Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area ( TMA) Leadership … · 2016. 2. 2. · Commuter Rail –...

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (

Representing the MPO

Pinellas Sunc3201 Scherer Drive

Meeting Objectives:

• Review status of Regional

• Begin discussion of needed refinements to TMA Leadership Group priorities

• Review presentation on THEA Strategic Plan

• Review and revise as needed 9:00 Welcome and introductions Summary of December 11 9:15 Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority Strategic Plan 10:00 Regional Transit Study

o Status Report o Transit Referenda across the country

10:30 Break 10:45 TMA Leadership Group Purpose 11:00 Initial discussion of refinements to 11:30 Review draft Workplan for 2016

Next Steps

12:00 Adjourn

Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group

Representing the MPOs in Pasco, Pinellas, & Hillsborough Counties

Friday, February 5, 2016 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 3201 Scherer Drive, St. Petersburg, Florida

Review status of Regional Transit Study

Begin discussion of needed refinements to TMA Leadership Group priorities

presentation on THEA Strategic Plan

Review and revise as needed TMA Leadership Group Purpose and 2016 Workplan

ntroductions

December 11, 2015 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop

Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority Strategic Plan

Regional Transit Study

Transit Referenda across the country

TMA Leadership Group Purpose and Organization

Initial discussion of refinements to 2016 TMA Leadership Group Priorities

orkplan for 2016

Leadership Group

s in Pasco, Pinellas, & Hillsborough Counties

Begin discussion of needed refinements to TMA Leadership Group priorities

2016 Workplan

Workshop

2016 TMA Leadership Group Priorities

PSTA Offices - 3201 Sherer Dr., St. Petersburg, FL

Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Meeting of November 6, 2015 1

Highlights of the November 6, 2015 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group

Meeting – 9:00 a.m. Atkins Conference Room – 4030 West Boy Scout Blvd, Tampa, FL

Meeting Objectives:

• Review previous studies of regional commuter rail possibilities

• Develop next steps to promote commuter rail as a regional priority

• Agree on one-page summary of regional transportation priorities and how to use the summary

• Begin to identify topics of interest for the Leadership Group’s 2016 work plan Welcome and Introductions: Rafael welcomed everyone and indicated his role as a facilitator. Everyone in attendance introduced themselves. Summary of September 4, 2015 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop Rafael noted, as a result of the CSX discussions at the September 4 meeting, the TMA Leadership Group wanted to further discuss whether the CSX rail line should move forward. He then summarized the objectives and agenda topics, noting the focus is on the CSX discussion. If time allows, the group will discuss the joint legislative priorities and the calendar and topics for 2016. The Staff Directors have drafted a joint list for review and revision as necessary for the legislative priorities and will draft a work plan before the next Leadership Group meeting. Rafael asked that anyone interested in providing public comment let him know so time could be accommodated for public comment after the break. Debbie Hunt, FDOT, reported that there was an announcement yesterday that FDOT will work with HART to perform a feasibility study to look at premium transit, looking at all the options and working with the adjacent counties as the study moves in certain directions. She emphasized that, under the NEPA process, there cannot be a predetermination as to which option will be chosen but they will look at Hillsborough County and the region, making sure the preferred option is compatible with the Pinellas Alternatives Analysis. There was considerable discussion regarding the CSX rail line. In response to the discussion, Ms. Hunt re-emphasized that FDOT cannot make a predetermination about a specific corridor but has to look at all the options. She indicated the feasibility study will take approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. Ms. Hunt indicated that the three transit agencies need to be brought to the table as part of the TMA meetings to be included in these discussions. Rafael indicated that could be discussed at the end of the meeting, noting there has been participation at the last three meetings in an informal capacity. Rafael noted that there has also been discussion of including transit through the TBARTA Transit Management Committee. Commissioner Mariano commented that CSX had done research for at least a year to look at the rail lines and brought forward the two lines (Brooksville and Clearwater lines) to the TMA group to look at. Commissioner Mariano noted that FDOT had the basic parameters as to what CSX wanted and that CSX felt the rail line would work as a joint use for them and, therefore, this was not a predetermination for the premium transit option study. There was discussion that the group wanted to make sure this was a regional study and that the feasibility study should be under the auspices of this group or TBARTA. Ms. Hunt clarified that the feasibility study has not yet been scoped. In response to further discussion regarding the potential of using the CSX rail line, Rafael clarified that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process requires they look at all the alternatives and then they can focus on one alternative in greater detail. Ms. Hunt stated they need to be clear on the process as they move forward with the Federal Transit Administration in that there are certain steps that must be followed so as not to jeopardize the use of


federal funds. Ms. Hunt requested that Mr. Gao be allowed to make his presentation to help with clarification. Mr. Chiaramonte added that TBARTA wanted to be involved in the feasibility study. Commuter Rail – Background

• Review studies to-date on the possibility of regional commuter rail Beth Alden, Hillsborough MPO, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the previous studies, noting the relation of the CSX rail line in the context of the TMA priorities that were approved by the TMA Leadership Group at their June 5, 2015 meeting. Ms. Hunt reported that, regarding the Westshore Multimodal Center, the Double Tree/Charley’s Place site has recently been sold and a Request for Proposals has been initiated. FDOT will be submitting a proposal for the site on Tuesday. Ms. Alden continued with her presentation, providing a brief summary and abbreviated history of rail initiatives in the Tampa Bay area that included the Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority (1990-1996) with the commuter rail development plan and the commuter rail feasibility study, the HART Mobility Major Investment Study (1998), the HART Tampa rail project – Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement (2002 record of decision), the Pinellas Mobility Initiative (2003), the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee (1991-present); the FDOT District Seven Strategic Regional Transit Needs Assessment (2006), the TBARTA Master Plan (2009), Moving Hillsborough Forward (2010), and Greenlight Pinellas (2014). She highlighted the two corridors that Mr. O’Malley of CSX had indicated were available for sale that were evaluated in the various studies. The two corridors are called the Brooksville and Clearwater subdivisions. She discussed some of the corridors tested as part of the TBARTA Master Plan, noting that, in Phase 3, the term “light rail” was generalized to “short distance rail” so as not to exclude diesel multiple unit (DMU) or electric multiple unit (EMU) technology. Ms. Alden summarized the lessons learned from the Hillsborough 2010 referendum. Based on voter comment, she reviewed the options going west of downtown Tampa and for north of downtown Tampa and potential regional connections. She then reviewed the 2040 ridership forecasts for modern tram and DMU alternative, as well as the 2040 Regional Plan needs assessment ridership forecasting. It was requested that today’s presentations be made available via email or website. There was some discussion about the ridership forecasts and the ridership model that was used. Ms. Alden responded that it was a joint effort between the MPOs and FDOT. In response to a question about co-existing light rail technology with the CSX, Ms. Alden responded it would need to be separated by 25 feet and a 12-foot thick crash barrier between the two tracks and require building a new track for the different technology. It was also noted that DMU or EMU could share the same tracks as freight rail, however.

• Fixed Rail project development process Ming Gao, FDOT, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that highlighted the Capital Investment Grant Program for the New Starts and Small Starts processes and the Project Development and implementation in Florida. The MAP-21 New Starts Program combined the Alternatives for New Starts and Small Starts into Project Development and Engineering and accelerated the NEPA process. MAP-21 New Starts funding is greater than $75 million and/or the project cost is greater or equal to $250 million; and, for Small Starts projects, the total cost is less than $250 million and the Small Starts share is less than $75 million. The New Starts process starts with a submittal letter to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Secretary responds within 45 days and, if approved, goes into the project development phase. The New Starts process requires the NEPA process be completed in 24 months once FTA approves the project to be advanced into project development. The application letter requirements include a project description, the transportation problem in the corridor or a statement of purpose and need,


identification of a proposed project if one is known and alternatives being considered, the current levels of transit service in the corridor, and copies of prior studies done in the corridor. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of compressing the study since there have been previous studies done and whether the CSX rail line will be evaluated. It was also discussed that the CSX rail line should move forward and that they need further information as to associated costs. Mr. Gao responded that the feasibility study will include an evaluation of the CSX rail line. Regarding the regional comments, Ms. Hunt stated that HART is a regional agency by statute. Katharine Eagan, HART CEO, commented on the good relationship HART has with FDOT as well as the Hillsborough MPO and PSTA. HART has experience in running a train and is knowledgeable about the rail safety requirements. With HART taking a lead role in the feasibility study, they receive credibility because FTA is focused on rail and safety. They have recently added staff with experience and background in rail technology. Ms. Eagan stated that, in order for FTA to move through the process, they will require an evaluation of the bus network to connect to the rail system and that the bus network will need to be in all the counties and will require an integrated fare system, etc. HART will work with its regional partners for this to be a regional system. In response to questions about the evaluation of purchasing right-of-way for the CSX rail line, Ms. Hunt responded no because they need to look at all the alternatives before focusing in on one. Regarding the SunRail project, FDOT paid $432 million that included $150 million to CSX and the balance for rail improvements. Mr. Gao continued with his presentation, highlighting the transit concept and alternative report, project development and schedule, the NEPA analysis, public involvement, overall project rating, project development evaluation and rating criteria, and information regarding project development cost reimbursement. Regarding the need to evaluate the noise and vibration impacts since trains already run on the corridor, Mr. Gao responded that was part of the evaluation under the NEPA process and would need to still be looked at as transit trains would be running more frequently than freight trains currently are and could have additional impacts.

**At this time, the Leadership Group took a break** Following the break, public comment was received. Mit Patel, resident, spoke noting he has been a strong advocate for transportation over the last six months and noted his background is engineering and that he is an entrepreneur. He is excited about the rail conversation. He noted the millennial population is underrepresented and that generational trends aren’t included in any of the projections. He spoke against the TBX project, noting it will cost more than building rail and won’t solve the congestion problem or help the economy. Dan Harvey, Jr., St. Petersburg, spoke positively on the use of the CSX rail line and the opportunity for a regional approach. Ed Turanchik, CRA, talked about his experience regarding rail studies noting a congressional authorization in 1991; however, there wasn’t a regional interest. He discussed the previous background/perspective regarding rail. He noted the process is important, especially when applying for federal funds. He noted they could also go forward with the process without using federal funds. A rail system would help the economy and Busch Gardens is very interested in a rail system. They need to move forward as expeditiously as possible and consider it a high priority as a regional project.


• Lessons from SunRail Whit Blanton, Pinellas MPO, provided information on his background/experience and then reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the SunRail history, its current status, the costs and financing, agreements, lessons learned, and information on the Lake Mary Station House Transit Oriented Development (TOD). He provided information as to FDOT’s involvement and financial commitment, the next phases, and the various agreements between the partners and the related governance. He noted that the local governments pay the operating costs based on station boarding formula and that this will be reviewed and refined based on actual data and that the FDOT Work Program is a guarantee for the local governments to continue to pay the operating costs. The lessons learned are that the region came together around one project (SunRail was the top transit project in the region), FDOT provided important leadership to keep the focus and to present options for the local and regional decisions, the operating agreement is in place for all 61 miles for both phases and new lines require new funding agreements. The area has seen $3.2 billion in economic development around 9 stations. He discussed the density bank for the Lake Mary Station House TOD. Discussion followed regarding the need to have one clear message with many voices and the economic benefit that could occur around the stations and increased taxes. Regarding a comment about the potential for public/private partnerships around stations, Mr. Blanton responded that it makes sense to leverage assets around potential stations and along the rail line. Mr. Blanton noted there has been some discussion of not using federal funds and described the Metro Rail in Houston that did not use federal funds until the last couple of years. They used local funds for most of the light rail system. The green line was financed with an assessment on commercial property along the line and tax increment financing revenues. As to what the one message should be, Mr. Blanton responded that it is important to find a way to show how it would benefit each jurisdiction even if it didn’t directly benefit a jurisdiction, but there needs to be a regional approach. There was a comment that there is an employment opportunity benefit and that the CSX rail line is part of a bigger picture to provide connectivity to the entire state of Florida by connecting future rail lines. There was discussion that the Clearwater and Brooksville subdivisions should be called by another name and that the group should explore in more detail the option to pursue funding without the use of federal funds. Mr. Chiaramonte noted that TBARTA has built in density bonuses and other incentives in their plan that would occur when premium transit or a guideway system is built. Mr. Patel commented that he worked with a group of students back in June that looked at a model called MTR that was not financed with federal funds and included public/private partnerships. He will provide a link to that presentation.

• Opportunities and questions relating to regional commuter rail Pinellas Perspective: Whit Blanton, Pinellas MPO, provided information regarding the Pinellas perspective on the CSX rail line (Clearwater subdivision) that included the identified activity centers, employment, land use distribution countywide and along the CSX corridor, and comparisons with other rail systems. Regarding the names (Clearwater and Brooksville subdivisions), Mr. Gao responded that he has a map that includes the CSX names that he could bring to the next meeting. Pasco Perspective: Jim Edwards, Pasco MPO, provided information regarding the Pasco perspective, noting they included a Transit Needs Plan in their Long Range Transportation Plan that showed commuter rail as an unfunded need. In their Cost Feasible Plan, they included a commuter rail study as a joint study with the Hillsborough MPO. They are trying to achieve a TOD concept on S.R. 54, noting they have a lot of commuter travel with 50% of the commuter trips leaving Pasco County. FDOT is completing a project development study for S.R. 54/U.S. 41 that is looking at a grade separated solution. They need to look at TOD and capturing work


trips to feed into the rail network. Pasco County has several new roadways and several large development projects. In addition, FDOT has included in their work program the widening of S.R. 52 to six lanes, which will allow for potential TOD interest. Pasco County has done some studies looking at potential park-and-ride locations. Hernando Perspective: Denis Dix, Hernando MPO, stated they have been part of the overall planning process for awhile, noting their MPO recently joined with Citrus County. They realize the importance of the CSX rail line discussions although it would be awhile before it expanded into Hernando County; however, they would be instituting regional bus service to connect to the rail system. They are excited about the CSX rail line prospect.

Commuter Rail – Next Steps Comments received:

• Begin the feasibility study to look at what is existing and what is needed – draft the scope involving the partners

• Keep regional concept, regional opportunities – commuter rail system, have a position statement as to thoughts from regional standpoint as leaders, where we’re going looking at viability and feasibility of the CSX rail line in order to communicate to others what is happening and receive input from those who have experience and then make decisions about federal or local funding

• Timing is of the essence with one message with many voices – decide priorities and funding and know where we’re going – opportunity for quick and fast regional approach

• MPOs are ready to help with drafting the Scope of Services

• Public and economic development partners in Pasco County are excited and ready to move forward

• Document what’s been discussed, develop flow chart to track discussions, parallel effort to keep momentum

• Change name to Bay Rail, move Number 3 on priority list to Number 1 – TMA should study what it would take to convert the CSX rail line, what would be compatible with CSX, negotiate with CSX to see what their purchase price would be – is it viable – work on spine first and then go from there

• Scoping of study is important – see how other priorities could merge

• Orient toward the users to understand how they will use it and how it would benefit them

• Don’t want to predetermine option, need to consider all options – everyone wants to see the CSX rail line move forward – need to connect the dots for everyone and determine a strategy to connect those dots – future generations need to be at table (millennials), employees creating jobs so need to talk to them, educate public and know want their wants and desires are – need to be willing to pay for it and support for it

• Good to talk about but need to move forward with a focus on regional – need to understand how ultimately it would work when all phases are complete

• Appreciate FDOT offering the opportunity to provide a study – priority list is good for this year with a study but don’t know what to ask for until study is complete

• Need to meet sooner than February 5 to figure out the priorities and the scoping of the study and the early legislative session – need to put a delegation together to travel to Tallahassee with the one message from many voices – decide what the message is and plan the trip to Tallahassee – there are several representatives that are supportive

• Need to move quickly with several concurrent transportation issues dependent on one another and this piece is important to be included in those discussions – need to think about all modes of transportation – the TMA Leadership Group needs a project to get behind – need to meet more often – need to communicate and generate excitement in the community

• MPOs (including Hernando) develop a Memorandum of Understanding to develop a message and a timeline – Hillsborough has their delegation meeting on December 8 and would like to include information about the CSX rail line – Staff Directors to assist with next steps and timeline and the timeline should be discussed at every meeting – one page message that


includes FDOT regarding the commuter rail and what the TMA is and includes a timeline that needs to be done prior to their next meeting – embarking on process to engage everyone

Discussion followed regarding the need to modify the TMA priority list, noting the other priorities have specific information. The group would need time to think about what they would ask for without making a predetermination. It was felt the project doesn’t have to be the Number 1 priority as long as it’s on the priority list. Based on the discussion, Rafael provided the following summary of conclusions:

1) Meet in early December 2) Develop the Scope for the Feasibility Study 3) Right-of-way evaluation study 4) Develop the message 5) Develop a timeline 6) Develop a Memorandum of Understanding 7) Develop financing options (federal and local)

• Review remaining topics for potential TMA Leadership Group action

• Review potential topics for TMA 2016 cycle Rafael reviewed the November 6 agenda noting it might be modified based on the ad hoc meeting to be scheduled for late September or early October. Regional legislative priorities for transportation Rafael indicated the one page summary developed by staff is included in the packet and that, due to the time, he will work with the Staff Directors in order to receive comment from the members. Calendar and topics for 2016 Rafael indicated the calendar is in the packet and that he will work with the Staff Directors to develop a work plan for 2016 in order to receive comment from the members. Other Next Steps Mr. Gao announced that Lee Royal Beasely will be retiring from FDOT as of February 1, 2016. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:03 p.m. H:\users\cendocs\MPO\TMA highlights November 6, 2015


Attendees: Members: Commissioner John Tornga Pinellas MPO Commissioner Karen Seel Pinellas MPO Councilmember Doreen Hock-DiPolito Pinellas MPO Commissioner Jack Mariano Pasco MPO Councilmember Kathryn Starkey Pasco MPO Councilmember Lisa Montelione Hillsborough MPO Councilman Harry Cohen Hillsborough MPO Commissioner Sandra Murman Hillsborough MPO Others: Rafael Montalvo Facilitator Ronnie Duncan TBARTA Ray Chiaramonte TBARTA Debbie Hunt FDOT Ming Gao FDOT Beth Alden Hillsborough MPO Whit Blanton Pinellas MPO Jim Edwards Pasco MPO Ali Atefi Pasco MPO Bill Jonson PSTA Brad Miller PSTA Chelsea Favero Pinellas MPO Carolyn Kuntz Pinellas MPO Brian Beaty FDOT Katharine Eagan HART Avera Wynne TBRPC Ali Atefi Pasco MPO Hugh Pascoe TBARTA Doyle Walsh Pinellas BCC Michael Case TBARTA Martin Shelby Tampa City Council Staff Steve Nicholson Tampa Bay Times Brian Malmberz Hernando County Bob Esposito FDOT Ann Kulig Westshore Alliance Lucia Garsys Kaitlin Connolly Travis Nortes SPACC Pat Kemp Pasco County Tom Whalen City of St. Petersburg Heather Sobush PSTA Cassandra Borchers PSTA Caitlin Johnson TBT Mit Patel Brandie Miklus Jacobs Gina Evans TIA Allen Howell Pasco MPO Jean Duncan COT Christina Barker COT Ed Turanchik Katrina Kavouklis FDOT Lee Beasley FDOT Ed McKinney FDOT Rob Cursey Tindale Oliver Dennis Dix Hernando/Citrus MPO Anthony Palmiers TBARTA CAC John Hill Tampa Bay Times Clarence Eng Kimley-Horn Joe Farrell Brandon Wagner Hillsborough County Gena Torres Hillsborough MPO Dan Harvey, Jr. Resident

Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Meeting of December 11, 2015 1

Highlights of the December 11, 2015 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group

Meeting – 9:00 a.m. PSTA Conference Room – 3201 Scherer Drive, St. Petersburg, FL

Welcome and Introductions: Rafael welcomed everyone. Bill Jonson, PSTA Chairman, welcomed everyone to PSTA and provided information on the PSTA building. Everyone in attendance introduced themselves. Summary of November 6, 2015 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop Rafael noted, as a result of the CSX discussions at the November 6 meeting, the TMA Leadership Group requested a special meeting to fully explore what it would take to move quickly on regional commuter rail options. Rafael briefly reviewed the agenda, noting the Leadership Group’s desire to participate with FDOT and HART to help with formulating the scope and its role in the study on premium transit options. Commissioner Mariano asked that the November 6 TMA Leadership Group summary reflect discussion that he had commented that CSX had done research for at least a year to look at the rail lines and brought forward the two lines (Brooksville and Clearwater lines) to the TMA group to look at. Commissioner Mariano’s second point was that FDOT had the basic parameters as to what CSX wanted and that the rail line would work as a joint use for them and, therefore, this was not a predetermination for the premium transit option study. Rafael asked that anyone interested in providing public comment to let him know during the break so time could be accommodated for public comment. Legislative Activities

• Recap December 8, 2015 BALD Meeting Beth Alden, Hillsborough MPO, reported that the Tampa Bay Partnership organized a program with the Bay area Legislative Delegation on Tuesday, December 8. At the last TMA Leadership Group meeting, there was a discussion regarding the TMA priorities that they thought would be helpful to bring to the attention of the Delegation members at that meeting to assist in pursuing funding. They coordinated with the Tampa Bay Partnership to request time on the agenda to speak on the subject but were told the agenda had already been established. They were, however, able to provide a written handout (included in this agenda packet) that was distributed to the Delegation members at Tuesday’s meeting. Ms. Alden noted that at the December 8 meeting, the Tampa International Airport provided highlights of their Master Plan and FDOT provided highlights of their Work Program and the TBX Plan and commented that they are looking at a premium transit option study. Although there wasn’t any discussion at the December 8 meeting regarding the TMA priorities or CSX concept, the staff directors will continue to bring the concept to the Delegation members and requested comments and/or suggestions on the one-page summary of the top five TMA priorities and one-page summary of the CSX rail corridor opportunities.

• Review TMA Leadership Group One-Pager Outlining Priorities and Support for Commuter Rail Ms. Alden reviewed the one-page summary of the top five TMA priorities, noting a text box was added to the bottom that provided the purpose of the TMA Leadership Group so this can be used as a handout to help make others aware of the TMA Group. The second page is a one-page summary that provides information on the CSX rail corridor opportunities. Discussion followed as to where they should go from here and an emphasis that everyone needs to be on the same page with the same information and that this should be on


everyone’s radar from a regional perspective. It was noted a trip to Tallahassee is being scheduled and that the one-page summaries need to be circulated to as many people as possible. It was suggested that the members ride the corridor and that this would be a good public relations opportunity. Mr. Chiramonte provided some history on the last demonstration project several years ago where Ed Turanchik (a Hillsborough Commissioner at the time) worked with CSX to allow a demonstration train car that ran on a segment of the rail line. The members felt a demonstration project was a good idea and suggested the MPO and transit directors develop a list of business leaders and other stakeholders who should be invited to participate in the demonstration project. It was commented that the trip to Tallahassee should include a plan as to what is being asked of the legislators and that the trip should occur this year. Pasco County commented on the Project Development and Environment study that is currently being conducted by FDOT for the intersection of U.S. 41 and S.R. 54 and the opportunity for realignment to be transit responsive in the corridor.

• Plan for January MPOAC Day in Tallahassee Ms. Alden informed the TMA Leadership Group the trip to Tallahassee is scheduled for January 28 to coincide with the MPOAC day and invited all the members to attend. They are trying to schedule meetings with the Delegation members during that trip. Mr. Chiramonte reported that he attended a Transportation Summit in Jacksonville recently where they received an update on the Federal Transportation Bill that increases funding for transportation by 15% and transit by 18%. Councilman Kennedy cautioned that the CSX rail line in Pinellas County runs through industrial lands and not the populated areas so there will need to be east-west connections. There needs to be a connection between the Gateway area and the Westshore area because they are the major employment areas. It was commented that connections to the CSX rail corridors will be needed but could be accomplished by other means. There is a potential connection across the Bay via the reconstruction of the Howard Frankland Bridge.

Regional Transit Study Stakeholder Engagement (At this time, Katharine Eagan, HART, Ann Kulig, Westshore Alliance, and Marcie Stenmark, Safety Harbor, were invited to sit at the table)

• Approach to Stakeholder Engagement – Katharine Eagan, HART CEO Katharine Eagan, HART CEO, introduced Marcos Sandusky, who is in charge of outreach for HART, and Caesar Hernandez, who is in charge of government relations. Ms. Egan emphasized that everything HART does is for the community and, although HART provides service, it’s the community’s service. This is the same philosophy HART will utilize for the premium transit options study. She provided information regarding the regional farebox system on the TMA priority list, noting HART’s track record from a regional perspective. Ms. Eagan suggested, as a starting point, an expansive outreach to neighborhood and business groups to see what type of premium transit service they envision. HART would like to receive input in order to write the scope for the premium transit options study in coordination with FDOT. Ms. Eagan requested input from the TMA members regarding who to contact in their community in order to hear from their constituency. She also requested input as to the best way to reach their constituency. The following input was provided to assist with outreach: St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations, various neighborhood associations, schools, colleges, medical industries, civic groups, local governments chambers of commerce, utilize social media with the same message and a unified voice, e-town hall meetings, take the message to the people, have a simplified message that includes graphics so it’s clear to the average


citizen, videotape people riding the demonstration project with an overlay of a map showing the CSX rail lines and widely distribute the video, give information to the various groups as to what is trying to be accomplished and ask for their input, modify people’s behavior to get them out of their vehicle into another mode of transportation, consider naming the rail system to something catchy, prepare for the “naysayers” in order to respond appropriately, frame the big picture so it’s understood the CSX rail line is only a component of the bigger picture and how the CSX rail line relates to the bigger picture.

• Roundtable Discussion Rafael posed a question as to how to involve the local governments throughout the region and asked for responses. Beth suggested using working groups that would include experts. Whit commented that the affected local governments would need to know how the CSX rail line fits into their comprehensive plans, the objectives, and how it ties into economic development. Whit added that the staffs could partner with HART to attend city council/commission meetings, chambers of commerce, and other forums to have the conversation that identifies the opportunities, how it will work, and what are the concerns. It was emphasized the importance of partnering with HART. It was commented this needs to be a public/private initiative and that private business support is key to its success. Commissioner Mariano noted that Pasco County levies a mobility fee that has a lot of flexibility in its use with 33% used for transportation and 67% for general funds. In response to Councilmember Montelione’s question as to what questions they are trying to answer and what is unique about this corridor, Ms. Eagan responded that there are certain steps that must be followed in order to receive federal funding. The feasibility study will need to answer questions, such as ridership, how to make the line productive for an overall network, why it’s important to fund the corridor, whether it’s a good investment, and other additional information. Mr. Gao added that the feasibility study will determine what is the best solution for the region and how the corridor fits into the big picture from a federal and state point of view. Commissioner Murman suggested the creation of a business advisory group for the three MPOs that would include the chambers of commerce so this would be a business driven process in order to get buy-in from the community. She asked the MPO Directors to work up a plan to incorporate communications and to develop the creation of a business advisory group as the process moves forward so that it is successful. Commissioner Starkey asked that the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) receive a presentation, as well as the Tampa Bay Partnership. She asked Commissioner Janet Long to provide input on Sean Sullivan, who is the new TBRPC Executive Director. Commissioner Long stated Mr. Sullivan is from the Boston area and has worked with the infrastructure in the federal transit agency and unified four states in the New England area. He has expertise at the federal level in the Department of Transportation. Commissioner Long added that TBRPC has made transportation their Number 1 priority. Commissioner Long added that it is important to get information to other groups/agencies about the functions of the TMA Leadership Group. Commissioner Seel noted the Pinellas Greenlight initiative was both business and chambers of commerce driven and it still failed the voter referendum. She indicated the question that needs to be answered is who would ride the system and asked whether there was a plan to answer that question. She added that there needs to be a reality video to show how the system will work.


Commissioner Mariano restated that CSX has studied this for awhile and that there have been a lot of studies done that are still valid. He felt there has not been a predetermination regarding the use of the CSX rail lines. Rafael asked everyone around the table whether they had anything else to add to the discussion. Several attendees at the table made additional comments, including Marcie Stenmark of Safety Harbor who indicated that this is an exciting opportunity but the discussion needs to be regional and that there is a lot of expertise to make it successful. Janet Zink (Tampa International Airport) stated that it was good bringing the three counties together to discuss this but there needs to be a champion(s). Rafael asked everyone to provide their list of contacts to FDOT and HART and to also provide those lists for the record so there can be a composite list.

**At this time, the Leadership Group took a break** Rafael indicated public comment would be accommodated toward the end of the meeting. The Passenger Rail Financial Package

• Previous Capital and Operating Cost Estimates From TBARTA Master Plan – Ray Chiaramonte, TBARTA Mr. Chiaramonte, TBARTA, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the TBARTA Master Plan that includes the rail component for Hillsborough County as part of the 2040 Cost Affordable Plan. The longer range needs plan includes the other rail systems. The TBARTA Master Plan is consistent with the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plans. He reviewed the 2040 Regional Cost Feasible Projects, the 2040 Regional Transit Longer Range Needs, 2009 Regional Transportation Master Plan cost estimating and economic benefits overview, cost methodology for capital and maintenance/ operating costs, technology for short and long-distance rail, diesel/electrical multiple units, the 2035 Mid-Term Vision, information for SunRail (Orlando) operating and maintenance costs, and information regarding the movement of people traveling to and from each of the counties for employment and people traveling to and from the Tampa International Airport (39% residents and 61% tourists). Mr. Gehring commented that the I-4 corridor connection needs to be included in the long range planning and focus on the corridor(s) with the highest ridership, especially as the population evolves. Councilmember Hock-DiPolito suggested adding “many voices” to one region/one plan message. Commissioner Starkey asked whether information could be added regarding other movements besides employment. Whit responded that FDOT will be doing a major travel survey and the updated data will be available in a couple of years. Whit added there have been some regional surveys done that staff can check into. Beth added there is a travel demand model that can be updated and bring back the information. Commissioner Tornga asked about cost estimates and Mr. Gao responded that he can share a link from FDOT Central Office that has some general cost information for various technologies for construction and operations and maintenance but the feasibility study will provide more specific information. Beth noted that information was included in the last TMA agenda and is posted on their website.


• Minimally-Federal Approaches to Funding Rail – Whit Blanton, Pinellas MPO Whit Blanton provided information on systems that did not rely on federal funding to be implemented, noting there were only a few. The information was provided from the American Public Transportation Association. He provided information on the Houston Rail Line Metro System, including its history. Houston initiated construction without using federal funding. The rail line was funded through a tax on commercial property assessment and a tax increment reinvestment zone. Without federal funding, it took longer to implement the rail line. Whit provided information on the other system that did not utilize federal funds to initiate a rail system that is in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Whit summarized the information from the two systems that did not use federal funds, noting non federal funding is usually used as a back-up plan, there are political influences that can help or hinder a rail system (such as occurred with Houston), performance expectations (Houston and Albuquerque), there is an increasing trend nationwide toward utilizing more local funding sources, a majority of rail referendums nationwide have been successful (mostly in the west), use of non-federal funding requires support and state and regional actions. With both MAP-21 and FAST ACT, there is an emphasis on streamlining transportation projects. Discussion followed, noting there can be a private sector partnership even with federal funding, additional information on the tax increment financial funding, Orlando SunRail and its relationship with the Metro Orlando Hospital, the discussion has to be about the community and what they are trying to achieve, need to use examples around the country to our benefit and others’ experience to help avoid mistakes and the need to follow the proper steps. Commissioner Starkey asked about the redevelopment that occurred around Houston, Whit responded he would look into that. In response to discussion, Whit responded that political leadership is very important in moving a project forward. Commissioner Seel asked that the list TBARTA has on rail referendums across the country be updated and disseminated to the TMA Group. Mr. Chiaramonte responded he would provide that information.

• Information Request to FDOT District 5 on CSX Corridor Valuation Studies for SunRail – Whit Blanton, Pinellas MPO Whit reviewed the questions asked of FDOT District 5 about the valuation study for SunRail and the information is included in the agenda packet. The cost of the appraisals is approximately $500,000 and took about 18 months to complete. The appraisals included 60 miles and 2 additional spurs. Also included in the agenda packet was an administrative review and executive summary. Ming added that FDOT provides a lot of background information that cost millions of dollars before the appraisal is done. Beth noted SunRail was able to compete effectively for FTA funding by not including the right-of-way costs in the full funding grant agreement. The full funding agreement was only for the construction costs and everything else was a different transaction. Commissioner Mariano asked whether they could do an analysis of the property and ask CSX to provide an offer and then have an appraisal done. Whit responded that it couldn’t hurt to ask but that an independent appraisal would still be required. Ming cautioned to be careful to name a price since they will need to negotiate a price and that it’s important to go through the appraisal process. Councilman Kennedy commented that autonomous vehicles need to be taken into account.

**At this time, public comment was received.


Dan Harvey, Jr., St. Petersburg resident, encouraged everyone to listen to Bob O’Malley’s CSX presentation and that he is excited about the feasibility study FDOT will be conducting and he cautioned that the right public relations firm needs to be hired. Travis Norton, St Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce, indicated that Bob O’Malley spoke to the Chamber and there was good discussion. The Chamber has made transportation their Number 1 priority. He congratulated PSTA and FDOT for the $500,000 grant they received for the Central Avenue Bus Rapid Transit. He said it’s important to look at the land use and connections to beach access, Ulmerton Road, the Gateway area, 4th Street, as well as other connections. He commented that it’s important to get input early in the process from the business community and public. Erik Metz, Palm Harbor resident and Climate Reality Project, stated it’s important to make the right investments in transportation and showed a video of the Honolulu rail transit system. Mr. Metz noted the correlation of the video and this group is a matter of benchmarking and being aware of what other communities are doing and asked the members to stay current in what Honolulu is doing in their “Honolulu on the move”. Ms. Ward indicated Bob Henion, TBARTA CAC and Pinellas MPO CAC, had to leave but asked that his comments be entered into the record. Mr. Henion felt there needs to be a “Wow” factor, need public communications people at the table, a number of different people and agencies should be invited to the train ride demonstration, and the train stops should include the press and publicity. Brainstorm Key Questions for Scope of Study and TMA Leadership Group Role Comments received:

• Automated vehicles should be considered, there are safety benefits although they don’t solve the right-of-way problem, they are an asset to transit and could be valuable

• Regarding the scope for the feasibility study, they are in the process of identifying team members from FDOT and HART to begin work, the funding will not be available until FY 2017, they are in the process of determining the agreement between FDOT and HART and working on the scope – input from the TMA Leadership Group in February would be appropriate

• THEA – include the connection of the Gandy Bridge to the Leroy Selmon in the scope • Other studies should be included in the scope, as well as other elements • It was requested that FDOT provide a presentation to the TMA group in February on the

scope of work, the appraisal process, the process for SunRail – Ming indicated they wouldn’t be able to provide the details in February; however, Ming will coordinate with FDOT District 5 to see what information they have regarding SunRail that can be shared with the TMA members

• No one is talking to the state and congressional leadership about what is happening, there needs to be a coordinated effort from the members to meet with the state and federal legislative delegation

• Senator Latvala made a comment to the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce that they need to come to Tallahassee to provide a regional voice that includes FDOT – the MPO Directors were asked to put something together as to what to ask the Legislative Delegation and to draft language to ask for funding to support the region

• Bring up important regional issue once FDOT completes the plan and remind the Legislative Delegation it’s out there

• The TMA group needs to influence the scope FDOT is doing for the feasibility study, there needs to be a regional needs statement included in order to move forward, it’s important to connect the dots and note the impact of the regional transportation priorities that could be included as part of the project description


• It’s important to ask for the money for the study and the appraisal and to let the Legislative Delegation know, all the members should attend the January 28 meeting – it’s important to make this happen and not wait for FDOT. The group members directed staff to include a request for funding for the real estate appraisals in the top five priorities for discussion with the Delegation.

• It was commented that the U.S. 41 rail corridor study priority should be clarified to include the two lines (Brooksville and Clearwater CSX rail lines)

• All the MPOs have adopted their 2040 Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP) and that they endorse the CSX rail corridors – need to move toward an action plan and need to be cohesive

• Ming indicated FDOT will not do an appraisal until the feasibility study is complete in order to identify a solution, he cautioned about asking for money for anything else until the study is complete. If the Governor vetoes a line item, FDOT would not be able to spend money on the feasibility study

• It was noted that it takes several attempts before they receive any funding so it’s important to start asking now and begin the process since they are on a timeline

• FDOT needs to complete the initial feasibility study since they will e required to go through a project development phase if they go after federal funding and that will require more money

• Rafael clarified that the MPO directors will draft the “ask” and bring it to the TMA group in February

• It was noted the new federal transportation bill includes additional transit funding and that they should go after transit funding

Based on the discussion, Rafael provided the following summary of conclusions:

A the February meeting, the MPO Directors to bring back the discussion on the U.S. 41 rail corridor study discussion, include other information that can be brought to the table, additional input for the scope for the Feasibility Study, how other studies tie into the scope, the Alternatives Analysis MOU that could serve as a model that the MPOs could use to formalize cooperation, renaming of the U.S. 41 rail corridor discussion to include the other two lines (Brooksville and Clearwater lines), and staff to bring back a more descriptive name as opposed to the Brooksville and Clearwater lines (i.e., Bay Rail – the regional commuter transit corridor).

Next Steps

• Interlocal agreements for planning rail: the Pinellas Alternatives Analysis MOU example

• Review draft timeline and workplan for 2016

• Other next steps Due to lateness of the meeting, these items were deferred until the February 2016 meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:32 p.m. H:\users\cendocs\MPO\TMA highlights December 11, 2015


Attendees: Members: Councilman Jim Kennedy Pinellas MPO Commissioner Karen Seel Pinellas MPO Councilmember Doreen Hock-DiPolito Pinellas MPO Commissioner John Tornga (alternate) Pinellas MPO Commissioner Jack Mariano Pasco MPO Councilmember Kathryn Starkey Pasco MPO Councilmember Lisa Montelione Hillsborough MPO Commissioner Sandra Murman Hillsborough MPO Others: Rafael Montalvo Facilitator Ray Chiaramonte TBARTA Ed McKinney FDOT Ming Gao FDOT Beth Alden Hillsborough MPO Whit Blanton Pinellas MPO Richard Gehring Pasco MPO Bill Jonson PSTA Brad Miller PSTA Ross Silvers PSTA Christina Journal PSTA Sarah Ward Pinellas MPO Carolyn Kuntz Pinellas MPO Sarah Perch Pinellas MPO Brian Beaty FDOT Roger Roscoe FDOT Bob Esposito FDOT Katharine Eagan HART Cliff Merz Pinellas MPO Mike Smith Pinellas MPO Milton Martinez City of Tampa Reshawn Fields Atkins Bob Henion Pinellas CAC Brandie Miklus Jacobs Jessie Forean Sierra Rob Cursey Tindale-Oliver Anthony Matonti TBARTA Michael Case TBARTA Janet Zink TIA Gina Evans TIA Janet Long Pinellas Commissioner Doyle Walsh Pinellas BCC (Commissioner Long’s assistant) Ann Kulig Westshore Alliance Marcie Stenmark City of Safety Harbor Michele Parisano City of Oldsmar Austin Gibble USF Tom Whalen City of St. Petersburg Marco Sandusky HART Allen Howell Pasco MPO Dan Harvey, Jr. St. Petersburg Resident Travis Norton St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce Erik Metz Palm Harbor Resident and Climate Reality Project Hugh Pascoe TBARTA Joseph Barkley Belleair Bluffs Commissioner Frank Wells

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership

There is a role for a TMA-focused group

organization. That role includes developing regional consensus priorities for the TMA, e

of federal & state funds. The group will

movements, and on helping the Tampa Bay metropolitan area

transportation prioritization issues and financial

First-year tasks will include developing TMA priorities and at le

Leadership Group can effect change. Potential candidates for an initial project

Rapid Transit (BRT) along a major tri-county spine.

The Leadership will comprise three members of each MPO board as voting members, and

from FDOT and TBARTA. Decision-making will be by consensus.

these agencies, transit agencies and the Tamp

Meetings of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership

Friday of the month, at 9:030 am, at a central meeting location.

be held by conference call at 31:30 pm

Leadership meeting. Each group will have a

request to their MPO to be notified of meetings.

The TMA Leadership Group acts in an advisory role

of TMA work products. Leadership members will be responsible for conveying concerns of their

MPOs to the TMA group, and for conveying TMA group discussion a

This group’s work will be staffed jointly by the

will be arranged by the Hillsborough MPO, and a

notice for meetings will be provided by all three MPOs

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership

Purpose

groupdiscussion forum, not currently performed by any existing

organization. That role includes developing regional consensus priorities for the TMA, e

The group will focus on major cross-county transportation

Tampa Bay metropolitan area speak with one voice in discussions of

financial resources.

year tasks will include developing TMA priorities and at least one project that demonstrates that the

Potential candidates for an initial project include managed lanes with Bus

county spine.

Members

The Leadership will comprise three members of each MPO board as voting members, and

making will be by consensus. The staff support group will comprise staff of

and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, the latter as needed

Organization

TMA Leadership Group will be held approximately every other month, on the first

0 am, at a central meeting location. Meetings of the TMA staff support group will

:30 pm on the first and third second Fridays of the month

Each group will have a notification list by mail or e-mail, and interested parties may

be notified of meetings.

acts in an advisory role to each of the three MPOs, which will

Leadership members will be responsible for conveying concerns of their

and for conveying TMA group discussion and recommendations back to the

will be staffed jointly by the staff of the three MPOs. Meeting locations and conference calls

Hillsborough MPO, and agenda packets will be distributed by the

notice for meetings will be provided by all three MPOs according to their typical procedures

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group

, not currently performed by any existing transportation

organization. That role includes developing regional consensus priorities for the TMA, especially in the allocation

county transportation markets and traffic

speak with one voice in discussions of regional

that demonstrates that the

include managed lanes with Bus

The Leadership will comprise three members of each MPO board as voting members, and non-voting advisors

The staff support group will comprise staff of

, the latter as needed.

will be held approximately every other month, on the first

TMA staff support group will

of the month prior to each

, and interested parties may

, which will have final approval

Leadership members will be responsible for conveying concerns of their respective

nd recommendations back to the MPOs.

Meeting locations and conference calls

the Pinellas MPO. Public

according to their typical procedures.


2015 Top Five Priorities

�� Tampa Bay Express Phase 1 - New express toll lanes with dynamic pricing and express bus service in the medians of I-275, I-4, and I-75.

Status: Funding is requested for reconstruction of two interchanges, I-275/SR 60 and I-275/I-4; construction of I-275 express lane segments; and for locational studies for transit centers in the Gateway and Fletcher/Fowler areas. Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) studies are underway, and construction is funded for the Howard Frankland Bridge replacement – including express lanes and transit – and express lanes on I-4 east of the Selmon Connector and on I-275 north of ML King Blvd. �� Westshore Multimodal Center & Connections to Downtown & Airport -

A regional intermodal transfer center, with connections to the Tampa International Airport people-mover and to Downtown Tampa via extended, modernized streetcar.

Status: The intermodal center is in a right-of-way negotiation phase, and funding is requested for future design and construction. The airport people-mover is being extended to within 1½ miles of the proposed center, by HCAA. Tampa is studying the feasibility of the TECO Historic Streetcar extension and modernization with rapid trams; funding for a future design phase is requested. �� US 41 CSX Rail Corridors - Potential rRegional commuter transit route. Two CSX-

owned rail lines could potentiallycan accommodate passenger service and make regional connect-ions between Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. Funding for a 2017 corridor study has recently been announced by FDOT.

�� Regional Farebox System - Standardized fare payment media across the counties in Tampa Bay will allow passengers more seamless regional transportation trips. Total implementation cost is $12 million, only $5 million of which is funded.

�� Duke Energy Trail - The trail is partially funded with two gaps needing design and

construction. The north gap is from John Chesnut Park to Bright House Field and the south gap is from Belleair Rd to the San Martin Bridge. Once completed, the Duke Energy trail will link with the Pinellas Trail to create a 70-mile loop that includes a connection to Hillsborough County via the Courtney Campbell Trail.

----------------------- Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Purpose -----------------------

There is a role for a TMA-focused group, not currently performed by any existing transportation

organization. That role includes developing regional consensus priorities for the TMA, especially

in the allocation of federal & state funds. The group will focus on major cross-county

transportation markets and traffic movements, and on helping the Tampa Bay metropolitan area

speak with one voice in discussions of regional transportation prioritization issues and financial

resources.

CSX Rail Corridor Opportunities In September 2015, CSX Corporation announced at the TMA Leadership Group meeting that CSX is willing to sell two Tampa Bay corridors (shown in dark red, at right) in an arrangement similar to that reached for Orlando’s SunRail commuter ser-vice. Freight trains would continue to use the rail at specified times of day. The concept of shared passenger and freight use of these tracks has been studied in previous years by the Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority, TBARTA, and the MPOs. Forecasts of potential ridership indicate there is demand for the service. Further, reuse of existing track can substantially reduce the construction cost to one-half to one-third the cost of building new light rail lines. Vehicles must be rated crash-safe to share track with freight. The last decade has seen real progress in manufacturing safe, sturdy cars that are nearly as compact and agile as light rail-- like this one now operating in the Dallas–Fort Worth area. The TMA Leadership Group finds the concept of adding passenger service on these existing tracks to have merit in adding cost-effective capacity for metro area commuting.

Largo

Pinellas Park

Safety Harbor

Oldsmar Carroll- wood

Land O Lakes

Connerton

Spring Hill

Lutz

Seminole Heights

Bexley

Northdale

West- chase

Tampa

St Petersburg

Clearwater Largo

Pinellas Park

Safety Harbor

Oldsmar Carroll- wood

USF

Land O Lakes

Connerton

Spring Hill

Lutz

Seminole Heights

Bexley

Northdale

West- chase

Brooksville


Representing the MPOs in Pasco, Pinellas, & Hillsborough Counties

2016 WORKPLAN

D RA F T 1-27-16

This workplan is a draft prepared by staff, based on topics identified by members during previous meetings as potentially of interest to the group, or relevant to consideration of priorities. It has not yet been reviewed by the Leadership Group. The Group will review and revise it as necessary at its February 5, 2016 meeting. February 5, 2016

• Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority Strategic Plan • TMA Leadership Group Workplan • TMA Leadership Group Purpose and Organization • Initial discussion of possible refinements to TMA Leadership Group priorities • Update on Regional Transit Study

April 8, 2016

• Review and comment on draft Regional Transit Study scope (if ready) • Report on Transit Referenda from around the country • Initial discussion of TA, SUNTrail and CCC Regional Multi-Use Trail priorities • FDOT Workplan Update • Veterans SunCoast Demonstration Project • City of Tampa Streetcar modernization and extension

June 3, 2016

• Update on Regional Transit Study • Express bus service on I-95 in Southeast Florida • SR 54/56 Status • Adoption of revised TMA and TA regional priorities

September 2, 2016

• Update on Regional Transit Study • Update on FDOT ROI methodology (?) • Go Hillsborough Update (?) • Short updates, as needed:

o PSTA’s Central Avenue BRT o Coast-to-Coast Trail update

November 2016 (Optional)

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA)

Leadership Group

2016 Meeting Calendar

Staff Support Group Meetings TMA Leadership Meetings

January 8th February 5th**

February 12th, March 11th April 8th*

April 8th, May 13th June 3rd**

June 10th, August 12th September 2nd*

September 9th, October 14th OPTIONAL: November 4th**

3:30 p.m. 9:00 a.m.

Meetings via Teleconference *Meridian Two Conference Room

4300 W. Cypress St., Suite 775, Tampa

**PSTA Board Room

3201 Sherer Dr., St. Petersburg

Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area ( TMA) Leadership … · 2016. 2. 2. · Commuter Rail –...

Documents

Transcript of Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area ( TMA) Leadership … · 2016. 2. 2. · Commuter Rail –...