CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Wednesday February 12, 2020 A simultaneous conference call will take place at: 10 a.m. Placer County Transportation Santa Clara Valley Transportation City Council Chambers Planning Agency (PCTPA) Agency (VTA) Suisun City Hall 299 Nevada Street, Auburn 3331 North First Street, San Jose 701 Civic Center Blvd. ------City of Suisun City, CA San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Yolo County Board of Supervisors (see attached map) 1720 Market Street, San Francisco 600 A Street, Suite B, Davis
AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance III. Report of the Chair IV. Consent Calendar Action 1. Minutes of the November 20, 2019 Meeting 2. FY19/20 Wi-Fi: Budget Update 3. On-Call Consultant Services 4. Service Optimization, Phase 2 – Operations Study: Budget Update 5. Reprogram Prop 1A Funds from Travel Time Savings to Santa Clara Siding 6. Authorize “MobilityData IO” to Develop Open Source GTFS Software under the Cal-ITP FY 18 TIRCP Grant V. Action and Discussion Items 1. Annual Business Plan (FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22) Action* 2. Legislative Matters/Governor’s Draft FY 20-21 Budget Action 3. Bay Bridge Bus-Only Lane Action 4. Hercules Station – Candidate Station Action 5. South Bay Connect: Cooperative Reimbursement Agreement with AC Transit & MTC/BATA Info 6. Capital Projects Update – Alviso Wetlands Railroad Adaptation Alternatives Study Info 7. Managing Director’s Report Info 8. Work Completed Info a. Capitol Corridor Annual Performance Report (FY 2019) b. CCJPA Annual Independent Audit (FY 2019) c. FY 2020 CCJPA Amtrak Operating Agreement d. BART – CCJPA Administrative Services Agreement e. Marketing Activities (November 2019 – January 2020) 9. Work in Progress Info a. Onboard Wi-Fi Upgrade b. AC Transit Service – Emeryville to San Francisco c. California Passenger Information Display System (CalPIDS) Modernization d. South Bay Connect e. Sacramento to Roseville Third Mainline Track, Phase I f. Renewable Diesel Pilot Program, Phase II g. Procurement of Door Panels for NorCal Surfliner Rail Cars h. Santa Clara Siding i. Upcoming Marketing and Communications Activities
VI. Board Director Reports VII. Public Comment VIII. Adjournment. Next Meeting Date: 10:00 a.m., April 15, 2020 at City Council Chambers, Martinez, CA
Members of the public may address the Board regarding any item on this agenda. Please complete a "Request to Address the Board" form (available at the entrance of the Boardroom and at a teleconference location, if applicable) and hand it to the Secretary or designated staff member before the item is considered by the Board. If you wish to discuss a matter that is not on the agenda during a regular meeting, you may do so under Public Comment. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes for any item or matter.
The CCJPA Board reserves the right to take action on any agenda item. Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for discussion or explanation is received from a CCJPA Board Director or from a member of the audience.
* Approval of the business plan requires an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (11) of the appointed members.
The CCJPA Board provides services/accommodations upon request to persons with disabilities who wish to address Board matters. Requests must be made within one and five days in advance of Board meetings, depending on the service requested. Call (510) 464-6085 for information.
DIRECTIONS TO SUISUN CITY HALL
Item IV.1 (Consent) CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Regular Board Meeting Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors Minutes of the 115th Meeting November 20, 2019
The 115th meeting of the Board of Directors of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) was held at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, November 20, 2019, via simultaneous teleconference at Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 3331 North First Street, Room B-106, San Jose, California; Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, 299 Nevada Street, Auburn, California; City of Citrus Heights, 6360 Fountain Square Drive, Lobby Conference Room A, Citrus Heights, California; 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton, California; 3500 Larchmont Drive, Fairfield, California; and Bay Area Metro Center, Angel Island Conference Room 8338, 375 Beale Street, San Francisco, California. Vice Chair Saylor presided; Patricia K. Williams, Recording Secretary.
I. Call to Order. Vice Chair Saylor called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.
Vice Chair Saylor introduced Ms. Nuria Fernandez, General Manager/Chief Executive Officer of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) and Ms. Fernandez addressed the Board.
II. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance.
Directors present in San Jose: Don Saylor, Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD); Jim Holmes, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA); John McPartland, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART); Teresa O’Neill, SCVTA; Raul Peralez, SCVTA; Robert Raburn, BART.
Director present in Auburn: John Allard, PCTPA.
Director present in Citrus Heights: Steve Miller, Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD).
Director present in Clayton: Debora Allen, BART.
Director present in Fairfield: Harry Price, Solano Transportation Authority (STA).
Director present in San Francisco: Jim Spering, STA.
Absent: Directors Bevan Dufty, BART; Lucas Frerichs, YCTD; Janice Li, BART; Rebecca Saltzman, BART; and Kerri Howell, SRTD.
III. Report of the Chair.
Vice Chair Saylor provided the Report of the Chair and highlighted agenda items, including the Annual Performance Report for the Fiscal Year (FY) that ended on September 30, 2019; the managing agency recommendation from the Ad Hoc Subcommittee; the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) application; and the Sacramento Gateway Plan. Vice Chair Saylor called for a moment of reflection for Leonardo Shiyanga-Omani, who was fatally struck by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train. Roland LeBrun addressed the Board.
IV. Consent Calendar.
Director Raburn moved adoption of Item IV.1, Minutes of the September 18, 2019 Meeting; Item IV.2, 2020 CCJPA Board of Directors Meeting Schedule; Item IV.3, Resolution No. 19-24, In the Matter of Approving the Agreement for the Provision of Rail Passenger Service (“FY 2020 Operating Agreement”) between the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority; IV.4, Resolution No. 19-25, In the Matter of Authorizing a Budget for the Diesel Exhaust Fluid Storage and Dispensing System for the Oakland Maintenance Facility; and Item IV.5, Resolution No. 19-26, In the Matter of Authorizing a Revised Budget for the California Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) Modernization Project. Director Peralez seconded the motions.
The motions carried by unanimous roll call vote. Ayes: 10 – Directors Saylor, Allard, Holmes, McPartland, Miller, O’Neill, Peralez, Price, Raburn, and Spering. Noes: 0. Absent: 6 – Directors Allen, Dufty, Frerichs, Li, Saltzman, and Howell.
V. Action and Discussion Items.
1. Capitol Corridor Annual Performance Report (FY 19). Ms. Priscilla Kalugdan, Manager of Capitol Corridor Marketing/Communications, presented the item, highlighting that the CCJPA would continue to focus on data and infographics based on positive responses from the past two annual performance reports; the content of the data and infographics; and the contents of the proposed 2019 Annual Performance Report. The item was discussed.
Director Raburn moved adoption of Resolution No. 19-27, In the Matter of Approving the Capitol Corridor Annual Performance Report (FY 2019). Director O’Neill seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous roll call vote. Ayes: 11 – Directors Saylor, Allard, Allen, Holmes, McPartland, Miller, O’Neill, Peralez, Price, Raburn, and Spering. Noes: 0. Absent: 5 – Directors Dufty, Frerichs, Li, Saltzman, and Howell.
2. CCJPA Managing Agency Selection. Mr. Robert Padgette, Managing Director, presented the item, highlighting the legislative authority for the establishment of the CCJPA; history of the CCJPA’s development and management of CCJPA service; history of BART’s selection as the CCJPA’s managing agency and the CCJPA’s Administrative Agreement with BART; and the CCJPA’s current Administrative Agreement with BART.
Vice Chair Saylor commented on the Ad Hoc Subcommittee’s meeting; thanked the Subcommittee participants and Mr. Mike Luken, Executive Director of the PCTPA, for their efforts; and reported on the following recommendations from the Subcommittee for the Administrative Agreement: (1) language in the scope of work to include customer service improvement plans as a regularly updated item for the CCJPA Board; and (2) language referring to consultation with the CCJPA Board when selecting the CCJPA Managing Director or an equivalent role in the future.
The item was discussed.
Mike Barnbaum addressed the Board.
Director Holmes moved adoption of Resolution No. 19-28, In the Matter of Extending the Administrative Services Agreement between the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority and the Managing Agency for Five Years (February 2020-February 2025). Director Spering seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous roll call vote. Ayes: 11 – Directors Saylor, Allard, Allen, Holmes, McPartland, Miller, O’Neill, Peralez, Price, Raburn, and Spering. Noes: 0. Absent: 5 – Directors Dufty, Frerichs, Li, Saltzman, and Howell.
3. FY 20 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Application Authorization. Mr. James (Jim) Allison, Manager of Planning, presented the item, highlighting the CCJPA’s collaboration with the City of Sacramento, SRTD, and regional bus operators; details of the project; planning and development related to the project; CCJPA partners and consultants involved in the project; access improvements to Interstate 5 and the Sacramento Station; expected ridership gains from the project; and implementation of the project by SRTD and the City of Sacramento. The item was discussed.
Director Miller moved adoption of Resolution No. 19-29, In the Matter of Authorizing the Submittal of Applications from the 2020 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Call for Projects to Support Capitol Corridor Station Enhancements. Director Holmes seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous roll call vote. Ayes: 11 – Directors Saylor, Allard, Allen, Holmes, McPartland, Miller, O’Neill, Peralez, Price, Raburn, and Spering. Noes: 0. Absent: 5 – Directors Dufty, Frerichs, Li, Saltzman, and Howell.
Mike Barnbaum addressed the Board.
4. Davis, CA, Crossovers and Signal Upgrade: Project and Budget Update. Mr. Joel Cox, Manager of Civil and Structural Engineering, presented the item, highlighting the progress of the project; noting that Amtrak’s long-term proposal to replace the boarding platforms at the Davis Station requires work to adjacent switches and signal systems; and to avoid duplication of the Signal System project when the Track Realignment project is implemented in the future, this project will make changes now that support those long-term plans at Davis Station as part of the Signal System project. The item was discussed.
Director McPartland moved adoption of Resolution No. 19-30, In the Matter of Authorizing a Revised Budget for the Davis Crossover and Signal Replacement Project. Director Raburn seconded the motion.
Discussion continued.
Roland LeBrun addressed the Board.
The motion brought by Director McPartland and seconded by Director Raburn carried by unanimous roll call vote. Ayes: 11 – Directors Saylor, Allard, Allen, Holmes, McPartland, Miller, O’Neill, Peralez, Price, Raburn, and Spering. Noes: 0. Absent: 5 – Directors Dufty, Frerichs, Li, Saltzman, and Howell.
5. Legislative Matters. Mr. Padgette presented the item, highlighting the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 742, Intercity Passenger Train Service Connecting Bus (Allen); coordinating the implementation of SB 742 with other Joint Powers Authority bodies; the Continuing Resolution for the federal budget; status of the comments submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) related to the proposed system safety plan requirements; and Congressman John Garamendi’s staff’s assistance with informing the FRA of the potential implications of the proposed safety plan requirements.
Mike Barnbaum addressed the Board.
6. Capital Projects Update – Sacramento to Roseville Third Mainline Track, Phase I. Mr. Padgette presented the item, highlighting that the 25% design for the Sacramento to Roseville Third Mainline Track, Phase I project had been completed and submitted to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) for feedback in August 2019; the increased cost of the project; at-grade crossings; potential re-scoping of the project; continued work with UPR; and obtaining feedback to obtain full support for the project. The item was discussed.
Roland LeBrun addressed the Board.
7. Placer Sacramento Gateway Plan: Congested Corridor Plan. Mr. David Melko, Senior Transportation Planner with the PCTPA, presented the item, highlighting the growth of Placer and Sacramento counties; the corridor in which the project will be implemented; the modes of transportation that utilize the corridor; the partners involved in the project; the goal of the project; the project’s eligibility for the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program; the California Transportation Commission’s implementation of the Program and the upcoming application deadline in June 2020; the corridor planning process and progress; candidate projects; public engagement mechanisms; and factors contributing to congestion in the corridor. The item was discussed.
8. Managing Director’s Report. Mr. Padgette introduced Mr. Leonel (Leo) Sanchez as the new Deputy Managing Director of the CCJPA. Mr. Padgette reported on ridership, revenue, and on-time performance for FY 2019; implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC); mechanical issues that arose during the summer; Amtrak’s new leadership for mechanical matters; changes in mechanical performance during the past month; addressing challenges presented by earthquakes, fires, and power outages; the 60% system operating ratio; 90.4% customer satisfaction in FY 2019; and Annual Performance Report data as depicted by graphics.
Mr. Padgette reported on trespasser fatalities, the impact fatalities and the importance of addressing the issue; the impact of homelessness on fatalities; UPR’s adoption and implementation of the CCJPA’s efforts; the decrease in fatalities from 18 fatalities in FY 2018 to 11 fatalities in FY 2019; the general location of fatalities in 2018 and 2019; and efforts to prevent fatalities, including the Right-of-Way Cleanup program.
Mr. Padgette discussed the Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s (PG&E) Public Safety Power Shutoff events and the impact of the events on CCJPA service; PG&E’s failure to appropriately notify UPR of the events; Ms. Jodi Traversaro’s, Manager of Emergency Preparedness with BART, assistance with connecting UPR to PG&E. Mr. Padgette thanked BART for supporting the CCJPA; recognized UPR for providing power coverage via generators during the events; noted that the CCJPA would work with UPR to fund and install generators where necessary to limit delays; and commented on customer feedback provided via the Interactive Voice Response system.
9. Work Completed. Vice Chair Saylor invited questions or comments from the Board on Item 9. Director Raburn asked for clarification of the scope of the University of California, Davis Design Thinking class’ study of the CCJPA fleet.
10. Work in Progress. Vice Chair Saylor invited questions or comments from the Board on Item 10. No comments were received.
VI. Board Member Reports. Vice Chair Saylor invited Board Member reports. Director Spering reported on the dedication ceremony at Thomas M. Hannigan Fairfield-Vacaville Station.
Director Raburn reported on the RailNation symposium in Sacramento and highlighted Mr. Allison’s presentation about the California Integrated Travel Project.
VII. Public Comments. Vice Chair Saylor invited comment from the public.
Doug Kerr and Roland LeBrun addressed the Board.
VIII. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 11:52 a.m. Next Meeting Date: 10:00 a.m., February 12, 2020, at City Council Chambers, Suisun City Hall, 701 Civic Center Boulevard, City of Suisun City, California 94585. Item IV.2 (Consent)
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: Wi-Fi Budget Amendment for the FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 Annual Business Plan
PURPOSE For the CCJPA Board to approve and accept an additional allocation of $500,000 from the State under the FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 Annual Business Plan for the purposes of supporting Wi-Fi on the Northern California Passenger Rail Fleet.
BACKGROUND On July 31, 2019, the CCJPA was allocated funding in the amount of $2,336,000 for full support of Wi-Fi on the California Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) system (less LOSSAN for FY 2019-20) under CCJPA’s approved FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 Annual Business Plan (ABP).
The Wi-Fi cost estimate that CCJPA included the ABP did not anticipate the installation of Wi-Fi on the new Siemens cars which are now scheduled to go into service in June of 2020. In addition, initial budget was short of the one-time estimated costs of overseeing the installation of the next generation Wi-Fi for the current Northern CA fleet and installation on new Siemens cars.
After utilizing available savings in the FY 2018-19 budget of approximately $289,000 to cover a portion of this FY 2019-20 Wi-Fi funding gap, additional funding of $500,000 is needed to cover the $350,000 attributed to the new Siemens cars and $150,000 for upgrades to the existing Northern CA fleet.
CCJPA staff is requesting approval from the CCJPA Board to request the additional funds from the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), and if approved, accept the additional allocation from the State.
RECOMMENDATION The SCG recommends that the CCJPA Board approve the request for and accept the additional allocation of $500,000 for the FY 2019-20 Wi-Fi budget under the FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 Annual Business Plan, and authorize the CCJPA Executive Director or his designee to execute all necessary and appropriate actions to support the Wi-Fi program.
Motion: The CCJPA Board adopts the attached resolution. BEFORE THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In the Matter of Accepting Additional State Funds and Revising the Budget for the FY 2019-20 Wi-Fi Budget/ Resolution No. 20-1
WHEREAS, the CCJPA was allocated $2,336,000 to support the FY 2019-20 Wi-Fi program for the Northern California Passenger Rail Fleet under the approved FY 2019-20 and FY2020-21 Annual Business Plan; and,
WHEREAS, when that allocation amount was determined, the costs to support the full FY 2019-20 Wi-Fi program were later found to be inadequate for the system transition from the legacy Wi-Fi system to the next generation system and for the installation of a Wi-Fi system on newly delivered Siemens cars that will be used in service on the San Joaquin route starting in June 2020; and,
WHEREAS, the CCJPA has determined that using savings in the amount of approximately $289,000 from the FY 2018-19 Wi-Fi program plus an additional allocation of $500,000 will be sufficient to cover the FY 2019-20 funding gap and keep next generation Wi-Fi project delivery on schedule; and,
WHEREAS, the CCJPA has shared the funding gap calculations with the Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transit who is supportive of requesting the additional allocation of $500,000 from the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) under the CCJPA’s FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 Annual Business Plan request; and therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the CCJPA Board does hereby approve the request for and accept an additional $500,000 in State allocation to support the Wi-Fi activities associated with the Northern California Passenger Rail Fleet including the newly added Siemens cars that will join that fleet in operations in approximately March 2020;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that CCJPA Board authorizes the CCJPA Executive Director or his designee to execute all necessary and appropriate actions to accept and implement the planned Wi- Fi support activities supported by the $500,000 funding gap closure.
# # #
ACTION: DATE: ATTEST: Ayes:
______Noes: Patricia K. Williams Secretary Abstain:
Item IV.3 (Consent)
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: ON-CALL CONSULTING SERVICES
PURPOSE For the CCJPA Board to authorize CCJPA staff to procure on-call consulting services for assistance in planning and engineering services from July 2020 through June 2025.
BACKGROUND Less than two years ago, the CCJPA Board authorized two separate Master Services procurement efforts for consulting services with $2M for engineering services and $2M for planning services. For each discipline, engineering and planning, these procurements were established for two firms to support CCJPA in the amount of approximately $1M each in on-call services for all work directives established before the June 30, 2020 expiration of the on-call contract.
Using lessons learned from the prior effort, CCJPA staff recommends a modification to the contracting approach, by combining planning and engineering, given the overlap of these skill sets among competing firms. In addition, we recommend extending the period of performance. CCJPA proposes issuing up to three awards to qualified lead consulting firms for on-call consulting support, including the use of selected subconsultants for their teams, inclusive of engineering and/or planning specialties, for a total of up to $10M in overall capacity for five years (expiring June 30, 2025) with no one of the selected three firms receiving more than $4M of the work. The CCJPA will not guarantee any minimum amount of work to any selected firm. Work directives will not be issued unless funding is secured for each respective work directive.
RECOMMENDATION The SCG recommends that the CCJPA Board approve the CCJPA staff in procuring up to three qualified consulting firms (including their teamed subconsultants) to be awarded one MSA each, to deliver on planning/engineering related work directives issued by CCJPA for which funding is secured, and that the total capacity of the on-call support not exceed $10M in overall cost from July 2020 through June 2025, with no one firm receiving more than a $4M share of the overall allocated work, with no guaranteed minimum.
Motion: The CCJPA Board adopts the attached resolution.
BEFORE THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In the Matter of Approving the Issuing a New Round of On-Call Consulting Services Resolution No. 20-2
WHEREAS, CCJPA’s existing on-call engineering and planning support services are set to expire on June 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the CCJPA has determined that a larger award capacity and duration of performance would more efficient relative to the effort of delivering on procurement processes; and
WHEREAS, the hard distinction of planning or engineering services has proven to not be necessary in delivering on the consulting needs of the CCJPA; and
RESOLVED, that the CCJPA Board does hereby approve the CCJPA staff to issue a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for an award of up to three Master Services Agreements (MSAs) that will be in effect through June 30, 2025 for issued Work Directives, pending secured funding, for a consulting firm and their subconsultants to perform engineering and/or planning services and that no one firm can be awarded more than $4M of an overall on-call cap of $10M, and that there is no guaranteed minimum award over the period of performance.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CCJPA forthwith transmit a copy of this resolution to any fund granting authorities who may administer funds that support the work under the anticipated MSAs.
# # #
ACTION: DATE: ATTEST: Ayes:
______Noes: Patricia K. Williams Secretary Abstain:
Item IV.4 (Consent)
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR PHASE TWO SERVICE OPTIMIZATION: OPERATIONS STUDY
PURPOSE For the CCJPA Board to approve up to $140,000 in CCJPA Revenue Above Budget (RAB) funding to supplement remaining TIRCP funding for the second phase of the Service Optimization: Operations Study project.
BACKGROUND In 2016, the CCJPA was awarded $400,000 in TIRCP funding to conduct a variety of service optimization studies. The studies included the Phase 1 of what became the California Integrated Travel Project; a study of mode of access for both the San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor services; a comparative study of the various state ridership models available for ridership model forecasting that could be utilized for intercity passenger rail (IPR) analysis; and a study of underserved markets for the Capitol Corridor service.
The largest share of the TIRCP funding in the amount of $161,000 was reserved for Service Optimization Phase 2: Operations Study, an analysis of service optimization that the CCJPA could undertake to improve upon service efficiencies, operations, and service scheduling to drive more ridership and/or cost-effective delivery. To support this effort, the CCJPA has requested from its consultants an expanded scope of services to provide a more comprehensive understanding and analysis of opportunities the CCJPA could pursue in the five to seven years ahead outlook. This expanded scope includes the potential to evaluate renegotiating the headways with Union Pacific Railroad, to reduce them from forty minutes to potentially thirty minutes.
This expanded scope of services requires additional funding in the amount of up to $140,000, which together with the remaining $161,000 in TIRCP funds, will cover the total cost of the study. CCJPA staff has identified $140,000 in CCJPA Revenue Above Budget funding for this effort.
RECOMMENDATION The SCG recommends that the CCJPA Board approve the use of up to an additional $140,000 in CCJPA Revenue Above Budget funds to support the second (expanded scope) phase of the Service Optimization: Operations Study.
Motion: The CCJPA Board adopts the attached resolution.
BEFORE THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In the Matter of The Use of Up To $140,000 For The Second Phase of CCJPA’s Service Optimization: Operations Study Resolution No. 20-3
WHEREAS, the CCJPA has reserved $161,000 of 2016 TIRCP funding to contribute to the second phase of the CCJPA Service Optimization: Operations Study; and
WHEREAS, the CCJPA staff has worked with the consultant to develop an expanded scope of services that will increase the value of the study if additional funds to support the expanded scope were found; and
WHEREAS, CCJPA staff has identified up to an additional $140,000 in CCJPA Revenue Above Budget funds that would adequately support the expanded Study; and
RESOLVED, that the CCJPA Board does hereby approve the CCJPA staff to utilize up to an additional $140,000 to support the expanded scope of the Service Optimization: Operations study.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CCJPA forthwith transmit a copy of this resolution to Caltrans DRMT and CalSTA.
# # #
ACTION: DATE: ATTEST: Ayes:
______Noes: Patricia K. Williams Secretary Abstain:
Item IV.5 (Consent)
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: REPROGRAM REMAINING PROPOSTION 1A FUNDS FROM TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS PROJECT TO THE SANTA CLARA SIDING PROJECT
PURPOSE For the CCJPA Board to approve the reprogramming of $1,949,149 in remaining Proposition (Prop) 1A grant funds towards final design and construction of a new siding near the Santa Clara Great America Station.
BACKGROUND In 2019, the Capitol Corridor implemented a new train schedule to reflect the higher train speeds achieved through the Travel Time Savings project. Following the successful completion of the Travel Time Savings project funded by Prop 1A, there is $1,949,149 in Prop 1A funding available which could be reprogrammed for other related projects.
In June 2019, the CCJPA Board of Directors approved an initial budget of $1,441,969 in State Rail Assistance (SRA) funding (Resolution 19-8) for pre-construction activities for a new siding near the Santa Clara Great America Station (the Project). Additional funding beyond this initial budget will be required to complete construction of the Project. The objective of the new siding is to improve schedule reliability and reduce train delays caused by conflicting movements in this area.
The CCJPA has determined that the new passing siding will provide the required relief for this congested area and will have a significant benefit to the overall system performance for all train operators on this single-track section of the Union Pacific’s Coast Subdivision. An additional benefit of the new siding is that it can provide a storage location for trainsets and enhance special train service for sports or entertainment events at various stadiums on the Capitol Corridor between Oakland and San Jose: Oakland Coliseum/Oracle Arena, Levi’s Stadium, AVAYA, and SAP Center.
Additional funding opportunities are being investigated to identify any funding needed to construct this Project, after the pre-construction activities are complete.
RECOMMENDATION The SCG recommends that the CCJPA Board authorize the reprogramming of $1,949,149 in Prop 1A funds to support the construction of a new siding near the Santa Clara Great America Station. Furthermore, the SCG recommends that the CCJPA Board authorize the CCJPA Executive Director or his designee to submit and provide support to all necessary and appropriate actions to complete these Project activities.
Motion: The CCJPA Board adopts the attached resolution.
BEFORE THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In the Matter of Reprogramming remaining Travel Time Savings Funds to the Santa Clara Siding Project/ Resolution No. 20-4
WHEREAS, the CCJPA was awarded $10,180,000 in Prop 1A funding for implementation of the Travel Time Savings Project; and,
WHEREAS, the CCJPA completed the Travel Time Savings Project in 2019 with unexpended Prop 1A funding of $1,949,149 available for reprogramming for related purposes; and,
WHEREAS, the CCJPA has determined that the construction of a new passing siding near the Santa Clara Great America Station will have a significant benefit to the overall system performance for all train operators on this single-track section of the Union Pacific’s Coast Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, the CCJPA has determined that the new passing siding can provide a storage location for trainsets and enhance special train service for sports or entertainment events; and therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that CCJPA Board authorizes the reprogramming of $1,949,149 in Prop 1A funds to support the construction of a new siding near Santa Clara Great America and authorizes the CCJPA Executive Director or his designee to submit and provide support to all necessary and appropriate actions to complete these Project activities.
# # #
ACTION: DATE: ATTEST: Ayes:
______Noes: Patricia K. Williams Secretary Abstain:
Item IV.6 (Consent)
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE “MOBILITYDATA IO” TO DEVELOP OPEN SOURCE GTFS SOFTWARE UNDER THE CAL-ITP FY 18 TIRCP GRANT
PURPOSE For the CCJPA Board to support entering into a contract with MobilityData IO to develop open source GTFS software using the CCJPA administered FY 18 TIRCP funds for the California Integrated Travel Project (Cal-ITP).
BACKGROUND In FY 2018, the CCJPA was awarded $27.3M as the fiscal sponsor of Cal-ITP as approved by the CCJPA Board (Resolution 18-10) on June 20, 2018. As an implementing partner to the overall effort, we procured consulting services to develop Cal-ITP in conjunction with CalSTA, Caltrans, the California Transit Association (CTA), and many transit operators. Various work streams are shaping a planned transformation of how public transit trips are planned and purchased in California, with a vast network of partners worldwide who are participating with California on Cal-ITP. One such partner is MobilityData IO.
Originally incubated as MobilityData via the Rocky Mountain Institute, MobilityData IO is a non-profit organization and the only worldwide entity of its kind driving the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) global data standard. To broaden adoption of standardized formats, MobilityData IO convenes major stakeholders via workshops so that more transit service features can be represented in software applications. Today, there are approximately 2,000 transit agencies worldwide reporting their services in GTFS. California has approximately 220 transit agencies participating, not including another 140 paratransit and very specialized agencies, or 10% of today’s total agencies in the GTFS universe. Google maps, Apple maps, Citymapper, Transit, TransiScreen, etc., all consume GTFS data provided by those transit operators able to reliably publish their information to the standard, however, throughout, There are still a significant number of transit agencies California who do not have the capacity or expertise to reliably publish GTFS data.
Advancing GTFS as the ubiquitous data standard (for transit trip planning and pricing) for every California transit agency is at the core of Cal-ITP. As one of the work products of Cal-ITP, we have identified the need to support the development of an open source GTFS software validation tool and GTFS documentation to support accurate and reliable GTFS data. Part of the reason MobilityData IO was formed was to build this tool and associated guidelines and best practices for public transit agencies. MobilityData IO is the only non-profit organization that can reliably develop GTFS validation tools and documentation consistent with California public transit agencies use cases.
While the CCJPA authorized all necessary agreements to implement Cal-ITP via Resolution 18-10, we are bringing the recommendation to support MobilityData IO due to this being a single source professional services effort above $100,000. The Cal-ITP budget supports this needed development. This support for MobilityData IO would extend into developing the initial GTFS validation software and subsequent updates as required. We anticipate awarding a single-source professional services contract with not-to-exceed value of $600,000 and with allowances for amendments subject to evaluation. A subcontractor who specializes in GTFS work under the Cal-ITP contract will oversee the software development on behalf of the California partners invested in Cal-ITP.
The intent is for MobilityData IO to deliver a functional validation tool to the California transit market by the end of December 2020.
RECOMMENDATION CCJPA staff recommend that the CCJPA Board authorize the CCJPA Executive Director or his designee to enter into an open source software development contract with a not-to-exceed value of $600,000 with MobilityData IO using secured FY 2018 TIRCP Cal-ITP grant funds.
Motion: The CCJPA Board adopts the attached resolution. BEFORE THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In the Matter of Entering into Contracts with MobilityData IO for the Purposes of Supporting California Integrated Travel Project Software Develop for GTFS Adoption/ Resolution No. 20-5
WHEREAS, the CCJPA was awarded $27.3 million in FY 2018 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funding for the purposes of implementing the California Integrated Travel Project (Cal- ITP); and,
WHEREAS, Cal-ITP implementation has involved and will continue to involve unique partnerships with worldwide partners from transit agencies to private sector, non-profits, and industry leaders; and,
WHEREAS, MobilityData IO is a non-profit involved in promoting and developing Global Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) standards and software; and,
WHEREAS, the timely need to develop an initial open source software for transit agencies that will support the wide adoption of quality GTFS transit data is critical to Cal-ITP strategic objectives; and therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that CCJPA Board authorizes CCJPA to enter into an open source software development contract with MobilityData IO initially set at not-to-exceed amount of $600,000 and authorizes the CCJPA Executive Director or his designee to extend or increase the value of the contract consistent with the Cal-ITP development objectives and the software version upgrade cycle.
# # #
ACTION: DATE: ATTEST: Ayes:
______Noes: Patricia K. Williams Secretary Abstain:
Item V.2
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
PURPOSE To provide the CCJPA Board with an overview of the proposed legislative matters affecting Capitol Corridor service.
BACKGROUND
State Legislative Matters FY 19-20 Draft State Budget Governor Newsom released the draft FY 20-21 State budget on January 9, 2020. The Governor’s 2020 Five-Year Infrastructure Plan within the Budget invests approximately $5 billion in public transit and rail infrastructure, and $1.1 billion for active transportation projects to increase access to multi-modal transportation options. Additionally, the Plan includes continued investment in High Speed Rail.
To support public transit, the Budget estimates the State Transit Assistance (STA) Program will receive approximately $804 million in 2020-21, an increase of $37 million over the current year. Under the proposed budget, Intercity and Commuter Rail will receive an estimated $269 million in the coming fiscal year. Cap and Trade funding will provide an additional $125 million to the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program and the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) will receive approximately $511 million in Senate Bill (SB) 1 funds and Cap and Trade revenues.
The FY 20-21 state operating support for the three state-supported services (Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, and San Joaquins) is projected to be the same as last year at $131 million.
Senate Bill 278 SB 278 is expected to be the vehicle for the potential Faster Bay Area funding ballot initiative. While the details are still in development, the expectation is that the initiative will be on the ballot in November 2020 and will provide transportation funding within the nine-county Bay Area region with the potential to also include a housing component. The initial legislation passed the Senate on January 27, 2020 and has been referred to the Assembly.
Federal Legislation and Funding Moving Forward Framework On January 29, 2020, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the Moving Forward Framework, a call for $760 Billion in infrastructure investment over a five-year period. The framework provides insight into the potential upcoming surface transportation reauthorization with a call to spend $55 Billion on intercity passenger rail.
Item V.3
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: Bay Bridge Bus-Only Lane
PURPOSE For the CCJPA Board to approve the CCJPA’s support of the Bay Bridge Bus-Only Lane.
BACKGROUND Several transportation agencies have recently adopted resolutions supporting a bus-only lane for the San Francisco Bay Bridge. The current Route 99 Buses between Emeryville and San Francisco are a critical element of CCJPA’s ridership success. Reaching the San Francisco market is feasible by BART and these buses for our patrons. An exclusive lane for bus operations would allow for enhanced bus service reliability and potentially reduce bus operating costs. For this reason, the CCJPA staff is requesting the CCJPA Board’s support for this potential opportunity.
RECOMMENDATION
The SCG recommends the CCJPA Board consider the attached resolution for a request to Caltrans to designate bus-only lanes for service to/from San Francisco
Motion: The CCJPA Board adopts the attached resolution.
BEFORE THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In the Matter of Support of Bus-Only Lane on the Bay Bridge / Resolution No. 20-7
WHEREAS, the State of California, through Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Pavley, 2016), requires that statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030; and
WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the entity responsible for monitoring SB32, indicates in California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan that transportation is responsible for 39 percent of statewide GHG emissions, and the single-largest source of CO2 in the state; and
WHEREAS, the State of California seeks to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) consistently ranks the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (Bay Bridge) Corridor as the most congested corridor in the region; and
WHEREAS, the MTC Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study (CCTS) (Sept. 2017) showed that the corridor was operating in the peak at 105% of capacity in 2015; and
WHEREAS, the CCTS near-term findings showed that, even with all planned improvements in the corridor, peak conditions would continue to worsen, and the corridor would be operating at 152% of capacity by 2040; and
WHEREAS, public transit already carries approximately 65% of the peak hour travel in the Bay Bridge Corridor; and
WHEREAS, while the CCJPA Board has commenced the planning for the construction of a New Transbay Rail Crossing, in partnership with BART, to expand the Capitol Corridor intercity passenger rail service in the corridor, capacity improvements for riders will not be realized until at least 2027; and
WHEREAS, the current Route 99 Buses between Emeryville and San Francisco, are a critical element of CCJPA’s ridership success, and reaching the San Francisco market is feasible by BART and these buses for our patrons; and
WHEREAS, a dedicated right-of-way for buses can attract additional riders as the service can be faster and more reliable and reduce bus costs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors shares and supports the goal of better utilization of regional infrastructure to move people instead of vehicles;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority that it hereby supports the advancement of the concept to install dedicated bus-only lanes on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, and connecting highways, interchanges, onramps, offramps, and approaches; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors calls on the California Department of Transportation to coordinate with the MTC and relevant bus transit operating agencies to plan and implement the bus-only lanes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors encourages the Managing Director to assign CCJPA staff to assist in the planning and implementation efforts with all relevant agencies.
# # #
ACTION: DATE: ATTEST: Ayes:
______Noes: Patricia K. Williams Secretary Abstain:
Item V.4
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: HERCULES STATION – CANDIDATE STATION
PURPOSE For the CCJPA Board to consider approval of candidate station status for a proposed new Capitol Corridor station within the City of Hercules.
BACKGROUND The City of Hercules is seeking approval of candidate station status with the CCJPA Board for a proposed new Capitol Corridor station within the City of Hercules. The updated CCJPA Policy on Train Stations established a two-stage process for any proposed new stations within the Capitol Corridor service area. The first stage is to become a candidate station if a set of criteria established within the Station Policy are met. This designation would allow communities seeking a new station the opportunity to apply for various funding grants based on this initial endorsement from the CCJPA Board. The City of Hercules has been working with CCJPA staff to become a station since before the February 13, 2019 adoption of the updated CCJPA Policy on Train Stations.
As stated in the Policy, “If a new station sponsor can demonstrate or document that the candidate requirements listed can be met, the CCJPA staff will prepare a recommendation to the CCJPA Board of Directors to consider identifying the subject potential station as a candidate station.” Per the Policy, achieving candidate station status sets an expectation that local jurisdictions develop a full funding plan for a proposed station, mitigate the loss in travel time for the new station stop, and fully comply with required station design criteria and associated amenities. Hercules has, in concept, a travel time mitigation plan that would be more fully fleshed out (travel time reductions in the Oakland area) before final station status would be granted.
Proposed stations are expected to meet future year minimum station activity thresholds. As stated in the Policy, “CCJPA will expect every new station considered as a candidate station to achieve an average projected patronage (boardings + alightings) per train (based on a calculated annual average) based on the implementation of any mitigation improvements to offset any increased travel time.” In the area of Hercules, per the Policy, that threshold is fifteen per train (any combination of boardings or alightings). Based on the accepted state rail ridership model projections, the City of Hercules is predicted to have a per train activity threshold of thirteen. The current forecast is based on current service patterns of the Capitol Corridor service. Pursuant to the Policy, the CCJPA staff does not have the information to provide a recommendation to the CCJPA Board to consider identifying the City of Hercules as candidate station based on the Station Policy criteria alone. This is solely due to the inability of projected ridership to meet the required threshold.
The recommendation of CCJPA staff, however, is not a requirement of the CCJPA Board to take actions on the Policy on Train Stations. The Policy expressly states, “If exceptions are proposed, the initiating entity/community shall present their case to the CCJPA Board enumerating the benefits expected, which may be judged by the CCJPA Board to outweigh strict adherence to the specific guidelines included herein. The CCJPA Board shall make the final determination regarding establishment of new stations along the Capitol Corridor route based upon their judgment of the benefits to all riders and residents of the communities served by Capitol Corridor trains”. It is because of this provision that the CCJPA staff is presenting additional information to support the CCJPA Board in making a decision on candidate station status. To aid the CCJPA Board on this item the following table presents the degree to which the proposal meets candidate station requirements.
Policy Topic Area Meets Notes: Requirements (Y/N) 1. Local Approvals Y A unified City of Hercules is presenting their support for the candidate station status. 2. Funding Y City of Hercules acknowledges the requirement to obtain the funding to complete the station, including working with CCJPA, UPRR, and Amtrak to fund all required improvements. 3. Basic Facilities Y CCJPA has observed that preliminary design documents presented do meet all the basic design and amenities required of a Capitol Corridor station. 4. Additional Y CCJPA has not identified any necessary facilities above those required but Facilities the City of Hercules acknowledges that they would anticipate being able to meet any such new requirements (e.g., accommodating some new technology for passengers at stations). 5. Passenger Safety Y CCJPA has observed that preliminary design documents presented meet all the basic safety elements required. Operational safety elements, such as regular local police patrols are, based on discussions with the City of Hercules, acknowledged to be a responsibility. 6. Projected N As indicated, the designated ridership model does not meet the minimum Patronage projected patronage threshold of 15 per train. The model predicts an average of 13 per train. The model does not include service enhancements underway along Capitol Corridor’s service area that may support higher future numbers. 7. Location Y The location is more than five (5) miles from adjacent stations. 8. Coordination with Y The City of Hercules has coordinated the station design with UPRR for an Union Pacific adjacent extended siding to allow for the operations of freight rail service. 9. Impact on Service Y Loss of travel time for future Hercules station dwell time has been conditional identified with UPRR but not reached final approval or design with UPRR. The planned mitigation is expected to mitigate all but one minute of the travel time loss (this was also included in the projected patronage analysis as required). Per the Policy, the CCJPA Board can include a variety of considerations in deeming mitigation suitable, including that not all the time lost is mitigated. When reaching final CCJPA Board approval that the mitigation project must be funded, designed, and all but poised to be implemented. 10. Maintenance Y The City of Hercules is aware that maintenance must be their responsibility. 11. Marketing a New Y The City of Hercules is aware that marketing this potential new station must Station be their responsibility. The City can market and otherwise support ridership objectives via their Travel Demand Measures (TDM) programs required of local developers. 12. Approval by TBD Dependent upon CCJPA Board action. CCJPA 13. CCJPA Candidate Y This is a CCJPA responsibility, if the CCJPA Board acts, the CCJPA staff Station (conditional) would be required to represent the station as a candidate station in our Commitments annual Business Plan update.
In consideration to the CCJPA Board’s authorities, the CCJPA staff highlight the following factors for consideration for the shortfall on ridership forecasts as justification to approve the station for conditional status. First, ridership forecast models are limited in their precision given assumptions that include uncertainty. With a gap of just two (2) riders per train there are several factors to consider. First, the land use assumptions from Moody’s Analytics used in ridership modeling appear, based on an analysis by the consultant to the City of Hercules, to include growth rates significantly below (44 percent) those in the regionally-based MTC model and latest Hercules RITC TOD data for the Hercules market area. Hercules has an aggressive plan in place to add housing and commercial development in close proximity to the proposed station. The underlying forecasts do not fully reflect this expected development. Second, a host of Travel Demand Measures (TDM) actions are required in the City of Hercules with the local developers that are intended to promote the use of alternative modes of travel. Finally, the CCJPA itself is contemplating future service extensions, especially south of Oakland, that are expected to also fundamentally alter the market to market travel dynamics. These service extensions would also be expected to strongly influence the ridership at Hercules once implemented but are not part of the current ridership model run.
Approval of candidate station status is the first stage of approval to effectively let the City proceed to attempt to obtain funding and pursue other aspects of station development, including travel time mitigation. As a matter of note, if the CCJPA Board approves a Hercules station for candidate station status, the CCJPA will make an edit to the FY 2020/21 and 2021/22 Business Plan to indicate such status as required by the Policy on Train Stations.
RECOMMENDATION The SCG recommends that the CCJPA Board consider, pursuant to the CCJPA Policy on Train Stations, the matter of issuing candidate Train Station status to the City of Hercules request to achieve that status with the CCJPA for the purposes of pursuing additional funding opportunities.
Motion: The CCJPA Board adopts the attached resolution, as possibly modified at the CCJPA Board meeting.
BEFORE THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In the Matter of Authorizing Candidate Station Status for the Proposed City of Hercules Station Resolution No. 20-8
WHEREAS, the CCJPA approved an updated Policy on Train Stations on February 13, 2019 which permitted the awarding of candidate station status for the purposes of respective cities to pursue funding opportunities more successfully; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to that Policy on Train Stations, the City of Hercules is requesting candidate station status from the CCJPA Board; and
WHEREAS, the proposed station meets all criteria required in the Policy on Train Station except for the forecast ridership;
WHEREAS, additional factors suggest current forecasts may underrepresent ridership potential at this station; and
WHEREAS, the CCJPA Board has authority under the CCJPA Policy on Train Stations to make considered exceptions to particular policy elements; and
RESOLVED, that the CCJPA Board does hereby approve candidate station status to the City of Hercules.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CCJPA forthwith transmit a copy of this resolution to Caltrans DRMT and CalSTA and ensure that Hercules station is included as a candidate station for inclusion in the current Business Plan in conformance with the Policy on Train Stations.
# # #
ACTION: DATE: ATTEST: Ayes:
______Noes: Patricia K. Williams Secretary Abstain:
Item V.5
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: South Bay Connect Project Update: Cooperative Agreement with AC Transit and MTC/BATA for SR-84 Highway Bus Stop Planning, Design and Environmental
PURPOSE To provide the CCJPA Board with an update on the South Bay Connect (SBC) Project, in particular regarding a proposed Cooperative Agreement between CCJPA, AC Transit, and MTC/BATA for the SR-84 Bus Stop planning, design, and environmental portion of the project.
BACKGROUND The SBC project concluded its Project Definition phase in December 2019 and is now preparing to begin the environmental and design phases in early 2020. As part of the preparation work, CCJPA staff and consultants have discussed the environmental strategy options for the SR-84 (Dumbarton) Highway Bus Stop element of the project to minimize potential project delays due to the complex nature of ROW ownership and O&M.
The SR-84 Highway Bus Stop was proposed in the 2018 TIRCP application as part of the overall Ardenwood multimodal station concept to improve transit connections between Capitol Corridor and buses/shuttles that serve the Peninsula communities across the Dumbarton Bridge, a presently underserved market for Capitol Corridor based on market-to-market travel demand analysis. Because the highway bus stop would be within Caltrans ROW, any environmental documentation for the bus stop would need to wait until a Caltrans Project Initiation Documents (PID) process is complete. The PID process involves multiple studies (e.g. Project Study Report – Project Development Support [PSR-PDS], Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report [PEAR]) and is usually a lengthy process that could take one to two years, if not more. This additional time requirement could delay the overall SBC schedule.
In addition to Caltrans, the SR-84 Highway Bus Stop design needs to involve bus operators (i.e. AC Transit) and ideally private shuttle providers (e.g. Stanford Transportation and other large employers on the Peninsula) to ensure bus operation functionality and appropriate assignment of O&M responsibilities of the bus stop facilities. As a passenger rail agency, CCJPA does not have the internal expertise to lead the design of a bus stop facility and guide the relevant environmental documentation.
Given the above reasons, as well as the understanding that the SR-84 Highway Bus Stop has independent utility from the rest of the SBC project, CCJPA staff have determined that the most efficient approach is to separate the environmental and design activities of the highway bus stop from that of the remainder of the project. AC Transit and MTC/BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) have agreed to take the lead on the environmental and design of the highway bus stop, including coordination with Caltrans through the PID process. AC Transit and MTC/BATA staff time will be reimbursed by CCJPA’s project funding with all work conducted by the existing CCJPA consultant team. AC Transit and MTC/BATA are ideal agency partners in this scenario given staff expertise in the Caltrans PID process and a sophisticated understanding of bus operations and facility design needs. MTC is also uniquely positioned as a metropolitan transportation agency to engage private shuttle providers in the bus stop planning and design process, and their previous experience leading the Dumbarton Forward project contributes to more holistic and long-term planning of transit operation improvements on SR-84.
The environmental and design of the highway bus stop will occur on a parallel timeframe with the rest of SBC project’s environmental and design phases, and CCJPA staff and consultants will coordinate project tasks, funding, and schedules between the two efforts. In the next few months, CCJPA staff will work with AC Transit and MTC/BATA staff to draft and execute a three-way Cooperative Reimbursement Agreement and then work collaboratively to guide scope and budget development of the SR-84 Highway Bus Stop work directive.
RECOMMENDATION For information and discussion.
Item V.6
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: Capital Projects Update PURPOSE
To provide the CCJPA Board with an update on the CCJPA’s Capital Program including infrastructure projects and rail vehicles for the Capitol Corridor service.
BACKGROUND
CCJPA maintains an ongoing listing of various capital projects led by CCJPA and those led by others that will influence Capitol Corridor service. The table on the next page provides the latest update on the projects that are underway by the CCJPA.
A more extensive list of all capital projects in all stages of development is presented annually in the required Business Plan Update document adopted by the CCJPA Board under Item V.1 at this February 12, 2020 Board meeting.
The current list of active projects underway using secured capital funds is provided below.
RECOMMENDATION
For information and discussion.
CCJPA CAPITAL PROJECTS February 2020 Projected Project Name Project Description/Benefits Cost Completion Examine feasible track improvements between Newark and Alviso Wetland Railroad Santa Clara to achieve goals of seal level rise adaptation, Adaptation Alternatives passenger rail capacity increase, and enhance wildlife $ 300,000 December-19 Study habitat restoration. Stakeholders are engaged for input and feedback on high-level track design options. Capitalized Maintenance Track maintenance for State of Good Repair Program to $ 1,000,000 December-20 2019/2020 maximize on-time performance (annual program) LED Station Lighting Upgrade Replace station lighting with improved and more efficienct $ 455,000 May-20 (Richmond and Martinez) LED lighting at the Richmond and Martinez Stations. Replace outdated signal systems to reduce signal system Phase II Signal Replacement/Upgrade $ 1,200,000 interruptions and delays (three year program). June-20 Improve the railroad signal system and replace track Davis Station Signal crossovers at Davis station to improve reliability and lifespan $ 5,150,000 December-21 Improvements of the railroad infrastructure. Improvements to the railroad signal system in the vicinity of Stege Signal Improvements Richmond station which will result in improved reliability $ 1,050,000 December-20 and better on-time performance. Design June-20 Design and construct 2,000' siding in the vicinity of the Santa Santa Clara Siding $ 1,441,969 Construction Clara Great America Station December-21 Annual funding to support UP in ROW clean-up including ROW Safety/Security vegetation removal, clean-up and encampment relocation $ 2,250,000 March-21 (three year program). Design/ROW - Construct first phase of third main track and layover facility Sacramento to Roseville June-21 improvements in order to increase service frequency $ 83,535,000 Third Main Track Phase I Construction - between Sacramento and Roseville. June-24 Preliminary engineering (up to 35%) and environmental South Bay Connect (Oakland documentation for the relocation of service to the Coast $ 15,600,000 December-22 to San Jose Phase 2A) Subdivision CAPITAL PROJECT TOTAL $ 111,981,969
CCJPA PARTNER PROJECTS February 2020 Projected Project Name Project Description/Benefits Cost Completion California Passenger Design, test, and implement an improved passenger train Information Display System arrival/alerts system all communication channels including $ 1,260,529 December-20 Modernization signs, servers, data, software. Procurement of door panels for Caltrans-owned Surfliner Door Panel Procurement $ 531,000 June-21 Rail Cars Develop a governance structure and approach for a system California Integrated Travel Pilot that allows for seamless statewide travel and fare purchase $ 27,100,000 Program October-22 across multiple agencies and modes Support for initial Second Transbay Crossing study and Network Integration $ 2,000,000 Ongoing Southern Alameda County Rail Study Management of onboard WiFi upgrade and operations for WiFi Upgrade & Oversight $ 1,368,000 Ongoing the Capitol and San Joaquins Corridors. PARTNER PROJECT TOTAL $ 32,259,529
Item V.7
Date: February 4, 2020
From: Robert Padgette
To: CCJPA Board of Directors
Subject: Managing Director’s Report – February 2020
TO BE PROVIDED UPON RECEIPT OF JANUARY 2020 SERVICE PERFORMANCE RESULTS FROM AMTRAK
Item V.8
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: WORK COMPLETED (February 12, 2020 Meeting)
PURPOSE To provide a report on work completed up to the February 12, 2020 CCJPA Board meeting.
BACKGROUND The following is a report on recently completed work:
a. Capitol Corridor Annual Performance Report (FY 2019): Pursuant to the Resolution 19-27, CCJPA Board provided comments and adopted the draft Performance Report covering the Fiscal Year 2018-19 (October 2018-September 2019). Staff put the report through design (including graphics and photos) and then on to production. The final, finished report has been released and will be available at the February 12, 2020 CCJPA Board of Directors meeting and be widely distributed the State Legislature and other interested agencies
b. CCJPA Annual Independent Audit (FY19) - As provided in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the CCJPA member agencies, the Controller-Treasurer’s Office of the CCJPA is required to conduct an annual independent audit of the CCJPA and submit the report of such audit by December 31 of each year. The financial report stating the findings of the independent audit for Fiscal Year 2018-19 (July 2018-June 2019) was prepared and submitted to the CCJPA member agency staff (Staff Coordinating Group [SCG]) for review. Comments were incorporated, and the final report will be transmitted to the CCJPA Board Directors in February 2020.
c. FY 2020 CCJPA Amtrak Operating Agreement – Resolution 19-24 was adopted by the CCJPA Board at the November 20, 2019 Board meeting, authorizing execution of the FY 2020 Operating Agreement for intercity passenger rail and connecting bus service. The effective date of the FY 2020 Operating Agreement is October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020.
d. CCJPA/BART Administrative Services Agreement (February 2020 - February 2025). At its November 19, 2019 meeting, the CCJPA Board adopted Resolution 19-28 which approved the extension of the Administrative Services Agreement (ASA) with BART for another five-year term (effective February 20, 2020). The ASA identifies the duties and responsibilities to be provided by the Managing Agency to the CCJPA Board, which includes administrative support of the Board and management oversight of the Capitol Corridor service. The BART Board, in turn, approved the execution of the ASA at its December 5, 2019 meeting. The ASA was executed by the parties.
e. Marketing Activities (November 2019 – January 2020) ● Advertising, Promotions, and Offers: - Developed new ad campaign with ad agency including brand update - 50% Off Winter Weekends Offer launched late December - San Francisco Holiday promotion with Visit SF (SF Travel) - Partnerships with Exploratorium and Harlem Globetrotters - Partnership with Visit Oakland for Oakland Restaurant Week, and 30% discount - Promoted the rest of the NFL season and adjusted service for games ● Print and Digital Communications: - FY19 Annual Performance Report - Preparing for Amtrak Social Care to assist with social media responses ● Public Relations, Events, Outreach, and Customer Service: - Thanksgiving and Christmas Outreach for holiday travelers - Announcement of Business Plan Public Workshops, including Facebook Live event - UC Davis Design Thinking Class – attended final presentation - Message to Riders from Managing Director, to be published quarterly - Meet and Greets in December and January - Developing new Company Store in partnership with BART - Participating in branding development discussions for second Transbay crossing
RECOMMENDATION For information only.
Item V.9
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Board DATE: February 4, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: WORK IN PROGRESS (February 12, 2020 Meeting)
PURPOSE To provide an update on work in progress up to the February 12, 2020 CCJPA Board meeting.
BACKGROUND The following is a report on work efforts currently underway:
a. Onboard Wi-Fi - The existing Northern California passenger rail (legacy) fleet is now in the design phase for its planned next generation Wi-Fi system upgrade from the initial 2011 installation. As well, the new Siemens cars are soon to also enter the design phase pending CCJPA Board action (consent item IV.2). As scheduled, the first prototype legacy train is expected in March 2020, with the remainder of the fleet upgraded in the months that follow. The upgraded Wi-Fi system will include a new landing and authentication page. Oversight services are also under contract resulting in improved system function, more up-time, and skilled diagnostic reporting and issue resolution.
b. AC Transit Service – Emeryville to San Francisco - Capitol Corridor and our transit partners are exploring opportunities to partner with AC Transit in an effort for AC Transit to assume the rail and bus connection at Emeryville station. This bus connection will replace our existing bus service from Emeryville to San Francisco and have increased service during peak travel demands.
c. California Passenger Information Display System (CalPIDS) Modernization – Project was kicked off in December 2019 with partner rail agencies participation. The software design and testing phase will last an estimated six to nine months. The CalPIDS kickoff meeting occurred in December 2019. The first implementation of CalPIDS is expected by the end of 2020. CCJPA staff have been working with AT&T to scope the telecommunications improvements needed at Capitol Corridor, San Joaquins, and ACE stations to support CalPIDS.
d. South Bay Connect (Oakland to San Jose Phase 2A) – The Project Definition Report was completed in December 2019, and the project is now preparing to begin a two-year environmental and design phase in February 2020. To reduce risk of project schedule delays, CCJPA staff have decided to separate the environmental and design of the SR-84 Highway Bus Stop element from the rest of the project, and CCJPA intends to enter into a three-way Cooperative Agreement with AC Transit and MTC/BATA to reimburse those two agency’s staff labor for the SR-84 Highway Bus Stop environmental and design work. For more details, please refer to Item V.5.
e. Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Project – Phase 1 – The 25% design plans continue to be refined to incorporate changes requested by project stakeholders as the designer progresses towards the next design submittal. Staff has incorporated several modest but important cost saving changes into the design, while pursuing other ways to reduce expected cost through project design improvements. Union Pacific has recently provided feedback on the 25 % design submittal with changes that are expected to result in significant reductions in cost.
b. Renewable Diesel Pilot Program, Phase II – The Renewable Diesel (RD) Pilot Program – Phase 2 commenced the testing of renewable fuel on a Charger locomotive and we are twenty-five percent through certified EPA testing. If testing results in expected performance, the CCJPA will work with Amtrak to switch all fuel used on the Capitol Corridor route to cleaner burning renewable diesel. Renewable diesel has proven to reduce a ‘well to wheels’ measurement of greenhouse gasses by 66%, particulates by 33%, and NOX by 12% as compared to petroleum diesel.
f. Procurement of Door Panels for NorCal Surfliner Rail Cars – CCJPA staff is working with BART Procurement to finalize the procurement process. The contract is being finalized with the selected vendor.
g. Santa Clara Siding – The Union Pacific Railroad completed their review of the project 10% design plans with only very minor comments. The designer has continued towards the 25% design submittal, with site surveying and geotechnical exploration under way.
h. Upcoming Marketing and Communications Activities – ● Advertising, Promotions, and Offers: i. New ad campaign will flight this spring, with TV spots, outdoor billboards, digital ads ii. Stitch ‘n’ Ride 50% discount to Stitches West Expo in Santa Clara iii. Oakland A’s Promotion/25% discount ● Print and Digital Communications: i. Planning for possible April timetable change ii. Finalizing evergreen platform schedule poster design ● Public Relations, Events, Outreach, and Customer Service: i. Upcoming Valentine’s Cappy Hour ii. Promoting availability of Weekend Service Alerts, re-engaging with our subscribers iii. Planning to launch upgraded features to IVR phone system, including call-backs iv. Launching new Company Store in partnership with BART
RECOMMENDATION For information only.
DATE: February 7, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
TO: CCJPA Board of Directors
SUBJECT: Supplemental Materials for the CCJPA Board Meeting - February 12, 2020
Please find attached the following supplemental materials for your review:
• Item V.1 – CCJPA Annual Business Plan (FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22) • Memo and resolution • DRAFT CCJPA Annual Business Plan (FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22) • Annual Business Plan Comments • Annual Business Plan Action Items • Item V.6 - Alviso Wetlands Railroad Adaptation Alternatives Study Executive Summary • Item V.7 - Managing Director’s Report • Item V.7 - FY 20 Performance Charts • Item V.8a - Capitol Corridor Annual Performance Report (FY 2019) • Item V.8e - Marketing and Communications Activities Report
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at (510) 464-6990.
Attachments
Item V.1
CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ______
MEMORANDUM
TO: Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Board DATE: February 7, 2020
FROM: Robert Padgette, Managing Director
SUBJECT: CCJPA FY 2020-2021 – FY 2021-2022 ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
PURPOSE For the CCJPA Board to approve the CCJPA FY 2020-2021 – FY 2021-2022 Business Plan Update (February 2020).
BACKGROUND The draft FY 2020-2021 – FY 2021-2022 Annual Business Plan (ABP) was released for public review on January 15, 2020. Public workshops for the ABP were held January 21-24. Comments received during the public review process, and any input, as appropriate, has been incorporated in the document. (The draft ABP and a compilation of comments from the public and from the workshops will be sent under separate cover.) Upon approval by the CCJPA Board, the ABP, as revised, will be finalized and submitted to the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) by April 1, 2020, in accordance with the CCJPA’s enabling legislation.
In summary, this ABP calls for continuing the current service plan (30 weekday and 22 weekend trains); provides a capital program that is consistent with the CCJPA Vision Implementation Plan (adopted November 2016), aligns with the California State Rail Plan (December 2017); and conforms with the guidelines for the new state funding opportunities via the enactment of SB 1 to support the CCJPA’s service expansion plans.
The CCJPA’s funding request in the ABP for FY 20-21 follows an annual trend of reduced budgets with a decrease of -.9% [$307,520] compared to the CCJPA’s FY 19-20 budget due to projected ridership/revenue growth that offset increases in fuel and labor expenses.
The ABP focuses on ensuring a secure and superior experience for the Capitol Corridor onboard the trains and at the stations, all the while delivering a reliable, safe and frequent service plan for the Capitol Corridor trains. The CCJPA, working with its service partners, remain focused on safety and builds upon the successful implementation of the Positive Train Control (PTC) system safety signaling technology on the Capitol Corridor trains. Improving reliability will be another primary focus of the CCJPA as we continue to be engaged with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Amtrak to expeditiously address areas where delay minutes reduce on-time performance below agreed-to performance standards.
As presented in Section 9 of the ABP, the operating budgets for FY 20-21 and FY 21-22 were developed using historical operating costs and service data/metrics. Amtrak is expected to provide its final estimates (operating expenses, ridership and revenues) for FY 2020-21 in late Spring 2020, at which time, staff will update the budget as necessary and then will forward to CalSTA. The operating budget update and any budget estimate revisions will be included in Section 9 of the CCJPA FY 2020-21 – FY 21-22 Annual Business Plan submitted to CalSTA. As well, operating budget changes will be included in the FY 2021 CCJPA/Amtrak operating contract (effective October 1, 2020), which will be presented to the CCJPA Board for adoption at its September 16, 2020 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the CCJPA Board approve the CCJPA FY 2020-21 – FY 21-22 Annual Business Plan and submit a copy of the Annual Business Plan to the Secretary of CalSTA. (Approval of the Business Plan Update requires an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (11) of the appointed members.)
Motion: The CCJPA Board adopts the attached resolution.
BEFORE THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In the Matter of Approving the State Fiscal Year 2020-21 - FY 2021-22 Business Plan Update for the Capitol Corridor Service For the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority / Resolution No. 20-06
WHEREAS, the CCJPA staff have prepared a Draft FY 2020 - 21 - FY 2021-22 Annual Business Plan Update (“Business Plan Update”), held a series of public workshops to solicit input from between January 21-24, and received comments, which, as appropriate, were incorporated into the draft document; and
WHEREAS, the Business Plan Update reflects a weekday train schedule of 30 weekday trains and 22 weekend trains, and outlines a capital funding strategy to advance the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority’s (CCJPA) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that incorporates relevant elements of the California State Rail Plan (December 2017), and conforms with the guidelines for the new state funding opportunities via the enactment of SB 1 to support the CCJPA’s service expansion plans; and
WHEREAS, the CCJPA Board acting for and on behalf of the CCJPA has prepared for the CalSTA a Business Plan Update for the Capitol Corridor Service for State 2020–21 - FY 2021-22 in the form appended hereto; and
WHEREAS, preparation and submission of the Business Plan Update to the Secretary of CalSTA by April 1 of each year is mandated pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code 14070.4(b); and
RESOLVED, that the CCJPA Board does hereby approve and adopt the FY 2020-21 - FY 2021- 22 Annual Business Plan Update for the Capitol Corridor Service.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CCJPA forthwith transmit a copy of this resolution to CalSTA and Caltrans.
# # #
ACTION: DATE: ATTEST: Ayes:
______Noes: Patricia K. Williams Secretary Abstain:
CAPITOL CORRIDOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 FEBRUARY 2020
PREPARED BY Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
PREPARED FOR CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE ...... 1 3. OPERATING PLAN AND STRATEGIES ...... 2 Train Service and Expansions ...... 2 Motorcoach Service and Transit Connections ...... 3 FY 2019-20 Operating Plan ...... 3 FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 Operating Plans and Strategies ...... 3 4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM...... 5 Capital Improvement Program Funding ...... 5 Programmed and Current Capital Improvements ...... 5 Out-Year Capital Improvement Program ...... 5 Specific Capital Improvement Program Discussion ...... 5 Railroad Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvements ...... 5 Rolling Stock Equipment Improvements ...... 6 Service Amenity Improvements ...... 7 Service Plan Improvements and Expansions...... 7 5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND ACTION PLAN ...... 8 FY 2018-19 Performance Standards and Results ...... 8 FY 2019-20 Performance Standards and Results to Date ...... 8 FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 Performance Standards ...... 8 FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 Action Plan ...... 9 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF FARES ...... 9 FY 2020-21 Fares ...... 10 FY 2021-22 Fares ...... 11 7. SERVICE AMENITIES, FOOD SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT ...... 11 Service Amenities ...... 11 Equipment Acquisition, Renovation, and Upgrades ...... 12 Rehabilitation and Modification Programs...... 13 Rail Equipment Projects Completed in FY 2019-20 ...... 13 Rail Equipment Projects Upcoming in FY 2020-21 ...... 13 8. MARKETING STRATEGIES ...... 14 FY 2020-21 Marketing Program ...... 15 FY 2021-22 Marketing Program ...... 15 9. FY 2020-21 & FY 2021-22 ANNUAL FUNDING REQUIREMENT: COST AND RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS . 15 Operating Costs ...... 16 Marketing Expenses ...... 16 Administrative Expenses ...... 16 Total Budget ...... 16 Supplemental Allocations ...... 16 10. SEPARATION OF FUNDING ...... 19 11. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER SERVICE EXPANSIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS ...... 19 Megaregional Rail Planning & Vision Plan Update ...... 19 New Transbay Rail Crossing ...... 20 Rail Service Expansion Planning ...... 20 APPENDIX A ...... 22 APPENDIX B ...... 23 APPENDIX C ...... 24
CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction. This Annual Business Plan (ABP) presents an overview of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority’s (CCJPA) strategic plan and funding request for the next two fiscal years (FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22). This document outlines the service and capital improvements that have contributed to the Capitol Corridor’s success, identifies necessary improvements to sustain its growth, and incorporates customer input as detailed in Chapter 263 of California State Law.
Intercity passenger rail business plans are integral to the overall statewide planning, coordination, and budgeting of the services. The CCJPA submits its ABP to the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) in April 2020 and, as necessary, a revised version can be submitted by June 15, 2020.
As administrator of the Capitol Corridor®, the CCJPA’s primary focus is the continuous improvement of the train service through effective cost management, gaining share in the travel market, and delivering a customer-focused, safe, frequent, reliable, and sustainable transportation alternative to the congested I-80, I-680, and I-880 highway corridors. The CCJPA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of 16 elected officials from six member agencies along the 170-mile Capitol Corridor route (see Figure 1-1): • Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) • Solano Transportation Authority (STA) • Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD) • Sacramento Regional Transit District (Sac RT) • San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
History. The Capitol Corridor service began in December 1991 with six daily trains between San Jose and Sacramento. The CCJPA assumed management responsibility for the service in October 1998. Since then, Capitol Corridor has grown into the third busiest intercity passenger rail service in the nation. In August 2006, the CCJPA expanded service from 24 to 32 weekday trains between Sacramento and Oakland and from eight to 14 daily trains continuing to San Jose. In August 2012, the CCJPA utilized the reconfigured Sacramento station to optimize operational cost effectiveness and reduced service to 30 daily round trips between Sacramento and Oakland (freeing up the two allotted track capacity slots to the San Joaquin Intercity Passenger Rail service).
Operating Plan. Minor schedule changes are expected in FY 2020-21 to support the current overall operating plan into FY 2021-22. Key operational areas of focus include maintaining increased seating capacity on select trains to address crowding conditions and enhanced cleaning and security patrols at select East Bay stations. Other important service improvements include an upgrade to the onboard Wi-Fi service that will increase connection speeds and expand onboard entertainment capabilities and a new passenger information display system (PIDS) that will provide better train status and service alerts.
The basic operating costs for the Capitol Corridor conform with Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 (PRIIA). This policy is used to develop the costs for the FY 2020-21 and any future CCJPA/Amtrak operating agreements. The table below summarizes projected operating budgets for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22.
FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Sacramento – Oakland 30 weekday trains (22 weekend) 30 weekday trains (22 weekend) Oakland – San Jose 14 daily trains 14 daily trains Sacramento – Roseville 2 daily trains (with plans for up to 20) 2 daily trains (with plans for up to 20) Roseville – Auburn 2 daily trains 2 daily trains Budget/Operations $32,739,000 $33,660,000 Change vs. FY 2019-20 Budget -$462,000 [-1.4%] $+459,000 [+1.4%]
Performance Standards. For this ABP, the CCJPA incorporates the most recent version of the Uniform Performance Standards (UPS) as modified by CalSTA. The table below provides an overview of the performance of the Capitol Corridor compared to the UPS as well as the updated forecasted UPS for the next two fiscal years (see Appendix B for additional details): - i - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 Performance Standard Actual Standard % Difference Standard Standard Standard Usage
Route Ridership 1,777,136 1,670,400 +6% 1,759,000 1,795,000 1,808,000
Passenger Miles 119,601,577 113,555,900 +5% 119,086,000 120,409,000 121,281,000 Efficiency System Operating Ratio 60% 52% +16% 52% 52% 52% (train and feeder bus) Total Operating $0.52 $0.56 -7% $0.56 $0.56 $0.56 Cost/Passenger-Mile Service Quality End-Point On-Time 89% 90% -1% 90% 90% 90% Performance Passenger On-Time 87% 90% -3% 90% 90% 90% Performance Operator Delays/10K 429 >325 +32% >325 >325 >325 Miles
Capital Improvement Program. The CCJPA’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is consistent with the CCJPA’s Vision Plan, regional and State of California transportation plans (e.g. Regional Transportation Plans [RTPs] and Caltrans’ 2018 State Rail Plan). The CIP includes projects in four broad categories: railroad infrastructure maintenance and improvements, rolling stock equipment improvements, service amenity improvements, and service plan improvements and expansions.
In regards to long-term service plan improvements in the next two fiscal years, CCJPA will be continuing the final engineering design of Sacramento to Roseville service expansion project, and the South Bay Connect (formerly Oakland to San Jose Phase 2A) project will be in its environmental and design phase; CCJPA will continue to work in partnership with BART on the initial planning stages for a New Transbay Rail Crossing that includes BART and standard gauge interregional passenger rail services. For railroad infrastructure maintenance and improvements, CCJPA will continue to work with Union Pacific Railroad to maintain railroad right-of-way infrastructure in prime condition to reduce delays and ensure excellent on-time performance [90%+] for Capitol Corridor trains. For rolling stock improvements, maintaining and improving onboard bike storage will continue to be a priority, and testing of renewable diesel as an alternative fuel source will present an exciting opportunity to decrease carbon emissions associated with train operations. For service amenity improvements, customers can expect to see improvements in the onboard Wi-Fi service in FY 2020-21, and the Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) Modernization project will be in the initial phases of implementation; also, the California Integrated Travel Program, in coordination with the California State Transportation Agency, will be entering an important phase of research and development of core concepts in the next fiscal year, and the beginnings of a pilot program should be clear in FY 2020-21.
Marketing Strategies. The CCJPA’s marketing strategies for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 will continue to target specific markets and increase ridership where seating capacity is available by raising awareness of destinations, transit connections, and amenities. Over the next two fiscal years, CCJPA will develop partnerships with new destinations, create programs to enhance the overall customer experience, and seek out opportunities to grow ridership via micro-markets. Seasonal campaigns are planned to position Capitol Corridor as a distinct regional service brand, and CCJPA will continue to coordinate with local partners and Amtrak on promotions, outreach, and shared marketing collateral.
Action Plan. Working with its service partners, the CCJPA continues to achieve annual record performance results for the Capitol Corridor and, as set forth in this ABP, will continue to ensure that Capitol Corridor is a safe, reliable, sustainable and customer-focused service. The CCJPA is committed to manage the service to meet or exceed near-term budget projections. Promotional programs and campaigns will showcase the Capitol Corridor as the preferred transport alternative in the Northern California Megaregion. CCJPA will conduct the planning analysis and cultivate the partnerships and funding opportunities necessary to make incremental as well as longer-term transformational changes to the Capitol Corridor route.
- ii - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN 1. INTRODUCTION The Annual Business Plan is submitted in draft form in April 2020 and final form by June 15, 2020 to the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), providing adequate time for Amtrak to develop its final operating cost estimates for the Capitol Corridor® intercity passenger rail service. As part of Chapter 263 of State Law that allowed for the transfer of the Capitol Corridor service to the CCJPA on July 1, 1998, the CCJPA is required to prepare an ABP that identifies the current fiscal year’s operating and marketing strategies; summarizes capital improvement plans for the Capitol Corridor; and the includes the funding request to the Secretary of CalSTA for the CCJPA’s operating, administrative, and marketing costs for inclusion in the State Budget proposal to the Legislature.
The CCJPA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of 16 elected officials THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR PROVIDES A from six member agencies (listed below) along the 170-mile Capitol Corridor rail SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE route (see Figure 1-1): CONNECTING THE THREE ECONOMIC EMPLOYMENT CENTERS IN NORTHERN • Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) CALIFORNIA: SACRAMENTO, • Solano Transportation Authority (STA) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND, AND • Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD) SAN JOSE/SILICON VALLEY. • Sacramento Regional Transit District (Sac RT) • San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
For FY 2020-21, CCJPA will continue the operation of the schedule introduced on November 13, 2017 (slightly modified May 7, 2018), which added the Fairfield-Vacaville station and adjusted certain travel and station dwell times. Service levels will remain the same as what is provided today: 30 trains during the weekdays (22 weekend trains) between Sacramento and Oakland; 14 daily trains between Oakland Jack London Square and San Jose; and two daily trains between Sacramento and Auburn.
The Capitol Corridor serves 18 train stations along the 170-mile rail corridor connecting the counties of Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco (via motorcoach), and Santa Clara. The train service parallels the I-80/I-680 highway corridor between Sacramento and Oakland, and I- 880 between Oakland and San Jose. In addition, the Capitol Corridor connects outlying communities to the train service via a dedicated motorcoach bus network as well as partnerships with local transit agencies that assist passengers traveling to destinations beyond the train station.
Capitol Corridor train and connecting motorcoach services are developed with input from riders, private sector stakeholders (such as Chambers of Commerce), and public interests (such as local transportation agencies), along with the entities that help deliver the Capitol Corridor service – Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), Caltrans, and the various transportation agencies and communities that are along the Capitol Corridor route.
2. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE On December 12, 1991, the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Amtrak initiated the Capitol Corridor intercity train service with six daily trains between San Jose and Sacramento. In 1996, legislation was enacted to establish the CCJPA, a partnership among six local transportation agencies sharing in the administration and management of the Capitol Corridor intercity train service.
In July 1998, an Interagency Transfer Agreement (ITA) transferred the operation of the Capitol Corridor service to the CCJPA for an initial three-year term, which was extended in 2001. In September 2003, legislation was enacted that eliminated the sunset date in the ITA and established the current, permanent governance structure for the CCJPA. The CCJPA now operates and manages the Capitol Corridor service through an operating agreement with Amtrak.
Under management of the CCJPA, collection and use of train operations and revenue data has been a consistent tool to expand and fine tune service plans to optimize ridership, increase revenue, achieve cost
- 1 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN efficiency, and improve safety. Appendix A presents an overview of the financial performance and ridership growth of the Capitol Corridor service since its inception in December 1991.
Figure 1-1 Map of Capitol Corridor Service Area
3. OPERATING PLAN AND STRATEGIES The CCJPA aims to meet the travel and transportation needs of Northern Californians by providing safe, frequent, reliable, and sustainable Capitol Corridor intercity train service. CCJPA is increasing the use of detailed daily operating information (e.g. ridership, delays, safety incidents, and customer comments) to drive efficiencies and identify capital improvement needs to enhance the reliability of service. Applying business intelligence and analytics ensures that the CCJPA uses sound business principles in developing short- and long-term operating strategies for the Capitol Corridor trains.
Train Service and Expansions The Capitol Corridor has maintained service at 30 weekday (22 weekend) trains between Sacramento and Oakland and 14 daily trains between Oakland and San Jose since August 2012. Schedule modifications are made periodically to improve service efficiencies and when major capital projects, such as new stations or railroad right-of-way improvements, are implemented. Potential refinements to the Spring 2020 schedule are
- 2 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
being studied and considered with the goal of better aligning services south of Oakland to meet customer demands, improving connectivity to BART, and improving the efficient use of equipment.
As of November 2019, the Capitol Corridor train service has experienced ridership CCJPA WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE growth for the past 28 consecutive months, and passenger seating capacity on select SPECIFIC STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS peak ridership trains has become a challenge. In November 2018, CCJPA, working SEATING CAPACITY CONCERNS ON SELECT with Amtrak, Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transportation (DRMT), and the San PEAK TRAINS, SUCH AS ADDING Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), was able to increase seating capacity on ADDITIONAL TRAIN CARS AS AVAILABLE. select trains experiencing crowded conditions by adding a coach car, thereby adding 80-90 seats per train. To address expected future crowding conditions and the planned increase in service frequencies to Roseville and San Jose, the CCJPA has been working with these same service partners to develop a statewide fleet management plan that will ensure that Capitol Corridor maintains a sufficient fleet to meet growing passenger demand.
The CCJPA continues to plan for service expansions to/from Roseville and longer-term service expansions to/from San Jose. These service expansion/extension projects will also require additional rolling stock.
Motorcoach Service and Transit Connections The Capitol Corridor provides dedicated motorcoach bus connections to San Francisco, communities along the Central Coast region south of San Jose (Salinas and San Luis Obispo), and communities east of Sacramento (South Lake Tahoe, CA and Reno, NV). In addition, the CCJPA partners with local transit agencies to offer expanded options for transit connections throughout the corridor. The CCJPA reimburses the transit agencies through the Transit Transfer Program that allows Capitol Corridor passengers to transfer free of charge to participating local transit services. There is a joint ticketing arrangement with Placer Commuter Express and Roseville Transit. CCJPA also partners with Santa Cruz Metro and Monterey- Salinas Transit to share operating costs for the benefit of both agencies and their riders. Figure 3-1 illustrates the range of passenger rail, Amtrak Thru-way bus, and other local transit connections available from Capitol Corridor stations.
CCJPA is exploring strategies to better provide connecting bus service from Emeryville to San Francisco to improve the efficiency and flexibility compared to current Amtrak Thruway motorcoach service. CCJPA staff will be actively coordinating with AC Transit in FY 2020-21 to explore these bus connection improvement strategies.
In regard to Senate Bill (SB) 742, which enables the State-supported intercity passenger rail services (Capitol Corridor, San Joaquins, and Pacific Surfliner) to pick up and drop off passengers on their Amtrak intercity Thru-way bus routes without requiring them to have a train ticket as part of their trip, CCJPA is coordinating with the other two intercity passenger rail services on the implementation and expect to assess appropriate bus routes that have existing capacity in the next fiscal year.
FY 2019-20 Operating Plan The current Operating Plan for FY 2019-20 is as follows:
• Sacramento – Oakland: 30 weekday trains (22 weekend day trains) • Oakland – San Jose: 14 daily trains • Sacramento – Roseville – Auburn: two daily trains
FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 Operating Plans and Strategies CCJPA will maintain the same operating plan for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22:
• Sacramento – Oakland: 30 weekday trains (22 weekend day trains) • Oakland – San Jose: 14 daily trains • Sacramento – Roseville – Auburn: two daily trains
- 3 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
Safety and Security The CCJPA will continue to work with partners, including UPRR, Amtrak, Caltrans, and Caltrain, to monitor and maintain the PTC system on Capitol Corridor rolling stock as well as along the route that Capitol Corridor trains operate on for safe and reliable train service.
CCJPA WILL PARTNER WITH In FY 2020-21, CCJPA will partner with Amtrak on additional security patrols and AMTRAK TO INCREASE THE increased frequency of deep cleaning at select East Bay stations. PRESENCE OF SECURITY AND THE FREQUENCY OF DEEP CLEANING AT SELECT EAST BAY STATIONS. Figure 3-1: Connecting Bus, Transit, and Train Services
- 4 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
Service Reliability The CCJPA consistently takes action to address issues with service reliability and On-Time Performance (OTP). Two actions that were initiated in FY 2018-19 and that will continue in the FY 2020-21 and future year operating strategies are: • Supporting an additional two Amtrak transportation supervisors in the Oakland to San Jose section of the route to address unauthorized trespassing and service incidents. • Introducing a right-of-way (ROW) cleaning crew (financed with CCJPA State Rail Assistance (SRA) funds [~$7,000,000 per year] and executed by UPRR) to address vegetation overgrowth, add and repair security barriers/fences, and remove homeless encampments along the ROW.
4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The CCJPA maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) used to continuously improve the Capitol Corridor’s reliability, travel times, OTP, safety/security, and to expand service frequency. These initiatives are supported by capital funding sources at the local, regional, state, and federal levels.
Capital Improvement Program Funding Since the inception of the Capitol Corridor service in 1991, more than $1 billion from a mixture of funding sources were invested or programmed to purchase rolling stock, build or renovate stations, upgrade track and signal systems for increased capacity, and construct train maintenance and layover/storage facilities. The vast majority of funding has come from the State.
The 2018 State Rail Plan update lays out a transformative long-term vision of the statewide railroad network. The 2018 State Rail Plan envisions capital investments supporting a multi-tiered freight and passenger rail operating environment that better serves travel markets and delivers better cost efficiency than services do today. While ambitious, this plan would transform State rail operations and service, including Capitol Corridor service in the years to come. The CCJPA’s Northern California Megaregional Rail planning efforts, which evolved from the Vision Plan process, are coordinated within the larger context of the 2018 State Rail Plan.
Programmed and Current Capital Improvements Improvements made in this fiscal year as well as capital projects planned for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 can be categorized into four broad categories: railroad infrastructure maintenance and improvements, rolling stock equipment improvements, service amenity improvements, and service plan improvements and expansions.
Out-Year Capital Improvement Program The out-year CIP is bolstered with new stable, long-term funding sources from the passage of Senate Bill 1 (SB1). A combination of dedicated (State Rail Assistance) and competitive grant (TIRCP) funds, for which CCJPA has been historically successful in securing, enables CCJPA to confidently plan for significant, long- term capital projects such as Sacramento to Roseville Third Track, South Bay Connect (formerly Oakland to San Jose Phase 2A). This funding also allows CCJPA to take a variety of measures to optimize service, including working with CalSTA on a statewide Integrated Travel Program. See Appendix C for a list of capital projects and their funding statuses. CCJPA is also working in partnership with BART to continue planning efforts for a New Transbay Rail Crossing that would potentially include standard gauge rail to allow intercity passenger rail service between San Francisco and the East Bay.
Specific Capital Improvement Program Discussion
Railroad Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvements Davis Station Improvements Design The CCJPA has entered a partnership with Amtrak, UPRR, and the City of Davis to begin a major program of improvements at the Davis station. This project will improve passenger safety and accessibility at this station while reducing train delays, improving railroad fluidity, and providing new pedestrian connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. The first phase of this work will involve replacement of track crossovers and railroad signal system near the station. Design of the remaining improvements will proceed concurrently.
- 5 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
Santa Clara Siding Improvement Design Final design for a new passing siding in the Santa Clara-Great America station vicinity is underway and will be completed in FY2020-21. To date, funding is available to cover all design and pre-construction activities. A new passing siding in the Santa Clara-Great America station vicinity would offer two benefits: 1) Provide a storage track to hold Capitol Corridor special/extra trains to serve events at Levi’s Stadium, which is adjacent to the Santa Clara-Great America Station; and 2) Reduce delays to Capitol Corridor and ACE trains due to unscheduled meets in the current single-track territory. These delays cascade throughout the respective train systems, causing further service disruptions and delays. CCJPA is working to obtain the remaining funds to implement the project as soon as the design phase is complete.
Signal Replacement/Upgrade The CCJPA has continued to work in partnership with UPRR to improve the railroad signal system. As a result, signal-related train delays have since been reduced. In FY 2020-21, additional improvements will be made to the signal system to reduce train delays and improve the signal system reliability.
Right-of-Way (ROW) Safety and Security Improvements The ROW Safety and Security Improvement Project is a partnership between CCJPA and UPRR to identify and mitigate safety/security concerns along the UPRR right-of-way, such as removing debris and temporary shelters. These actions help decrease trespasser fatalities as well as delays caused by debris on the tracks. The project is expected to continue in perpetuity based on available funding.
Capitalized Maintenance The Capitol Corridor Capitalized Maintenance program focuses on upgrades and improvements to the railroad infrastructure to achieve and maintain a high level of on-time performance. In the past fiscal year, funding was used for improvements to the railroad track to improve passenger ride comfort and on-time reliability. The program also funded railroad signal system reliability improvements.
Rolling Stock Equipment Improvements Wi-Fi Upgrade In FY 2020-21, CCJPA will continue working with our Wi-Fi service provider to upgrade the existing onboard Wi-Fi with new equipment and technology. Design and installation commenced in FY 2019-20 will continue and is expected to be complete in early FY 2020-21. Overall, the upgrades will allow faster connection speeds, better service-level monitoring, and allow expanded onboard entertainment functions. The Wi-Fi service and upgrades are provided using a service model approach, in which both the capital and ongoing operating costs of supporting Wi-Fi and the associated amenities (e.g., entertainment and service applications) are amortized over time to allow for appropriate technology life-cycle upgrades to proceed, thus perpetually keeping the system modernized and meet the latest customer experience expectations.
Renewable Diesel Testing To help the State meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets and eliminate harmful air pollution emissions, CCJPA is actively engaged with its statewide rail partners and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to test the use of renewable diesel as a substitute for carbon-based diesel fuel. CCJPA, Siemens, Cummins, and Caltrans are presently testing renewable diesel in a new Charger locomotive as well as improving static testing on a F59 locomotive, and testing is expected to conclude in October 2020. With successful test results, renewable diesel is poised to become the standard diesel fuel used on the Capitol Corridor fleet and potentially other intercity and commuter rail fleets in California.
Additional New Rolling Stock Caltrans has procured new single-level passenger rail cars and these cars will be delivered for use on the San Joaquins service beginning in 2020. This delivery may offer an opportunity to shift some vehicles to CCJPA for assignment to the Capitol Corridor trainset rotation. The service expansion to/from Roseville—in association with the completed phase one of the Sacramento to Roseville Third Track project—will require more locomotives and rail cars for the Capitol Corridor service. In advance of the order of new rail vehicles for the NorCal IPR fleet, Caltrans is spearheading a fleet management plan that is supported by the CCJPA, SJJPA, and the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency.
- 6 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
Service Amenity Improvements Bicycle Access CCJPA has implemented a number of projects to support bicycle access to the service, including: • Support operations and maintenance of 184 BikeLink eLockers across all Capitol Corridor stations. • Made BikeLink cards available for purchase on Capitol Corridor trains and at staffed stations. • Increased onboard bicycle storage capacity by installing new angled bike racks on select train cars. CCJPA plans to install angled bike racks in additional cars and implement a bike storage solution for the two Superliner baggage cars in FY 2020-21.
California Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) Modernization PIDS provides passengers with train arrival information at Capitol Corridor stations and the current system is now in need of replacement. CCJPA is partnering with the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (management agency of the Altamont Corridor Express, or ACE), and the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency (management agency of the Pacific Surfliner service) to modernize PIDS across State-supported intercity passenger rail services, with implementation expected by early 2021.
California Integrated Travel Program (Cal ITP) CCJPA is managing a CalSTA-led, multi-agency initiative to research, develop and implement an Integrated Travel Program (Cal ITP) that will enable California residents and visitors to plan and pay for travel across multiple modes of transportation, including bus, metro, light and intercity rail, paratransit, bike hire, and ride-hailing services in California. With the help of dedicated Caltrans staff leading integration, the CCJPA is fiscally and programmatically supporting these critical objectives. Prior to FY 2020-21, a Market Sounding and Feasibility Study will be complete, and a Business Case start to be developed in Spring 2020. Initial phase of Cal ITP will involve pilots with select public and private transportation operators focusing on payment and/or mobility data implementation. The California Intercity Passenger Rail system is expected to begin a Cal ITP payment system upgrade sometime in 2020, prior to the effective date of the FY 2020-21 Business Plan.
Service Plan Improvements and Expansions Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Service Expansion Project The Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Project is currently at the 25% final design phase, and CCJPA is proceeding with the anticipated additional design refinements while also considering a revised access fee model of delivering project benefits with UPRR. A combined approach (capital capacity improvement coupled with an access fee model) may prove to be the most cost-effective method of delivering the Project benefits. The Project’s goals remain increased frequency of up to nine additional daily round trips between Sacramento and Roseville and an improved Roseville station.
South Bay Connect (Oakland to San Jose Service Expansion Project Phase 2A) The South Bay Connect project involves two main elements: 1) the rerouting of Capitol Corridor train service from its existing UPRR Niles Subdivision to the UPRR Coast Subdivision between Oakland and Newark and 2) a new intermodal station in the Fremont/Newark area that connects north-south rail service and existing east-west bus service across the Dumbarton transportation corridor, enhancing transit connections between Alameda County and the Peninsula. The proposed service reroute reduces travel time by up to 13 minutes between Oakland and San Jose. Resulting increases in ridership from travel time reduction and new intermodal station connections would reduce vehicle miles traveled on this congested corridor, resulting in lower overall transportation GHG emissions and harmful air pollutants. This project is being developed in coordination with a broad range of stakeholders, including Alameda CTC, AC Transit, and other public and private entities. The project completed its Project Definition phase in December 2019 and is expected to begin a two-year environmental and final design phase in early 2020.
Service Optimization Study The Service Optimization Study is a multifaceted look at potential short- to medium-term opportunities to increase ridership across the Northern California passenger rail system. Strategies to be examined include market-to-market travel demand and improve existing train scheduling and equipment utilization to maximize reliability and connectivity quality between different train systems. This work will heavily rely on a Northern California railroad network-level analysis of various NorCal passenger rail services that is expected to commence in early 2020. Another important element of the Service Optimization Study is to
- 7 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN refine a travel demand and ridership model for the explicit use of Northern California passenger rail operators that can more accurately capture the nuances of land-use details, intercity travel, and intercity/commuter hub station performance that are not captured by existing Amtrak or metropolitan planning organization (MPO) models.
New Transbay Rail Crossing CCJPA is partnering with BART on initial planning efforts needed to deliver a New Transbay Rail Crossing between San Francisco and the East Bay. The planned new rail crossing would include BART and standard gauge passenger rail services. The addition of interregional passenger rail service across the Transbay corridor would enable a one-seat ride between Sacramento and San Francisco and allow further one-seat direct connections between the Peninsula and East Bay locations. Section 9 of this ABP continues to include resources to support the full-time staff positions and supporting resources over the next five years to advance the planning studies and outreach efforts for interregional passenger rail services serving the greater NorCal Megaregion as part of the New Transbay Rail Crossing Project.
5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND ACTION PLAN The CCJPA’s management approach for the Capitol Corridor utilizes a customer-focused business model. This approach emphasizes delivering reliable, frequent, safe, and cost-effective train service designed to sustain growth in ridership and revenue. During the past 20 years, ridership has trended upward as the service provides a viable, transport alternative to the parallel congested I-80/I-680/I-880 highway corridors that is competitive in terms of travel time, reliability, and cost.
The CCJPA develops performance standards for the Capitol Corridor service to be aligned with the Uniform Performance Standards (UPS) developed by the CalSTA. CCJPA has long used data analysis to drive cost effective service improvements and expects to increase the role of data in future fiscal years. Table 5-1 summarizes the UPS and CCJPA results for FY 2018-19 and for FY 2019-20 through October/November 2019, as well as the standards for the next two fiscal years. Appendix B shows the measures used to develop standards for two additional years through FY 2023-24.
FY 2018-19 Performance Standards and Results • Ridership: 1.8 million, an increase of four percent over the prior FY 2017-18. • Revenue: $38.1 million, five percent above FY 2017-18. • System Operating Ratio (farebox ratio): 60 percent, above the 58 percent ratio for FY 2017-18, primarily due to increased revenues and lower fuel expenses. • On-Time Performance (OTP): 89 percent, slipping one percent from FY 2017-18.
FY 2019-20 Performance Standards and Results to Date • Ridership: Year-to-date (through November 2019) ridership is 1.6 percent above last year and 6.9 percent above business plan projections. • Revenue: Year-to-date (through November 2019) revenue is 1.3 percent above last year and 5.9 percent above business plan projections. • System Operating Ratio: Year-to-date (through November 2019) system operating ratio (a.k.a. farebox return) is 65 percent, above the FY 2019-20 standard of 52 percent. • On-Time Performance (OTP): Year-to-date (through November 2019) End-Point OTP is 84 percent, which is 6 percent below the 90 percent standard. Passenger OTP is 85 percent, 5 percent below the 90 percent standard.
FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 Performance Standards Table 5-1 provides the preliminary performance standards for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22. Appendix B shows the measures used to develop the performance standards. The FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 future operating costs have been developed to conform with PRIIA Section 209 pricing policy, which stipulates that all state-financed, Amtrak-operated intercity passenger rail (IPR) routes under 750 miles shall be priced by Amtrak in a fair and equitable manner.
- 8 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 Action Plan Table 5-2 summarizes projects, ongoing and planned, over FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22. The projects listed are new, one-time initiatives and do not reflect recurring or annual CCJPA objectives (e.g. develop annual marketing plan, update business plan, rider appreciation events, etc.). Each project shown in Table 5-2 is dynamic and can change based on circumstances beyond CCJPA’s control.
Table 5-1: System Performance Standards and Results
FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 Performance Standard Actual Standard % Difference Standard Standard Standard Usage
Route Ridership 1,777,136 1,670,400 +6% 1,759,000 1,795,000 1,808,000
Passenger Miles 119,601,577 113,555,900 +5% 119,086,000 120,409,000 121,281,000 Efficiency System Operating Ratio 60% 52% +16% 52% 52% 52% (train and feeder bus) Total Operating $0.52 $0.56 -7% $0.56 $0.56 $0.56 Cost/Passenger-Mile Service Quality End-Point On-Time 89% 90% -1% 90% 90% 90% Performance Passenger On-Time 87% 90% -3% 90% 90% 90% Performance Operator Delays/10K 429 >325 +32% >325 >325 >325 Miles
6. ESTABLISHMENT OF FARES The CCJPA develops fares in conjunction with Amtrak to ensure the Capitol Corridor service is attractive and competitive with the automobile and other transportation options. Ticket types include standard one-way and roundtrip fares, as well as monthly passes and 10-ride tickets valid for 45 days. Ten-ride tickets are discounted roughly 35 percent compared to one-way fares and monthly tickets are discounted roughly 50 percent from one-way fares, assuming use of 40 times per month. A 6-ride ticket was introduced in summer 2019, designed for college/university students. These discounted multi-ride fares have become increasingly popular due to the high number of repeat riders who use the Capitol Corridor trains as their primary means of travel along the corridor. Multi-ride tickets can be used year-round for all regularly-scheduled train service. Reservations are not required for any of the trains.
The CCJPA also offers targeted discount programs for leisure travelers. The “Take Five for $5 on Weekends” buy-one/bring up to five others at $5 each way is a seasonal discount for small group travel. Due to its popularity, CCJPA developed the “Friends and Family” year-round offer that allows savings for buy- one/bring up to five others at 50 percent off. The Capitol Corridor also utilizes a variety of seasonal discounts aimed at specific target groups such as seniors, to promote off-peak and weekend ridership. In addition, Capitol Corridor offers a variety of Everyday Discounts for seniors, children, military, disabled person, and members of select organizations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE The Capitol Corridor’s success and ridership growth benefits the environment by reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In California, approximately 41 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector. The Capitol Corridor generated an estimate of more than 120 million passenger miles in FY 2018-19, which corresponds to removing approximately 90.6 million vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) from Northern California roadways. The resulting net reduction of carbon dioxide was over 20,000 tons, which is equivalent to planting more than 2,912 trees.
- 9 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
Table 5-2: FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 Action Plan
Past FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Future Fiscal Fiscal PROJECT Years Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years
Davis Station Improvements Design
Santa Clara Siding Improvement Design
UPRR Signal Replacement/Upgrade
UPRR ROW Safety and Security
Surfliner Door Panel Replacement
Renewable Diesel Testing
Bicycle Access Plan Implementation
California Integrated Travel Program California Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) Modernization
Service Optimization Plan
Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Service Expansion South Bay Connect (Oakland to San Jose Phase 2A)
New Transbay Rail Crossing
FY 2020-21 Fares CCJPA recently completed a multi-year series of fare increases on multi-ride tickets that have followed an inflationary increase of two percent per year. No fare increases are planned in FY 2020-21 for single-ride or multi-ride tickets (except for train tickets that include a bus connection) as CCJPA works with Amtrak to seek opportunities to improve the efficiency of our service delivery. CCJPA is working with Amtrak on an overall adjustment for some bus fares to keep pace with a significant increase in bus costs for some routes. Bus fares have not adjusted in recent fare increases and changes may be necessary to maintain current service levels.
- 10 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
As part of its Marketing Program (Section 8), the CCJPA will develop outreach initiatives designed to increase customer satisfaction and ridership. Opportunities related to fares and ticketing include:
• Raise awareness of the flexibility of Capitol Corridor’s “unreserved” ticketing • Continue to promote the college/university 6-ride ticket and the “Stride On Board” loyalty program. • Continue to promote California’s “Everyday Discounts” • Increase utilization of Amtrak’s mobile ticketing features, since they enable real-time validation and improve customer convenience
Together, these fare and ticketing programs for FY 2020-21 will enhance customer convenience and increase revenue yield as part of the expanding eTicketing program.
FY 2021-22 Fares Currently, we do not anticipate fare increases for multi-ride or single-ride train tickets in FY 2021-22 beyond an inflationary level increase. If operating expenses fluctuate significantly (either increases or decreases), this plan will be revisited and adjusted accordingly. Other fare and ticketing opportunities include:
• Continue to expand and raise visibility of transit connectivity programs such as the Transit Transfer Program, joint ticketing, and transfer of motorcoach bus routes to parallel local transit services • Enhance customer loyalty and referral programs to retain existing riders and attract new riders
7. SERVICE AMENITIES, FOOD SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT The CCJPA is responsible for the administration and maintenance supervision of the State-owned fleet of rail cars and locomotives assigned to Northern California. The CCJPA works to ensure equity in the operation and maintenance of equipment assigned to the Capitol Corridor and the San Joaquins services. In accordance with the ITA, the CCJPA is entrusted with ensuring the rail fleet is operated and maintained to the highest standards of reliability, cleanliness, and safety. In addition, the ITA ensures that the unique features and amenities of the State-owned train equipment are well utilized and maintained to standards established by Amtrak, the State, and the CCJPA.
Service Amenities Accessibility The Capitol Corridor provides complete accessibility to passengers. Accessibility features include on-board wheelchair lifts, two designated spaces per train car for passengers in wheelchairs and one wheelchair- accessible lavatory on the lower level of each train car. Mobility-impaired persons not in wheelchairs can utilize grip bars at each door, work with conductors to utilize on-train step stools, or even utilize the wheelchair lifts, if needed, to board from the platform. Passengers who require assistance may contact the conductors for assistance in boarding or detraining.
Passenger Information Displays (PIDS) Each California rail car is equipped with passenger information displays that provide the train number and destination. These displays will be gradually upgraded with newer replacement parts that still maintain the historic look and feel of the unique California railcar equipment. Upgrades to the displays include new lithium batteries, LED lighting, and new display messages.
At the stations, there are electronic PIDS displays that provide train arrival times, delay information, and other notifications. CCJPA is leading an effort to modernize the PIDS system to improve system reliability and functionality. Description of the PIDS modernization can be found in Section 4, Capital Improvement Program.
Lavatories Lavatories in California cars feature electric hand dryers, soap dispensers, and infant diaper-changing tables. New air fresheners were added in the last fiscal year to help mitigate odors.
Wi-Fi All cars in the fleet have complimentary Wi-Fi service that originates from the “brain” car (Café car). In 2018, CCJPA transitioned from an Amtrak-managed Wi-Fi service to a CCJPA-managed service. CCJPA is
- 11 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN actively developing a next-generation Wi-Fi solution that will result in a significant upgrade of the system in 2020. CCJPA will manage the next- generation Wi-Fi system under a longer-term services-based contract, thus ensuring the Wi-Fi technology on California Intercity trains is kept modernized. See more details on next-generation Wi-Fi in Chapter 9, Supplemental Allocation section (page 20).
Bicycle Access Bicycle storage demand on the Capitol Corridor trains has quickly outpaced the capacity to safely meet that demand in recent years. The CCJPA Bicycle Access Plan (2012) presented key actions to improve and increase on-train and secure station bicycle capacity. To accommodate the increasing demand for on-board bike storage, bicycle access initiatives include: • Installed bike storage racks in all Northern California Coach Cars to store three bicycles on the lower level of the car. • Retrofitted 14 first generation California Cab Cars (8300-series) in FY 2013-14 to hold 13 bicycles as opposed to seven bicycles. • Configured five Surfliner Cab Cars (6000-series) with storage space for up to 13 bicycles in the lower level baggage area. • Added former California baggage cars (8200-series) with 15 bike storage capacity per car to the Capitol Corridor fleet as second bike cars on select Capitol Corridor trains. • Installed secure station bicycle parking at most Capitol Corridor stations. • Designed and installing onboard bike racks that increases storage capacity by 33 percent • Designing an onboard bicycle storage solution for the Superliner cars, which are leased from Amtrak for operations in the Capitol Corridor system.
Food and Beverage Services Menu changes and promotional efforts that CCJPA implemented in the past fiscal year have resulted in improved customer satisfaction and increased sales of select menu items. CCJPA worked with SJJPA and Amtrak this past year to shift supplier of fresh foods and have already seen positive feedback and sales in the first few months. In FY 2020-21, CCJPA plans to retain and expand regional choices, increase the number of combination options, and evaluate more ways to improve efficiencies for the Café Car. CCJPA and Amtrak will evaluate the viability of providing food service promotions and advertisements via on-board flat screen monitors. As of early 2020, CCJPA has reinstated food service on all trains with the return of service on Trains 549 and 550.
CCJPA will continue to work with SJJPA and Amtrak to ensure the food and beverage service meets customer needs and expectations.
Table 7-1: Northern California Equipment Fleet (Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins)
California owned rail equipment NOTES 15 F59 Locomotives Assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service 2 Dash-8 Locomotives Assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service 8 Charger Locomotives Assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service 78 Bi-Level California Coach and Café Cars Assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service 14 Single Level Comet Cars Assigned to San Joaquin service
Amtrak Supplemental Equipment NOTES 2 P42 Locomotives Assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service 1 Bi-Level Superliner Coach Car Assigned to Capitol Corridor service 1 Bi-Level Superliner Baggage Car Assigned to Capitol Corridor service 3 Bi-Level Superliner Café Cars Assigned to Capitol Corridor service 3 Single Level Café Cars Assigned to San Joaquin service 3 NPCU Single Level Baggage Cars Assigned to San Joaquin service
Equipment Acquisition, Renovation, and Upgrades The CCJPA works closely with Caltrans and Amtrak to refine the maintenance and operations programs at the Oakland Maintenance Facility to improve the reliability, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the Northern California rail fleet, which supports both the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin services. The fleet is a mix of California-owned equipment and leased Amtrak equipment as shown in Table 7-1. New fleet acquisitions under development will dramatically increase service capacity.
- 12 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
In January 2014, the State of Illinois, as lead agency for the Midwest states, California, Oregon, and Washington, announced the award of a federally-funded locomotive procurement for Chargers, the cleanest diesel-electric locomotives in the world. Chargers are clean-burning and meet EPA Tier IV emissions requirements. Eight Chargers were assigned to Northern California for use on the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins services. In 2017, Caltrans accepted ownership of the Chargers, Amtrak was contracted to operate them and CCJPA accepted to oversee the maintenance and service performance of the units. These eight Chargers were all equipped with federally mandated PTC (Positive Train Control). They now are now officially in operation on the Capitol Corridor in the lead position, further enhancing the safety of the Capitol Corridor service. CCJPA expects to receive two more Chargers in 2021, replacing two of the F59 locomotives.
Rehabilitation and Modification Programs Using previously allocated State funds, the CCJPA, Caltrans, and Amtrak have created a multi-year program of periodic overhauls to the existing train fleet that will improve the fleet performance and maintain the valued assets of the State’s rolling stock investment, while at the same time still provide enough cars to effectively run the service until new cars start to arrive in 2021. Below are lists of both the completed and upcoming projects:
Rail Equipment Projects Completed in FY 2019-20 • PTC equipment was installed in all the State’s 23 locomotives and 19 cab cars and is now fully operational and ready for the January 2019 federal deadline. • 39 of the 66 first generation California IPR cars have gone through a multi-year project to upgrade HVAC systems to a more environmentally friendly-refrigerant (R-410A), redesign ducting, and upgrade computer-controlled thermostats for more comfortable and constant temperature. During this modification, workers replaced aging floors with new linoleum and enhanced bracing at high traffic areas.
Rail Equipment Projects Upcoming in FY 2020-21 • Testing of renewable diesel in the new Tier IV California Charger locomotives to be EPA certified began in mid-2019 and will last one year. After successful testing, the new California Charger locomotive will be the cleanest petroleum-powered locomotive in the world and move California- owned passenger rail vehicles towards their goal of being carbon-free by 2040. • Newly designed bike racks with more storage capacity are being tested and will be installed on all cab cars. A bike rack design for the Amtrak-leased Superliners is also in progress, with implementation planned in early 2020. • The 15 F-59 locomotives owned by the State are going through a multi-year State-funded renovation program that began in 2011 and are due to go through their final overhaul in 2020. Two of the 15 are to be replaced with Tier IV Chargers by 2021, with an additional five possible by 2022/23. The head-end power units in the locomotives that provide power for lighting, electrical outlets, etc., that were updated to EPA Tier IV standards in 2012, will be overhauled starting in 2020. • Upgrades to the HVAC, ducting, and thermostatic controllers will continue. • The diner cars built in 1995/96 will undergo a rehabilitation of the upper level galley to update the equipment with current technology standards. Modifications include installing new chillers, drainage, counter tops, lighting, internet connections and food storage units. The new design will also make the working area more ergonomic for the food service employees. The first diner car to undergo the upgrade is due back in service February 2020. • For added safety and security, beginning March 2020, event recorders (black boxes) will be upgraded for better compatibility with PTC as well as trainset operation monitoring. • Assess a new seating proposal to replace existing seats on the 6000 series Surfliner cars and solicit passenger feedback. • Replace side door operators on the 6000 series Surfliner cars starting in March 2020. • Replacement of 20-year-old side door panels on the 6000 series Surfliner cars in 2020. • Clean the waste tank systems and reroute the venting on the 8800-series cars to help mitigate foul odors. • Ongoing replacement and upgrading of the floor panels on the 8000 series cars.
- 13 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
• Replace the destination sign LED displays. • Overhaul the hydraulic ADA boarding lifts on all cars. • Ongoing replacement of current incandescent and fluorescent lighting with more energy efficient, brighter, longer lasting, and cooler operating LED lighting.
8. MARKETING STRATEGIES To raise brand awareness of the Capitol Corridor service and increase ridership, the CCJPA employs a strategy of combining targeted advertising campaigns, multi-channeled cross-promotions with strategic partners, paid social media, and media outreach efforts. Primary objectives include promoting the service in key markets and attracting riders to trains with available capacity. Staff will focus on rider acquisition and retention through targeted advertising and brand engagement, primarily in the digital media space. Marketing dollars and impact are maximized through joint promotions and social media sharing with key partners along the Capitol Corridor route.
Advertising Campaigns and Brand Awareness Advertising campaigns inform leisure and business travel audiences about the advantages of train travel, including amenities, promotions/pricing, and destinations. CCJPA’s advertising efforts emphasize the Capitol Corridor image, brand, and destinations, in accordance with the CCJPA Board’s edict to create a distinct, regional brand for the Capitol Corridor and strengthen brand awareness throughout the service area.
Promotions The CCJPA will continue successful programs that target specific markets designed to build ridership during off-peak hours such as midday/mid-week and weekend travel. Destination-focused promotions highlight riding the train to events at venues along the route, such as Oakland Coliseum and Levi’s® Stadium, creating awareness of the train as a convenient to reach leisure destinations throughout Northern California.
Online Presence and Customer Engagement The CCJPA places great importance on delivering timely and accurate passenger communications via multiple channels, and engaging customers in providing feedback. Ongoing efforts include: • Maintaining a website that is mobile optimized and easy to navigate, with booking and trip planning tools that are easy to use, as well as timely and engaging content. • Boosting participation in online social networking platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn and exploring new opportunities within these rapidly evolving platforms. • Continuing rider appreciation programs such as “Cappy Hour” discounted drink hours, and other rider-focused programs. • Enabling consistent and timely passenger communications via a variety of channels, including SMS/text and email service alerts, to ensure customers receive clear and up-to-date information. • Encouraging passengers to provide input via our channels such as the website, social media, and toll-free number. We use this feedback to identify and prioritize service modifications, capital improvements, and desired amenities for the service.
Partnership Brand Marketing The Capitol Corridor’s Strategic Marketing Partnership program has established a catalog of marketing assets and associated metrics to enhance the CCJPA’s trade promotion negotiations, enabling selected partners to market their products via Capitol Corridor’s diverse marketing channels, such as interior, exterior, and station signage, social media, email, electronic station signs, and the on-board Wi-Fi landing page. The partnership program is designed to increase value, ridership and revenues by leveraging relationships with organizations that are close to Capitol Corridor stations and/or share similar target audiences to heighten Capitol Corridor’s brand visibility.
Joint Marketing and Outreach The CCJPA achieves cost efficiencies by working with local community partners, such as CCJPA member agencies and local destinations, to promote both destination and rail travel.
Customer Relations The CCJPA views communication with passengers as the cornerstone of our customer-focused service delivery. CCJPA actively encourages passengers to provide input via our website, social media channels,
- 14 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN and toll-free number, funneling these comments into an online platform, which allows CCJPA to better respond to the customer’s request or issue. We use this feedback to identify and prioritize service modifications, capital improvements, and desired amenities in the service.
Public Relations, Outreach, and Advocacy The CCJPA’s public information efforts uses traditional and digital media to build awareness about its service--activities include: • Advocacy and public relations efforts that aim to increase the Capitol Corridor’s visibility and recognition as a unique interagency partnership. • Helping communities along the route to build awareness of the service in their respective cities through local outreach campaigns, including transit connections via the Transit Transfer Program. • Publishing an Annual Performance Report that informs the public and elected officials of the service’s successes, benefits, and challenges. • Collaborating with Operation Lifesaver, a voluntary effort by railroads, safety experts, law enforcement, public agencies, and the general public. The CCJPA coordinates with Operation Lifesaver to support rail safety campaigns through education, engineering, and enforcement.
FY 2020-21 Marketing Program CCJPA’s FY 2020-21 Marketing Program will continue to focus on increasing ridership on trains with available capacity by emphasizing the convenience of modern train travel and targeting service periods with the highest growth potential.
CCJPA will continue its own independent advertising campaigns that position Capitol Corridor as a distinct regional service brand. CCJPA will evolve the Capitol Corridor brand to ensure that marketing and customer touchpoints align with the CCJPA’s overall vision at present and into the future. Key elements will include: • Creating more digital content (videos, photos, infographics, etc.) for distribution via website, blog, and social media channels, to educate and engage riders and non-riders. • Collaborating on promotions with partners to maximize media spend and expand market reach. • Conducting deeper analysis of ridership data to identify opportunities for micro-markets (single day/train offers, short-distance city pairs, etc.) and more sophisticated market segmentation. • Extend visibility of the brand, via train exteriors, uniforms, and other channels. • Seeking solutions for Contact Center communication gaps, research cost-saving options, evaluate service hours, etc. • Identifying areas for marketing and customer service automation and personalization, to more efficiently use our resources.
FY 2021-22 Marketing Program The CCJPA will continue to strive for ridership and revenue growth, as well as increased brand awareness through the region and beyond. Additionally, CCJPA will continue to align its marketing efforts with planned service amenity improvement projects, to ensure consistency of the customer experience. As CCJPA marks its 30th year of operation, marketing and communication efforts will focus on commemorating this milestone, along with emphasizing CCJPA’s commitment to high quality, customer-focused passenger rail service into the future.
9. FY 2020-21 & FY 2021-22 ANNUAL FUNDING REQUIREMENT: COST AND RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS The primary purpose of this ABP, as defined in the ITA, is to request the annual funds required by the CCJPA to operate, administer, and market the Capitol Corridor service for agreed-upon service levels as well as administer two State IPR technology programs and a megaregional rail service expansion planning
- 15 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN effort. Previous sections in this document describe the proposed operating plan, planned service improvements, and capital improvements for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22.
Operating Costs Based on the Operating Plan and Strategies (Section 3), the CCJPA has prepared an initial forecast for the FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 operating expenses, ridership, and revenues. The FY 2020-21 operating costs conform pursuant to PRIIA Section 209, which was implemented in FY 2013-14 as part of a national launch of a pricing policy for all Amtrak-operated IPR services under 750 miles. The CCJPA will submit any updated operating cost forecasts by June 15, 2020.
Projected operating costs are shown in Table 9-1 and include the basic train service and associated throughway bus services provided by Amtrak, the Information and Customer Support Services provided at the BART/CCJPA Contact Center, as well as CCJPA’s share of costs relating to the local transit service partnerships. The Information and Customer Support Services budget included in Table 9-1 includes proposed increases of 3.85% for both FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, the current inflationary level for the SF Bay Area.
Marketing Expenses The CCJPA’s marketing budget for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 will fund the respective fiscal year’s Marketing Programs presented in Section 8. The budget estimates shown in Table 9-1 represent only direct expenditures of the CCJPA and do not include any costs for marketing programs provided solely by Amtrak or the State.
Administrative Expenses Table 9-1 identifies the estimate for the FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 budgets that support the administrative activities of the CCJPA for the Capitol Corridor service
Total Budget Compared to the current period (FY 2019-20), the FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 total proposed budgets for the CCJPA’s operating, marketing, and administrative expenses are expected to decrease by 1.3 percent in FY 2020-21 and increase by 1.8 percent in FY 2021-22. The operating budget FY 2020-21 should be considered draft as of this version as Amtrak will not provide final forecast until March 2020.
The Capitol Corridor service will remain a part of the State’s IPR system, and, pursuant to the ITA, the service will continue to receive annual funding appropriations from the State. To that end, the CCJPA will provide the level of service consistent with funding appropriated by the Legislature and allocated by the State. Any cost savings realized by the CCJPA or revenues exceeding business plan projections during the term of the ITA will be used by the CCJPA for service improvements.
Supplemental Allocations CCJPA receives additional annual supplemental allocations from Caltrans for special projects that are not within the core CCJPA annual operating budget.
Minor Capital Projects Minor capital projects are small projects to improve Capitol Corridor passenger rail facilities and operations that are less than $314,000. Some recent examples of minor capital projects include the installation of signage at stations and the repair of damaged station bike eLockers.
Capitalized Maintenance See description in Chapter 4, Railroad Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvements section.
- 16 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
Table 9-1 CCJPA FY 2020-21 - FY 2021-22 Funding Requirement Capitol Corridor Service
Current Proposed Service Level FY 2019-20 Budget FY 2020-21 Budget FY 2021-22 Budget Sacramento-Oakland Weekday 30 30 30 Weekend 22 22 22 Oakland-San Jose Weekday 14 14 14 Weekend 14 14 14 Sacramento-Roseville 2 2 2 Roseville-Auburn 2 2 2
Ridership 1,759,000 1,795,000 1,808,000
Third Party Expenses (a) $ 12,128,000 $ 12,269,000 $ 12,514,000 Amtrak Expenses (b) $ 53,546,000 $ 53,343,000 $ 54,397,000 Information/Customer Support Services (c) $ 1,116,000 $ 1,160,640 $ 1,207,066 TOTAL Expenses $ 66,790,000 $ 66,773,000 $ 68,118,000
Ticket Revenue $ 34,987,500 $ 35,361,000 $ 35,714,000 Food & Beverage Revenue $ 1,912,500 $ 1,933,000 $ 1,952,000 Other Revenue (d) $ 600,000 $ 606,000 $ 612,000 TOTAL Revenue $ 37,500,000 $ 37,900,000 $ 38,278,000
CCJPA Funding Requirement CCJPA Operating Budget $ 29,290,000 $ 28,873,000 $ 29,840,000 Net Amtrak Operating Costs [Expenses less Revenues] $ 28,174,000 $ 27,712,000 $ 28,633,000 CCJPA Management Information/Customer Support Services $ 1,116,000 $ 1,160,640 $ 1,207,066 Marketing (e) $ 1,174,000 $ 1,174,000 $ 1,174,000 Administrative Budget (f) $ 2,737,000 $ 2,846,480 $ 2,960,339
TOTAL CCJPA Funding Request (g) $ 33,201,000 $ 32,893,480 $ 33,974,339 Difference from FY18-19 Budget $ (307,520) $ 773,339 Percent Change from FY18-19 Budget -0.93% 2.3% SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATIONS
CCJPA Supplemental Allocations Minor Capital Projects (h) $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Capitalized Maintenance (i) $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 TOTAL CCJPA Supplemental Allocations $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
CA IPR Support Supplemental Allocations Onboard Technology [Wi-Fi] (j) $ 2,336,000 $ 3,367,332 $ 4,138,227 New Transbay Rail Crossing (k) $ 1,750,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 California Passenger Information Display System [CA PIDS] (l) $ - $ 3,421,174 $ 2,618,245 TOTAL CA IPR Supplemental Allocations $ 4,086,000 $ 8,788,505 $ 8,756,472
(a) Includes Fuel, Host Railroad Maintenance of Way and Host Railroad On-Time Performance Incentive payments. (b) Expenses for services provided by Amtrak (i.e. On Board Staffing, Station Services, Ticketing and Maintenance of Equipment) and overhead support fees. (c) Operating expenses for Information/Customer Support Services provided by CCJPA/BART. (d) Miscellaneous revenue as allocated by Amtrak's Performance Tracking system. (e) The FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 marketing expenses will be capped at the same levels as the 13 prior fiscal years ($1,174,000). Does not include contributions by Amtrak or additional resources provided by the State (i.e. market research program). (f) Expenses for administrative support of the CCJPA Board and for management of the Capitol Corridor service. (g) Sum of CCJPA Operating Budget plus Marketing and Administrative Budgets. (h) Expenses to be allocated for small or minor capital projects. (i) Railroad infrastructure reliability enhancements. (j) CCJPA Management of Wi-Fi for the CA IPR services. Refer to Section 9 of the Business Plan for more details. (k) These funds will be used to advance the standard-gauge passenger rail as part of the New Transbay Rail Crossing, pursuant to the California State Rail Plan (2018). (l) CCJPA implementation of a modern CA Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) to be used for all CA IPR agencies.
- 17 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
Onboard Technology [Wi-Fi] In 2018, CCJPA worked with Amtrak to transfer the provision of third-party onboard Wi-Fi and its associated management expenses for the two Northern California State-supported intercity passenger rail services (Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins) to the CCJPA, with the understanding that the Southern California Pacific Surfliner would eventually also join under CCJPA’s oversight. As part of this shift, CCJPA procured a Next Generation onboard Wi-Fi service provider and a Wi-Fi service oversight contractor.
Under guidance from the Caltrans DRMT, these procurements were conducted as service-based contracts that ensure: • Technology is continually refreshed according to its optimized service life, not only according to when capital grant funds are available; • Bandwidth using cellular modems keeps pace with capacities of the cellular network, not limited by the technology on the train; • Costs are lowered over time by reducing the churn of capital procurement and servicing aging-in-place equipment; and, • Scaling and sharing of resources are used to reduce costs in the oversight and delivery of Wi- Fi service.
A service-based contract model amortizes capital and ongoing operational costs over a long service period, resulting in planned and predictable monthly payments for all elements of service delivery. CCJPA commenced the transition to Next Generation Wi-Fi for the Northern California fleet in FY 2019-20, and CCJPA incurred costs for supporting the legacy Wi-Fi system (necessary for uninterrupted Wi-Fi service to customers), one-time Next Generation Wi-Fi task order development, design oversight and commissioning, and the monthly payments for the Next Generation Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi oversight contractor. In FY 2020-21, the Pacific Surfliner fleet is expected to go through a transition process similar to how the onboard Wi-Fi service on the Northern California fleet shifted from Amtrak oversight to CCJPA. Thus, in addition to the Next Generation system support costs for the Northern California fleet, the Pacific Surfliner fleet will incur costs for supporting the legacy Wi-Fi system, oversight management and tasks for work directive development, design oversight, and installation commissioning, as well as a limited deployment of Next Generation system equipment The annual cost of the Next Generation Wi-Fi system on all three IPR services is expected to increase to $4.0 for FY 2020-21 (this is a preliminary estimate and may change in future versions submitted to CalSTA) and then lower slightly (due to one-time costs going away) for FY 2021-22.
California Passenger Information Display System [PIDS] CCJPA is leading the procurement, design, and implementation of a modern Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) that can be used by multiple passenger rail services across California, including the three State-supported IPR services. In additional to interoperability at stations shared by multiple service operators, another benefit of designing and implementing a standard PIDS across the State is the ability for multiple services to share the common costs of oversight and management of the system.
Similar to Wi-Fi, the CalPIDS procurement was conducted as a service-based contract to ensure that PIDS technology is kept up-to-date and that costs to public agencies are amortized over many years instead of traditional one-time heavy capital costs. One-time capital investment will need to be made at many stations that require telecommunications infrastructure upgrades, such as power and data circuits. CCJPA has received $1.1 million from SRA to initiate the project so far, and the estimated cost of CalPIDS modernization for all three State-supported IPR services is $240,000 in FY 2020-21 and $3.0 million in FY 2021-22 (these are preliminary estimates and may change in future versions submitted to CalSTA).
New Transbay Rail Crossing Initial studies have begun though BART and the CCJPA on early planning and implementation strategies for a Second Transbay Rail Crossing that would support both BART trains and interregional (intercity and commuter) passenger train services between the East Bay and San Francisco. Previous studies have identified the need for a new Transbay crossing of BART plus stand-gauge passenger rail services --- Core Capacity Study for the Transbay Corridor (Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the 2018 California State Rail Plan (Caltrans).
- 18 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
CCJPA was initially supporting this initial planning in FY 2019-20 with $1 million from a 2018 TIRCP funding grant for network integration (working with outside consultants). CCJPA is requesting an annual supplemental allocation amount of $2.0 million per fiscal year starting FY 2020-21 for the purposes of supporting dedicated full-time staff positions plus providing financial resources for project planning and implementation strategies over the next five years.
10. SEPARATION OF FUNDING As identified in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the CCJPA, the Controller-Treasurer of the Managing Agency of the CCJPA will perform the functions of Treasurer, Auditor, and Controller of the CCJPA. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s (BART) prior agreement with the CCJPA to serve as the CCJPA’s Managing Agency was first renewed in February 2005 for a five-year term through February 2010 and subsequently renewed for another five years for the period of February 2010 through February 2015. These five-year terms are consistent with AB 1717, enacted in September 2003, which allows the CCJPA Board five years to monitor BART’s performance as the Managing Agency. In November 2019, the CCJPA Board approved a five-year term with BART for the period of February 20, 2020 through February 19, 2025. This action was subsequently supported by BART’s Board in December 2019.
As identified in the ITA, the State performs audits and reviews of CCJPA’s Capitol Corridor service–related financial statements. In addition, the CCJPA requires that the Controller-Treasurer provide an annual independent audit of the accounts of the CCJPA within six months of the close of the State fiscal year. BART has established the appropriate accounting and financial procedures to ensure that the funds secured by the CCJPA during FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 to support the Capitol Corridor are solely expended to operate, administer, and market the service.
11. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER SERVICE EXPANSIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS This section presents service expansion and enhancement opportunities beyond the CCJPA’s FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 service plans and funding requirements. Planning for potential new services will require securing capital improvements, additional operating funds, and institutional agreements. The CCJPA CIP is fully aligned with the goals of the 2018 State Rail Plan, which includes integration of rail services (high speed rail, intercity and regional rail, and integrated express buses) and development of multimodal connection points across the State that allows for convenient and timed transfers between different transit services and modes.
The 2018 State Rail Plan was developed by CalSTA and Caltrans DRMT to envision the passenger and freight rail network in California at a larger scale than previous versions of the State Rail Plan. The Plan incorporates not only the IPR services, but also the planning efforts for the California High Speed Rail system. The leadership by CalSTA, as expressed through the 2018 State Rail Plan, is advancing the concepts of State rail planning and has greatly influenced the funding awards CCJPA has received from Cap and Trade as well as under SB1.
Megaregional Rail Planning & Vision Plan Update In November 2014 the CCJPA Board adopted the Vision Plan Update and in November 2016, adopted the Vision Implementation Plan that directed the CCJPA to plan the future of Capitol Corridor service in a larger Northern California megaregional context. This endeavor includes exploring cross-bay connections in San Francisco Bay Area and connections with passenger rail services in the San Joaquin Valley. In 2018, the State adopted a State Rail Plan that supported actions within the CCJPA Vision Implementation Plan and encourages cooperation among Northern California rail providers under a Northern California Megaregional context.
The long-term vision for Capitol Corridor fundamentally involves developing Capitol Corridor service as one where frequency (currently capped at 15 round-trips) is not limited by existing host railroad agreements. Instead, the vision is for a service with 15-minute frequencies in the peak hour, and one where higher-speed service (up to potentially 150 mph – electrified service) is permitted. This vision was first examined at a high-level in the Vision Plan Update where core concepts were studied, and several viable alignment alternatives were moved forward to the next step. The next step, the Vision Implementation Plan, eliminated
- 19 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN alternatives to one alignment via a phased and detailed engineering and operations level analysis. By identifying a path to a railroad corridor in public control, the implications for layering intercity, commuter, and even high-speed rail, are all viable potential outcomes consistent with the objectives of the 2018 State Rail Plan.
New Transbay Rail Crossing CCJPA is now working with BART on early planning and implementation strategies for a New Transbay Rail Crossing – an opportunity for a second crossing for BART between the East Bay and San Francisco and a first crossing of this heavily traveled corridor for interregional (intercity and commuter) passenger train services. This approach aligns with the Core Capacity Study needs identified in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)-led study and with the CCJPA Board direction to blend a conventional rail crossing toward an expanded rail network described in the 2018 State Rail Plan. The context of the Northern California Megaregion is the backdrop for the planned incremental program development steps for this megaproject.
CCJPA is supporting initial planning for this project with a 2018 TIRCP funding grant and FY 2019-20 supplemental allocations. CCJPA will work with the Bay Area Council Economic Institute and the University of California Davis, Institute for Transportation Studies, to commence a combined economic and transportation impact study of the new crossing for the Northern California Megaregion. CCJPA will then participate in a BART-led series of procured steps in development; critical program oversight, environmental and design efforts, right-of-way, and finally construction efforts that are aimed at project delivery over the next 15 to 20 years.
Rail Service Expansion Planning Most recently revised in February 2019, the CCJPA’s Train Service Policy supports future extensions to new markets beyond the Capitol Corridor or to potentially open up new markets within the existing route. This policy encourages partnerships between several passenger rail services and local/regional transportation agencies. The updated CCJPA Train Station Policy presents an improved process to consider new station viability, benefit, and integration into the Capitol Corridor route. It clarifies the process of establishing a potential new station and of developing the funding program to support the development of new stations along the route.
- 20 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
APPENDICES
- 21 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
APPENDIX A
Historical Service Statistics
Daily Total % Change Riders % Change Operating % Change Farebox State Fiscal Year Trains Ridership Prior Year Per Day Revenue* Prior Year Expenses* Prior Year Ratio* Costs* SFY 91/92 (a) 6 173,672 - - 864 $1,973,255 - - $4,848,967 - - 40.7% $1,592,907 SFY 92/93 6 238,785 - - 650 $2,970,103 - - $8,333,093 - - 35.6% $6,712,017 SFY 93/94 6 364,070 52.5% 1,000 $3,598,978 21.2% $9,911,735 18.9% 36.3% $6,714,761 SFY 94/95 6 349,056 -4.1% 960 $3,757,146 4.4% $9,679,401 -2.3% 38.8% $6,012,315 SFY 95/96 (b) 8 403,050 15.5% 1,100 $4,805,072 27.9% $11,077,485 14.4% 43.4% $6,434,940 SFY 96/97 8 496,586 23.2% 1,360 $5,938,072 23.6% $20,510,936 85.2% 29.0% $9,701,519 FFY 97/98 (c) 8 462,480 -6.9% 1,270 $6,245,105 5.2% $20,527,997 0.1% 30.4% $11,404,143 FFY 98/99 (d) 10/12 543,323 17.5% 1,490 $7,314,165 17.1% $23,453,325 14.3% 31.2% $16,022,024 FFY 99/00 (e) 12/14 767,749 41.3% 2,100 $9,115,611 24.6% $25,672,749 9.5% 35.7% $16,440,540 FFY 00/01 (f) 14/18 1,073,419 39.8% 2,941 $11,675,117 28.1% $28,696,741 11.8% 40.7% $17,680,477 FFY 01/02 18 1,079,779 0.6% 2,960 $12,201,602 4.5% $32,842,038 14.4% 37.2% $20,590,919 FFY 02/03 (g) 18/20/22/24 1,142,958 5.9% 3,130 $12,800,469 4.9% $36,469,383 11.0% 38.1% $21,540,910 FFY 03/04 24 1,165,334 2.0% 3,190 $13,168,373 2.9% $35,579,266 -2.4% 37.2% $22,708,181 FFY 04/05 24 1,260,249 8.1% 3,450 $15,148,333 15.0% $35,110,571 -1.3% 43.2% $19,962,238 FFY 05/06 (h) 24/32 1,273,088 1.0% 3,490 $16,014,636 5.7% $35,147,033 0.1% 45.8% $19,132,397 FFY 06/07 32 1,450,069 13.9% 3,970 $19,480,992 21.6% $40,533,332 15.3% 48.1% $21,052,340 FFY 07/08 32 1,693,580 16.8% 4,640 $23,822,862 22.3% $43,119,290 6.4% 55.2% $22,265,039 FFY 08/09 32 1,599,625 -5.5% 4,383 $23,505,602 -1.3% $50,159,032 16.3% 47.0% $25,113,642 FFY 09/10 32 1,580,619 -1.2% 4,330 $24,372,185 3.7% $52,843,973 5.4% 46.0% $27,499,149 FFY 10/11 32 1,708,618 8.1% 4,681 $27,176,573 11.5% $56,699,385 7.3% 48.0% $29,158,222 FFY 11/12 (i) 32/30 1,746,397 6.7% 4,785 $29,200,000 7.4% $59,035,857 4.1% 50.2% $29,606,390 FFY 12/13 30 1,701,185 -2.6% 4,661 $29,186,617 -0.05% $60,472,128 2.4% 51.0% $29,110,318 FFY 13/14 (j) 30 1,419,084 1.1% 3,888 $29,177,880 -0.03% $58,063,314 -4.0% 50.9% $28,421,000 FFY 14/15 30 1,474,873 3.9% 4,041 $30,092,694 3.14% $57,586,946 -0.8% 52.0% $32,595,784 FFY 15/16 30 1,560,814 5.8% 4,264 $32,187,647 7.0% $57,135,316 -0.8% 55.0% $31,745,660 FFY 16/17 30 1,607,277 3.0% 4,403 $33,968,835 5.5% $58,010,359 1.5% 57.0% $31,729,519 FFY 17/18 30 1,706,849 6.2% 4,676 $36,305,769 6.9% $61,221,333 5.5% 58.0% $31,000,000 FFY 18/19 30 1,777,136 4.1% 4,869 $38,109,114 5.0% $62,492,832 2.1% 60.0% $28,689,495 SFY = State Fiscal Year (July 1- June 30) FFY = Federal Fiscal Year (October 1 -September 30) a. Statistics available for partial year only because service began in December 1991. b. Increase to 8 trains began in April 1996. c. Statistics presented for FFY 97/98 and each subsequent FFY to conform with Performance Standards developed by BT&H. d. 10 trains began on October 25, 1998 and 12 trains began on February 21, 1999. e. 14 trains began on February 28, 2000 . f. 18 trains began on April 29, 2001. g. 20 trains began on October 27, 2002; increase to 22 trains began on January 6, 2003; increase to 24 trains began on April 28, 2003. h. 32 trains began on August 26, 2006 (with increase to 14 daily trains to/from San Jose). i. 30 trains began on August 13, 2012 (service optimization with re-opening of the Sacramento Valley Station platform). j. Starting in FY 2014 Amtrak adjusted ridership reports to account for the actual tickets lifted via the scanning of tickets by the conductors, which results in ridership forecasts and reports that are 15%-20% below previous forecasts and reports. Previously, multiride tickets were not directly logged into the system but the passenger counts for multiride tickets were estimated based on assumed inflated usage. Prior year % change is made using adjusted FY 12/13 ridership.
- 22 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN APPENDIX B
CAPITOL CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FFY 2018-19 to FFY 2023-24
FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 VARIANCE PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE STANDARD ACTUAL STANDARD ACTUAL TO PERCENT STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD CHANGE NUMBER OF DAILY TRAINS (SAC-OAK) 30 30 30 30 30 30 (a) 30 (a) USAGE Route Ridership 1,777,136 1,670,400 106,736 6.4% 1,759,000 1,795,000 1,808,000 1,844,000 1,881,000 Passenger Miles 119,601,577 113,555,900 6,045,677 5.3% 119,086,000 120,409,000 121,281,000 123,179,000 125,651,000 Average Daily Ridership 4,869 4,576 292 6.4% 4,819 4,918 4,953 5,052 5,153 Percent Change in Route Ridership 4.1% 3.6% 5.3% 2.0% 0.7% 2.0% 2.0% Percent Change in Train Passenger Miles 5.1% 5.0% 4.9% 1.1% 0.7% 1.6% 2.0% Percent Change in Train Miles 0.8% 0.5% -0.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Passenger Miles per Train Mile (PM/TM) 102.4 97.1 5.3 5.4% 102.4 101.6 102.3 103.9 106.0 COST EFFICIENCY System Operating Ratio 61% 55% 5.9% -- 56% 57% 56% 56% 57% Total Operating Costs per Passenger Mile $0.56 $0.56 $0.56 $0.57 $0.57 Percent Change in Total Revenue 5.0% 6.5% -- -- 6.2% 1.1% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% Percent Change in Total Expenses 2.1% -0.2% -- -- 4.1% -0.1% 1.9% 2.8% 2.7% Train Revenue per Train Mile $30.26 $28.17 $2.09 7.4% $30.08 $29.84 $30.14 $31.27 $32.21 Train Revenue per Passenger Mile (Yield) $0.296 $0.290 $0.01 1.9% $0.296 $0.302 $0.308 $0.314 $0.320 Train Expenses per Train Mile $53.14 $54.54 -$1.40 -2.6% $56.17 $57.86 $59.59 $61.38 $63.22 Train Only State Cost per Train Mile $22.88 $26.36 -$3.48 -13.2% $22.93 $21.99 $22.70 $23.05 $23.65 Train Only State Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.22 $0.27 -$0.05 -17.7% $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 $0.22 SERVICE QUALITY End-Point On Time Performance 89% 90% -1% -- 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Passenger On Time Performance 87% 90% -3% -- 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Operator Delays per 10,000 Miles 429 >325 104 32% >325 >325 >325 >325 >325 Percent of California Car Fleet Available 79% 87% -8% -- 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% OPERATING RESULTS TRAIN AND BUS Total Revenue $ 38,109,114 $ 35,300,000 $2,809,114 8.0% $ 37,500,000 $ 37,900,000 $ 38,278,000 $ 39,426,000 $ 40,609,000 Total Expenses (b) $ 62,492,832 $ 64,135,076 $ (1,642,244) -2.6% $ 66,790,000 $ 66,728,000 $ 68,027,000 $ 69,898,000 $ 71,820,000 Total CCJPA Operating Budget $24,383,718 $28,835,076 ($4,451,358) -15.4% $29,290,000 $28,828,000 $29,749,000 $30,472,000 $31,211,000 TRAIN ONLY Train Only Revenue $ 35,347,074 $ 32,935,000 2,412,074 7.3% $ 34,987,500 $ 35,361,000 $ 35,714,000 $ 37,060,000 $ 38,172,000 Train Only Expenses $ 62,069,278 $ 63,754,000 (1,684,722) -2.6% $ 61,653,000 $ 61,425,000 $ 62,617,000 $ 64,380,000 $ 66,192,000 Train Only State Operating Cost $ 26,722,204 $ 30,819,000 (4,096,796) -13.3% $ 26,665,500 $ 26,064,000 $ 26,903,000 $ 27,320,000 $ 28,020,000 Train Miles 1,168,000 1,169,000 (1,000) -0.1% 1,163,000 1,185,000 1,185,000 1,185,000 1,185,000 (a) Anticipated start of two (2) additional round trip trains to/from Roseville in FY20/21, based upon the expected completion of Phase 1 of the Sacramento-Roseville 3rd track project. (b) Includes operating expenses for call center/phone information and customer services provided by CCJPA/BART. ^ - Includes payments to Amtrak for use of equipment (including insurance) and minor capital costs. Not included in any other line item. • - Represents fixed price contract cost Actual contract cost may be lower, but not higher. ¶ - Per Business Plan Update/Amtrak Contract @ - Standard assumes increased train service to San Jose, Placer County: 30 Oakland-Sacramento weekday trains (22 on weekends), 22 daily trains to/from San Jose, 8 daily trains to/from Roseville and 4 daily trains to/from Auburn. NOTE 1 - Performance measures not calculated where no standard was developed.
- 23 - CAPITOL CORRIDOR FY 2020-21 – FY 2021-22 DRAFT ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN
APPENDIX C Capital Projects by CCJPA ($ million)
CCJPA Sponsored Programmed Project Cost Status Funding Sources Projects ($ millions) ($ millions) Davis Station Pre-construction acitvities $7.30 PTA, SRA, CCJPA RAB $7.30 Improvements
Santa Clara Siding Pre-construction acitvities $3.34 SRA, TIRCP $5.73 Improvement Project
STIP, PTA (ongoing 10- Capitalized Maintenance Ongoing ($1M annually) $10.00 $10.00 year dedicated funding)
UPRR Signal In progress $7.15 SRA, PTA $7.15 Replacement/Upgrade
UPRR Right-of-Way Safety In progress $7.50 SRA $7.50 and Security
Surfliner Door Panel Procurement in progress $0.55 Caltrans DRMT $0.55 Replacement
Renewable Diesel Testing Pilot testing in progress $1.00 CCRP $1.00
Refinement for new onboard Bicycle Access Plan bike rack and design of $0.23 CCRP $0.23 Implementation Superliner bike rack Various studies and business California Integrated Travel cases are being developed. $27.34 TIRCP $27.34 Program Initial pilots with select operator are expected in 2020. California PIDS Modernization (CCJPA Design initiated $1.11 SRA $1.11 share)
NorCal network analysis to Service Optimization Plan $0.40 TIRCP, CCRP $0.40 begin in early 2020
Sacramento to Roseville Prop 1A HST, STIP, Third Main Track Final design in progress $85.65 $85.65 PCTPA STIP, TIRCP, SRA Construction Phase 1
Sacramento to Roseville Phase 2 for 7 additional round Third Main Track trips (10 round trips total). This $4.00 CCRP $465.40 Construction Phase 2 phase is not fully funded. South Bay Connect Environmental and final design STIP, TIRCP, RM3, (Oakland to San Jose $196.36 $264.38 to begin in early 2020 Measure BB Phase 2A) Support for initial Second Transbay Crossing economic Network Integration $2.00 TIRCP $2.00 analysis and Southern Alameda County Rail Study TOTAL - ALL PROJECTS $343.29 ESTIMATED TOTAL $872.71
- 24 - 2/6/2020
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY 2020-21 and 2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
January 21 through January 27, 2020
ONLINE AND ONBOARD WORKSHOPS Wed, Jan 22: Facebook Live (≈24 attendees • 110 views) 1. Q. Has the Capitol Corridor have a green light to go to Salinas and Monterey yet?
A. We are not currently planning for a Capitol Corridor train extension to Salinas or Monterey. Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) is now actively working with Caltrain to study the feasibility of extending Caltrain service to Salinas. We had worked with TAMC on this in the past, but our limitations on service frequency and hours between Oakland and San Jose rendered any near-term service extensions to Salinas impractical. We can revisit per the State Rail Plan when conditions change.
2. Q. What needs to happen in regards to holding meetings with Union Pacific in order to gain more “slots” for service between the Sacramento Railyards MLS Stadium “site” and the Howard Terminal Ballpark “site” near Jack London Square?
A. Union Pacific has implemented a new business process called “precision scheduled railroading” that may open up opportunities to negotiate additional slots for added service. If we were to negotiate this however, we would need to have equipment and crew available for that additional capacity. Outside of that, we are always exploring ways to expand service, and our current focus is on increasing the number of trains to and from Roseville and to and from the San Jose area. Overall, it is critical to balance our passenger rail service expansion goals with Union Pacific’s goods movement/freight business. 3. Q. When would the weekend schedule change?
A. We’re looking at a schedule change towards the end of Spring 2020. We still have to work through UP’s approval process.
4. Q. What can riders do to help Capitol Corridor get more slots?
A. We suggest contacting your state legislators and indicate that you would like to see more Capitol Corridor service.
5. C. I love the “pulse” timetable. The San Joaquins do this every day of the week.
A. We’re currently limited by our existing train slots available with Union Pacific to do pulse scheduling on the weekdays but are exploring a pulse schedule on weekends as a part of our Spring 2020 schedule adjustment.
6. Q. Why DON'T you have a big lobbying entity behind you?
A. Capitol Corridor’s executive team works closely with the Governor’s office and state legislators to make sure they are fully aware of the Capitol Corridor service and our plans for expansion. We generally have very strong political support and have been successful in receiving funds to expand and improve our service. Legislators also like to hear from our customers who support the service.
7. Q. How can we get later trains on the weekends coming back from the Bay Area to Sacramento?
- 1 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
A. Because we are limited by the number of train slots and availability of equipment, we always try to schedule our trains to meet the most demand. Our latest trains on the weekends carry very few riders. We do, however, try to schedule special trains for large events along our route whenever possible.
8. Q. Is there a possibility for a discount small group (4 persons) to be purchased the same day during off-peak times, e.g. for weekend events in Sac for people traveling from the nearby region?
A. We offer a number of everyday and seasonal promotional fares, including a Friends & Family discount for groups of up to six people. Be sure to visit our Deals page, www.capitolcorridor.org/deals/, for all of our current discount offers.
9. Q. For San Francisco bus connections, wouldn’t it be more practical to partner with “AC Transit Line F” to take riders Transbay as well as from Emeryville to UC Berkeley?
A. We are exploring different options for bus service to/from San Francisco to better accommodate passengers while maintaining similar levels of service. 10. Q. When will the Oakland A’s discount code be released?
A. The code will be available starting March 1, 2020.
11. C. Looking forward to an increased frequency between SAC and RSV.
A. We are too and are actively working on the final design to move this frequency expansion project forward.
12. Q. Right now ALL of the bike share services that connect with Capitol Corridor have a minimum age level of 18 in their user agreement, but a 16-year-old can travel on Amtrak by themselves. Can you work with the bike share operators to lower their age limits? Can you have a lower price for people 18 and under, similar to many transit operators?
A. Individual bikeshare companies set their own user age limits, so it is not something we are able to change. However, we may be able to influence this issue from another angle – the fare payment. Cal ITP (California Integrated Ticketing Program) is a statewide project to establish a single fare payment method for transportation services across the state (transit, bikeshare, ride-hails, etc.). Part of the effort includes making sure that fare type definitions (adult, child, senior, single, multi-ride, monthly, etc.) are uniform across operators. 13. Q. Is there a plan for a dedicated bus connection between Capitol Corridor services to Richmond Station and SMART services at the San Rafael Transit Center?
A. There is no current plan to initiate bus service between Richmond and San Rafael. That said, in the process of updating the State Rail Plan, additional analysis of potential market-to-market pairings could suggest the feasibility of such a connection. In the future, there may be a more direct train-to-train connection between Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) and the Capitol Corridor in Solano County; SMART is currently studying this east-west connection. 14. Q. Have you explored integrating shared bike/scooter hubs very close to station/boarding areas?
A. As a passenger rail management agency, we rely on local jurisdictions to provide first/last-mile solutions to our service. We coordinate as much as possible with local jurisdictions that are implementing shared mobility solutions near the stations we serve. Additionally, we are always open to working with those jurisdictions and first/last-mile service providers on cross-promotional activities. 15. Q. Can we please make a 6-ride ticket open to any customer?
- 2 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
A. The 6-ride ticket was developed specifically for students age 13 to 25; however, we offer a number of other everyday and seasonal discounts on our deals page at www.capitolcorridor.org/deals. Q. It’s frustrating to see service alerts that describe a problem that’s outside of the control of Capitol Corridor, such as train congestion and trespasser incidents. Every time I see one of these I’d like to have an easy way to contact the CPUC, UP, state legislators etc to politely describe my frustration. Is there a way to do this with an app etc?
A. There is no app that we are aware of that provides a coordinated platform for contacting the multiple agencies you mention. Please know that we continually work to minimize all delays, even those outside our direct control. We have strong relationships with our operating partners and collectively work to handle, learn from, and minimize these service interruptions. 16. Q. I used to manage the Reno Fun Train that ran from EMY to RNO on Fri return Sun during winter months…do you think you could run a Capitol Corridor train like that?
A. We do not have train slots between Auburn and Reno, so seasonal train service to Reno is not possible right now. However, if future negotiations with UP include train slots beyond Auburn, that would certainly be an idea to explore. We did broach this subject in the early 2000’s, but it was not supported by Union Pacific at that time. 17. Q. With the significant growth in Placer County, particularly in the Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln area, any thought to extending the Capital Corridor in the direction of Lincoln? This would help relieve traffic on Hwy 65.
A. We have not explored extending service to Lincoln, as there is no easy and accessible right-of-way. It is easier and more cost efficient to expand service on an existing route than it is to start service on a new route. As such, we are currently focusing on increasing service to Roseville, which would be the closest stop to Lincoln. Probably the best near-term option is for local Lincoln officials to explore dedicated bus connections to Capitol Corridor service from Lincoln locations. Tue, Jan 21: Train 538 from GAC to RIC & RIC to SAC (Attendees: 5 GAC-RIC; 6 RIC-GAC) 1. Q. Restore midday service to San Jose (two people requested this).
A. The frequency of our service is in part determined by Union Pacific, which owns the tracks on which we operate. Without more frequency rights to run service between Oakland and San Jose, we must make the best use of the slots we do have (seven round trips) and that means focusing on times with the highest levels of demand. The extension of Train 525 to San Jose, now our most popular train, required us to cut a midday run to San Jose. Our hope is that we can eventually add even more service to San Jose through negotiations with Union Pacific. The first step in this effort is the South Bay Connect project, which will shift part of our service to a new track line and open up new ridership markets in the South Bay. (Is this accurate?)
2. Q. Monthly Pass Military Discount? Can we get that for 10-ride ticket?
A. The ten-ride ticket is already a discounted package. The military discount only applies to single-ride tickets.
3. Q. How do you decide what trains turnback at Coliseum vs San Jose?
A. We are limited to seven daily round trips south of Oakland Coliseum, so this decision is all about what trains we can and should operate within this limitation. That makes for tough choices, but by closely examining ridership data, we strive to schedule trains that best match the demand for service.
4. Q. Do future year plans include getting more frequency?
Q. Yes. Our Vision Plan document expresses our objectives in this area. It is a methodical process of negotiating - 3 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
and obtaining the capital funding necessary to take those steps. Right now, we are pursuing the South Bay Connect project, which sets the stage for future frequency increases between Oakland and San Jose.
5. Q. At Coliseum station, station clean-up is appreciated, but there have been car window break-ins in the parking lot. I have called Oakland police, but police have not necessarily been responsive.
A. We are aware of the security concerns at the Oakland Coliseum Station. We are working with Amtrak Police to increase regular security presence at the station and are coordinating with the Oakland Police Department whenever possible.
6. Q. Between Hayward and Coliseum, train goes 79mph, is this a risk?
A. This is the designated speed for this track segment. Track speed and operations are prescribed and monitored at the federal and state levels to make this a safe operating speed.
7. Q. Is there an Amtrak or CCJPA liaison with the Cities to deal with station issues?
Q. Yes. There is staff in both organizations to address station issues on their own or with the cities along the route. Our website’s Help Center is the best way to report station issues to our staff. We actively respond to all submissions. https://support.capitolcorridor.org/portal/home.
8. Q. Suggestion to restore old Berkeley train station (was a restaurant that closed)
A. This decision would have to be made by the City of Berkeley or whoever owns the rights to the location.
9. Q. Let Hayward / Fremont know about South Bay Connect so they know those stations won't be served (in case they were counting on it for TOC)
A. We are working with those cities on our South Bay Connect project, and they are aware of our intentions on the Coast Subdivision. 10. Q. I really love the Capitol Corridor! It’s the best kept secret! Thank you so much.
A. Happy to hear!
11. Q. Food - love the service providers and hand-crafted drinks - would be nice to have less packaging and fresh Bay Area food.
A. While we too would like to see less packaging, the more extensive packaging preserves shelf life and reduces waste. We will continue to work with our food vendors to strike the best balance between shelf life and packaging. 12. Q. You should consider doing special food events on certain trains, such as for a 49er’s game, with food vendors.
A. We will consider this suggestion but need to navigate the various laws around food preparation and food contracts with designated vendors. We have offered special drinks in the past that use ingredients available through existing vendor contracts, and we hold regular rider appreciation events that often feature samples of food available in or that we’re looking to add to the Café Car.
- 4 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
13. Q. The conductors are lazy when it comes to enforcing one ticket – one seat.
A. We are working with conductors and their managers to improve their enforcement of this policy. If you are on a train where you do not hear the ‘one ticket- one seat’ announcement, please contact us via our website, https://support.capitolcorridor.org/portal/home. 14. Q. Buses have been full at the SF transbay stop and caused me to have to wait until the next bus/train combo. Can something be done about that?
A. During our last schedule change, we shifted our arrival times in the early morning in a way that made the Richmond connection to BART less appealing. In our Spring 2020 schedule adjustment, we intend to make this morning connection faster, which we believe we bring more of our San Francisco-bound customers back onto BART. The Amtrak contract bus provider costs have escalated rapidly in recent years, so we closely examine our bus operations to deal with those crowding situations but just need to do so in a cost-effective way. Long-term, we are working actively with AC Transit to shift bus operators for this transbay connection. 15. Q. We are feeling the train crowding. Train 525 is super crowded, and the only decent day is Friday.
A. 525 is currently our most popular train. We have a limited number of cars available to expand our trains, but we do actively monitor the situation to try to maximize seat availability. In the longer term, we are working with the State to obtain more NEW cars, but that will take some time. We post information on our website that shows the average capacity of each train. This gives customers with travel time flexibility the option to pick a less crowded train. You can find this information at: www.capitolcorridor.org/ccjpa-performance. 16. Q. Zipcar is the only car-sharing service in San Jose. I would like GIG cars there too.
A. We do not have direct control over car-sharing partnerships. Passengers can contact GIG or other rideshare services to inquire. Wed, Jan 22: Train 536 from RIC to SAC & SAC to ARN (Attendees: 10 RIC-SAC; 15 SAC-ARN) 1. Q. I have been riding 5 years and been late 3 times due to mechanical issues, but the trespasser strikes have been a far worse problem. What is going on with trespassers?
A. Unlike mechanical issues, we do not have a lot of control over trespasser incidents and they almost always result in significant delays. Part of our effort to reduce trespasser incidents involves working with local officials to remove homeless encampments in a dignified manner and installing or repairing fencing in locations where we see pedestrians crossing the right of way. We are also posting suicide hotline signs in key locations, an action that has had positive results for some rail agencies. We will continue to pursue all reasonable options to prevent these incidents. 2. Q. Please consider having microwave popcorn.
A. Comment noted and considered. We are continually evaluating our café car options. 3. Q. Communicating about delays on the train by conductor is appreciated – keep it up.
A. We intend to keep this up. 4. Q. What about a train station in Dixon?
A. Dixon would need to take the lead in that effort. Any potential new station needs to meet the criteria set forth in the Capitol Corridor’s station policy. 5. Q. Would you consider a WAZE partnership for train arrival data?
A. We already have several ways for passengers to access train arrival information already. As such, we do not - 5 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
envision a partnership with WAZE for that purpose. We have in the past advertised our service on WAZE and are always open to opportunities for cross-promotion in the future. 6. Q. It would be great if you can do more trains to Roseville to also get some more to Rocklin. A. We can consider it; however, our focus now is to increase service between Sacramento and Roseville, a project that is already under way. We would have to negotiate with Union Pacific for more slots up to Rocklin and consider the implications on train layovers and servicing. 7. Q. It would be wonderful if you could run a weekend train schedule that allowed for late Bay Area sports games to get out.
A. Our current late trains have very low ridership, but we do try to coordinate special service for large events, on a case-by-case basis.
8. Q. In the Emeryville elevators, they are sometimes really nasty – with blood in them. Can they be better cleaned or more often?
A. We will notify the City of Emeryville and request additional cleaning of these facilities.
9. Q. Please put on or have Quiet Cars in the afternoon so that we have a car that does not have cell conversations.
A. We can see what the demand is for this and consider the option of adding Quiet Cars in the afternoon. 10. Q. Can you do something about loud cell phone users?
A. We do have Quiet Cars on designated morning trains and may consider adding afternoon cars if there is sufficient demand. See which trains currently have Quiet Cars here: https://www.capitolcorridor.org/quiet- car/. 11. Q. Can you consider express trains?
A. We do not have enough train frequencies permitted across the day to effectively support an express train option. 12. Q. Please bring back Champagne and NOT Prosecco – there is a difference.
A. Comment noted and passed on to our staff responsible for coordinating menu changes. 13. Q. Please stop giving us cold bagels – they need to be heated
A. Comment noted and passed on to our staff responsible for coordinating menu changes. 14. Q. You need to make sure bus drivers know that they are supposed to support bikes in the lower compartment. Some are good but some don’t know and they give us grief when we want to use that option.
A. Comment noted and will be passed along to each bus driver. If this happens, please let us know via the Help Center on our website so we are able to address the issue. 15. Q. Some transit operators – as in bus drivers – are not respecting the transit transfer passes. They need an informing that these are actually valid.
A. Agreed. We will put the word out to our transit partners accepting our transfers. 16. Q. It is getting crowded with more bicycles. A. We agree. As the demand for bike access grows, we continue to support efforts to accommodate bicycles safely onboard trains. We are also working to provide safe station parking for those who are able to leave their bicycle at one end of the trip. 17. Q. OBIS is either going to happen or not – make a decision because these signs with their messaging look silly.
- 6 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
A. Agreed. We are working to decommission the test with Caltrans. Likely they will be removed on a permanent basis given the complexity of retrofitting existing cars. 18. Q. Can you put more train cars on for Fridays?
A. Because of how trains are rotated through the system, we do not have the opportunity to add cars specifically to Friday trains. 19. Q. I live in Truckee but would hope that a train could eventually serve there into the Bay Area. 20% of people in Truckee are tied to jobs in the Bay Area (a Truckee stat). Sometimes I fly from Reno but I would want to take the train. Can you work on that?
A. We tried in the early 2000’s for a potential train serving that community, but that was not supported by Union Pacific. This is a very interesting statistic, and we will consider this as a market opportunity. We are pursuing more trains to Roseville and then buses to/from Roseville to serve Truckee. 20. Q. I hate the OBIS audio bong – it is too loud!
A. Understood – we will address the volume. 21. Q. Can we convert line F AC Transit to go to SF for CC trains?
A. We are exploring different options for bus service to/from San Francisco to better accommodate passengers while maintaining similar levels of service.
22. Q. We need more opportunities to connect to Roseville via buses. There is too much demand to have those gaps in the day where there is NOT a bus.
A. We will take this suggestion and see if we can support it. This will raise costs, but if it has the potential to build ridership overall, it may be a good move. We will explore this opportunity and look for opportunities to partner with local transit providers. 23. Q. You need to have more opportunities for student or child pricing to increase ridership and grow the base of people who know and like using trains for travel.
A. We have child and student discounts available today and have promotions that can help family’s save on travel. See all of our deals here: https://www.capitolcorridor.org/deals-promotions/. 24. Q. Can we return to having the 60-day multi-ride pass?
A. We are looking at our entire fare product system at this time, but do not expect to return to a 60-day multi- ride pass. 25. Q. I would like you to have a variety of light and dark beers.
A. We will pass your suggestion along to staff responsible for coordinating the Café Car menu. Wed, Jan 22: Train 545 DAV to MTZ (Attendees: 8) 1. Q. Is it true that Capitol Corridor/Amtrak losing their contract? This was in reference to the Stacey Mortensen testimony regarding Amtrak and the SSJPA service.
A. Amtrak is still the operator of Capitol Corridor for the foreseeable future. 2. Q. Why is 524 consistently late? The passenger regularly rides at Suisun/Fairfield to Sacramento.
A. Train congestion in the Santa Clara County portion of the route has been causing frequent delays to Train 524. (The corridor is shared with ACE and Caltrain.) In the short term, we are working on our Spring 2020 schedule change to address train congestion delays. Longer term, we are working on the design of a siding near the Santa Clara-Great America Station that will alleviate train conflicts and decrease delays in the southern portion of our route. - 7 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
3. Q. Passenger was concerned at the cost increase of fares. Stated that since he has been riding the service costs have risen from $120 to $360 in a 10-year period for monthly passes. Why do prices continue to rise?
A. Capitol Corridor’s operating costs increase year-by-year based on expected inflation inclusive of fuel, insurance, and Amtrak labor cost increases. This year we do not anticipate any fare increases for our train service; however, we may need to make minor adjustments to some connecting bus service fares. 4. Q. Is there anything that can be done to improve speed and reliability of the fleet? Passenger rides a 60-mile distance and would like to know what it takes to traverse that distance in 45 minutes.
A. Train speeds are restricted by regulations based on the class of railroad, as well as the condition of the track at the time. Any increases in speed would need to be accomplished by infrastructure changes in the railroad right-of-way, such as curve super-elevation or signal system upgrades according to those standards. Regarding reliability, we are working on better maintenance oversight and reducing trespasser incidents by clearing vegetation and homeless encampments along the right-of-way. There are also some railroad engineering projects that we’re working on to reduce train conflicts that cause delays. Overall, we look to engage with sound public investments that maximize value and that are reasonable given our access to public operating subsidies and capital grants. 5. Q. Why does the bridge have preference over trains? Why do trains get delayed by the bridge?
A. Maritime laws and ship movements have precedent mainly due to the fact that water flows can influence shipping movements, whereas trains can stop. To minimize delays while respecting these laws, we work closely with the bridge tenders to help them manage windows of opportunity for trains to pass. 6. Q. What is the plan for the new Transbay rail crossing? How would trains get across to SF?
A. The project is in the early phases of development. It is a complicated project that will require extensive analysis and planning. The options on the table are a tunnel and/or a bridge. Everything is on the table until further analysis can allow some options to be dismissed and choices limited to the best practical/value option. 7. Q. Does CCJPA or the State plan to purchase land or ROW in order to build separate railroad from UPRR?
A. Options to purchase, lease, or otherwise have access to land for rights to run train service are on the table; however, with assembled right-of-way being a scarce resource, it is more likely that we will continue to work with UP on sharing existing corridors. 8. Q. Why can’t we run past 79mph, what are the limitations?
A. The speed limits for our trains are restricted by the railroad track infrastructure and signal system in place, in addition to the number of at-grade crossings, all of which are built and maintained to meet specific federally mandated rail speed classes. Going faster is feasible but requires additional infrastructure (at cost) and can limit capacity for freight rail operations. Thu, Jan 23: Train 537 OKJ to GAC (Attendees: 4) 1. Q. Would you ever run a train to Chico?
A. There are currently no plans to extend the Capitol Corridor to Chico, but we do anticipate coordinating with bus services that can connect to Sacramento from Chico. 2. Q. Why doesn’t Capitol Corridor have business class?
A. The Capitol Corridor has made a business decision to not administer business class service for a variety of reasons, which includes the availability of equipment, the additional cost of administering a business class service, and our commitment to providing the highest quality service to all of customers regardless of where they are sitting or when they are traveling. 3. C. I have taken almost every train on the Amtrak route. Capitol Corridor trains are better than Amtrak’s other - 8 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
trains and has better food too.
A. We’re glad you think so! The Capitol Corridor benefits from local management, and we do our best to be responsive to customers. 4. C. Capitol Corridor trains are much better than Caltrain.
A. Thank you. Caltrain does the best they can with their available equipment and busy ridership. We hope to be able to offer more frequent service in the future, like Caltrain! 5. Q. Why is Capitol Corridor not tied into Clipper?
A. Our ticketing system is operated by Amtrak, and this system requires that each ticket be assigned to a name, which is not required by Clipper. Also, Clipper is only used in the San Francisco Bay Area, not Sacramento. 6. Q. Why don’t you run a later train from San Jose? I get out of class at 7:00pm and I always have to rush to catch the 7:15pm train home
A. Your suggestion will be conveyed as we plan for upcoming schedule changes. Note that we are limited by Union Pacific, which operates the tracks on which we operate, in how many trains we can run each day (seven round trips on the weekdays between Oakland and San Jose) and have to make difficult choices about how best to slot those permitted trains. We will continue to gather feedback from passengers to determine optimal schedules that best meet rider demand. 7. Q. Why don’t you have paper towels in the bathrooms?
A. We have found that paper towels create unwanted paper waste on the trains. 8. Q. Why don’t you have notifications to passengers when buses will be delayed? The bus in Oroville broke down and I did not get notified.
A. Our current service alert technology is not able to track buses as it does trains; therefore, we are not able to provide alerts on a consistent basis. If we do know of a major bus service disruption, we do our best to manually put out an alert, but for the most part, bus passengers are notified by Amtrak reservations when a bus is severely delayed or needs to be cancelled. That said, we are continually working to improve customer communications and may consider options for adding bus service alerts as time, resources, and budgets permit. 9. Q. Is Capitol Corridor going to support the bus-only lane on the Bay Bridge?
A. This will be discussed at the upcoming February 2020 CCJPA Board Meeting. 10. Q. Is there any talk of going to the State Legislature to force UP to give up more track space for more trains?
A. We have worked in partnership with Union Pacific to expand train service. We do not believe the State Legislature would have the authority to force more track access. 11. Q. Are there issues with the train horns at night in San Jose?
A. The recent train noise issue in San Jose is related to freight trains on a different right-of-way than that used by the Capitol Corridor. 12. C. The connection to VTA light rail at Santa Clara-Great America is not good.
A. Comment noted. There will be a City Place/Great America station Master Plan process in coordination with the VTA and the City of Santa Clara to look at improving connectivity between different transit modes at the station. The Lick Mill VTA station and Santa Clara-Great American heavy rail station are about as close as they can be for now given profiles of the Tasman Drive bridge. But in the future, with nearby development planned, we are working with VTA and the other partners to improve that connection. - 9 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
13. Q. Is Capitol Corridor considering investing in TOD to help fund the service? Or is it outside of your mandate?
A. The Capitol Corridor JPA does not own any land, and we coordinate with local jurisdictions on local station developments, including TOD. Thu, Jan 24: Train 542 GAC to OKJ (Attendees: 10) 1. Q. I wish there were more parking at the Sacramento Station. I have to arrive at 4:15 am in order to get a parking space.
A. Each station’s parking is managed by the local municipality. We encourage you to share your suggestion with City leadership. 2. Q. Is there a way for Santa Clara to provide better bike routes from the Santa Clara Great America Station?
A. We encourage you to contact City of Santa Clara directly about this, but we are also planning to share a station area evaluation that is currently in the works to identify opportunities for improving access to all of our station. 3. Q. I am somewhat concerned about the closure of the Hayward and Fremont Stations when the route gets moved to the Coast Subdivision.
A. The Hayward and Fremont stations are among our lowest-ridership stations along the route, and there will be a new station along the Coast Subdivision that can still serve customers in mid- to south-Alameda County. Hayward and Fremont also have multiple BART stations that people can take to get to their destinations (especially since BART is extending to San Jose) or connect with Capitol Corridor elsewhere. 4. Q. Capitol Corridor needs to better manage security at the Oakland Coliseum.
A. We are aware of the security concerns at the Oakland Coliseum Station. We are working with Amtrak Police to increase regular security presence at the station and coordinating with the Oakland Police Department whenever possible. 5. Q. Is the station at Hercules actually going to happen?
A. The status of Hercules as a candidate station, which will allow the City of Hercules to pursue additional funding, will be discussed at the upcoming February 2020 CCJPA Board meeting. 6. Q. When will the train bridge near the Benicia bridge be updated?
A. There are currently no immediate plans to replace the Benicia-Martinez railroad bridge, but we have identified a long-term need in our Vision Plan for it to be replaced as a non-lifting bridge in the future. 7. Q. Can you add more trains?
A. Train frequency is currently limited by the availability of equipment and by the number of train slots allocated to us by our two host railroads (UP and Caltrain). But that is certainly a goal we’re working towards with several capital projects. 8. Q. Can you add more parking?
A. Station parking is provided by the local jurisdiction that owns the station – usually the city – so requests for more parking should be conveyed to them. 9. Q. Can you increase security at the Oakland Coliseum Station?
A. We are aware of the security concerns at the Oakland Coliseum Station. We are working with Amtrak Police to increase regular security presence at the station and coordinating with the Oakland Police Department whenever possible. 10. Q. What do you think about closing the Oakland Coliseum Station due to safety and security issues, and
- 10 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
instead, open a station in San Leandro near the Davis Street BART? There is parking and it is clean and safe there.
A. We are aware of the security concerns at the Oakland Coliseum Station. We are working with Amtrak Police to increase regular security presence at the station and coordinating with the Oakland Police Department whenever possible. Regarding a potential new station in San Leandro, that would need to be initiated by the city, and the proposed station would need to meet certain criteria set forth within our station policy to be a considered. 11. Q. Why do we have to wait so long when there is a trespasser incident? Isn’t there anything that can be done to reduce the delay?
A. In the event of a trespasser incident, there are several procedural requirements that must happen, such as police and coroner examination, to make sure that the incident details are captured. These are processes that are outside of our control, and we must cooperate fully with local law enforcement. However, we are supporting an additional two Amtrak transportation supervisors along the Oakland to San Jose section of the route to ensure that we can respond to customer needs as quickly as possible when incidents like this occur. 12. C. I live near Roseville. I leave my house at 4:00 am every day. I work in Santa Clara where I manage a global team and have a lot of staff who go into the office with me. I get home by 8:00 pm every day. I tell everyone how much I love Capitol Corridor. If it weren’t for Capitol Corridor, I would not be able to keep my job.
A. We’re glad that Capitol Corridor can be part of your regular commute! 13. C. You should offer some type of refund for a monthly rider if a rider misses the train on a given day.
A. Capitol Corridor’s discounted monthly ticket is good for unlimited rides during a given calendar month. Based on a rider’s origin and destination stations, the price of the monthly ticket does not reflect the number of times within a month it is used. We do not provide refunds for days on which a ticket is not used; however, if a customer misses a train they usually ride, they are free to ride any other Capitol Corridor train if it is at the same station. Refund requests for missed trains due to major delays must be requested through Amtrak. They are considered on a case-by-case basis and riders are usually offered a voucher towards future travel rather than a refund. 14. C. You should offer more service in Davis.
A. We’re currently limited by the number of train slots and equipment to increase frequency, but we’re definitely working toward a future goal of more trains all along the route. Fri, Jan 24: Train 543 DAV to OKJ (Attendees: 10) 1. Q. Why is 524 always late?
A. Train congestion in the Santa Clara County portion of the route has been causing frequent delays to Train 524. (The corridor is shared with ACE and Caltrain.) In the short term, we are working on our Spring 2020 schedule change to address train congestion delays. Longer term, we are working on the design of a siding near the Santa Clara-Great America Station that will alleviate train conflicts and decrease delays in the southern portion of our route. 2. Q. Are there any plans to update the fleet?
A. We will be getting two new Siemens Charger locomotives in 2020. As for new coach cars, there is a State-led Fleet Management Plan being developed to determine future equipment needs for all State-supported passenger rail services. 3. Q. Passenger was interested in renewable diesel and wanted to know more about it and when we can expect the entire state of California have all passenger engines run on renewable diesel?
A. Renewable diesel testing is expected to conclude in October 2020. At this time, analyses will be performed to - 11 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
determine if renewable diesel provides the same engine performance as regular diesel. 4. Q. San Francisco Salesforce street side bus stop came up. Bad experience with no shelter. Passenger wanted to know why not just have all pick-ups and drop-offs at the Hyatt or utilize Salesforce?
A. There are no plans to abandon transbay bus services due to the importance of San Francisco to all the other connecting markets. The decision not to pick up passengers within the Salesforce Transit Center was made primarily based on operational challenges given our multiple on-street stops in San Francisco but also based on cost consideration. Passengers should also be reminded that there are connections to BART at both the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations for easy travel to and from San Francisco. We are making minor schedule adjustments in the Spring to make this connection even quicker at Richmond. It is unlikely that we would only serve the Hyatt given that most of the customers board at Salesforce and the Hyatt is directly served by BART with a connection available at Richmond Station. 5. Q. When will AC Transit take over Emeryville to SF bus operations from Compass?
A. Discussions are ongoing with AC Transit regarding Emeryville to SF bus operations, but no date has been determined for the start of service. 6. Q. Is Salesforce cost prohibitive or why are we not using it? Is it true that Amtrak/CCJPA is trying to push passengers to ride BART and abandon bus service altogether?
A. There are no plans to abandon transbay bus services due to the importance of San Francisco to all the other connecting markets. The decision not to pick up passengers within the Salesforce Transit Center was made primarily based on operational challenges given our multiple on-street stops in San Francisco, but also based on cost consideration. Passengers should also be reminded that there are connections to BART at both the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations for easy travel to and from San Francisco. We are making minor schedule adjustments in the Spring to make this connection even quicker at Richmond. 7. Q. What are we doing to address wayfinding at Richmond station? Passenger stated that getting around the parking garage to the train station is confusing and not enough signage.
A. We will look into this further and coordinate with BART. 8. Q. Can parking at BART be discounted for Capitol Corridor ridership?
A. BART administers the parking at their stations. CCJPA has not approached BART to establish a parking discount. 9. Q. What is CCJPA doing to clean up some of the stations, specifically Richmond?
A. We have requested Amtrak to perform more frequent cleanings at select East Bay stations, including Richmond and Oakland Coliseum. 10. Q. Can State employees get a discount for riding on CC?
A. There are presently no discount programs or validation systems in place to support a State employee discount. You may want to check with the State employer to find out if there are any pre-tax commuter benefits offered that can be used with the Capitol Corridor train service. Additionally, you may want to take advantage of our multi-ride discount ticket options (10-ride and monthly), and check out our Deals page for ways to save: https://www.capitolcorridor.org/deals-promotions/. 11. Q. Passenger suggests that the first Eastbound train on the weekends be an hour earlier.
A. We will take this suggestion into consideration as we plan our next schedule change. ONLINE COMMENTS/QUESTIONS Social Media Comments (Facebook) 1. C. Keep the single seats love those - thank you.
- 12 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
A. While we can’t take credit for the car design, we are aware that people do enjoy those seats.
2. Q. More trains that go straight through to Roseville. Hate the train bus.... very difficult since I am now disabled
A. We’re working on increasing train frequencies to Roseville via our Sacramento to Roseville Third Track project.
3. C. Some more creative discounts would be great, like weekend discounts for single riders!
A. We regularly run seasonal fare promotions for both single riders and small groups. Check out www.capitolcorridor.org/deals/ for the most comprehensive list of active discount offers on the Capitol Corridor. 4. C. It would be great if you had a train that went to Santa Cruz from the Bay Area, it would save on highway Congestion.
A. Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) is leading a study to look at how potential train services could serve Santa Cruz. It may not be Capitol Corridor service, but there are plans to link up more communities in California via rail. The geography makes a timely direct connection difficult, but we also have some capacity limitations to overcome to be able to add more trains anywhere south of San Jose. 5. C. Add Clipper or at least add Clipper 2.0 when it comes out.
A. Because our current ticketing system is operated by Amtrak, fares cannot be paid with Clipper. We are investigating other ticket sale options, however, that would provide integrated ticketing for services throughout California. 6. C. The new engines are ugly.
A. Comment noted. Online Questionnaire (SurveyMonkey) 1. C. I'd love to see later trains coming from Richmond to Sacramento. As the schedule stands now, I can't go to a concert or to theater in SF and catch a train home. I would use Capitol Corridor a lot more if there were a late night option for getting home.
A. We have limited equipment and number of train slots for service. Our late-night trains generally carry very few passengers and so we focus service on time periods when there is greater ridership demand. 2. Q. Why is it taking "forever" to build the 3rd track between Sacramento and Roseville so that all of the Capitol corridor trains can terminate there? The EIR was done ages ago. And what really needs to be debated as there are already railroad tracks in place?
A. The Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Project is currently at the 25% final design phase, and CCJPA is proceeding with the anticipated additional design refinements. The project involves constructing a third railroad track, improvements to the Roseville Station, as well as new grade-separated crossings, all of which need careful design considerations, review, and ongoing negotiations with UP and local jurisdictions. This work is complex and goes at a pace that reflects factors CCJPA does not always control. 3. C. Terrific plan! Keep up the good work. A. Thank you! 4. Q. Are you going to provide a discounted fare for seniors and or disabled?
A. We currently offer 15% everyday discounts for seniors and disabled passengers, as well as other passengers groups. 5. Q. Shelter for us SFC riders. Standing in the cold and/or rain is no fun - and the bus terminal lobby is equally as
- 13 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
cold and does not work for riders when the food trucks block the view of the bus stop.
A. We are working now to address these issues at the SFC location. At this time, the best option for passengers is to utilize the bus terminal lobby, which is nearby. The decision not to pick up passengers within the Salesforce Transit Center was made primarily based on operational challenges given our multiple on-street stops in San Francisco, but also based on cost consideration. Passengers should also be reminded that there are connections to BART at both the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations for easy travel to and from San Francisco. We are making minor schedule adjustments in the Spring to make this connection even quicker at Richmond. 6. C. Having the Financial District bus stop at the Salesforce Center before heading over to Emeryville adds significant time to the overall trip length. I know the current set up is necessary because the Salesforce Bus is often full (add more buses), and the Financial District bus needs to pick up the spillover. However is is very inconvenient to have the bus circle around SOMA in rush hour traffic. If the bus went straight from the Financial District to Emeryville the schedule could be altered to leave at 4:20 instead of 4:05, saving riders 15 precious minutes. Our commutes are already longer than we wish, saving this time would do wonders for SF commuters. More buses should be added to the Emeryville route to ensure no one is left behind, and to ensure that one bus doesn't have to circle around SOMA before heading over the bridge. In addition, CCJPA should take a stance on advocating for bus only lanes in downtown SF, across the Bay Bridge, and on the Bay bridge approaches. Saving time on the bus connection is likely one of the most cost effective ways to reduce overall trip time from to/from SF. The JPA should also work with SacRT to provide better bus connections in Sacramento. Currently only a couple bus lines and one light rail line connect with the station, and the schedules are often not integrated. There are several useful RT lines near the station but they require walking several blocks and crossing busy streets, making the connections very difficult and ultimately leading to more people driving alone to the station.
A. Your comments and suggestions about bus operations in San Francisco will be conveyed internally for consideration. Passengers should also be reminded that there are connections to BART at both the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations for easy travel to and from San Francisco, with a stop at the same location as the Hyatt. We are making minor schedule adjustments in the Spring to make this connection even quicker at Richmond. Regarding bus connections in Sacramento, we have just submitted a TIRCP application for more integrated SacRT services at the Sacramento Station, so fingers crossed that the application is selected for award! 7. C. Capitol Corridor Suggestion/Request: Signage
For the PR team helping AmTrak/Capitol Corridor improve its public image, try the following:
Go to one of the stations between Sacramento and San Jose, pretend that you are a brand new passenger and see if you can tell when a CC train arrives. If you have never seen one and are truly a new rider, you may see a large and colorful train stopping but nowhere will you see the words “Capitol Corridor”. What’s worse, the train number displays on the cars are rarely accurate and even if they are, most of them are dimly lit and many are not working at all.
Adding to the novice riders’ confusion is a splashing display of cities, most of which have nothing to do with the Capitol Corridor… Seriously, if you see San Joaquin on a train car, would you assume it actually goes to San Jose? On a bus maybe, but the train doesn’t go there!
This issue stems from my first experience trying to board for the first time at the Great America station, (which shares tracks with other services). I actually missed the train while trying to figure out which one it was. I then found out from an employee who had gotten off that train what the trains look like and that “sometimes” the display boards are inaccurate. Two hours later I did catch a different CC train but I am often asked by new passengers how to verify what train to board… Keep in mind, you only have about a
- 14 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
minute to decide.
So, in addition to asking your management team to play novice passenger now and then, try to address the signage issue that I am alluding to. If nothing else, get some cheap posters made that have words “Capitol Corridor” and the train number on them, then slap them in the first window of each car.
A. The electronic signs at stations should help customers in knowing the status of their train (when it’s coming and when it’s boarding). In addition, conductors will announce the train when it arrives at the station. Your comment about having better signage on the train itself is noted and will be conveyed internally. We will also consider other ways to provide better instruction overall for those who are new to the service. 8. C. Please prioritize service for the throughway bus connection directly into the SF Salesforce Transit Center. The sidewalk drop off is unsafe, time consuming inefficient and simply unacceptable!
A. The decision not to pick up passengers within the Salesforce Transit Center was made primarily based on operational challenges given our multiple on-street stops in San Francisco, but also based on cost consideration. Passengers should also be reminded that there are connections to BART at both the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations for easy travel to and from San Francisco. We are making minor schedule adjustments in the Spring to make this connection even quicker at Richmond. 9. C. Please prioritize moving the San Francisco bound bus into the Transbay terminal in order reduce carbon emissions and provide more respectful and efficient travel times for passengers. The Transbay terminal is more convenient, and much more safe. The current bus stop is very difficult for me to navigate with my two young daughters. Safety and efficiency should take precedent here.
A. The decision not to pick up passengers within the Salesforce Transit Center was made primarily based on operational challenges given our multiple on-street stops in San Francisco, but also based on cost consideration. Passengers should also be reminded that there are connections to BART at both the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations for easy travel to and from San Francisco. We are making minor schedule adjustments in the Spring to make this connection even quicker at Richmond. 10. C. The Amtrak bus from the East Bay to San Francisco should stop at Transbay Terminal.
A. The decision not to pick up passengers within the Salesforce Transit Center was made primarily based on operational challenges given our multiple on-street stops in San Francisco, but also based on cost consideration. Passengers should also be reminded that there are connections to BART at both the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations for easy travel to and from San Francisco. We are making minor schedule adjustments in the Spring to make this connection even quicker at Richmond. 11. C. Capital corridor trains need to be connected with Caltrain via a tunnel under the bay from emeryville to 4th and king,providing a one seat ride from Sacramento to sf and the peninsula, including sfo. The upcoming Faster program,if approved by the voters in November will provide the local portion of the necessary funding. This improvement will also allow the San Joaquin s to provide direct service to SF.
A. A transbay conventional rail crossing will be studied as part of the New Transbay Rail Crossing project, which CCJPA is partnering with BART on. This project is highly complex, and as such, it will be quite a while before a plan with funding is finalized. 12. C. These comments might better fit with the Vision Plan than the Annual Business Plan, but since the business plan does include such long-term projects as the new transbay rail, it seems fair game to mention several long-term projects for CCJPA. Planning for separation from Amtrak. The Capitol Corridor service is not well served by having Amtrak as the operator. It is expensive and not very responsive. State level or JPA level operations could be much more nimble.
Planning for separation from Union Pacific. Union Pacific is unable or unwilling to maintain their tracks to a level necessary for passenger operation. In fact, after every one of their ‘maintenance’ projects, the tracks
- 15 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
have been rougher and the slow zones more frequent. UP cannot even support current 79 mph speeds, let alone anything higher. I have been riding Capitol Corridor regularly for 8 eight years, and the quality of the ride has deteriorated significantly over that time. Higher speeds will require separated tracks, not accessible to freight, and so I believe those must be state-owned tracks. Planning for eventual electrification. Electrification is a long-term project, but again, it can’t happen on UP tracks, so separate tracks are necessary.
This last year saw a noticeable decline in on-time performance. Some of this is due to poor maintenance of the fleet, with more frequent breakdowns, but I believe most of it is due to freight interference. My perception is that freight interference is more common that it was, and when I ask the conductors, they agree.
A. Your comments are noted. The challenge is how to work with the resources we have and within a multitude of constraints to incrementally improve the service. We strive to use data and sound strategic planning in all our actions and will continue to work on short, medium, and long-term initiatives to incrementally improve the service. Our goal is to coordinate closely with our operating partners at Amtrak and Union Pacific to ensure they are both supporting the level of service we expect. 13. C. Not nearly enough budget allocated to improving bike storage in the train cars. I board at Coliseum and there are usually no more designated storage spaces available, causing passengers to block passageways or squeeze bikes between other bikes. The angled brackets are a modest improvement but way more capacity is needed.
A. There’s very limited space available on the existing equipment for additional bike storage, and the angled racks are our best solution for now. Staff is also working with a vendor to design and implement a bike storage solution for the Superliner cars. Part of the remedy is to also encourage those who don’t need their bikes at their destination to store them at their origin station in a secure locker or utilize bikeshare systems if available. If demand for bike storage continues to increase, we will reexamine strategies to provide onboard bike storage. 14. C. I would use Amtrak a LOT more between Sacramento and San Francisco if the trains back from the Bay Area ran later. The latest departure out of the city or out of Richmond don't allow me to go to a concert of a broadway show and make the train so, for the most part, it doesn't suit my needs. I'd much prefer the train over driving. If you could have a later last train of the night, I'd be SO excited!
A. Our current late trains have very low ridership, but we do try to coordinate special service for large events, on a case-by-case basis. 15. C. Please consider routing 2 Amtrak Thruway busses for a stop in Sonoma. Sonoma no longer has a public transportation alternative to points East.
A. Your suggestion will be conveyed internally for consideration. 16. Q. I just watched the fb live video. Thank you for doing that overview!
If the schedules are going to change on the Weekend schedule I would like to see the return of the 9:30pm train westbound instead of the 1030pm. The 1030pm train never has passengers on it and forces all the people that would have taken a train later than 7:30pm to instead take it at 7:30pm if they don't want to get to bay area at midnight. This maxes out that train so that that the 1030pm train ends up moving 5-10 people the whole route.
Grateful to hear that the ticket prices are unchanging! And super grateful to see expansion of Wi-Fi and the PIDS improvements(although I always thought it worked fine) And looking forward to the expansion to Roseville, I like hearing about extending a bus connection to the Peninsula.
- 16 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
A. Your suggestion for the return of the 9:30pm westbound weekend train will be shared internally. We are currently working on the Spring 2020 schedule and are considering an earlier westbound train. 17. Q. I can offer some comments:
With regards to the business plan: Having read it, I guess it's a good overview of the next fiscal years that the CCJPA is looking at. Some commentary on it would have been nice, since that was obviously absent from Train 537. Perhaps holding a workshop-type open day to the public at the Capitol Corridor BART Offices location would be a nice alternative. Reading a business plan without the accompanying narrative behind the document makes it difficult to give concise feedback on it.
With regards to the Capitol Corridor trains: I enjoy riding the Capitol Corridor. I've ridden it numerous times to travel throughout the Bay Area and Northern California, and I have ridden many trains since riding my first train. Is the Capitol Corridor a good service? Yes, it is. It has helped me travel many times in the past to get to and from the Bay Area. Could it use improvement? Definitely. Nothing is perfect. I'm not perfect either. One way to improve? Actually having people who are hosting the workshop show up to host the workshop. Also getting back to feedback like mine in a timely manner. Other ways to improve? Probably. Too many to mention here and not make it as long as it already is. I can save that for later when I know someone can actually get back to me and can respond to some of the suggestions I had based on the business plan provided and my experiences as a longtime rider of Amtrak.
A. We sincerely apologize for your disappointing experience on Train 537 last Thursday, January 23, 2020, when you wanted to attend our onboard Business Plan workshop. The workshop on Train 537 was cancelled last minute because of unexpected circumstances, and we were unable to make arrangements for another CCJPA staff person to lead the workshop. Please accept our sincere apologies.
After holding physical workshops at CCJPA offices in Oakland for many years, which were always attended by very few people, we have started to use Facebook Live to engage our customers via an online workshop. The Facebook Live workshop, which happened this year on Wednesday, January 22 at Noon, allows real-time comments during the broadcast, as well as viewing after the broadcast, thus allowing other customers to watch the workshop and send comments in at a time that’s convenient to them. The Facebook Live workshop covers the same content as the onboard workshops, and the recording can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/iLWxJEeelgk 18. Q. Having reviewed the Annual Business Plan, and spoken with a representative from CCJPA onboard the 543 train on 24 January, I am satisfied that the Plan outlines reasonable and visionary goals and advances its organizational goals.
A. Thank you for those comments. 19. Q. 1. In general the CCJPA has not addressed plans to better accommodate rideshare and to provide better station access for first-/last-mile commuters.
2. On-Time Performance on page 9 – With increasing ridership, On-Time Performance (OTP) needs to be addressed in the Business Plan beyond the two solutions on page 9 of the plan. What does the CCJPA plan to do to improve OTP?
3. Administrative Expenses on page 20 – An increase of 3.2% per year is planned. How is this justified when the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a 2.5% increase in the Consumer Price Index for the 12 months prior to December 2019 for the San Francisco area. Undoubtedly, this will be passed to consumers in increased fares.
4. Wi-Fi system on page 22: a. What is the expected cost differential between procuring onboard Wi-Fi functionality as a service
- 17 -
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comments and Staff Responses
compared to the more conventional model of a capital purchase with operation and maintenance costs? b. At whose discretion are technology refreshes performed? c. What kinds of uptime and bandwidth guarantees are incumbent on the service provider?
5. Passenger Information Display System on page 22: a. Does this service-based contract provide all necessary hardware and software? b. Are technology refreshes built into the contract? c. Why are the estimated costs for FY 2020-2021 so different than for FY 2021-2022?
A. 1. Since Capitol Corridor stations are owned by local jurisdictions, we ultimately do not have direct control over station access; however, we do encourage our partners at these local stations to work on improving station access and partner with them whenever opportunities arise.
2. We are working on many fronts to improve OTP. We will include those measures with greater strategic description in the updated version of the Business Plan.
3. As indicated in the Annual Business Plan, we are not planning on raising fares except for the San Francisco Thruway bus service. Regarding the administrative cost increases, the text is not consistent with the table. In the table we assumed no increase in administrative costs pending guidance from the State on a recommended increase. Cost escalation is necessary to cover inflationary increases in costs, inclusive of labor and benefits for staff.
4. a. Our analysis of this is that we save the cost of labor for re-procuring and installing new systems as some technology parts approach end of life or better performing parts become available. This represents nearly half of the capital cost over time. The other capital costs saved are retaining long-life items that are also not replaced. In total, we estimate that we reduce the cost of delivering an optimal performing system over time by at least more than a half. As well, we reduce the administrative burden of delivering a Wi-Fi system. One of the main benefits of the service model is a much closer relationship to the cost drivers and service performance parameters. The service model delivers a more flexible and responsive system to deliver on that than capital procurements where system components age in place without an incentive to be upgraded. b. Technology refreshes are done based on product roadmaps. Items like access points, modems, or processor speeds change in roughly two- to four-year increments, and each of them play a role in being the limiting factor in delivering optimal performance at any one time. Also, the labor and timing to upgrade items can influence when to refresh hardware elements. c. Uptime requirements are mandated on the service provider and are dictated by the contractual terms by service level agreements (SLA); however, in the case of the CCJPA/SJJPA and future LOSSAN services, we can’t dictate absolute bandwidth because it is dependent upon cellular services we do not control in time or geographic space.
5. a. Yes. b. Yes. c. Estimated costs for FY2021-2022 are higher as hardware is purchased and begins to be installed, as well as necessary station telecom upgrade installations.
- 18 -
2/6/2020
CCJPA Annual Business Plan FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 Public Comment Action Items
Action Item Responsible Department 1. Explore ways to appropriately direct customers who want to advocate Marketing & for Capitol Corridor to local and State legislatures. Communications 2. Explore new food and beverage options, such as microwave popcorn Marketing & and Champagne. Communications 3. Contact City of Emeryville regarding dirty elevators for pedestrian Operations walkway over tracks. 4. Educate/remind Route 99 bus drivers about using lower compartment Operations for bicycle storage. 5. Contact Transit Transfer partners to educate/remind their bus Operations operators on the Transit Transfer program and honoring tickets. 6. Reach out to Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transportation for Operations, decision on decommissioning OBIS equipment on rail equipment and Planning adjusting volume onboard during decommissioning process. 7. Explore additional bus service to Roseville with partners. Operations 9. Evaluate SFC stops and poll passengers to determine merit of the Operations comment about stopping at Hyatt directly. How many passengers would this potential change benefit? 10. Determine if the weekend schedule change will affect the last Operations westbound train time, and thereby push back the last eastbound train. 11. Explore demand and feasibility of serving Sonoma via connecting Operations buses. 12. Explore additional steps being taken to improve OTP. Operations, Mechanical
JANUARY 2020 THE ALVISO WETLAND RAILROAD ADAPTATION ALTERNATIVES STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE ALVISO WETLAND RAILROAD ADAPTATION ALTERNATIVES STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The railroad corridor linking Alameda and Santa Clara Counties in the San Francisco Bay Area is owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and is known as the Coast Subdivision. In addition to UPRR freight trains, the Coast Subdivision is used by passenger trains operated by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), and Amtrak. Together, the three passenger rail agencies operate up to 24 trains per day on the corridor. Both CCJPA and SJRRC plan to increase passenger train frequency between Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. Improvements to the rail infrastructure along the Coast Subdivision are an important component of those plans. The Coast Subdivision traverses a low-lying, environmentally sensitive wetland area between the City of Newark and the community of Alviso that is subject to inundation with even a moderate amount of sea-level rise (please see Figure ES-1 below). Because the Coast Subdivision is the only passenger rail route connecting Alameda County with Santa Clara County, inundation of the rail line would disrupt passenger rail service between these counties, affecting thousands of travelers each day and causing train delays throughout the larger Northern California rail network.
Figure ES-1
Moreover, between Newark and Santa Clara, the majority of the Coast Subdivision consists of a single track, which limits the number of trains that can traverse this area. Additional tracks would be required to enable more passenger trains to operate on this section of the Coast Subdivision. To prepare for future sea-level rise and to understand how planned increases in passenger rail service could be achieved on the Coast Subdivision between Newark and Santa Clara, the CCJPA initiated this Alviso Wetland Railroad Adaptation Alternatives Study. The Study process engaged a broad range of key stakeholders and allowed the CCJPA to better understand the issues and interests related to the existing infrastructure, effects of sea-level rise, ecological systems, and local communities in the Study area. If CCJPA elects to pursue rail line capacity or sea- level rise adaptation and resiliency improvements in the Study area, CCJPA will be better informed as to all these issues.
Page 1 THE ALVISO WETLAND RAILROAD ADAPTATION ALTERNATIVES STUDY
To guide the Study, CCJPA established three main objectives: Improve resiliency to sea-level rise, Improve the existing railroad infrastructure to provide more operational capacity, and Identify potential benefits for stakeholders. The Study commenced with several conceptual adaptation options for raising and/or realigning the railroad tracks, an assessment of existing conditions, identification of opportunities and constraints to possible future adaptation options, and extensive stakeholder engagement. A series of stakeholder meetings was convened to: Introduce stakeholders to the purpose of the Study and outline the Study process, Introduce preliminary conceptual options for the rail alignment, Listen to stakeholder concerns, priorities, and questions, and Refine the conceptual options based on stakeholder input. Stakeholder outreach extended over approximately nine months and focused on agencies and organizations with a direct interest in the rail alignment and its surrounding area. It included federal, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations, community groups, local residents, land owners, Native American organizations, and local businesses. The stakeholder input was crucial in the understanding of the opportunities and constraints facing possible adaptation and alignment options. The stakeholder outreach process resulted in four conceptual options for routing the rail line between Newark and Santa Clara. Each option would elevate the railroad tracks to address sea-level rise and also allow for up to three parallel tracks to increase rail line capacity. The options are briefly summarized here. More detailed descriptions are provided in the remainder of the Study Report. The conceptual options include completely new alignments (Option 1 and Option 2) located to the west of the existing alignment. These new alignments would rely on long bridge structures extending several miles across wetland and open water areas. The two other options included more modest modifications of the existing alignment (Option 3), or would simply raise and widen the existing railroad embankment to allow for additional tracks (Option 4). As part of the evaluation of each of the Options, the Study includes preliminary research into the resources (cultural, historic, environmental, private property, etc.) and communities potentially affected by each option. In addition, rough-order-of-magnitude cost ranges are included for each of the conceptual options. The resulting costs range from the lowest of $800 million to the highest of $2.1 billion. The estimate for each option includes a substantial contingency. Please note that this study is not intended to identify a preferred option or to rank options, and it is not the commencement of a formal environmental documentation process. However, the evaluation does include a subjective comparison of the potential effects of each option and the stakeholders and resources potentially affected. In addition, the Study identifies potential benefits for stakeholders, such as opportunities for habitat restoration, safety improvements, and possibilities for reduction of train effects (e.g., noise) in the community of Alviso. The Study also identifies benefits for rail operators, such as increased resiliency to sea-level rise and improved rail line capacity, which would result in more frequent and reliable train travel options for the public.
Page 2 Item V.7
Date: February 7, 2020
From: Robert Padgette
To: CCJPA Board of Directors
Subject: Managing Director’s Report – February 2020
Service Performance Overview The Capitol Corridor carried 141,465 passengers in December 2019, an increase of 7.5% from December 2018. Average weekday ridership increased by 7% and average weekend ridership increased by 3% as compared to December 2018. Revenue for December 2019 was $3,234,656, which increased by 4.1% in comparison to December 2018. The System Operating Ratio for the month was 57%. On-Time Performance (OTP) was 86% for End-Point (OTP) and 83% for Passenger (OTP). Both numbers fell below the Capitol Corridor 90% standard due to trespasser incidents and delays from extended bridge lifts. The overall Customer Satisfaction score for November 2019 (the most recent result) was 87.
Standard Dec 2019 Dec 2018 YTD vs. Prior YTD vs. FY20 Plan Ridership 141,465 7.5% 456,642 3.4% 5.6% Revenue $3,234,656 4.1% $10,036,524 2.4% 8.8% Operating Ratio 57% 61% 64% 7.1% 23.9% End-point OTP 86% 85% 85% -2.3% -5.9% Passenger OTP 83% 83% 84% -1.2% -6.3% Customer Satisfaction 87 89 89 -1.4% -3.6%
State and Federal Legislation and Funding/Regulatory Action State Legislation FY 20-21 Draft State Budget Governor Newsom released a draft of the FY 20-21 State budget on January 9, 2020. The Governor’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan budgets approximately $5 billion for public transit and rail infrastructure projects and $1.1 billion for active transportation projects designed to increase access to multi-modal transportation options. Additionally, the Budget estimates that the State Transit Assistance Program (STA) will receive approximately $804 million in FY 20-21 to support public transit. Under the proposed budget, Intercity and Commuter Rail will receive an estimated $269 million in the coming fiscal year. While the details are not yet available, the FY 20-21 state operating support for the three state-supported rail services (Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, and San Joaquins) is projected to be the same as last year at $131 million.
Senate Bill 278 SB 278 is expected to incorporate the Faster Bay Area funding initiative on its ballot for November 2020. The initiative is expected to provide transportation funding within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region and has been referred to the Assembly after the Senate approved it on January 27, 2020.
Assembly Bill 2057 Introduced on February 3, 2020, AB 2057 states the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to public transportation in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region. To create a more seamless public transportation network, AB 2057 currently states that future regional funds for transportation will be provided with the intent of advancing state mobility and environmental goals, integrating multimodal transit systems, increasing the affordability and simplicity of transit systems for users, and equitably expanding access to high- 1
Item V.7
quality public transit services.
Federal Legislation Moving Forward Framework On January 9, 2020, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the Moving Forward Framework. The framework calls for $760 billion in infrastructure investments over five years and provides insight into the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization with a call to spend $55 billion on intercity passenger rail.
Updates • The Capitol Corridor FY 19 Annual Performance Report has been released. The report covers service performance during FY 18-19 and will be widely distributed across the State Legislature and other interested agencies.
• CCJPA staff have been working with AT&T alongside partner rail agencies to scope the telecommunications improvements needed at our stations to support the modernization project for our California Passenger Information Display Systems (CalPIDS). The kickoff meeting for the project occurred in December 2019, with the first implementation of CalPIDS expected at the end of 2020.
• Mechanical staff at CCJPA have developed a new Rail Vehicle Compliance Hub Application to simplify the compliance inspections currently being performed on train equipment. The application will help to make the inspection process more efficient by enabling staff to use iPad tablets to immediately record and report data collected during inspections back to Amtrak. The app will help staff provide more effective feedback to Amtrak to improve service.
• CCJPA initiated cleanup projects at the Santa Clara, Hayward, and Richmond stations during the month of January to enhance the security and appearance of the three stations. All three stations have been pressure washed, removed of graffiti, and undergone lighting inspections and lightbulb replacements on station platforms. On the Richmond station train platform, new glass was also ordered to replace the broken windows in the waiting area shelter.
• CCJPA staff have incorporated several modest but important cost-saving project design improvements into the 25% design plans for Phase 1 of the Sacramento to Roseville Third Track Project.. Union Pacific has also provided their feedback on the 25% design submittal with changes expected to result in further cost reductions.
• The Capitol Corridor is exploring the possibility of AC Transit assuming the rail and bus connection service at the Emeryville Station. This partnership will potentially replace the existing bus service from Emeryville to San Francisco and increase service for our ridership during peak travel times. The approach will provide a stronger connection between Emeryville and San Francisco, deliver a more cost-efficient service, and reduce overall impact on the environment.
• Phase 2 of the Renewable Diesel Pilot Program has commenced with the testing of renewable fuel on a Charger locomotive. If testing is successful, we will work with Amtrak to switch all fuel used on the Capitol Corridor route to cleaner burning renewable diesel. The environmental benefits of the fuel switch include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 66%, particulates by 33%, and NOX by 12% in comparison to petroleum diesel.
2
Item V.7
• The Capitol Corridor partnered with the City of Sacramento, Sacramento Regional Transit, and local transit-oriented developer Downtown Railyard Venture to apply for $162 million in TIRCP grant funding for improvements to the Sacramento Valley Station Transit Center (SVS). Project components include connecting the 16 transit services in downtown Sacramento to the Capitol Corridor and other rail services at SVS; providing direct north-side access to the SVS station; constructing a new SVS north-south oriented platform to provide shorter transfers between intercity and long-distance trains; and coordinating planning among partnership agencies within the project to support the capital work included in the TIRCP application. CCJPA looks forward to a potential award in April 2020.
• The CCJPA adjusted service for the San Francisco 49ers playoff games in early January and developed several creative promotional offers to increase train travel along the Capitol Corridor route. Specific offers recently implemented include the ongoing 50% Off Winter Weekends fare discount, a 30% discount for travel to Oakland Jack London Square during Oakland Restaurant Week, and partnerships with the Exploratorium and the Harlem Globetrotters. The Capitol Corridor carried an estimated 500 passengers to each 49ers playoff game at Levi’s Stadium, while 1,609 individuals have used the 50% Winter Weekends discount as of January 25, 2020.
Outlook We continue to work closely with Amtrak to raise on-time performance numbers, with a focus on third-party related delays. We are working through final details on a Spring schedule change that will address conflicts with other services in our single-track territory, better coordinate BART connections at the Richmond Station, and shift a few trains to align with passenger demand. We expect the Capitol Corridor to continue its strong performance with increased ridership and revenue in the coming months. In March, we will begin the installation of our long-awaited upgrade to the onboard WiFi service. We also plan to continue our progress on the Sacramento to Roseville Third Track and South Bay Connect projects.
3
Capitol Corridor Performance How's Business?: FFY 2019-20 Revenue Monthly Revenues Actual vs Business Plan 10.6% vs.FFY 20 Business Plan YTD Actual FY 20 Revenue (through Dec-19) 4.1% vs. Prior FFY 19 YTD FFY 20 Business Plan 8.6% vs. Prior FFY 18 YTD Actual FY 19 Revenue Actual FY 18 Revenue $3,500,000
$3,400,000
$3,300,000
$3,200,000
$3,100,000
$3,000,000
$2,900,000 Revenue $2,800,000 Total Annual FFY 20 Business Plan = $37,500,000 $2,700,000
$2,600,000
$2,500,000 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20
Month Capitol Corridor FY20 Performance Measures Oct 2019-Dec 2019
On Time On Time System Performance Performance Operating Customer Ridership Revenue End-point Passenger Ratio Satisfaction Actual 456,642 $ 10,197,270 85% 84% 68% 89.2 Business Plan 432,509 $ 9,220,634 90% 90% 52% 92.5 Actual vs Businss Plan % Diff 6% 11% -6% -6% 32% -4% Previous YTD % Diff 3% 4% -2% -1% 14% -1%
G:\Performance\Performance FFY\PERFORMANCE FFY 20 Performance Report FY19 Rider Profile CAPITOL CORRIDORTicket JOINT Type POWERS AUTHORITY WORK/ BUSINESS 67%
Ticket WithWelcome FY2019, the Capitol Corridor Aboard! celebrated five straight years of Type record-breaking ridership and revenue, with a new all-time high of 10-RIDE 1,777,136 riders and $38.03 million in revenue. ThisWORK/ growth is reflected 18% FAMILY/ BUSINESS OTHER 1% 67% REC/in the FareboxFRIENDS Ratio, which reached a previously unattained 60%. SCHOOL 3% LEISURE 15% 12% ROUND-TRIP/ To build upon this success, and to ensure the Capitol Corridor’s place as ONE-WAY a premier travel choice, the CCJPA is making progress on infrastructure 50% improvements, safety upgrades, customer service enhancements, MONTHLY and service expansion projects. These efforts aim to maintain Capitol 32%
Corridor as a quality, convenient,OTHER 1% cost-effective, and flexibleFAMILY/ option for REC/ FRIENDS years to come. SCHOOL 3% LEISURE 15% Rider Profile Ticket Type 12% SHOP/VACATION 2% WORK/ BUSINESS 21 Years of Improvement* 67% SERVICE REVENUE-TO- LEVEL RIDERSHIP REVENUE COST RATIO +275% +284% +508% +100% Rider Customer Satisfaction Profile 10-RIDE WORK/ 18% FAMILY/ BUSINESS OTHER 1% 67% FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 REC/ FYFRIENDS 2019 30 DAILY 1,777,136SCHOOL 3% $38.03MLEISURE 60%15% TRAINS 12% ROUND-TRIP/ ONE-WAY 50%
MONTHLY 32%
OTHER 1% FAMILY/ FY 1998 REC/ FRIENDS 2009 90% 2010 87% 2011 90% 2012 91% 2013 89% 2014 89% 2015 87% 2016 89% 2017 88% SCHOOL 3% 2018 85% 2019 90% (PRE-CCJPA) FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 LEISURE 15% 8 DAILY (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) SHOP/VACATION 2% 12% TRAINS 463,000 $6.25M 30% *CCJPA assumed management of the service in 1998.
Customer Satisfaction
Travel-to-Station
MODE FY18 FY192009 90% 2010 87% % CHANGE2011 90% 2012 91% 2013 89% 2014 89% 2015 87% 2016 89% 2017 88% 2018 85% 2019 90% Drive 29% 28% -1 Drop off/Pick up 25% 24% -1 2009 90% 2010 87% 2011 90% 2012 91% 2013 89% 2014 89% 2015 87% 2016 89% 2017 88% Transit 17% 16% -1 2018 85% 2019 90% Bike 10% 9% -1 Walk 15% 14% -1 Carpool 2% 1% -1 Taxi/TNC 9% 8% -1 Other 0% 0% —
Operating and Marketing Budgets 2009 90% 2010 87% 2011 90% 2012 91% 2013 89% 2014 89% 2015 87% 2016 89% 2017 88% 2018 85% 2019 90% FISCAL SERVICE ALLOCATED ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT YEAR LEVEL BUDGET COSTS REINVESTMENT
OPERATING BUDGET (MILLIONS) FY 17-18 30 weekday $31.7 $2.49 3.4m note on excel said it’s not 22 weekedy included in performance FY 18-19 30 weekday $28.7 $0a $0a 22 weekday reports
MARKETING BUDGET (MILLIONS) FY 17-18 $1.1 $1.1 n/a
FY 18-19 $1.1 $1.1 n/a a. Projected
DRIVE 26%
DROP/PICKUP 32% BIKE 10% TRANSIT 17% OTHER 1% WALK 14% Performance Report 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Ridership (IN MILLIONS) 1.8M 1.7M M M 1.6M M
1.5M 1.47 1.42 1.40 M M
1.4M M M 1.3M 1.56 1.60 1.70 1.77
FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Revenue (IN MILLIONS) $40M
$30M M M M M M
$10M M M
$10M $29.20 $29.18 $30.09 $32.18 $33.97 $36.22 $38.03
FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Farebox 60% 55% 50% STATE STANDARD 50% 45% Ratio (%) 40% Revenue to Cost
35% 57 % 51% 50% 52% 55% 59% 60%
FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
On-Time Performance 100% 95% 90% 90% OTP STANDARD 85% 80% 75% 95.2% 91.0% 89.0% 90.0% 95.0% 93.1% 94.0%
FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Overall Satisfaction AMTRAK CUSTOMER SERVICE INDEX (CSI) CSI SCORE 4.5 100% 4.0 95% 90% 89% 89% 89% 88% 3.5 87% 90% 85% 3.0 85% 2.5 80%
2.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 75%
FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
= AVERAGE ANNUAL SCORE BASED ON BIANNUAL CCJPA ON-BOARD SURVEYS Rider Profile Ticket Type % 20% MOBILE
3% OTHER 10-RIDE 77 WORK/ AT STATION INTERNET & 18% TICKET PURCHASES BUSINESS 67%
Modes of Travel ROUND-TRIP/to Station DROP/PICKUP 32% DRIVE 26% TRANSIT 17% WALK 14% ONE-WAY 50.0% MONTHLY
32%
2019 2019 of the service in 1998. assumed management *CCJPA 1,707
OTHER 1% 523 525 FAMILY/538 REC/ FRIENDS SCHOOL 3% OTHER 1% Busiest Trains
LEISURE# # 15%#
SHOP/VACATION 12%
2018 1,706
” M 538 SAC EMY RIC SAC
#
2017 2017
1,607 Customer Satisfaction BIKE 10% stations.
525
the conductors, the conductors, 2016 1,561 # SAC OKJ EMY SAC v o L $38.03 Annual Revenue +5.1% compared to FY2018
Ie the lack of traffic, the of traffic, the the lack of location
3 03M 20 A R 20
“
2015 2015 4 1,474 523
# Busiest Trains s not
n& 2012 91%
2011 90%
2015 87% 2010 87% 2017 88% 2013 89% 2014 89% 2016 89% 2019 90% 2018 85%
2014 2014 2009 90%
9 1,41 formance Origi Destination Pairs TOP for work, and I get to take my bicycle with me on the train.” High-Ranking Ridership two in the nation for number Capitol Corridor is ranked with routes. Together, ridership amongst the state-supported Surfliner and the San Joaquins, thethe Pacific ridership of intercity rail routes represent almost 20% of three California’s national ridership. Amtrak’s
“It’s my preferred way to travel
cel said it’ 2013 2013
1,404
+284% Ridership increase since FY1998*
1,441 2012 2012 T T included in per note on ex reports
a. Projected
60% 30% FY 2019 FY FY 1998 (PRE-CCJPA) 90% 85% 88% 89% 87%
+100% n/a n/a
COST RATIO COST
3.4m $0a
IMPROVEMEN REINVESTMEN 1,410 2011 2011 REVENUE-TO- 2018 2017 2016 2015 2019
AL
Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Joint Powers Corridor 2019 Capitol Report Performance
Satisfaction Customer On-Time Performance 89% Average
Highest Ridership in our 28-year History in our 28-year Highest Ridership
2019 Milestones
ACTU COSTS $1.1 $1.1 $2.49 $0a
FY 1998 FY 2019 FY
—
(PRE-CCJPA)
-1 -1 -1
-1
-1 -1
-1
$6.25M
REVENUE REVENUE
$38.03M
+508% R OTHE 3%
20% 20% % CHANGE
TED
N STATIO AT % OCA $1.1 $1.1 $31.7 $28.7
1% 0% 9% 8% MOBILE ALL BUDGET
24% 16% 14% 28% FY19
INTERNET & & INTERNET 77
(MILLIONS) FY 2019 FY (MILLIONS) FY 1998 (PRE-CCJPA) 1,777,136 463,000 RIDERSHIP RIDERSHIP 2% 0% 9% 25% 17% 15% 29% 10% FY18 +284%
ravel-to-Station ravel-to-Station 30 weekday SERVICE LEVEL 22 weekedy 30 weekday 22 weekday
T /Pick up Ticket Purchases Capitol Corridor has Xx more mobile app ticket purchases in than any other route the Amtrak system LEVEL FY 2019 FY FY 1998 AVERAGE CAPITOL CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CAPITOL AVERAGE A TIMES 3 RIDES PASSENGER WEEK 3x 3x TRAINS TRAINS (PRE-CCJPA)
8 DAILY
SERVICE 30 DAILY 30 DAILY alk
MARKETING BUDGET OPERATING BUDGET FY 17-18 FISCAL YEAR FY 18-19
FY 17-18 ransit FY 18-19 axi/TNC +275% Drive Drop off T Bike W Carpool T Other MODE
Operating and Marketing Budgets
FOR FY2019
AVERAGE OTP
89% Performance Report 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Customer Experience Initiatives Stride on Board Capitol In FY19 the Capitol Corridor introduced the Stride On Board Corridor San Francisco program for college students. The program features a new to Emeryville 6-ride ticket, promotion of the existing 15% everyday discount, Connecting Bus Information
as well as a rewards program. View Current Schedules www.CapitolCorridor.org Use the camera on your smartphone Service alerts, train status and to scan the QR code below! current discounts and promos. Or call 877-974-3322.
PURCHASING TICKETS IN ADVANCE: • CapitolCorridor.org • Ticket Kiosks • S ed Stations • Amtrak App
TICKETS: A valid government-issued photo ID is required to purchase tickets. For passengers boarding a bus without a ticket, the driver will hold your ID and present it to the ticket agent at the next sta ed station. Passengers can retrieve their ID at the time of the ticket purchase. BICYCLES: Bikes welcome on fi rst come, fi rst served basis and must be www.capitolcorridor.org/sanfrancisco stowed in luggage compartment or bus front-end. LUGGAGE: No checked baggage service. Limit 2 pieces, no more than 50 lbs. and cannot exceed 28” x 22” x 14” HOLIDAYS (Weekend schedule applies): New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. FREE TRANSIT TRANSFERS: Capitol Corridor passengers may ask conductors for two (2) transfers and ride free: AC Transit, The County Connection, Davis Unitrans, eTran, Fairfi eld and Suisun Transit (FAST), Sacramento Regional Transit, Tri-Delta Transit, VTA, WestCat, and YoloBus. SERVICE ALERTS: Visit www.capitolcorridor.org/news-alerts to sign up for service alerts. Route Map CONNECTIONS: For information about connections to/from the San Joaquins, the Coast Starlight, and the California Zephyr, please visit Train Stations and Bus Connections www.amtrak.com or call 1-800-USA-RAIL.
Reference Notes To Eureka Arcata To Redding TRUC EE Sta ed station SANTA ROSA MARYSVILLE COLFAX Unsta ed station T ROHNERT PAR Rocklin To Reno, NV Transfer station Auburn Sports & entertainment stadium NAPA Hannigan- Amusement park PETALUMA Fairfield- Roseville Airport connection Vacaville Davis T VALLEJO Sacramento (SAC RT) Bus connection Ferry connection Richmond SOUTH Suisun-Fairfield LA E TAHOE BART T APPROXIMATE TRAIN TRAVEL TIMES FROM EMERYVILLE TO: SAN Martine PLACERVILLE To Stateline, NV FRANCISCO Westbound Berkeley OKJ Oakland Jack London – 8 mins Emeryville Connecting Bus to San Francisco OAC Oakland Coliseum-BART – 17 mins HAY Hayward – 27 mins SFO Oakland Jack London Emeryville (via BART) FMT Fremont – 42 mins T Oakland Coliseum BART GAC Great America-Santa Clara – 58 mins SCC Santa Clara-University – 1 hr 5 mins Hayward SJC San Jose – 1 hr 21 mins Eastbound Fremont-Centerville SAN FRANCISCO Transbay BKY Berkeley – 5 mins T Temporary Santa Clara-Great America Terminal (SFC) RIC Richmond- BART – 12 mins Levi’s® Stadium (VTA) EAST BAY Financial MTZ Martinez – 37 mins Santa Clara-University District (SFF) SUI Suisun-Fairfi eld – 55 mins SANTA CRU T San Jose-Diridon CALTRAIN Fisherman’s FFV Hannigan-Fairfi eld-Vacaville – 1 hr 1 mins Wharf–Pier 39 (SFW) DAV Davis – 1 hr 22 mins Downtown MORGAN HILL Shopping SAC Sacramento – 1 hr 47 mins Center (SFS) RSV Roseville – 2 hrs 17 mins (via SAC bus connection) RLN Rocklin – 2 hrs 32 mins (via SAC bus connection) To Salinas, Monterey, GILROY San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara ARN Auburn – 2 hrs 57 mins (via SAC bus connection)
Connect @capitolcorridor: PLEASE NOTE: Fares, routes, schedules and policies are subject to change without notice. Train and bus schedules published here are approximations for a normal trip, and are subject to change due to service disruptions, “I love taking the train, I can equipment availability, connecting transit agency schedule changes and unforeseen circumstances. work, sleep, and read instead Evergreen Signs of driving.” Committed to sustainability and efficiency, the Capitol Corridor “We enjoy introduced its first evergreen signs at connecting bus stop locations along going to A’s our route. Passengers will always have games this accurate and up to date schedule way.” information by accessing a QR code on signs via their smart phone. These signs Event Trains are expected to have a 2-3 year lifespan With access to major as opposed to being replaced every sports and concert 6 months. venues, Capitol Corridor trains carried passengers to and from popular events, such as the San “The train is faster Francisco 49ers, Oakland than driving Raiders and Paul McCartney. A stand out event for the year was the Rolling Stones tour stop at Levi’s® Stadium. Train 748 and causes less carried 625 passengers to the concert! pollution.” Performance Report 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Customer Touchpoints During FY19, the Capitol Corridor extended its communication strategy for service alerts to passengers which now include early morning, night, and weekend service hours. Additionally, an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system was launched to provide phone support to customers outside of business hours.
Existing Touchpoints
New Touchpoints for 2019 AMTRAK AUTOMATED CCJPA STAFF
Station Agents Service Alerts PIDS CC Train Status Capitol CCIPA Social Media Conductors (at staffed (Email/ (Custom (web/app/ Corridor Hours Call Center (Twitter) stations) Text Alerts) Messages) two-way SMS) Website Alerts
4:00 AM - 5:00 AM IVR
5:00 AM - 7:00 AM IVR
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM IVR
8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 9:00 PM IVR
9:00 PM - 12:00 AM IVR Performance Report 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Next Generation Wi-Fi Project Highlights Funding: Annual State Supplemental Allocations Several projects got their start or reached EXPERIENCE milestones in FY19, improving overall service. The next generation Wi-Fi service will nearly double the These short- and long-term projects cover station bandwidth and will be continuously upgraded with newest improvements, track upgrades, sustainable improvements in Wi-Fi technology. operating initiatives, on-board amenities, safety 2018 Assumed management of existing Wi-Fi from Amtrak efforts, and future planning for inter-regional 2019 Wi-Fi service provider procured under new service model to include passenger rail service integration. technology upgrades 2020 Installation of next generation Wi-Fi equipment on train to begin 2020 Installation complete Travel Time Savings Project Funding: TIRCP and Prop 1A Renewable Diesel EXPERIENCE Funding: CCJPA Operating Budget Implemented track improvements that projected ENVIRONMENTAL approximately 10 minutes of travel time savings along our In collaboration with the California Air Resources Board route. With the implementation of Positive Train Control in (CARB), CCJPA is currently testing alternative fuel options 2018 and the opening of the Fairfield-Vacaville Hannigan that will work with new Tier 4 Charger locomotives, which station in 2017, about four minutes of the time savings was operate with high-pressure fuel systems. absorbed, resulting in 6 minutes of net travel time savings. 2016 Exploration of alternative fuel options 2015 Track Improvements Identified 2017 Renewable fuels tests on F-59 locomotives 2016 Improvements Construction Begun 2019 Renewable fuels tests on Tier 4 Charger locomotives 2019 Project Completion Right-of-Way (ROW) Safety and Sacramento-Roseville Third Track Security Improvements Service Expansion Project Funding: SRA Funding: TIRCP, Prop 1A, Prop 1B ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCE The ROW Safety and Security Improvement Project is a With the addition of a third railroad track between partnership between CCJPA and Union Pacific to identify Sacramento and Roseville, the Capitol Corridor would be and mitigate safety/security concerns along the Union able to increase frequencies between the two stations. Pacific ROW, such as removing debris and temporary An improved Roseville station is also a goal of the project. shelters. These actions help decrease trespasser fatalities 2015 Environmental phase complete as well as delays caused by debris on the tracks. 2016 Awarded $87M from TIRCP towards project design and construction 2016 Exploration of alternative fuel options 2019 25% design complete 2017 Renewable fuels tests on F-59 locomotives 2021 Phase one final design complete 2019 Renewable fuels tests on Tier 4 Charger locomotives 2022 Phase one construction to begin California Integrated Ticketing Positive Train Control (PTC) Program (Cal ITP) Funding: Prop 1B, Cal OES Funding: TIRCP SAFETY EXPERIENCE CCJPA, in coordination with its operating partners, CCJPA is managing a CalSTA-led, multi-agency initiative Amtrak and Union Pacific, has completed the installation to research, develop and implement an Integrated Travel and testing of PTC along the 170-mile Capitol Corridor Program (Cal ITP) that will enable California residents and route. PTC is a complex signaling and communications visitors to plan and pay for travel across multiple modes of technology that is designed to provide a critical safety transportation, including bus, metro, light and intercity rail, overlay on top of an already safe railroad operating paratransit, bike hire, and ride-hailing services in California. environment. 2016 Case study of European models of integration and fare policies 2017 Equipment installation and testing 2018 Cal ITP forum for sharing lessons learned 2018 Equipment installation and system implementation completed 2019 Team assembled to build framework for comprehensive Cal ITP
Cal OES = California Office of Emergency Services PTA = Public Transportation Account SRA = State Rail Assistance Program TIRCP = Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Performance Report 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Santa Clara Siding Improvement Design Funding: SRA, TIRCP EXPERIENCE SAFETY This project creates a new place for trains to meet and pass south of the Great America Station, easing train congestion in the South Bay. Trains that have been impacted by congestion will see these related delays reduced to 5-10 minutes from an average of 30 minutes. 2017 Final design started 2020 Final project design to be completed 2022 Project completion
LED Lighting for Richmond and New Transbay Rail Crossing Martinez Stations Funding: TIRCP, Annual State Supplemental Funding: Minor Capital Improvement Projects Allocation ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY EXPERIENCE New LED lighting at Richmond and Martinez provides a A new Transbay rail crossing opens the possibility of safer experience for passengers at nighttime; offers better sharing a crossing among agencies such as BART, lighting for security cameras; requires less maintenance; Caltrain, ACE, High Speed Rail, or Capitol Corridor. This in and is more energy-efficient. turn would create a truly connected Northern California 2019 Project started Megaregion. 2020 Project completion 2019 Funding awarded to survey project impact on employers and workforce demands Surfliner Door Panel 2020 Hire staff dedicated to managing project Replacement Davis Station Improvement Project Funding: Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transportation Funding: PTA SRA, CCJPA Revenue Above Budget EXPERIENCE SAFETY EXPERIENCE SAFETY Over time, there has been an increase in delays associated CCJPA is collaborating with Amtrak and Union Pacific for with the existing door panels on 22 Surfliner rail cars; the track and signal upgrades. This is the first phase of a larger door panels are in need of replacement due to age. The project of improvement initiatives at Davis Station that will new door panels will mitigate related delays, be more improve safety and ADA access with center island platforms. secure, and offer a quieter ride by reducing exterior noise. 2019 $4M committed for track and signal upgrades 2021 Track and signal upgrade completion 2019 Procurement of new door panels for 22 Surfliner cars 2020 Installation of door panels to begin 2021 Project completion Alviso Wetland Railroad Adaptation Alternatives Study Wayside Power Funding: Caltrans Adaptation Planning Grant and CCJPA Funding: Prop 1B, CCJPA Operating Budget Operating Budget ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL The installation of wayside power in layover stations This Study is the first step in understanding the sea level such as Auburn allows locomotives to switch power rise adaptation design options for the railroad infrastructure source from diesel fuel to electric ground power cabinets, between Newark and Santa Clara and the opportunities providing a more environmentally friendly solution. for passenger rail service improvements and habitat Switching to electric power cabinets during layovers also restoration that could be achieved concurrently. extends the life of the locomotive engine and allows for 2014 CCJPA Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment completed an optimized maintenance schedule. 2018 Alviso Wetland Railroad Adaptation Alternatives Study initiated 2020 Final report to be completed for the Alviso Wetland Railroad 2019 Installation of wayside power cabinets at Auburn station Adaptation Alternatives Study
Cal OES = California Office of Emergency Services PTA = Public Transportation Account SRA = State Rail Assistance Program TIRCP = Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Performance Report 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
To Eureka Arcata To Redding TRUC EE SANTA ROSA MARYSVILLE COLFAX ROHNERT PAR Rocklin To Reno, NV Auburn-Conheim NAPA Fairfield- PETALUMA Vacaville Roseville Hannigan Davis T VALLEJO Sacramento SAC RT SOUTH LA E TAHOE Richmond Suisun-Fairfield BART T PLACERVILLE To Stateline, NV SAN FRANCISCO Martine Berkeley Emeryville CAPITOL CORRIDOR
SFO Oakland Jack London ROUTE MAP (via BART) Capitol Corridor T Oakland Coliseum BART Joint Powers Authority OAK STAFFED STATION Board of Directors Hayward UNSTAFFED STATION T TRANSFER STATION PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Fremont-Centerville PLANNING AGENCY SPORTS & T Santa Clara-Great America John Allard ENTERTAINMENT Levi’s® Stadium (VTA) STADIUM Jim Holmes T Santa Clara-University SJC AMUSEMENT PARK Cheryl Maki (Alt.) SANTA CRU T CALTRAIN San Jose-Diridon AIRPORT CONNECTION SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT BUS CONNECTION DISTRICT FERRY CONNECTION Kerri Howell To Salinas, Monterey, GILROY San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Steve Miller Steve Hansen (Alt.) Patrick Kennedy (Alt.)
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT Hannigan Debora Allen Bevan Dufty OverDedication 30 years ago, Tom Hannigan, a Janice Li lifelong public servant knew rail service John McPartland connecting communities in Northern Robert Raburn California would one day be a reality. In Rebecca Saltzman, Chair recognition of Hannigan’s forethought and for championing the creation of the SANTA CLARA VALLEY Amtrak-operated Capitol Corridor route, the TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY newest stop along the corridor in Fairfield Teresa O’Neill was renamed the “Fairfield-Vacaville Raul Peralez Hannigan Station.” SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Harry Price “I’m a frequent rider, and James P. Spering the service is better than Ron Rowlett (Alt.) any other transit agency.” YOLO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ® Lucas Frerichs Get Social with Don Saylor, Vice Chair @CapitolCorridor Gloria Partida (Alt.) CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 300 Lakeside Drive, 14th Floor East · Oakland CA, 94612 Robert Powers, Executive Director 1-877-9-RIDECC (1-877-974-3322) · capitolcorridor.org Robert Padgette, Managing Director 2019 PERFORMANCE REPORT, ADOPTED NOVEMBER 2019 MARKETING ACTIVITIES REPORT January 2020
Marketing Partnerships
PARTNERSHIP HIGHLIGHTS Oakland Restaurant Week Oakland Restaurant Week Visit Oakland kicked off the New Year with its annual Oakland Restaurant Week events, along with our partnership. Foodies traveling to the event were encouraged to hop on board the train and take advantage of a 30% discount offer.
Contests and Promotions Our highly successful SF Travel Holiday Sweepstakes ended in December. The winner, Laurel, had a great trip and captured moments of her experience which were posted on our social channels. The momentum did not stop as we rolled right into a renewed partnership with the Harlem Globetrotters. This VIP package included tickets to their electrifying show, a meet and greet with players, and keepsake autographs. We had 255 entrants for the contest and a 34.1% conversion rate from the contest landing page.
SF Travel Harlem Globetrotters
Marketing and Communications Update Public Relations & Rider Experience
Rob Meeting & Greet on the Train Thanksgiving
On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, Managing Director Rob Padgette and Deputy Managing Director Leo Sanchez hosted a meet and greet on board Train 529 from Auburn to Oakland Jack London. These outreach events are great opportunities Thanksgiving week is the busiest time for our service. To for the staff to hear from passengers and address questions assist and prepare the thousands of passengers traveling about the Capitol Corridor. with us, we provided travel tips, advisories, and met them at the station leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday.
49ers Post Season Winter Weekends
On January 11 and 19, the Capitol Corridor and its passengers were seeing red and gold! More than 600 San Francisco 49ers fans took to the train to witness their home team beat out the Vikings and Green Bay Packers to secure their spot in the Super This winter, we rolled out our hottest deal to date! Bowl. In anticipation of heavy ridership, the Capitol Corridor Individual weekend riders can save 50% off on their travel arranged for event trains and adjusted schedules to make sure on all weekends, including holiday Mondays until March passengers could enjoy the games at Levi’s® Stadium. 15. This 50% Off Winter Weekends is designed to promote both solo and companion travel during our off peak.
Marketing and Communications Update Communications: Social Media, CC Rail Mail and Service Alerts
December 1 – 31, 2019 Followers as of 1/15/20 Net New Subscribers Total Subscribers Engagement Rate
16,221 CC Rail Mail -75 5,284 47% 448 6,182 Weekday Service Alerts -32 4,791 41% 125 Weekend Service Alerts 81 494 38%
2,931 Get on Board -39 1,482 45% 287
Earned Media Reporting – December 2019
4,000,000 3,500,000 Total AVE By Month 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0
Number of News Stories: 188 Number of Broadcast Stories: 17 Earned Value (AVE): $3.68M
Website - December 2019
CapitolCorridor.org Percentage of Visits 13,814 Referrals to 5,131 Bookings on Visits: 63,903 Sessions Via Mobile %: 53.85 Amtrak.com from Amtrak.com initiated from CapitolCorridor.org CapitolCorridor.org
Marketing and Communications Update FY20 Marketing and Communications Overview
July August September ✓ BOGO Weekends – Buy One, Get One ✓ Group Travel Planning for FY20 • 2020 Transit Transfers, Placer Step-Up ✓ Senior Midweek - 50% Off ✓ Rail Safety Month kickoff event Coupons ✓ Rescheduled Train for Paul McCartney ✓ Rescheduled train for Rolling Stones • Review Transit Transfer Program concert (7/10) concert (8/18) Options ✓ Rescheduled Train for Queen + Adam ✓ Football season promotions (Raiders • Rail Safety Month Lambert concert (7/14) 25% and 49ers) • Safety Month & Safety ✓ Café Car Menu Refresh (6/26) ✓ Promotion kickoff for Anastasia (SHN Train/Proclamation (9/24) ✓ IVR – Twilio Launch (7/13) Theatre) • CHP Wellness and Transportation Fair ✓ New Platform Signage for 47x47 ✓ Install New Platform Signage 47x47 • Fall Timetable Planning frames ✓ College/University • Raiders 25% discount begins ✓ Exploratorium partnership kickoff Promotion/Outreach • Evergreen Station Signs ✓ A’s/Giants VIP contest launch • Hannigan Fairfield-Vacaville Train ✓ Finalize Crisis Communications Plan Station Dedication Event 9/27 and Press room on website
October November December ✓ Begin design/production of FY19 ✓ Thanksgiving service communications ✓ Winter Weekends 50% offer launch Annual report ✓ California Everyday Discounts (Renew) ✓ Holiday card ✓ Cappy Hour – “Cappy Halloween” ✓ Capitol Corridor Company Store ✓ Holiday travel communications 10/30 Relaunch ✓ Launch of Oakland Restaurant Week ✓ Fall Menu Update ✓ SF Travel holiday Sweepstakes launch 30% discount ✓ Managing Director onboard “meet ✓ Managing Director onboard “Meet & and greet” with passengers Greet” ✓ Fall Timetable Change (10/28) ✓ Salesforce Plaza Service (10/28) ✓ Verb Surgical Employee Fair (10/29) ✓ Station Access Survey
January February March ✓ Annual Performance Report • Stitch ‘n’ Ride Discount to Stitches • Oakland A’s promotion/25% discount ✓ Business Plan workshops West Expo in Santa Clara • Cirque du Soleil San Jose partnership ✓ Oakland Restaurant Week promotion • Valentine’s Day Cappy Hour ✓ 49ers game-day service for playoffs • Cirque du Soleil Sacramento ✓ Rob’s Message to Riders Q1 partnership ✓ Managing Director onboard “Meet & Greet” ✓ Harlem Globetrotters partnership
April May June • Earth Day events and promotions • Bike to Work/Bike East Bay • Group fares renewal including onboard Cappy Hour partnership – onboard Cappy Hours • Contract vendor planning for FY21 • Contract/Vendor planning for FY21 and tabling at Capitol Bike Fest • Spring Timetable Planning • Rob’s Message to Riders Q2
Marketing and Communications Update