Joint Meeting Notice and Agenda Coast Rail Coordinating Council (CRCC) And – – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) RRail Corridor Agency

Thursday August 30, 2012 San Luis Obispo County Government Center 1055 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo

Co‐Chair: Dave Potter, Supervisor, Monterey County Co‐Chair: Joe Kellejian, Mayor, City of Solana Beach

Item#/Time Recommendation

1) 1:15 WELCOME REMARKS (Mayor Jan Marx, City of San Luis Obispo)

+2) 1:20 STATUS OF COAST DAYLIGHT INFORMATION (Peter Rodgers, SLOCOG)

+3) 1:25 STATEWIDE CONNECTIVITY AND DISCUSSION EMERGING CORRIDORS UNDER SB 1225 AND AB 1779 (Peter Rodgers, SLOCOG)

+4) 1:35 UPCOMING JOINT COORDINATION DISCUSSION AND ADVOCACY OPPORTUNITIES (Linda Culp, SANDAG)

5) 1:40 STATUS OF LOSSAN NORTH INFORMATION SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, STATE RAIL PLAN (Bill Bronte, Caltrans)

+ Indicates attachment

Note: The CRCC Policy Committee meets prior to this meeting and the LOSSAN Board of Directors meets immediately following. All meetings will be in the same location. There is a reception at 4:30 p.m. at “Luna Red,” 1023 Chorro Street. LOSSAN JOINT POWERS BOARD AND CRCC POLICY COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING

August 30, 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2

ACTION REQUESTED: INFORMATION

STATUS OF THE COAST DAYLIGHT SERVICE

Overview and Background

Beginning the early 1990s, after the passage of Proposition 116, a coalition of coastal counties began working together to coordinate improvements to the Coastal Rail Corridor – or “Coast Route.” The Coast Rail Coordinating Council (CRCC) was formed and has been meeting quarterly to support intercity rail improvements between Los Angeles and .

The LOSSAN Board of Directors, as well as over 20 agencies along the corridor, has passed resolutions of support for the Coast Daylight service.

This service extension has been the highest priority for “emerging corridors” in the State Rail Plan since 2002 and was projected to start as early as 2003‐2004.

Next Steps and Milestones

Like the service operated in the 1940s, the Coast Daylight would travel from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles in about 10 hours once key improvements are constructed in the corridor. The current travel time would be about 11.5 hours if operated.

There are three key elements required to initiate this service:

1. Rail equipment (cars and locomotives)

Amtrak has agreed to provide equipment if the operating funds and railroad agreements are secured.

The arrival of new California‐owned equipment in 2015 or 2016 should relieve the current intercity rail car shortage, freeing up existing equipment.

The current operating plan calls for an extension of one of the two trips currently operated to San Luis Obispo (i.e., the extension of #761/#790). As a result, one additional train set is needed in order to initiate the service.

2

2. State operating funds (~$7.5 million/year)

Ridership and revenue modeling work completed by /Caltrans in May 2010 indicated that $7.5 million in new operating support funding would be needed annually (these costs are now being reworked in the State Rail Plan). The ridership increase would be 152,000 riders per year.

In past years, Caltrans has proposed operating funds for the Coast Daylight in its budget request. It has been denied by the Department of Finance, which cited the fact that there is no agreement by the railroad to allow access.

3. Access agreements from the railroads (Negotiations are underway)

The Coast Daylight will operate across railroads owned by three different agencies: Metrolink, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR), and Caltrain.

Rail capacity modeling has been used to identify specific projects needed. The proposed project list is fairly extensive, including Positive Train Control, siding extensions, and additional track capacity.

The CRCC is on a third iteration of Capacity Modeling work, funded using SLOCOG funds and administered by Caltrans under contract with Union Pacific.

The CRCC believes the modeling methodology is flawed for several reasons: 1) it assumes an unreasonably high level of freight traffic, 2) the results cannot be verified, and 3) there is no justification to require capital projects south of San Luis Obispo since no additional trains are proposed in that section of the corridor.

Union Pacific disagrees with the CRCC position.

Caltrans has hired an independent consultant to review the findings, and provide a recommendation. Once the projects are selected, a capital improvement cost can be identified, and access agreement secured.

Capital Funding

A total of $43 million is secured for the Coast Daylight: 1) the intercity rail portion of Proposition 1B identifies $25 million for “Coast Daylight,” and 2) the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes $18 million for siding(s) north of Carpinteria to San Luis Obispo.

Attachment: The Coast Daylight (informational brochure)

Key Staff Contact: Peter Rodgers, (805) 781‐5712, [email protected]

3 Attachment 1 Coast Rail Coordinating Council Proposed Daylight Schedule (CRCC) The proposed schedule of the Coast Daylight is shown The CRCC is a coalition of coastal county below, along with the current schedule of the Coast Star- transportation planning agencies organized to light. Service to stations in italics will begin when sta- improve passenger rail services. The primary focus tion facilities are completed. Connections to San Diego are also shown below. of the CRCC is to improve the frequency and speed of passenger trains on the Coast Route between San Coast Coast Coast Coast Location Francisco and Los Angeles. Starlight Daylight Daylight Starlight From Morning San Francisco Early Evening To Oakland Oakland Millbrae The CRCC is comprised of the agencies listed Palo Alto on the back of this pamphlet. Current Elected Mountain View Santa Clara Offi cials leading the CRCC include Dave Potter 10:07 San Jose 20:27 (Transportation Agency for Monterey County), John -- Gilroy -- -- Pajaro -- Shoals (San Luis Obispo Council of Governments), 11:48 Salinas 18:36 and Lupe Alvarez (Santa Barbara County Association -- Soledad -- -- King City -- of Governments). 13:38 Paso Robles 16:45 15:20 Mid-day San Luis Obispo Mid-day 15:43 -- Grover Beach -- California Rail Program -- Guadalupe -- 18:17 Santa Barbara 12:48 California’s forward looking passenger rail program 19:08 Oxnard 11:55 -- Camarillo -- is designed to provide travel alternatives and decrease -- Moorpark -- highway congestion. Californians have chosen rail 19:38 Simi Valley 11:23 -- Chatsworth -- travel in growing numbers. The Coast Daylight will be 20:05 Van Nuys 10:47 a very important new link in California’s rail corridors, -- Burbank Airport -- -- Glendale -- and will bring new riders to California’s passenger rail 21:00 Early Evening Los Angeles Morning 10:15 system. 22:10 Los Angeles 8:45 00:50 San Diego 6:10 All California Rail Corridor Ridership Note: Specifi c Coast Daylight times to be determined 5.0 Prepared for the 4.5 Coast Rail Coordinating Council 4.0 Transportation Agency for Monterey County 3.5 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 3.0 Ventura County Transportation Commission 2.5 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2.0 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Caltrans Rail Program and Amtrak 1.5

Annual train riders (millions) 1.0

0.5 For further information, please contact:

0.0 Coast Rail Coordinating Council 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1150 Osos Street, Suite 202 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates and Caltrans San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Note: Includes , Surfl iner and San Joaquin trains Tel: 805-781-5712 The Coast Daylight Study was funded by the State Planning and Partner- ship Program FY1999-2000 and local agency contributions. http://coastrailplan.slocog.org Caltrans Photo by Don Sims 4 What is Proposed? Begin daily operation of new state-sponsored Amtrak service along the Coast Route between downtown Los Angeles and downtown San Francisco. • Estimated annual ridership is 216,000 passengers. • Projected annual operating cost is $12 million. • Projected annual revenue (fi rst year) is $7 million. • Initial travel time is about 11 hours. (To be incrementally improved to 8 hours.) • Trains to depart at approximately 8:00 a.m., arrive at approximately 7:00 p.m. • Train will serve principal communities along the route (see map at left), with connections to Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, Surfl iner Corridor, Metrolink, and Amtrak long distance trains. • Estimated fares to be 5-10% less than the . (Up to about $60 San Francisco to Los Angeles and $40 San Francisco to San Luis Obispo.) • The Coast Daylight will offer food service. • Service intiation is subject to 1) acquisition of equipment, 2) negotiation with railroads, and 3) securing state operating funds. Why is it justifi ed? To close a gap in existing train services and increase statewide mobility. State supported Capitol Corridor trains reach south to San Jose, and Surfl iner trains go north to San Luis Obispo. Amtrak’s Coast Starlight train on the Coast Route is the only through service, and it operates at capacity during summer and holiday travel periods. At present, there is no intercity rail service to and from San Francisco. The Coast Route between Los Angeles and San Jose sees only one round trip per day. To serve travel demand between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The new Coast Daylight will directly serve cities in San Mateo County and downtown San Francisco (at 4th and Townsend Streets) for the fi rst time since 1971. It will expand intercity travel options along the Central Coast. To directly benefi t millions of Californians living in counties that will be served by the new train. To provide transportation alternatives. The Coast Daylight will provide an affordable, comfortable transportation alternative to limited and expensive air service and congested freeways. To enhance travel options for tourists to see and visit scenic Central Coast attractions. Citizens, local governments, and regional transportation agencies support the Coast Daylight. Caltrans has included the Coast Daylight in its Passenger Rail Program Report, and Amtrak has incorporated the service into its strategic plan for improving California’s rail corridors. What are the benefi ts? Increased travel choices for local, regional, and interregional travel. Rail transportation provides an alternative to highway and air travel. Point-to-point connections from downtown to downtown of the two premier cities in the state. Connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles along the scenic coastal route will serve business, family, vacation, and visitor travelers. Enhanced Goods Movement and economic development at stations along the route.

March 2007 5 LOSSAN JOINT POWERS BOARD AND CRCC POLICY COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING

August 30, 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3

ACTION REQUESTED: DISCUSSION

STATEWIDE CONNECTIVITY AND EMERGING CORRIDORS UNDER SB 1225 AND AB 1779

Introduction

Senate Bill 1225 (SB 1225) and Assembly Bill 1779 (AB 1779) call for a local joint powers authority (JPA) to oversee the state‐supported intercity passenger rail service in the Pacific Surfliner/LOSSAN and San Joaquin rail corridors, respectively. Both have progressed through both houses of the Legislature during the current session.

Caltrans staff currently performs several rail planning and capital activities that may not be directly related to administering one of these specific state‐supported rail corridors, including:

• Statewide equipment procurement • Planning and implementing the connecting motorcoach bus network • Special studies such as new intercity rail corridor feasibility studies, studies of options for delivery of intercity rail service, updates of the rail right‐of‐way inventory, and evaluations of abandoned railroad, etc. • Rail capital programming • Federal grantee and statewide liaison with the Federal Railroad Administration • State Rail Plan • Coordination with the High‐Speed Rail Authority

Of particular concern to the Coast Rail Coordinating Council is: • What will happen to state support for emerging corridors if SB 1225 and AB 1779 are implemented?

Emerging Corridors

The current State Rail Plan identifies the following six (6) “Potential New Services”:

• San Francisco to San Luis Obispo (and Los Angeles) via the Coast Route • Sacramento to Reno • Sacramento to Redding • Los Angeles to Indio (Coachella Valley) • San Francisco to Monterey • Los Angeles to Las Vegas

Currently Caltrans provides ½ Person‐Years staffing to facilitate the Coast Corridor and other emerging corridors.

6

Discussion

Current language included in SB 1225 under Section 2(2), states:

“The State has a continuing interest in the provision of cost‐effective intercity passenger rail services and has a responsibility to coordinate intercity passenger rail services statewide. Some state function needs to be sustained even if the responsibility for current operations on intercity rail passenger routes is transferred.”

The language in the bill indicates that LOSSAN recognizes Caltrans has a continuing interest in the intercity rail program that needs to be sustained and that certain functions will remain statewide interests and therefore should be managed by Caltrans.

Of concern to the CRCC is whether or not the state will continue to focus on emerging corridors if management for the two intercity corridors is transferred to local JPAs. Staff will be discussing this issue at the next LOSSAN Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and CRCC Technical Committee meetings. The LOSSAN Board of Directors and CRCC Policy Committee are asked to provide direction to staff for these discussions at this time.

Key Staff Contact: Peter Rodgers, (805) 781‐5712, [email protected]

7 LOSSAN JOINT POWERS BOARD AND CRCC POLICY COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING

August 30, 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4

ACTION REQUESTED: DISCUSSION

UPCOMING JOINT COORDINATION AND ADVOCACY OPPORTUNITIES

Introduction

Since 2004, the rail boards of directors representing the state’s three existing intercity passenger rail corridors and the state’s emerging corridor have coordinated advocacy efforts at both the state and national levels.

One of every five Amtrak passengers is riding the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, or San Joaquin service, which are the second‐, third‐, and fifth‐busiest passenger rail corridors for the Amtrak, respectively.

These corridors are represented by the LOSSAN Joint Powers Board, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, and the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee. The state’s next emerging corridor, the Coast Route, and specifically the Coast Rail Coordinating Council staff and leadership, also participate in these joint efforts.

Past efforts on the state and federal side include:

• Intercity Rail Days in Sacramento and Washington DC, including annual legislative visits. • Focused advocacy including state matching funds for new equipment, state operations funding, federal rail capital grant programs, and federal reauthorization. • Annual Rail Board Chairs and Vice Chairs Coordination Meetings. • Joint support letters for a variety of improvements and programs including rail title provisions in federal reauthorization, support for a California member on the Amtrak Board of Directors, Amtrak appropriations, and state funding for the Intercity Passenger Rail Program (IPR). • Assembly Joint Resolution 18 (2005), which provided bipartisan state support for Amtrak for the first time. • Joint Intercity Rail video, showcasing the success of the IPR program (this is available at http://www.capitolcorridor.org/about_ccjpa/)

8

Staff recommends that a focus in FY 2013 be:

1. The preservation of state operations and capital funds. In particular, ensuring adequate state operations funding for the IPR program in anticipation of new federal requirements under Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) taking effect in October 2013. Under PRIIA, states will now be required to fund 100 percent of the operations subsidy for intercity corridors of 750 miles or less. For California, this could mean an increase of as much as $28 million in additional funds for operations and capital annually. The latest estimates on the future of the Public Transportation Account (PTA), the only source of operations funds for the IPR program besides passenger fares, shows adequate funding. However, joint advocacy efforts will be critical in terms of including an appropriation for these funds in the annual state budget.

2. Continued general education on the intercity rail program and particularly in light of Senate Bill 1225 and Assembly Bill 1779, which would authorize local management of the Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin corridors. For example, it would be important to stress a continued state role in the IPR program.

Staff will provide some specific time frames and topics for joint coordination for the Boards’ discussion at the meeting.

Key Staff Contact: Linda Culp, (619) 699‐6957, [email protected]

9