Southern Nevada Water Authority 100 N. City Parkway, Suite 700 Las Vegas, NV (702)

Transcription

1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 00BB5A5F-B92F F-B92FC65C6466 NOTICE AND AGENDA OF PUBLIC MEETING TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND COMMUNITY COLLABORATION 2:00 P.M. JANUARY 31, 2019 Southern Nevada Water Authority 100 N. City Parkway, Suite 700 Las Vegas, NV (702) This agenda with full backup is available at the Regional Transportation Commission Administration Building, 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy, Las Vegas, Nevada; the Regional Transportation Commission s website, or by contacting Marin DuBois at (702) THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: Clark County Government Center 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV City of Henderson Office of the City Clerk 240 Water Street Henderson, NV CC Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Ave. Las Vegas, NV RTC 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV RTC website Nevada Public Notice BY: TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND COMMUNITY COLLABORATION AGENDA JANUARY 31, 2019 Page 1 of 2

2

3 Item 2 is for possible action. Items 1 and 3 through 10 are discussion items and no action can be taken. Please be advised that the Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration (TRAC) has the discretion to take items on the agenda out of order, combine two or more agenda items for consideration, remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda any time. 1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of December 6, 2018 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) 3. RECEIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE TRAC GOALS, FRAMEWORK AND AGENDA 4. RECEIVE AN UPDATE OF MAJOR PROJECTS IN SOUTHERN NEVADA 5. RECEIVE A TRANSIT INDUSTRY UPDATE 6. RECEIVE A FINANCIAL OVERVIEW PRESENTATION REGARDING THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA (RTC) TRANSIT SYSTEM 7. RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA S 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 8. DISCUSS UPCOMING EVENTS 9. CONDUCT AN OPEN DISCUSSION ON TOPICS AND DISCUSSIONS FROM THE TRAC AGENDA 10. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION During the initial Citizens Participation, any citizen in the audience may address the Committee on an item featured on the agenda. During the final Citizens Participation, any citizens in the audience may address the Committee on matters within the Committee s jurisdiction, but not necessarily featured on the agenda. No vote can be taken on a matter not listed on the posted agenda; however, the Committee can direct that the matter be placed on a future agenda. Each citizen must be recognized by the Chair. The citizen is then asked to approach the microphone at the podium, to state his or her name, and to spell the last name for the record. The Chair may limit remarks to three minutes duration, if such remarks are disruptive to the meeting or not within the Committee s jurisdiction. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada keeps the official record of all proceedings of the meeting. In order to maintain a complete and accurate record, copies of documents used during presentations should be submitted to the Recording Secretary. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada appreciates the time citizens devote to be involved in this important process. In compliance with Nevada Revised Statute (4), the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada shall create an audio and/or video recording of the meeting and retain such recording(s) for the required period of time. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Meeting Room and Conference Room are accessible to the disabled. Assistive listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. A sign language interpreter for the deaf will be made available with a forty-eight hour advance request to the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada offices. Phone: (702) TDD (702) Any action taken on these items is advisory to the Regional Transportation Commission. TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND COMMUNITY COLLABORATION AGENDA JANUARY 31, 2019 Page 2 of 2

4

5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 00BB5A5F-B92F F-B92FC65C6466 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA AGENDA ITEM Metropolitan Planning Organization [ ] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ X ] SUBJECT: CITIZENS PARTICIPATION PETITIONER: TINA QUIGLEY, GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER: THAT THE TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND COMMUNITY COLLABORATION CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION GOAL: ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: In accordance with State of Nevada Open Meeting Law, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration (Committee) shall invite interested persons to make comments. For the initial Citizens Participation, the public should address items on the current agenda. For the final Citizens Participation, interested persons may make comments on matters within the Committee s jurisdiction, but not necessarily on the current agenda. No action can be taken on any matter discussed under this item, although the Committee can direct that it be placed on a future agenda. Respectfully submitted, TINA QUIGLEY General Manager TRAC Item #1 January 31, 2019 mld Non-Consent

6

7 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 MINUTES TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND COMMUNITY COLLABORATION REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA DECEMBER 6, 2018 These minutes are prepared in compliance with NRS Text is in summarized rather than verbatim format. For complete contents, please refer to meeting recordings on file at the Regional Transportation Commission. THIS MEETING WAS PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS ON NOVEMBER 29, 2018 Clark County Government Center 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV City of Henderson Office of the City Clerk 240 Water Street Henderson, NV CC Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Ave. Las Vegas, NV RTC 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV RTC Website Nevada Public Notice CALL TO ORDER Mr. Don Snyder, Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:38 p.m. in the Colorado River Room of the Southern Nevada Water Authority offices located in the Molasky Corporate Center. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Snyder, Chair, Community Advocate Mauricia Baca, Outside Las Vegas Foundation MaryKaye Cashman, Cashman Equipment Cindy Creighton, Nevada Taxpayers Association Ken Evans, Urban Chamber of Commerce Lee Farris, LandWell Development Company David Frommer, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Barry Gold, AARP Peter Guzman, Latin Chamber of Commerce Warren Hardy, Associated Builders and Contractors Lynn Hunsinger, Nevadans for the Common Good Ram Kumar, Kumar Consulting Services Robert List, Kolesar & Latham Erin McMullen, Boyd Gaming Mike Mixer, Colliers International and NAIOP Paul Moradkhan, Metro Chamber of Commerce Jonas Peterson, Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance Valarie Segarra, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority Todd Sklamberg, Sunrise Hospital Rick Smith, Henderson Development Association Sean Stewart, Nevada Contractors Association Judy Stokey, NV Energy Danny Thompson, Labor Consultant Virginia Valentine, Nevada Resort Association Bryan Wachter, Retail Association of Nevada Matt Walker, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association Tom Warden, The Howard Hughes Corporation MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Enos, Nevada Trucking Association Betsy Fretwell, Switch Alan Jeskey, AJB General Contractor

8 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 2 of 12 MEMBERS ABSENT CONTINUED: Brian Knudsen, BP2 Solutions Karlos LaSane, Caesars Entertainment Jim Long, Sun City Anthem Resident Keith Lynam, Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors Andy Maggi, Nevada Conservation League Tommy Morley, Laborers Local 872 Jean Peyton, Blindconnect Mike Shohet, Nevada Hand Jim Sullivan, Culinary Union 226 MEETING FACILITATOR: Helen Foley, Faiss Foley Warren RTC STAFF: Tina Quigley, General Manager M.J. Maynard, Deputy General Manager Fred Ohene, Deputy General Manager David Swallow, Senior Director of Engineering and Technology Angela Castro, Senior Director of Government Affairs and Media Relations Marc Traasdahl, Senior Director of Finance David Clyde, Associate General Counsel Catherine Lu, Manager of Government Affairs and Media Relations and Marketing Marin DuBois, Management Analyst CONSULTANT TEAM: Guy Hobbs, Hobbs Ong & Associates INTERESTED PARTIES: Jody Belsick, Kimley Horn Erin Breen, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Kami Dempsey Kanani Espinoza, Rowe Law Mike Hudgeons, City of North Las Vegas Tracy Larkin-Thomason, Nevada Department of Transportation Bob Leuck, Clark County Public Works Joey Paskey, City of Las Vegas Roger Patton, Louis Berger Ingrid Reisman, Las Vegas Monorail Irene Skarlatus, MGM Jacob Snow, JABarrett Company Don Webb, Raiders

9 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 3 of 12 Item: 1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION Comments: No comments were made. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of October 11, 2018 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: No comments were made. Motion: Ms. Cindy Creighton made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Vote/Summary: 23 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. Ayes: Mauricia Baca, MaryKaye Cashman, Cindy Creighton, Lee Farris, David Frommer, Barry Gold, Peter Guzman, Warren Hardy, Lynn Hunsinger, Ram Kumar, Erin McMullen, Mike Mixer, Paul Moradkhan, Jonas Peterson, Todd Sklamberg, Rick Smith, Don Snyder, Sean Stewart, Judy Stokey, Danny Thompson, Bryan Wachter, Matt Walker, Tom Warden Nays: None Absent: Paul Enos, Ken Evans, Betsy Fretwell, Alan Jeskey, Brian Knudsen, Karlos LaSane, Robert List, Jim Long, Keith Lynam, Andy Maggi, Tommy Morley, Jean Peyton, Valarie Segarra, Mike Shohet, Jim Sullivan, Virginia Valentine Item: 3. RECEIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE TRAC GOALS, FRAMEWORK AND AGENDA, AND INTRODUCE NEW MEMBERS Comments: Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation [attached], Ms. Helen Foley, Meeting Facilitator, reviewed the goals of the Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration (TRAC or Committee), which included learning about mobility in Southern Nevada, discussing emerging technologies and smart communities, and seeking input and feedback from TRAC. Next, Ms. Foley informed the Committee that the next TRAC meeting would be held on January 31, 2019, prior to the beginning of the 2019 Legislative Session. She said the meeting would feature two guest speakers, Randy Clarke, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Capital Metro, and Nat Ford, CEO of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. Both speakers are transportation leaders whose agencies are facing similar issues to those of the RTC. Their presentations will center on ridership, potential federal funding, and strategies to address these issues. The meeting agenda will also include a presentation from Steve Hill of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA). TRAC would then not meet until June 2019 with the date to be determined. Then, Ms. Foley stated that the RTC will be hosting an Innovation Day during the 2019 Legislative Session, which runs from February 2019 through June 2019, as well as responding to any relevant legislation that is introduced. She noted that more details on the event will be provided soon.

10 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 4 of 12 After reviewing the events, Ms. Foley continued with an overview of the meeting s agenda. She said the meeting s topics included updates on major local projects, updates on the Resort Corridor, an overview of the national roundtable hosted by the Federal Transit Administration, a financial overview of the RTC transit, an update on the 2019 Legislative Session, and upcoming local community events. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 4. RECEIVE AN UPDATE OF MAJOR PROJECTS IN SOUTHERN NEVADA Comments: Raiders Stadium Update Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation [attached], Mr. Don Webb, Chief Operating Officer (COO) of StadCo, the Raiders stadium construction subsidiary, updated the Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration (TRAC or Committee) on the progress of the stadium s construction. He began by giving some background on the project, starting with the parameters of the stadium site selection. The site was chosen due to its proximity to the Resort Corridor and McCarran International Airport (Airport), and its accessibility to the freeway system. The availability of experienced workforce, political and bureaucratic support, and weather also factored into the selection. He explained that while there were some drawbacks to the location, mainly the size and highly-developed surrounding areas, it was the best fit of the sites that were considered. Then, Mr. Webb highlighted some of the benefits of the Raiders relocation to Las Vegas. He recounted how tourism is expected to increase, causing local hoteliers to support the project. Ticket sales projections estimate that approximately 40 percent of the audience at any game will consist of fans from the visiting team. He added that sales projections are on track at that time. He also acknowledged the stadium s impact on traffic and congestion, but noted that any project of this scale would have an impact and that any location would have its own inherent set of problems. In terms of construction, he said that a project of this scale usually takes four years to complete, but the current timeline is 31 months. He again praised the local workforce and vendors and added that the site itself helped with the timeline since it did not require significant demolition. Next, Mr. Webb discussed the stadium s design. It has a footprint of approximately 14 acres and 2400 on-site parking spots. The architectural elements were chosen to match the aesthetics of the surrounding properties and designed to portray a sleek elegance. The black exterior glass was chosen as a way to mitigate the heat in addition to matching the Raiders team colors. Other prominent features include an exterior video mesh, a series of LED-covered ribbons around the building, luxury dining and club suites, an 85-foot torch in the main concourse, an ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) roof, and three high-definition state-of-the-art video boards. He explained the reasoning behind the decision to not include an operable roof, stating that it is an expensive feature that seldom gets used, and said the investment instead went to the design of a natural grass turf that would be rolled in and out for game use. He then showed the Committee a brief video showing the construction progress, commenting how overall, the stadium construction project has about 1,000 workers on a daily basis, contributing significantly to the local job market. After the video, Mr. Webb discussed the stadium s parking and transportation. He began with a comparison of Raiders stadium parking to parking at other urban stadiums. The comparison showed a minimal difference. He said that the stadium is the first one designed with rideshare accessibility as a

11 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 5 of 12 prominent feature and staff is developing partnerships with Lyft and Uber for event day transportation. Traffic congestion during departure and arrival was also a large part of the reason why parking is being dispersed to other areas versus acquiring property near the stadium and converting it to a parking lot. After studying other stadiums, it was determined that shuttling people from a transportable distance would provide attendees with a better experience and minimize traffic congestion. Overall, the stadium will have on-site parking, remote parking, and independent businesses in the surrounding area providing parking. The long-term plan is that the parking areas, both stadium owned and independently owned, will form a stadium district to regulate the area and evolve with time. In terms of pedestrian traffic, Mr. Webb said that approximately 20,000 pedestrians are expected to arrive to the stadium from the Resort Corridor via Hacienda Street, which will be closed off to vehicular traffic on event days. Stadium staff is also working with the hotels to develop plans to activate the Resort Corridor on event days to enhance the pedestrian experience. Mr. Peter Guzman commended Mr. Webb for the diversity hiring practices during the construction process. Mr. Webb said that the 15 percent local small business participation in the construction process was taken very seriously and imposed on each of the subcontractors. To date, approximately 18 percent of over $700 million of contract work has gone to local small businesses. The minimums of minority worker participation was also exceeded. Las Vegas Monorail Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation [attached], Mr. Curtis Myles, President and CEO for the Las Vegas Monorail (Monorail), updated the Committee on the Monorail. To begin, Mr. Myles gave an overview of the Monorail, saying it is a not-for-profit 501c4 public benefit corporation, a Section 115 entity, and a 6220 entity. It is tax exempt, is allowed to issue debt as a tax exempt entity, and debt can be issued without an obligation to the public (if there were public sponsors). The Monorail is a privately held company with no shareholders, operating under a board of seven. Mr. Myles related that the Monorail operates along the Resort Corridor and is almost entirely a tourismbased system. Approximately 90 percent of passengers are visitors. That said, there is a misconception that the Monorail is a convention-based system, as it carries a large number of riders during events in the area. Mr. Myles clarified that while the Monorail does transport many riders during events, the majority of ridership comes from tourism/visitors/leisure and travel. The Monorail, he continued, may not be sexy like other projects, but it does one thing, does it consistently, and does it profitably. Next, Mr. Myles discussed the development projects for the Monorail. He spoke briefly about two new stations, one at Mandalay Bay and the other at Sands Avenue, as well as other locations considered in the area, and how the Monorail will help facilitate movement. Furthermore, he continued, there will be approximately 1.14 miles in new guideway, upgrades/modifications to the Automated Train Control, and pedestrian access connectors between the Mandalay Bay and Luxor hotels, between the MSG Sphere, Sands Expo/Venetian/Palazzo, and new convention facilities at the Wynn. He touched on the costs associated with the expansion, saying that the Sands Expo station would cost approximately $10 million with costs recouped within 48 months. Mr. Myles also cited complications and complexities surrounding the Mandalay Bay station, saying the most important water line in the Las Vegas Valley sits along that boulevard. He is currently waiting on the most significant impact findings from an environmental assessment that concluded the previous week. This would allow alignment to be partially constructed on Airport property to avoid water line

12 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 6 of 12 complications. Mr. Myles noted that financing has also been complicated, but negotiations are currently in their final stages. Mr. Myles said that the timeframe for a project like this is approximately twenty-four months. While the two projects (Mandalay Bay and Sands Expo) can technically be bifurcated, they are being financed and constructed together. As a caveat, he said there was a possibility the extension will be opened in time with the new stadium, but there is no guarantee. Mr. Ken Evans asked if Mr. Myles had ever done a constructability and financial analysis assessment to take the Monorail to the Airport. If so, he wondered what the analysis suggested. Mr. Myles said it had been done. Not only would it be feasible, but there are many ancillary benefits (travel, hotel room access) associated with that kind of extension. Although, he added, it is a fairly significant capital investment. There are also numerous utilities buried along the Tropicana Avenue route, which make constructability ambiguous at times. Next, Mr. Mike Mixer asked about capacity and how many passengers can be moved on a per hour basis. He asked if that capacity could be increased during special events such as a football game or a convention. Mr. Myles said, on a top-level overview, the Monorail can carry 130,000 people per day. That s approximately passengers per vehicle arriving approximately every four minutes at every station. This equals out to approximately 34,000 people per direction per hour, with trains moving simultaneously in both directions. With added trains and a new, shorter train control system, each train can deliver as many as 8,000 people per direction per hour. Mr. Danny Thompson proposed a hypothetical scenario. He asked if he drove to Las Vegas and stayed at the SLS Hotel and Casino (SLS) and paid for parking, could he also buy a monorail ticket that would bring him to the end of the line where he could board a Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) bus to the football stadium. He wondered if this is a feasible transportation deal that could be possible without additional infrastructure and only a contract with the RTC. Mr. Myles confirmed that it would be possible. No new infrastructure would be required, and a fare sharing agreement with RTC would be all that was needed. He noted that locals ride the monorail system for one dollar with a valid local ID. Mr. Thompson said in his hypothetical he would not be a local, but would be staying at a hotel. In response, Mr. Myles said fares generally cost around $4.40 per ride. Day passes cost around $10.00, and 3-day passes are approximately $ Mr. Thompson said this seemed like an opportunity to serve those who have already paid for parking in the area. Ms. Tina Quigley, General Manager for the RTC, agreed, saying with multi-modal apps and new technology, all that would be required is partnership agreements with different entities. Ms. Judy Stokey joined the conversation by saying she would drive from the northwest part of the Las Vegas Valley to the SLS, where she could park for free, and then catch the Monorail to MGM for an event. She asked why locals were not doing this anymore. Mr. Myles said that the Monorail used to lease the parking lot next to the SLS, but it has since been sold, and a construction project is planned for that location. Ms. Stokey asked again why locals were not still using the SLS garage (free parking) for events, and Mr. Myles said local ridership in that area does increase significantly during large events. Normally, though, 95 percent of riders getting off at the MGM location on a daily basis are visitors. Chair Don Snyder said the free parking is like a well-kept secret. To this, Ms. Quigley suggested a field trip for Committee members to ride the monorail and experience how to purchase a ticket and see the technology.

13 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 7 of 12 Finally, Chair Snyder asked a series of quick questions about Monorail extension distances, namely, the distance from the Mandalay station to the new stadium. Mr. Myles said it was approximately a six- to eight-minute walk, or approximately 813 feet. Chair Snyder followed up by saying he understood the economics can be difficult. From a political point of view, he wanted to know where the Monorail stands. Mr. Myles responded by saying the politics are not always as straightforward as he would like them to be. In the near future an agenda item will be included to approve the franchise amendment to add the Sands Avenue/Expo station. He mentioned that the average walk time to/from an NFL stadium is approximately twenty minutes, so what the RTC/Monorail plans to do will be better comparison-wise than 60 to 65 percent of the national average. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 5. RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE RESORT CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Comments: Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation [attached], Mr. David Swallow, Senior Director of Engineering and Technology for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) updated the Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration (TRAC or Committee) on the Resort Corridor Feasibility Study (Study). First, he explained that the Study is part of the On Board Transit Plan, and its objective is to explore the feasibility of a high-capacity transit system to improve access to, from, and within the resort corridor. The Study centers on building capacity for three critical links: McCarran International Airport (Airport) to the Las Vegas Strip (Strip), movement along the Strip, and the Strip to Downtown Las Vegas. In partnership with a number of key stakeholders, Mr. Swallow continued, the RTC conducted a detailed in-person survey in February 2018 in order to assess riders level of satisfaction with the transportation options available in the resort corridor. He then presented the following highlights: Overall satisfaction 94 percent of respondents said they were very satisfied or satisfied. Mr. Swallow attributed this to the number of options available, which include public transportation, taxi cabs, rideshare, personal/rental cars, and the Las Vegas Monorail (Monorail) with rideshare being the most popular option. Study area The Resort Corridor s seven areas: Airport, South Strip, North Strip, Center Strip South, Strip East, Center Strip North, North Strip, Downtown Las Vegas. Nearly 80 percent of development expected in the North Strip area. Projected daily trips An increase of 26 percent in daily trips with both origin and destination within the Resort Corridor projected between 2020 and Modes of travel to/from Airport rideshare (34 percent), taxi (26 percent) and rental car (18 percent) represent top choices; public bus (4 percent) Modes of travel along the Strip personal car (33 percent), rideshare (17 percent), rental car (16 percent) represent top choices; public bus (7 percent) Modes of travel between Strip and Downtown personal car (27 percent), rental car (24 percent), ride share (19 percent) represent top choices; public bus (17 percent) Transportation modes chosen by respondents if given choice of any mode of transportation, respondents would prefer to use the Monorail; all trips (46 percent), Airport to Strip (52 percent), Strip to Downtown (37 percent), along Strip (45 percent)

14 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 8 of 12 Fair sensitivity people willing to pay a premium to use Monorail from Airport to Strip ($2 bus vs $5 Monorail); people less willing to pay more for Monorail from Strip to Downtown ($5 bus vs $4 Monorail) Then Mr. Swallow spoke about criteria considered in reviewing transit technologies presented as alternatives, which consisted of the following: visitor experience, value, constructability/disruption, speed, reliability, accessibility, convenience, potential ridership, and roadway capacity in terms of people throughput. The criteria were used to conduct an analysis of nine possible transit technologies. Those technologies included the following: Deuce, limited stop bus service (SDX), bus rapid transit (BRT), modern streetcar, European tram, people mover, monorail or elevated transit, light rail and gondolas. From the analysis, it was determined that three transit technologies merited further review. These technologies were the Deuce, SDX, and European Tram. Next, Mr. Swallow reviewed the pros and cons of each of the three transit technologies and presented six alternatives with different bus/tram combinations. This included the following: Alternative 1: existing service of Deuce and SDX Alternative 2: extending SDX service to the Airport Alternative 3: no buses; only European tram runs along the Strip Alternative 4: no buses; European tram service along Strip and to Airport Alternative 5: European tram on Strip and SDX bus to Airport Alternative 6: Deuce on Strip and tram on Strip and to the Airport Mr. Swallow then reviewed the projected daily ridership in 2040 for each of the alternatives. The options with the highest number of estimated riders were Alternatives 4, 6, 5 and 2. He also discussed the corresponding estimated operating costs and capital development costs. With the exception of Alternative 3, all the options were projected to operate at a surplus. When estimated revenues were compared to the estimated development costs, all alternatives except Alternative 2 create a deficit. Alternatives 3 through 6 would create an estimated deficit ranging from $427 million to $1 billion. He noted that the increase in ridership was not expected to take away any market share from the other transit options. The study also included an analysis of transit stop improvements that would improve rider experience, ways to increase visitor awareness about transit options, and tactical improvements that would help with traffic flow and operations. Lastly, Mr. Swallow went over the next steps. Staff will be working with the different stakeholders as recommendations are developed based on the Study. The recommendations will be included in the On Board Transit Plan, and staff will work towards pursuing some of the short-term recommendations. In terms of long-term plans, he said the strategy would be to wait and see if there are any transit technology changes or disruptions. The presentation was followed by questions from the Committee. First, Mr. David Frommer asked if the Study assumed current operations of the Strip. Mr. Swallow responded that it did. Mr. Danny Thompson inquired if the rideshare numbers were actual numbers. Mr. Swallow clarified that the numbers were based on the responses of 1,700 visitor surveys that were conducted as part of the Study. Mr. Mike Mixer asked if the Study included an analysis of public support for transit improvements in the Resort Corridor versus other projects. Mr. Swallow said the question was not posed to the respondents. Mr. Mixer then asked if there was any indication as to which link would garner the most public support and if a subway option was explored. Mr. Swallow said the response varied according to

15 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 9 of 12 the respondent. Visitors are interested in the Resort Corridor. However, residents are more interested in off-strip system improvements. Regarding the subway option, Mr. Swallow said the option was considered, but that it was significantly more expensive to develop. Chair Snyder added that this could be an option that would emerge in the future private sector such as the Boring Company project, and that it was part of the reason it would be beneficial to wait before pursuing any long-term plans. Mr. Robert List commented that adding SDX service seemed like the best option. Chair Snyder agreed, adding that it would require input from the taxis, limo services, and transit alternatives. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 6. RECEIVE A FEDERAL UPDATE Comments: Mr. David Frommer, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and Ms. Tina Quigley, General Manager for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), provided a federal update. Ms. Quigley reported that she and Mr. Frommer had recently met with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to discuss locally preferred alternatives and recommendations for grant applications for Maryland Parkway. She shared how the current administration is not supportive of investing further dollars in fixed/light rail, with the federal government withholding grants from agencies that had been awarded additional funding for these projects. She briefly detailed the power of transit as an economic driver, and described how the FTA had convened a roundtable of developers and transit agencies to address the issue. Mr. Frommer agreed, relating that one of the topics discussed during this roundtable was the increasing role of technology on transit, particularly with respect to Transportation Network Companies (TNC). These disruptors are completely changing the way the public looks at transit, both in customer expectations and what capabilities transit agencies have to meet these needs. He noted that the roundtable focused on expenditures and budgets, with some bias towards solutions that required less cost and lower up-front capital investment. He continued, recalling another important discussion point involved the quality and experience of transportation overall and the changing expectations for customers. Wait times, pricing, and choice were all becoming key drivers of competitive advantage in transit. There were also discussions on changing parking dynamics, particularly in regards to planning and zoning. Developers were looking closer at how to manage parking zones in more efficient, costeffective ways. Another topic of discussion, Mr. Frommer continued, was soft incentives for developments, such as sales tax districts that promoted development in high-density areas. He said they discussed possible partnerships and value-capture mechanisms that could support the agencies in this area. This extended into conversations around increased grant funding and more focus on public/private partnerships that can work together to secure equitable investments. Ms. Quigley agreed with Mr. Frommer s points, adding that from her assessment, the Acting FTA Administrator, Ms. Jane Williams, described a clear preference for bus rapid transit (BRT) over the permanence of light rail (LRT), citing the unknowns of the future as her rationale for avoiding the investment. The developers discussed several issues along these lines, including the possible stigma of bus use and the implications of investing long-term in transit systems. She noted that developers

16 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 10 of 12 expressed interest in working with nationally-recognized, commercial organizations to help educate them on the permanence of BRT. She continued by detailing several of these permanence issues, including the use of hubs and potential expansions to grant programs to incorporate construction in the partnership agreements. Overall, Ms. Quigley hoped that the FTA would prioritize grant support for these types of partnerships moving forward. Chair Don Snyder remarked that the dialogue overall was changing, with more focus on what the FTA is funding. Most projects cannot be completed without federal funding, and the priorities of the FTA and the development community are changing. Moving forward, the RTC would need to consider these issues. He agreed that the word bus carries some stigma with riders and expressed the need to reframe some of these issues to make the ideas more palatable to the FTA. Ms. Quigley agreed that things are changing and that the changing makeup of the Congressional delegation could spark improvements moving forward. The Southern Nevada region is an area of interest, as it is one of few agencies that is planning to completely revamp its system. This may influence recommendations moving forward. From there, Chair Snyder asked how these points would translate to the Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration (TRAC) discussions. Mr. David Swallow, Senior Director of Engineering and Technology for the RTC, replied that the biggest issue involves community feedback on which options are most appropriate between enhanced bus, BRT, and LRT. This feedback will be tied into cost considerations and notes from other key stakeholders to help make the decision. He predicted this would be done in Spring Mr. Warren Hardy asked for more details on how other cities are updating their transit infrastructure to solutions that still utilize rail. He said he did not understand why the rail-based technology was considered outdated and suggested that the Congressional delegation could push back on that issue. Ms. Quigley noted that their Congressional representatives are supportive of the RTC, despite the FTA s push to move away from rails in the ground. Mr. Hardy hypothesized that the groups railing against LRT are more interested in autonomous vehicle technologies, yet do not see the issue with leveraging rail transit alongside it. Ms. Quigley agreed there are many issues, reflecting on how the FTA would not be funding more than 30 percent of the project, which forces the RTC to re-evaluate some of its budget models. Mr. Robert List pointed out that the political ramifications have changed in respect to many of these issues, and further strategic planning will need to take place in order to understand the problems better. Chair Snyder agreed and said that much of this conversation will involve more planning and more perspective on both the economic and political levels. He said these conversations are important yet time-consuming and suggested deferring further discussion until the January meeting. At that time, there would be a transit financial overview that will provide more context to these discussions. He noted that the Legislative Session update will also be moved to January 2019, which will be helpful for clearing up unknowns in the legislature and preparing the members for future discussions down the line. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken.

17 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 11 of 12 Item: 7. RECEIVE A FINANCIAL OVERVIEW PRESENTATION REGARDING THE RTC TRANSIT SYSTEM Comments: This item was held for a future meeting. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 8. RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA S 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION Comments: This item was held for a future meeting. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 9. DISCUSS UPCOMING EVENTS Comments: Ms. Helen Foley, Meeting Facilitator, announced several events that might be of interest to Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration (TRAC) members. This included the following: Consumer Telematics Show 2019 Smart Cities: Opportunities or Threat? Building Tech and Partnership for New Mobility on Monday, January 7, 2019 at 4:10 p.m. Consumer Electronics Show (CES) Panel: Government vs. OEM Development on Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 2:15 p.m. TRAC meeting featuring Steve Hill from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, Nat Ford from the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, and Randy Clarke from Capital Metro. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 10. CONDUCT AN OPEN DISCUSSION ON TOPICS OF INTEREST AND REVIEW TOPICS FROM THE TRAC AGENDA Comments: Chair Don Snyder discussed conducting an open discussion on topics of interest and reviewing topics from the Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Conversation (TRAC) agenda. Ms. Tina Quigley, general manager for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), mentioned that the RTC has been awarded a federal grant for $5.3 million to work on a demonstration project in downtown Las Vegas. This was known as the Go Med project, designed to provide autonomous and connected vehicle service, pedestrian safety devices, and smart transit shelters to the Las Vegas Medical District. She detailed the features of the plan and described its potential uses in the area. Mr. Bryan Wachter, Retail Association of Nevada, asked how many other cities were

18 DocuSign Envelope ID: C7150F C3E-98724D1BB987 Minutes Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration Meeting of December 6, 2018 Page 12 of 12 awarded grants for this. Ms. Quigley said they were the only one that received a grant for this, describing the unique features of the Las Vegas region. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 11. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION Comments: Chair Don Snyder opened the final citizens participation. While there was not public comment, Chair Snyder wanted to take a moment to remind the Transportation Resource Advisory Committee and Community Collaboration (TRAC or Committee) of the January 31, 2019 TRAC meeting. He remarked that it would be an important meeting that would cover a lot of information of interest to the Committee members. Mr. Bryan Wachter asked if it was possible to start the meeting earlier than the 2:30 p.m. time the Committee had been meeting. Ms. Tina Quigley, General Manager for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) wondered if other Committee members would like to start earlier. She observed several nodding heads. Chair Snyder suggested a start time of 2:00 p.m. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marin DuBois, Recording Secretary Marek Biernacinski, Transcription Secretary

19 December 6, 2018 Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 1

20 Item #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item #3 TRAC GOALS, FRAMEWORK & AGENDA REVIEW 2

21 COMMITTEE GOALS Learn about Southern Nevada s mobility challenges, new developments and opportunities. Learn about smart communities, emerging technologies and how these efforts can impact and improve mobility, accessibility and safety in Southern Nevada. Obtain input and feedback and make recommendations on how to best address and prioritize mobility solutions. MEETING FRAMEWORK Meeting 8 January 31, 2019 Transit industry update; LVCVA update February to June 2019 Innovation Day at the Legislature; Legislative session Meeting 9 June 2019 Legislative session recap; TRAC next steps 3

22 AGENDA REVIEW Major Project Updates Resort Corridor Update Federal Update Transit Financial Overview 2019 Legislative Agenda Upcoming Events Item #4 MAJOR PROJECT UPDATES 4

23 Las Vegas RTC December 6, LV Stadium Events Company, LLC Design Overview 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 5

24 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 6

25 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 7

26 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 8

27 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 9

28 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 10

29 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 11

30 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 12

31 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 13

32 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 14

33 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 15

34 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC Construction Overview 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 16

35 Transportation & Parking 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 17

36 An Urban Rather Than Suburban Model 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 20,000 pedestrians on Hacienda promenade Ride Share & Taxi at conception, not a retrofit Hotel limo service Dispersal of parking reduce Stadium congestion Onsite Stadium lots operated by StadCo Remote Lots operated by StadCo Independent business lots organized and coordinated by StadCo Park & Ride lots pushed by StadCo The plan is not intended to be static will be intentionally flexible and change prior to opening and throughout the decades to reflect evolving consumer behavior and emerging transportation options RTC will be fundamental in executing the plan and providing a firstclass day of event experience 2018 LV Stadium Events Company, LLC 18

37 C U R T I S L. M Y L E S P R E S I D E N T & C E O L A S V E G A S M O N O R A I L L a s V e g a s M O N O R A I L Las Vegas Monorail Company owns the system Public benefit corporations provide services typically provided by government entities transit services Private not-for-profit 501(c)4 No shareholders 19

38 T O U R I S M M O B I L I T Y & The Monorail system carries tens of thousands daily, but the biggest mobility impact is during major events. CES 165,000 SEMA 160,000 NAB 130,000 ConExpo 130,000 Marathon Weekend 100,000+ rides New Year s Eve 50,000+ rides Holiday weekends and special events S Y S T E M B E N E F I T S 4 miles long, 7 stations Capacity 224 per train, up to 130,000/day Speed up to 50 mph, end to end service in 14 minutes Fully Automated Train Control System Elevated preserves roadway capacity while increasing mobility Reduces annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 2.2m in 2017 Reduces emissions from vehicle trips 28 tons in 2017 Carries approx. 5 million riders per year 20

39 D E V E L O P M E N T U P D A T E PROJECT DESCRIPTION Approx 1.14 miles new guideway 1 new station at Mandalay Bay Ped access connector between Mandalay Bay and Luxor hotels 1 new station on Sands Avenue Ped access connector between MSG Sphere, Sands Expo (and Venetian/Palazzo), as well as new Wynn convention facility via connected bridges Upgrade/modifications to Automated Train Control M A N D A L A Y B A Y M O N O R A I L C O N N E C T I O N 21

40 S A N D S E X P O M O N O R A I L C O N N E C T I O N C O N V E N T I O N C O N N E C T I O N With stations at Mandalay Bay and Sands Expo & Convention Center, the Monorail will be directly connected to: 42,000 hotel rooms 10M square ft. of convention & meeting space 3 arenas, 1 stadium Over 600 retail, dining, nightlife & bar, show/concert/event venues, unique attractions and experiences 22

41 D E V E L O P M E N T T I M I N G Completion of: Entitlements Airport Approvals Easement Agreements = FINANCING Q U E S T I O N S? 23

42 Item #5 RESORT CORRIDOR UPDATE RESORT CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 24

43 STUDY OVERVIEW OBJECTIVE: Consider feasibility of a high-capacity transit system to improve access to, from and within the Resort Corridor CRITICAL LINKS: Airport to the Strip Movement along the Strip Strip to downtown Las Vegas 49 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Stated Preference Survey How satisfied are you with getting around Las Vegas? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 43% Very Satisfactory 51% 3% <1% 2% Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory Don't know 50 25

44 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Stated Preference Survey While in Las Vegas, which types of transportation did you choose?* * Multiple Choices Allowed 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Convention Delegates 23% 16% 11% 11% 50% 37% Leisure Visitors 33% 29% 41% 36% Public Bus Monorail Rideshare Taxi Personal/Rental Car 51 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Estimated Daily Resort Corridor Visitor Trips Projected Daily Trips with both Origin and Destination within the Resort Corridor Downtown Visitor Volume Daily Visitor Trips M 492, M 618,000 Change +26% +26% Center Strip North Center Strip South North Strip Strip East South Strip Airport 52 26

45 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Stated Preference Survey Rental Car 18% Personal Car <1% Public Bus 4% Paid Airport Shuttle 11% Limo 5% Other 3% Taxi 26% Ride Share 34% Modes of Travel to/from Airport 53 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Stated Preference Survey Rental Car 16% Walk 12% Other 2% Ride Share 17% Taxi 6% Modes of Travel along the Strip Shuttle / Bus 3% Monorail 4% Personal Car 33% Public Bus 7% 54 27

46 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Stated Preference Survey Rental Car 24% Other 3% Ride Share 19% Modes of Travel between Strip and Downtown Taxi 9% Personal Car 27% Monorail 1% Public Bus 17% 55 Transportation Modes Chosen by Respondents Stated Preference Survey Reference Trip Mode Chosen Light Rail Bus Rideshare Taxi Car All Trips 46% 12% 18% 13% 11% Between Airport and Resort Corridor Between Strip and Downtown 52% 11% 21% 17% 0% 37% 13% 14% 9% 26% Along the Strip 45% 12% 16% 12% 16% 56 28

47 Fare Sensitivity Stated Preference Survey 35% 35,000 Percentage of Visitors traveling between the Airport and the Strip and Downtown 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Bus Light Rail 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Daily Ridership 0% $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13 $14 $15 Fare - 57 Fare Sensitivity Stated Preference Survey 35% 12,000 Percentage of Visitors traveling between the Strip and Downtown 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Light Rail Bus 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Daily Ridership 0% $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13 $14 $15 - Fare 58 29

48 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Criteria Considered in Reviewing Transit Technologies Visitor Experience Value Constructability / Disruption Speed Reliability Accessibility Convenience Potential Ridership Roadway Capacity in terms of people throughput 59 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce 60 30

49 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) 61 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 62 31

50 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modern Streetcar 63 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modern Streetcar European Tram 64 32

51 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modern Streetcar European Tram People Mover 65 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modern Streetcar European Tram People Mover Monorail / Elevated Transit 66 33

52 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modern Streetcar European Tram People Mover Monorail / Elevated Transit Light Rail 67 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modern Streetcar European Tram People Mover Monorail / Elevated Transit Light Rail Gondola 68 34

53 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Technologies Deuce Limited Stop Bus Service (SDX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modern Streetcar European Tram People Mover Monorail / Elevated Transit Light Rail Gondola 69 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Technologies included in Alternatives Analysis Deuce and SDX European Tram Pros Operates in mixed flow or exclusive lanes Deuce popular with visitors SDX faster, with limited stop service Frequent stops Maneuverable in heavy traffic No construction required Cons Lower capacity (88 to 108 passengers) Slow boarding (Deuce only) Slowed by street congestion Pros Operates in mixed flow or exclusive lanes Positive visitor response Operates without wires Faster boarding Higher capacity (200 to 220 passengers) Cons High capital costs Requires construction of a track Slowed by street congestion Not maneuverable around traffic 70 35

54 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Existing Deuce and SDX (persons per hour) 4 ½ minute bus frequency Present Peak Period Capacity: Total 7,100 persons per hour per direction Automobiles 6,050 persons per hour per direction Deuce and SDX Bus 1,050 persons per hour per direction 71 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Alternative 1: Existing Deuce and SDX Deuce Deuce 9.5 miles SDX SDX Deuce and SDX 11 miles Estimated Total Average Daily Boardings Deuce + SDX 20, ,900 = 30,200 (2020) 27, ,200 = 40,400 (2040) 72 36

55 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Alternative 2: Enhanced Bus (Deuce and Airport SDX) Deuce 9.5 miles Airport SDX Deuce and Airport SDX Airport SDX 9.1 miles Deuce Estimated Total Average Daily Boardings Deuce + Airport SDX 30, ,200 = 40,400 (2020) 40, ,700 = 51,100 (2040) 73 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Alternative 3: European Tram European Tram 6.5 miles European Tram Estimated Total Average Daily Boardings European Tram 33,000 (2020) 44,300 (2040)

56 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Alternative 4: European Tram (Strip and Airport) European Tram 8.2 miles European Tram Estimated Total Average Daily Boardings Strip Tram + Airport Tram 33, ,100 = 51,100 (2020) 44, ,700 = 66,000 (2040) 75 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Alternative 5: European Tram and Airport SDX European Tram 6.5 miles Airport SDX Airport SDX 9.1 miles Estimated Total Average Daily Boardings European Tram European Tram + Airport SDX 33, ,200 = 43,200 (2020) 44, ,700 = 55,000 (2040) 76 38

57 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Alternative 6: Deuce and Airport European Tram Deuce 9.5 miles Airport European Tram European Tram 7 miles Deuce Estimated Total Average Daily Boardings Deuce + Airport European Tram 30, ,100 = 48,300 (2020) 40, ,700 = 62,100 (2040) 77 Comparison of Alternatives Estimated Year 2040 Total Daily Ridership Estimated Capital Costs For Vehicles and Infrastructure Estimated Operating Costs Estimated Farebox Revenue Alternative 1 41,900 $101,455,000 $296,972,000 $328,712,000 Alternative 2 54,100 $190,911,000 $363,776,000 $769,890,000 Alternative 3 47,500 $960,554,000 $447,934,000 $373,920,000 Alternative 4 69,200 $1,199,027,000 $589,420,000 $1,169,856,000 Alternative 5 59,700 $1,056,456,000 $612,537,000 $815,086,000 Alternative 6 63,600 $977,556,000 $574,734,000 $1,124,511,

58 Comparison of Alternatives Estimated Year 2040 Total Daily Ridership Net Operating Surplus (Deficit) Capital Deficit Requiring Additional Revenue Source Alternative 1 41,900 $31,740,000 ($69,715,000) Alternative 2 54,100 $406,114,000 $215,203,000 Alternative 3 47,500 ($74,014,000) ($1,034,568,000) Alternative 4 69,200 $580,436,000 ($618,591,000) Alternative 5 59,700 $202,549,000 ($853,907,000) Alternative 6 63,600 $549,777,000 ($427,779,000) 79 Resort Corridor Feasibility Study Transit Stop Improvements RTC Improve wayfinding / customer experience Speed boarding process Off board ticketing Level boarding Reduce pull-outs Private Properties / Public Rights of Way Improve guest awareness of transit options Longer transit stops for multiple vehicles and/or longer vehicles Enlarge and integrate pedestrian waiting areas Reduce right-lane conflicts Right turn pockets Pedestrian grade separations 80 40

59 Next Steps Present draft recommendations to stakeholders seek consensus Incorporate results into overall On Board plan Pursue recommendations Near-term Long-term 81 Item #6 FEDERAL UPDATE 41

60 Item #9 - Upcoming Events Consumer Telematics Show 2019 Smart Cities: Opportunities or Threat? Building Tech and Partnership for New Mobility Are smart, low-emission cities the end of the automotive or are they an opportunity for new products, services and business models? WHEN: Monday, Jan. 7, :10 4:40 p.m. WHERE: Planet Hollywood Item #9 - Upcoming Events CES Panel: Government vs. OEM Development How are government and the auto industry working together to make automated vehicles a reality? What about the insurance, legal and public relations battles of autonomous and automated accidents? Who s responsible? How do we prevent fatalities? What needs to happen and why? WHEN: Tuesday, Jan. 8 2:15 3:15 p.m. WHERE: Las Vegas Convention Center, North Hall, N262 42

61 Item #9 - Upcoming Events TRAC Meeting #7 Thursday, Jan. 31 2:30 5 p.m. LVCVA Update Steve Hill Jacksonville Transportation Authority Nat Ford Capital Metro Randy Clarke Item #10 OPEN DISCUSSION 43

62 Item #11 FINAL CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 44