MEETING NOTICE ANND AGENDA
LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) The LOSSAN TAC may take action on any item appearing on this agenda.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
L.A. Metro Mulholland Room – 15th Floor One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA
Staff Contact: Danny Veeh (619) 699-6957 [email protected]
AGENDA HIGHLIGIGHTS
• LOSSAN COMMENTS ON DRAFT CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN AND REVIEW OF SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
• LOSSAN CORRIDORWIDE FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONS INVENTORY REVISED DRAFT REPORT
• CROSS-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AND CAMP PENDLETON STATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES
To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
1 MEETING LOCATION
The main location for this meeting is at Metro in Los Angeles. Several LOSSAN member agencies will be attending this meeting via teleconference from the following locations:
• Amtrak, 530 Water Street, Oakland, CA • Caltrans Division of Rail, 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA • Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
The public is welcome to attend and testify at any of the LOSSAN member agency locations listed above, all of which are accessible to the public. For more information, please contact LOSSAN staff at (619) 699-6957 or e-mail [email protected] for specific meeting room locations at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Otherwise, conference calling is available.
2 Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Thursday, March 7, 2013
ITEM # ACTION
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
2. PUBLIC COMMENT/COMMUNICATIONS
Speakers are limited to three minutes each.
+3. FEBRUARY 7, 2013, MEETING MINUTES (Danny Veeh, SANDAG) APPROVE
The LOSSAN TAC is asked to approve the minutes from the LOSSAN TAC’s last meeting. Please see the attachment.
4. STATUS OF MEMBER AGENCY APPROVALS OF LOSSAN JOINT DISCUSSION POWERS AGREEMENT (Linda Culp, SANDAG)
Senate Bill 1225 authorizes a local authority to oversee Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner service. In order to implement this legislation, LOSSAN is required to amend the LOSSAN Joint Powers Agreement, which needs to be approved by the governing boards of each voting and ex-officio member. TAC members will discuss the status and schedule for these approvals at the meeting.
+5. LOSSAN COMMENTS ON DRAFT CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN APPROVE AND REVIEW OF SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLANS (Emily Burstein, Caltrans; Linda Culp, SANDAG)
The TAC will develop final LOSSAN comments on the Draft California State Rail Plan and direct staff to submit a comment letter to Caltrans by the March 11, 2013, deadline. Caltrans staff will also provide an update on the service development plans.
+6. LOSSAN CORRIDORWIDE FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND RECOMMEND OPERATIONS INVENTORY REVISED DRAFT REPORT (Linda Culp, SANDAG; Lane Fernandes, PB)
Staff will review the revised Draft Corridorwide Facilities, Equipment, and Operations Inventory report and response to TAC comments. The report includes an inventory of intercity rolling stock, property, and facilities available to the intercity service, including ownership, type, and physical characteristics. The TAC is asked to make any final comments and recommend approval to the Board for its consideration at the March 22, 2013, meeting. This item was not ready at time of mailout and will be available under separate cover when completed.
3 ITEM # ACTION
+7. CROSS-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AND CAMP PENDLETON INFORMATION STATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES (Johnny Dunning and Kim Hayford, NCTD)
NCTD staff will present the findings of the cross-county commuter rail service ridership estimates. This study includes ridership projections for a proposed Camp Pendleton station.
8. AMTRAK AND NCTD COORDINATION EFFORTS (Nick Freeman, INFORMATION NCTD)
NCTD staff will discuss its recent coordination efforts that are underway with Amtrak.
+9. CORRIDOR TRENDS (Danny Veeh, SANDAG) INFORMATION
The latest corridor statistics, including ridership and revenue statistics and customer satisfaction indices, are attached.
10. LOSSAN NORTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) (Joe Valdez, Caltrans)
Caltrans Division of Rail is working collaboratively with Caltrans District 5 to prepare a program-level environmental document. Project scoping meetings were held in January 2012 and the draft document is expected to be released to the public in August 2013. The Federal Railroad Administration requires rail corridors to have a programmatic EIR/EIS and an SDP in order to be eligible to receive federal funding for capital projects.
+11. REVIEW FEBRUARY 20, 2013, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DRAFT REVIEW AND AGENDA (Linda Culp, SANDAG) COMMENT
The LOSSAN TAC will review the draft agenda for the next LOSSAN Board of Directors meeting.
12. LOSSAN TAC MEMBER UPDATES INFORMATION
13. NEXT MEETING INFORMATION
The next LOSSAN TAC meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2013, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. in Los Angeles.
+ next to an item indicates an attachment
4 Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 7, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3
Action Requested: APPROVE
FEBRUARY 7, 2013 MEETING MINUTES File Number 3400600
The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on February 7, 2013, in Los Angeles. In attendance were:
Mark Waier, Metrolink Via Teleconference: Trichelle Baysden, Metrolink Brian Hart, Amtrak Jay Fuhrman, Metro Noemi Rios, Caltrans James Hinkamp, VCTC Alan Miller, Caltrans Kim Hayford, NCTD Sheldon Peterson, RCTC Jay Fountain, Amtrak Lea Simpson, Caltrans Scott Spaulding, SBCAG Emily Burstein, Caltrans Linda Culp, SANDAG Jonathan Hutchison, Amtrak Danny Veeh, SANDAG Leo Hoyt, Caltrans Steve Fox, SCAG Joe Valdez, Caltrans Michael Litschi, OCTA Don Wong, Amtrak Karen Sakoda, Metrolink Henning Eichler, Metrolink
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Danny Veeh (SANDAG) welcomed everyone to the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT/COMMUNICATIONS
There were no public comments.
JANUARY 10, 2013, MEETING MINUTES
The January 10, 2013, meeting minutes were approved.
STATUS OF MEMBER AGENCY APPROVALS OF LOSSAN JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Linda Culp (SANDAG) provided a status update of the LOSSAN member agency approvals of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). Since the TAC last met, VCTC, Metro, MTS, and CHSRA have approved. MTS approved with a request for three additional amendments: (1) require a super-
5
majority vote for final approval of the interagency transfer agreement (ITA); (2) include a clause that if the ITA negotiations fail, the LOSSAN Agency would revert back to the 2011 version; and (3) include a clause that should the state fail to fund an agreed-upon minimum level of service, management would revert back to the state within 30 days. The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) group continues to discuss these amendments, which will need to be approved by the LOSSAN board for distribution to member agencies for their approval. The CEOs also recommended waiting on releasing the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Managing Agency until the JPA is approved.
PACIFIC SURFLINER EXPRESS SERVICE EVALUATION REPORT
Alan Miller (Caltrans) presented a review of the Express Train pilot project, which was launched in February 2011 and reduced the number of stops between San Diego and Los Angeles for northbound train #565 from nine to six, for a reduction in travel time of 12 minutes. The trip has suffered from poor on-time performance (OTP) and declining ridership with the exception of the past few months. Jay Fountain (Amtrak) stated that however you look at the data, the Express Train is not working. Mr. Veeh mentioned that in January 2012 there was a significant drop in ridership that coincided with the introduction of the single-level Horizon car consist. Lea Simpson (Caltrans) mentioned they have previously compared this train to other successful routes and there are a number of reasons why this train is not working. Ms. Culp suggested that a summary of lessons learned be compiled and presented to the board. Jonathan Hutchison (Amtrak) stated that regardless of how you look at the numbers the overall outcome is the same; the Express Train is not working.
LOSSAN CORRIDORWIDE FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONS INVENTORY
Ms. Culp noted that the TAC had discussed the need to develop a capital and operations inventory for the entire corridor as well as the major components of the report at the past two meetings, and introduced Lane Fernandes, with Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), to provide an overview of the draft report. Mr. Fernandes mentioned there are sections on the history of intercity service in the corridor, ownership of track, stations, and other infrastructure, and the process for changes or additions to train service. PB has collected several agreements pertaining to the corridor and will include them on a CD in the final report. Ms. Culp will collect the TAC comments until February 20. A revised report will be part of the TAC’s March 7 agenda, where the group will be asked to recommend approval to the board at its March 22 meeting. Overall, the comments were positive. Jay Fuhrman (Metro) stated that this will be a fluid document. Scott Spaulding (SBCAG) also mentioned the need to update this document annually.
DRAFT CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN
Emily Burstein (Caltrans) provided an overview of the draft State Rail Plan. There have been a lot of changes since the administrative draft, due in part to comments from LOSSAN TAC members. She noted that this draft attempts to better capture the blended rail service idea, with the goal to show the link and interdependency between intercity rail and high-speed rail (HSR). Section 2.1 describes the Southern California and Northern California working groups that are collaborating with CHSRA regarding early implementation of the blended system. This section also mentions the legislation that supports the transfer of management to local authorities for the LOSSAN and San Joaquin corridors. The goal of Chapter 8 is to explain the dynamic nature of capital improvements in the state and projects that are needed for blended service. Ms. Burstein stated that additional TAC
6
review of the capital projects will be necessary. Chapter 10 presents the ridership and revenue analysis along with the integrated system modeling.
Ms. Culp presented a proposed timeline for TAC and board review before the close of public comments on March 11. The TAC could give the board a preliminary comment letter at its February 20 meeting and ask the board to allow final TAC comments at its March 7 meeting. Ms. Burstein clarified that TAC input to date has already been addressed in the public draft. The final plan will be released in June.
Mr. Fuhrman asked about the separate tables of Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink, and COASTER projects in Chapter 8. Ms. Burstein stated that if a project benefits intercity and commuter service it is considered joint use. Non-joint use projects solely benefit one service. Another area of further refinement would be to take completed or substantially completed projects off the list. Any unfunded projects should be on the list. The Near-Term designation includes projects that are allocated or appropriated, Mid-Term includes project that will be initiated within 6 to 20 years, and Long-Term projects have an anticipated start date greater than 20 years. There also needs to be a review of projects that are double counted on the list.
Many agencies will be sending individual comment letters. Ms. Burstein also noted that Service Development Plans (SDPs) will be available for review on February 26 for State Rail Plan Advisory Committee review in preparation for the committee’s March 6 teleconference.
PACIFIC SURFLINER MONTHLY PASS FARE REDUCTION
Leo Hoyt (Caltrans) provided an overview of the proposed Surfliner monthly pass fare reduction program between Oxnard and Oceanside. Last year just 300 monthly passes were sold, and, as a result, Amtrak and Caltrans were looking at a more competitively priced program. The passes were priced 5 percent less than a Metrolink pass within the same project limits. Mr. Hoyt noted that the program currently is suspended. However, there were 57 passes sold in the limited time that they were available, which was three times the total in February last year. Those passes will be honored.
Mark Waier (Metrolink) clarified that the Metrolink compensation to Amtrak under the current Rail2Rail agreement ranges from $2.20 to $3.00 with an average of $2.54 per trip. Mr. Hutchison clarified that overall the program is capped. Mr. Fuhrman asked why there was no communication to the LOSSAN group ahead of instituting the program, as the press release was released the same day as the January LOSSAN board meeting. Mr. Hutchinson informed that fare decisions are made between Amtrak and Caltrans. There is no public notification required for fare changes. Ultimately, this is a Caltrans decision and it does not need to be vetted regionally. Mr. Spaulding asked why the program was suspended. Mr. Hoyt stated that department management decided that it should be suspended.
SAN JOAQUIN CORRIDOR PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PEIR)
Tom Dodson, with Tom Dodson and Associates, presented an update on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) currently underway by Caltrans and Federal Railroad Administration for the San Joaquin corridor. He explained the overall components of this document, including an evaluation of alternatives for how to bridge the gap from Bakersfield into Los Angeles. The analysis looks at the increase in service that will be needed through 2035, as well
7
as additional double tracking and new rolling stock. Currently, the notice of preparation has been issued. All of the proposed projects are within existing rail right-of-way, so as to minimize potential impacts. The route over the Tehachapi Range is being evaluated as an alternative to getting to Los Angeles, but it is not the preferred route. This alternative would be the only interaction with the LOSSAN corridor. This document is currently being revised to include more information on the blended system with the HSR and potential additional stops.
CORRIDOR TRENDS
Mr. Veeh presented a summary of the latest corridor trends. The Surfliner Express ridership was down though OTP remained relatively high. Corridorwide, there have been ridership and revenue gains. OTP performance has also seen improvement the last four months. Mr. Fountain pointed out that the OTP in January was just short of 90 percent. There also has been continued coordination between agencies in terms of scheduling and operations. Ms. Simpson reiterated the fact that there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes work going on. Mr. Fountain has taken leadership in the OTP issue, dispatching, mechanical issues, and scheduling.
LOSSAN NORTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS)
Joe Valdez (Caltrans) stated that Caltrans is currently reviewing the administrative draft. The public draft is expected to be released in August.
REVIEW OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013, DRAFT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DRAFT AGENDA
No changes were made.
LOSSAN TAC MEMBER UPDATES
Mr. Spaulding mentioned that the March Board of Directors meeting will be in Santa Barbara. There are car-free discounts for people who arrive by train. Ms. Culp also mentioned that Form 700s need to be completed, with original cover sheets mailed to her. She also mentioned that SANDAG held an environmental scoping meeting for the San Dieguito Double Track project last week. This project adds a second main track, replaces a lagoon bridge, and builds a special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds.
NEXT MEETING
The next LOSSAN TAC meeting is scheduled for March 7, 2013, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. in Los Angeles.
Key Staff Contact: Danny Veeh, (619) 699-7317, [email protected]
8 Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 7, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5
Action Requested: APPROVE
LOSSAN COMMENTS ON DRAFT CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN AND REVIEW OF SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLANS File Number 3400600
The California State Rail Plan (CSRP) establishes a statewide vision and objectives, sets priorities, and develops policies and implementation strategies to enhance passenger and freight rail service. An SRP is also a requirement for federal rail capital or planning funds. Furthermore, Senate Bill 1225 (SB 1225) states that the initial Pacific Surfliner business plan developed by LOSSAN during the initial three-year period under the Interagency Transfer Agreement shall be consistent with the immediately previous CSRP developed by Caltrans and the January 2014 business plan developed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Caltrans is charged with updating the CSRP every five years.
Caltrans released a draft CSRP on February 8, 2013, for public comment through March 11, 2013. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provided preliminary comments for the Board’s review at its February 20, 2013, meeting. Also at that meeting the Board authorized the TAC to make final comments to Caltrans by the March 11 deadline.
A draft letter and revised comments on the public draft CSRP are included here as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively (additional comments since the board meeting are highlighted). Note that TAC members are also providing separate comments to Caltrans on the project tables in Chapter 8 with the intent of reviewing the revised Chapter 8 tables at the TAC meeting.
Caltrans is also responsible for developing detailed Service Development Plans (SDPs) for each intercity passenger rail corridor. These plans describe the individual corridor in greater detail, including proposed service expansions and operational improvements, and needed infrastructure in order to provide for these service expansions. Staff will provide an overview of the SDPs for the LOSSAN corridor.
Attachments: 1. Draft Letter 2. Revised Comments on the Public Draft CSRP
Key Staff Contacts: Emily Burstein, (916) 654-6932, [email protected] Linda Culp, (619) 699-6957, [email protected]
9 Attachment 1
March 11, 2013
Mr. Bill Bronte, Chief Caltrans Division of Rail 1120 N Street Sacramento CA 95812
SUBJECT: LOSSAN SUPPORT FOR DRAFT CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN
Dear Mr. Bronte:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft state rail plan. We also appreciate the responsiveness and time that your staff has spent with the LOSSAN Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the State Rail Plan Advisory Committee on developing the administrative and draft versions.
The California State Rail Plan is a key policy document for existing and future rail services including the LOSSAN Rail Corridor’s commuter, freight, and intercity passenger rail services. Also, it encompasses emerging corridors such as the Coast Daylight and Coachella Valley, and future high‐speed train services both under a blended approach and ultimate buildout. We understand the importance of our responsibility to review and provide constructive comments on this draft.
Overall, we support the following points:
We agree with the vision statement that guides the details of the DRAFTplan and see the importance that rail will play in the future of our state and for the 19 million future residents in southern California in particular.
On a statewide level, we support integrating future high‐speed rail services with state’s existing conventional rail services and feel the document successfully integrates the two for the first time.
10
LOSSAN support for the state’s emerging corridors with direct connections to the LOSSAN corridor, i.e., the Coast Daylight and Coachella Valley services and are supportive of their inclusion in this document.
Overall, we request the following revisions:
LOSSAN supports an integrated corridorwide rail network. We request further integrating the sections discussing LOSSAN North and LOSSAN South into a corridorwide approach realizing there are two Service Development Plans and two programmatic environmental documents. For example, we request that the project specific tables in Chapter 8 not be separated.
We request that specific changes be incorporated into Chapter 8 in terms of the specific service improvements. A business case for new services was included in the LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan in terms of the Coast Daylight, Ventura to Santa Barbara commuter service, limited stop peak period Pacific Surfliner services, and cross‐ county commuter services between Los Angeles and San Diego. That plan was a collaborative effort between all LOSSAN member agencies.
In addition, working through our TAC, we have attached specific comments on the draft plan.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to improve the state’s rail systems. Thank you.
Sincerely,
JOE KELLEJIAN Chair DRAFT cc: LOSSAN Board of Directors
11 Attachment 2
Preliminary LOSSAN Comments on Draft State Rail Plan Additional Comments Since February 20, 2013, are highlighted
Ref Reference/Section Comment # 1 Overall LOSSAN supports an integrated rail network both at the corridor level (integrating the sections discussing LOSSAN North and LOSSAN South into a corridorwide approach realizing there are two Service Development Plans and two programmatic environmental documents) and statewide (integrating future high-speed rail services with state’s existing conventional rail services). 2 Overall LOSSAN requests that for future updates, a member of the Board of Directors also serve on the advisory committee. 3 Overall LOSSAN requests that future public meetings be held directly along the corridor. 4 Overall LOSSAN reiterates support for the state’s emerging corridors with direct connections to the LOSSAN corridor, i.e., the Coast Daylight and Coachella Valley services. 5 Overall Good vision statement with a positive focus discussed in Chapter 3.0 and elsewhere. 6 Overall Change reference to Montalvo to East Ventura throughout. 7 Overall Please provide a link to the LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan on the project Web page. Executive Summary 8 Introduction From the environmental and efficiencies benefits in Section 2.0 (e.g., Section 2.2.3), summarize why rail is part of a multimodal transportation solution in the executive summary. 9 Exhibit ES.2 Santa Paula Branch line is in public ownership. 10 Exhibit ES.3 Relabel “Early Investment in Metrolink Corridors” to “Early Investment in Established Corridors” or something similar since this shaded area stretches to San Diego. 11 Add a summary/wrap up section at the end including overall vision, major goals, challenges, etc. Context and Challenges 12 Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3 Consider a paragraph on “Programmatic-Level Environmental Review” in addition to project level in Section 2.2.3, citing the programmatic environmental documents completed (LA to San Diego or Capitol Corridor) and underway (Coast Rail Corridor) and the benefits of using these documents. 13 Chapter 2, Section 2.3 Add a bullet on Physical Constraints in the list of factors likely to influence future rail service. Vision 14 Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1 Add bullet after Livable Communities on Cost Effectiveness benefits
12 Existing Passenger Rail System 15 Chapter 5 Consistent formatting/headings – not many sections are numbered (e.g., Section 2.2.3) as in past chapters. 16 Chapter 5 Add section on Air/Rail Connectivity from at least two perspectives: (1) Airports directly served by rail either currently (Burbank) or in the future (San Diego) and (2) connecting transit (e.g., FlyAway services from Van Nuys, LAUS, and Irvine stations and BART examples in northern California). 17 Chapter 5 Add discussion on local transit transfer programs along each intercity corridor. 18 Chapter 5, Exhibit 5.5 Add discussion on Surfliner farebox recovery rates and reasons for 100%+ in late 1980s/early 1990s and then statistics shown as much lower. 19 Chapter 5, Table 5.2 Consider updating ridership data to FY 2012. 20 Chapter 5, Exhibit 5.10 Label end points for Metrolink services on map (e.g., Oceanside, East Ventura, Lancaster/Palmdale. 21 Chapter 5, Page 70 When listing Metro Rail services, add Expo Line. In last paragraph separate out the LAUS connect to the San Joaquin route via Thruway bus and so does Amtrak long-distance services. 22 Chapter 5, Table 5.3 LACMTA’s Gold Line extends to East LA. 23 Chapter 5, Station Include a brief inventory of stations. Configurations 24 Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1 Clarify that local agencies share in the costs for capital projects not operations and add fares to list of Caltrans responsibilities. 25 Chapter 5, Table 5.18 Clarify the role of local agencies in capital funding for the Capitol and San Joaquin corridors. 26 Chapter 5 Double check the potential repetitiveness of the description of commuter rail services in this section (e.g., page 99 and again on page 101). 27 Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2 For commuter rail service, NCTD dispatches trains from the Orange County Line to downtown San Diego. SCRRA dispatches from Moorpark to the Orange Co/San Diego Co line. SCRRA operates 169 (not 162) trains. Check that there are up to 36 Amtrak trains between Moorpark and San Diego. 28 Chapter 5, Section 5.4.3 In terms of Private Sector Involvement in Passenger Rail, consider citing California examples instead (e.g., Caltrain and COASTER are examples of exchanging contracts with Amtrak and private operators). 29 Chapter 5, Section 5.5 In addition to Caltrans and Amtrak installing PTC in California, Metrolink, NCTD, UPRR, and BNSF should also be cited. 30 Chapter 5, Section 5.5.2 References to Table 5.20 and Exhibit 5.15 do not match the text in that paragraph and perhaps should be moved to previous paragraph. Also, the last paragraph on page 111 does not seem to go with this section.
13 Existing Freight Rail System 31 Chapter 6 Add table on freight rail bottlenecks similar to the passenger rail locations shown in Chapter 7. 32 Page 155 Is the definition of classification yards provided somewhere? Same with regional yards. 33 Page 162 GTM per Mile: 1st paragraph: GTM refers to the combined weight of locomotives and all trailing cars and their contents in revenue freight trains, multiplied by the number of route-miles traveled, and divided by the number of route-miles of the line. Does this mean total number of route-miles for the line? 34 Table 6.5 Could you add a column and provide the lift volume for say, year 2010 to have a better sense of where each yard is in terms of reaching capacity? As is, doesn't readily convey information on current and/or future constraints. In general, throughout Chapter 6, further clarification and emphasis on needs/constraints would be helpful. 35 Table 6.5, source WSA was the prime consultant who developed the Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan, but it was Southern California's 6 counties and two MPOs who commissioned it. They need to be credited. 36 Page 168 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: What's the current on-dock volume? 37 Page 168 1st paragraph, last sentence: Are we saying that even with the planned on-dock projects, there won't be enough capacity to handle the future demand for on-dock? We should include stats to really clarify needs/constraints. Also, there should be a mention of the fact that ICTF is primarily for international containers. 38 Page 169 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: add (transloaded or pure domestic) 39 Page 169 1st paragraph, 2nd from the last sentence: "Off-dock facilities are anticipated to handle increasing numbers of domestic and transloaded containers due to increased demand in national consumption and increased growth of transloading as a logisitics strategy. 40 Ex. 6.10 & 6.11 The title of the exhibits should state that it is for both inbound and outbound movement. 41 Page 175 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: provide examples of general merchandise. 42 Section 6.2.3 Although this is not limited to freight rail, environmental review processes often slow down project progress, constraining California's ability to deliver projects in a timely manner to meet future demand. This could be added as another point associated with issues. This is particularly important given recent concerns about intermodal facilities on publicly owned land--later referenced in Chapter 9, but perhaps some of this should be discussed under existing conditions/issues as well. 43 Footnote 88 The report is published by Southern California Association of Governments. 44 Section 6.4.1 Based on the map on page 188 and the corresponding sections discussing the chokepoints, it would be helpful if the section header also had numbers that correspond to the chokepoints on the map. Also, a table in this general area highlighting the bottlenecks could supplement the maps here. 45 Page 190 1st paragraph, second sentence: insert " , based on the current railroad routing practice, "after "determine"
14 46 Table 6.10 The P3 discussion/table is oddly placed in the freight rail Chapter 6 discussion here. How do these typical procurement options apply in the freight rail private investment context? Passenger and Freight Rail Integration 47 Chapter 7, Section 7.1.2 Under owners, add SDMTS 48 Chapter 7, Section 7.2.1 Add bullet under potential additions for Cross county all-stop commuter rail service between Los Angeles and downtown San Diego. Under new commuter rail lines change San Bernardino County to SANBAG and Los Angeles County to LACMTA as owners. 49 Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2 Add bullet on key changes for LOSSAN corridor given Exhibit 7.4 and future train volumes on certain segments. In addition to discussing the northern California high-speed train shared corridors, discuss San Fernando Valley to LAUS/Anaheim. 50 Chapter 7, Section 7.4.1 Include a summary discussion of Table 7.1 51 Chapter 7, Table 7.1 Drop references to Pacific Surfliner North or South. Add bullet on Coordination with high-speed train for Southern California sections (LA to downtown Burbank, Hobart to Fullerton, and LA to Colton). 52 Chapter 7, Section 7.5.1 Under Stations and future coordination, add LAUS. 53 Chapter 7, Section 7.5.2 Add BNSF segment from LA to Fullerton in discussion of shared-track. Passenger Rail Improvements 54 Section 8.0; Page 190 Consider revising second bullet regarding project categories based on TAC recommendations on project tables. 55 Section 8.1.2, Step 1 Clarify the statement that while projects are still being developed in southern California, early investments will be made to the Bay Area’s Caltrain corridor. The Southern California Rail Partners Group has an MOU and detailed/prioritized project list. 56 Exhibit 8.1 Same as Comment #10. 57 Table 8.2 Clarify the Prop 1A funding for NCTD ($7m shown but $17m allocated?). 58 Section 8.2.1 There is a lot of data on Table 8.5, please add a couple of sentences in the text to summarize. 59 Section 8.2.2 First sentence in Pacific Surfliner North section – development of the LOSSAN North Business Plan was a collaborative effort between Caltrans and the LOSSAN agencies. Second paragraph – UP has completed modeling for the Ventura to Santa Barbara Commuter Service and Coast Daylight. 60 Table 8.5 Why no Surfliner cars shown in the Mid-Term Period? 61 Table 8.6 Split out the Coast Daylight train volumes from the Surfliner. 62 Section 8.2.2; Page 200 Last sentence in first paragraph – the additional analysis is underway in conjunction with the Southern California Rail Partners Group. (SCRRA and LACMTA are members but there are other members.)
15 63 Section 8.2.2, Page 201 First sentence in Pacific Surfliner South section – development of service plans was a collaborative effort between Caltrans and the LOSSAN agencies. Second paragraph – modeling definitely completed, however BNSF modeling underway. All other owners in LOSSAN South were part of this collaborative effort. Last sentence, second paragraph – clarify – there is one Surfliner round- trip added in the near-term, correct? 64 Section 8.2.2, Page 202 Add bullets on: Offering all-stop, commuter rail service between Los Angeles and San Diego. Converting peak-period Pacific Surfliner trips to limited-stop express service in order to decrease travel times and increase ridership. Under key investments, add: Extensive double tracking on the San Diego Subdivision 65 Table 8.7 Separate out the All-Stop Surfliners and the Limited Stop Express Surfliners in the first line of the table. 66 Table 8.8 Suggest having 1 corridorwide list and not separating North v. South. Other project specific comments will be provided separately. 67 Section 8.2.2, Page 203 In terms of sidings – confirm that siding length is an issue in south OC/north SD. In terms of other track upgrades – there is only 1 manual switch in this area, at the Stuart Mesa Maintenance Facility and it will be upgraded over the next year so remove “manually thrown switches” from this sentence. 68 69 Section 8.8.2, Page 276 Add sentence on San Diego’s future Airport Intermodal Transportation Center in this section. The ITC will be located near the San Diego International Airport, and provide connections from the Pacific Surfliner, COASTER, San Diego Trolley, and a number of local and regional bus routes. The ITC is also the future southern terminus of the state’s high- speed train system. 70 Chapter 8, Table 8.20 Delete footnote on station ratings. Reference the LOSSAN corridor joint timetable for list of stations and their connecting services. Freight Rail Improvements 71 Section 9.1.1 3rd bullet: take out "Draft" from Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan
16 72 Table 9.1 Several comments: Please verify construction start date for both ICTF and SCIG. Should the header read "start date" or "completion"? Under project Name, we don't differentiate Phase I and Phase II for Pier 400 On-Dock Rail Expansion. Terminal Island Rail & Seaside (Evergreen Terminal On-dock Railyard) is missing from this list. Construction start should read, Short-, Mid-, and Long-term, as there are various start and completion dates. Again, please clarify header. Is this start or completion? Project Source should include Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. Under Project Name, not sure if this is different from the projects listed in the above row, but need to add “Port Truck Traffic Reduction Program: West Basin Railyard.” Also, add Navy Mole Road Storage Yard under Project Name. This list seems to be missing mainline capacity projects on UP LA Subdivision and UP Yuma subdivision that are listed as part of the rail package in the Comprehensive Regional GM study project list. 73 Section 9.1.3 Add bullet on highway-rail grade separation projects from SCAG's RTP/ Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan. We have total 71 projects, worth $5.6 billion. Please reconcile project listing/costs. 74 Section 9.1.3 2nd paragraph: Check the grade separation project cost. We quoted $5.6 billion in ON THE MOVE. 75 Appendix D There are maps of freight tonnage by origin and destination emphasizing the high volume going in and out of LA and SB in 2007 and 2040. These maps should be included in the body of the report. Rail Benefits and Next Steps 76 Section 10.0 This chapter seems to include a few unrelated items (e.g., ridership, environment, funding, next steps) and some of the section headings are confusing; e.g., “Rail Benefits and Next Steps” and “Public and Private Effects.” 77 Section 10.1.1. Clarify how the 2 models worked together. 78 Exhibit 10.1 Clarify that this was a statewide effort and what the colored regions on the map mean. 79 Table 10.1 Several questions: Why no HSR to Anaheim or HSR to San Diego shown by 2040? For Surfliner service between Goleta-LA, why does service drop from 4 round trips in 2020 to 3 in 2025 and 2040? Why do Riverside to San Diego COASTER/ML trips not happen until 2040? Why isn’t Ventura to Santa Barbara commuter service shown? For Footnote 146, is this for all years or just certain time frames shown in the table? 80 Table 10.2 For Footnote f, clarify why Metrolink trips outside the corridor were not captured (trips of less than 75 miles). 81 Table 10.4 Clarify are these changes from the baseline or the previous phase?
17 82 Table 10.5 Same comment. 83 Tables 10.7 and 10.8 Clarify why HSR and NCURS are shown together in these tables. 84 Section 10.1.4 It seems because GHG emissions are on the forefront of most planning we are currently undertaking, that there could be additional analysis or summary points made in this section. 85 Page 315, Central and Your point is good that environmental effects will impact highways and South Coast that rail is best potential alternative, but for areas like Santa Barbara and San Diego, our rail corridor is also traversing these same lagoon and low-lying areas. 86 Page 316, Land Use You note that grade separations may be considered a subset of rail line improvements, however, the primary beneficiaries of grade seps are roads and vehicles. Also, you note capacity improvements with grade seps, this is normally not the case. 87 Section 10.2.1, PTA Add sentence on protections of Props 22 and 26 regarding the PTA. Note that PTA is the only source for intercity passenger rail operations other than passenger revenues. Consider including a sentence or two on Section 209 cost increases to the state and the CTC’s fund estimate on available PTA revenues. 88 Page 328, Prop 1A The first sentence says that Prop 1A was only for construction between Anaheim and San Francisco. Add “… as well as to advance planning for the entire 800-mile system.” To the end of the first sentence. Also in last paragraph, are you referring to SCRIP when you say Metro’s Regional Connector Transit Corridor? 89 Page 329, Prop 1B First bullet, $150 million is reserved for intercity passenger rail equipment, not $125. 90 Page 332, MAP-21 Consider starting the first sentence with “While MAP-21 does not include a specific rail improvement program, other provisions…” 91 Page 333, Local Add Also, intercity passenger rail stations are often owned by cities or Funding local transit agencies and funded… 92 Page 335, TCIF In shared corridors, TCIF funds also benefit intercity passenger rail services (e.g., Sorrento to Miramar Phase 1 double track on San Diego Sub). Suggest adding wording to first bullet. 93 Section 10.4 Second bullet: Note that SB 1225 did not create a new LOSSAN JPA, but rather called for amending an existing agreement. 94 Last page Consider including the same summary section you were adding to the Executive Summary here as a way to wrap up the document. (Also see comment #11)
18 Agenda Item #7 LOSSAN TAC March 7, 2013
RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS Camp Pendleton Station & Cross County Operations
LOSSAN TAC March 7, 2013
Overview of Enhancements • BASELINE: Assumes 2012 Service Levels for Forecast Years • METROLINK ENHANCEMENT: Service South of Oceanside to Santa Fe Depot – Stops at ALL COASTER Stations. ‒ Extended Trips: Orange Co. Line Weekdays, Inland Empire Line Weekends ‒ New Trips: Service between OTC and Santa Fe Depot only
Number of Trips Weekday Weekend
Extended Trips 4 4
New Trips 4 0
• AMTRAK ENHANCEMENT: Stops at ALL COASTER Stations
Weekday Weekend
Number of Trips 6 6
• COMBINED ENHANCEMENT: Both Metrolink & Amtrak • CAMP PENDLETON STATION – With & Without • COASTER Extended to CP Station, SPRINTER Increased Frequency
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
19 1 Overview of Enhancements Forecast Years 2014 and 2020 2014 •Baseline – no service changes •Metrolink Enhancement (A) •Amtrak Enhancement (B) •Combined Enhancements (AB) 2020 •Baseline – no service changes •Without Camp Pendleton Station & SPRINTER increased frequency ‒ Metrolink Enhancement (A0) ‒ Amtrak Enhancement (B0) ‒ Combined Enhancements (AB0) •With Camp Pendleton Station (COASTER service only) •With Camp Pendleton Station & SPRINTER increased frequency ‒ Metrolink Enhancement; Metrolink/COASTER service to CP (A1) ‒ Amtrak Enhancement; Amtrak & COASTER service to CP (B1) ‒ Combined Enhancements; all serve CP Station (AB1)
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
2014 Baseline
2012 SERVICE LEVELS Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Baseline
COASTER 5,967 1,023
SPRINTER 9,241 2,100
Metrolink 1,161 542
Amtrak 3,883 3,082
All Services 20,252 6,747
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
20 2 2014 Enhanced Metrolink Option A
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 5,967 5,649 1,023 919
SPRINTER 9,241 9,241 2,100 2,100
Metrolink 1,161 4,242 542 1,428
Amtrak 3,883 3,571 3,082 2,903
All Services 20,252 22,703 6,747 7,350 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 688,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 54,000,000
Diverted Vehicles 573,000
VMT Reduction 45,000,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 1,801,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
2014 Enhanced Amtrak Option B
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 5,967 5,611 1,023 942
SPRINTER 9,241 9,241 2,100 2,100
Metrolink 1,161 1,161 542 542
Amtrak 3,883 5,346 3,082 3,766
All Services 20,252 21,359 6,747 7,350 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 347,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 30,000,000
Diverted Vehicles 290,000
VMT Reduction 25,000,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 1,001,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
21 3 2014 Enhanced Metrolink & Amtrak Option AB
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 5,967 5,394 1,023 853
SPRINTER 9,241 9,241 2,100 2,100
Metrolink 1,161 3,618 542 1,336
Amtrak 3,883 4,742 3,082 3,526
All Services 20,252 22,995 6,747 7,815 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 814,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 66,700,000
Diverted Vehicles 678,000
VMT Reduction 55,600,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 2,224,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
2020 Baseline w/o Camp Pendleton
2012 SERVICE LEVELS Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Baseline
COASTER 6,944 1,190
SPRINTER 10,749 2,442
Metrolink 1,322 618
Amtrak 4,445 3,529
All Services 23,460 7,779
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
22 4 2020 w/o Camp Pendleton Enhanced Metrolink & SPRINTER Option AO
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 6,944 6,481 1,190 1,216
SPRINTER 10,749 10,912 2,442 2,557
Metrolink 1,322 4,867 618 1,643
Amtrak 4,445 4,089 3,529 3,317
All Services 23,460 26,349 7,779 8,7739 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 837,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 62,300,000
Diverted Vehicles 698,000
VMT Reduction 51,900,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 1,731,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
2020 w/o Camp Pendleton Enhanced Amtrak & SPRINTER Option BO
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 6,944 6,426 1,190 1,204
SPRINTER 10,749 10,912 2,442 2,557
Metrolink 1,322 1,322 618 618
Amtrak 4,445 6,430 3,529 4,498
All Services 23,460 25,090 7,779 8,877 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 535,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 42,000,000
Diverted Vehicles 446,000
VMT Reduction 35,000,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 1,167,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
23 5 2020 w/o Camp Pendleton Plus Metrolink & Amtrak & SPRINTER Option ABO
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 6,944 6,199 1,190 1,144
SPRINTER 10,749 10,912 2,442 2,557
Metrolink 1,322 4,114 618 1,533
Amtrak 4,445 5,713 3,529 4,209
All Services 23,460 26,938 7,779 9,443 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 1,066,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 83,200,000
Diverted Vehicles 888,000
VMT Reduction 69,400,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 2,312,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
2020 Base w/Camp Pendleton COASTER Extension
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 6,944 8,040 1,190 1,423
SPRINTER 10,749 10,851 2,442 2,448
Metrolink 1,322 1,233 618 576
Amtrak 4,445 4,356 3,529 3,486
All Services 23,460 24,480 7,779 7,933 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 275,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 9,400,000
Diverted Vehicles 229,000
VMT Reduction 7,800,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 261,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
24 6 2020 w/Camp Pendleton Plus Metrolink & SPRINTER Option A1
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 6,944 7,332 1,190 1,404
SPRINTER 10,749 11,084 2,442 2,573
Metrolink 1,322 5,188 618 1,833
Amtrak 4,445 4,164 3,529 3,296
All Services 23,460 27,768 7,779 9,106 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 1,238,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 76,900,000
Diverted Vehicles 1,032,000
VMT Reduction 64,100,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 2,136,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
2020 w/Camp Pendleton Plus Amtrak & SPRINTER Option B1
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 6,944 7,244 1,190 1,375
SPRINTER 10,749 11,084 2,442 2,573
Metrolink 1,322 1,722 618 802
Amtrak 4,445 6,173 3,529 4,263
All Services 23,460 26,223 7,779 9,013 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 837,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 49,500,000
Diverted Vehicles 697,000
VMT Reduction 41,300,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 1,376,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
25 7 2020 w/Camp Pendleton Plus Metrolink & Amtrak & SPRINTER Option AB1
Daily Ridership
Weekday Weekend
Baseline Forecast Baseline Forecast
COASTER 6,944 6,976 1,190 1,311 SPRINTER 10,749 11,084 2,442 2,5733 Metrolink 1,322 4,472 618 1,697
Amtrak 4,445 5,504 3,529 3,997
All Services 23,460 28,036 7,779 9,578 Annual System Impacts
Diverted Trips 1,359,000
Diverted Passenger-Miles 90,200,000
Diverted Vehicles 1,132,000
VMT Reduction 75,200,000
Gallons of Fuel Saved 2,505,000
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
Summary of Enhancements
2014 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS Weekday Weekend Baseline Forecast % Change Baseline Forecast % Change
Enhanced Metrolink Option A 20,252 22,703 12% 6,747 7,350 9%
Enhanced Amtrak Option B 20,252 21,359 5% 6,747 7,350 9%
Combined Enhanced Service Option AB 20,252 22,995 14% 6,747 7,815 16%
2020 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS Weekday Weekend WITHOUT CAMP PENDLETON Baseline Forecast % Change Baseline Forecast % Change
Enhanced Metrolink Option AO 23,460 26,349 12% 7,779 8,733 12%
Enhanced Amtrak Option BO 23,460 25,090 7% 7,779 8,877 14%
Combined Enhanced Service Option ABO 23,460 26,938 15% 7,779 9,443 21%
2020 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS Weekday Weekend WITH CAMP PENDLETON Baseline Forecast % Change Baseline Forecast % Change
No Service Improvements 23,460 24,480 4% 7,779 7,993 2%
Enhanced Metrolink Option A1 23,460 27,768 18% 7,779 9,106 17%
Enhanced Amtrak Option B1 23,460 26,223 12% 7,779 9,013 16%
Combined Enhanced Service Option AB1 23,460 28,036 20% 7,779 9,578 23%
CAMP PENDLETON/CROSS COUNTY RIDERSHIP FORECASTS- 2013
26 8 Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 7, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 9
Action Requested: INFORMATION
CORRIDOR TRENDS File Number 3400600
Introduction
This report includes statistics that measure ridership, revenue, on time performance (OTP), and customer satisfaction index (CSI) for the passenger rail services on the LOSSAN Corridor, including the Pacific Surfliner, Coast Starlight, Metrolink, and COASTER. The Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, and Amtrak overall figures are included for comparison.
Surfliner Express
Amtrak and Caltrans launched the Pacific Surfliner Express Service on February 15, 2011, converting Train #565 between San Diego and Los Angeles to an Express Train with intermediate stops at Solana Beach, Oceanside, Irvine, and Anaheim.
January 2013 Surfliner Express ridership was down to an average of 160 passengers per train, which is 9 percent less than January 2012. OTP has remained high for five consecutive months, above 85 percent, including 86.4 percent in January.
In February 2013, Caltrans directed Amtrak to end the express train service be reinstating the all- stop service.
Surfliner Express Average Daily Ridership & OTP 350 100.0% 300 80.0% 250
Ridership 60.0% 200 OTP
Daily 150 40.0% 100 Ridership 20.0%
Average 50 OTP 0 0.0% 12 12 12 11 12 11 11 11
Feb Feb Aug Aug Nov Nov May May
27
Ridership
When compared to the previous year, the Pacific Surfliner experienced a period of declining ridership in 10 of 11 months between October 2011 and August 2012. Since August, ridership has steadily increased including 4.3 percent in January.
The Coast Starlight has maintained positive ridership growth since September 2011 including a significant increase of 19.3 percent in January due to a combination of improved reliability, fare actions, and maintaining the summer consist with more cars. The Capital Corridor has had declining ridership since June 2012 including a 2.6 percent decline in January. The San Joaquin experienced positive ridership growth with a 7.3 percent increase in January. Amtrak nationwide ridership increased by 3.1 percent in January.
The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) has looked at ridership data for the first quarter of FY 2013 (October-December 2012) and noticed significant declines in boardings in two of the three segments of the Capitol Corridor route: (1) Placer County stations of Roseville (-24%) and Rocklin (-9%); and (2) Oakland-Sacramento stations of Sacramento (-7%) and Martinez (-5%). The San Jose/Silicon Valley market stations are showing sustained growth except for the Fremont- Centerville Station (-8%). While the weekday peak travel trains and weekend trains are performing at the same level or slightly below last year, the later weekday morning trains are performing poorly. The CCJPA has begun discussions with Amtrak on the possibility of optimizing the weekday service plan with the focus to keep weekday service levels at 30 trains and re-slot the poorly performing trains to improve systemwide ridership and revenue results.
For the commuter rail services on the LOSSAN corridor, the COASTER and Metrolink have had fluctuating ridership since July. In January, Metrolink was up 3.5 percent and COASTER was up 1.0 percent. One of the key reasons for the variability in commuter rail ridership is the fluctuating number of weekdays each month from year to year.
28
Change In Passenger Rail Ridership
Pacific Capitol Coast Amtrak Surfliner Corridor San Joaquin Starlight Nationwide Metrolink COASTER 20%
15% Year
10%
Previous 5%
0% From
‐5% Change ‐10%
‐15%
Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Jan 2013
Change In Ridership of Corridor Passenger Rail Service Previous 12 Months 35% Year 25%
Previous 15%
From 5% Change ‐5%
‐15% 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jul Jan Jun Oct Apr Sep Feb Dec Aug Nov Mar May
Pacific Surfliner Coast Starlight Metrolink COASTER
29
Monthly Statewide Intercity Passenger Ridership 350
300
250
200
Thousands 150
100
50
0 12 12 11 11 10 10 09 09 08 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 09 09 08
Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Apr Apr Apr Apr Pacific Surfliner San Joaquins Capitol Corridor
Total LOSSAN Ridership 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13
Pacific Surfliner Orange County Line Ventura County Line COASTER
30
Revenue
Despite the downward trend in ridership over the past year, the Pacific Surfliner was able to maintain positive increases in revenue each month except July 2012. Similarly, the Capitol Corridor has maintained positive growth in revenue despite declining ridership. In January the Surfliner revenue was 9.9 percent higher than January last year. Revenue on the Capitol Corridor was flat nearly identical to January last year. The San Joaquin was up 2.7 percent, the Coast Starlight increased by 20.1 percent, and Amtrak nationwide had a 9.5 percent revenue gain in January.
Pacific Surfliner Ridership and Revenue 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% ‐5.0% ‐10.0% ‐15.0% 12 12 12 12 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Jul Jan Jan Jun Oct Apr Feb Sep Dec Aug Nov Mar May
Revenue Ridership
Change In Intercity Passenger Revenue
Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquin Coast Starlight Nationwide 25%
20% Year
15% Previous 10% From
5%
Change 0%
‐5%
Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Jan 2013
31
OTP
The overall Pacific Surfliner OTP has remained high since September including an 89.5 percent in January, which is the highest monthly OTP in at least five years. LOSSAN North was slightly better than LOSSAN South with a 94.9 percent and 90.4 percent, respectively. Amtrak has worked closely with Union Pacific to remove equipment from Narlon siding freeing up extra capacity for train meets in Santa Barbara County. Additionally, the January 14, 2013, schedule change improved a meet in LOSSAN north which further improved OTP.
The COASTER OTP remained high with 97.4 percent in January. Metrolink OTP in January was 96.2 percent for all lines, with the Ventura County Line at 97.5 percent and the Orange County Line at 97.2 percent.
The high OTP throughout the LOSSAN corridor can be attributed to better coordination among Amtrak, Caltrans, Metrolink, and NCTD. A lot of effort has taken place behind the scenes to develop coordinated schedules, improve dispatching, and resolve mechanical issues.
As discussed in previous meetings, the methodologies between calculating OTP for intercity and commuter services are different. Commuter trains are considered late if they are six or more minutes late to the terminal location. Pacific Surfliner trains operating between Goleta and San Diego are considered late if they arrive 10 or more minutes after their scheduled times, and 20 minutes or more for trains operating between San Luis Obispo and San Diego. There also are different assumptions as to whether annulled trains are included in OTP calculations.
On‐Time Performance of
100.0% Corridor Passenger Rail Services 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% 55.0% 12 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Jul Jan Jun Oct Apr Feb Sep Dec Aug Nov Mar May
Coast Starlight Metrolink COASTER Pacific Surfliner
32
On‐Time Performance of LOSSAN North and LOSSAN South
100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% 55.0% 50.0% 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13
Jul Jan Jun Oct Apr Feb Sep Dec Aug Nov Mar May
Surfliner North Surfliner South Ventura County Line Orange County Line
33
CSI
The December Pacific Surfliner CSI had an average score of 90, which remained above average compared to all Amtrak routes. The lowest scores on the Surfliner were related variety of food in the café car. There were improvements in CSI related to restroom odor and cleanliness. Attachment 1 is the Pacific Surfliner CSI summary sheet for December 2012. The Coast Starlight average CSI was 87, the Capitol Corridor had an average score of 89, and the San Joaquin corridor average score was 91. The nationwide Amtrak average was 87.
Amtrak Overall Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
Surfliner Coast Starlight Capitol Corridor San Joaquin All Amtrak 100
95 Score 90 Average 85 CSI
80
75
Jul‐12 Aug‐12 Sep‐12 Oct‐12 Nov‐12 Dec‐12
Attachment: 1. Pacific Surfliner CSI Summary Sheet – December 2012
34 Attachment 1 Pacific Surfliner FY13 Customer Satisfaction Scores (with change vs year ago)
December 2012 3 Month Average Fiscal Year-to-Date FY13 Goal*: 88% % Very % Very % Very % Very % Very % Very FY12 Year-End Score*: 86% Satisfied Dissatisfied** Average Satisfied Dissatisfied** Average Satisfied Dissatisfied** Average (80, 90, 100) (0, 10, 20) Score (80, 90, 100) (0, 10, 20) Score (80, 90, 100) (0, 10, 20) Score CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg. CSI Chg.
Overall CSI 91% +8 4% +2 90 +3 89% +8 2% 0 90 +3 89% +8 2% 0 90 +3
Value of Amtrak service for price paid 83% +2 2% -2 88 +3 80% 0 3% -1 86 +1 80% 0 3% -1 86 +1
Trip information prior to boarding train 93% +3 2% -3 93 +3 93% +5 2% -2 93 +4 93% +5 2% -2 93 +4
Comfort of seat 89% +5 0% -1 91 +3 82% -1 2% 0 88 +2 82% -1 2% 0 88 +2 Smooth/comfortable ride 89% +4 0% 0 92 +3 86% 0 2% +1 90 +2 86% 0 2% +1 90 +2 Air temperature 92% +3 0% 0 92 +2 83% -3 2% 0 88 0 83% -3 2% 0 88 0
Overall cleanliness of train 81% -1 0% -1 89 +3 80% -4 2% 0 87 +1 80% -4 2% 0 87 +1 Cleanliness of train windows 67% +1 1% -4 82 +4 69% +5 3% -2 81 +4 69% +5 3% -2 81 +4 Restroom cleanliness 56% -11 2% -4 78 +3 60% -4 5% -1 77 +1 60% -4 5% -1 77 +1 Restroom odor 57% -6 2% -7 78 +4 61% 0 5% -5 76 +3 61% 0 5% -5 76 +3
Information given on services/safety 77% +3 0% -3 85 +3 76% +4 1% -3 85 +3 76% +4 1% -3 85 +3 Information given on problems/delays 86% +7 1% -2 90 +5 81% +2 3% -1 86 +1 81% +2 3% -1 86 +1 Clarity of announcements 80% +4 0% -5 88 +6 75% 0 2% -2 84 +1 75% 0 2% -2 84 +1
On-time performance 94% +16 0% -5 93 +9 90% +11 3% -3 89 +5 90% +11 3% -3 89 +5
Personal security on the train 93% +5 0% 0 94 +3 91% +3 2% +2 92 +1 91% +3 2% +2 92 +1
Friendliness/helpfulness of train conductors 90% +5 2% 0 91 +2 87% +1 3% +1 89 0 87% +1 3% +1 89 0
Availability of food in café car 70% -10 4% +1 80 0 72% +5 6% +3 79 +2 72% +5 6% +3 79 +2 Friendliness/helpfulness of café car personnel 74% -9 4% +4 83 -5 79% -6 1% 0 87 -1 79% -6 1% 0 87 -1 Quality/freshness of food in café car 81% +19 4% -1 86 +8 73% +9 3% -1 81 +3 73% +9 3% -1 81 +3 Variety of food items in café car 48% -6 7% +2 71 -1 48% -5 8% -4 70 +1 48% -5 8% -4 70 +1 Overall experience in café car 78% +6 4% +1 82 +1 75% +3 3% 0 81 0 75% +3 3% 0 81 0
Overall Wi-Fi service 50% 11% 72 50% 11% 72 Ease of accessing Wi-Fi service (sign-on process) Due to the lower response rates for the 75% 7% 80 75% 7% 80 Wi-Fi questions, scores for these Ability to perform online activities attributes will not be reported at the 57% 13% 72 57% 13% 72 Ability to stay connected to Wi-Fi service monthly level. 53% 17% 69 53% 17% 69 Time it takes to load/access websites, emails, etc. 48% 14% 69 48% 14% 69
Number of responses in current period 95 278 278
Number of responses year ago 123 320 320 * Overall CSI score, % very satisfied ** For % Very Dissatisfied, a negative change in the year-over-year score shows an improvement; a positive change shows the score has worsened.
Amtrak Market Research and Analysis Confidential and Proprietary 35 Agenda Item #11 LOSSAN TAC March 7, 2013
LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY JOINT POWERS BOARD Friday, March 22, 2013 Santa Barbara CA
ITEM # TAC RECOMMENDATION
1. CHAIR’S REPORT
Welcome and Introductions.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Speakers are limited to three minutes each.
CONSENT
+3. FEBRUARY 20, 2012, MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
+4. CORRIDOR TRENDS INFORMATION
+5. CORRIDOR MARKETING UPDATE INFORMATION
REPORTS
+6. STATUS OF MEMBER AGENCY APPROVALS OF LOSSAN JOINT DISCUSSION/ POWERS AGREEMENT AND POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL POSSIBLE ACTION AMENDMENTS
+7. LOSSAN CORRIDORWIDE FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND APPROVE OPERATIONS INVENTORY
+8. CROSS-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AND CAMP PENDLETON INFORMATION STATION RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES
+9. AMTRAK AND NCTD COORDINATION EFFORTS INFORMATION
+10. FINAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL DISCUSSION PLAN AND SCHEDULE AHEAD
11. BOARD MEMBER UPDATES INFORMATION
12. NEXT MEETING INFORMATION
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 17, 2013, at LA Metro.
36