JOINT MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY JOINT POWERS BOARD AND COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE The Board and Council may take action on any item appearing on this agenda.
Wednesday, January 7, 2004
11:45 A.M. LOSSAN Meeting (NOTE TIME CHANGE) 12:45 P.M. Joint LOSSAN/CRCC Meeting 2 P.M. CRCC Meeting
Board Conference Room, 3rd Floor Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA
LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED AT 11:30 A.M.
LOSSAN Staff Contact: CRCC Staff Contact:
Linda Culp Pete Rodgers (619) 595-5357 (805) 781-5712 [email protected] [email protected]
SANDAG SLOCOG
401 B Street, Suite 800 1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92101 San Luis Obispo, CA
fax: (619) 595-5305 fax: (805) 781-5703
(Agenda packets also available at www.sandag.org)
LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY JOINT POWERS BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2004 11:45 A.M.
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
1. CHAIRWOMAN’S REPORT Welcome and Introductions.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT/COMMUNICATIONS Speakers are limited to three minutes each.
3. SELECTION OF 2004 CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR APPROVE The LOSSAN Bylaws state that the Board of Directors may elect a Chair and a Vice-Chair at the first quarterly meeting each year.
+4. MAY 28, 2003 BOARD MEETING AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2003 APPROVE BOARD WORKSHOP SUMMARIES (pp. 7-10) The meeting summary is included for approval.
+5. STATUS OF THE CALTRANS/CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL INFORMATION AUTHORITY (CHSRA) PEIR/EIS AND CALTRANS STRATEGIC PLAN (Pat Merrill, CALTRANS; Dan Leavitt, CHSRA) (pp. 11-16) Caltrans and the CHSRA continue to work cooperatively on technical studies in the LOSSAN corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and downtown San Diego that will lead to a programmatic environmental impact report/environmental impact report (PEIR/EIS) for each agency. The CHSRA document will be a statewide PEIR/EIS and the Caltrans document will focus on the LA to San Diego segment of the LOSSAN corridor. A Strategic Plan for this portion of the LOSSAN Corridor has been finalized as part of this larger effort.
6. FOLLOWUP ITEMS FROM THE BOARD WORKSHOP (Linda Culp, SANDAG) The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been working on several tasks that require the Board’s attention at this time:
+6a. LOSSAN “ROAD SHOW” (pp. 17-37) APPROVE Board and TAC members discussed how best to work together on projects that have corridor-wide importance and to gain acceptance by LOSSAN member agencies. In response to this direction, the TAC developed a slideshow to be presented to individual member agencies as an informational item.
2
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+6b. FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CORRIDOR PROJECTS (p. 38) APPROVE The Board of Directors adopted an advocacy framework in 2002 that calls for advocating for intercity rail capital and operations. The Board directed staff to contact representatives from the corridor’s federal delegation to both correct the LOSSAN corridor definition in the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill and to request an earmark for future funds for LOSSAN. In addition to an update of these activities, the TAC would like the Board’s permission to monitor reauthorization activities between the Board’s January and May 2004 meetings and advocate for efforts that match specific guidelines approved by the Board.
6c. DEVELOP CORRIDOR-WIDE STRATEGIC PLAN INFORMATION The TAC recommends that LOSSAN develop a corridor-wide strategic plan that will expand the Caltrans Strategic Business Plan for the Los Angeles to San Diego portion of the corridor to the entire LOSSAN corridor. The TAC will further discuss the details of this plan, its scheduled development in FY 2005, and other details at its January 27, 2004 meeting.
7. 2004 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DATES AND LOCATIONS APPROVE The Board should set the dates of Board meetings for 2004: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 Wednesday, September 15, 2004 Wednesday, December 8, 2004 All meetings will be held at MTA at 12:00 p.m.
THE LOSSAN/CRCC JOINT MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 12:45 P.M.
3
JOINT MEETING LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY JOINT POWERS BOARD AND COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2004 12:45 P.M.
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
8. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
9. LEGISLATIVE AND FUNDING ISSUES
9a. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STATE BUDGET IMPACTS ON POSSIBLE CORRIDOR PROJECTS (Warren Weber, Caltrans) ACTION Caltrans will provide an appraisal of the current state budget situation on intercity passenger rail services and anticipated developments from the Governor’s FY 2005 budget, which is due to the legislature on January 9, 2003.
+9b. UPDATE ON TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST POSSIBLE CENTURY (TEA-21) REAUTHORIZATION ACTIVITIES ACTION (Caroline Reis, NCTD) (pp. 39-40) In July 2003, the Bush Administration released the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA) proposal for reauthorizing TEA-21, which was to expire on September 30, 2003. In September, Congress passed an extension of TEA-21 until February 29, 2004. Over the past few months, several additional proposals have been introduced related to the authorization including the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA LU).
+9c. STATUS OF SELECTED FEDERAL LEGISLATION (TAC POSSIBLE Members) (pp. 41-46) ACTION Attached is a summary of recent legislative efforts related to transportation and rail programs in particular. The Board may consider contacting the corridor’s state and federal delegations concerning the key legislative efforts.
4
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+10. ADDITIONAL PACIFIC SURFLINER SERVICES TO SAN LUIS SUPPORT CONCEPT OBISPO (Pete Rodgers, SLOCOG) (pp. 47-50) Coastal transportation agencies have been working together since 1992 to increase rail services between Los Angeles and San Francisco on the coastal corridor. Amtrak’s Coast Starlight train currently serves the corridor from Los Angeles to Seattle (via Oakland). Santa Barbara currently has four roundtrips trains to San Diego, one of which was extended to San Luis Obispo in 1995. Amtrak is reviewing the feasibility of augmenting the current weekend service to Santa Barbara with daily service – and extending the train to San Luis Obispo.
+11. PACIFIC SURFLINER REPORT (Liz O’Donoghue, Amtrak) (pp. 51- INFORMATION 53) The latest intercity ridership and revenue statistics for the corridor are attached.
JOINT MEETING CONCLUDES AT 1:45 P.M. CRCC MEETING BEGINS AT 2:00 P.M.
5
COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2004 2 P.M.
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+12. UPDATE ON THE RAIL CAPACITY MODEL BURBANK TO SAN INFORMATION FRANCISCO (Pete Rodgers, SLOCOG) (p. 54) An evaluation of the capacity issues associated with increased rail traffic on the Coast Route is now underway. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) recently executed a contract for Union Pacific to complete the work by June 30, 2004. The study will identify capital improvements, if any, required to allow initiation of the Coast Daylight Train.
+13. STATUS OF CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO SALINAS (Pete Rodgers, POSSIBLE SLOCOG) (pp. 55-58) ACTION The TAMC continues its efforts to extend Caltrain services to Salinas. Support from the CRCC would be helpful in two areas; 1) for a transfer of $1 million for the Hollister Branch federal earmark to the Salinas extension, and 2) to recommend support to the California Transportation Commission to allocate Proposition 116 fund as the match for this project at their February 2004 meeting
14. COUNTY RAIL UPDATES INFORMATION Each agency may provide an update on rail issues in their county.
15. NEXT CRCC MEETINGS: INFORMATION Technical Committee: March 19, 2004 in Oakland or Monterey Policy Committee: June 27, 2004 in Santa Barbara or Ventura
Attachments: CRCC and LOSSAN Board Rosters (pp. 59-60) + next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
6 Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency JOINT POWERS BOARD
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4
Action Requested: APPROVE
MAY 28, 2003 MEETING SUMMARY
The LOSSAN Joint Powers Board met on May 28, 2003. The following Board members were in attendance:
Julianne Nygaard, Chair, NCTD Brian Humphrey, VCTC Art Brown, OCTA Jerry Rindone, MTDB Jacki Bacharach, LACMTA Fred Munroe, SLOCOG Joe Kellejian, SANDAG Bill Bronte, Caltrans Division of Rail
The major items discussed during the meeting are summarized as follows:
LOSSAN LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT The Board approved the Technical Advisory Committee’s (TAC) recommendation to support a number of key state legislative efforts including public transit smart card standards (AB 684), local government record standards exemptions for transit agencies (AB 839), lowering the voter approval threshold from two-thirds to 55 percent for special sales tax measures (ACA 7), and funds for completion of the Governor’s Traffic Congestion Relief Program and transit oriented development projects (SB 321). The Board also approved the TAC’s recommendation to oppose changes to the fair share allocation of fuel tax revenues (AB 875) and directed the TAC to continue to monitor additional bills relevant to the corridor. The Board also directed TAC to monitor a number of federal bills related to rail operations, capital improvements, and safety.
LOSSAN ADVOCACY EFFORTS Several LOSSAN member agencies have incorporated LOSSAN priority projects into their federal legislative efforts for both the reauthorization of TEA-21 and appropriations in FY 2004. Board members requested that staff identify a representative in the corridor to champion the need to have the LOSSAN corridor definition correctly identified in the reauthorization legislation. Staff summarized the Safe and Flexible Transportation Efficiency Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), the Bush Administration’s reauthorization proposal that was released in mid-May.
AMTRAK DRAFT RAIL FUNDING POLICY The Board of Directors voted to support Amtrak’s effort to build a new business model for the agency. A product of stakeholder workshops across the country, the draft rail funding policy would require that 100 percent of operating and capital needs for long-distance passenger rail services be a federal responsibility and 100 percent of operating needs for corridor services (e.g., the Pacific Surfliner service) be a state responsibility. Capital needs for corridor services are proposed to be funded at 80 percent federal and 20 percent state shares. Preliminary analysis shows that California
7
would see a net benefit from this proposal. The Pacific Surfliner corridor would see an increase in state responsibility; currently, 33 percent of operations are funded by Amtrak.
LOSSAN PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA The Board of Directors received an update from the TAC on the development of project evaluation criteria for ranking projects. Staff reviewed six categories of projects: (1) corridor wide, (2) safety and systems preservation, (3) local, (4) rolling stock and maintenance facilities, (5) mandates, and (6) grade separations. Projects will be ranked within a particular category, and Caltrans will provide modeling assistance in developing the rankings. Board members provided comments to the TAC in order to continue refining these criteria and directed staff to organize a Board workshop to address these issues in greater detail.
LOSSAN ISSUES PAPER Staff also reported the TAC’s work on an issues paper for the agency that would be used to identify the future role for LOSSAN in the corridor. A number of strategic actions will be developed as part of this effort. The Board also directed that the development of these strategies and policies be a topic for the Board workshop.
PACIFIC SURFLINER REPORT Amtrak reported on recent trends in corridor ridership and revenue. The Pacific Surfliner corridor is the fastest growing corridor nationwide. April 2003 was the eighth consecutive month of record ridership for intercity passenger service. Amtrak expects to surpass the two million rider mark in early fall; the previous high was 1.8 million passengers in 1993, prior to the implementation of Metrolink and Coaster commuter rail services in the LOSSAN corridor. Amtrak continues to see gains in ridership from the Rail-2-Rail program, a joint venture with Metrolink and Caltrans that allows Metrolink riders to use Amtrak trains at no additional charge.
STATUS OF THE CALTRANS/CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY (CHSRA) SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS AND CALTRANS STRATEGIC PLAN Caltrans reported that the technical studies to be used in the programmatic environmental impact report by both the CHSRA and Caltrans have been drafted. The CHSRA plans to release a draft statewide programmatic environmental document in August 2003 and Caltrans expects a draft corridor wide programmatic environmental document in Spring 2004. Because of the detailed technical work completed to date and extensive public outreach, both agencies are recommending that a number of alternative alignments be dropped from further study, including alignment alternatives in the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, San Clemente/Dana Point, and San Juan Capistrano.
PUBLIC COMMENT/COMMUNICATIONS None.
8
SEPTEMBER 13, 2003 BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING SUMMARY
The LOSSAN Joint Powers Board held a board workshop on September 13, 2003. The following Board members were in attendance:
Julianne Nygaard, Chair, NCTD Brian Humphrey, VCTC Art Brown, OCTA Joe Kellejian, SANDAG Chris Norby, OCTA Jerry Rindone, MTDB Jacki Bacharach, Vice Chair, LACMTA Peg Pinard, SLOCOG Beatrice Proo, LACMTA Bill Bronte, Caltrans Division of Rail In addition to Board members, several members of the Technical Advisory Committee, member agency management, and other interested parties participated in the group discussions. The major items discussed during the meeting are summarized as follows:
INTERNAL ADVOCACY The LOSSAN advocacy framework and project priorities developed over the past two years have been seen in potential conflict with priorities developed by individual member agencies. The group discussed how best to work together on projects that have corridorwide importance and to gain acceptance by member agencies of LOSSAN as an agency in the corridor. Action items discussed by the group were:
Regular coordination between LOSSAN and member agencies LOSSAN as a regular item on member agency board agendas LOSSAN road show to member agencies (include a subset of board members and possibly a slide show) Information sharing on projects between LOSSAN and agencies Potential meeting between LOSSAN board members and member agency CEOs
DEVELOP CORRIDORWIDE STRATEGIC PLAN In 2001, Amtrak sponsored a long-range plan for the three state-supported intercity rail corridors including the Pacific Surfliner corridor. An intense effort to involve the various agencies along each corridor was pivotal in this effort. The group discussed the possibility of updating this plan and developing a strategy for implementing it. Action items discussed by the group were:
Update to Amtrak-sponsored plan. Expansion of Caltrans’ 2003 LOSSAN Strategic Plan, an implementation strategy for the Los Angeles to San Diego segment of the corridor, to entire corridor. Discuss the possibility of member agencies developing their priorities and bring them to LOSSAN for support. Concentrate on projects with corridorwide benefit.
EXTERNAL ADVOCACY The advocacy framework adopted by the Board in 2002 called for advocacy in operations and capital funding, service levels, rail safety and security, and supportive land use policies. Related topics were how to increase the role of LOSSAN in the corridor and how best to market to the
9
public the recent successes along the corridor. The following action issues were developed from this discussion:
Develop implementation plan for LOSSAN priority projects, in coordination with members. Advocate for intercity passenger rail (i.e., Amtrak) Support for “growing the pot” of funds available for intercity rail. Larger/more visible role in corridor (e.g., Amtrak 2Millionth Event, Rail Safety Week) Better marketing regarding the success story of the corridor.
FORMULATE FUTURE ROLE FOR LOSSAN AS AN AGENCY A number of issues related to LOSSAN’s future role were discussed by the group. The following issues warrant future discussing both by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Board. However, several members commented that the various options for LOSSAN’s future be discussed by individual member agencies:
Take over the operations of intercity rail services, similar to the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Advocating for a particular earmark in the reauthorization legislation for LOSSAN.
10 Agenda Item #5, the Executive Summary of the LOSSAN Strategic Plan, is available at www.amtrakcalifornia.com. Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency JOINT POWERS BOARD
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6a
Action Requested: APPROVE
LOSSAN “ROAD SHOW”
Introduction
At the September 13, 2003 workshop, Board and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members discussed how best to work together on projects that have a corridor-wide benefit and how to gain acceptance by individual member agencies. The group discussed the development of a LOSSAN road show to be used as a tool for informing interested agencies about both the LOSSAN corridor and the benefits of LOSSAN the agency. As a result, the TAC has developed a slideshow and accompanying script for these presentations (Attachment 1).
Recommendation
The TAC asks that the Board of Directors provide comments on the attached slideshow and script and recommends approval of its use in presentations to member agencies and other interested agencies. Furthermore, staff requests that the Board discuss the following list of potential meetings and Board members who may be interested in participating:
MEMBER AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
North San Diego County Transit Development Board
Orange County Transportation Authority
San Diego Association of Governments
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
Southern California Association of Governments
Ventura County Transportation Commission
OTHER AGENCIES/GROUPS
Metrolink CEOs Meeting
17 Attachment 1
Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency
Draft Script:
Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Los Angeles to San Diego to San Luis Obispo, or LOSSAN, rail corridor agency.
We would like to first discuss our rail corridor and the challenges and opportunities ahead for all of us and then to talk about LOSSAN the agency and the role we can all play as member agencies. • Amtrak’s fastest growing intercity corridor
• Coaster and Metrolink commuter services
• Freight
Draft Script:
Ours is a shared corridor stretching 351 miles through one of the state’s most populated and congested metropolitan areas.
Amtrak serves this corridor with 11 round trips, including 4 to Santa Barbara and one to San Luis Obispo.
Over the past year, the Surfliners experienced record ridership, making it the fastest growing intercity corridor nationwide.
Amtrak’s Coast Starlight also serves north from Los Angeles.
Coaster and Metrolink commuter rail services carry another four and a half million riders annually.
And Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) carry freight along the corridor, a key segment being Fullerton to LA. Changes in the Corridor
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERCITY RAIL GROUP (SCIRG)
Draft Script:
Key changes have taken place in the corridor since 1989 when the LOSSAN agency formed:
• Success of Coaster and Metrolink • And key feeder services like Metro in LA, trolley in San Diego, and Amtrak feeder bus service. • In 1996, SB 457 authorized JPAs to assume intercity rail responsibilities from the state. The Southern California Intercity Rail Group (SCIRG) was formed by nine agencies. Ultimately the voted not to take on this responsibility. • The California High-Speed Rail Authority is looking at a high-speed passenger rail system including LA to Orange County. • And freight continues to be a large presence in our corridor. Present Conditions
• Record corridor ridership.
7.0
6.0
5.0 Coaster
4.0
(millions) 3.0 Feeder Bus Network & Service to Santa Barbara Metrolink 5th and 6th San2.0 Diegans added
1.0 th SLO Service 11 Train Added Amtrak 4th trip to Santa Barbara 0.0 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Draft Script:
Last fall, Amtrak recognized their 2 millionth passenger on the Surfliner service for the year, an all-time high. Pacific Surfliner trains carry 1 in every 10 Amtrak riders. This success is due in part to the Rail-2-Rail program by Metrolink, Amtrak, and Caltrans in which Amtrak riders and Metrolink monthly pass riders can literally catch the next train. As the I-5 corridor, and feeder corridors become more congested, and as more intercity and commuter rail service has been added, ridership has increased. Present Conditions
• On-time Performance.
92% 91% 91% 89% 89% 89% 88% 88% 89% 88% 86% 85% 83%
78%
Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03
Draft Script:
Improvements along the entire corridor translate to better reliability.
On-time performance is consistently above the 85 percent goal for the corridor. Present Conditions
Causes of Delay: Passenger Pacific Surfliner 8% Terminal 16% 4% Mechanical 6% Miscellaneous
3% Routing
5% Speed Restriction
Signals 32% 5% Freight Interference 10% Non-Commuter Train 11% Interference Commuter Train Interference
Draft Script:
What are the causes of delay?
This chart shows for the entire corridor, the reasons for delays in Surfliner service.
More than 50 percent of the delay in the corridor is from interaction and/or interference with other passenger (e.g., other Amtrak trains or commuter trains) and freight trains.
Many of the priority improvements address these issues. Present Conditions
• Station Activity.
Top 10 -- Ranked by Total Ridership (FY 2003 YTD) Ridership Percent Station Pair (1,000s) Change 1. LA to San Diego 206 +8% 2. LA to Solana Beach 78 +10% 3. LA to Oceanside 77 +7% 4. Fullerton to San Diego 59 +4% 5. San Diego to San Juan Capistrano 54 +15% 6. Anaheim to San Diego 47 +16% 7. Irvine to San Diego 46 +24% 8. Irvine to Solana Beach 38 +13% 9. LA to Santa Barbara 36 +22% 10. Fullerton to Los Angeles 35 -1%
Draft Script:
Here are the top station pairs ranked by overall ridership.
Most are experiencing double digit growth over the last year. Present Conditions
• Interagency Partnerships.
Rail-2-Rail Program
Joint Ticket Vending Machines
Draft Script:
One success story is the Rail2Rail program and an example of interagency partnerships.
Caltrans, Metrolink, and Amtrak began the program in September of 2002.
Amtrak and Metrolink monthly pass holders can use any train, regardless of operator, to make their trips.
The impacts to ridership are: 1,200 Metrolink riders are using Amtrak services each weekday 120 Amtrak riders are using Metrolink services each weekday. Present Conditions
• Success at Capital Funding.
• More than $1 billion invested by State.
• More than $300 million by local agencies.
• LOSSAN New Starts funding.
• LOSSAN priority projects.
Draft Script:
Since the 1970s, more than $1 billion has been invested in the LOSSAN corridor by the State of California.
Another $300 million by local agencies, mainly to purchase rights-of-way.
The LOSSAN Agency has secured federal dollars to both re-rail the corridor in the early 1990s and recently for projects that improve the corridor’s reliability.
As part of the 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program, LOSSAN agencies were successful in securing 25 percent of the statewide rail budget. Present Conditions
• Success at Operations Funding. Metrolink
Farebox Mem bers 42% 47% State 29% Railroad 11% Farebox 54%
Federal Non- 17% Trans. 9% Farebox 43% Local 43% Pacific Surfliners Federal 5% Coaster
Draft Script:
54 percent of the operating costs for Surfliner trains comes from passenger fares.
Of the remaining subsidy, Amtrak contributes a third, or 17 percent overall. The State contributes 29 percent overall.
This compare with the corridor’s commuter rail operations. Future Plans
Operator Long-Range Service Improvement Plan
Amtrak (LA to SD) 60 minutes
Coaster 20 minutes
Metrolink 30 minutes (Orange County) 1 Additional service on Ventura Line.
1 Under study by OCTA.
Draft Script:
So you see that ours is a heavily used corridor, but one that benefits from a number of interagency partnerships.
And we all have ambitious plans for the corridor:
• Amtrak is interested in hourly service between San Diego and LA, and additional trains to Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. • The long-range plan for the Coaster is 20 minute service daily. • And Metrolink and its member agencies are studying various improvement options, including 30 minute service in Orange County. Update? Challenges Ahead
• Funding remains a challenge.
$4+ billion in identified capital improvements along the corridor.
State budget situation.
SAFETEA developments.
Draft Script:
Despite successes with funding in the past, funding remains a challenge, now perhaps more than ever given the state budget situation.
Amtrak and partners have identified more than $4 billion in improvements along the LOSSAN corridor, including operational improvements, grade separations, double and triple tracking, and other safety projects.
The federal transportation bill, which expired in September, is currently under a six- month extension. LOSSAN and our member agencies are closely watching the reauthorization of that bill and the possibility for additional rail funds. Challenges Ahead
• Future of intercity operations.
Status quo is unsustainable
State-sponsored Rail Funding Proposal - 2002
Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act of 2003
Caltrans intercity rail operations study
SB 457 study
Draft Script:
Amtrak has determined that its current business model is unsustainable:
The level of capital funding has not been sufficient and major assets have deteriorated. The annual appropriations process means that long-range planning is hindered.
Last year, there was a state-sponsored effort to change this business model.
In July 2003, the Bush Administration released its proposal to reorganize Amtrak, but this has not had broad support in Congress.
And Caltrans is conducting a study of intercity rail operations statewide, with findings due this Spring. Challenges Ahead
• Capacity.
Two-thirds of corridor is single-track.
o LA to Fullerton needs triple-track.
o Northern segments needs operational improvements.
Equipment.
Freight storage.
Draft Script:
Another challenge is the capacity constraints of the corridor.
Along the northern segment, more operational improvements are needed to improve the on-time performance and reliability of service.
Perhaps the busiest freight rail corridor in the nation is LA to Fullerton—triple tracking is needed here.
In San Diego County, two-thirds of the line is single track.
And there are equipment and storage issues, too. What is LOSSAN?
Draft Script:
That’s a bit about the LOSSAN corridor, to conclude, we could like to tell you more about the LOSSAN agency. Original Objectives of the Rail Corridor Agency
• Reduce running time • Improve productivity • Reduce interference • Increase accessibility • Increase safety • Increase trains/seats • Increase comfort
Draft Script:
Senate Bill 1095, in 1997, called for the LOSSAN Rail Study Group to look at incremental improvements to the corridor.
From this group was formed the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency and these broad goals for the corridor.
The emphasis initially was on relatively low-cost projects along the corridor. Structure
1989 Board of Directors
LAMTCOCTCNSDCTDSDMTDBCaltransSBCAG VCTC SANDAG SCAG
2002 Board of Directors
LACMTA OCTA NSDCTD SDMTS Caltrans SBCAG VCTC SANDAG SCAG
SLOCOG
Additional TAC members: Amtrak, SCRRA, CPUC, BNSF, UP
Members: Voting Ex-Officio
Draft Script:
The original LOSSAN agency consisted of 5 voting member agencies representing the Los Angeles to San Diego corridor, the San Diegan corridor before being renamed the Pacific Surfliner.
Agencies to the north were ex-officio members and participated on the Technical Advisory Committee.
Since 2001, the board has expanded to represent the entire Surfliner corridor. Member Agencies
San Luis Obispo Caltrans SLOCOG Metrolink Amtrak SBCAG BNSF VCTC UP LACMTA Los Angeles Rail Ownership SCAG
Commuter OCTA Freight
NSDCTDB Planning, Funding, Operations SANDAG San Diego SDMTS
Draft Script:
Our members wear several hats, including rail owners and operators, metropolitan planning organizations, and regional transportation planning agencies.
Ownership is divided between commuter rail operators and freight operators. Challenges Ahead
• Funding. • Future of Intercity Operations. • Capacity. • Acceptance by Member Agencies.
Draft Script:
To conclude, there are challenges for the LOSSAN agency as well as for the challenges we discussed for the corridor.
LOSSAN has developed an advocacy strategy to promote corridor projects. These priorities are often seen in competition with priorities of member agencies, particularly in a time of scare public funds.
One of the reasons we are here today is to foster more communication and a better understanding the critical projects in the corridor and for our member agencies. Attachment 1
Next Steps:
• Continue to advocate for intercity passenger rail improvements. • Seek a LOSSAN earmark in the surface transportation bill. • Continue to work with member agencies on priorities that have a mutual benefit.
Draft Script:
Thank you for taking the time to discuss the LOSSAN corridor and the rail corridor agency.
Over the short and long term, we will continue to focus on how best to improve our corridor.
And we would like to hear from you in terms of the key issues in the corridor and how LOSSAN can work with you to achieve mutual benefits. Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency JOINT POWERS BOARD
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6b
Action Requested: APPROVE
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CORRIDOR PROJECTS
Introduction
For more than a year, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has focused specific attention on the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and provided regular updates to the Board. This legislation was set to expire in September 2003, but Congress subsequently passed an extension until February 29, 2004. Several proposals have since been introduced that could impact passenger rail systems. Additional information on (1) current proposals to reauthorize this bill is provided in Agenda Item #9b and (2) pending federal passenger rail legislation is provided in Agenda Item #9c.
The TAC feels that developments will occur in the reauthorization process between the next two Board of Directors meetings, scheduled for January and May 2004. The TAC will continue to monitor these events closely and believes the following criteria are key to LOSSAN’s support:
1. Proposals address the future of Amtrak and specifically a stable, multi-year funding source. 2. Proposals include a separate rail capital and/or operating program for a long-term source of federal funds for rail. 3. Any such rail program has a dedicated funding source and does not impact earmarks such as the Highway Trust Fund. 4. There is geographic equity between all corridors nationwide. 5. There is a diversity of rail projects eligible for funding.
Recommendation
The TAC recommends that the Board of Directors approve the above criteria as key to submitting LOSSAN’s official position on key federal proposals, and pending review by the TAC and the LOSSAN Chair and Vice Chair, authorize the TAC to submit this official opinion on behalf of the Board of Directors.
38 LOSSAN AND CRCC JOINT POLICY MEETING
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 9b
Action Requested: POSSIBLE ACTION
UPDATE ON TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (TEA-21) REAUTHORIZATION ACTIVITIES
Introduction
The reauthorization of TEA-21 is critical as it is the mechanism that allows Congress to appropriate funds annually. In July 2003, the Bush Administration released the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA) proposal for reauthorizing TEA-21, which was to expire on September 30, 2003. In September, Congress passed an extension of TEA-21 until February 29, 2004.
Over the past few months, several additional proposals have been introduced related to the authorization including the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA LU). TEA LU was introduced by Representative Don Young, Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Coastal rail corridor representatives Bob Filner, D-San Diego, Gary Miller, R-Mission Viejo, and Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Torrance, also sit on this key committee.
Current proposals provide for a six-year authorization period, as is the case with TEA-21. Table 1 shows a summary comparison of these efforts in terms of transportation and public transit funding levels.
Recommendation
The LOSSAN and CRCC Boards of Directors may wish to take joint action on these proposals at this time or provide further direction to the LOSSAN Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and/or staff.
39
Table 1 CURRENT TEA-21 REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSALS
Specific Current Proposal Sector TEA-21 SAFETEA TEA LU U.S. Department of $218 billion $247 billion $375 billion Transportation overall Federal Transit $41 billion $46 billion $69 billion Administration
California transit $3.65 billion $5.1 billion $7.3 billion specifically
40 LOSSAN AND CRCC JOINT POLICY MEETING
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 9c
Action Requested: POSSIBLE ACTION
STATUS OF SELECTED FEDERAL RAIL LEGISLATION
Introduction
There have been several efforts over the past 12 months on the federal level to determine the future of intercity passenger rail services nationwide. These include the Bush Administration’s, Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, introduced in July 2003. Partly in response to this proposal and efforts to reauthorize the surface transportation bill, TEA-21, two recent bills have been introduced, S. 1961 and S. 1505. Details on each of these bills are provided in Attachment 1. It is important to note that each of these latter efforts seeks to create a federal rail capital program that would not be funded through existing earmarks such as the highway trust fund.
One priority for both LOSSAN and CRCC is to preserve, protect, and enhance the use of funding for rail capital and operating purposes. Attachment 2 is a draft letter that could be sent to the bills’ cosponsors as well as the corridor’s federal delegation showing joint support on the part of LOSSAN and CRCC.
Recommendation
The LOSSAN and CRCC Boards of Directors are asked to support the concepts contained in S. 1961 and S. 1505 and transmit this support to federal representatives and provide direction to staff and the TAC as needed.
41
Attachment 1 PENDING FEDERAL INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION
Passenger Rail ARRIVE-21 AREA RIDE-21 National Defense Issue Investment Reform Act (S.1961) (S. 1505) (HR 2571) Rail Act (S.104) (S. 1501)
Introduced 11/03, Sen. Hollings (D-SC) 7/03, Sen. Hutchison (R-TX) 7/03, Sen. McCain (R-AZ) for 6/03, Rep. Young (R- 1/03, Sen. Hollings 6 cosponsors (bi-partisan) 3 cosponsors (Republicans) Bush Admin. No cosponsors AK); 5 cosponsors 32 cosponsors (bipartisan)
Status & Referred to Senate Commerce Referred to Senate House Ways & Means Referred to Senate Referred to Senate Finance Outlook Committee; may be merged Commerce Committee Cmte. deleted $24b Commerce Committee Committee; may be merged with elements of S. 1505 and tax-credit and tax- with elements of S. 1961 and inserted into Rail Title of Senate exempt bonds; Placed inserted into Rail Title of surface transportation on House calendar Senate surface transportation reauthorization bill 11/03 reauthorization bill
• Federal tax credit bond- • Restructures Amtrak by • Reauthorizes • Reauthorizes Amtrak Key • Restructures Amtrak as an financing for freight and separating operations Amtrak and Swift • Authorizes funding Objectives operating company passenger rail capital projects and infrastructure, incl. Act for high speed rail, • Creates a separate entity in • Matching grants to states separation of NEC • Authorizes states to long distance, capital USDOT for infrastructure, • Federal & state rail policy and • Increases state role and issue bonds for and operating, short equipment, et. al planning responsibility for capital projects distance and state • Creates a non-federal bond planning & funding • Authorizes federal supported routes financing mechanism for capital & operations tax-exempt bonds infrastructure • Authorizes capital grants • Enhances federal & state for intercity service rail planning
42
Passenger Rail ARRIVE-21 AREA RIDE-21 National Defense Issue Investment Reform Act (S.1961) (S. 1505) (HR 2571) Rail Act (S.104) (S. 1501)
Funding • $42 billion/6 years • $60 billion/6 years • “Such sums as are • $24 billion/10 years • $23 billion/5 yrs: proposed • About $1.5 billion/yr for • $2 billion/yr for Amtrak necessary” – remains in in federal tax- $1.55B/yr for HSR; Amtrak capital & operating; capital and operating annual appropriations exempt & tax-credit $580M/yr for long • $20-25 billion to states/state thru annual process; phase out of bonds for capital distance; compacts for infrastructure, appropriations operating subsidies improvements rolling stock, facilities, etc. • $48 billion in tax credit • Proposes a federal capital • $35 billion loans & $1.3B/yr for NEC; through Rail Infrastructure bonds through RIFCO program; funding guarantees to states $270M/yr for state Finance Corp (RIFCO) grants • High Speed Rail (HSR) undefined • $100M Swift Act supported routes; planning funds thru HSR development $500M/yr for Amtrak annual appropriations operating assistance
43
Passenger Rail ARRIVE-21 AREA RIDE-21 National Defense Issue Investment Reform Act (S.1961) (S. 1505) (HR 2571) Rail Act (S.104) (S. 1501)
Does bill Establishes public-private RIFCO Establishes RIFCO (similar to Authorizes “such sums as are Tax-credit bonds Direct appropriation for include that would issue $30B in tax- S. 1961), which issues $48 necessary” for capital proceeds funding state HSR development, NEC, federal credit bonds and yield $20-25B billion in tax-credit bonds. projects, including deferred capital projects would Long-distance and short capital for investment. RIFCO would provide funds capital on Northeast require 20% match distance/state supported program? States and state compacts apply to Amtrak or states for rail Corridor (NEC). Major from states. corridor services. for grants for rail capital. States capital projects on approved capital projects (as defined would receive formula funds for state rail plans. Requires by USDOT) may receive full Eligible projects No match required for freight rail. Grants require 20% 20% match for grants. funding grant agreements include track and security, HSR corridor match from states. Project Eligible projects and selection (FFGA’s) subject to annual signals, facilities, planning or selection criteria includes safety, criteria similar to those in S. appropriations. rolling stock, capital/operating funds benefits to commuter & freight, 1961 for RIFCO. environmental work, to Amtrak. improved operations & capacity. Federal share of all capital grade crossing Eligible projects include new rail projects (not including state improvements. Non-federal match lines, planning and of good repair) is set at a permitted for HSR environmental, track & signals, declining percentage over a planning/implementatio grade crossing improvements, 5 year period, from a max of n assistance. stations, and rolling stock. 100% to a max of 50%, with priority to projects w/ a Eligible projects include Categories of funding: lower federal match. States infrastructure, fleet, • State Intercity Passenger Rail would be required to technology, grade Corridor Development provide at least 20% match crossing improvements, • State Freight Rail w/ non-federal funds. etc. Infrastructure Development • National System Improvement Projects Eligible projects include • High Priority Projects equipment, facilities, liability insurance, grade crossing improvements, track & signals.
Does bill RIFCO must ensure geographic No more than 25% of RIFCO No provisions No provisions Firewalls funding levels provide distribution of funds for capital grants can be expended on among NEC, HSR, state geographic improvements; NEC in any one year; and no supported and short distribution Bill requires Amtrak to charge more than 50% of all RIFCO distance services and of funds? states same method for state- grants can be made to long-distance services. 44
Passenger Rail ARRIVE-21 AREA RIDE-21 National Defense Issue Investment Reform Act (S.1961) (S. 1505) (HR 2571) Rail Act (S.104) (S. 1501) supported operations. Amtrak in any one year.
Labor Maintains current protections to No provision Employee retirement, etc. Provides for existing Does not affect existing freight, Amtrak, commuter systems would be in effect RR laborers displaced labor protection employees. Incorporates Davis- for two successor by new services and provided to freight RR, Bacon; defines Railway Labor corporations. Amtrak classifies new jobs Amtrak, or commuter Act as D-B compliant. Defines employees who voluntarily created so they fall employees. Protects collective bargaining provisions terminate their employment under RR retirement & prevailing wage and by any replacement service. would receive up to $50,000. RR labor acts. labor rights for replacement service. Amtrak Amtrak required to develop a 5- Amtrak is restructured into 2 Amtrak is restructured into No fundamental No fundamental Restructure/ year financial plan that increases entities: three separate companies structural reform. structural reform. Reform accounting transparency. Amtrak operates intercity within one year: and commuter services, holding company, manage marketing and No fundamental structural freight contracts, retains maintenance facilities Amtrak access rights; change. creates National Passenger service provider w/ Rail Office (NPRO) in DOT exclusive right to provide Repeals self-sufficiency for equipment and service for 2 years; requirement. facilities. NPRO allocates infrastructure manager on operating funds to NEC Amtrak.
Other Issues Requires National Rail Plan On-Time Performance (OTP): “Right of Access” is frozen based on state rail plans and if an Amtrak service fails to upon date of enactment. Intermodal Blueprint for 50 meet performance measures Any new service must be years with reports to Congress (80% OTP/5 yrs), Amtrak negotiated w/ owners of forfeits operating rights to infrastructure. FRA to provide neutral NPRO who can lease route to assistance to passenger/freight another service provider. 8 northeast states integration on shared ROW encouraged to form a compact to succeed Amtrak as provider of service on NEC, w/ funding and mgmt responsibility
45 Attachment 2
January 7, 2004
D R A F T
Dear Senators:
The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency and the Coast Rail Coordinating Council jointly support the concepts outlined in S. 1961, the American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act (ARRIVE-21).
Our passenger rail corridor stretches from the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles and onto San Diego, connecting California’s major metropolitan areas to the rest of the nation. Our Pacific Surfliner corridor is Amtrak’s fastest growing intercity passenger rail corridor, and second to the Northeast Corridor in overall ridership. One in 10 Amtrak passengers use our corridor, which also is shared with commuter rail operations, Amtrak’s Coast Starlight service, and freight.
ARRIVE-21 allows for the expansion of our passenger rail system, improves goods movement, and shares the costs of key capital improvement programs between the federal and state governments. Since the 1970s, the State of California has invested billions of dollars in its three intercity corridors. In southern California, local and regional agencies have contributed nearly a half billion dollars to purchase rights of way and make other improvements to the corridor.
One key to the continued success of our intercity service is a stable and long-term rail capital program. This will make the needed enhancements and expansions to our rail system to create a convenient, reliable, and safe rail network. And by calling for a dedicated funding source for these improvements, financing is preserved for highways, transit, and other modes of transportation that people rely on to move around.
Thank you for your leadership on this effort and we look forward to working with you as we improve our nation’s rail system.
Sincerely,
JULIANNE NYGAARD, Chair LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Coast Rail Coordinating Council
46 LOSSAN AND CRCC JOINT POLICY MEETING
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 10
Action Requested: SUPPORT CONCEPT
ADDITIONAL PACIFIC SURFLINER SERVICES TO SAN LUIS OBISPO
Introduction
Since the early 1990’s coastal transportation planning agencies have been working together through the Coast Rail Coordinating Council (CRCC) to increase intercity rail services between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The proposed train extension considered here could potentially serve as the first half of the “Coast Daylight” Train (see Attachment 1). LOSSAN has traditionally supported increased intercity services to San Luis Obispo and as recently as May 2002, the Board of Directors asked the corridor’s state delegation to support funding for this extension.
Caltrans recently requested that Amtrak evaluate the operational costs and other service implications of modifying the current weekend service from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara to provide daily service and extend the train to San Luis Obispo. This would increase the service between Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo from one to two round trips daily. The ridership and revenue projections are not yet available for public review, but are believed to be favorable.
Recommendation
The LOSSAN and CRCC Boards of Directors are asked to support the concept of increased intercity passenger rail service to San Luis Obispo and direct staff to transmit this support to the State of California and Amtrak.
Discussion
Rail Rights-of-Way – One of the biggest challenges for increasing passenger rail services is securing approval to use the rail rights-of-way from the property owners. Caltrans has secured the necessary approvals from the Union Pacific Railroad Company and is currently working with Metrolink to discuss operating schedules south of Moorpark.
Funding Availability – The second significant challenge is funding for operating support. At this time, both Amtrak and Caltrans have indicated the incremental costs for this extension may be available within the current (2003-04) annual budget allocation for the Pacific Surfliner service assuming the use of existing Amtrak equipment.
Equipment – One of the last major hurdles to overcome is equipment – or lack thereof. It is not operationally possible to operate the extension with the current constrained Surfliner fleet. One additional trainset is needed. Amtrak may be able to secure 3-6 Horizon cars, a Dome car, and a cab car from Amtrak’s fleet of charter equipment. If this is the case, the equipment would be captive to the LA-SLO segment of the corridor.
47
While this older equipment would be different from the newer Surfliner cars, the key markets and passenger base would be the same. There may be some passengers with expectations of different equipment, but the marketing would largely focus on destination and overall comfort/relaxation of the train. Finally, additional costs for the use of the equipment may negatively affect the overall operating budget for the service.
Plan Consistency – This proposed service expansion is consistent with state, regional and local plans; the California State Rail Plan, the Pacific Surfliner FFY 03/04 Business Plan, the Amtrak sponsored 20-Year California Passenger Rail Summary Report, and the Coast Daylight Implementation Plan.
48 Coast Rail Coordinating Council Proposed Daylight Schedule (CRCC) The proposed schedule of the Coast Daylight The CRCC is a coalition of coastal county is shown below, along with the current sched- transportation and planning agencies orga- ule of the Coast Starlight. Service to stations nized to improve passenger rail services. The in italics will begin when station facilities are primary focus of the CRCC is to improve the completed. Connections to San Diego are frequency and speed of passenger trains on also shown below. the Coast Route between San Francisco and Coast Coast Coast Coast Los Angeles. Starlight Daylight Location Daylight Starlight From 7:20 San Francisco 19:20 To Oakland 7:44 Millbrae 18:57 Oakland The CRCC is comprised of the agencies listed 8:06 Palo Alto 18:38 on the back of this pamphlet. The Honor- 8:18 Mountain View 18:27 8:28 Santa Clara 18:18 able Dave Potter, Monterey County Super- 10:31 8:45 San Jose 18:10 19:36 visor, is the CRCC Chair. The Honorable -- 9:21 Gilroy 17:21 -- -- 9:52 Pajaro 16:50 -- Joni Gray, Santa Barbara County Supervisor, is 12:06 10:24 Salinas 16:26 18:17 -- 11:12 King City 15:30 -- Vice Chair. 13:52 12:18 Paso Robles 14:24 16:20 15:30 13:33 San Luis Obispo 13:22 15:13 -- 13:56 Grover Beach 12:41 -- -- 14:14 Guadalupe 12:23 -- California Rail Program 18:17 16:26 Santa Barbara 10:26 12:10 19:10 17:11 Oxnard 9:26 11:02 California’s forward looking passenger rail 19:48 17:46 Simi Valley 8:56 10:29 -- 17:59 Chatsworth 8:38 -- program is designed to provide travel alterna- -- 18:16 Va n Nuys 8:21 -- tives and decrease highway congestion. Cal- 20:30 18:34 Glendale 8:03 9:48 21:15 19:00 Los Angeles 7:50 9:30 ifornians have chosen rail travel in growing 21:50 19:20 Los Angeles -- 8:50 numbers. The Coast Daylight will be a very 00:30 22:00 San Diego -- 6:15 important new link in California’s rail corri- dors, and will bring new riders to California’s Prepared for the passenger rail system. Coast Rail Coordinating Council Tr ansportation Agency of Monterey County San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Santa Barbara County Association of Governments California Rail Corridor Ridership Ve ntura County Tr ansportation Commission Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 3.5 Santa Cruz County Regional Tr a nsportation Commission 3.0 Caltrans Rail Program 2.5 Amtrak West
2.0
1.5 For further information on the Coast Daylight, 1.0 please contact Coast Rail Coordinating Council. 0.5 Annual train riders (millions) 0.0 Te l: 805-781-5712 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 [email protected] Caltrans photo by Don Sims What is Proposed? Begin daily operation of new state-sponsored Amtrak service along the Coast Route between downtown Los Ange- les and downtown San Francisco by the end of 2001. · Estimated annual ridership is 216,000 passengers. · Projected annual operating cost is $12 million. · Projected annual revenue (• rst year) is $7 million. · Initial travel time is about 11 hours (To be incrementally improved to 8 hours by the year 2010.) · Trains to depart at approximately 8:00 a.m., arrive at approximately 7:00 p.m. · Train will serve principal communities along the route (see map at left), with connections to Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, Sur• iner Corridor, Metrolink, and Amtrak long distance trains. · Estimated fares to be 5-10% less than Coast Starlight. (Up to about $50 San Francisco to Los Angeles.) · The Coast Daylight will feature new Sur• iner cars and offer food service.
Why is it justified? To close a gap in existing train services and increase statewide mobility. State supported Capitol Corridor trains reach south to San Jose, and Sur• iner trains go north to San Luis Obispo. Amtrak’s Coast Starlight train on the Coast Route is the only through service, and it operates at capacity during summer and holiday travel periods. At present, there is no intercity rail service to and from San Francisco. To serve travel demand between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The new Coast Daylight will directly serve cities in San Mateo County and downtown San Francisco (at 4th and Townsend Streets) for the • rst time since 1971. It will expand intercity travel options along the Central Coast. To directly benefit millions of Californians living in counties that will be served by the new train. To provide transportation alternatives. The Coast Daylight will provide an affordable, comfortable transportation alternative to limited and expensive air service and congested freeways. South of San Luis Obispo, the Coast Daylight will provide an additional frequency serving the Sur• iner Corridor. To enhance travel options for tourists to see and visit scenic Central Coast attractions. Citizens, local governments, and regional transportation agencies support the Coast Daylight. Caltrans has included the Coast Daylight in its Passenger Rail Program Report FY1999-2009, and Amtrak has incorporated the service into its strategic plan for improving California’s rail corridors.
What are the benefits? Increased travel choices for local, regional, and interregional travel. Rail transportation provides an alternative to highway and air travel. Point-to-point connections from downtown to downtown of the two premier cities in the state. Connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles along the scenic coastal route will serve business, family, vacation, and visitor travelers. Enhanced economic development at stations along the route. Environmentally sound transportation serving a variety of travel markets and transportation needs. LOSSAN AND CRCC JOINT POLICY MEETING
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 11
Action Requested: INFORMATION
PACIFIC SURFLINER REPORT
Recent Trends in Corridor Ridership and Revenue
Figure 1 shows the change over the previous year in both ridership and revenue for the past six months of 2003 on the Pacific Surfliner corridor.
Since October, ridership figures for 2003 compared to the same month in 2002 are consistent in that both include the impact of the Rail-2-Rail Program, a cooperative agreement between Amtrak, Caltrans, and Metrolink that allows Metrolink riders to literally catch the next train, whether it is an Amtrak or Metrolink service. Patronage using this program has more than doubled since it was introduced in September 2002.
Figure 1 PACIFIC SURFLINER RECENT PERFORMANCE 50% Sep
40%
Jul 30% Jun Jul Aug Sep 20% Oct Aug Nov Nov Oct 10% % Change from Previous Yr Previous from Change % Jun
0% Total Ridership Total Revenue
51 Figure 2 PERFORMANCE FOR AMTRAK WEST OPERATIONS
25%
r 20% 20%
15% 15% 13% 12% 10% 10% 9% 9%
5% 5% % Change from Previous Y 1% 1% 0% Total Ridership Total Revenue
Coast Starlight Pacific Surfliner Cascades Capitol Corridor San Joaquins
November 2003 Details
Amtrak West Operations
All services benefited from the Sunday after Thanksgiving falling in November this year versus December last year (Figure 2). Weather-related service disruptions and a freight accident/derailment affected ridership on the Cascades and to a lesser extent the Coast Starlight. Poor on-time performance continues to impact results with the Coast Starlight and San Joaquin’s having particularly poor months. While modest improvement has been seen in some areas, the economy continues to influence ridership.
Pacific Surfliner Corridor:
Positive points:
Highest November ridership in the history of the service with gains seen in both business class (+12.0%) and coach (+8.8%). Rail 2 Rail ridership increased 18.2% compared to FY03. Results were particularly impressive considering that the Thanksgiving period (Tuesday-Sunday) this year was blacked out. Internet bookings increased 40.1% and accounted for 21.7% of total bookings for the month. This was the highest share of Internet bookings seen for the service and was driven in part by the entire service being reserved during the Thanksgiving period. Strong ridership gains continue to be seen between Los Angeles and Solana Beach with total ridership up 14.0%.
52 Not-so-positive points:
Ridership between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano fell 6.9% although ticket revenue did increase 4.3%. For the second month in a row ridership to/from Lompoc-Surf had a significant ridership decline, falling 13.2%. This was the only station on the route to have a loss. Average daily business class ridership on Mondays, which is the second lowest ridership day of the week after Tuesdays, was off 2.3%. This was the only day to show a ridership loss.
53 COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 12
Action Requested: INFORMATION
UPDATE ON THE RAIL CAPACITY MODEL BURBANK TO SAN FRANCISCO
Background and Recent Activity The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) has a contract with Caltrans for $40,000 to prepare a “capacity model” for evaluating capital improvements that are required to begin the Coast Daylight train. In December 2003, SLOCOG transferred its sub-contract (previously with Amtrak) to the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to proceed with conducting the model in conjunction with the Northern California Capacity Model.
Discussion This contract is a continuation of the Union Pacific Northern California Network Simulation Agreement. The costs for this study are being shared between the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board, Amtrak, Peninsula Counties Joint Powers Board, Valley Transportation Authority, Union Pacific Railroad and TAMC. These agencies meet regularly as the Northern California Rail Advisory Group. TAMC has agreed to act as an intermediary to facilitate this portion of the modeling on behalf of the Coast Rail Coordination Council (CRCC).
TAMC is involved in negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and other agencies to develop an extension of the Caltrain commuter service to Salinas and intercity service between San Francisco and the Monterey Peninsula. UPRR has hired a consultant (Jack Fuller) to conduct the modeling to determine if the existing infrastructure can accommodate more trains and what improvements could be required to provide additional service.
Due to the state budget shortfall, starting new rail services between Los Angeles and San Francisco seems unlikely in the near future. However, this information is critical before further progress can be made in negotiations with the Union Pacific Railroad Company for access to the tracks. Preliminary findings may be available in late February 2004. Staff has been assured the work will be completed before the funds expire on June 30, 2004.
54 COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE
January 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 13
Action Requested: POSSIBLE ACTION
STATUS OF CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO SALINAS
Introduction
Included in the Congressional Federal Transportation Appropriations Bill is almost $1 million in New Starts funds for the Caltrain Extension to Monterey County project, transferred from the Hollister extension project. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) is seeking an additional $250,000 in Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds as the local match for the federal earmark. Additional project information is provided as Attachment 1.
The bill will transfer $990,644 in federal New Starts funding to this project from the San Benito County Hollister extension project. The 20 percent required matching funds, $247,661, was to be sought from the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds for the Caltrain project, with Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) interest funds to be front-loaded and reimbursed with TCRP funds. However, it appears that TCRP may be a casualty of the state budget crisis, so TAMC will be seeking Proposition 116 funds instead. This grant will fund the alternatives analysis, conceptual design and Section 5309 New Starts application for the Caltrain Extension project. TAMC intends to pursue an application for New Starts funds for this project.
Recommendation Staff recommends that the board consider taking the following actions: 1) Support the federal New Starts transfer to Salinas extension allocation and 2) Support request for TCRP funds as a match (Proposition 116 as back-up)
Discussion Federal Funding - Congress approved the Federal Transportation Appropriations Bill on December 9, 2003. The Senate will address this bill in January 2004. Included in the bill is almost $1 million in New Starts funds for the Caltrain Extension to Monterey County project. This earmark and the local match will fund contract amendment #4 with Parsons for the Caltrain Extension project, approved by the TAMC Board at its December 3, 2003 meeting. To celebrate the confirmation of this earmark, Congressman Sam Farr will host a check-signing event at the Salinas Intermodal Transportation Center the week of January 12, 2004.
State Funding - The state Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) allocated $20 million to the Caltrain Extension project. So far, $1 million has been approved for reimbursement and $933,000 of that amount has been reimbursed as of November 18, 2003. TAMC is seeking an additional $250,000 in TCRP funds as the local match for the federal earmark.
55
The TAMC Board approved the request for a TCRP allocation and Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). TAMC staff will be submitting an allocation approval request, application amendment, and request for an LONP for consideration by the CTC at its February 2004 meeting.
However, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed canceling the TCRP program in his efforts to balance the budget. In case TCRP funds become a casualty of the state budget crisis, TAMC will be seeking a portion of the project’s $3 million in Proposition 116 funds to replace TCRP as the match for the federal earmark.
56 COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL
POLICY COMMITTEETransportation Agency for TAMC Monterey County
October 2003
Salinas to San Francisco Caltrain Commuter Rail Extension
─ Project Need ─
Transportation alternatives are needed in Monterey County, California, to improve commuter and healthcare access to the San Francisco Bay Area, and to relieve congestion on the County’s overburdened interregional highway connections. Currently in the Monterey and San Francisco Bay Areas, job distribution and worker housing distribution patterns do not match. The northern counties of San Francisco and Santa Clara have large job surpluses, requiring approximately 160,000 non-county residents to fill the available positions. Conversely, Monterey County has a large job deficit, pushing residents to seek employment elsewhere. This push-pull has created a huge increase in interregional commuter traffic, leading to highway congestion and poor air quality in the basin.
Today, residents of Monterey County who work in Santa Clara County must use private vehicles to travel between home and work. US Route 101 is the only viable route for these commuter trips:
• US 101 is at congested levels in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties and in Monterey County is at Level of Service (LOS) “D”, on a scale of A-F, from Salinas to the northern county line.
• State Highway Routes 101, 156, 1, and 183 in Monterey County will be at LOS F by 2015.
It is critical for the long-term health of the regional economy that Monterey County develop transportation alternatives for commuters, and those who need healthcare access in Santa Clara County.
Project Description
Extends existing San Francisco-San Jose- Gilroy Caltrain service to Pajaro, Castroville, and Salinas:
• 2 round trips per day, initially • 4 round trips per day, within 10 years • Stops in: San Francisco, Millbrae (SFO), San Jose, Pajaro, Castroville and Salinas • Round trip fare: $20 (est.) • Travel time: Salinas to SF: 2 hrs, 45 mins • Projected Annual Patronage: 328,500
Capital Improvements
• Pajaro, Castroville: platforms, parking • Salinas: o station improvements o parking structurebus facilities layover facility
Proposed Rail Services: Monterey County to San Francisco 57
Project Benefits Existing
• Reduced traffic congestion Pajaro station. • Improved air quality • Greater accessibility to the Bay Area • Economic development benefits • Reduced commuter stress • Increase in ridership to existing Caltrain and
connecting passenger rail services
• Job opportunities
• Improved transportation access for the
elderly, the young, and the disabled Station Sites can create Project Schedule opportunities for economic Environmental document: 2004 development. ROW acquisition complete: 2006
Engineering/design complete: 2007
Construction complete: 2009
Start of Service: 2009
Cost and Funding Estimates
Capital:
Cost: $70 M
Secured funds: $23 M Source: Monterey Capital shortfall: $47 M County Housing and Redevelopment Operating: Division
Cost: $ 1.78 M/year
Fares: $ 0.95 M/year
Operating shortfall: $ 0.83 M/year
For more information, contact:
Debbie Hale, Deputy Executive Director Transportation Agency for Monterey County 55 B Plaza Circle Salinas, CA 93901 (831) 775-0903
58 Attachment 1
Coast Rail Coordinating Council Policy Committee Roster Updated 12/03
Supervisor Dave Potter Pauline Valdivia San Luis Obispo County Council of San Benito County Gov. 1200 Aguajito Road, Suite 001, 3220 Southside Road Monterey, CA 93940 Hollister, CA 95023
Supervisor Joni Gray, 4th District Blanca Alvarado Santa Barbara County SCVTA 401 E. Cypress 3331 N First Street Lompoc, CA 93436 San Jose, CA 95134
Supervisor Peg Pinard, 2nd District Mr. Dennis Norton San Luis Obispo County City of Capitola/SCCRTC 1001 Monterey Street 4315 Capitola Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Capitola, CA 9510
Art Lloyd James T. Beall Jr. SAMTRANS Metropolitan Transportation Commission 20 Arapahoe Ct. 101 Eighth Street Portola Valley, CA 94028 Oakland, CA 94607-4700
Brian Humphrey, Commission member Vacant c/o Ventura Transportation Commission SF County Transportation Authority 950 County Square Drive, Ste. 207 100 Van Ness Avenue, 25th Floor Ventura, CA 93003 San Francisco, CA 94102
Beatrice Proo LACMTA One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012
59
LOSSAN (LOS ANGELES–SAN DIEGO–SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY)
MEMBERSHIP
This board is composed of current and former elected officials representing rail owners, operators, and planning agencies along Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner corridor between San Diego and San Luis Obispo. LOSSAN is staffed by SANDAG. The objective of the agency is to coordinate planning and programs that increase ridership, revenue, reliability, and safety on the coastal rail line from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles to San Diego.
The Los Angeles - San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency meets every quarter.
Staff contact: Linda Culp (619) 595-5357; [email protected]
MEMBERS Alternates Chair: Julianne Nygaard Harry Mathis North County Transit Development San Diego Metropolitan Transit Board Development Board Vice Chair: Jacki Bacharach Brian Humphrey Los Angeles County Metropolitan Ventura County Transportation Transportation Authority Commission Arthur Brown Susan Rose Orange County Transportation Santa Barbara County Association of Authority Governments Chris Norby Fred Munroe Orange County Transportation San Luis Obispo Council of Authority Governments Beatrice Proo Ann Kulchin Los Angeles County Metropolitan North County Transit Development Transportation Authority Board Jerry Rindone San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Ex Officio Member Joe Kellejian Richard Dixon San Diego Association of Governments Southern California Association of Bill Davis Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Additional Technical Advisory Joni Gray Committee Members Santa Barbara County Association of Amtrak Governments Burlington Northern Santa Fe Peg Pinard California Public Utilities Commission San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Southern California Regional Rail Authority Warren Weber Caltrans, Division of Rail Union Pacific
Revised: July 23, 2003