MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) The LOSSAN TAC may take action on any item appearing on this agenda.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
10 a.m. to 12 noon
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) William Mulholland Conference Room - 15th floor One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA
Staff Contact: Danny Veeh (619) 699-7317 [email protected]
AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS
• LOSSAN LEGISLATION UPDATE
• METROLINK CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
• AMTRAK CALIFORNIA THRUWAY BUS PROGRAM
To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
MEETING LOCATION
The main location for this meeting is at Metro in Los Angeles, CA. Several LOSSAN member agencies will be attending this meeting via teleconference from the following locations:
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, 260 North San Antonio Road, Suite B, Santa Barbara, CA
Amtrak, 530 Water Street, Oakland, CA
Caltrans Division of Rail, 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA
RCTC, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA
The public is welcome to attend and testify at any of the LOSSAN member agency locations listed above, all of which are accessible to the public. For more information, please contact LOSSAN staff at (619) 699-7317 or e-mail [email protected] for specific meeting room locations at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Otherwise, conference calling is available.
2 Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Thursday, May 10, 2012
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
2. PUBLIC COMMENT/COMMUNICATIONS
Speakers are limited to three minutes each.
+3. APRIL 5, 2012, TAC MEETING MINUTES (Danny Veeh, SANDAG) APPROVE
The LOSSAN TAC is asked to approve the minutes from the LOSSAN TAC’s last meeting. Please see the attachment.
4. LOSSAN LEGISLATION UPDATE DISCUSSION
On February 23, 2012 Senator Alex Padilla introduced Senate Bill 1225 (SB 1225) as a spot bill for authorizing legislation on the possible local authority for intercity service. On March 30, 2012, the Board of Directors directed staff to work with the author to amend SB 1225 with legislative language that has been agreed to by LOSSAN member agency legislative staff and CEOs. On April 24, 2012, SB 1225 passed out of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee by a vote of 9-0. The bill will now move to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
+5. METROLINK CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY INFORMATION (Henning Eichler, SCRRA)
Metrolink staff will summarize the findings of a recent Metrolink customer satisfaction survey.
+6. AMTRAK CALIFORNIA THRUWAY BUS PROGRAM INFORMATION (Rick Peterson, Amtrak)
Amtrak Thruway bus routes were designed exclusively for train passengers by enabling them to connect to Amtrak California trains from more than 175 destinations throughout California and Nevada. Amtrak Thruway buses also allow San Joaquin passengers to connect to the Pacific Surfliner and other Amtrak long distance trains in Los Angeles. Amtrak staff will provide an overview presentation on the Amtrak Thruway bus program.
3
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+7. NATIONAL TRAIN DAY AND CORRIDOR MARKETING UPDATE INFORMATION (Brian Hart and Don Wong, Amtrak)
May 12, 2012, is the 5th annual National Train Day. Amtrak will be hosting events in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles. Amtrak staff will provide an update on the event in Los Angeles as well as other ongoing marketing activities.
8. CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN AND SERVICE DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION PLAN UPDATE (Nathan Smith, Caltrans)
Caltrans Division of Rail prepares the California State Rail Plan every two years as an examination of passenger and freight rail transportation in the state of California. Caltrans will discuss the schedule, process, and stakeholder involvement for the next update to the California State Rail Plan and Service Development Plans (SDP).
9. LOSSAN NORTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INFORMATION REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) (Lea Simpson, Caltrans)
The Caltrans Division of Rail is working collaboratively with Caltrans District 5 to prepare a program-level environmental document. Project scoping meetings were held in January and the draft document is expected to be released in October. The Federal Railroad Administration requires rail corridors to have a programmatic EIR/EIS and a SDP in order to be eligible to receive federal funding for capital projects.
10. LOSSAN JOINT TIMETABLE (Danny Veeh, SANDAG) DISCUSSION
The LOSSAN TAC has reviewed the draft LOSSAN corridorwide joint timetable that combines the schedules of Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER trains. NCTD staff has taken the lead of the design of the joint timetable and is now finalizing the documents. Staff will discuss the next steps to implement the joint timetable.
+11. CORRIDOR TRENDS (Danny Veeh, SANDAG) DISCUSSION
The latest corridor statistics, including ridership and revenue statistics and customer satisfaction indices, are attached.
4
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+12. REVIEW MAY 21, 2012, DRAFT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA REVIEW/COMMENT (Linda Culp, SANDAG)
The LOSSAN TAC will review the draft agenda for the LOSSAN Board of Directors’ May 21, 2012, meeting.
13. LOSSAN TAC MEMBER UPDATES INFORMATION
14. NEXT MEETING APPROVE
The next LOSSAN TAC meeting is scheduled for June 7, 2012, at 10 a.m. via conference call. The TAC consider alternative dates for the currently scheduled July 5, 2012, LOSSAN TAC meeting.
+ next to an item indicates an attachment
5 Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 10, 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3
ACTION REQUESTED: APPROVE
APRIL 5, 2012, MEETING MINUTES File Number 3400600
The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency TAC met on April 5, 2012, in Los Angeles. In attendance were:
Linda Bohlinger, HNTB Via Teleconference Jay Fountain, Amtrak Linda Culp, SANDAG Jay Fuhrman, Metro Gabriela Fernandez, SANDAG Matt Gleason, SCAG Peter Gariepy, Amtrak Michael Litschi, OCTA Jonathan Hutchison, Amtrak Jose Martinez, CHSRA Manny Leon, OCTA Wayne Penn, Amtrak Alan Miller, Caltrans Pete Rodgers, SLOCOG Sheldon Peterson, RCTC Scott Spaulding, SBCAG Lea Simpson, Caltrans Danny Veeh, SANDAG Mary Travis, VCTC Joe Valdez, Caltrans
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Danny Veeh (SANDAG) welcomed all members and began the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT/COMMUNICATIONS
There were no public comments.
MEETING MINUTES OF March 8, 2012
The March 8, 2012, TAC meeting minutes were approved.
LOSSAN CORRIDORWIDE STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOLLOW-UP FROM BOARD DISCUSSION/NEXT STEPS
Linda Bohlinger (HNTB) noted that on March 30, 2012, the LOSSAN Board of Directors approved both the LOSSAN legislation language and the LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan report, as final with the exception of the prioritized capital improvement list. The final publication and printing of the report will wait until the final prioritized capital improvement list is approved
6 by the board. Ms. Bohlinger noted that they received a total of 116 comments and thanked everyone who participated in the review process.
CORRIDORWIDE PRIORITIZED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Linda Culp (SANDAG) noted as mentioned previously a prioritized capital improvement list for the entire corridor will be included in the final Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan report. Currently, LOSSAN member agencies prioritize projects in their particular jurisdiction. For this effort, a corridorwide evaluation is conducted with the intent to use this information for future funding opportunities both at the state and federal levels. A preliminary evaluation has been completed, using both quantitative analysis from the corridorwide operations modeling work on both the 2014 and 2030 service plans and qualitative analysis based on input from member agency staff.
Ms. Culp reviewed the agenda report summarizing the quantitative, qualitative, and informational criteria. The quantitative rail operations criteria were applied to specific corridor segments and not to individual projects, which corresponded to segments of the corridor planned to have specific increases in services. Therefore, all projects in a given corridor segment will receive the same ranking. Also, it is important to look at the geographic equity between segments, overall project costs, funding source and availability, and the amount of additional capacity.
Mary Travis (VCTC) noted that funding source is an important distinction to make because no one wants to see other corridor projects set aside if funding is available.
Several TAC members expressed confusion over the comparison between rank and score. Ms. Culp noted that they will revise the tables to avoid confusion.
Ms. Travis requested that the rankings be changed to show that the Leesdale siding and East Ventura projects have no community opposition. Scott Spaulding (SBCAG) noted that the Ortega Siding ranking should be updated since it is in the preliminary engineering/environmental stage.
Bob Huddy (public comment) asked for clarification on the assumptions for the Burbank to Union Station segment train moves to the Metrolink yard, the level of service on the Antelope Valley Line, and the blended operations for high-speed rail. Ms. Bohlinger noted that HNTB is currently doing the modeling for the Antelope Valley Line and high-speed rail. Ms. Culp noted that the service assumptions were all agreed upon by all regional agencies and operators last fall. This LOSSAN modeling effort only included conventional rail only. The high-speed rail options will be conducted by the California High Speed Rail Authority.
Matt Gleason (SCAG) commented on the table that indicates negative time improvements and suggested adding a footnote that explains negative time due to dispatching issue.
Mr. Spaulding suggested adding a legend to the preliminary corridorwide project prioritization table that explains point scores.
Mr. Rodgers suggested to total all projects and to show corridorwide ranking.
7 Ms. Culp noted these changes will be made before the LOSSAN Board of Directors meeting on April 16, 2012. A quick conference call will be held to review the board packet before it is mailed out.
LOSSAN LEGISLATION UPDATE
Ms. Culp provided a brief update on the LOSSAN legislation and noted that Senator Alex Padilla introduced Senate Bill 1225 (SB 1225) as a spot bill for authorizing legislation on the possible local authority for intercity service. The LOSSAN Board of Directors directed staff to work with Senator Padilla to amend SB 1225 with legislative language that has been agreed to by the board on March 30, 2012. The next step in the legislative process is a legislative hearing at the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. The LOSSAN legislative group is discussing potential speakers at the hearing.
On a related effort, the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee staff asked LOSSAN to write a letter in support of their similar legislation Assembly Bill 1779 (AB 1779). Previously, several San Joaquin agencies have provided support letters for SB 1225. The board will consider support AB 1779 at the April 16, 2012, meeting.
LOSSAN JOINT TIMETABLE
Mr. Veeh provided an update on the proposed LOSSAN joint timetable that combines the schedules of Amtrak, Metrolink, and COASTER trains. NCTD marketing staff, Victoria Giebel, has completed the design of a preliminary draft joint timetable. The LOSSAN marketing group has discussed three options for distributing the joint timetable including a “z-fold” pocket guide, an electronic version, and station posters.
Mr. Spaulding thanked staff for a great job on the joint timetable and suggested pursuing all three options. Perhaps each county can be responsible for maintaining the station posters and Mr. Spaulding suggested that a smart phone application would be beneficial to passengers.
Jonathan Hutchison (Amtrak) noted that the station poster option should be part of a larger effort of improvements as identified in the LOSSAN Station Information Assessment study. We can run the risk of over cluttering station signage. Mr. Hutchison also suggested that we move away from printed timetables especially because schedule changes occur often and it is difficult keep old printed schedules from general circulation.
Jay Fountain (Amtrak) favored the station poster idea however agencies must not rely on the individual counties and suggests that the one entity be responsible to ensure consistency and accuracy across the corridor. Mr. Litchi noted the schedule should be a supplemental timetable a not a replacement.
Michael Litchi (OCTA) noted there needs to be consistency at each station since each operator has their own information standards. Alan Miller (Caltrans) suggested developing a standard timetable that is acceptable for all stations.
8 Matt Gleason (SCAG) supports the printed timetable schedule idea and notes that the Surfliner demographic includes college students, business travelers, and seniors. Typically seniors will not have access to mobile applications.
Jay Fuhrman (Metro) noted it is important to look at the different types of costs and noted that Metrolink has a mobile application and there is a potential coordinate with other agencies.
TAC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRIDOR TRENDS
Mr. Veeh noted that the LOSSAN TAC Subcommittee on Corridor Trends has not met since the last TAC meeting and that Caltrans and Amtrak are currently collecting more data for further review. A subcommittee meeting will be scheduled once the next round of data is collected.
Mr. Miller suggested considering the impacts to ridership and revenue due to the January 9, 2012, schedule changes only after the LOSSAN north track work is completed. The disruption from track work has significantly impacted ridership during this time.
APRIL 2, 2012, LOSSAN CORRIDOR SCHEDULE CHANGE UPDATE
Mr. Miller provided an update on the recent schedule changes between Metrolink, COASTER, and Amtrak that went into effect on April 2, 2012. There were several minor changes to departure times with the goal of improving train meets and overall on-time performance. Also there are three morning and three afternoon trains serving Old Town in both directions. Ms. Culp questioned why there is an increase of train service at Old Town. Mr. Miller noted that the increase in service at Old Town is sort of an experiment that will be in an evaluation phase to see if passengers north of Downtown San Diego will use the station due to parking availability and the fact that Old Town is a regional transit hub. Improved signage and a QuickTrack machine will be installed within 90 days. Mr. Miller noted that minor schedule changes will occur in July.
Mr. Veeh also distributed a hand out on the Metrolink schedule change that was provided by Ed Pederson at Metrolink.
CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN UPDATE
Lea Simpson (Caltrans) noted that Caltrans has been moving forward on the draft state rail plan and are working with the California High Speed Rail Authority on the blended concept. The modeling of blended system was completed by AECOM with a 2025 horizon year. Caltrans is also working with an advisory committee that has several members from rail agencies across the state including LOSSAN. Mr. Gleason questioned why the forecast model years are different for LOSSAN north and LOSSAN south. Ms. Travis requested that the Santa Paula branch line is included in the plan.
LOSSAN NORTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) AND LOSSAN NORTH SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) UPDATE
Ms. Simpson provided an update explaining that AECOM is developing all three SDPs which should be completed in the spring of 2013. The SDPs are expected to be consistent with the LOSSAN Strategic Business Plan; however, modeling has not yet been completed. Also, ridership and revenue modeling will been taken from the Strategic Implementation Plan. The SDPs will be used as inputs
9 into the State Rail Plan; however, it is still uncertain on how timing will work. The state rail plan project manager, Nathan Smith, will be asked to participate at the next TAC meeting on May 10, 2012.
Joe Valdez (Caltrans) discussed that Union Pacific has expressed reluctance to the modeling effort but things are going well with the LOSSAN north EIR/EIS.
REVIEW APRIL 16, 2012, DRAFT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA
Ms. Culp noted the Rail 2 Rail item will not be included in the April Board agenda.
LOSSAN TAC MEMBER UPDATES
Mr. Fuhrman confirmed that the Expo Line will be opening on April 28, 2012.
NEXT MEETING The next LOSSAN TAC meeting is scheduled for May 10, 2012, at 10 a.m., at Metro in Los Angeles.
Key Staff Contact: Danny Veeh, (619) 699-7317, [email protected]
10 Agenda Item #5 LOSSAN TAC May 10, 2012
Quarterly Customer Satisfaction Survey
FY12 Q2 Summary of Findings
11 Methodology
• Surveys were distributed between October and December 2011 onboard selected Metrolink trains. The survey was also made available online through various social media channels. • A total of 842 surveys were received (785 onboard, 53 online). Survey responses received online were more likely to be from non-commuters.
• The onboard survey was implemented using a scientific sampling plan which resulted in a margin of error of 3.5% (95% confidence) at the system level. The margin of error is higher for individual lines or sub-populations. • All surveys were weighted proportionally to correspond to actual ridership on each line. Onboard surveys were also weighted using a response factor based on train ridership.
2 12 Key Findings
• There were more highly satisfied riders in 2011 than in 2010 • Riders expressed their strongest positive sentiment for – Value of Metrolink rider compared to driving – Availability of parking at station – Helpfulness and courtesy of conductors • Declines in performance were reported for – Comfort onboard the trains – Ease of using Ticket Vending Machine • Key Drivers of customer satisfaction are – On-time performance – Onboard comfort – Enforcement of rules of conduct
• Numerous comments were submitted regarding the quiet cars, onboard comfort, and schedule requests.
3 13
Ticket Type and Trip Purpose
• Monthly Passes continue to account for most trips taken. Their proportion of all trips taken has remained unchanged since 2000. • Since the 7-Day Pass was introduction in July 2011 it has become very popular with new riders. • Commute trips account for 86% of all weekday trips on Metrolink.
4 14 Tenure and Awareness
• The majority (60%) of Metrolink riders have been taking Metrolink for more than 2 years. 25% of riders have started taking Metrolink within the last year. • The overwhelming majority of riders first learned about Metrolink through word-of-mouth and seeing the train or station.
5 15 More highly satisfied riders
• There has been an increase in overall customer satisfaction with Metrolink between May 2010 and December 2011. • It reflects an increase in the proportion of riders who gave Metrolink their highest satisfaction rating: “Excellent” ratings increased from 17% to 25%.
6 16 Satisfaction increased for most attributes
ATTRIBUTE SATISFACTION 2010 2011 change Availability of seating on train 3.6 3.9 0.3 Availability of parking at station 3.9 4.1 0.2 Helpfulness and Courtesy of METROLINK staff at LA Union Station 3.7 3.9 0.2 How would you rate METROLINK overall? 3.9 4.1 0.2 Freedom from nuisance behavior from other riders 3.5 3.6 0.2 Train arriving at my destination on time 3.6 3.8 0.2 Ease of obtaining information at METROLINKtrains.com 3.7 3.8 0.2 Enforcement against fare evasion 3.4 3.5 0.2 Helpfulness and Courtesy of METROLINK conductors 4.0 4.2 0.2 Enforcement of Rules of Conduct among riders 3.4 3.6 0.1 Value of a METROLINK ride compared to driving 4.1 4.2 0.1 Safe operation of trains 4.0 4.1 0.1 Security of your car while parked at station 3.7 3.8 0.1 Equipment on train free of defects 3.9 3.9 0.1 Ease of obtaining train delay information on Twitter 3.5 3.5 0.0 Cleanliness of train interior 3.9 3.9 0.0 Feeling secure from crime while riding train 4.1 4.1 0.0 Availability of connecting transit buses at station 3.7 3.7 0.0 Ease of obtaining train delay information by calling 1-800-371-LINK 3.3 3.3 0.0 Feeling secure from crime while at station 3.9 3.9 (0.0) Ease of using ticket vending machine 4.0 3.8 (0.2) Comfort onboard the train 3.9 3.7 (0.2)
1=Very Poor 2=Poor 3=Fair 4=Good 5=Excellent
7 17 Metrolink value receives strongest positive rating
8 18 Satisfaction – Operations
“Too many delays!! Stuck on track, switching trains, pushing breakdowns, weekly basis!”
“Riverside line always feels safe, although the San Bernardino line seems creepy late at night!” “Haven't had my ticket checked in “Never on time, not over a month and I enough seats." ride everyday M-F."
“Please be more punctual in the morning! If I miss my bus to Century City, it costs me an extra 1/2 to an hour of time!”
“I love the "quiet car" concept but it needs enforcement!!”
“Please be more punctual in the morning! If I miss my bus to 1=Very Poor 2=Poor 3=Fair 4=Good 5=Excellent Century City, it costs me an extra 1/2 to an hour of time!”
9 19 Satisfaction – Facilities / Equipment
“The new cars are extremely uncomfortable. I avoid them whenever I can.”
“Parking lots not safe. Theft!”
“My car has been vandalized in Rialto and Fontana!”
“It would be wonderful if Metrolink provided free wi-fi on board.”
“Deal with smell of bathrooms!”
“Bike car not used. Waste of money and 1=Very Poor 2=Poor 3=Fair 4=Good 5=Excellent seats. Put quiet car people in bike car.”
10 20 Satisfaction - Customer Service
“I really enjoy my weekly ride, much better than driving :)”
"Hate them, get rid of them. Riders on quiet car are a bunch of rude and spoiled brats."
“If someone sneezes loudly they get dirty looks.”
“I ride the 7:47 train from via and Jesse has been nothing short of perfect.”
“The ticket machine will sometimes not accept a credit card.”
“Thank you for having this service - I am very pleased and 1=Very Poor 2=Poor 3=Fair 4=Good 5=Excellent happy with the Metrolink and the courtesy and kindness of the staff”
11 21 Satisfaction - Communications
“It would be nice to have more information about train delays.”
“Put a GPS on the train so we can see where it is real time on our phone.”
“My company blocks twitter. A non-social media option would be helpful.”
“Update twitter more often, especially when delayed.”
“Quicker response for delay information while on platform.” 1=Very Poor 2=Poor 3=Fair 4=Good 5=Excellent
12 22 KEY DRIVER ANALYSIS
KEY DRIVERS OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION EXPECTATIONS Ontime Performance
Cleanliness Onboard Security Mechanical Reliability
Staff at LAUS Onboard Comfort Rules Enforcement
Operational Safety
Parking SecurityTVM Call Center Crowding Conductors Twitter Website Convenient Schedules COATs Station Signage Station Crime
IMPORTANCE + IMPORTANCE Other Riders
Fare Enforcement Quiet Cars - Onboard printed information Onboard Delay Information Parking Availability
Value POTENTIAL VULNERABILITIES - PERFORMANCE + POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES
13 23 Agenda Item #6 LOSSAN TOC May 10, 2012
Amtrak Thruway Services LOSSAN TAC Meeting Los Angeles, CA
May 10, 2012
Amtrak Thruway Services
1 in 22 national train riders
1 in 6 California train riders
What do these Amtrak passengers experience every day?
24 Amtrak Thruway Services
Martinez Station
Amtrak Thruway Services
An Amtrak Intermodal Rail and Bus Trip
25 Amtrak Thruway Services
What’s a Thruway?
• Amtrak’s market name for an integrated bus and rail connection
• Offers Amtrak customers a WAY to travel THRU between cities on two different forms of transportation
• Provides customers convenient access to and from cities without Amtrak rail service
• It may add extra frequencies in a rail corridor
• Fills empty train seats with customers who would not normally ride without connecting transportation
• Highly developed by Caltrans to build corridor ridership
Amtrak Thruway Services Key Links in a National Transportation System
• It carried over 1.5 million people in FY11
• It is the fourth-busiest service on the Amtrak system, after the Northeast, Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridors
• Amtrak partners with states, agencies and private carriers to create a seamless, coordinated transportation network which brings customers to/from Amtrak trains
• In California, the Division of Rail Bus Coordinator is the primary source of initiatives and schedules
26 Amtrak Thruway Services
Amtrak Thruway Services A Snapshot
System-wide Amtrak Thruway Services • 55 Carriers • 85 Routes • 700+ Schedules
Amtrak-Greyhound Partnership • 15 Routes • 40+ Daily Schedules
Amtrak California (Amtrak-branded) • 14 Contractors • 21 Routes • 275 Daily Schedules (198 Actively Managed by Amtrak)
27 Amtrak Thruway Services Pacific Surfliner Connections – 5+% of Riders
Route 17: Santa Barbara–San Luis Obispo–Oakland (PSL) • 11 Schedules • 107,000 annual riders
Route 4: Los Angeles – Santa Barbara (PSL) • 2 Schedules • 9,000 annual riders
Route 39: Fullerton – Palm Springs - Coachella Valley (PSL) • 4 Schedules • 10,000 estimated annual riders (started 12/11)
Route 1: Los Angeles – Bakersfield (San Joaquin) • 14 Schedules • 212,000 annual riders (not included in PSL pct.)
Amtrak Thruway Services
Amtrak California
28 Amtrak Thruway Services Thruway Concept
Features for Market Success • One-stop shopping is critical • The Amtrak brand has meaning • Coordinated schedules and fares • Easy ticketing (eTickets 2012) • Guaranteed connections at Amtrak stations • ADA accessible service • 24/7 active system management (A hold policy, misconnection plan and communication)
Amtrak Thruway Services Thruway Concept
Amtrak markets and sells Thruway services through the same media as trains:
• www.Amtrak.com • Amtrak Call Centers (800-USA-RAIL) • “Julie” (voice response unit) • Amtrak stations • Travel agencies • eTicketing (coming in late Summer 2012)
“The Aunt Martha Rule” Is the service reliable? Can you confidently send your Aunt Martha on this trip?
29 Amtrak Thruway Services
Bakersfield Station
Amtrak Thruway Services FY12 California Operations Plan
• Amtrak, Caltrans and the CCJPA jointly set schedules, specifications and service standards
• California standards for new buses: • Intercity coaches with restrooms • WiFi/110v plugs • 2-4 tables in seating groups • More legroom • Seatbelts • CARB Compliant diesel engines
30 Amtrak Thruway Services FY12 California Operations Plan
Caltrans and CCJPA contract with Amtrak to provide Thruway services
Amtrak Procurement contracts competitively
Amtrak contracts with charter operators, transit agencies or partners with independent intercity operators
Contractors/Carriers provide industry standard equipment, state/federal certification, maintenance, training, drivers and daily transportation
Amtrak Bus Operations is responsible for the delivery of service and contract compliance
Amtrak Thruway Services FY12 California Operations Plan
• 12 Amtrak staff manages state bus services 24/7
• Emphasize safety with vendors and their drivers • One Door Policy for loading and unloading • Safety briefings on the bus • Bus clerks support safe operations/compliance
• Customer Service Focus • Drivers trained on Amtrak procedures • Emphasis on OTP and ADA boarding • Standardized Amtrak procedures • Professional announcements on the bus
• Manage seat inventory for ridership growth
31 Amtrak Thruway Services
A well-connected system provides statewide mobility options
The health of bus and train routes are tied together
Quality service, close guaranteed connections, system marketing, one-stop sales source, mutually build ridership
Thank you for riding Amtrak Thruway Service!
Amtrak Thruway Services
32 Agenda Item #7 LOSSAN TAC, May 10, 2012
33 5th Annual NTD • 35+ Exhibitors and Displays • Amtrak Kids Depot Featuring “See More on a Train” with Dora the Explorer • Live entertainment: The All-American Boys Chorus, high-energy children’s musician Aaron Nigel Smith and Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey circus clowns • Equipment displays and tours featuring Amtrak, Amtrak California, Amtrak CA Thruway Bus, Metrolink equipment, and 10+ private railroad cars and locomotives • Asian Pacific Heritage Month bronze sculpture dedication • Model train display • Culinary Demonstration prepared by Chef Bob Rosar 34
35 National Train Day Exhibitors
1. American Passenger Rail Heritage Foundation 16. Metrolink 2. Anaheim/Orange County VCB 17. National Park Service 3. Automobile Club of Southern California 18. New York Life Insurance 4. Broadway L.A. / Pantages Theatre 19. Pacific Railroad Society, Inc 5. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen 20. Palm Springs Desert Resort Communities CVA 6. California High Speed Rail Authority 21. Rail Europe 7. California Operation Lifesaver 22. Rail Passenger Association of California (RailPAC) 8. California Science Center 23. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System 9. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey 24. San Luis Obispo Car Free 10. Fillmore & Western Railway Co. 25. Santa Barbara Car Free / APCD 11. Flagstaff Convention & Visitors Bureau 26. Southern California Transit Advocates 12. Grand Canyon Railway 27. The Transit Coalition 13. Grover Beach, California 28. Train Riders Association of California (TRAC) 14. Los Angeles Tourism & Convention Board 29. Central Coast Railway Club 15. Metro 30. Union Pacific Railroad
36 37 38 39 40 Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 10, 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 11
ACTION REQUESTED: DISCUSSION
CORRIDOR TRENDS File Number 3400600
Introduction
This report includes statistics that measure ridership, revenue, on time performance (OTP), and Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for the passenger rail services on the LOSSAN Corridor, including the Pacific Surfliner, Coast Starlight, Metrolink, and COASTER. The Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, and Amtrak overall figures are included for comparison purposes.
Surfliner Express
Amtrak and Caltrans launched the Pacific Surfliner Express Service on February 15, 2011, converting Train 565 between San Diego and Los Angeles to an express train with intermediate stops at Solana Beach, Oceanside, Irvine, and Anaheim.
In March 2012, Surfliner Express ridership remained low for the third consecutive month with an average of 178 passengers per train which is well below the 12 month average of 246. This represents a 26.9 percent drop in ridership compared to March 2011. March OTP was down to 72.7 percent which was lower than the overall Surfliner average.
Surfliner Express Average Daily Ridership & OTP 350 100.0%
300 80.0% 250
Ridership 60.0% 200 OTP Daily 150 40.0% 100 Ridership 20.0% Average 50 OTP 0 0.0% Jul Jan Jun Oct Apr Feb Sep Feb Dec Aug Nov Mar Mar May
41 Ridership
When compared to the previous year, the Pacific Surfliner had five consecutive months of declining ridership between October 2011 and February 2012, but March 2012 reverses this trend with a 1.6 percent increase in ridership. As mentioned in previous reports, the drop in ridership was caused by an extraordinary amount of track work and service disruptions along the corridor, the elimination of off-peak fares, and a slight increase in mechanical delays.
All Amtrak California and commuter trains have had positive gains in ridership. The Coast Starlight ridership has improved for six consecutive months with an increase of 17.1 percent. The Capital Corridor has now experienced 23 consecutive months of increased ridership with a 2.9 percent gain in March, which resulted in the best March performance in the history of the service. The San Joaquin experienced positive ridership growth in 28 of the past 29 months, including a 15.9 percent increase in March. Nationwide Amtrak ridership had a positive growth in ridership with a 5.9 percent increase in March 2012.
For the commuter rail services on the LOSSAN corridor, the COASTER has now experienced more than full year of substantial double digit increases in ridership including a 14.1 percent increase in March 2012 over March 2011. Much of the increase in ridership was attributed to the lowered COASTER fares in January 2011, but ridership continues to increase compared to last year. The February Metrolink ridership was up 3.6 percent. Metrolink has not had a drop in ridership since April 2011. The surge in Metrolink ridership over the past few months can be attributed to the new services on the Orange County Line and the Inland Empire/Orange County Line, new express service on the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Line, as well as the initiation of special weekend fares.
Change In Passenger Rail Ridership
Pacific Capitol Coast Amtrak Surfliner Corridor San Joaquin Starlight Nationwide Metrolink COASTER 35% 30%
Year 25% 20%
Previous 15% 10% From 5% 0% Change ‐5% ‐10%
Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012
42
Monthly Ridership of Corridor Passenger Rail Service Previous 12 Months 35%
Year 25%
Previous 15% From 5% Change ‐5%
‐15% 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jul Jan Jun Oct Apr Sep Feb ‐ Dec Aug ‐ Nov Mar ‐ May
Pacific Surfliner Coast Starlight Metrolink COASTER
Monthly Statewide Intercity Passenger Ridership 350
300
250
200
Thousands 150
100
50
0 11 10 11 09 10 08 09 11 12 10 11 09 10 08 09
Jul Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Jan Jan Oct Oct Oct Oct Apr Apr Apr Pacific Surfliner San Joaquins Capitol Corridor
43 Revenue
Despite the downward trend in ridership from October to February, the Pacific Surfliner has maintained positive increases in revenue each month since December 2009. In March, with the increase in ridership, the Surfliner achieved a 22.3 percent increase compared to March last year. This big increase in revenue is most likely the result of a number of factors which are listed below.
1) The elimination of off-peak fares. 2) The 2 percent price increase in June 2011 that is in addition to the elimination of off-peak fares. 3) Trip lengths have increased 7 percent year-over-year so each ticket by city pair had a higher value as reported by Amtrak. 4) Increased demand due to increased gasoline prices year-over-year. 5) The benefits that the intercity rail model predicted in instituting the 154-train schedule, may be showing up in the ridership/revenue numbers in March now that the massive track work project has calmed.
Revenue on the Capitol Corridor was up 13.4 percent in March while the San Joaquin was up 18.1 percent. The Coast Starlight recorded an increase in revenue with a 12.2 percent gain. Nationwide Amtrak continued to have growth in revenue with a 6.2 percent increase. Amtrak has not had a monthly downturn in revenue since November 2009.
Change In Intercity Passenger Revenue
Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquin Coast Starlight Nationwide 25%
20% Year
15% Previous 10% From 5%
Change 0%
‐5%
Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012
44 OTP
The Pacific Surfliner OTP has not been above 80 percent since May 2011, including OTP in March 2012 of 77.9 percent. LOSSAN south had 78.1 percent OTP which is slightly better than LOSSAN north with 74.8 percent OTP. The Coast Starlight OTP was down to 79.0 percent. Many of the problems with OTP are related to the ongoing track work and corresponding slow orders and the heavy train traffic throughout the corridor especially the tie replacement program in LOSSAN north. The January 9, 2012, schedule change was thought to resolve some common conflicts of train interference but the construction along the corridor has not yet allowed the effects of the new schedule to be realized. There was also a schedule change in April that built on the January schedule change by adjusting a few train schedules by a few minutes to allow improved train flow. More time is needed to measure the true benefit of the schedule change.
The COASTER OTP was nearly the same as last month at 94.1 percent in March. For the third consecutive month, Metrolink achieved the best OTP in the corridor with 95.7 percent for all lines. The Ventura County Line OTP was 98.6 percent in March while the Orange County Line was at 94.7 percent.
On‐Time Performance of LOSSAN North and LOSSAN South
100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% 55.0% 50.0% 11 12 11 11 11 12 11 12 11 11 11 11
Jul Jan Jun Oct Apr Feb Sep Dec Aug Nov Mar May
Surfliner North Surfliner South Ventura County Line Orange County Line
CSI
The Pacific Surfliner showed maintained a high overall CSI with average score of 90 for February 2012. The Coast Starlight average CSI was low at 86. The Capitol Corridor dropped down from an all-time high average score of 95 in January to 89 in February. The San Joaquins received a 92. The nationwide Amtrak average was 88. The March CSI will not be available until the next meeting. Attachment 1 is the Pacific Surfliner CSI summary sheet for February 2012.
45
Amtrak Overall Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
Surfliner Coast Starlight Capitol Corridor San Joaquins All Amtrak 100
95 Score 90 Average 85 CSI
80
75
Sep‐11 Oct‐11 Nov‐11 Dec‐11 Jan‐12 Feb‐12
Attachments: 1. Pacific Surfliner CSI Summary Sheet – February 2012
46 Attachment 1 Pacific Surfliner FY12 Customer Satisfaction Scores (with change vs year ago)
February 2012 3 Month Average Fiscal Year-to-Date FY12 Goal*: 89% % Very % Very % Very % Very % Very % Very FY11 Year-End Score*: 86% Satisfied Dissatisfied** Average Satisfied Dissatisfied** Average Satisfied Dissatisfied** Average (80, 90, 100) (0, 10, 20) Score (80, 90, 100) (0, 10, 20) Score (80, 90, 100) (0, 10, 20) Score CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg.
Overall CSI 88% 0 1% -1 90 0 87% -1 1% -1 89 0 84% -2 2% 0 88 -1
Value of Amtrak Service for Price Paid 84% +4 2% 0 87 0 83% 0 3% +1 86 0 81% -1 4% +2 85 -1
Trip Info Prior to Boarding Train 98% +9 1% 0 94 +1 91% +2 3% 0 91 0 89% +1 3% +1 90 -1
Comfort of Seat 89% +6 1% 0 89 +2 86% +1 1% 0 89 +1 85% +2 2% +1 87 0 Smooth/Comfortable Ride 89% -1 0% 0 91 0 88% 0 0% 0 90 -1 87% +1 1% 0 89 0 Air Temperature 83% -5 1% 0 88 -1 86% -2 1% 0 89 0 85% 0 2% +1 88 0
Overall Cleanliness of Train 84% +2 0% -2 89 +3 82% +1 1% 0 87 +1 83% +3 1% 0 86 0 Cleanliness of Train Windows 65% 0 4% -1 78 0 64% +4 5% 0 77 +2 63% +4 5% -1 77 +2 Restroom Cleanliness 58% -13 3% -1 74 -5 63% -3 4% +1 76 -1 63% -1 5% +2 76 -1 Restroom Odor 67% -1 9% +4 76 -1 64% -2 8% +2 75 0 62% -1 9% +3 74 -1
Info Given on Services/Safety 77% +3 1% -1 86 +5 72% -3 3% -1 83 +2 72% -1 3% 0 82 +1 Info Given on Problems/Delays 81% +1 5% +3 84 -3 80% 0 4% 0 85 0 79% -1 4% +1 85 0 Clarity of Announcements 74% -4 2% 0 82 -1 73% 0 5% 0 81 0 74% +3 4% 0 82 +1
On-Time Performance 80% -6 7% +3 84 -4 81% -4 4% 0 86 -1 80% -3 5% +2 85 -2
Personal Security on the Train 90% 0% 92 90% 0% 92 90% 0% 92
Friendliness/Helpfulness of Train Conductors 87% +1 1% -1 91 +2 86% +2 2% -1 89 +1 86% +3 2% -1 89 +1
Availability of Food in Café Car 72% +3 4% +4 81 -1 72% 0 4% +1 79 -2 67% -1 4% +1 78 -1 Friendliness/Helpfulness of Café Car Personnel 85% -9 2% +2 88 -2 83% -7 2% +1 88 -1 85% -4 2% +2 88 -1 Quality/Freshness of Food in Café Car 88% +17 2% 0 88 +5 70% +3 4% +2 80 +1 68% 0 4% +2 79 0 Variety of Food Items in Café Car 60% +4 6% +2 75 +1 54% 0 6% +1 71 0 53% +2 9% +2 70 0 Overall Experience in Café Car 79% -5 2% +2 85 -1 74% -4 3% +2 82 -1 73% -3 3% +2 82 0
Number of Responses in Current Period 96 327 524
Number of Responses Year Ago 134 356 582 * Overall CSI score, % very satisfied ** For % Very Dissatisfied, a negative change in the year-over-year score shows an improvement; a positive change shows the score has worsened.
Amtrak Market Research and Analysis Confidential and Proprietary 47 Agenda Item #12 LOSSAN TAC, May 10, 2012
LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY JOINT POWERS BOARD Monday, May 21, 2012 Los Angeles CA
ITEM # TAC RECOMMENDATION
1. CHAIR’S REPORT
Welcome and Introductions
2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Speakers are limited to three minutes each.
CONSENT
+3. APRIL 16, 2012, MEETING MINUTES (Danny Veeh, SANDAG) APPROVE
+4. CORRIDOR MARKETING UPDATE (Danny Veeh, SANDAG) INFORMATION
REPORTS
+5. STATUS OF SB 1225 (Corridor Legislative Staff) DISCUSSION/ POSSIBLE ACTION
6. UPDATE ON POSSIBLE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR INTERCITY DISCUSSION / SERVICE (Corridor CEOs) POSSIBLE ACTION
+7. FUTURE UPDATES TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS() DISCUSSION
+8. REPORT FROM THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION CORRIDOR TRENDS SUBCOMMITTEE (Danny Veeh, SANDAG)
9. AMTRAK CALIFORNIA THRUWAY BUS PROGRAM INFORMATION (Rick Peterson, Amtrak)
10. CORRIDOR RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS INFORMATION
11. BOARD MEMBER UPDATES INFORMATION
12. NEXT MEETING INFORMATION
The next Board of Directors meeting will be on Monday, June 18, 2012 in San Diego, beginning at 9:30 am.
48