NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA - Metro Transit

NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA
METRO
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Friday, February 8, 2013, 8:00 A.M.
Board Room Headquarters Building
707 North First Street
St. Louis, MO 63102
This location is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities needing
information or communication accommodations should call Metro at (314) 982-1400, for TTY
access, call Relay 711. Sign language interpreter services or other accommodations for persons
with hearing or speech disabilities will be arranged if a request for such service is made at least two
days in advance of the meeting. Large print material, Braille material or other formats will also be
provided upon request.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comment*
4. Sole Source Contract Award: Gall Zeidler Consultants
LLC, Final Survey and Remediation Plan for Leaks in
MetroLink Tunnels/Stations
5. Automatic Fare Collection and Smart Card System Update
6. Long Range Plan Update
7. Eads Bridge Rehabilitation Project Update
Agenda Disposition Presentation
Approval Chairman Scott
Quorum Linda Espy
Information Chairman Scott
Recommend D. Joyce-Hayes
Approval to the
Board
Information/ C. Poehler/T. White
Presentation
Information/
Presentation
Information
8. FY2013 2nd Quarter Operations Performance Report
Information
R. Friem/J. Mefford-
Miller
C. Poehler/F.
Bakarich
R. Friem
9. Executive Session (If needed)
If such action is approved by a majority vote of The Bi-State
Development Agency’s Board of Commissioners who constitute a
quorum, the Board may go into closed session to discuss legal,
confidential, or privileged matters under §610.021(1), RSMo
1988 Supp.; leasing, purchase or sale of real estate under
§610.021(2); personnel actions under §610.021(3); discussions
regarding negotiations with employee groups under §610.021(9);
personnel records or applications under §610.021(13); or
records under §610.021(14) which are otherwise protected from
disclosure by law; or confidential or privileged communications
with the District’s auditor, including auditor work products under
§610.021(17).
Approval
Chairman Scott

Operations Committee
February 8, 2013
Page 2
Agenda Disposition Presentation
10. Approval of Executive Session Items
11. Unscheduled Business
12. Call of Dates for Future Committee Meetings
13. Adjournment
Approval
Information
Information
Approval
Chairman Scott
Chairman Scott
Linda Espy
Chairman Scott
Note*: Public comment may be made at the written request of a member of the public specifying
the topic(s) to be addressed and provided to the Agency’s information officer at least 48 hours prior
to the meeting.

From:
Subject:
Disposition:
Presentation:
Metro Agenda Item
Operations Committee
February 8, 2013
Raymond A. Friem, Chief Operating Officer, Transit Services
Sole Source Contract: Gall Zeidler Consultants LLC for a Final Survey and
Remediation Plan for Leaks in MetroLink Tunnels/Stations
Approval
Dee Joyce-Hayes, General Counsel
Objective:
To present for approval to the Operations Committee a contract with Gall Zeidler Consultants LLC to
perform a final mapping of leaks in Tunnel #3 and the Big Bend MetroLink station, and to develop and
provide a remediation plan for the leaks.
Background:
Since completion of construction of MetroLink’s “Cross County” alignment, water has been leaking into
Tunnel #2 (that runs west from DeBaliviere to Skinker) and the Skinker Station, and into Tunnel #3 (that
runs west from Skinker, under Big Bend, to Clayton) and the Big Bend Station. Although both tunnels
and stations leak, leakage in Tunnel #3 and the Big Bend station is far worse than in Tunnel #2 and the
Skinker station. Tunnel #2 and the Skinker station were constructed by Tarlton, and Tunnel #3 and the
Big Bend station were constructed by McCarthy. The Agency purchased an owner controlled insurance
program (OCIP) through Travelers Insurance, which is a type of insurance coverage held during
the construction project that is designed to cover virtually all liability and loss arising from the
project – subject, of course, to the usual exclusions. This OCIP provided coverage for all of the
Cross County contractors and their subs.
Efforts by the contractors and subcontractors to grout the leaking areas have thus far been unsuccessful.
Not only is the presence of water in the stations hazardous to our customers, the leaks in the tunnels and
stations will lead to a serious degradation of their life-expectancy. Agency engineers, guided by advice
from outside consultants, have concluded that the waterproofing of the tunnels and stations was done
improperly and that the contractors and their subs are responsible. However, in an effort to avoid a
potentially long and costly lawsuit, the Agency, working with the outside law firm of Williams, Venker &
Sanders (“WVS”), has been successful in persuading the contractors and the subs to agree to toll the
running of the statute of limitations and to work with the Agency to find a permanent “fix” for the
problem rather than force the Agency to file a lawsuit in order to preserve our right to litigate should that
become necessary. Meanwhile, McCarthy and Tarlton have both filed claims with Travelers under
the OCIP, thereby bringing that insurance company into the negotiations concerning repairs, and
into any litigation should be become necessary.
WSV recommended that the Agency retain the services of an hydrologist and a waterproofing expert to
analyze the source/s of the problem and how to fix it. In order to preserve the principle of attorney/client
privilege as to the results of their work, we agreed that WVS would find and retain these experts. In July
2010, based on their reputation and experience in waterproofing underground tunnels, particularly
underground tunnels for railroad/transit use, WVS selected the firm of Gall Zeidler Consultants, LLC.
Gall Zeidler completed their initial investigation and mapping of the leaks in the tunnels and stations in
the spring of 2011. Subsequently the Metro Board of Commissioners requested that the Agency determine
the cost of repairing the tunnels and stations, with or without the participation of the various contractors
and their subs, and Gall Zeidler was tasked with preparing a remediation plan. McCarthy has agreed to
have Gall Zeidler devise such a plan for Tunnel 3 and the Big Bend Station. Tarlton, on the other hand,
has requested that it be allowed to hire its own engineering firm and be given time to work with CETCO,

the supplier of the waterproofing material used during construction, to attempt additional remediation
work in Tunnel 2 and the Skinker Station in the hopes of making permanent repairs.
Due to the lack of measurable precipitation and the consequent drop in the water table affecting the St.
Louis region over the past year, the tunnels have not leaked enough to allow Gall Zeidler to perform a
meaningful study and propose a plan. Now, however, the Agency is hopeful that changing weather
conditions will permit Gall Zeidler to move ahead within the next several months. With the exception of
an exact start date, which is still to be determined, the Agency has reached agreement on the terms of a
contract with Gall Zeidler and a fixed fee of $234,000.00 to perform a final study and provide a
remediation plan for the leaks in Tunnel 2 and the Big Bend Station. At this time, Travelers Insurance
Company has agreed to reimburse the Agency for at least 25% of this cost. The draft contract is attached
as Exhibit 1.
Analysis:
Since WVS, not the Agency, retained Gall Zeidler as a consultant on the basis of their recognized skill
and experience, and not through the issuance of a request for proposal, and since Gall Zeidler has already
performed an initial study and mapped the leaks in Tunnel 3 and the Big Bend Station, in order to
enhance efficiency and build upon work already done, the Agency is requesting that the Operations
Committee recommend to the Board of Commissioners that it approve a sole source contract with Gall
Zeidler for the development of a final plan of work to remediate the leaks in Tunnel 3 and the MetroLink
station at Pershing and Big Bend Boulevard for a not-to-exceed amount of Two Hundred and Thirty-Six
Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty-six Dollars and Zero Cents ($236,356.00).
Management Recommendation:
Management requests that the Operations Committee review and forward to the Board of Commissioners
for final approval, this request to award a sole source contract to Gail Zeidler Consultant LLC in an
amount not to exceed $236,356.00.
Attachments:
1. Draft Contract with Gall Zeidler

ATTACHMENT 1
THE BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE MISSOURI-ILLINOIS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
d/b/a “METRO”

CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT
TABLE OF SECTIONS
1. CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
2. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
3. SCOPE OF WORK
4. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
5. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
6. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
7. CONTRACT APPROVAL
8. CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS
9. INSURANCE
10. INDEMNIFICATION
11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
12. STANDARD OF CARE
13. ASSIGNMENT
14. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
15. COMMENCEMENT , PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION
16. EXTENSION OF TIME
17. CONSIDERATION/CONTRACT SUM
18. CHANGES IN THE WORK
19. CHANGE ORDER ACCOUNTING
20. COSTS TO BE REIMBURSED
21. COSTS NOT TO BE REIMBURSED
22. DISCOUNTS, REBATES AND REFUNDS
23. SUBCONTRACTS AND OTHER AGREEMENTS
24. AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS
25. INSPECTION, ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL
26. METHOD AND TERMS OF PAYMENT
27. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
28. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
29. STANDARD OF CARE

An Agreement entered into on this date, [ __________________] between The Bi-State
Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District, d/b/a “METRO”, a body
corporate and politic, created by an interstate compact between the States of Missouri and
Illinois, with its principal place of business located at 707 North 1 st Street, Saint Louis, Missouri
63102-22595 ("Metro") and Gall Zeidler Consultants LLC, located at 44345 Premier Plaza, Suite
210, Ashburn, Virginia 20147 ("Consultant").
WHEREAS, Metro desires to retain Consultant to perform specific services as later
defined herein; and
WHEREAS, Metro and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement ("Agreement") that
will define respective rights and duties as to the service to be performed;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual covenants and
agreements contained herein, Metro and Consultant hereby agree as follows:
Section 1.
CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement apply to all services performed hereunder.
Section 2.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
2.1 Consultant accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established by this
Agreement, and covenants with Metro to exercise the skills and judgment required to further
the interests of Metro; to furnish efficient business administration and supervision; to furnish at
all times an adequate supply of workers and materials; and to perform the work in an
expeditious and efficient manner consistent with Metro’s interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that:
a. It is qualified to undertake and perform the services required of it under this
Agreement;
b. It is authorized to transact business in Missouri and Illinois
c. Entering into this Agreement has been duly authorized by its directors, managers or
partners;
d. The Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the Consultant, enforceable
according to its terms; and its execution shall not result in a violation or breach of any
other agreement to which the Consultant is a party, and will not constitute a violation or
any law, ruling, regulation or order to which Consultant is subject.
e. Consultant agrees that any subcontractor utilized in the performance of the Work shall
be required to comply with all the terms and conditions as set forth herein, and
Consultant shall be responsible for assurance of compliance with all applicable terms
and conditions.

2.2 Consultant is a non-exclusive independent contractor to Metro. Consultant’s employees
and/or agents are not Metro employees and are not eligible to participate in any benefits or
privileges given or extended by Metro, or by operation of law, to its employees. Consultant has
no authority to assume or to create any obligation or responsibility, express or implied, on
behalf of or in the name of Metro, unless as expressly stated in the scope of work described in
Section 3.2. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of any federal, state, or local
income tax, or payroll/employment taxes of any kind
2.3 Metro represents that it is an interstate compact authority organized and existing under
a Compact entered into by the States of Missouri and Illinois and ratified by the Congress of the
United States, and that it is authorized by its Board of Directors to enter into and perform this
Agreement. Metro agrees that it will furnish and approve, in a timely manner, information
required by the Consultant in the performance of the contracted services, and will make
payment to the Consultant in accordance with the requirements herein.
Section 3.
SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 Consultant shall fully execute the Work described in this Section or in other contract
documents that are incorporated by reference herein, except as may be indicated in said
contract documents to be the responsibility of others.
3.2 DESCRIPTION – The full details of the Work are set forth in the Proposal for Detailed
Water Leakage Assessment of Tunnel #3 and Big Bend Stations that was prepared by Gall Zeidler
Consultants, LLC and is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1 and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 4.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
4.1 The Contract Documents consist of this Agreement, any drawings, specifications or
addenda issued prior to the execution of this Agreement, other documents listed in this
Agreement and any modifications issued after the execution of this Agreement, all of which
form the Agreement and are as fully a part of it as if attached hereto or repeated herein. The
Agreement represents the entire and integrated understanding of the parties, and supersedes
prior representations, negotiations or agreements, written or oral. However, if anything in the
other Contract Documents, other than a modification, is inconsistent with the provisions of this
Agreement, the Agreement shall govern.
4.2 Consultant shall furnish all services, labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation,
insurance and necessary supplies, and shall perform all operations required to complete Work in
accordance with the details described in the Contract Documents, except as set forth in this
paragraph or elsewhere in this Agreement. For Big Bend Station and Tunnel No. 3, it has been
agreed that Metro will provide Consultant with the following equipment and materials:
• High rail bucket truck or other lifting equipment
• Working platforms and ladders
• Closed off work zones
• Portable lighting equipment

• Special PPE as required (other than hard hats, ear protection, safety vests, and safety
glasses)
Metro will not charge Consultant any costs or fees associated with these items. Additionally, it
is agreed that Metro will not charge Consultant any of the fees set forth on page 12 of Exhibit 2,
attached hereto. Services described in words that have a well known technical or trade
meaning shall be held to refer to such recognized standards.
4.3 This Agreement, inclusive of any other documents that are part of the Agreement, may
only be amended in writing, signed by both parties. If any provision is found by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be unreasonable, the court may reduce such provision to the scope
that will render it reasonable, and shall enforce such provisions as so reduced. In the event any
paragraph or provision of this Agreement, or any amendment hereof, is declared null and void,
such declaration shall not nullify or affect the validity of any other paragraph or provision
hereof.
Section 5.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
5.1 All plans, surveys, drawings, specifications, reports, documents, materials or articles
prepared or obtained by the Consultant in connection with this Project shall be the property of
Metro and shall be delivered to Metro upon payment of any outstanding monies due Consultant
for the work rendered at the time of the request, regardless of whether the full Scope of Work,
as described in Section 3, is completed. During the performance of this Contract, the Consultant
shall be responsible for any loss or damage to all documents while they are in its possession,
and any lost or damaged document shall be restored at the expense of the Consultant.
Consultant shall have the right to retain copies of said documents, and to include representation
of the design of the Work among its promotional and professional materials.
5.2 Neither Metro, nor any entity representing Metro, shall reuse any documents or other
deliverables (including electronic media) pertaining to the Services of the Consultant for any
purpose other than that for which such documents or deliverables were originally prepared; nor
shall Metro, or any entity representing Metro, alter such documents or deliverables without the
written consent of, or adaptation by, the Consultant. Any use or reuse of original or altered
documents or deliverables without adaptation by Consultant or written confirmation by
Consultant that the documents or deliverables are suitable for the specific purpose intended will
be at Metro’s risk and full legal responsibility.
5.3 All intellectual property of Consultant, including but not limited to any computer
software (in object code and source code form), tools, systems, equipment or other information
used by Consultant or its suppliers in the course of delivering the Services hereunder,
and any know-how, methodologies or processes used by Consultant to provide the
Services deliverable to Metro under this Agreement, including, without limitation, all copyrights,
trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and any other proprietary rights shall remain the sole and
exclusive property of Consultant.
5.4 All information developed by Consultant in connection with the Work, including but not
limited to any deliverables, shall be treated as strictly confidential. Consultant shall not disclose

said information, or permit it to be disclosed, in whole or part, to any third party without the
prior written consent of Metro in each instance; and shall not use said information for any
purpose except as required in the performance of the Work, or for the performance of any
services for which Consultant and Metro may subsequently contract.
Section 6.
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
6.1 Metro’s Vice President of Engineering shall designate a Project Manager who shall be
authorized to ensure that the Consultant performs the requirements of the Agreement, and
who will notify the Consultant and the Vice President of Engineering of any deficiencies
observed. The Project Manager will provide for site entry of Consultant’s personnel as required.
Neither the Project Manager nor Metro will be responsible for, or have control or charge of,
Consultant’s means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, in connection with Work,
and will not be responsible for or have control or charge over the acts or omissions of the
Consultant, sub-contractors, or any of their agents or employees, or any other persons
performing the Work.
6.2 A Contracting Officer will be assigned by Metro’s Director of Procurement to administer
all technical requirements of the Agreement and any contractual issues related to the
Consultant’s performance.
Section 7.
CONTRACT APPROVAL
This Contract is subject to the approval of Metro's Board of Commissioners, and
execution by Metro's President/CEO or an authorized representative shall not be
binding without Board approval.
Section 8.
CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS
Consultant agrees that during the performance of the Work Consultant will comply with all
applicable Federal and state laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, national origin, gender,
age or disability
Section 9.
INSURANCE
Consultant shall obtain and maintain for the duration of this Agreement a policy or policies of
insurance for the protection of both the Consultant and Metro. Metro requires certification of
insurance coverage from Consultant, and any sub-consultants, vendors and suppliers before
beginning the Work.
9.1
a. General Liability
Minimum Scope and Extent of Coverage
Commercial General Liability, ISO coverage form number CG 00 01 ("occurrence" basis)
or, ISO coverage form CG 00 02 (“claims-made basis”), or ISO equivalent.
If ISO equivalent or manuscript general liability coverage forms are used, minimum
coverage will be as follows: Premises/Operations; Independent Consultants;

Products/Completed Operations; Personal Injury; Broad Form Property Damage
including Completed Operations; Broad Form Contractual Liability Coverage to include
Consultant's obligations under Section 9 below.
b. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability
Consultant must have statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance for all states and
jurisdictions where Consultant has work locations, a Broad Form All States Endorsement
for incidental contact, and standard Employer's Liability Insurance.
c. Professional Liability
A professional liability policy which protects the Consultant from liability arising out of
the services provided by the Consultant, its employees, officers or agents.
9.2
Minimum Limits of Insurance
a. General Liability
$1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and
property damage.
$4,000,000 annual aggregate.
$1,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate
a. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
Limits as required by applicable State Statutes (generally unlimited) and minimum of
$500,000 limit per accident for Employer's Liability.
b. Professional Liability
$5,000,000 each claim; $5,000,000 annual aggregate. If Gall Zeidler is a partnership, the
limits must apply separately as to each partner and the partnership itself.
9.3 Deductibles And Self-Insured Retentions - All deductibles, co-payment clauses, and selfinsured
retentions must be declared to and approved by Metro. Metro reserves the right to
request the reduction or elimination of unacceptable deductibles or self-insured retentions as
they would apply to Metro, its commissioners, officers, officials, agents, and employees.
Alternatively, Metro may request Consultant to procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses
and related investigations, claims administration, and defense expenses.
9.4 Other Insurance Provisions & Requirements - The respective insurance policies and
coverage as outlined below must contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following conditions or
provisions:
a. General Liability
Metro, its commissioners, officers, officials, agents, and employees, its officers, officials,
agents, and employees are to be covered as insureds as to the services performed by or
on behalf of the Consultant, or as to liability which arises out of Consultant’s
performance of services or the delivery of goods called for by this Agreement.

. All Coverages
Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary with respect to Metro, its
commissioners, officers, officials, agents, and employees. All insurance or self-insurance
programs maintained by Metro, its commissioners, officers, officials, agents, and
employees shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Consultant’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of these insurance policies
shall not affect or abridge coverage for Metro, its commissioners, officers, officials,
agents or employees.
Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall contain a stipulation, endorsed if
necessary, that Metro's Director of Risk Management will receive a 30-day advance
notice of any policy cancellation other than cancellation for non-payment of premium.
Ten (10) days advance notice is required for policy cancellation due to non-payment of
premium.
9.5 Insurer Qualifications - Insurance required hereunder shall be issued by an A.M. Best "A"
rated, Class VII insurance company approved to conduct insurance business in the state(s) of
Missouri and/or Illinois.
9.6 Verification of Insurance Coverage - Before commencing work, the Consultant shall
furnish Metro with Certificate(s) of Insurance and with copies of any applicable original
endorsements evidencing the required insurance coverage. The insurance certificates and
endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized to bind coverage on the insurer’s behalf.
All certificates and endorsements received by Metro are subject to review and approval by
Metro's Director of Risk Management. Metro reserves the rights to require complete,
certified copies of all required policies at any time. If the scope of this contract will exceed
one (1) year - or, if any of Consultant's applicable insurance coverage expire prior to
completion of the work required under this Agreement, the Consultant will provide a
renewal or replacement certificate before continuing the services hereunder.
Section 10
INDEMNIFICATION
10.1 General Liability - To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Consultant shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless Metro, its commissioners, officers, officials, agents, and
employees; from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, judgments, fines, penalties, loss,
damage, costs, or expense (including but not limited to attorneys' fees), whether direct or
indirect, due to bodily or personal injury, death, sickness or property damage (including loss of
use thereof) arising out Consultant’s services or resulting from performance the Work. The
Consultant shall also agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Metro, its commissioners,
officers, officials, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, actions,
judgments, fines, penalties, loss, damage, costs, or expense (including but not limited to
attorneys' fees), whether direct or indirect, arising out Consultant’s failure to comply with any
applicable federal, state or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations currently in
force, or to be enacted in the future. It is expressly understood and agreed between the parties
that the insurance provided under Section 9 above is primary to this indemnification provision.
Consultants will have a responsibility to indemnify Metro only after 1) it has been determined
that the insurance policy does not provide coverage, or 2) the insurance policy has exhausted its
policy limits.

10.2 Such obligations shall not be construed to waive, negate, abridge, or reduce other rights
or obligations of indemnity that would otherwise exist as to either the Consultant or Metro.
Section 11
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Consultant acknowledges Metro’s Conflict of Interest Policy as stated below, and agrees that
Consultant, and any sub-consultants, vendors or suppliers that it may utilize during the period of
this Agreement, shall fully comply with the provisions of this Policy.
No Agency Commissioner, employee, agent, or immediate family member shall
participate in the administration of a contract if a conflict of interest, real or apparent,
would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when any of the following has a financial
or other interest in the entity selected for award: i) an Agency Commissioner, employee
or agent, ii) any member of his or her immediate family, iii) his or her partner, or iv) an
organization that employs, or intends to employ, any of the above. This conflict of
interest requirement shall also apply to former Agency Commissioners, employees, or
agents for a period of one year.
A conflict of interest shall include activities of a Metro Commissioner, employee, or agent
that inhibit the impartiality of the Commissioner, employee, or agent’s business
judgment, or places the Commissioner, employee or agent in an equivocal, embarrassing
or ethically questionable position reflecting negatively on the integrity of Metro; and
shall also include taking personal advantage or benefits from an opportunity, which
properly belongs to Metro, or uses Metro property for personal gain.
Consultant agrees that during the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter
it will not solicit for employment or engage the services of any Metro employee who has
participated in the administration of this Agreement. Consultant agrees that
Consultant’s employment or engagement of the services of such a Metro employee
during the aforesaid period shall be a material breach of this Agreement for which Metro
shall have all remedies provided in this Agreement, including but not limited to
termination, and all other remedies at law or in equity. Consultant further agrees that
actual damages to Metro in the event of such a breach are impractical to ascertain and
that a reasonable estimate of Metro’s damages in the event of such breach by
Consultant shall be the payment by Consultant to Metro of one (1) year’s salary of the
employee at the employee’s then current salary rate. In such event, Consultant shall
make such payment to Metro promptly after Metro’s written demand.
Section 12
Standard of Care
The Consultant shall perform its Services with the skill and care which would be
exercised by comparable qualified professionals at the time and place such services are
performed. No other representations, and no warranty or guaranty, expressed or implied
is included or intended by this Contract, notwithstanding any provision in the Scope of
Services to the contrary, including, without limitation, the use of the words “insure” or
“ensure” to describe Consultant’s duties with respect to its services.

Section 13
ASSIGNMENT
Consultant shall not assign any rights, or delegate or subcontract any obligations, under this
Contract without Metro’s prior written consent. Any assignment in violation of the foregoing
shall be deemed null and void. Metro may freely assign its rights and obligations under this
Contract at any time. Subject to the limits on assignment stated above, this Contract will inure
to the benefit of, be binding upon, and be enforceable against, each of the parties hereto and
their respective successors and assigns.
Section 14
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
All Work performed by, or on behalf of, Consultant shall be done in accordance with Metro’s
Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) No. 101.17 and its attachments A, B, C & D and SOP
101.23, both of which are fully incorporated herein as EXHIBIT 2 and EXHIBIT 3.
Section 15
COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION
15.1 This Contract shall commence within ______days after issuance of a Notice to Proceed
by Metro and be completed ___________________ thereafter.
15.2 The time of the Agreement shall be measured from the date of commencement.
15.3 The Consultant shall achieve substantial completion of the Work not later than _____
days from the date of commencement.
15.4 It is agreed and understood that Consultant was provided with the following proposed
work schedule and took this work schedule into account in Exhibit 1:
Consultant will have unrestricted time to work on the platform and in the Big Bend
Station. With respect to Tunnel 3, Metro will make a single track available west of the
Big Bend Interlocking for inspection and tunnel leakage mapping from 11:30 p.m. until
4:30 a.m. Both tracks will be available for inspection and leakage mapping from 1:00
a.m. until 4:00 a.m. Metro is aware of a wood tie installation project occurring during
March/April 2013. It is expected that Consultant will still be able to work, but some
coordination will be necessary. Consultant will not be able to perform any work on the
track on March 22 through March 24, 2013. Otherwise, Consultant will be provided the
schedule as set forth above. Finally, when working within 10 feet of the overhead wires,
a power down will be required. The need to power down will result in a loss of 20
minutes on each side of the work window. Metro reserves the right to cancel work
activity during rail system emergencies and during winter weather conditions.
Section 16
EXTENSION OF TIME
In the event Consultant's performance shall be necessarily delayed because of strike,
injunction, government control, or by reason of any cause or circumstance beyond
Consultant’s control (an "Event of Unavoidable Delay"), the time specified for
performance may be extended by the number of days that the Consultant’s performance is

delayed by such cause or circumstance, as determined in each instance by Metro’s Director of
Procurement. Compensation provided elsewhere in this Contract shall be subject to
equitable adjustment.
Any request by Consultant for an extension of time and/or any increase in contract amount shall
be submitted to Metro by Consultant in writing within ten (10) work days of the beginning of
such delay, and shall cite the reasons why the delay is unavoidable, the duration of the
extension requested, and whether there are any efforts Consultant will undertake to mitigate
further delays.
Section 17
CONSIDERATION/CONTRACT SUM
Metro shall pay the Consultant the contract sum of $236,356.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty Six
Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Six Dollars and Zero Cents) in current funds for the
Consultant’s satisfactory performance of the Scope of Work as defined in Section 3. This
contract sum is the cost of the Work, plus the Consultant’s fee. The contract sum does not vary
with actual cost, but may be adjusted as a result of changes in the Work to be performed under
the Agreement.
Section 18
CHANGES IN THE WORK
18.1 The parties agreed to a lump sum contract only after Consultant had the opportunity to
inspect Tunnel #3 and the Big Bend station for purposes of putting together the Proposal for
Detailed Water Leakage Assessment of Tunnel #3 and Big Bend Station, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1. Therefore, the parties do not anticipate the need for change orders. Consultant put
Exhibit 1 together with knowledge of the work that would be required for the project. As stated
in paragraph 15.4, Consultant relied on Metro’s work schedule representation in arriving at the
cost for Exhibit 1.
18.2 If, during the term of this Contract, Consultant believes there is a material and
significant difference in the condition of Tunnel #3 and the Big Bend Station that requires the
Scope of Work as defined in this Agreement, to be changed or otherwise expanded due to
either(1) interpretations of the Services owed being substantially different from their original
definition set forth in this Contract or, (2) additional services being necessitated by unforeseen
circumstances that were not within the reasonable contemplation of Consultant and of Metro,
Consultant shall notify the Project Manager in writing of same prior to commencing such
services. This notification shall include a Change Order Request Form and shall specify
Consultant's basis for believing that the services are necessary and in addition to the Scope of
Work defined in this Contract; the additional compensation sought for providing the additional
services; and the additional time for performance for rendering the additional services, if any.
The Project Manager or his/her designated representative will respond in writing to the
Consultant and will either (1) direct Consultant that such additional services are not needed; (2)
agree to compensate Consultant for such additional services based on separate negotiated costs
upon the terms specified in the notification; or (3) advise Consultant that Metro either does not
believe that the services are additional or that the compensation requested by Consultant is
appropriate.

18.3 In the event Metro responds pursuant to Section 18.2 (3) above, Consultant shall not
disrupt its continuing performance of the scope of services under this Contract and may avail
itself of the remedies set forth in this Section. No further provision of Services hereunder by
Consultant shall be construed to mean that it failed to preserve its right to seek a judicial
determination as to what additional compensation, if any, shall be owed to Consultant by Metro
for said services once it avails itself of the remedies set forth hereof.
18.4 If, during the term of this Contract, Metro requests a change or changes in the
Work to be provided hereunder, it shall notify the Consultant of such changes in writing. Within
ten (10) workdays of receipt of such notification, the Consultant shall advise Metro of the
increase or decrease in the amount of its compensation hereunder resulting from such change
and the effect on the Schedule. If the parties can agree to same, a written modification or a
change order shall be executed incorporating the change. If the parties cannot agree to same,
the Consultant shall provide any additional services requested and proceed to follow Metro’s
Dispute Resolution procedure, as outlined in Section 21. If the change requested by Metro
results in a reduction of work, and the parties cannot agree to the reduction in the amount
resulting from same, the parties agree to follow the same Dispute Resolution Procedure.
18.5 If Metro and the Consultant cannot reach a cost agreement before any change order has
begun to be implemented, the Consultant shall maintain a separate account, by job order or
other suitable accounting procedure, of all direct costs incurred (less allocable credits) , both
changed and unchanged, that are allocable to the Work. The Consultant shall maintain such
account/s until the parties agree to an equitable adjustment for the changes ordered by Metro,
or until the matter is conclusively disposed of in accordance with the Disputes Clause.
18.6 Other than through a request for additional compensation strictly in conformance with
Section 18.1 above, Consultant shall not be allowed to seek compensation from Metro which is
additional to that set forth in Section 17.
18.7 Consultant shall make no changes in this Contract without the prior written consent of
Metro’s Vice President of Engineering or his designated representative.
Section 19
Terms of Payment
Upon completion of the Work as approved by Metro, Consultant shall submit an invoice to
Metro, which shall be paid within 30 days of receipt by Metro.
Unless additional services are authorized by Metro in writing, notwithstanding anything
contained herein to the contrary, the maximum amount that Metro will pay to Consultant for all
Work performed under this Contract shall not exceed the amount stated in Section 15 of this
Contract.
Section 20
Termination
20.1 If the Consultant fails to fulfill any of its obligations under this Contract in a timely and
proper manner, Metro shall have the right to terminate the Contract by giving the Consultant a

written seven (7) day notice, unless Consultant takes remedial measures satisfactory to Metro
within seven calendar days after receipt of said notice. Within three (3) days of the effective
date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to Metro all finished and unfinished documents,
surveys, plans, materials, drawings, specifications, data, studies, maps and reports that
Consultant has prepared or possesses related to this Contract, all of which shall become the
property of Metro. In the event that Consultant fails to make such delivery within the stated
time, the Consultant shall pay Metro any damages it sustains by reason, thereof.
20.2 In the event of termination, Metro shall have the right to retain another consultant
to complete the Work described herein, and all of Consultant’s documents, surveys, plans,
materials, drawings, specifications, studies, maps, and reports may be utilized in
their entirety for completion of the Work. In addition, Consultant shall be liable to
Metro for any excess costs occasioned thereby.
20.3 Not withstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, Consultant shall not be
relieved of liability to Metro for damage, costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorney’s fees, by virtue of breach of this Contract by Consultant.
Section 21
Dispute Resolution
21.1 Metro will determine the acceptability of work performed under this contract, and will
decide on all questions which may arise concerning the Work. Any dispute arising out of or
relating to the performance of or alleged breach of this Contract that is not disposed of by
agreement of the parties, shall be initially decided by Metro's Contracting Officer, who shall
render a written decision on the issues in dispute within thirty(30) workdays and furnish a copy
thereof to the Consultant.
21.2 The decision of the Contracting Officer shall be final and conclusive unless within twenty
(20) work days from the date the Consultant receives the Contracting Officer’s written decision,
the Consultant appeals in writing to Metro’s Vice President of Procurement, Inventory
Management and Supplier Diversity, who shall render a written decision on the appeal within
twenty (20) work days and furnish a copy to the Consultant. Notwithstanding the forgoing,
these provisions shall not be a condition precedent to the Consultant’s initiation of litigation for
equitable relief.
21.3 Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Consultant shall continue
to diligently perform the Contract and Metro shall continue to make payments under the
Contract, with the exception of any disputed amount.
21.4 Nothing in this Contract is to be construed as making final the decision of any Metro
official on a question of fact or law, and the Consultant is entitled to bring a civil action to obtain
relief as provided under the laws of Missouri. However, Metro’s decision shall be final and
conclusive unless Consultant appeals such decision pursuant to the provisions of this Section 21.
21.5 In the event one party defaults under this Agreement, the other party shall be entitled
to recover its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of
such default, whether or not litigation is commenced in aid thereof.

21.6 In the event of litigation related to the project on which Consultant is performing the
Work, in which litigation Metro and the Consultant are not opposing parties, Consultant agrees
to cooperate with Metro’s counsel in providing information requested by said counsel and to
serves as a factual witness in such litigation. Compensation for Consultant’s service as a witness
in any such litigation shall be in addition to that provided for in this Agreement.
Section 22
Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other documents incorporated herein by reference and
related exhibits and schedules, constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties to this
Agreement with respect to the subject matter contained herein, and supersedes all prior and
contemporaneous understandings, agreements, representations and warranties, both written
and oral, with respect to such subject matter.
Section 23
Amendment
This Agreement may only be amended, modified or supplemented by an agreement in writing
signed by each party hereto, and any of the terms thereof may be waived, only by a written
document signed by each party to this Agreement or, in the case of waiver, by the party or
parties waiving compliance.
Section 24
Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the
State of Missouri, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision or rule. Each
party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts
located in the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri any legal suit, action or proceeding arising
out of or based upon this Contract or the Services provided hereunder.

Section 25
Communications
All notices, requests, consents, claims, demands, waivers and other communications hereunder
shall be in writing and addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth below, or to such
other address that may be designated by the receiving party from time to time in accordance
with this Section. All Notices shall be delivered by personal delivery, nationally recognized
overnight courier, (with all fees pre-paid); facsimile or e-mail of a PDF document, with
confirmation of transmission; or certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage
prepaid. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a Notice is effective only if (a) the
receiving party has received the Notice and (b) the party giving the Notice has complied with the
requirements of this Section.
If to Metro
To:
Dee Joyce-Hayes,
General Counsel
Metro
707 N. 1 st Street
St. Louis, MO 63102-2595
If to Consultant
To:
Section 26
Vojtech Gall
Gall Zeidler Consultants LLC
44345 Premier Plaza
Suite 210
Ashburn, Virginia 29147
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and by facsimile signature, each of
which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have agreed to and have executed this
contract as indicated by the signatures below.
THE BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE MISSOURI-ILLINOIS METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT, d/b/a METRO
By: _________________________________
John M. Nations, President & CEO
DATE: _______________________________
GALL ZEIDLER CONSULTANTS LLC
By: _____________________________
Vojtech Gall, Principal
DATE: ___________________________

EXHIBIT 1
GALL ZEIDLER CONSULTANTS LLC PROPOSAL FOR DETAILED WATER
LEAKAGE ASSESSMENT OF TUNNEL #3 AND
BIG BEND STATION

EXHIBIT 2
METROLINK SOP #101.17

EXHIBIT 3
METROLINK SOP #101.23

Metro Agenda Item
Operations Committee
February 8, 2013
From: Raymond A. Friem, Chief Operating Officer - Transit
Subject: Automated Fare Collection and Smart Card System Update
Disposition: Information/Presentation
Presentation: Christopher C. Poehler, P.E. Senior VP, Engineering & New Systems
Development; Thomas White, Fare Collection Project Manager; Anjana Mohan,
Fare Collection Deputy Project Manager
OBJECTIVES:
To update the Operations Committee of the current project status and schedule for the Automatic
Fare Collection and Smart Card System.
BACKGROUND:
Metro is in the process of implementing a system-wide fare collection system utilizing smart
card technology. The project consists of upgrading existing Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs)
and validators, replacing the outdated bus farebox equipment and installing a smart card backend
system. The System shall support Metro and Madison County Transit (MCT), and possible
future participants.
ANALYSIS:
Internal Implementation Activities
Bus / Farebox:
• Metro continues to monitor and respond to feedback from operators, Operations personnel,
customers and others regarding the new farebox.
• Metro identified and defined requirements for farebox data that will make analysis by
Research & Development easier and more efficient.
Rail:
• Pre-validation of tickets was eliminated from TVMs on January 7, 2013. This is the first step
in standardizing fare enforcement for all customers. In the smart card future, all customers
will have to validate at the validators.
• Communication and media strategy surrounding the new ticket validation was executed. The
strategy consisted of posting flyers, brochures, rider alerts, social media updates, etc.
Back end smart card software system:
• Testing for various components of the backend software system was continued.
• A candidate for project communication and customer education was hired.
• Smart cards that Washington University is considering for their badges/ID system were
successfully tested on the Metro fare collection equipment.

Operations Committee
Automatic Fare Collection and Smart Card System Update
February 8, 2013
Page 2 of 3
Metro business processes:
• A fare policy study is in progress to evaluate potential revenue impacts of changes. CH2M
Hill has provided a fare modeling software.
• A Business Process group has been established to document existing business processes and
identify process changes due to smart card implementation.
• Metro is examining customer service strategies to be implemented to support smart cards.
Farebox Contractor – Scheidt & Bachmann (S&B)
• S&B completed design activities for the farebox (non-smart card related activities) and tested
the hardware and software in the laboratory to verify performance.
• On October 1, Metro began a pilot test of 40 fareboxes on Revenue buses to test performance
under revenue conditions. Metro is currently evaluating the pilot test results to determine if
S&B has met the performance criteria. Preliminary indications are that they will exceed the
performance requirements and pass the pilot test.
• S&B is working to resolve several outstanding software items prior to full-fleet installation.
• S&B and Metro are working to capture and define all outstanding design issues and required
changes to be fixed/implemented prior to installing the fareboxes on the remaining fleet.
• S&B has started Conceptual Design for Phase 2, which will incorporate smart card
functionality into the fareboxes.
Smart Card Contractor – Indra
• Indra installed the draft system software on Metro’s virtual servers for testing.
• TVMs passed functional testing.
• New TVMs and validators were installed in Illinois.
• The existing Missouri TVMs were upgraded with new hardware and software.
• Replacement of the Missouri validators is on hold while Indra works to correct some issues
where water was leaking into the validator posts. Installation is anticipated to resume in
April 2013.
• Installation of new validators at Missouri and revised locations of existing validators cannot
occur until the Infrastructure project completes (currently anticipated by Fall 2013).
• Joint (Metro/Indra) lab testing of smart card system is in progress.
• Metro and Indra are working together to re-design portions of the web site to make them
more user friendly.
• The Indra portion of the smart card system will be ready for limited field testing in April
2013.
• Large scale system testing of the backend system is scheduled for Fall 2013, contingent on
progress of Infrastructure project.

Operations Committee
Automatic Fare Collection and Smart Card System Update
February 8, 2013
Page 3 of 3
Project Schedule Summary
Project Schedule
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Winter 2012
Early 2013
Spring 2013
Summer 2013
Fall 2013
Summer 2014
Fall 2014
TVM Installation and Upgrades
Farebox Pilot Test on 40 Busses
(Cash and magnetic tickets only)
Validator Installation
Eliminate Pre-Validation
Fareboxes Installed on Full Fleet
(Cash and magnetic tickets only)
Back-end Software Installed
Rail & System Component Testing
Fareboxes Smart Card Equipped
Integrated System Testing
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION:
No action is required. This material is provided for information only.

Metro Agenda Item
Operations Committee
February 8, 2013
From: Raymond A. Friem, Chief Operating Officer, Transit Services
Subject: Long-Range Plan Update
Disposition: Information
Presentation: Raymond A. Friem, Chief Operating Officer, Transit Services
Jessica Mefford-Miller, Chief of Planning and System Development
OBJECTIVE: To update the Board of Commissioners of Metro’s progress implementing planning and capital
projects outlined in the Moving Transit Forward Long Range Transit Plan (MTF LRTP).
BACKGROUND:
In its MTF LRTP (2010), Metro outlined several capital and service projects designed to improve the
efficiency, competitiveness and reach of the Metro System. Since 2010, Metro has aggressively pursued
funding for these capital projects and their prerequisite planning efforts and is collaborating with regional
partners and stakeholders to ensure their successful implementation. Ongoing capital projects that flow from
the MTF LRTP include the expansion of the Civic Center Transit Center in Downtown St. Louis; construction
of a new North County Transit Center; a multi-corridor alternatives analysis planning study that is exploring the
feasibility of bus-based service enhancements across some of the region’s busiest commuter corridors; and an
expansion of passenger amenities at bus stops throughout the region. This paper presents new information to
the board of Commissioners regarding Metro’s progress.
St. Louis Rapid Transit Connector Study
Background
Metro, East West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGWCOG), the State of Missouri Department of
Transportation (MoDOT), St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis are partnering under EWGWCOG’s
Transportation Corridor Improvement Group (TCIG) to conduct an alternatives analysis (Study) to evaluate
premium transit improvements on or near four major highway corridors in the St. Louis metropolitan region
including I-70, I-64, I-44 and I-55. The Study’s focus on improving the region’s high capacity corridors is a
direct result of public feedback received during the development of the MTF LRTP. As such, the study
advances the goals that underpinned that planning effort, namely providing and enhancing transit service in the
near and long-term, retaining existing riders while attracting new ones, and increasing the overall efficiency of
the St. Louis regional transit system.
The planning process undertaken in this Study will result in two Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) that are
acceptable to the community and can be advanced into project development. Some key issues to work through
include:
• Defining the size (project limits and termini) of the corridors for planning purposes;
• Developing alternatives that address transportation, economic, and quality of life goals and that are
compelling enough to attract new riders who would otherwise travel by car;
• Defining and developing cost-effective projects that could attract FTA New Starts/Small Starts or other
federal funding support as determined appropriate for the selected projects while maintaining
consideration of available local resources for capital match and ongoing operations.
Finally, the planning process must stay tuned to anticipated changes in federal regulation pursuant to MAP-21
Transportation Authorization legislation that could impact the policies and procedures that govern the New
Starts/Small Starts process and thus how the projects are evaluated and selected.

Long Range Plan Update
Operations Committee
February 8, 2013
Page 2
Progress Update
In September 2012 Metro engaged a team led by Parsons Brinkerhoff to collaborate with the TCIG (together
the Project Partnership Team) to conduct the Study for a not-to-exceed amount of $811,000. The total project
budget for the Study is $950,000 which was included in the FY2012 Capital Budget plan adopted by the Board.
The funding sources include Section 5309 formula funds ($700,000) and an FTA Alternatives Analysis Grant
($250,000) for the I-55 corridor.
The Study is organized into three sequential phases; the first phase includes a comprehensive evaluation of the
transit markets along each of the four identified corridors. This phase began in early October 2012 and will be
complete by late February 2013. This evaluation includes identifying the transit markets along each corridor
including employment and population centers; estimating ridership potential of each corridor based on existing
and planned land uses and current transit ridership; and identifying potential modes of service for each corridor.
It is intended that this task will help decision makers identify and select the two highest priority corridors for
initial transit investments.
Public involvement for the study began in December 2012 and will continue through the duration of the study,
which is expected to end by September 2013. The objectives for communication and public involvement for the
Study include:
• Inform the public and project stakeholders by providing balanced and objective information to assist
them in understanding the problems, alternatives, opportunities, and solutions. The result will be that
project stakeholders are prepared to make informed judgments about proposed actions and the public is
aware of the planning process.
• Consult the public and project stakeholders on the factors that drive decision making in the project
analysis, including the definition and evaluation of project alternatives.
• Engage the public and project stakeholders in discussions of the transportation, land use, economic and
quality of life issues that influence the purpose and need for this project, the alternatives defined and
how they are evaluated.
• Involve project stakeholders in the decision making process by working directly with them at key
decision points.
• Build partnerships with other agencies and stakeholders, recognizing the effect this effort has on the
region and that it complements other regional public transportation initiatives. An outcome of this is a
public and project stakeholders that feel ownership to the project, understand its purpose and the
reasons behind decisions made by Metro and the TCIG.
Public involvement with a series of leadership interviews with key stakeholders in December - January. These
interviews were intended to solicit input on key transportation issues and opportunities facing the region and to
clarify project goals, objectives, purpose and need. Results from those leadership interviews are shaping the
ongoing evaluation of transit markets along the identified corridors. This task will culminate with presentation
of market data for the corridors to a Stakeholder Advisory Committee on February 13, 2013. This Advisory
Committee is comprised of leadership from each of the organizations representing the TCIG and other key
business and community leaders. The Project Partnership Team and Advisory Committee will be tasked with
screening the four initial corridors and selecting two corridors to advance for further study. The screening
process will be guided by the following decision-making framework, which flows from the MTF LRTP and
current FTA guidance:
Land Use/Economic Development
• Supports existing and planned development
• Strengthens regional core
2

Long Range Plan Update
Operations Committee
February 8, 2013
Page 3
• Supports job access and commute patterns
Mobility and Operations
• Responds to defined travel markets
• Congestion relief
• Ridership
Livability
• Mobility options
• Access to activity centers
• Support communities and neighborhoods
Environment
• Potential impacts to resources
• Impacts to targeted low-income and minority communities
Once the screening process is complete, the Project Partnership Team will focus on the second phase of the
Study, conducting an alternatives analysis on the two selected corridors. This process will involve identifying
multiple mode, alignment and operating plan options for the corridors. The most attractive and competitive of
the alternatives for the corridors will then be further developed to a 10% engineering level in the third and final
phase of the study. This final phase will also include developing a financial plan for supporting the capital and
operating costs of the alternatives. At the completion of the Study in September 2013, Metro will be poised to
advance up to two projects to FTA. Staff will continue to update and solicit feedback from the Board of
Commissioners throughout the course of the project.
North County Transit Center
The MTF LRTP included the creation of a new transit hub in greater North St. Louis County, home to
approximately 19% of Metro’s customer base. In 2010, Metro successfully competed for Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) grant funding to plan and construct a new North County Transit Center.
Metro subsequently completed a feasibility study for this facility, which included an analysis of location
options. This study was subsequently approved by FTA, and funds were authorized to begin acquiring property
for this purpose. Metro has acquired the first of two parcels required to complete this project, and is moving to
close on the second parcel.
The North County Transit Center project is intended to transform the footprint of MetroBus service in greater
North St. Louis County, and Metro’s approach to delivering MetroBus and Call-A-Ride service. The first phase
of this project will include redesigning an existing building on the site at 3140 Pershall Road and using that
facility to provide an indoor passenger waiting area with concessions and restrooms; dispatch and light
maintenance for 25 vans or coach on chassis vehicles; staff office space; an open-air bus loop and layover point
for 10 buses; and a 100-space commuter parking lot. The opening of the Transit Center will be accompanied by
a redesign of the bus routes in the surrounding area to make use of this new facility. Metro planners are
working now to develop service options. During the design process, Metro planners will conduct a public
involvement process that will inform Metro customers, key stakeholders and interested individuals in the
surrounding community about the project and solicit feedback on the facility design and corresponding service
plan. Once Metro has successfully acquired the second parcel, it will release a design request for proposals.
Shortly after that work commences, Metro will begin the public involvement process. The first phase of the
study is estimated to cost $8.28M.
3

Long Range Plan Update
Operations Committee
February 8, 2013
Page 4
The second phase of this project is intended to incorporate a small bus garage and maintenance facility that will
help alleviate the need for costly ‘deadhead’ travel to existing MetroBus garages. This facility will house
vehicles that serve nearby routes, some of which may be displaced by the addition of 60’ articulated vehicles to
Metro’s fleet. The estimated cost for Phase 2 is $9.82M, which is currently unfunded. Metro has identified
some funds in its FY14-FY16 capital budget to help support this project and additional federal discretionary
funds will be sought as opportunities become available.
At this time, it is estimated that design of Phase 1 will commence in Spring 2013.
Downtown Transit Center
On January 25, the Board of Commissioners approved the award of a contract for design services for the
Downtown Transit Center to Arcturis. Metro is currently working through the Federal Highway Administration
and Federal Transit Administration to ensure the award of funds to support this project. It is estimated that
design work will commence in late winter/early spring 2013.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION: No action is required. This information is being presented for
information only.
4

Metro Agenda Item
Operations Committee
February 8, 2013
From: Raymond A. Friem
Chief Operating Officer, Transit Services
Subject: Eads Bridge Rehabilitation Project Update
Disposition: Information
Presentation: Christopher C. Poehler, P.E., Senior Vice President, Engineering & New System
Development; Fred Bakarich, Director of Capital Projects
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Completed Work – NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, all work referenced pertains to the
West bound portion of the bridge. Scaffolding installation is complete on all three
spans. All access platforms are installed and in use servicing construction operations.
Temporary relocation of utilities has completed. Existing floor system demolition
activity is complete in the west span and well underway in the center span. Structural
Steel shop drawings for all three spans have been reviewed and approved and St. Louis
Bridge (SLB) has started steel fabrication. Layout of miscellaneous structural repairs is
complete for all three spans.
B. Upcoming Work - Blast containment for the first three panels to receive coating is
installed and blasting and priming commenced January 24. Track, tie and floor system
demolition and Blasting/Priming/Painting activities will dominate work activity for the
next several months.
C. Schedule – Metro executed a Change Order, for time extension”, revising the completion
date from January 9, 2015, to December 20, 2015. The Change Order accounted for
seasonal shift due to late project award, concurrent delays by Metro and SLB during the
structural steel shop drawing process, and elimination of double shifts for coating
activities. The current schedule update, which reflects the revised completion milestone
and activity duration revisions, currently shows a project completion date of January 5,
2016 (12 days behind). The schedule slippage is a result of the west span demolition
activity exceeding the baseline duration. In an effort to recover the lost days, SLB has
worked overtime on demolition until it was completed, allowing the Blast/Prime/Paint
activity to begin. As a condition of the extension change order, SLB bears all delay
costs incurred beyond December 20, 2015. Metro and SLB continue discussions on
ways to improve the project completion date.

Operations Committee
Eads Bridge Rehabilitation Project Update
February 8, 2013
Page 2
D. Cost and Budget – To date, total construction billings are roughly $5,705,000.
Significant change orders are as follows:
• St. Louis Bridge - Schedule extension direct costs and apportioned cost of
concurrent delay, $532,745.
• St. Louis Bridge – Resolution of geometry conflicts uncovered during the shop
drawing process – approximately $350,000.
• St. Louis Bridge - Miscellaneous Structural Repairs comprised of mostly Arch Rib
Repairs are being quantified. The forecasted cost will be significant. Metro’s
consultant Transystems is currently analyzing design alternatives in several areas
in an attempt to reduce the cost of these repairs.
There are no imminent threats to the project budget at this time.
E. DBE and Workforce
Design Contract – The DBE participation goal for the design services contract
was established at 13% of the contract value. To date, Transystems is reporting
approximately 5% DBE participation, however, both coating inspection subconsultants
are DBE’s and participation is expected to increase substantially over
the next 9 months.
Construction Contract – The DBE participation goal for Eads Bridge
Rehabilitation construction contract was established at 12% of the contract value.
To date, SLB is reporting roughly 5% DBE participation. The workforce
utilization is currently 23.7% minority and 1.5% women.

METRO - Transit Operations Division
FY2013– 2nd Quarter Year to Date Summary
Report to the President /CEO and Board of Commissioners
Financials
FY2013 FY2013 FY2013 FY2013 FY2012 Diff FY2013
YTD Actual Budgeted Variance Var. % Actual FY2012
System
Revenues $ 30,534,432 $30,146,179 $ 388,253 1.3% $ 29,376,371 $1,158,061
Expenses $ 95,345,576 $99,091,175 $(3,745,599) (3.78)% $ 91,760,659 $3,584,917
The second quarter brought a clearer vision of the positive impact for system revenues created by the fare
increase implemented in July of 2012. From the ridership table below it can be determined that FY2013 ridership
growth for MetroLink and MetroBus increased at a rate of 3.07%, while farebox revenues through the second
quarter for these modes increased by 5.16%. In addition, calculated average fares have risen steadily. This
indicates a decrease in the discount factor in revenues received, which was the goal of the fare increase. Overall
system revenues are exceeding the budget goal by 1.3%. The budget goal itself was increased 4.0% over FY2012
totals. Transit Operations Division was under budget for the second quarter, and all major units are below budget
after the second quarter. With some labor contracts settled, it is likely that the second half of the fiscal year will
present a challenge in terms of meeting expense targets, however, notwithstanding radical market shifts in items
such as parts and fuel, it is our expectation that we will be balanced at year end.
System ridership
continues to grow, though
the growth rate slowed
somewhat in the second
quarter. MetroLink
remains stable with a
1.5% overall growth rate
Ridership Comparison
Mode 2nd Qtr. 2nd Qtr.
FY13 FY12
+/- Previous
Period
YTD FY2013 YTD FY2012 +/- Previous
Period
Rail 4,180,220 4,134,715 1.1% 8,682,249 8,553,937 1.5%
Bus 7,535,689 7,285,881 3.4% 15,108,155 14,528,019 4.0%
Van 147,551 143,851 2.6% 297,335 289,294 2.8%
System 11,863,460 11,564,447 2.6% 24,087,739 23,371,250 3.1%
for the year, while MetroBus again sees higher than anticipated growth at 3.4% for the quarter, and 4.0% year to
date. Here again we might be seeing an impact from the FY2013 fare increase as MetroLink enjoys a significantly
higher participation by persons using our monthly and 30 day pass options which were increased, and a lower use
rate of cash fare, which was not increased. Call-A-Ride’s first quarter growth of 2.6% for the quarter is down
slightly from its annual growth of 2.8% and is consistent with its FY2012 growth of 2.8%. Overall ridership growth
for the system of 3.1% exceeds expectations, and has generated pressure on Transit Operations to develop
solutions to relieve overcrowding on some MetroBus routes at various times of the day.
YTD Service Profiles
FY13 YTD
Revenue
Miles
FY12 YTD
Revenue
Miles
+/-
Previous
Period
FY13 YTD
Revenue
Hours
FY12 YTD
Revenue
Hours
+/-
Previous
Period
Rail 1,576,747 1,589,474 -0.8% 66,558 66,438 0.2%
Bus
9,308,742 9,347,194 -0.4% 682,854 684,374 -0.2%
Van 2,623,583 2,535,569 3.5% 155,379 152,568 1.8%
FY13 Pass/
Rev. Mile
FY12 Pass/
Rev. Mile
+/-
Previous
Period
FY13 Pass
/ Rev. Hour
FY12 Pass
/ Rev. Hour
+/-
Previous
Period
Rail 5.51 5.38 2.32% 130.45 128.75 1.32%
Bus 1.62 1.55 4.42% 22.13 21.23 4.22%
Van 0.11 0.11 -0.67% 1.91 1.90 0.92%
The Service Profile shows little
change in operating tempo for fixed
route MetroLink and MetroBus
service, but it should be pointed out
that a significant amount of MetroBus
hours were reclaimed from the
Grand Avenue Bridge detour and
programmed into other routes in the
system to lessen the incidents of
overcrowding reported on the
system. Still year over year
MetroBus miles and hours are lower
than in FY2012. MetroLink is showing reductions in operating hours due to service truncations of the Blue Line in
support of maintenance activities throughout the system.

Security Activity
YTD FY2013 FY2012 +/-
Summons MetroLink 8,542 1,180 N/A
Arrests – MetroLink 504 559 N/A
Summons – MetroBus (Bus) 3 23 N/A
Summons – MetroBus (Stop)
28 N/A N/A
Arrests - MetroBus
55 9 N/A
Metro’s Public Safety Department continues an
enforcement effort that provides higher visibility
and better enforcement of scofflaws on both rail
and bus modes. The enforcement efforts have
been increased on buses, with random security
“walk-through’s” of MetroBus vehicles while in
service, and both uniformed and under-cover
efforts at bus stops and transfer centers throughout
the region. All internal reporting mechanisms are being retooled, and as such comparisons against FY2012 are not
representative of progress being made in this area. The new processes being employed are presenting this
function with additional opportunities for targeted investment in the future.
FY2013 FY2012 +/-
On Time
Performance
On Time
Performance
Previous
Period
Service Quality Indicators
FY2013
Complaints/
100,000
FY2012
Complaints/
100,000
+/-
Previous
Period
Boardings Boardings
Rail 98.3% 98.83% -0.6 % 1.41 0.86 64 %
Bus 92.0% 90.5%* 1.7 % 16.21 13.95 16 %
Van 94.3% 95.7% -1.4 % 15.78 15.83 -.3 %
FY2013
YTD
Preventable
Accidents
FY2012
YTD
Preventable
Accidents
+/-
Previous
Period
FY2013
YTD total
Accidents/
Incidents
FY2012
YTD total
Accidents/
Incidents
+/-
Previous
Period
Rail 3 4 -25% 18 17 6%
Bus 94 79 37% 227 208 15%
Van 29 27 7% 52 83 -37%
FY2013
Service
Delays –
Equipment
FY2012
Service
Delays –
Equipment
+/-
Previous
Period
+/-
Previous
Period
FY2013
YTD MDBF
FY2012
YTD MDBF
Rail 79 78 1% 40,060 40,808 -2%
Bus 412 497 -17% 25,757 21,536 20%
Van 68 58 17% 44,577 49,977 -11%
Changes in Transit Operations’
methodology regarding
acquisition, tracking and
resolution of customer
complaints results in increases
in the number of complaints
tallied. The purpose of these
changes is to create actionable
information which can be used
to improve operating
tendencies, and customer
satisfaction levels. This is not
the complete reason for the
increase. The increased
maintenance activities on
MetroLink are also a
contributing factor. On-time
performance on MetroBus
continues to see all time high
levels as computed by the
Automatic Vehicle Locator
System. The addition of new buses along with the installation of this system on several existing bus models is
continuing to improve the utility of this system. Accident levels have increased slightly but are still considered
excellent by industry standards. Rolling stock reliability continues to improve, most noticeably on MetroBus which
is benefitting from the retirement of several overage coaches in the past year.
YTD Customer Service Call Center Statistics
Passenger calls for information continue to grow at less than
3%, with unit performance improving the number of calls
answered substantially year over year. Service calls are up
5.4%, which compares to an increase in MetroLink complaints
of 64%, and MetroBus complaints of 16% speak to the
enhancements being made in the customer complaint
process.
FY2013 FY2012 +/-
Information
Calls Presented 394,804 384,230 2.75%
% Information
Calls Answered 93.03% 88.36% 5.28%
Service Calls
Presented 14,379 13,645 5.38%
Service Calls %
Answered 92.22% 93.39% -1.25%
Report to CEO FY13QTR2EXEC Summary.doc 2

Major Capital Projects
Rolling Stock Replacement
Bus Type Qty Jurisdiction Estimated Delivery Procurement type
35 foot Low Floor 43 Missouri Nov. 2013 – Jan. 2014 Piggy-Back on Duluth MINN.
40 foot low floor 8 Illinois Nov. 2013 – Jan. 2014 Piggy-Back on Duluth MINN.
60 foot articulated 15 Missouri TBD RFP estimated NTP 4/15/2013
C-A-R Van 150 (30 / year) Missouri Nov. 2013 – Jan. 2014 Attempting Piggy Back on competitive
procurement by PA. DOT
Non Revenue
Vehicles
Various Missouri / ILL TBD Considering Leasing Options / RFP
Automatic Vehicle Locator / Radio Communications System
Project Activity Qty Completed Estimated Notes
Completion
Antennae Location
Selection
15 8 July 2013 FTA case by case approval. Some long term
leases, some new sights with property acquisition
Rolling Stock
Installation
Bus OCC Data
Entry
and construction.
344 344 New Vehicles delivered pre-equipped. Only
specific vehicles are receiving aftermarket
installations.
1 1 10/1/2012 Implement new V-Trouble data package, reduce
redundant keypunch effort 90%, and improve data
for analysis.
Bus OTP Tool 1 1 7/1/2012 While under constant improvement, tool will
provide meaningful exception data to pinpoint
schedule adherence issues.
Customer
Outreach Tools
Various
MetroLink Capital Maintenance
Board approval for phase 1 software occurred in
FY2012, remaining software purchases scheduled
in FY2013 capital budget.
Project Activity Qty Completed Estimated Notes
Completion
Phase 1 Wood Tie
replacements
27000 6000 July 2015 Initial replacement of every 4 th wood tie between
Laclede’s Landing and Wellston Stations near
completion.
UMSL Interlocking 1 February 2013 Final Commissioning Activities scheduled for
Phase 1 Catenary
Replacement Year
2 & 3
Year 1 Platform
Edge Tile
Replacement (10)
Stations
Traction Power
Substation TPSS
MO-10
State Of Good
Repair Database
February 23 and 24, 2013.
1 Mile July 2015 Current year activities focus on EADS Bridge
rehabilitation and replacement of tensioned
Catenary system with overhead conductor rail
system between construction area and tunnel
mouth in August –September of 2013 and on
Eads Bridge as part of the bridge rehabilitation
project
December
2012
December 2013 Installation of yellow platform edge strips at (10)
MetroLink Stations. Completed Swansea,
Belleville, and Delmar in 2 nd Quarter. Will resume
installation beginning March 2013.
FY2014
Supported Engineering project to rehabilitate
underground feeder cable and disconnect
switches at TPSS MO-10. Installed water
mitigation systems.
Complete System Inventory with CodeRed
Business Solutions. Board approved contract
November of 2012.
Report to CEO FY13QTR2EXEC Summary.doc 3