agency may re-extend it, may bring

somebody else in, or may take it over.

Director Folska asked if the agency could build its knowledge base now with

the agency’s own people.

Mr. Stopplecamp stated that that is correct.

Director Folska noted that that would be her preference.

Director Broom inquired about the rescue train. He asked if staff could

describe it in a little more detail. He asked if it would be a 2 or 3-unit train, if

it would be diesel so that it can operate when there is no electricity, and if it

would sit without being used.

Mr. Stopplecamp responded that it would be diesel and the agency would

use it to maintain the track on a regular basis. He stated that the agency

would need a piece of equipment strong enough to pull other vehicles. He

said the agency’s goal would be to use it for rescue and for maintenance.

Director Archuleta stated that RTD would need 121 more employees to staff

the R line. He asked how the agency would go about getting these new

employees especially considering the ongoing operator shortage.

Mr. Stopplecamp stated that it would be a challenge but whichever entity is

selected to operate the line would also need 121 operators and maintainers.

He said it is a challenge to find the right people and that is why it did not go

as pro or con because the agency feels like it would be an issue for anyone,

but knowing about it ahead of time, recruiting efforts can start early. He

added that one of the positions the agency wants to bring in upfront is the

track Overhead Catenary System(OCS) signal supervisors. He said they can

come on board to learn the system as the agency goes through on the

construction and then they would be responsible for recruiting others.

Director Archuleta inquired about recruiting. He asked how the agency is

doing with the union and if the agency is going to be raising the wages. He

asked if the agency would suspend checks for marijuana use.

Bruce Abel, Chief Operating Officer and Assistant General Manager of Bus

Operations, stated that the agency’s drug and alcohol program gets sent to

the agency, compliments of the Federal Transit Administration (FRA) and the

US Department of Transportation. He further stated that it is not anything

that is under the agency’s control and, while he does not have a crystal ball,

he would not anticipate that the agency should expect any modification from

the federal level and the drug and alcohol arena in the transportation

business. He added that in the last two years the agency has implemented

split run bonuses of $2 an hour, provided bonuses for individuals to take on

work in addition to their mid-work for $2 an hour more, and raised bus and

rail operators’ wages by $1 an hour. He added that as the Board knows, the

agency will be going into labor negotiations with the union for a contract

that expires February 28, 2018 and the agency will see what the outcome

of those negotiations will be as it relates to any additional adjustments in the

compensation package.

Mr. Abel remarked that, if the Board were to relax its drug testing policy the

Federal Transit Administration bank account would go to zero.

Director Lubow inquired about the startup time. She states that the agency’s

start up time is estimated at 24 months, whereas the contractor would be

18 months. She asked whether that meant that, if the agency operated the

line, the agency would be six months later starting up than the contractor.

Mr. Emmons stated that the agency put together a schedule and is looking

at the requirements to get this operation up and going. He said that currently

the best estimate is 24 months for on the schedule that the agency has with

the different items such as the building a matrix, training and getting the

facilities ready.

Director Lubow asked if that meant if the Board chose this option people

would be angry at the agency for six more months.

Mr. Abel stated that, under the DTP/DTO option, DTP/DTO would need to

mobilize 18 months prior to anticipate it opening, though the agency would

need to mobilize 24 months prior to anticipate it opening. He said that that

the opening would not be delayed by 6 months.

Director Lubow asked whether an outside contractor would need a rescue

train.

Mr. Emmons stated that it would be their option.

Director Lubow asked if the agency would expect them to have one for the

same reasons the agency would want one.

General Manager Genova, stated that the agency can put the rescue train in

the scope of work though it would drive up the cost.

Director Lubow stated that she feels the train would be needed. She asked

about the level of challenge of interfacing with DTP.

Mr. Emmons stated that there would be some challenges but that he thinks

the agency can work through all of those.

Director Sisk asked whether there would be additional cost over and above

that which is budgeted.

Mr. Stopplecamp stated that for the security for the system, the agency

provides the second operator right now on the University of Colorado A line

and the B line and the agency will be doing the G line. He further stated that

those are paid for out of RTD and the agency would be doing the same thing

on North Metro. He added that that number comes out because it is going to

be the same cost whether DTP or RTD runs the system.

Director Sisk asked if those monies would come from FasTracks or the Base

System.

Mr. Stopplecamp remarked that Heather McKillop, Chief Financial Officer

and Assistant General Manager of Finance and Administration, will go into

more detail as the agency goes forward but the money is programmed under

Company 3 and the APE, and, if there is a short fall, the money comes from

the Base System.

He said the agency’s goal would be not to bring money from the Base

System but does require $ 32.7 million from the Base System.

Director Sisk asked if that $32.7 million is the same $30 million that was

going to go into the SH119 BRT project.

Mr. Stopplecamp stated that it is the same value.

Director Sisk stated that he has real concern about the SH119 project.

Ms. McKillop stated that the agency has put an estimate in the APE that

would cover either scenario at this time. She said that this would not add

additional dollars to the APE any additional transfer from the Base System

above the $32.7 million dollars.

Director Solano asked, within this timeframe, when would Regional Rail

Partners (RRP) hand over to DTP in this process.

Mr. Stopplecamp remarked that RRP will hand over to whoever the agency

decides will operate the system during the integrated testing, which is the

last phrase of the construction.

Director Solano asked if the agency has rectified the issue on the

engineering design conflict between RTD and RRP.

Mr. Stopplecamp said no, not at that time.

Director Solano asked if the conflict would be handled.

Mr. Stopplecamp said that at this time the agency has estimates and has

been working with RRP to refine their numbers but is still working on that at

this time.

Director Solano asked if DTP is primarily nonunion.

Mr. Stopplecamp remarked that they do fall under SMART, so their

operators are represented by the union.

Director Solano asked if the contractors are under the union.

Mr. Stopplecamp said that the contract operators fall under the union.

Director Francone stated that it seems to her that one of the beauties of the

University of Colorado A line contract with DTP was the fact that it was a

third party and it reduced the risk to this agency as well as to the taxpayers.

She asked if that a consideration when the agency is considering whether or

not RTD will assume the build design and operation of this as opposed to

DTP.

Mr. Stopplecamp stated that on this project the agency will not go forward

on the design build, that has already been done by RRP. He added the

agency will give a formal recommendation to the Board on October 3rd.

Director Francone asked about the benefits and the downsides of having one

operator over the other.

Mr. Stopplecamp stated that one of the benefits to having operations all

under DTP is the agency has one operator, and one contractor for Denver

Union Station and the commuter rail maintenance facility.

Director Tisdale said his understanding is that the agency should have a

completed decision matrix on or before October 3rd.

Mr. Abel stated that staff was presenting the frame work for the analysis

and will present the proposal in greater detail on October 3rd.

Director Tisdale asked if the agency will have further discussion on the

October 17 on the annual program evaluation process and then have a final

vote on October 24th.

Mr. Abel said that that is correct. He said, as Ms. McKillop indicated from a

financial prospective, there has been an assumption made, the agency

believes that that assumption will accommodate an alternative, but the final

runs will be done in October.

Director Tisdale asked whether the agency will have an opportunity to have

a more fulsome answer to the concerns that were expressed by Director

Sisk on the impact to BRT on SH119.

Mr. Abel said that he suggests that the agency will have an opportunity to

have a better discussion on the financial impact to SH119.

Director Menten asked whether the 12 vehicles that are currently operated

by the agency are the only ones needed in the near term.

Mr. Stopplecamp said yes, those are the only 12 vehicles needed for the

North Metro corridor.

Director Menten asked about the 711 building. She asked if the agency has

the figures on the rehab or any of the requirements.

Mr. Stopplecamp said that the agency has looked at the 711 building and it

is a three-bay building. He stated that the agency is currently putting TIC in

one bay and the treasury in the second bay. He further stated that the

agency has done some estimates which will be numbers in October.

Director Menten asked whether the new start requirements would fall on

RTD, regardless or on the contractor.

Mr. Stopplecamp said the task would fall on whoever is operating the line.

He said if it falls to DTP, they would update their documents, and RTD

would also have and generate those documents.

Director Menten asked for breakdown of time, labor, and money required.

Lindsey Smith, FasTracks Public Information Specialist, stated that it is

projected to be 10,000 riders a day.

Director Menten stated she did not see much after that initial discussion

about third parties. She stated that she wonders about a third party because

the agency has challenges with DTP and, if the agency looked at a third

party, perhaps there might be some alternatives.

Mr. Stopplecamp said that the agency did look at a DTP option, a third party

option, and an RTD option, and the pros and cons associated. He said if the

agency goes with the DTP option, the agency can always go out on the

street. He stated that he challenges for a third party would be even greater

than our own challenges. He further added that the agency has a great staff

infrastructure they only need to bring in the operating side.

Director Menten stated that her initial thought is that she has more faith in

the private sector in having a little more flexibility and opportunities.

Mr. Stopplecamp asked if she could define what she means by flexibility.

Director Menten said the private sector has a variety of different options in

advertising, and partnering.

Mr. Stopplecamp said the selectee would be handling operations and should

not be financing anything, but the agency will follow up on that.

Director Anderson stated that her concerns are for duplications of service

and she added that but seems to her the agency would be duplicating the

mechanical equipment that the agency needs to take care of the trains and

keep them in a state of good repair. She said she is also concerned over the

priorities for tracking, how that would work, and how that would be

negotiated.

Mr. Stopplecamp remarked that when talking about bay one, duplication of

maintenance and equipment, the agency is referencing a building that RTD

owns and that is going to be housing the operator and administrative staff.

He stated that it is not a bay to maintain the equipment. He further stated

that currently the agency is under contract with DTP to maintain the fleet of

12 vehicles for the next 29 years. He added that the operator that is

selected will have to buy additional high rail equipment, because RTD cannot

operate with what has. He said is true for the Southeast Rail Extension. He

said Mr. Emmons and the team are picking up new maintainers and more

pieces of high rail equipment. He said the agency would add miles to track

and would still need to add equipment, and whether RTD operates it or DTP,

it is still needed. He said that it is important to get the same dispatcher

working the throat that takes care of the Eagle project, North Metro, BNSF,

and Amtrak. He added that those dispatchers now work that whole throat to

be sure that everybody gets a fair shake coming into the station.

Director Anderson stated that she appreciates the matrix the agency went

through on making the decision and she thinks that it is certainly well

thought out and helps the Board get to a decision. She added that she is

strongly in favor of a zero tolerance drug use policy.

Director Folska stated that she wanted to echo Director Anderson’s

comments on the drug use policy. She said that, to Director Sisk’s point, she

does not really care about SH119, because she thinks it is a great idea, but

it feels more to her like a bait and switch for the Northwest Line. She added

that she thinks that was what the NAMS study was all about. She said that

she is concerned about is finishing FasTracks sooner rather than later and

the Board should be making sure that voters get what they voted for first.

Chair Hoy stated the agency is laying out a path forward to a decision point.

He said that he thinks that the operator selected will probably be invisible to

the passenger. He said as the agency goes forward his thoughts are going to

be focused on cost.

• DUS Request for Information (RFI) 9 12 17

Mr. Abel stated the agency received a proposal from Greyhound on the

potential use of Denver Union Station as a stopping point for their services

in Denver Metro area. He further stated that, subsequent to that, the agency

also received an inquiry from Ramblin Express. He said that the agency does

not have a policy at this time for utilization of Denver Union Station. He said

that Request for Interest (RFI) has been prepared that the agency will be

sending out to the transportation community. The RFI is the agency’s

attempt to gage the level of interest as well as ask some basic questions of

the industry He added that the process that the agency has laid out is to

send an RFI out into the industry.

Mr. Abel stated that based on the response the agency will make a

determination on what the next steps would be, potentially the preparation

of a Request for Proposals, broader public input from the affected areas as

to the potential for use of Union Station by more than the existing carries,

and the determination of how to proceed for actually making Union Station

available for the carriers use.

Director Folska said she has been so excited for the agency to take the

highest and best use of the agency’s assets, especially the land. She stated

the agency is struggling financially. She asked about the lease terms for the

Denver Union station.

Mr. Asphaug said he would take a look at that.

Director Folska said that she thinks the RFI is very exciting. She asked if the

Bustang gives the agency any.

Mr. Abel stated that at this point in time there are no funds generated from

Bustang’s use of Union Station.

Director Folska said that she could see how Bustang could be an exception

because it is operated by the government rather than a private entity. She

added that she loves Greyhound but they would have to pay.

Director Lubow stated that she was intrigued that at present third parties do

not pay the agency to use Union Station. She asked the thinking behind that

decision.

Mr. Abel said that the third parties that use Union Station are public

partners, but agency can look at the demand for use of the facility and

determine how the agency can best achieve a multimodal transportation

hub.

Director Lubow inquired how private operators might access the bathroom

facilities.

Mr. Abel said that Greyhound would have to explain how they would

accommodate that function knowing they cannot do it at Union Station. He

added that those are the kinds of questions that the agency will ask as part

of RFI.

Director Broom asked if there are synergies for the traveling public for

combining the bus station as opposed to having a second Greyhound bus

station. He asked what happens if the agency has to have TSA deal with

intercity buses or what would happen to old Greyhound station if they were

to lease one or two gates in Union Station.

Mr. Abel said that many parties in the city believe that the western

expansion of the Central Business District (CBD) is in many cases blocked by

the existing Greyhound terminal. He said there are many parties in the

community that would like to see the terminal redeveloped to a higher use

from a land-use perspective as opposed to a transportation perspective. He

added that there are very real pros from a synergy prospective, to expanding

our multimodal footprint to enable people to transfer from intercity buses to

local buses to light rail to commuter rail to the airport. He said the agency

would have to balance those issues and evaluate pros and cons.

Director Francone inquired if there some synergies with respect package

handling.

Mr. Abel said it is certainly something worth looking at. He added that the

agency does have that legal authority and used to have a very active

package delivery service.

Director Anderson said that she thinks that this is a great idea because it

offers an opportunity for many people. She stated that it offers opportunity

during bad weather, during emergencies, even during crowded periods. She

added that if a constituent cannot get one form of transportation, they can

always get another.

Director Tisdale said could use the RFI to determine whether to monetize the

use of Union Station.

• ADA Expert Second Annual Report

Mr. Abel stated that serval years ago the agency entered a consent decree

with the disability community regarding the use of the securement area on

board fixed route buses. He further added that, as part of that agreement,

the agency agreed to bring on an ADA expert who would come in

periodically to assess whether the agency has been complying with the

consent decree and other factors. He said that the agency received good

grade from the ADA expert. And noted the report emphasized the agency’s

willingness to modify the design of its 40 foot buses.

Carolyn Conover, Senior Manager of Contracted Services, stated that the

agency did see improvement from 2015 to 2016. She said that there was a

24 % decrease in the number of pass ups and that shows that the drivers

are doing what they are supposed to do. She added that the drivers are

doing everything they can do to try to accommodate people with mobility

devices.

Committee Chair Williams stated that the agency did take one of the buses

out the other day with a number of members of the Transit and Accessibility

Task Force and said it was a nice ride. She added that three people in wheel

chairs and a person with a walker were all accommodated.

Director Folska asked who the expert was.

Mr. Abel remarked the expert is Elizabeth “Buffy” Ellis, an employee of KFH

Group Inc.

Director Menten said complaints increased from 2015. She added that in all

it does not sound like the agency receives a lot of complaints compared to

the.

Ms. Conover said that many complaints came from the agency’s policy of

allowing persons with mobility devices to board first.

Director Menten said that she does hear from constituents who are

frustrated with the other patrons blocking the aisle and doing things that

would seem to just be inconsiderate.

Ms. Conover said that one of the things the agency is doing with the

refresher training this year with the operators is giving them tips and

pointers on how they can address the passengers when they pull up to a

stop, especially when they pull up to a busy stop and everybody tries to

rush the door.

Director Menten stated that she is stressed about how much of a delay it

creates for everybody. She said of the report it talks about the replacement

of the 3900 series buses. She asked, based on the agency’s current

financial situation and the limits on borrowing, whether the replacement can

take place in 2020.

Mr. Abel stated that the agency’s fleet replacement plan has been extended

from that which was in place when this study was done.

Director Menten said that she had one possible change to the agency’s code

of conduct regrading impeding access onto the bus by persons with mobility

devices.

Director Solano said that he is just curious if there is information in this

document that addresses service animals.

Ms. Conover said that information on service animals is one of the things the

agency is going to include in the refresher training this year.

Director Solano asked if service animals were an element of the consent

decree.

Ms. Conover remarked that no, it was not.

• Contracted Fixed-Route Quarterly Report – 2nd Quarter 2017

Mr. Abel gave an overview of the report and asked the Directors if they have

any comments.

• Access-a-Ride/Cab 2nd Quarter Update - 2017

Mr. Abel said he was pleased to report that the number of trips impacted

due to returned manifest in the first quarter was 2,000 in the month of

January, 2,000 in the month of February, 1,400 in the month of March, and

in the second quarter those numbers dropped to 800 in April, 250 in May,

and 150 in June. He said that allowing the contractors to rebid improved

their wages to improve their ability to hire drivers and on time performance.

• Special Services Report 2nd Qtr 2017

• 2017 2nd Quarter Drug & Alcohol Compliance Monitoring

• 2017 2nd Quarter Customer Complaint Analysis

Mr. Abel gave an overview of these reports and asked the Directors if they

have any comments.

• Second Quarter - April 1 through June 30, 2017

Bob Grado, Transit Police Chief, stated that the fare enforcement report was

presented in a new format.

Director Folska said that 1,122 is an interesting number. She asked what is

the percentage on fare evasion.

Mr. Grado said it 0.14 % for commuter rail and added that the rate actually

went down in the second quarter.

Director Folska said that when she was first elected the rate was estimated

to be about 3.

General Manager Genova said that was the agency’s light rail fare evasion

rates but that number that Chief Grado gave is the commuter rail fare

evasion rate. He added that the agency breaks light rail and commuter rail

down separately because the agency has a different amount of security

resources on the different lines. He said the agency is able to do a lot more

inspection on the commuter rail line.

Director Folska asked to be reminded of the procedures when officers find

people who are evading a fare.

Chief Grado said that the first infraction results in a warning, and the

second, third, and fourth time they are fined. He added that the fine in

Denver county is $86.50 and $106.50 in other counties. He further added

that the fine structure stays the same throughout that process, but once a

person hits that fourth mark, the agency will suspend them from service.

Director Folska inquired on how long they would be suspended for.

Mr. Grado said 30, 90 or 120 depending on how many offenses they have.

Director Francone asked for an explanation of the distinction between the

fare task force and the commuter rail enforcement numbers.

Chief Grado stated the task force is a group of 10 officers who work

primarily during day time and swing shift hours. He added that the agency

does not pull them off for any other calls for service and the officers have a

lot more visibility. He further added that the agency is doing a more

aggressive fare enforcement program on one of the other lines where the

agency has seen some issues recently. He said that this task force can move

around if necessary.

Director Francone stated that she is delighted to see transit police present on

the platforms and on the train and it makes her feel safer. She asked if the

agency reports out crime statistics or the number of incidents of violence

reported at some point during the year. She added that she is seeing more

incidents happening at the stations.

Mr. Grado said the agency does that every month. He stated that the

agency has recently contracted with the city of Denver police department

crime analysis to helps the agency on a part time basis and help compel

these stats to make sure the agency is getting good numbers. He said that

the early results have been very encouraging. He stated that the agency

doing fare enforcement tends to drive a lot of the other quality of life issues

off the system.

Director Menten asked for clarification on the numbers for the patrons

without fares and asked if the agency is paying Denver to help with security.

Chief Grado said the agency does pay and it is part of the off-duty program.

Mr. Meader, Chief Safety Officer and Assistant General Manager of Safety,

Security, and Asset Management, stated that, based on data, the agency

has is able to assign officers to those lines or those platforms at specific

times of the day to mitigate some of these things that are happening. He

added that there are no additional funds being spent.

Director Menten ask if the agency is paying Denver for their analysis.

Chief Grado stated that the agency pays for the analysis using budgeted

dollars.

Director Solana stated that he is looking at total complaints in the 2016 and

noted 2017 is catching up. He states he received two calls the previous

evening regrading that a bus did not show because of the Bronco game.

Committee Chair Williams stated that she does not know if Director Solano’s

question falls under safety and security. She added that that was a valid

question and asked if he could hold on to that.

Director Tisdale asked if RTD receives the revenue whenever a citation is

issued or if the city where the citation was issued receives that fine.

Chief Grado stated that the city receives the fine.

Director Solano stated that, when people have to wait for a bus that does

not show, it is a safety issue.

Mr. Abel stated that the agency has very real operator shortages and that an

operator called off. He said due to the requirements of all of the additional

services the agency did not have any extra operators for the last evenings

Broncos game. He said an apology would be issued to this constituent.

Director Folska stated that incidents when people cannot get to work or

pickup their children because the agency is taking people to a Broncos game

are not okay.

Director Anderson stated she was very impressed with the numbers. She

added it appears that fare evasion rates are going down on commuter rail as

people learn to ride. She said she knows that commuter rail is checked and

she knows that people respond when there is enforcement there.

• Lost Service Hours Update 9 12 17

Mr. Abel stated that in August of 2017, the agency dropped 7,074 hours of

service between either delayed pull outs or missed trips, compared to 80

hours of service dropped in August of 2016. He says the agency will

continue to experience various challenges with its operator head count. He

said the agency asks for volunteers amongst the operators to work on one

of their days off and, absent the ability to secure enough volunteers, the

agency begins at the bottom of the seniority list and communicates to those

employees who will be required to work on one of their days off.

Mr. Abel states that the chart indicates the degree to which the operators

have been mandated since the agency has been formally tracking this back

in 2015. He said the number of mandates in 2016 is higher than 2015, and

2017 is higher than 2016. He added that the agency has been mandating far

more than it would like amongst existing employees. He said the agency

hires charter buses to the extent possible. He stated that staff continues to

work with HR to increase the number of operators into training. He said that

as the agency mandates more people to work on their days off, people find

the to be a less appealing in the current job market. He said the agency will

try to make working conditions better in an attempt to improve retention.

Director Solano asked why the agency is putting priority on sporting events

and not on the constituents.

Mr. Abel stated the agency’s sporting event riders are constituents as well,

but they are a different market segment than the agency’s commuters. He

further added that the agency makes commitments in both areas to our

customers.

Director Solano asked if it is true that the people going to the games ride for

free.

Mr. Abel remarked that it is not true as long as the agency’s bus operators

and fare enforcement employees are doing their jobs.

Director Solano stated that he has been on a lot of the buses and nobody is

checking fares. He added that the trains are jammed full and that on the

light rail he has never seen anybody checking fare.

Mr. Abel stated that the agency has ticket sellers or street supervisors at the

Park-n-Rides and they will sell a round trip fare then the customer will board

the bus. He said that the operator does not check fares because there is a

ticket seller and the return trip is assumed. He added that on light rail the

agency has fare checks at Mile High Station and Decatur/Federal. He said at

Mile High Station the turnstiles are used for Broncos games and other

sporting events and no one can get in or out of the station without fare.

Director Solano said he think it is a double standard.

Chair Hoy stated that as he got on the Broncos Ride with thousands of other

people at the Wagon Road Park-n-Ride, the buses were crammed and

everyone paid full fare. He added that when the agency hires those buses

from out of state, those buses comes with a driver.

Director Tisdale said he took a light rail to the first preseason Broncos game

and was very impressed by the system. He added that in the one time where

he knew everybody by had paid to ride.

Director Broom asked if agency has explored hiring head hunter firms to find

drivers.

Mr. Abel stated that he does not know that agency has looked at using a

head hunter firm but said the agency certainly put that on the table.

Director Anderson stated that her community is full of hard-working people

that use RTD to go to work and there are probably even more people in her

community who look at RTD to go to ball games. She says she does not

think the agency should discriminate against the constituents, and all of

agency’s constituents are important. She said that she thinks that agency

has to do everything in its power to find a way to increase the number of

operators. She added that she knows the agency’s operators are working

many long hours. She further added that she appreciates what staff has

done to minimize the effects of split shifts.

Committee Chair Williams stated that she also rode the light rail from the

Broncos game with two young men who were developmentally disabled. She

said that they were absolutely thrilled about being able to take the train and

told her all about it even though she did not tell them she had anything to do

with RTD. She added that there are pros and cons to every situation.

D. Other Matters

General Manager Genova stated that he wanted to provide the Board with

an update on the Federal Road Administration (FRA) and Public Utilities

Commission (CPUC) update on the University of Colorado A Line, the B Line,

and the G Line. He said that the agency. He stated the agency recently

applied for a permanent waiver for the University of Colorado A line and for

the B line. He said that one of the reasons they are suggesting this

permanent type of a waiver is because of the method of technology that the

agency is using on the grade crossing is different and there is more of an

extended buffer time than with the agency’s wireless activation system in

combination with the positive train control system. He said that the FRA has

advised seeking a permanent waiver for these lines. He said it is very

common for the FRA to issue five-year waivers and more indefinite waivers

on different types of things. He added that a permanent type of waiver has

nothing to do with safety and the agency will still operate a very safe

system. He added that the waiver provides a certain regulatory relief from

certain requirements and will allow the agency to seek quiet zone approvals.

He stated for that the G line, the agency has submitted a petition for

omission to allow final testing on the G line. He said the agency has

completed that testing that both the FRA and PUC authorized and that

testing went very well.

General Manager Genova stated that the agency has submitted a grade

crossing amendment application for three crossings per the PUC’s request.

He stated that the timing on the PUC process is unclear. He said that other

parties are noticed when the agency submits an amendment. He added that

extensive, the PUC may begin more of a hearing process if the comments

received are than a docket process. He said that the agency is working

closely with both the City of Aurora and the City County of Denver on these

issues to gain as much support as much as possible. He stated that and the

PUC is not involved. He said the agency has also filed amendments for all of

the G Line crossings to seek PUC’s permission to do the final testing and the

earliest those might get set for the docket would be the end of September or

early October since it is new, the agency is expecting that we will get some

questions around that.

Director Menten asked if the agency added in the extra safely step the

agency may get in the way with this permanent waiver.

General Manager Genova stated that the FRA does issue waivers on a long-

term basis for a variety of different reasons and operations. He added that

the waiver is FRA’s suggestion for how they think we can best approach it

based on our system design.

Director Menten asked what three crossings are being proposed for A Line

and to see how commission reacts.

General Manager Genova stated that the three crossings are Dahlia, Steel,

and Sable, which the agency submitted three crossings is because a volume

issue with the PUC. He stated that what happens with the amendments is

fairly typical in the PUC process. He further stated that it is very common

that the agency gets an amendment after the agency is fully billed to tie up

any minor changes.

Director Menten asked which the parties are noticed.

Mr. Genova stated that the city in the jurisdiction in which the crossing is

located, the adjacent railroads that are a part of the crossings, which

property owners that are adjacent to that particular crossing are all noticed.

He added that the speed of the process is determined by the number of

comments received.

Director Menten asked the if the G line was not in testing right now because

the agency has to wait for a second approval.

General Manager Genova stated that that is correct.

Director Menten asked whether the agency would refrain from issuing an

estimated opening date.

General Manager Genova stated that that is correct because of the timing of

the approvals from FRA and the PUC.

Director Francone asked if a permanent waiver would it satisfy the dispute

with DTP or DTO.

General Manager Genova stated that he does not think the claim from DTP

will go away. He said that the agency is continuing to work through that

process with them in terms on contract compliance. He added that he does

not see a permanent waiver as being as issue with contract compliance as

long as the agency gets through the grade crossing issues.

Director Walker asked if the FRA has confidence in the performance in the

operation even though it does not perform as intended.

General Manager Genova stated that it means that the FRA is confident that

the system is working as designed and working safely. He further stated

that the reason for the waiver would be because the agency’s system design

is not a typical, conventional design that their regulations are used to dealing

with.

Director Walker said that the system still performs safely, it still functions,

just a little differently from what the agency intended.

General Manager Genova said yes, the agency has submitted lots of

documentation and a lot of different variety of forms but one of the recent

pieces has been the grade crossing criteria document that the agency has

been talking about with the FRA now for a number of months. Once the

agency gets through that piece and they are satisfied that it is working as

the agency described it in the design then they should be willing to look

forward with that.

Director Walker stated that he gets to work with federal agencies and they

are sticklers about what they do. He added that he thinks it is a good sign

that they are willing to expand on their concept of what is acceptable. He

said his experience with notification is that it is not just the number of

comments that the agency risk but the diversity of those comments. He

further added that if they receive a bunch of comments about the same

issues, those often are addressed rather quickly, but if they receive

comments on a wide variety of issues that is what slows down the process.

Director Anderson stated that this sounds like good news to her. She said

that RTD’s system is different from any other system in the United States

and a permanent wavier would be good news.

Director Francone asked the agency have any update on the $29 million

refund from the federal government.

Ms. McKillop said the agency’s lobbyists have been working on that. She

further stated that a draft of the bill defined what a “cohort” was and that

the issue has been that a “cohort” is anybody that has ever applied for a

loan.

Director Francone stated the Colorado delegation is on board and most

anxious to help.

Ms. McKillop said right now, because of the continuing resolution, nothing is

moving forward. She added that as that language starts to move forward

the agency will keep the Board updated.

E. Next Meeting Date - October 17, 2017

F. Adjourn

Committee Chair Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.

The following communication assistance is available for public meetings:

Language Interpreters

Sign-language Interpreters

Assisted listening devices

Please notify RTD of the communication assistance you require at least 48 business hours in advance of a

RTD meeting you wish to attend by calling 303.299.2307

THE CHAIR REQUESTS THAT ALL PAGERS AND CELL PHONES BE SILENCED DURING THE BOARD OF

DIRECTORS MEETING FOR THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT.