Chair, Steve Dresser, City of Lathrop Commissioner, Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Vice Chair, Christina Fugazi, City of Stockton Commissioner, Leo Zuber, City of Ripon Commissioner, Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Commissioner, Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Commissioner, Debby Moorhead, City of Manteca Commissioner, John Marchand, City of Livermore
Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at (209) 944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting.
All proceedings before the Commission are conducted in English. The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does not furnish interpreters and, if one is needed, it shall be the responsibility of the person needing one. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Director located at 949 East Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda is available on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission website: www.acerail.com.
August 3, 2018 – 8:00 am Robert J. Cabral Station (Conference Call) (Conference Call) South Hall Meeting Room Heritage House Fairmont Rehabilitation Center 949 East Channel Street County of Alameda 950 Fairmont Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 4501 Pleasanton Avenue Lodi, CA 95240 Pleasanton, CA 94566
1. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call Chair Dresser
Roll Call: Haggerty, Marchand, Elliott, Johnson, Moorhead, Zuber, Vice Chair Fugazi, Chair Dresser
Ex- Officios: Agar, Chesley, DeMartino, Zoslocki
2. Public Comments Persons wishing to address the Commission on any item of interest to the public regarding rail shall state their names and addresses and make their presentation. Please limit presentations to five minutes. The Commission cannot take action on matters not on the agenda unless the action is authorized by Section 54954.2 of the Government Code. Materials related to an item on the Agenda submitted to the Board of Directors after distribution of the agenda packet are available for the public inspection in the Commission Office at 949 E. Channel Street during normal business hours. These documents are also available on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission website at www.acerail.com/about-ace/sjrrc-board.html subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting.
949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202 (800) 411-RAIL (7245) www.acerail.com 3. Consent Calendar 3.1 Minutes of July 6, 2018 ACTION 3.2.1 Rail Commission/ACE Monthly Expenditure INFORMATION 3.2.2 SJJPA Monthly Expenditure INFORMATION 3.3 ACE Monthly Fare Revenue INFORMATION 3.4 ACE Ridership INFORMATION 3.5 ACE On-Time Performance INFORMATION 3.6 Update on Positive Train Control INFORMATION 3.7 Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San ACTION Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Adopting the FY 2018-2027 Short Range Transit Plan 3.8 Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San ACTION Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing the Executive Director to Submit and Execute Any and All Grant Applications, Agreements, Amendments and Any Other Documents Necessary to Claim $198,960 in FY 2018-19 State of Good Repair (SGR) Program Funds for Facility Upgrades and Improvements 3.9 Construction & Installation of the Wayside Power - Contract Change INFORMATION Order #01
4. Conduct a Public Hearing on the Proposed ACE Fare Increase, Accept ACTION Report Summarizing Comments Received during the Public Comment Period, and Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Adopting a Fare Increase of 6% for all ACE Service Fare Media Rounded up to the Nearest 25¢, Effective January 2, 2019 for the Altamont Corridor Express Service (Brian Schmidt)(Regular and Special Voting Members)
5. Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin ACTION Regional Rail Commission Certifying an Environmental Impact Report, Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Adopt the Associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Approve Phase 1 for the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres And Merced Project and Authorize and Direct the Executive Director to Execute and File a Notice Of Determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project (Kevin Sheridan)(Regular Voting Members)
6. Commissioner’s Comments
7. Ex-Officio Comments
8. Executive Director’s Report 9. Adjournment The next regular meeting is scheduled for: September 7, 2018 – 8:00 am Robert J. Cabral Station 949 East Channel Street, Stockton
2 of 158 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of August 3, 2018
Item 3.1 ACTION Minutes of July 6, 2018 The regular meeting of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission was held at 8:00 am, July 6, 2018 at the Robert J. Cabral Station, 949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202. 1 Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call Chair Dresser called the meeting to order at 8:00 am and led the audience in the pledge of Allegiance. Commissioners Present: Haggerty, Marchand, Johnson, Zuber, Vice Chair Fugazi, Chair Dresser Commissioners Absent: Elliott, Moorhead Ex-Officio Members Present: Mr. Chesley, Mr. Knodt, Mr. Kline 2 Public Comments Vaughn Wolff, Pleasanton, mentioned an article published in the East Bay Times about the City of Stockton.
3 Presentations and Recognitions Ms. Mortensen mentioned that ridership and revenue for the ACE service are at all-time highs.
4 Consent Calendar 4.1 Minutes of June 1, 2018 ACTION 4.2.1 Rail Commission/ACE Monthly Expenditure INFORMATION 4.2.2 SJJPA Monthly Expenditure INFORMATION 4.3 ACE Monthly Fare Revenue INFORMATION 4.4 ACE Ridership INFORMATION 4.5 ACE On-Time Performance INFORMATION 4.6 Washington Update INFORMATION 4.7 Update on Positive Train Control INFORMATION 4.8 Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the ACTION San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Approving the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Claim and Authorizing Submission by the Executive Director to the San Joaquin Council of Governments for Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Assistance Funds (STA) for a Total of $4,361,362
M/S/C (Marchand/Zuber) Approve the Consent Calendar. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 6th day of July 2018 by the following vote to wit:
3 of 158
AYES: 6 Haggerty, Marchand, Johnson, Zuber, Fugazi, Chair Dresser
NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 2 Elliott, Moorhead
5 Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San ACTION Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing the use of Competitive Negotiation Process to Procure Five (5) Passenger Rail Cab Cars with an Option to Purchase up to 29 Additional Passenger Rail Cars
Mr. Schmidt presented on the procurement of new passenger rail cab cars.
Vice Chair Fugazi asked what the total cost of the rail cars would be. Mr. Schmidt said each cab car would cost approximately four million dollars. Vice Chair Fugazi asked how the rail car purchase might be affected by a potential repeal of SB 1 and the loss of TIRCP funds. Mr. Schmidt said the SB 132 funds would be available regardless of what happens to SB 1 and TIRCP.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the increase in ridership is expected to continue. Mr. Schmidt responded that ridership has steadily increased over the past six years.
Commissioner Zuber asked if the item requires the full board vote or just regular members. Mr. Schroeder said the item requires the vote of the full board.
Mr. Wolff asked if double decker DMUs were being considered.
M/S/C (Fugazi/Johnson) Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing the use of Competitive Negotiation Process to Procure Five (5) Passenger Rail Cab Cars with an Option to Purchase up to 29 Additional Passenger Rail Cars Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 6th day of July 2018 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: 6 Haggerty, Marchand, Johnson, Zuber, Fugazi, Chair Dresser NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 2 Elliott, Moorhead
4 of 158 6 Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San ACTION Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Two-Year and Eleven Month Contract with Two One-Year Options for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services to Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC for an Amount- Not-To-Exceed $229,410 from August 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement Ms. Gowan presented on the solicitation process for legislative advocacy services.
Commissioner Zuber asked how the annual cost of the contract compared to the previous vendor. Ms. Gowan said the annual cost has decreased compared to previous years.
Commissioner Haggerty asked why the contract length is two-years and eleven months. Ms. Gowan said the contract length was set that way due to the start date of the contract.
M/S/C (Zuber/Marchand) Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Two-Year and Eleven Month Contract with Two One-Year Options for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services to Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC for an Amount-Not-To-Exceed $229,410 from August 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 6th day of July 2018 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: 6 Haggerty, Marchand, Johnson, Zuber, Fugazi, Chair Dresser NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 2 Elliott, Moorhead
7 Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San ACTION Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing Two (2) Two-Year and Eleven Month Contracts with Two One-Year Options for Legal Services to Neumiller & Beardslee and Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP from August 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021, and Authorizing and Directing
the Executive Director to Execute the Agreements
Ms. Gowan presented on the solicitation process for legal services. Vice Chair Fugazi commended staff for the staff report and the decision to award the contract to two firms based on their strengths.
M/S/C (Fugazi/Zuber) Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission 5 of 158 Authorizing Two (2) Two-Year and Eleven Month Contracts with Two One-Year Options for Legal Services to Neumiller & Beardslee and Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP from August 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreements Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 6th day of July 2018 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: 6 Haggerty, Marchand, Johnson, Zuber, Fugazi, Chair Dresser NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 2 Elliott, Moorhead
8 Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San ACTION Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) Authorizing the Executive Director to Proceed with Negotiations for the Acquisition of Trackage Rights, Rolling Stock, Train Layover and Station Locations Between the Cities of Stockton and Natomas Using Transit and Intercity Rail Capital
Program (TIRCP) Grant Funding and to Act on Behalf of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) in the Development of the Layover and Station Locations
Ms. Mortensen presented background on negotiations for the acquisition of trackage rights, rolling stock, train layover and station locations between the cities of Stockton and Natomas. Vice Chair Fugazi asked for clarification on how the 50/50 split voting structure between SJRRC and SJJPA would work. Ms. Mortensen responded that each body would need a full Board approving vote for an item to pass. Commissioner Zuber voiced his concern for the 50/50 split voting structure due to the fact that the SJJPA Board only meets every other month. Ms. Mortensen said if the Board decided on the 50/50 split voting structure then it would be recommended to the SJJPA Board that the meetings take place more frequently. Vito Chiesa, Chairman of the SJJPA Board, expressed his excitement over the partnership between the Rail Commission and SJJPA.
M/S/C (Johnson/Fugazi) Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) Authorizing the Executive Director to Proceed with Negotiations for the Acquisition of Trackage Rights, Rolling Stock, Train Layover and Station Locations Between the Cities of Stockton and Natomas Using Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Grant Funding and to Act on Behalf of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) in the Development of the Layover and Station Locations. Passed and
6 of 158 Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 6th day of July 2018 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: 4* Johnson, Zuber, Fugazi, Chair Dresser
NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 2 Elliott, Moorhead * Item is for Regular Voting Members Only 9 Rendering of the Siemens Locomotive Paint Scheme INFORMATION Mr. Kay presented on the paint scheme for the new locomotives.
Vice Chair Fugazi inquired into potential branding on the new locomotives. Mr. Kay said that branding is an option as a decal on the train.
Commissioner Haggerty asked why the ACE logo has not been added in the rendering. Ms. Mortensen said the stenciling of the logo will come at a later time.
10 Commissioner’s Comments
Vice Chair Fugazi inquired into the status of the WP Depot Building. Mr. Sheridan reported the demolition of the building has been completed and the next steps are completing the environmental process followed by design work and construction.
Chair Dresser requested an update on the status of the Channel Street project. Mr. Sheridan said staff will release a request for proposals for design work in the next couple months followed by construction.
Commissioner Zuber inquired into the estimated time of completion for the Channel Street project. Mr. Sheridan said the estimated start date for construction is April of 2019, with construction lasting about 18 months.
Commissioner Haggerty asked if there was a way to work with train engineers to honor the Sunol Quiet Zone. Mr. Schmidt said he will follow up with Union Pacific.
11 Ex-Officio Comments
Mr. Chesley discussed the reapportionment of Local Transportation Funds resulting from the creation of the Consolidated Transportation Services agency. Mr. Chelsey reported that the SJCOG Board approved a new set of guidelines for Short Range Transit Plan. Mr. Chesley also discussed the approval of Unmet Transit Needs funding.
Mr. Knodt mentioned the upcoming launch of the new Route 49 Martin Luther King Corridor BRT express route. Mr. Knodt also mentioned the upcoming electrification of Route 47 & 49.
12 Executive Director’s Report
7 of 158 Ms. Mortensen reported:
The first TIRCP funded project, Wayside Power, has been completed.
Staff has started a monthly legislative staff briefing with state legislators discussing ongoing projects and funding updates.
13 CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING DISCUSSION/ LITIGATION ACTION
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9) Two (2) Cases. Name of case: Spencer Ybarra v. SJRRC, Union Pacific, Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. RG17853664) Name of case: Russell Blackmon v. SJRRC, Union Pacific, Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. RG17850293)
Legal Counsel reported, no reportable action was taken by the Board in Closed Session. 14 Adjournment –
The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 am. The next regular meeting is scheduled for: August 3, 2018 – 8:00 am Robert J. Cabral Station 949 E. Channel Street, Stockton CA
8 of 158 ItemItem 4.2 3.2
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Altamont Corridor Express Operating and Capital Expense Report June 2018 100% of Budget Year Elapsed
SJRRC EXPENSE % ACE EXPENSE % FY 17-18 TO SPENT FY 17-18 TO SPENT OPERATING EXPENSES ALLOCATION DATE TO DATE ALLOCATION DATE TO DATE
Project Management, Services & Supplies Subtotal 687,019 456,414 66% 4,715,405 3,667,307 78% Contracted Services Subtotal 441,811 248,422 56% 16,431,128 12,535,533 76% Shuttle Services 1,269,855 1,269,855 100% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1,128,830 704,836 62% 22,416,388 17,472,696 78%
CAPITAL EXPENSE % FY 17-18 TO SPENT CAPITAL PROJECTS ALLOCATION DATE TO DATE
1 SJ COG Loan Repayment 1,118,012 1,118,012 100% 2 A1 & A2 Bond Repayment 3,035,912 3,035,912 100% 3 UPRR Capital Access Fee 3,242,516 3,242,516 100% 4 UPRR Capitalized Maintenance Projects 4,000,000 3,057,604 76% 5 Platform Extension Projects 3,000,000 - 0% 6 ACE Forward (Project Manager approves invoices for ACE forward - Project funded directly by State) 8,600,000 3,385,525 39% 7 ACE Expansion 250,000 - 0% 8 ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced 750,000 646,678 86% 9 ACE Extension Natomas to Stockton 350,000 402,772 115% 10 Cabral Station Boiler 75,000 55,848 74% 11 Locomotives (5) 15,000,000 8,819,145 59% 12 Mid Life Overhaul of 1 Locomotive 875,000 476,750 54% 13 Cabral Track Extension 7,380,000 12,771 0% 14 eTicketing 250,913 92,613 37% 15 Safety and Security/Video Cameras 800,000 24,818 3% 16 Positive Train Control 4,120,590 821,803 20% 17 Capital Spares/Upgrades for Passenger Cars and Locomotives 1,125,000 203,915 18% 18 RMF - Wayside Power 300,000 217,544 73% 19 Sunol Quiet Zone Project 800,000 58,349 7% 20 East Channel Street Improvements 75,830 33,542 44% 21 Emergency Demolition, Deconstruction and Salvage of the Western Pacific Depot 200,000 196,075 98% 22 SJJPA - Mid-Corridor Layover Facility 1,750,000 - 0% 23 San Joaquin Intercity Minor Capital Project (Funded by State of California) 1,000,000 754,616 75% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 58,098,773 26,656,809 46%
9 of 158 Status of Capital Projects 1 SJ COG Loan Repayment - Annual payment made July 1, 2017 per SJCOG amended loan agreement.
2 Bond Repayments - Bond repayments are made bi-annually, payments FY 17-18 were paid in October 2017 and April 2018.
3 UPRR Capital Access Fee - Payment for calendar year 2018 paid in two installments. First payment processed in January and second payment in May 2018
4 UPRR Capitalized Maintenance Projects - Multi-year project is budgeted at $4,000,000 for the year. Invoices are received monthly throughout the year. 5 Platform Extension Projects - Multi-year project to extend the existing Lathrop/Manteca, Tracy, Vasco, Livermore, and Pleasanton platforms. A contract for final design was approved in May 2018 6 ACE Forward – For FY 17-18, the primary tasks for ACE forward between August 2017 – June 2018 have been public outreach to support the ACE forward program/Draft EIR, project-level engineering and environmental analysis for the extension between Modesto and Ceres, the project description, environmental analysis, and planning work for the potential ACE extension to Sacramento, and project management. Project is continuing under ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced work
7 ACE Expansion - Engineering and project support for the expansion of ACE service to Modesto, Ceres and Merced.
8 ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced - The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was released in May 2018. The Final EIR is anticipated to be presented to the Board in August 2018. 9 ACE Extension Natomas to Stockton - The Project is underway, with the initial environmental work anticipated to be completed in November 2018. 10 Cabral Station Boiler - Boiler project was completed December 2017.
11 Locomotives (5) -Multi-year project to procure up to five Tier 4 locomotives for ACE service. A contract for the procurement was approved in April 2018. Currently ongoing through Fiscal Year 2019/2020.
12 Mid Life Overhaul of 1 Locomotive - Locomotive arrived in January 2017 and final acceptance payment processed in March 2018. Project is complete.
13 Cabral Station Track Extension - Cabral Track Extension is currently under negotiation with Union Pacific for final design and is scheduled to be completed over several fiscal years.
14 eTicketing Project - Multi-year pilot project is currently ongoing. A contract for the implementation of the Altamont Corridor Express Mobile Ticketing System was approved in May 2018. Project is currently in development.
15 Safety and Security/Video Cameras - The camera security project was awarded in June 2018 and is in construction.
16 Positive Train Control -Multi-year project is currently ongoing. On-board equipment installation is in process, the Hosted Back Officer Server is in place. Awaiting invoices from vendors for work completed.
17 Capital Spares/Upgrades for Passenger Cars and Locomotives - Preventative Maintenance is ongoing.
18 RMF Wayside Power -Construction of two wayside power units is complete.
19 Sunol Quiet Zone - A reimbursement agreement with Alameda County was approved by the board in February. Construction and planning management for project are being implemented by Almeda County. The project is on schedule to be completed in mid-June 2018
20 East Channel Street Improvements - The project will be built by the development company Ten Space and SJRRC is providing funds to Ten Space as an Economic Development Subsidy. Final design and engineering work was conducted during FY 17-18. A grant for $2,000,000 from the Measure K Smart Growth Incentive Program was approved by SJCOG in early 2018 to fund the eventual construction of the project. Project is ongoing
21 WP Emergency Demolition - Project completed mid January 2018.
22 SJJPA Mid-Corridor Layover Facility - Project will allow the San Joaquin's to initiate an early morning train in Fresno to serve Sacramento bound commuters. It is currently in the environmental testing phase and moving into the final design and construction phase. Amtrak has awarded contract to vendor should break ground by July 30th.
23 San Joaquin Intercity Minor Capital Project (Funded by State of California) - Currently there are a total of 40 individual projects. 38 of these projects are being implemented by Amtrak. The other two are parking lot projects at the Turlock- Denair and Modesto Amtrak Stations, with SJJPA serving as only a funding partner, with the projects being procured and constructed by Stanislaus County. 10 of 158 San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Operating Expense Report June 2018 100% of Budget Year Elapsed
SJJPA EXPENSE YTD FY 17-18 TO PERCENT OPERATING EXPENSES ALLOCATION DATE EXPENDED
Project Management, Services & Supplies Subtotal 2,038,664 1,624,145 80% Contracted Services Subtotal 50,818,633 46,384,830 91%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 52,857,297 48,008,975 91%
11 of 158 Fare Revenue ItemItem 3.3 4.3 1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000 FY Jul‐17 Aug‐17 Sep‐17 Oct‐17 Nov‐17 Dec‐17 Jan‐18 Feb‐18 Mar‐18 Apr‐18 May‐18 Jun‐18 TOTAL FY 17‐18 Fare Revenue 761,437 855,600 787,527 914,200 776,861 682,650 912,481 774,475 823,332 876,113 910,069 824,278 9,899,023 FY 16‐17 Fare Revenue 646,429 826,273 861,289 748,351 726,178 664,632 831,621 607,406 809,833 740,133 727,026 712,791 8,901,962
% of Budget Year Elapsed: 100% FY 17‐18 % of Budgeted Fare Revenue Received to Date 110% Projected Annual Fare Revenue: $9,000,000
12 of 158 Ridership ItemItem 4.43.4
140,000
130,000
120,000
110,000
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
‐ Jul‐17 Aug‐17 Sep‐17 Oct‐17 Nov‐17 Dec‐17 Jan‐18 Feb‐18 Mar‐18 Apr‐18 May‐18 Jun‐18 FY TOTAL FY 17/18 Ridership 99,462 128,439 116,712 127,787 111,379 89,910 118,269 112,344 118,506 117,336 136,346 122,464 1,398,954 FY 16/17 Ridership 99,371 120,142 115,172 118,580 107,241 90,720 107,595 74,701 119,288 103,205 126,309 117,393 1,299,717
13 of 158 ACE DAILY RIDERSHIP COMPARISON
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
0 JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 16/17 DAILY AVG 5045 4969 5167 5235 5515 5195 4268 5192 5152 5186 5160 5741 5336 17/18 DAILY AVG 5336 5235 5584 5836 5809 5569 4496 5376 5617 5387 5587 6197 5832
14 of 158 ACE ON TIME PERFORMANCE
100
90
80
70
60
50
OTP% 40
30
20
10
0 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Monthly OTP % 94.22 92.86 92.93 96.23 87.5 91.3 93.42 87.79 73.55 85.14 82.47 91.48 89.88 YTD OTP % 86.74 88.01 88.55 89.38 89.18 89.29 89.61 87.79 81.38 82.47 82.93 84.4 85.31
15 of 158 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of August 3, 2018
STAFF REPORT
Item 3.6 INFORMATION Update on Positive Train Control
Required Services: The Hosted Back Office Service contract awarded at the February 2, 2018 Rail Commission meeting to Herzog Technology, Inc. is in place.
Training for the mechanical and operations supervisors was completed during the week of July 23rd. The training was a “train the trainer” course. This allows the supervisors to train the employees during normal work shifts. All training is schedule to be completed by the end of September.
On-Board Equipment Installation: Wabtec, the provider of the on-board PTC equipment, completed the antenna installation on the first locomotive. However, the antennas have been recalled by the manufacturer nationwide as having a systemic failure due to potential water intrusion. New antennas have been ordered, but the existing antennas have not failed yet so testing can continue on schedule and replacement antennas will be installed when they arrive. The first locomotive and cab car are in PTC validation testing and scheduled to be completed by July 30th. Installation on the second locomotive and cab car will be the same week. Installation of on- board equipment including new antennas are to be completed by the end of October 2018.
Coordination with UPRR, Caltrain, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): Staff and Herzog continue monthly conference calls with UPRR, Caltrain, and the FRA on PTC implementation and requirements to implement PTC on the ACE equipment and be compliant with all Federal Regulations. The monthly conference calls will continue until PTC is in full operation and is operating reliably.
Caltrain executed a contract with Wabtec to complete their PTC program. Caltrain anticipates being ready for testing in late 2018. Staff continues conference calls with Caltrain on ACE’s project status and Caltrain’s status in order to coordinate any PTC programs/plans required for review and approval to operate on Caltrain territory.
The Director of Operations and Herzog General Manager have attended the two Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) PTC seminars that were held on June 25th and July 16th. There is one additional FRA seminar this summer on August 20th. The FRA has requested all Railroads attend the seminars as the deadline for implementation of December 31st 2018 nears to ensure compliance.
16 of 158 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of August 3, 2018
STAFF REPORT
Item 3.7 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Adopting the FY 2018-2027 Short Range Transit Plan
Background: As presented at the May Board meeting, transit operators are required to approve a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) as a precondition to receive Federal funds. SJRRC’s FY 2018- 2027 SRTP covers a ten-year period of extraordinary growth for the agency, and incorporates the large influx of State of California funding through Senate Bill (SB) 132, SB 1, and the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) to extend service to Ceres/Merced and Natomas.
Comments Received: Staff shared the Draft SRTP on the ACE website in an effort to solicit comments from the public. At the time of writing, two public comments have been received: • One comment acknowledged the importance of public transit and applauded the SRTP effort; • The other comment requested a promotional program/marketing strategy be implemented in order to attract more leisure travel, such as vacationers and sporting event attendees.
The Draft SRTP was also shared with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), Caltrans, San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD), and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
Changes from Draft: The Final SRTP is largely the same document that was presented in Draft form at the May Board meeting. However, changes were made based on a number of developments and discussions with stakeholder agencies. Changes include: • References to the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced project; • References to the recent TIRCP award for Valley Rail; • Adjustments to the Capital and Operating budgets to better reflect estimates for San Joaquin County Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and Measure K and ACTC Measure B and Measure BB, as well as the separation of the ACTC program into two line items; • Inclusion of “Prospective Revenues” in ACE Financial Operating Plan and Capital Improvement Plan, highlighting the need for continued coordination with partner agencies, MPOs, and stakeholders to pursue and acquire additional revenue sources;
17 of 158 • Changes to the farebox recovery table to accurately reflect the figures found in the financial statements, as noted by Commissioner Marchand; • Minor corrections for spelling and grammar; and • Aesthetic and design changes.
Fiscal Impact: SJRRC is required to submit an SRTP to remain eligible for federal, state, and regional transit funding.
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Adopting the FY 2018-2027 Short Range Transit Plan.
18 of 158 RESOLUTION SJRRC-R-18/19-06
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION ADOPTING THE FY 2018-2027 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing on the Draft FY 2018-2027 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) was held on May 4, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Draft FY 2018-2027 SRTP was shared on the ACE website for public review until June 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, staff coordinated with stakeholders to receive and incorporate input into the Final SRTP; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, as a regional transit operator, is required by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to prepare and approve a Short Range Transit Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission hereby adopts the FY 2018-2027 Short Range Transit Plan
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Commissioners this 3rd day of August 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary STEVE DRESSER, Chair
19 of 158
FY 2018 – FY 2027 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
949 E. CHANNEL STREET
STOCKTON, CA 95202 (209) 944‐6220
20 of 158
Federal transportation statutes require that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in partnership with state and local agencies, develop and periodically update a long‐range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Additionally, it must prepare a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) which implements the RTP by programming federal funds to transportation projects contained in the RTP. In order to effectively execute these planning and programming responsibilities, MTC requires that each transit operator in its region which receives federal funding through the TIP prepare, adopt, and submit to MTC a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP).
The preparation of this report has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation through Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act. The contents of this SRTP reflect the views of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, and not necessarily those of the Federal Transit Administration, MTC, or San Joaquin Council of Governments. The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is solely responsible for the accuracy of the information presented in this SRTP.
21 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021
CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... 1
Chapter 1: Overview of Transit System ...... 2
1.1 Brief History ...... 2
1.2 Governance ...... 3
1.3 The Organization ...... 4
1.4 Description of Transit Services and Service Area ...... 5
Service Characteristics ...... 6
ACE Service Improvements Implemented ...... 7
Passenger Amenities Programs...... 7
Future ACE Service Improvements and Partner Projects...... 8
1.5 Fare Structure ...... 9
Ticket Sales Program ...... 9
ACE Promotional Programs ...... 11
1.6 Revenue Fleet ...... 11
1.7 Description of Existing Facilities ...... 12
Train Layover and Maintenance Facilities...... 12
Station Descriptions ...... 13
Chapter 2: Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles ...... 17
Planning and Programming...... 17
Operations ...... 17
Community Engagement and Marketing……...... 17
Fiscal Services and Administration...... 18
Information Technology ……………...... 18
Chapter 3: Service and System Evaluation ...... 19
3.1 Performance Evaluation ...... 19
3.2 Performance Targets ...... 19
i 22 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 Ridership ...... 19
Farebox Recovery...... 20
On‐Time Performance...... 20
ACE Passenger Survey Results………………………...... 22
3.3 Title VI Report Summary ...... 24
3.4 FTA Triennial Review Summary ...... 24
Chapter 4: Operations Plan and Budget ...... 27
4.1 Operating Plan ...... 27
Safety/Security Preparedness ...... 27
Safety Evaluations ...... 28
Operation Lifesaver...... 28
Regional Transit Security Working Group (RTSWG)...... 28
Emergency Response Coordination with Local Agencies...... 29
Shared Corridor Agreements ...... 29
4.2 Operating Budget ...... 29
4.3 Shuttle Service ...... 34
Coordination with Local Transit Services ...... 34
Connectivity ...... 34
Cross‐Ticketing with Capitol Corridor ...... 34
Shuttles ...... 34
Chapter 5: Capital Improvement Plan ...... 37
5.1 Capital Improvement Strategy ...... 37
5.2 10‐Year Capital Improvement Plan (FY 2018-2027) ...... 37
Capital Projects ...... 40
Funding Sources ...... 43
5.3 Vehicle Replacement, Rehabilitation and Expansion ...... 45
Fleet Maintenance Program ...... 45
Vehicle Rehabilitation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45
Rolling Stock Purchase ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..45
Regulatory Modifications ...... 46
Chapter 6: Other Requirements ……………………...... 48
6.1 Public Involvement and Outreach ……….……………………………………………………………………………………..…………………..…………48
ii 23 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021
TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES Table 1.1—Inventory of ACE Vehicle Fleet ...... 12 Table 3.1—Farebox Recovery ...... 20 Table 3.2—SJRRC Deficiencies from Triennial Review ...... 25 Table 4.1—ACE Financial Operating Plan ...... 30 Table 4.2—ACE Sponsored Shuttles ...... 35 Table 4.3—Supplemental Shuttle Services ...... 36 Table 4.4—Transit Providers by Station ……………………...... 36 Table 5.1—SJRRC 10‐Year CIP Summary...... 37 Table 5.2—Capital Improvement Plan...... 38
FIGURES Figure 1.1—San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Organizational Structure ...... 4 Figure 1.2—Service Area Map ...... 5 Figure 1.3—ACE Currently‐Operated Schedule ...... 6 Figure 1.4—ACE Regular Train Fares (Effective October 3, 2016) ………………...... 10 Figure 3.1—ACE Historical Annual Ridership ...... 19 Figure 3.2—On‐Time Performance (FY 2008‐2017)...... 21 Figure 3.3—On‐Time Performance and Farebox Recovery (FY 2008‐2017) ...... 21 Figure 3.4—ACE Passenger Satisfaction………………...... 22 Figure 3.5—How Long Have You Been Riding ACE?……………………………………...... 22 Figure 3.6—Commute Mode Choice, Before Riding ACE...... 23 Figure 3.7—How ACE Riders Reach Their Departing Station……………………...... 23 Figure 3.8—ACE Riders Using Connecting Shuttles/Transit Buses...... 24
iii 24 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a guide for the development of the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service, as well as plans to expand service into new markets, over the next ten years. The SRTP was developed with the goal of increasing the capacity of the overall system through a series of projects aimed at lengthening trainsets, improving on‐time performance, streamlining support functions, expanding connectivity, and improving the safety and security of the system. Improvements at the ACE stations, securing shuttle funding and the continued efforts of SJRRC to explore additional ways to move riders to and from job sites will continue to expand the connectivity of the ACE system. Throughout the SRTP 10‐year period, SJRRC will continue to work to ensure that its support functions and services will be as efficient and streamlined as possible.
SJRRC is faced with several opportunities over the next 10 years. The passage of Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) and Senate Bill 132 (SB 132), as well as funding awarded through the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), expedites the opportunity to deliver the expansion program and integrate services with this larger view of improved and expanded service.
To enhance commuter and intercity rail service and to promote greater transit connectivity between the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area, SJRRC is proposing to expand ACE service from Lathrop to Ceres with stations in downtown Manteca, Ripon, Modesto, and Ceres in Phase I and to Merced with stations in Turlock, Livingston or Atwater, and Merced in Phase II. Phase I would extend service to Ceres in 2023, while Phase II improvements would extend service to Merced in 2027. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is currently being developed that will determine the scope and schedule of improvements, with SJRRC serving as the lead agency under CEQA for the EIR. SJRRC is also proposing to expand ACE service to Sacramento, providing additional connectivity between residents of the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento region.
The ACE Financial Operating Plan includes programs and initiatives to improve safety, security, and communications on the ACE system. SJRRC participates in the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Commuter Rail Safety Management Program, the California Operation Lifesaver Program, Department of Homeland Security Programs, and all of the on‐going APTA/FRA discussions on transit security and terrorism to improve station safety and security. The Operating Financial Plan serves as a tool for identifying local cost‐sharing impacts of maintaining and expanding ACE service in the future. The plan is based on projected long‐term costs and potential revenue availability. Funding for operating costs is allocated primarily from local transportation sales tax revenues in Alameda, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara counties.
One of the intents of the SRTP is to document and assess the financial capacity of ACE to fund projects designed to increase overall system ridership. The SJRRC 10‐year Capital Improvement Plan is a $1.217 billion program that documents the financial assumptions for implementing capital improvements. The program consists of multiple capital projects, including new stations, railroad mainline double-tracking, locomotive and railcar procurement and midlife overhaul, and station platform extensions. These projects are necessary to maintain and enhance ACE service. Revenue sources for capital funding consist of a mixture of federal, state, and local sources. The agency’s capital improvement strategy is driven by the desire to maintain the sustainability of the agency’s financial and operational capacity.
1 25 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT SYSTEM
1.1 BRIEF HISTORY In 1989, passenger rail service across the Altamont Pass was considered only a pipe dream that might be worth discussing sometime in the future. However, that same year, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), the Stockton Chamber of Commerce, and the Building Industry Association of the Delta began the development of a 20‐year transportation plan for a future sales tax vote in San Joaquin County. Measure K, the half‐cent sales tax for transportation, was strongly supported by voters in 1990, and the number‐one project identified for funding was Altamont passenger rail service.
In 1995, seven cities and the county of San Joaquin formed a joint powers agreement that created the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) to implement the rail plan, as well as to explore agreements with the counties of Santa Clara and Alameda. The joint powers agreement created a five‐member Board of Directors appointed by SJCOG. To date, through Measure K, the taxpayers of San Joaquin County have contributed over $50 million in funding for this nationally acclaimed commuter rail service.
In May 1997, three public agencies—the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (now the Alameda County Transportation Commission), and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)–executed an agreement to create the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE, now the Altamont Corridor Express) Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The agreement stipulated JPA’s membership and powers, specified the financial commitments of each member agency, and detailed other administrative procedures. Three individuals represented each member agency on the JPA Board of Directors.
On June 30, 2003, the ACE JPA was dissolved, and a Cooperative Services Agreement was entered into between SJRRC, Alameda CTC, and VTA. The Cooperative Services Agreement identified SJRRC as the owner/operator of the ACE service and identified how the operations and capital projects for the ACE service would be funded by the three parties. At that time the SJRRC Board was reconfigured to an eight-member board consisting of six elected officials from San Joaquin County and two elected officials from Alameda County, all of whom are voting members on issues relating to the ACE service.
Between 2009 and 2012, SJRRC and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) conducted planning for the Altamont Corridor Rail Project (ACRP) to develop a new regional rail line from Stockton and Modesto to San Jose through the Altamont Pass. This project would have provided both intercity and commuter electrified passenger rail service. The ACRP would have serviced regional transportation needs and provided an opportunity to link to the planned California High-Speed Rail (HSR) system. While the ultimate build concept of the ACRP remains a long-term potential, SJRRC has identified short-term goals to modernize the existing ACE service that would result in faster intercity and commuter train service and could establish a connection between Stockton, Modesto, Ceres, Turlock, Merced, and San Jose within the next 10 years.
In 2013, SJRRC identified and developed a suite of improvements, known as the ACEforward plan, to modernize the existing ACE service that would result in faster commuter and intercity train services and could establish connections between additional communities in the San Joaquin Valley and San Jose within the next 10 years. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued in June 2013 to initiate the prior environmental process for ACEforward. In May 2017, SJRRC released the ACEforward draft EIR which analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the phased improvement plan to increase service reliability and frequency, enhance passenger facilities, reduce travel times along the existing ACE service corridor from San Jose to Stockton, and to extend ACE service to Manteca, Modesto, Ceres, Turlock, and Merced. In the near term, ACEforward proposed improvements necessary to support ACE service of up to six daily round trips between San Jose and the San Joaquin Valley, a potential reroute of ACE service through downtown Tracy, and the extension of ACE service to Modesto. In the longer term, ACEforward proposed a suite of improvements that would ultimately support ACE service of up to 10 daily round trips between San Jose and the San Joaquin Valley, a train-to-train ACE/BART connection, and the extension of ACE service to Ceres, Turlock, and Merced.
2 26 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 As the ACEforward project has progressed, funding for the entirety of ACEforward improvements has been uncertain. However, as part of Senate Bill (SB) 132 passed in April 2017, SJRRC was awarded $400 million for the ACE service expansion in the San Joaquin Valley, including associated system improvement. Through the ACEforward project development and environmental review, substantial financial, environmental, and logistical challenges were identified with some of the improvements necessary to increase ACE service levels to San Jose, as well as the need to coordinate potential improvements with other regional rail services and planning. In addition, SJRRC ridership studies have shown that expansion to Ceres and Merced would provide substantial increases in ACE ridership without the financial, logistical, and environmental challenges of some of the improvements necessary to increase service levels to San Jose. As a result, the feasible and fundable extension of service in the Central Valley is now the focus of SJRRC vision for commuter and intercity passenger rail services for ACE. The improvements envisioned in the ACEforward plan no longer represents the intention of SJRRC for ACE. For this reason, SJRRC rescinded the prior ACEforward NOP and draft EIR and is preparing a new EIR for the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced project. The ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced draft EIR was released for public comment on April 13, 2018, with the comment period closing on May 28, 2018. The new EIR utilized a large portion of work from the ACEforward EIR, resulting in significant cost savings during the process.
In May 2018, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) awarded SJRRC $500.5 million from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) for the Valley Rail project. Valley Rail is an extension of ACE service between Sacramento and Merced which builds upon ACE funding from SB 132 and implements two new daily round trips for the Amtrak San Joaquins service to better connect San Joaquin Valley travelers with the Sacramento area. Environmental work for this project will be completed by spring of 2019.
1.2 GOVERNANCE The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) owns and operates, and is the policy‐making body for, the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service. SJRRC is governed by an eight‐member board consisting of six elected officials from San Joaquin County and two special voting members from Alameda County, the latter appointed by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). SJRRC has entered into a Cooperative Services Agreement for funding of the ACE service with the Alameda CTC and VTA.
The current members of the SJRRC Board include: • Chair Steve Dresser, City of Lathrop • Vice‐Chair Christina Fugazi, City of Stockton • Commissioner Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County • Commissioner Bob Johnson, City of Lodi • Commissioner Debby Moorhead, City of Manteca • Commissioner Leo Zuber, City of Ripon • Commissioner Scott Haggerty, Alameda County • Commissioner John Marchand, City of Livermore
Ex‐Officio members represent Caltrans District 10, the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (San Joaquin RTD), SJCOG, and Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG). Ex-Officio membership includes: • Mr. Dennis Agar: Director – Caltrans, District 10 • Ms. Donna DeMartino: General Manager – San Joaquin RTD • Mr. Andrew T. Chesley: Executive Director – SJCOG • Mr. Bill Zoslocki: Policy Board Chair – StanCOG
3 27 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 1.3 THE ORGANIZATION SJRRC is the Managing Agency for day‐to‐day rail operations, planning, and support services. It has cooperative services agreements with Alameda CTC and Santa Clara VTA for funding of the operations/maintenance and capital improvements associated with ACE Service.
In July 2013, SJRRC was selected to serve as the Managing Agency for the newly formed San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA). SJJPA assumed the responsibility of day-to-day management, planning, funding, and support services related to the San Joaquins Intercity Rail Service. As the Managing Agency, SJRRC provides staffing, consultants, and other services to support the SJJPA. The SJJPA Governing Board consists of 10 Member Agencies within the Central Valley and Bay Area. In 2016, SJJPA selected SJRRC as its Managing Agency for a second three-year term. The SJRRC organizational structure is shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1—San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Organizational Structure
4 28 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF TRANSIT SERVICES AND SERVICE AREA ACE service was initiated on October 19, 1998 with two (2) daily round trip trains between Stockton and San Jose. The 86‐mile ACE corridor parallels Interstate 5, Interstate 205, Interstate 580, Interstate 680, and Interstate 880. It directly serves three counties and eight cities between the Central Valley and the Silicon Valley. Trains stop at three San Joaquin County stations (Stockton, Lathrop/Manteca, and Tracy), four Alameda County stations (Livermore – 2 stations, Pleasanton, and Fremont), and three Santa Clara County stations (Great America, downtown Santa Clara, and San Jose Diridon).
Figure 1.2—Service Area Map
Since I‐580 and I‐880 are key congested corridors in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, a third round trip train was added on March 5, 2001 to meet growing ridership demand. On August 28, 2006 a fourth round trip train between Stockton and San Jose was initiated as midday service in cooperation with Caltrans Division of Rail and Caltrans District 10 as a mitigation measure for the widening of I‐205 and to supplement Amtrak San Joaquins intercity service to San Jose. This train was added as non‐peak service; however, on November 2, 2009 this train was suspended indefinitely due to completion of the I‐205 construction project. Staff was directed to monitor conditions and return to the Commission when a fourth round trip could be reintroduced and sustained.
Beginning in the winter of 2011, economic indicators in the Bay Area – specifically in San Jose and the East Bay – began to post modest gains to employment. This trend echoed nationwide, with the Bay Area and a few other urban centers leading a nascent recovery. Those gains were erased in the spring of 2011 only to begin re‐emerging by the end of the summer. Ridership on ACE was climbing, but most interestingly, the typical holiday lull in ridership did not occur. Rather than losing riders, ACE continued to gain ridership albeit at a slower pace. Stronger increases in ridership followed the first of the year, and ACE continued to add riders each month over the same month of the previous year.
In June 2012, SJRRC passed a Resolution approving and authorizing a fourth round trip for the Altamont Corridor Express beginning October 1, 2012. As of March 2018, ACE continues to operate a schedule of four round trips.
5 29 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 Figure 1.3—ACE Currently‐Operated Schedule Westbound Trains ‐ AM Departure (Monday‐Friday) Stockton to San Jose #01 #03 #05 #07 Stockton 4:20 AM 5:35 AM 6:40 AM 7:05 AM Lathrop/Manteca 4:39 AM 5:54 AM 6:59 AM 7:24 AM Tracy 4:51 AM 6:06 AM 7:11 AM 7:36 AM Vasco Road 5:20 AM 6:35 AM 7:40 AM 8:05 AM Livermore 5:25 AM 6:40 AM 7:45 AM 8:10 AM Pleasanton 5:33 AM 6:48 AM 7:53 AM 8:18 AM Fremont 5:55 AM 7:10 AM 8:15 AM 8:40 AM Great America 6:13 AM 7:28 AM 8:33 AM 8:58 AM Santa Clara L6:20 AM L7:35 AM L8:40 AM L9:05 AM San Jose 6:32 AM 7:47 AM 8:52 AM 9:17 AM
Eastbound Trains ‐ PM Departure (Monday‐Friday) San Jose to Stockton #04 #06 #08 #10 San Jose 3:35 PM 4:35 PM 5:35 PM 6:38 PM Santa Clara 3:40 PM 4:40 PM 5:40 PM 6:43 PM Great America 3:49 PM 4:49 PM 5:49 PM 6:52 PM Fremont 4:05 PM 5:05 PM 6:05 PM 7:08 PM Pleasanton 4:28 PM 5:28 PM 6:28 PM 7:31 PM Livermore 4:37 PM 5:37 PM 6:37 PM 7:40 PM Vasco Road 4:42 PM 5:42 PM 6:42 PM 7:45 PM Tracy 5:11 PM L6:11 PM L7:11 PM L8:14 PM Lathrop/Manteca 5:23 PM L6:23 PM L7:23 PM L8:26 PM Stockton 5:47 PM 6:47 PM 7:47 PM 8:50 PM L = Train may leave ahead of schedule after discharging passengers
An integral part of the commute trip for nearly 60% of the ACE passengers is the connecting shuttle services at the destination stations. Transit providers in Alameda and Santa Clara counties provide rubber-tire services coordinated with the arrival of trains for the crucial link to jobsites. Employer run shuttles are also available at the Pleasanton and Great America Stations.
The population of the three‐county ACE service area was just under 4 million in the year 2010. By 2016, the service area had grown by over 8%, an additional 323,574 people. Employment opportunities over the same period also grew as the economy has recovered. The majority of job growth has been in the key destination areas served by the ACE trains and shuttle services, such as Pleasanton, Fremont, and Santa Clara County. ACE service also draws ridership from surrounding areas such as Stanislaus and Contra Costa counties, which have growth projections similar to the ACE service area. Continuing growth in population and jobs along the ACE service corridor will intensify the need for commute alternatives to ever-worsening highway congestion conditions.
SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS The ACE corridor utilizes track owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) between Stockton and Santa Clara, as well as Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) track between Santa Clara and San Jose (approximately 4 miles). UPRR dispatches the trains on its segment of track and PCJPB’s contractor dispatches the trains on the PCJPB segment.
Track conditions and track speeds along the ACE corridor vary greatly. Approximately 52 miles of track along the corridor allow between 60 MPH and 79 MPH train speeds, another 26 miles average 45 MPH, and approximately 8 miles average 30 MPH. The end‐to‐end run time is currently just under 2 hours and 15 minutes. Future track upgrade projects will improve the future run time to approximately 2 hours.
Eight daily directional commuter trains are currently scheduled, with four morning departures out of Stockton starting at 4:20 a.m. and four evening departures starting out of San Jose at 3:35 p.m.; the ACE trains are primarily structured to serve the
6 30 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 employment centers of Silicon Valley. This type of schedule tends to under‐serve the Tri‐ Valley. Given the length of the ACE Corridor, longer trainsets with additional capacity would be necessary to effectively serve Tri‐Valley businesses without affecting Silicon Valley commuters.
The length of the corridor and the operation of only peak direction trains adversely affect the scheduling of train crews. The crews and equipment from the morning trips must lay over in San Jose until the evening return runs. These underutilized resources could potentially allow future midday service in order to better deploy labor and maximize return on the investments in equipment.
ACE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED During the time period from FY 2013 to 2017, SJRRC implemented several service improvements for ACE that enhance safety and usability for passengers.
In 2008, Congress required Class I railroad mainlines with regularly scheduled intercity and commuter rail passenger service to fully implement Positive Train Control (PTC). PTC uses communication-based/processor-based train control technology that provides a system capable of reliably and functionally preventing train-to-train collisions, over speed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a mainline switch set in the wrong position. For the past few years, SJRRC has been working to implement PTC equipment on ACE locomotives in compliance with Congressional and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) mandates. PTC is anticipated to be fully operational on ACE service by January 1, 2019.
In FY 2013, security camera installations were completed throughout the ACE corridor, including the recently constructed Rail Maintenance Facility (RMF). Located at stations, platforms, and parking lots, the cameras allow SJRRC staff to monitor and report potential hazards to passengers.
With the rebranding of ACE service in November 2012, much of the signage throughout the corridor was out of date. In FY 2017, SJRRC staff replaced and updated all station, platform, and parking lot signage, helping to ensure that the ACE brand is consistent.
PASSENGER AMENITIES PROGRAMS PASSENGER APPRECIATION In 2017, the Community Engagement and Marketing team began conducting a number of activities both on social media and onboard the trains as part of a new Passenger Appreciation campaign. As part of the campaign, trivia and photo contests were held regularly on social media platforms with winners being awarded an “ACE Swag Bag” full of ACE memorabilia. In January 2018, SJRRC staff participated in a Passenger Appreciation Day, where ACE shirts were handed out to passengers aboard the trains.
EXPANDED WIFI SERVICE In July 2012, SJRRC began the process of adding WiFi to ACE trains. Using a Bay Area vendor, the initial plan called for installing and testing WiFi on four passenger cars. With a successful rollout of those four units, SJRRC planned to expand WiFi on all of its passenger cars. In June 2016, an order was placed for the remaining 27 WiFi units. After installation and testing, system-wide WiFi was launched on January 3, 2017.
SYSTEM MAPS In March 2017, SJRRC installed ACE System Maps at all stations and platforms throughout the ACE corridor. While large displays were constructed at station platforms in the past, a majority of the space went underutilized; fare and service timetables were the only sources of information available to passengers. The new system maps provide passengers with route, fare, schedule, text alert, and customer service information in one convenient location.
7 31 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 TEXT ALERTS Keeping passengers informed of service related issues is vital for SJRRC and ACE operations. In early FY 2018, SJRRC staff implemented expanded text alert capabilities, allowing operations and marketing staff to instantly reach thousands of ACE passengers in a matter of minutes. This capability is especially useful to inform passengers about service disruptions and delays. Since the expansion, the number of passengers subscribed to the service has doubled.
QUARTERLY E-MAILS In September 2017, SJRRC began distributing quarterly electronic newsletters to subscribing passengers. The newsletters keep passengers informed on ACE system developments and outreach efforts throughout the corridor.
FUTURE ACE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS AND PARTNER PROJECTS As previously mentioned, ACEforward was a phased improvement plan exploring increased frequencies and reliability, reduced travel times, and service growth for the ACE rail service. Initial funding for ACEforward came from an allocation of Proposition 1A funding, via the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), for planning, engineering, environmental studies, and other pre-construction work on the Altamont Corridor. SJRRC managed this work and acted as the lead agency. With the rescission of the ACEforward draft EIR due to the environmental, financial, and logistical challenges, focus has shifted towards the new ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced project. A key component of the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced is the $400 million in funding received from Senate Bill (SB) 132. The funds will allow ACE to make necessary improvements including new track, stations, and the procurement of rolling stock.
The ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced project would include Phase I and Phase II improvements. Phase I improvements would support the ACE service extension to Ceres and Phase II improvements would support the ACE service extension to Merced. Phase I improvements include new stations, upgrades to track, a new track connection, a temporary Ceres Layover Facility, an interim bus bridge between Merced and Ceres, and two operational scenarios. Phase II improvements include upgrades to existing track and addition of new track between Ceres and Merced, new stations, a new permanent Merced Layover Facility, and two operational scenarios. No improvements are proposed along the existing ACE corridor between Stockton and San Jose for the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced project.
The Sacramento Extension will also include the construction of new stations, track work improvements along the UPRR Sacramento Subdivision, and the Natomas Layover Facility, as well as additional rolling stock for the service. The project is being implemented jointly with SJJPA, as the route between Stockton and Natomas will be served by both ACE and the San Joaquins.
SJRRC is also exploring the possible implementation of a pilot program for Saturday ACE service. Funding for the first year of the pilot program has been received through SB 1’s State Rail Assistance (SRA) program. The potential service would run two round trips every Saturday along the current ACE route between Stockton and San Jose, with fares remaining at the current level. Launch of the service is anticipated to begin in spring 2019, once positive train control (PTC) implementation is complete.
Future ACE service improvements and expansion efforts will require close coordination with the various Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). SJRRC is currently in discussions with SJCOG and StanCOG on identifying funding for operating and capital expenses associated with the initiatives. SJRRC will also continue to work closely with UPRR, since it owns much of the right of way used by ACE. SJRRC meets with UPRR on a bi-weekly basis to discuss projects and progress in northern California and assess corridor needs for upcoming years. Cost estimates for potential projects are developed by UPRR, while SJRRC explores funding options.
Although the feasibility of an ACE/BART connection is not included in the ACE extensions to Ceres/Merced and Sacramento projects, Assembly Bill (AB) 758 created the Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority. The authority was established for the purposes of planning, developing, and delivering cost-effective and responsive transit connectivity between BART and
8 32 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 ACE, that meets the goals and objectives of the community. The authority is composed of a 15-member board, which includes a representative from SJRRC. The authority is currently conducting a project feasibility report on the plans for the development and implementation of the project. SJRRC is committed to continuing to collaborate with the authority on developing the project.
NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS In addition to the Ceres/Merced and Sacramento extensions, SJRRC has several near-term capital improvement projects planned and funded for the early years of the SRTP to improve and increase the capacity of the existing ACE service. The Robert J. Cabral Station Expansion project will construct a new parking lot at the site of the old Western Pacific depot building in Stockton, as well as renovate a portion of the building. The East Channel Street Streetscape and Connectivity project will complete improvements along East Channel Street between North Aurora and ½ block west of North Stanislaus Street, near the Robert J. Cabral Station in Stockton. The extension of platforms at key stations, as well as the purchase of new Tier IV locomotives, will allow longer trainsets to carry more passengers.
1.5 FARE STRUCTURE The ACE fare structure is based on a point‐to‐point system that was approved by the SJRRC Board on March 4, 2016 and went into effect October 3, 2016. At the same time, the Board adopted a policy to increase the fares every two years. The ACE available tickets include one way, round trip, 20 trip, and monthly passes. The current fare structure for the ACE system is depicted in Figure 1.4. Discounted fares are 50% of regular fares. Discounted fares are available to those with disabilities, seniors 65 years and older, children between the ages of 6 and 12, and individuals with a Medicare Card. A new ACE fare increase is currently being considered by the Board that would take effect in January 2019.
In the past, nearly 70% of passengers have purchased the 20 trip ticket. This is due to the fact that unlike the monthly pass, 20 trip tickets do not have an expiration date, which provides flexibility for commuters who do not ride daily. Slightly over 28% of passengers opt for the monthly pass.
TICKET SALES PROGRAM Prior to the start of service, various methods of ticketing and fare collection were evaluated, ranging from automated ticket vending machines to manual sales. In addition, “barrier” systems such as those used by BART, and the “proof of payment” system used by the commuter systems such as Metrolink and COASTER, were also reviewed.
METHOD OF FARE COLLECTION Based upon the long distances between stations that allowed time for onboard fare inspection, the barrier‐free proof‐of‐ payment system was selected and implemented. The proof‐of‐payment system requires that the passenger purchase a ticket and validate it at a station ticket validator machine prior to boarding the train. Once onboard, the passenger must display the validated ticket at all times to allow visual inspection by fare enforcement officers.
TICKET SALES AT STATIONS ACE provides ticket sales agents at the Stockton, Lathrop/Manteca, Tracy, Downtown Livermore, Pleasanton, and Fremont stations prior to departure of the morning trains. Ticket sales agents are provided in the afternoons at the San Jose Diridon and Great America Stations. Tickets are also available during regular business hours at the Stockton, Fremont, and San Jose Diridon Stations, and in Downtown San Jose at the Santa Clara VTA ticket office.
ON‐LINE TICKETING AND INSTANT TICKETING ACE was the first commuter rail agency to offer online ticketing and instant ticketing to its passengers starting in 2004. Tickets for Daily, 20 Trip, and Monthly Passes are available via the internet. One can purchase a ticket by utilizing an online shopping cart which accepts Visa & MasterCard and have the ticket(s) mailed or sent to select stations for pick-up by the passenger. “On‐
9 33 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 demand” internet instant tickets are purchased using the same online shopping cart, but they can be printed directly from a home or office printer. Instant tickets are available in One Way or Round Trip increments.
Figure 1.4—ACE Regular Train Fares (Effective October 3, 2016)
ation t S
Tracy Vasco Station Lathrop on San Jose San Fremont i t Livermore Pleasanton Santa Clara Santa Destination Destination Great America
Origin Station tina s
One Way De 4.75 6.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 11.50 14.50 14.50 14.50 Round Trip 6.00 11.50 15.75 15.75 15.75 20.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 Stockton 20 Trip 49.25 87.75 124.00 124.00 124.00 16.75 198.25 198.25 198.25 Monthly 91.75 159.00 228.00 228.00 228.00 295.00 364.00 364.00 364.00 One Way 5.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 11.00 13.50 13.50 13.50 Round Trip 11.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 19.00 24.50 24.50 24.50 Lathrop 20 Trip 83.25 118.50 118.50 118.50 153.75 189.50 189.50 189.50 Monthly 152.00 218.00 218.00 218.00 282.75 349.00 349.00 349.00 One Way 5.75 5.75 5.75 9.50 11.00 11.00 11.00 Round Trip 11.00 11.00 11.00 15.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 Tracy 20 Trip 83.25 83.25 83.25 118.50 153.75 153.75 153.75 Monthly 152.00 152.00 152.00 218.00 282.75 282.75 282.75 One Way 4.25 4.25 5.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 Round Trip 5.75 5.75 11.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Tri-Valley 20 Trip 47.50 47.50 83.25 118.50 118.50 118.50 Monthly 88.00 88.00 152.50 218.00 218.00 218.00 One Way 4.25 5.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 Round Trip 5.75 11.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Tri-Valley 20 Trip 47.50 83.25 118.50 118.50 118.50 Monthly 88.00 152.50 218.00 218.00 218.00 One Way 5.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 Round Trip 11.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Tri-Valley 20 Trip 83.25 118.50 118.50 118.50 Monthly 152.50 218.00 218.00 218.00 One Way 5.75 5.75 5.75 Round Trip 11.00 11.00 11.00 Fremont 20 Trip 83.25 83.25 83.25 Monthly 152.00 152.00 152.00 One Way 4.25 4.25 Round Trip 5.75 5.75 Great America 20 Trip 47.50 47.50 Monthly 88.00 88.00 One Way 4.25 Round Trip 5.75 Santa Clara 20 Trip 47.50 Monthly 88.00
COLLEGE TICKET SALES ACE tickets are available for purchase at the San Jose State University and Santa Clara University campuses for students and employees of the university.
TRANSIT BENEFITS ACE participates in a variety of employer-provided commuter benefits programs. These programs involve employers purchasing a large number of tickets through bulk order from SJRRC and then making them available to the employees. Other commuter
10 34 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 benefits programs allow employees to purchase tickets at stations staffed by ticket sales agents. For many passengers, these programs are an important means of acquiring ACE tickets.
ELECTRONIC TICKET SALES AND VALIDATION SYSTEM The development of mobile ticketing applications and systems allows transit agencies to manage operations more effectively and efficiently, while making the ticketing process easier for customers. In September 2017, SJRRC released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Altamont Corridor Express Mobile Ticketing System, in order to find an experienced firm with the capability to provide a mobile ticketing system and solution for the growing number of passengers utilizing the ACE service. A contract to complete the ACE Mobile Ticketing System was approved by the SJRRC Board at the May 2018 meeting, with the System anticipated for launch in the fall of 2018.
The new Altamont Corridor Express Mobile Ticketing System will allow for several operational and technological improvements over the current system. The new System will permit all fare media types to be purchased and utilized via mobile platform, and is capable of handling both visual and electronic scanning verification by Passenger Service Agents and other on-train personnel. Additionally, the System will allow for the creation of real time passenger manifests and detailed ridership data by origin and destination.
ACE PROMOTIONAL PROGRAMS
TEST DRIVE ACE effectively markets to commuters and workers in the Central Valley with innovative advertising strategies. ACE reaches the employees at their point of need by utilizing company sponsored transportation and benefit fairs, human resources department resources, and targeted onsite promotions. Currently, ongoing promotions to potential new riders are being marketed primarily at places of employment. The new rider receives three free consecutive days of travel, referred to as “Test Drive.”
LOYALTY REWARD PROGRAM In order to retain and attract new passengers on ACE trains, ACE continues to promote its Loyalty Reward Program. For every 11 consecutive monthly passes purchased, the 12th monthly pass is free. Promotion programs such as this help maintain and increase ridership each year.
1.6 REVENUE FLEET The current ACE operating fleet consists of four peak service train sets, each pulled by one diesel‐electric locomotive. Three of these are seven‐car sets with a seating capacity of approximately 915; and one is a five-car set with seating capacity of approximately 675. All cars are accessible in accordance with ADA requirements. Eleven passenger coaches have been modified with a unique storage design to accommodate 14 bicycles each, providing a smooth system for securing bicycles and avoiding seating conflicts. A complete fleet inventory is listed in Table 1.1. The following is a summary of the current revenue fleet: • Twenty-one bi‐level coach cars—seating capacity of 142 each car • Nine bi‐level cab cars (includes 2 spares)—seating capacity of 134 each car • Six diesel‐electric locomotives (includes one rotational maintenance unit and one unit undergoing offsite mid‐life overhaul)
11 35 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 Table 1.1—Inventory of ACE Vehicle Fleet
MODEL YEAR MANUFACTURER TOTAL VEHICLES 1998 Bombardier 8 Rail Cars 2000‐2001 Bombardier 12 Rail Cars 2003 Bombardier 4 Rail Cars 2008 Bombardier 4 Rail Cars 2013 Bombardier 2 Rail Cars 1998 Motive Power Industries 3 Locomotives 2000 Motive Power Industries 2 Locomotives 2007 Motive Power Industries 1 Locomotives
With a Total Active Fleet (TAF) of 30 vehicles and a Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) of 26 vehicles, the current spare ratio is as follows:
Total Active Fleet (TAF) = 30 Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) = 26 Spare Vehicle Ratio = TAF‐PVR = 4 = 15% PVR 26
1.7 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES SJRRC currently has two layover and maintenance facilities and ten train stations.
TRAIN LAYOVER AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
ACE RAIL MAINTENANCE FACILITY The 157,000 square-foot, state-of-the-art ACE Rail Maintenance Facility (RMF) opened its doors on March 22, 2014. The facility is located on a 64-acre lot and is used for the repair, maintenance, cleaning, and overnight storage of the train sets used in the ACE service, with room for future rail service expansion. The facility has the capacity for twelve 8-car train sets, optimizing maintenance activities to control costs. The facility houses maintenance operations, stores, employee common areas, and administrative offices. The primary maintenance area includes a service and inspection canopy, oil/water separator building, drop table, fuel and sanding facility, three overhead cranes, a wheel truing machine, and a train washer.
In addition, the facility was designed to incorporate a variety of sustainable features including 1,100 solar photovoltaic panels that provide 20% of the building’s power, specialized window shades that follow the sun, and a 102,000-gallon rain harvest tank as part of the reclaimed and reused water system. The facility was the first in the country to achieve LEED Silver certification from Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design.
SAN JOSE FACILITY SJRRC entered into an agreement with the PCJPB for the use of daytime train storage tracks (for up to four trains) near the San Jose station, at the Tamien yard. This agreement is re‐negotiated annually after PCJPB has had an opportunity to evaluate related construction projects and available storage capacity. Expansion beyond four trains will require an additional capital contribution to PCJPB for the necessary layover tracks and signaling.
CERES FACILITY A temporary Ceres Layover Facility - currently two alternatives are under consideration - would support extension operations until the extension to Merced is completed, at which time a permanent layover facility will be located in Merced. The temporary Ceres Layover Facility would support train layovers, storage, light maintenance, and daily servicing. For heavy maintenance and
12 36 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 repairs, trains would be cycled back to the ACE RMF.
STATION DESCRIPTIONS ACE trains serve ten stations along the 86‐mile corridor. The member agencies from each of the three counties are responsible for the planning, engineering, construction, security, and maintenance of stations in the county the station is located. The exception to this is that any system-wide improvements such as an automated ticketing system, security or information systems will be implemented by SJRRC. Descriptions for each of the stations are listed below.
STOCKTON Stockton Station is located at 949 E. Channel Street between Weber Street and Miner Avenue in Stockton, at the old Southern Pacific train depot. The station went through a historic renovation in 2002/2003 and currently serves as the headquarters for SJRRC, SJJPA, and the ACE service, as well as an anchor for Downtown Stockton improvements. In 2003, the station was renamed after the late Robert J. Cabral, a San Joaquin County supervisor instrumental in the creation of the ACE service. The station is served by both ACE trains and the San Joaquins intercity trains between Bakersfield and Sacramento.
ACE passengers can use three parking lots south of the station. These parking lots are 1.0, 0.7, and 0.5 acres in size, and have 200 total parking stalls. The parking lots are fenced and gated during non‐operating hours and are monitored by on‐site staff.
Parking at the station is being expanded to support anticipated service expansion. A temporary parking lot with a 42-stall capacity has been constructed at the site of the Western Pacific train depot, across the track from the Cabral Station. The final parking lot will contain approximately 229 permanent spaces.
This station accounts for 13.6% of the total morning boardings and has no morning alightings. The station is equipped with: • A mini‐high platform for ADA access • Indoor seating • Bicycle lockers • Overhead passenger shelters • Real-time messaging boards • Security cameras on the platform and in the parking lot • A public address system • A call-out only pay phone near the platform
LATHROP/MANTECA Lathrop/Manteca Station is located at 17800 Shideler Parkway (adjacent to Yosemite Ave.) between McKinley Ave. and Airport Way. The location of this station captures commuters from San Joaquin County, as well as Stanislaus County, making this station one of the largest origination points in the system.
The parking lot is 5.6 acres in size and has 544 parking stalls.
This station accounts for 22% of the morning boardings and has no morning alightings. The station is equipped with: • A mini‐high platform for ADA access • Bicycle lockers
13 37 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 • Ticketing kiosk • Overhead and enclosed passenger shelters • Security cameras on the platform and in the parking lot • Real‐time messaging boards • A public address system • A call-out only pay phone near the platform
TRACY Tracy Station is located at 4800 Tracy Boulevard, near the intersection of Tracy Boulevard and Linne Road. The existing lot is 5 acres in size and has 521 parking stalls.
This station accounts for 21% of the morning boardings and has no morning alightings. The station is equipped with: • A mini‐high platform for ADA access • Bicycle lockers • Ticketing kiosk • Overhead passenger shelters • Security cameras on the platform and in the parking lot • Real-time messaging boards • A public address system • A call-out only pay phone near the platform
VASCO ROAD Vasco Road Station is located at 575 Vasco Road on the 60’ wide, ½ mile long former Vasco Road right‐of‐way. The parking lot has a capacity of 216 stalls and is owned and maintained by the City of Livermore.
This station accounts for 7% of the morning boardings and 3% of the morning alightings. The station is equipped with: • A mini‐high platform for ADA access • Bicycle lockers • Overhead passenger shelters • A public address system
DOWNTOWN LIVERMORE STATION Downtown Livermore Station is located at 2418 Railroad Avenue, next to the LAVTA Transit Center at Livermore and Railroad avenues in Downtown Livermore. The City of Livermore constructed a 3‐story parking structure, providing 175 parking stalls for transit users (ACE and WHEELS). The City of Livermore is responsible for the maintenance of the parking structure.
This station accounts for 9% of the morning boardings and 3% the morning alightings. The station is equipped with:
• A mini‐high platform for ADA access • Bicycle lockers • Ticket sales at the Downtown Transit Center • A public address system
14 38 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 • A pay phone near the platform
PLEASANTON STATION Pleasanton Station is located at 4950 Pleasanton Avenue at the Alameda County Fairgrounds. The lot is owned by the Alameda County Fair Association and maintained by Alameda County. ACE shares adjacent parking with the Fair Association and has 444 parking stalls during non‐Fair times. During the Alameda County Fair, ACE passengers are provided off‐site parking and are shuttled to the station by LAVTA buses, provided through a contract with ACE.
This station accounts for 23% of the morning boardings and 13% of the morning alightings. The station is equipped with: • A mini‐high platform for ADA access • Bicycle lockers • Ticket kiosk • Overhead passenger shelters • A public address system
FREMONT—CENTERVILLE STATION Centerville Station is located at 37260 Fremont Boulevard and is owned and maintained by the City of Fremont. The station serves both ACE and the Capitol Corridor intercity trains. This is a fully functional station with a passenger waiting room and coffee shop that provides ticket sales to ACE passengers. There are currently 213 parking spaces available for use at the station.
Ridership at this station accounts for 6% of the morning ridership and 13% of the morning alightings. The station is equipped with: • A portable wheelchair lift for ADA access • Bicycle lockers • Real-time messaging board (operated jointly by Capitol Corridor and ACE) • Overhead passenger shelters • A pay phone near the platform
SANTA CLARA—GREAT AMERICA STATION Great America Station is located at 2121 Stars and Stripes Drive, is owned and maintained by Amtrak, and is served by both ACE and Capitol Corridor trains. Improvements to this station on behalf of ACE are the responsibility of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
Prior to the start of ACE service, parking at the Great America Station was not an issue. With the start of service, some passengers began leaving cars parked overnight on the street adjacent to the station to drive to and from their worksites. As this practice became more popular, the number of parked cars increased and congestion at the station made it difficult for the ACE shuttles to get in and out of the station. To alleviate the parking problem, the City of Santa Clara and VTA constructed a parking lot with 220 spaces to allow for overnight parking at the station, effectively eliminating congestion at the station.
This station is primarily utilized as a morning destination only and accounts for 48% of the morning alightings. The station is equipped with: • A mini‐high platform for ADA access • Bicycle lockers • Real-time messaging boards (operated jointly by Capitol Corridor and ACE) • Overhead passenger shelters • A pay phone near the platform
15 39 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 DOWNTOWN SANTA CLARA—CALTRAIN STATION Santa Clara Station is located at 1005 Railroad Avenue at Franklin Street. This is an unstaffed station owned and maintained by Caltrain.
There are 289 parking stalls onsite, with all-day parking available for $5.50. ACE monthly pass‐holders have the option of purchasing a monthly parking permit at a cost of $82.50.
This station is primarily utilized as a morning destination and accounts for 6% of the morning alightings. It is equipped with • A mini‐high platform for ADA access • Bicycle lockers • A pay phone near the platform
SAN JOSE—DIRIDON STATION Diridon Station is located at 65 Cahill Street, across from the San Jose Arena in downtown San Jose, and is served by Caltrain, ACE, Amtrak, and Capitol Corridor trains. This is a fully functional station, with a passenger waiting room and coffee shop. All-day and monthly parking is available. Updated information on parking policies and rates is available on the Caltrain website.
This station is a morning destination only and accounts for 13% of morning alightings. The station is equipped with: • A portable wheelchair lift for ADA access • A mini-high platform for ADA access • Real-time messaging boards • Bicycle lockers • A pay phone near the platform
The City of San Jose, as well as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA), are both in the process of conducting major studies related to Transit-Oriented Development at Diridon Station.
16 40 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021
CHAPTER 2: VISION, GOALS, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has the following four key goals and objectives: • Provide safe, efficient transportation services that focus on professionalism, innovation, and passenger value • Plan and implement rail service in emerging corridors • Increase outreach efforts to involve additional community partners • Achieve high ratings for effective communication and customer service
To achieve these key goals, the Commission has outlined specific actions and objectives in the areas of Planning and Programming, Operations, Ticketing, Customer and Passenger Services, Community Engagement and Marketing, Safety and Security, Human Resources, Information Technology, Contracts and Compliance, Fiscal Services, and Maintenance and Facilities. The following summarizes the agency’s departmental objectives:
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING • Oversees ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced environmental review process • Secures partnerships throughout rail corridors • Identifies and prioritizes new corridors for expansion • Identifies and secures funding for expansion efforts • Pursues joint development efforts around stations
OPERATIONS • Tracks on-time performance of trains • Improves train performance and reliability • Maintains safety of passengers, equipment, and facilities • Identifies and acquires right-of-way for track ownership • Negotiates connecting shuttle services • Modifies service for passenger convenience • Oversees the preparation and implementation of safety and security protocols • Creates and maintains Emergency Action Plan • Ensures compliance with federal and state safety regulations • Coordinates internal and external safety and security programs • Coordinates interagency emergency preparedness drills • Coordinates security projects at stations • Optimizes the agency’s capital investments in maintenance and facilities through diligent preventative maintenance • Creates safe and attractive station environments for passengers • Administers station capital projects • Coordinates all maintenance activities and contractor work
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND MARKETING • Provides ticketing at convenient points of sale for the rail service programs • Manages ticket vendor contracts • Solicits new ticket outlets for passenger convenience • Streamlines ticketing processes for passenger convenience • Coordinates all station and headquarter sales • Ensures that customer service is the pipeline of information between the agency and the customers • Solicits passenger feedback to improve services • Provides market sales and service information
17 41 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 • Assists with trip planning, lost items, complaints, and suggestions • Provides passenger appreciation events and activities • Aligns all communications and outputs with overall agency goals and stakeholder interests • Educates stakeholders on agency activities and progress • Secures feedback on how the agency can best service communities • Coordinates internal and external communication for consistency • Facilitates public involvement in planning and development of service expansions • Attracts new customers and expands the awareness of the services • Develops and coordinates ridership‐enhancing promotional efforts • Expands outreach with targeted employers • Implements cutting‐edge strategies for increasing brand awareness
FISCAL SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATION • Protects agency funding by ensuring agency compliance with all associated local, state, and federal requirements • Ensures maximum fair and open competition in the agency’s procurement process to provide the best value for expenditure of public tax dollars • Provides guidance to assist departments with agency procurements to ensure compliance • Provides agency procurement information to federal, state, and local regulatory agencies • Develops, organizes, and ensures that contract files are complete and fully documented to provide a verifiable audit trail • Protects the agency’s assets through fiscal compliance, consistent tracking, and reviewing trends • Analyzes trends to control expenses and revenues • Provides financial reports that assist departments in adapting to expense and revenue conditions • Reconciles expenses and revenues with external partners in a timely manner • Functions as an advocate for the entire agency and aids all employees and departments • Ensures that payroll and benefit programs are accurate and timely • Educates employees on employment policies and procedures • Fosters an open environment for all employees to express their views and questions • Provides support to managers on supervisory and personnel matters
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY • Advances technologies and projects for system efficiency, security, and customer convenience • Ensures that use of new technologies is cost‐effective and sustainable • Maximizes user efficiency of all computer systems and programs • Facilitates automated services for customer convenience • Coordinates technology‐related security services and programs
SJRRC takes great effort to continuously monitor the attainment of the four key goals and objectives. Daily service reports, containing on-time performance, ridership, and other operational details, are generated by the train operators and reviewed by staff. The reports are then utilized by all the departments to guide respective departmental functions. The reports also provide an opportunity for the Operations Department to monitor, and address, the performance of ACE contractors. Additionally, regular presentations are made to the SJRRC Board of Commissioners regarding agency activities and performance of the ACE service.
In pursuit of the four key goals and objectives, the Planning and Programming and Customer Engagement and Marketing Departments collaborate with a broad range of community groups and stakeholders, including non-profits, municipalities, local committees, and other transit agencies. The input received during these engagements allows SJRRC to ensure community needs are addressed.
18 42 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE AND SYSTEM EVALUATION
3.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Many trends can impact transit ridership and use; these include strength of the local and regional economy, gas prices, unemployment, land use density, and population growth. As these trends fluctuate, ACE must recognize and respond by continuously analyzing operating performance to determine the effectiveness of its services. This chapter analyzes the effectiveness of ACE operations over the past 10 years.
ACE’s operational performance is evaluated from four perspectives. The first examines the growth of ridership. The second reviews farebox recovery. The third identifies on‐time performance as documented monthly by ACE and contractor staff. The fourth reports on customer service and passenger satisfaction, with a customer satisfaction survey last conducted in 2015.
3.2 PERFORMANCE TARGETS RIDERSHIP: GOAL – 1,500,000 ANNUAL RIDERSHIP Consistent with the recovery that followed the economic recession, annual ridership has grown as service area employer confidence in hiring workers - one of the agency’s key indicators in understanding ridership trends - has led to a 96 percent increase in ridership since 2010, when ridership hit a 10-year low.
Figure 3.1—ACE Historical Annual Ridership Ridership
1,400,000 1,290,811 1,298,435 1,211,162 1,200,000 1,105,648
1,000,000 940,774 805,232 797,253 786,947 716,622 800,000 662,305 600,000
400,000
200,000
0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Currently, the average daily ridership for ACE service is over 5,000 passengers per day. In January 2017, ACE averaged 4,867 riders; in January 2018, ACE averaged 5,375 riders, a 10 percent increase over the same month the previous year.
For FY 2018, the Great America ACE shuttles averaged 1,686 passengers per day, a 3.6 percent increase over the 1,628 average daily passengers in FY 2017. The Pleasanton ACE shuttles provide important connectivity to local businesses, as well as the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, with 49,161 boardings for 2017.
19 43 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 FAREBOX RECOVERY: GOAL – 50% EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION The financial performance of ACE is measured primarily by farebox recovery (the ratio of passenger fare revenue to train operating expense). Historical data for fare revenue, operating costs, farebox ratio, and total annual ridership is summarized in Table 3.1. As part of ACE’s biennial review of fares, a fare increase of 5.25% was approved after an August 20, 2016 public hearing, and went into effect October 3, 2016. A new ACE fare increase is currently being considered by the Board that would take effect in January 2019.
Table 3.1—Farebox Recovery 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 $4.3 $4.6 $3.8 $4.2 $4.6 $5.8 $6.8 $7.9 $8.5 $8.9 FARE $ Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Million
$11.6 $12.6 $11.7 $ 11.8 $12.2 $ 15.0 $ 17.3 $ 20.0 $19.3 $24.71 OPERATING COSTS Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Million Million
FAREBOX RATIO 37% 37% 33% 36% 38% 38% 39% 39% 44% 36%
TOTAL ANNUAL 805,232 797,253 662,305 716,622 786,947 940,774 1,105,648 1,211,162 1,290,811 1,298,435 RIDERSHIP
ACE farebox recovery grew overall during the last ten years of operation, between 2008 and 2016, from 37 percent to 44 percent. This was in spite of the fact that during 2010, farebox recovery hit a ten-year low of 33 percent, which corresponded to the ten- year low ridership level of 662,305 riders. However, increases in operating costs in 2017 resulted in a low farebox recovery of 36 percent. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the farebox recovery ratio will continue to increase year by year.
2 Below is a list of farebox recovery ratios for other Bay Area transit agencies, during Fiscal Year 2016: • Caltrain: 60% • BART: 73% • Capitol Corridor: 55% • VTA: 12%3
ON‐TIME PERFORMANCE: GOAL – 95% ACE passengers continue to rate On‐Time Performance (OTP) as an important component in determining their satisfaction with the service. The yearly OTP for the period from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2017 is shown on Figure 3.2. The yearly OTP for ACE peaked during 2010 at over 95 percent, but subsequent years have experienced a general trend of decline in yearly OTP. Yearly OTP has remained above 90 percent each year since 2008, with the exception of FY 2016 and FY 2017 when the yearly OTP dropped to 86.48 percent and 86.33 percent, respectively. However, OTP has fluctuated on a month-to-month basis within this same period. The minimum OTP occurred during February 2017 (77.68 percent), while the maximum OTP occurred during September 2011 (99.21 percent), with an average monthly OTP of 92.59 percent over the ten-year period. On average, September experiences the highest monthly OTP (94.20 percent), while February experiences the lowest (90.12 percent).
1 SJRRC experienced a significant increase in operating costs for FY 2017 due to increases in Capital Access Fees and Capitalized Maintenance to lease the track from UPRR. Although these expenses are listed in the Capital Improvement Plan as a capital cost, they are reported as operating costs for farebox recovery reports. 2 Source: http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/3138/ALAMEDA_CTC_05_Transit.pdf and http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/pdf/CaltrainPresentationFY2012‐2.pdf 3 VTA farebox recovery rate is approximate. Source: http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Connect-with-VTA/VTAs-Next-Network-Project#.WhxcSzdryUk
20 44 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 The agency’s partnership with UPRR has continued to strengthen, and continues work to maintain the shared corridor and improve on-time performance. Regular coordination meetings held between SJRRC, Capitol Corridor, Caltrain, and UPRR have helped with OTP, minimizing potential service delays. Service delays may be attributed to factors like speed restrictions, freight conflicts, mechanical failures and other operational delays. It is possible that the increased ridership presented in the previous section contributed to increased boarding times on trains, which could be negatively impacting the on-time performances statistics. Furthermore, extreme weather events between December 2016 and February 2017 caused flooding and service delays throughout the ACE corridor, exacerbated by UPRR rerouting freight trains, resulting in significant impacts to ACE service during this period.
Figure 3.2—On‐Time Performance (FY 2008‐2017)
96.00% 95.28% 95.32% 94.74% 94.10% 94.00% 93.21% 92.75% 92.00% 90.60% 90.99% 90.00%
88.00% 86.48% 86.33% 86.00%
84.00%
82.00%
80.00% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 3.3—On‐Time Performance and Farebox Recovery (FY 2008‐2017)
120.00%
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
On-Time Performance Farebox Recovery
21 45 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 ACE PASSENGER SURVERY RESULTS: GOAL – 95% OF PASSENGERS VERY SATISFIED OR SOMEWHAT SATISFIED In past years, SJRRC has conducted in‐depth, on‐board passenger surveys designed to elicit the opinions of ACE riders on the quality of the service and to identify ways in which passengers believe that service could be improved. The survey also revealed how riders use the ACE system in order to identify ways to improve ACE operations and accessibility. The last survey was conducted in 2015. A total of 371 individuals participated, and all of those participants completed the survey in full. The following summarizes findings from the ACE passenger survey (also illustrated on Figure 3.4):
Passenger Satisfaction: The majority of ACE riders considered ACE facilities and operations to be good or excellent. Respondents found the availability of parking spaces adequate, with 82 percent rating it as good or excellent. Overall satisfaction with the respondents’ departing station was also relatively high, with 85 percent rating their station as good or excellent. The availability of locations to purchase ACE tickets was adequate, with 80 percent of respondents rating it as good or excellent. There is room for improvement, however, as only 73 percent of respondents rated safety and security at ACE stations as good or excellent, while 26 percent rated safety and security as fair (18 percent) or poor (8 percent).
Figure 3.4 – ACE Passenger Satisfaction 100% 80% 60% 32% 46% 34% 41% 40% 50% 20% 32% 39% 46% 0% Availability of Parking Station Security/Safety Overall Satisfaction with Ticket Selling Availability Spaces Your Departing Station
Excellent Good
Rider Utilization: The majority of riders (71 percent) use ACE four or more days per week, with 48 percent using ACE five days per week and 23 percent using ACE four days per week. According to the survey, the length of time riders have been using ACE was fairly well balanced, as shown on Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5 – How Long Have You Been Riding ACE?
25% 23% 21% 20% 20% 17% 17% 15% 10% 5% 2% 0% First Time Rider Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5-9 years 10+ years
Passenger responses indicate that ACE has been effective in shifting travelers from roads to rail. Before riding ACE, most respondents (64.2 percent) reported “Drive Alone” as their primary mode of transportation for their daily commute. “Carpool/Vanpool” accounted for 11.6 percent of respondents, 2.4 percent previously commuted via bus, 0.3 percent previously commuted via Amtrak, 2.7 percent previously used BART, and 18.9 percent of respondents previously used other modes of
22 46 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 transportation. These tabulations are presented on Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6 – Commute Mode Choice, Before Riding ACE
80.0% 64.2% 60.0%
40.0% 18.9% 20.0% 11.6% 2.4% 0.3% 2.7% 0.0% Drive Alone Carpool/Vanpool Bus Amtrak BART Other
According to the survey, the majority of ACE riders (67 percent) drove alone to get to their departing ACE station. Getting dropped off was the second highest mode, accounting for 10 percent of respondents. Using a connecting transit bus service and bicycling each accounted for 6 percent of the mode of access share. Walking accounted for 5 percent, other modes accounted for 3 percent, and only 2 percent of respondents used carpooling as their typical method of reaching their departing station. These tabulations are presented on Figure 3.7. Figure 3.7 – How ACE Riders Reach Their Departing Station
Other (please specify) 3% Walk 5% Carpool 2% Bicycle 6% Connecting Transit Bus 6% Get dropped off 10% Drive alone 67%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
The majority of respondents said they use ACE connection shuttles or connecting transit buses to reach other transit services in the Bay Area, such as BART. Of the 371 survey respondents, 61 percent said they use connecting shuttles and connecting transit bus services, while 37 percent said they did not use any connecting shuttles or bus services. These tabulations are presented on Figure 3.8.
23 47 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 Figure 3.8 –ACE Riders Using Connection Shuttles or Connecting Transit Buses
2%
37% 61%
Yes No Not Applicable
3.3 TITLE VI REPORT SUMMARY Title VI, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires that a grantee of federal funds must ensure that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program, or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The grantee must ensure that federally supported transit services and related benefits are distributed in an equitable manner.
The most recent Title VI analysis conducted for SJRRC was adopted on June 3, 2016 and was approved by FTA on August 9, 2016. That analysis reviewed a standard list of potential discrimination issues, as well as a demographic analysis of the ACE service area. The analysis concluded that no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Title VI.
The overall Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal, as approved by the Federal Transit Administration and SJRRC Board, is 2.0% for the period between Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017 and FFY 2019, for federally funded projects.
3.4 FTA TRIENNIAL REVIEW SUMMARY The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Triennial Review desk review of SJRRC was conducted on November 19, 2014 with a site visit on March 11-13, 2015. The review concentrated primarily on procedures and practices employed during the past three years; however, coverage was extended to earlier periods as needed to assess the policies in place and the management of grants. During the visit, administrative and statutory requirements were discussed, documents were reviewed, and facilities were toured.
No deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements in 14 of the 17 areas examined. Deficiencies were found in three areas under Technical Capacity, Procurement Requirements, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). A summary of these deficiencies, corrective actions, and responses are shown in Table 3.2 below. In February 2018, SJRRC received notification from FTA that the corrective actions on the reported recommendations had been achieved, with a closeout issued for the FY 2015 Triennial Review.
24 48 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 Table 3.2—SJRRC Deficiencies from Triennial Review
Review Area Finding Deficiency Corrective Action Open Date Close Date 1. Financial Management ND and Capacity
2. Technical Capacity D-38 Late MPRs/FFRs Submit in TEAM-Web the March 13, May 28, delinquent first quarter FY2015 2015 2015 MPR reports for CA-54-0027 and notify the FTA regional office when completed Submit to the FTA regional office March 13, May 28, revised grant administration 2015 2015 procedures that describe a process for ensuring that quarterly reports are submitted on-time in the future. D-68 Progress reports Submit in TEAM-Web MPRs that March 13, May 30, lack required include revised milestone dates 2015 2018 information where appropriate, sufficient narrative to explain project delays, description of claims, and reasons for contract extensions. Submit to the FTA regional office March 13, May 30, revised grant administration 2015 2018 procedures for ensuring that all required information is included in future MPRs. D-122 Incorrect FFR Submit in TEAM-Web corrected March 13, May 30, Reporting FFRs that include the correct 2015 2015 reporting of cash receipts, cash disbursements, unliquidated obligations, and unobligated balance of federal funds. Submit to the FTA regional office March 13, May 30, revised grant administration 2015 2015 procedures that describes the process for accurately completing the FFRs including the correct reporting of cash receipts, cash disbursements, unliquidated obligations, and unobligated balance of federal funds. 3. Maintenance ND
4. ADA ND
5. Title VI ND
6. Procurement D-183 No verification Submit to the FTA regional office March 13, February that excluded revised procurement procedures to 2015 12, 2018 parties are not search the excluded parties listing participating in SAM.gov before SJRRC enters into applicable transactions and to maintain documentation of the search in the procurement file.
25 49 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 Review Area Finding Deficiency Corrective Action Open Date Close Date D-253 Pre-award and/or Submit to the FTA regional office March 13, September post-delivery revised procurement procedures 2015 19, 2017 audits not that describe how pre-award and performed post-delivery audits will be completed for all future, FTA- funded rolling stock procurements. Submit to FTA regional office March 13, September documentation that SJRRC has 2015 19, 2017 implemented the required procedures for the post-delivery audit of the Bombardier rail cars.
7. DBE D-308 DBE goal Develop and submit to the FTA March 13, November achievement Region IX Civil Rights Officer the 2015 21, 2016 analysis not short fall analysis and corrective completed or not action plan for fiscal year 2014. submitted
D-327 DBE uniform Submit in TEAM-Web delinquent March 13, July 28, reports not semi-annual reports for December 2015 2016 submitted semi- 1, 2014 and notify the FTA Region annually IX Civil Rights Officer when this has been completed. Develop and submit to the FTA March 13, July 28, Region IX Civil Rights Officer 2015 2016 implemented procedures for completing semi-annual reports on-time. D-549 Insufficient Submit to the FTA regional office March 13, November support for 9th written procedures that describe 2015 21, 2016 Circuit RC goals how SJRRC will ensure that it examines disparity studies within its area prior to setting race- conscious goals, and ensure that contract goals are not included in procurements otherwise. 8. Legal ND 9. Satisfactory Continuing ND Control 10. Planning/ POP ND 11. Public Comment on Fare ND Increases and Major Service Reductions 12. Half Fare ND
13. Charter Bus ND 14. School Bus ND 15. Security ND 16. Drug-Free Workplace/ ND Drug and Alcohol Program 17. EEO ND
26 50 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONS PLAN AND BUDGET
4.1 OPERATING PLAN The ACE Operating Plan includes programs and initiatives in system safety, security, and communication to improve the safety and security of the ACE system.
SAFETY/SECURITY PREPAREDNESS SJRRC has developed cooperative relationships in the areas of system safety and security. The related programs are described below.
EMERGENCY BUS BRIDGES In the event of train service disruption, a quick and efficient response is necessary to maintain passenger convenience and confidence in the ACE system. Pre‐arranged transportation options and timely communication to passengers are the keys to success in this area.
ACE has agreements with transit agencies throughout the ACE corridor to provide alternative transportation in the event of a train service disruption. VTA assists within Santa Clara County, while WHEELS and SJRTD serve the Alameda County and San Joaquin County areas. In a more limited capacity, AC Transit can assist in the Fremont area, CCCTA can assist in the Tri‐ Valley area, and MODESTO MAX can provide supplemental support in San Joaquin County.
ACE also has a contract with a private operator to run an over-the-road bus service in the event of a disruption to regularly scheduled rail services.
SAFETY/SECURITY PROGRAMS SJRRC is committed to maintaining the maximum safety of passengers, staff, contractors, and the general public. To remain current on the best safety and security practices, SJRRC participates in the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Commuter Rail Safety Management Program, California Operation Lifesaver Program, Department of Homeland Security Programs, and all of the on‐going APTA/FRA discussions on transit security and terrorism on passenger rail systems; the agency utilizes the information discussed for improving station and system security. The programs in which SJRRC participates are described below:
APTA SAFETY/SECURITY PROGRAM SJRRC participates in the APTA Commuter Rail Safety Management Program and prepares a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP).
The following policies and protocols have been established in the ACE SSPP, compliant with the FRA and APTA standards: • Qualification: Employees or contractors involved in the ACE service will be evaluated and determined to be qualified for the duties to which they have been assigned before being permitted to perform them. Each class or craft of employee has initial training and periodic refresher training schedules set by the department/organization in which they are employed. Additionally, there are provisions for remedial training, as necessary upon employee evaluation, to re‐train employees to safely and successfully perform their duties. Each department sets the standards for determining proficiency of employees, in compliance with all applicable regulations. • Responsibility: All employees and relevant contractors will be informed that they have the obligation to identify hazards, authorization to initiate action to mitigate/control them within the limits of the procedures in which they have been trained, and the responsibility to notify the appropriate authorities.
27 51 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021 • Assessment: The system safety programs, policies, and responses to hazards/accidents/incidents will be evaluated periodically to identify ineffective or outdated elements in the Plan. • Revision: The SSPP (and the applicable safety practices, procedures, and documents) will be revised as necessary in response to evaluations and audits to incorporate effective responses and procedures.
SAFETY EVALUATIONS SJRRC conducts an annual independent evaluation of the SSPP for ACE service, which focuses on the following areas: • Maintenance of Equipment • Train Operations • Stations • Right‐of‐Way • Staff/Train Crew Training • Emergency Preparedness Plan
The safety evaluation, in coordination with the SSPP, provides a systematic approach to identify hazards and/or potential hazards and to resolve them in order to achieve the safest possible operating environment.
OPERATION LIFESAVER As a member of the California Operation Lifesaver Organization, ACE actively solicits public/private schools and public interest groups along the corridor, coordinating a schedule of presentations to educate students and individuals about railroad safety. The curriculum emphasizes the three E’s--education, enforcement, and engineering--to keep everyone safe around tracks and railway crossings. In 2017, ACE participated in Operation Lifesaver “Pop-Up” booths along SJRRC/SJJPA corridors providing rail safety information to the public, filmed a public service announcement in partnership with Stockton Police and the Stockton Heat hockey team mascot, and added three new agency employees as authorized Operation Lifesaver presenters.
ACE also participates in “Operation Lifesaver” trains with the following agencies: • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) • Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) • Amtrak • Local Law Enforcement Agencies • California Highway Patrol
These trains are operated as part of Operation Lifesaver’s National Public Awareness Campaign and are provided for students and the public.
REGIONAL TRANSIT SECURITY WORKING GROUP (RTSWG) As a member of the Regional Transit Security Working Group, SJRRC works with Bay Area Transit Agencies, the California Office of Homeland Security, and MTC to reach consensus on regionally significant security projects. These projects receive funding from the Department of Homeland Security.
SJRRC has developed a Crisis Media Plan to effectively manage communications through a real crisis, aiding a public information officer or community relations professional with a standard in which to react. The plan aims to help prepare staff and management, unify all levels of SJRRC, and inform the public and employees in a timely manner. The plan is a tool to help staff members gain a deeper understanding of the importance of crisis communications to the recovery of SJRRC, ACE service, and the larger community during a true crisis.
28 52 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 2028FY2021
EMERGENCY RESPONSE COORDINATION WITH LOCAL AGENCIES In addition to general training with local law enforcement agencies on emergency response procedures, SJRRC also coordinates training and response programs through the following activities: • Hosting Emergency Preparedness drills to familiarize first responders along the corridor with ACE equipment. • Participating in Emergency Preparedness drills with Caltrain JPB, Capitol Corridor, and Amtrak. • Facilitating simulated hostage situation drills onboard an ACE train to familiarize hostage response teams with ACE equipment and identify appropriate support actions by ACE contractors and staff. • Working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Sacramento and San Francisco Offices, San Jaquan County Sheriff’s Office, Stockton Police, Stockton Fire Haz-Mat response team, Department of Homeland Security Federal Air Marshals, California National Guard 95th Civil Support Team, and Amtrak Police and Emergency Management to conduct a full- scale exercise to test their haz-mat response to a deliberately placed explosive device on a rail car. • Videotaping the simulation drills for first responder agencies that were unable to attend the simulation for training and equipment familiarization purposes. • Participating with the Bay Area transit agencies as part of the Regional Transit Security Working Group #2 (RTSWG). The RTSWG is charged with developing regionally agreed upon security goals and objectives. These goals and objectives in safety/security programs will be the basis for current and future funding from the Department of Homeland Security. • Participating in tabletop emergency drills with other West Coast commuter agencies. • Maintaining a phone tree system for streamlined local response when ACE is notified of track hazards or trespassers near the track. • Sharing relevant material and videos with agency partners.
SHARED CORRIDOR AGREEMENTS SJRRC has a 10‐year Trackage Rights Agreement with UPR) allowing for the four daily round trips Monday through Friday, including access to the ACE RMF. Recently, the Trackage Rights Agreement was amended to include the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) on the portion of UPRR’s tracks over which ACE operates.
Additionally, SJRRC has a three‐year agreement with the PCJPB for operation and layover of ACE trains between Santa Clara and San Jose. As part of both agreements, SJRRC pays a per train-mile fee for the dispatching of the trains and normal maintenance of the track. Additionally, SJRRC participates in capital improvements with both the UPRR and PCJPB to improve operations in the corridors.
4.2 OPERATING BUDGET The ACE Financial Operating Plan serves as a tool for identifying the local cost‐sharing impacts of maintaining and expanding ACE service in the future. The Financial Operating Plan is based upon projections of long‐term cost trends and potential revenue availability. It is not intended to portray an actual operating budget for a given year in the forecast period. Short‐term fluctuations in the regional economy will affect individual fiscal years; however, the plan assumes that these cyclical impacts are smoothed out over the 10‐year period. Expenses within the plan are broken into four main categories: Project Management, Services, and Supplies; Contracted Services; Shuttle Services; and Regional Rail Commission. Additionally, Contracted Services costs for the existing ACE service, Sacramento Extension, and Ceres/Merced Extension are provided as separate line items. The Financial Operating Plan is shown below in Table 4.1.
29 53 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
4 Table 4.1—ACE Financial Operating Plan
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 Total Expenses Operations Project Management, Services, and Supplies 4.72 5.27 5.41 5.59 5.77 6.71 6.93 7.15 7.38 7.62 62.55 Contracted Services – Existing 16.43 18.92 19.53 20.15 20.79 21.46 22.14 22.85 23.58 24.34 210.19 Contracted Services – Sacramento Extension - - 4.33 4.47 4.62 4.77 4.92 5.08 5.24 5.41 38.84 Contracted Services – Ceres/Merced Extension - - - - - 9.73 10.04 10.36 10.69 11.04 51.86 Shuttle Services 1.27 1.27 2.02 2.09 2.15 3.12 3.22 3.32 3.43 3.54 25.43 Regional Rail Commission 1.13 1.21 1.33 1,43 1.53 1.63 1.73 1.83 1.93 2.03 15.78 TOTAL EXPENSES 23.55 26.67 32.62 33.73 34.86 47.42 48.98 50.59 52.25 53.98 404.65 Revenues Operations Farebox Revenue 9.00 10.00 12.52 12.92 13.33 18,31 18.90 19.51 20.13 20.77 155.39 Employer Shuttle Contributions 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 Amtrak Thruway Service 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.90 Other Income 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.52 4.60 Subtotal 9.49 10.51 13.04 13.46 13.88 18.87 19.48 20.11 20.74 21.40 160.98 State Assistance SJCOG - State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds 0.46 0.59 0.72 0.85 0.98 1.11 1.24 1.37 1.50 1.63 10.45 MTC - State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds 0.42 0.61 0.80 0.99 1.18 1.37 1.56 1.75 1.94 2.13 12.75 High Speed Rail 0.15 0.10 ------0.25 State Rail Assistance (SB 1) - 6.40 4.10 ------10.50 Subtotal 1.03 7.70 5.62 1.84 2.16 2.48 2.80 3.12 3.44 3.76 33.95 Local Assistance Measure K 2.42 2.30 2.53 2.64 2.76 2.88 3.01 3.15 3.30 3.44 28.43 San Joaquin County Local Transportation Fund 3.10 3.51 3.76 3.92 4.08 4.24 4.41 4.58 4.74 4.91 41.25 ACTC Measure B 2.78 3.00 3.22 3.44 3.66 - - - - - 16.10 ACTC Measure BB 1.34 1.44 1.54 1.64 1.74 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 23.70 ACTC Measure B (Administration Fees) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.36 Santa Clara VTA 3.34 3.43 3.54 3.66 3.77 3.89 4.02 4.15 4.28 4.42 38.50 Transportation Clean Air (TFCA) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.00 Investment Earnings 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 00.01 0..01 0.01 0.01 0.10 Subtotal 13.12 13.82 14.73 15.44 16.16 13.96 14.59 15.23 15.87 16.52 149.44 TOTAL REVENUES 23.64 32.03 33.39 30.74 32.20 35.31 36.87 38.46 40.05 41.68 344.37 Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) 0.09 5.36 0.77 (-2.99) (-2.66) (-12.11) (-12.11) (-12.13) (-12.20) (-12.30) (-60.28) Prospective Revenues State Rail Assistance (SB 1) - - - 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 24.50 Stanislaus LTF - - - - - 1.97 2.03 3.97 2.17 2.23 12.37 Additional San Joaquin County Local Transportation Fund - - 0.73 0.80 0.86 0.94 1.01 1.07 1.14 1.21 7.77 Federal Section 5307 - - - - - 2.10 2.13 2.16 6.00 6.11 18.50 CMAQ - - - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - - 10.00 TOTAL PROSPECTIVE REVENUES 0.00 0.00 0.73 6.30 6.36 10.51 10.67 12.70 12.81 13.05 73.14 Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) with Prospective Revenues 0.09 5.36 1.50 3.31 3.70 (-1.60) (-1.45) 0.57 0.61 0.75 12.85
4 For a breakdown of expenses for FY 2018, please see the 2017/2018 Work Program & Budget
30
54 of 158
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE FINANCIAL OPERATING PLAN The main drivers of the Financial Operating Plan are the initiation of ACE service to Sacramento and Ceres/Merced. The SRTP assumes that the Sacramento Extension will become operational in FY 2020, the Ceres Extension will begin in FY 2023, and service to Merced will begin in FY 2027. The 10-year ACE Financial Operating Plan coincides with these various milestone dates, with operating costs for Project Management, Services, and Supplies, Contracted Services, Shuttle Services, and Regional Rail Commission increasing accordingly. The initiation of service to Sacramento in FY 2020 will include shuttle service between the Natomas Station and the Sacramento International Airport, resulting in a 59% increase in Shuttle Services costs. Additionally, the initiation of service to Ceres in FY 2023 will include bus bridges between Ceres and Merced, resulting in a 45% increase in Shuttle Services costs. Additionally, the existing shuttle services at the Great America and Pleasanton Stations will need to be bolstered as ridership increases; these cost increases are reflected in the Shuttle Services line item.
Service levels are projected to continue operating four daily round trips on the current operating segment between Stockton and San Jose (Diridon Station); expanded service operating one of two operational scenarios from Lathrop to Ceres and Merced; and expanded service to Sacramento. An outline of the operating scenarios for both service expansions is described below.
Phase I of the ACE service extension to Ceres currently consists of two operational scenarios. Scenario A would not provide direct service between Ceres and San Jose. Four westbound trains would operate from Ceres to Lathrop in the mornings, with passengers making transfers onto the four westbound trains from Stockton to San Jose at the Lathrop-area station. Additionally, four buses would operate between Merced and Ceres during Phase I. Conversely, four eastbound trains would operate from San Jose to Stockton in the evenings, with passengers making transfers onto four eastbound trains from Lathrop to Ceres at the Lathrop-area station. Four buses would provide connections to Merced in the evenings, during Phase I. Scenario B would provide one morning train and one evening train with direct service between Ceres and San Jose. Additionally, three westbound trains would operate from Ceres to Lathrop in the mornings, with passengers making transfers to three westbound trains between Stockton and San Jose at the Lathrop-area station; and four buses would provide connections to Merced during Phase I. Three eastbound trains would operate from San Jose to Stockton in the evenings, with passengers making transfers to three eastbound trains between Lathrop to Ceres at the Lathrop-area station; and four buses would provide connections to Merced during Phase I.
Phase II also consists of two operational scenarios, similar to Phase I, with train service replacing the bus bridges between Ceres and Merced. Scenario A would operate four westbound trains between Merced and Lathrop in the morning, with passengers making transfers to four westbound trains at the Lathrop-area station between Stockton and San Jose. Four eastbound trains would operate between San Jose and Stockton in the evening, with passengers making transfers to four eastbound trains from the Lathrop-area station to Merced. Scenario B would provide one morning and one evening train with direct service between Merced and San Jose. Additionally, three westbound trains would operate between Merced and Lathrop in the morning, with passengers making transfers to three westbound trains at the Lathrop-area station between Stockton and San Jose. Three eastbound trains would operate between San Jose and Stockton in the evening, with passengers making transfers to three eastbound trains from the Lathrop-area station to Merced.
The extension of ACE service to Sacramento allows passengers from Ceres/Merced, Stockton, and nearby stations to commute to Sacramento by rail. Three direct ACE services would operate between Ceres/Merced and Sacramento via Stockton. Commute trips to Stockton are possible not only from these three trains, but also in the southbound direction from Sacramento, with two additional Stockton-bound trains departing Natomas/Sacramento in the morning. The environmental review processes currently underway will ultimately determine which scenario becomes operational.
The Financial Operating Plan also includes the assumption for Saturday ACE service launching sometime in FY 2019. Currently, the new pilot program is scheduled to begin in spring 2019 and will feature two round trips every Saturday along the existing route between Stockton and San Jose.
31 55 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE FINANCIAL OPERATING PLAN Funding for the net operating costs is allocated primarily from local transportation sales tax revenues in Alameda, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara counties, with moderate levels allocated through State and Federal funds. The financial plan estimates total revenue for the financial operating plan at $344.37 million over the life (10 years) of the SRTP. The average annual revenue inflation rate over the course of the next ten years is estimated at 3%, with less than 3% in the near-term and more robust growth in the out years.
OPERATING REVENUE ACE Farebox Revenue – The financial plan assumes annual farebox revenue based on the 38% average farebox recovery ratio between FY 2008 and FY 2017 and planned fare increases every 2 years. For conservative estimates, the farebox recovery ratio used in the financial plan is slightly lower than the ridership and farebox revenue projections. Farebox revenue is expected to generate $155.39 million in operating revenue over the life of the SRTP.
Other Operating Revenue – Funds from employer shuttle contributions, Amtrak Thruway Service, special event train tickets, and other miscellaneous operating revenues are assumed to remain at current levels, with an average annual escalation factor of 3.2 percent. These additional operating revenue sources are anticipated to provide $5.59 million in funding over the life of the SRTP.
STATE FUNDING State Transit Assistance (STA) – STA funds are generated by the sales tax on diesel fuel, and the amount of money available for transit agencies varies from year to year based on the ups and down of diesel prices. SJRRC claims STA funds from both SJCOG and MTC, with revenues projected at $10.45 million and $12.75 million, respectively, over the life of the SRTP.
High Speed Rail – SJRRC receives a small proportion of the State’s high-speed rail appropriations, accounting for $0.15 million in operating funds for FY 2018 and $0.10 for FY 2019, but this resource will subsequently be discontinued.
State Rail Assistance (SB-1) – The financial plan assumes the first three years of State Rail Assistance (SRA) commuter funds will be used for ACE operations, including the potential Saturday ACE service. SRA funds are guaranteed at $10.50 million during the first three years of the SRTP.
LOCAL FUNDING San Joaquin County Measure K – The financial plan assumes funding from Measure K will provide $28.43 million in ACE operating funds over the life of the SRTP.
San Joaquin Local Transportation Funds (LTF) – The financial plan assumes funding from San Joaquin County LTF will provide $41.25 million in ACE operating funds over the life of the SRTP.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Measure B – Alameda County passed a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation improvements. The financial plan assumes that ACTC Measure B will remain at current levels, with escalation aligned with annual inflation, until it expires in FY 2022. Measure B is anticipated to provide $16.46 million in ACE operating funds over the life of the SRTP, including administration fees.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Measure BB – Alameda County voters approved an extension and augmentation of the existing transportation sales tax (Measure B). The financial plan assumes that ACTC Measure BB will remain at current levels, with escalation aligned with annual inflation, until FY 2023. At that time, Measure BB will increase to a one- cent sales tax, resulting in an increase in revenue. Measure BB is anticipated to provide $23.70 million in ACE operating funds over the life of the SRTP.
32 56 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
Santa Clara VTA – Santa Clara County currently provides ACE operating funds. The financial plan assumes funding from VTA to continue at its current level of $3.34 million in FY 2018 dollars and anticipates an escalation aligned with annual inflation. Santa Clara VTA is expected to provide $38.50 million in operating funds over the life of the SRTP.
Transportation for Clean Air (TCFCA) – TCFCA is an existing funding source of operating funds from motor vehicle registration fees. The financial plan assumes funding from TCFCA to remain at its current level, accounting for $1.0 million in operating funds over the life of the SRTP.
FEDERAL FUNDING Federal funding is included as “Prospective Revenues” for the ACE Financial Operating Plan and is described in further detail below.
PROSPECTIVE REVENUES While the current revenue sources providing operating funds for the ACE service adequately cover the first few years of the SRTP, there is still a need for additional operating funds for the Sacramento and Ceres/Merced extensions. Below is an outline of the $73.14 million in prospective revenues necessary to fund the anticipated operating costs of the service expansion.
State Rail Assistance (SB 1) – While $10.50 million in SRA funds are available during the first three years of the SRTP, additional SRA funds are needed to fund expansion operations. Based on current information from CalSTA, approximately $3.50 million in SRA funds will be available per year beginning in FY 2021, resulting in an additional $24.50 million in operating funds.
Stanislaus Local Transportation Funds (LTF) – SJRRC is coordinating an agreement with StanCOG to provide capital and operations funding from the Stanislaus LTF. The plan assumes StanCOG will begin to allocate operating funds starting in FY 2023, accounting for $12.37 million in operating funds over the life of the SRTP. Continued support from StanCOG and Stanislaus County will be necessary to fully fund the operating costs for the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced project.
Additional San Joaquin County Local Transportation Fund – A portion of San Joaquin County’s LTF is distributed to the various cities within the County for Local Streets & Roads projects. Discussions are underway to phase out the Local Streets & Roads funding from LTF distributions, which could potentially result in an increase in LTF funds for SJRRC. While no decisions or policies have been made, $7.77 million in prospective revenues over the life of the SRTP is presented from this source.
FTA Section 5307 – Urbanized Area Formula grants are based on vehicle revenue miles and directional route miles. While maintenance activities are eligible for Section 5307 funding according to federal regulations, ACE does not use 5307 funds for any operating expenses. The operating budget assumes that additional Section 5307 funding from increased vehicle revenue miles and directional route miles associated with the ACE extension projects will be available to ACE for operating expenses beginning in FY 2023. SJRRC is coordinating with other local agencies in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sacramento, and Merced Counties to ensure that Section 5307 funding will be available to ACE for operating expenses. While a portion of the 5307 funds will be needed for capital projects, the remaining funds will be available for operating expenses, accounting for $18.50 million in federal assistance for operating funds over the life of the SRTP.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grants – CMAQ grants provide a potential opportunity to fund three years of operating costs for new services, to be spread out over a five-year period. SJRRC is pursuing CMAQ funding for the initial years of expanded service to Sacramento and Ceres/Merced, accounting for $10 million in operating funds over the life of the SRTP.
While there is no guarantee that any of the prospective revenues will materialize, SJRRC will continue to work with partner agencies, MPOs, and stakeholders to pursue and acquire these, and other, revenue sources.
33 57 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
4.3 SHUTTLE SERVICE
COORDINATION WITH LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES Many ACE commuters rely on several transit providers in the course of their home‐to‐work and work-to-home trips. Optimal ACE service requires a coordinated effort with connecting transit partners so that passengers can transfer conveniently to other transit modes. These same partners also provide support during emergency situations or service interruptions. This ongoing coordination is crucial for continued success. A commitment to this effort requires synchronized policies and procedures in addressing passenger needs for safety, connectivity, and information distribution. ACE has established cooperative relationships in the areas of connectivity, cross-ticketing with Capitol Corridor, operations of shuttles with various transit providers, and operations of ACE-sponsored shuttles. These are described in more detail below.
CONNECTIVITY Shuttle services provide connectivity between ACE and BART, Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, CCCTA, and VTA, as follows: • Wheels at Pleasanton station, providing a short shuttle to BART • Caltrain at Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon stations • Capitol Corridor at Fremont, Great America, and San Jose Diridon stations • VTA shuttles at Great America • VTA light rail at Great America and San Jose Diridon stations • CCCTA at Pleasanton station • AC Transit at Fremont station • Tracy Tracer at Tracy station • Modesto Max at Lathrop/Manteca station
The limitations of a four round trip train schedule present a challenge when matching ACE train schedules to the transfers at various locations along the corridor. Improving the connectivity with these systems will likely require that ACE offer additional trains with shorter headways along the segment from Stockton to San Jose. Another challenge for time‐sensitive connectivity is the train delays that occur due to track and signal conditions or other train interferences. Future capacity and improvement projects are imperative to ensure reliable connections to these transit links.
CROSS‐TICKETING WITH CAPITOL CORRIDOR In an effort to demonstrate the overall benefit of cross‐ticketing programs, ACE and Capitol Corridor entered into a ticketing agreement that allows passengers to ride either system between San Jose and Fremont (including buses) with a valid ticket.
SHUTTLES Through agreements between the SJRRC and various transit providers, ACE passengers can access various dedicated shuttles and fixed-route bus services free of charge to reach their final destinations. A significant percentage of ACE passengers rely on shuttle services at their destination stations, as the employment sites are not located within reasonable walking distance. Currently, approximately 75% of the morning passengers destined for the Vasco and Pleasanton Stations transfer to shuttle services. Similarly, over 80% of the morning passengers destined for the Great America station use VTA shuttles or private shuttles sponsored by their employers.
34 58 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
ACE SPONSORED SHUTTLES SJRRC contributes funds toward ACE-sponsored shuttle program between certain ACE stations and jobsites. These services include Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels), Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection), and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Brief descriptions of the ACE sponsored shuttles and other supplemental shuttle services are listed below.
Table 4.2—ACE Sponsored Shuttles
Sponsored Shuttles Description CCCTA (County Connection) Provides service to Pleasanton Station from Walnut Creek via stops in Danville and San Ramon. Buses are then reversed to carry Pleasanton passengers back to Bishop Ranch Business Park in San Ramon. The service is reversed for the evening commute. The CCCTA shuttles at the Pleasanton Station are ADA-accessible. VTA Providing the most extensive shuttle coverage for the ACE service, VTA offers dedicated ACE shuttles from Great America Station. Through third party contracting, a fleet of ten vehicles provides service on eight shuttle routes extending to the Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas areas. VTA also provides fixed-route shuttles at Santa Clara Station (Airport Flyer to the San Jose Airport at 15‐minute intervals) and at the San Jose Station (DASH to Downtown, 10 to 15‐minute intervals). LAVTA (Wheels) Provides service to the Downtown Livermore transit center via fixed-route service with 20 to 30‐minute headways on various routes. It also operates two dedicated fixed-route services from the Pleasanton Station to various business parks, as well as providing a direct link to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Stoneridge Business Park. The LAVTA shuttles at the Livermore and Pleasanton Stations are ADA-accessible.
Dedicated shuttle services, in partnership with the ACE, are funded through a combination of Bay Area Air Quality Management District grants, local contributions, and employer contributions in proportion to the ACE operations cost‐ sharing formula. However, these grant funds are not guaranteed in the future, and the identification of a dedicated source for this vital link to jobsites is a significant priority.
35 59 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
Table 4.3—Supplemental Shuttle Services Sponsored Shuttles Description AC Transit Operates a cross‐bay Stanford Express (U Line) route partly funded by Stanford University, connecting with ACE trains at the Centerville Station in Fremont. Routes 210 and 211 also operate in the area along Fremont Boulevard in northbound and southbound directions. Major destinations along these routes include Ohlone College, Fremont BART, and Union City BART.
Modesto Max Modesto Max provides service to the Lathrop/Manteca station via a shuttle originating at the Vintage Faire Mall Park & Ride lot in Modesto, which costs $2.00 each way for all passengers.
Lab Shuttle LLNL The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory provides private shuttle service for its employees, connecting with most ACE trains at the Vasco Road station.
Tracy Tracer Tracy Tracer provides service to the Tracy station Monday-Friday via a bus originating at the Tracy Transit Station. The service makes connections with ACE 03, 05, and 07 in the morning and ACE 04 and 06 in the evening.
Table 4.4—Transit Providers by Station ACE Station Transit Providers Lathrop Manteca Modesto Max
Tracy Tracy Tracer
Vasco Road Livermore Lab Shuttle, Wheels
Livermore Wheels
Pleasanton County Connection, Wheels, BART (via Wheels shuttle)
Fremont AC Transit, private shuttle operators, Capitol Corridor
Great America VTA, private shuttle operators
Santa Clara VTA, VTA Airport Flyer, Capitol Corridor, Caltrain
San Jose Diridon VTA (Dash), Capitol Corridor, Caltrain
36 60 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
CHAPTER 5: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
5.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY SJRRC’s capital improvement strategy places an emphasis on sustainability in both its financial and operational capacities. In order to support this goal, the agency is developing conceptual cost estimates of proposed capital projects and techniques for implementing cost‐effective capital improvements. Though SJRRC is focusing on diversifying revenue opportunities, the agency is cautious with funding by spending only within its means. Looking forward, SJRRC is also looking to identify system expansion, rehabilitation, and replacement opportunities, as well as improvements required to realize service goals.
5.2 10‐YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (FY 2018-2027) The 10‐Year Capital Improvement Plan documents the financial assumptions for implementing the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP Projects are necessary to maintain, expand, and enhance ACE service. The 10‐year SRTP envisions a $1.217 billion program, of which the principal components are the service extensions to Ceres/Merced and Sacramento, as well as fleet expansions to support the expanded services. The revenues in the proposed Capital Improvement Plan are available through a range of federal, state, and local sources, according to best estimates of funding availability and the applicability and eligibility of the projects. Known revenues on the capital side are expected to remain level.
A summary of the Capital Improvement Plan is provided below (see Table 5.1). For a more detailed listing of cost estimates and projected revenues for the CIP, see Table 5.2. Improvements and expansions pursued beyond the ACE core service and the ACE extension Ceres/Merced and Sacramento are contingent upon the continued receipt of additional funding. SB 1 funds make up a large portion of the $500.50 million in awarded TIRCP funds for the extension to Sacramento. A repeal of SB 1 would significantly impact the available funding for Valley Rail and likely prevent the extension of ACE service to Sacramento for the foreseeable future. Support for SB 1, and other local, state, and federal sources of capital funding, is necessary for SJRRC to expand ACE service into new markets.
Table 5.1—SJRRC 10‐Year CIP Summary
Program Cost Summary FY 2018-2027 Sacramento Extension $311,407,453 Ceres/Merced Extension $350,259,131 Fleet Expansion $255,479,217 Other Valley Rail Projects $70,340,000 Other Capital Improvements $36,770,000 Railcar Midlife Overhaul $12,090,000 UPRR Trackage Rights Costs $123,427,915 Long-Term Debt Repayment $40,980,000 Positive Train Control $3,860,000 Capital Spares $12,550,000
Total Costs $1,217,163,716
37 61 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
Table 5.2—Capital Improvement Plan
SJRRC 10‐YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (FY 2018 -FY2027) ($ millions, current dollars)
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 Total Expenses Capital Projects Sacramento Extension - 24.14 92.97 99.53 46.02 48.75 - - - - 311.41 Ceres/Merced Extension 0.90 63.71 107.03 106.73 12.85 59.04 - - - - 350.26 Fleet Expansion 8.82 31.08 171.78 31.81 - 12.00 - - - - 255.49 Other Valley Rail Projects - 4.01 24.63 29.36 12.34 - - - - - 70.34 Stockton Track Extension - 7.22 17.22 ------24.44 Robert J. Cabral Station Expansion - 1.31 ------1.31 Platform Extension Projects - 8.95 ------8.95 East Channel Street Streetscape and Connectivity Project 0.03 2.04 ------2.07 Railcar Midlife Overhaul - - 6.16 5.93 ------12.09 UPRR Trackage Rights Costs 3.24 3.24 4.59 4.59 4.59 6.84 6.84 7.53 7.53 7.53 56.52 UPRR Capitalized Maintenance 4.00 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 8.00 8.00 8.80 8.80 8.80 66.90 Long-Term Debt Repayment 4.15 4.15 4.14 4.14 4.12 4.12 4.09 4.06 4.02 3.99 40.98 Positive Train Control 0.80 3.06 ------3.86 Capital Spares 1.13 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 12.55 TOTAL EXPENSES 23.06 158.04 435.18 288.79 86.65 140.02 20.23 21.73 21.73 21.75 1,217.18 Revenues Federal Assistance FTA 5307 3.51 3.34 2.25 3.74 3.87 3.95 4.03 4.11 4.20 4.28 37.29 FTA 5337 4.66 7.34 5.79 5.01 8.12 8.43 8.74 9.05 9.36 9.67 76.16 FTA - 5307 - MTC (Railcar Midlife Overhaul) - - 0.10 1.52 ------1.62 FTA - 5337 - MTC (Railcar Midlife Overhaul) - - 6.06 4.42 ------10.47 FTA 5309 - 1.79 ------1.79 FTA 5307 FHWA Funds Transfer - 0.55 2.26 ------2.81 CMAQ - 5.18 ------5.18 Subtotal 8.16 18.20 16.46 14.68 11.99 12.38 12.77 13.16 13.55 13.94 135.32 State Assistance TIRCP FY16 0.20 8.95 7.50 ------16.65 TIRCP FY 18 - 24.14 250.40 119.19 46.02 60.75 - - - - 500.50 SB-132 9.72 90.64 107.03 120.72 12.85 59.04 - - - - 400.00 Prop 1A - 2.50 8.08 ------10.58 2016 Earmark Repurposing - - 6.88 ------6.88 LCTOP - 0.65 ------0.65 Carl Moyer - - 7.50 ------7.50 State Rail Assistance (SB 1) – SJJPA - 3.10 4.00 ------7.10 State of Good Repair (SB 1) - 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 2.79 Subtotal 9.92 130.29 391.70 240.22 59.18 120.10 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 942.76
38 62 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 Total Local Assistance San Joaquin County Measure K 3.65 3.67 3.69 3.71 3.73 3.75 3.77 3.79 3.81 3.83 37.40 San Joaquin County Measure K (Track Extension) - 2.38 ------2.38 San Joaquin County Measure K - Smart Growth - 2.00 ------2.00 SJCOG RTIF 0.03 0.04 ------0.07 ACTC Measure B 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - - - - - 10.00 ACTC Measure BB - - - - - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 Bond Rebate 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 8.90 Subtotal 6.57 10.98 6.58 6.60 6.62 6.64 6.66 6.68 6.70 6.72 70.75 TOTAL REVENUES 24.66 159.47 414.74 261.50 77.79 139.12 19.74 20.15 20.56 20.97 1,158.73 Net Capital Surplus/(Deficit) 1.59 1.43 (-20.44) (-27.28) (-8.85) (-0.89) (-0.49) (-1.58) (-1.17) (-0.77) (-58.45) Prospective Revenues State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - - 10.19 20.91 12.34 - - - - - 43.44 FTA 5307 - - 3.00 2.00 - 3.65 3.74 3.84 2.75 2.84 21.82 FTA 5337 - - 2.00 1.00 ------3.00 Measure K - ACE Extension Capital Improvements - 0.91 3.60 3.60 ------8.10 Stanislaus LTF - - 1.85 1.85 ------3.70 TOTAL PROSPECTIVE REVENUES 0.00 0.91 20.63 29.36 12.34 3.65 3.74 3.84 2.75 2.84 80.06 Net Capital Surplus/(Deficit) with Prospective Revenues 1.59 2.34 0.19 2.07 3.49 2.76 3.25 2.26 1.58 2.07 21.61
6339 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
CAPITAL PROJECTS The ACE Capital Improvement Program for the SRTP includes capital projects designed to construct, rehabilitate, replace, or upgrade the equipment, facilities, and infrastructure used to operate both the existing ACE and expanded ACE service to Sacramento and Ceres/Merced. SJRRC does not own the rail line, but leases the rights to operate the trains from the Union Pacific Railroad and the Peninsula JPB. The projects found in the CIP include improvements that are necessary to expand service to Sacramento and Ceres/Merced. Additional projects in the CIP will provide a direct benefit to the speed and reliability of the existing ACE service. Past capital projects have shown immediate benefits by allowing the ACE trains to bypass slower freight trains without delay, and by reducing the commute time through track and signal upgrades. The projects are also consistent with the ACE passengers’ priorities for service improvements that were identified in past onboard surveys. More detailed descriptions of the CIP and specific future projects are included below.
ACE EXTENSION LATHROP TO CERES/MERCED The ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced project makes up a large portion of SJRRC’s CIP over the next ten years. The project contains both Phase I and Phase II improvements. The Phase I improvements will be analyzed at a project level of detail based on preliminary engineering and Phase II improvements are analyzed at a programmatic, more conceptual level of detail because only conceptual engineering has been completed at this time. Phase I improvements would support the ACE service extension to Ceres and Phase II improvements would support the ACE service extension to Merced. No improvements are proposed along the existing ACE corridor between Stockton and San Jose. However, where applicable, the EIR will analyze Phase I operational impacts due to changes in ridership at existing ACE destination stations in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The extension from Ceres to Merced is analyzed at a programmatic-level at this time because this extension would be implemented at a later date, and because the location of the ACE Merced Station is dependent on the final location of the High- Speed Rail station and may be subject to change. Thus, the analysis of the extension to Merced is more general in nature, and a more detailed subsequent project-level analysis would be undertaken in the future prior to approval of the Merced extension. The ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced draft EIR was released for public comment on April 13, 2018, with the comment period closing on May 28, 2018. The EIR process will determine which improvements are part of the final build scenario. As required by CEQA, the EIR considers a reasonable range of alternatives in addition to the proposed project. A brief description of the capital improvements needed for the project can be found below.
OVERVIEW OF PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS Phase I improvements that are part of the project consists of the following: • A new North Lathrop Station and/or new Relocated Lathrop and/or track improvements at the Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station; • A new Oakland-Fresno Subdivision Connection which would construct a new track connection between the Oakland and Fresno Subdivisions; • A Ceres Extension Alignment consisting of upgrades to track, new tracks and bridges within the UPRR Fresno Subdivision between Lathrop and Ceres; • New Downtown Manteca, Ripon, Modesto, and Ceres Stations along the extension alignment; • A new temporary Ceres Layover Facility (two variants under consideration, variants 1 or 2) to support extension operations until the extension to Merced is constructed, at which time a permanent layover facility would be located in Merced; and • An interim bus bridge between Merced and Ceres, with stops at the Turlock, Livingston, and Merced Bus Stops.
40 64 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
OVERVIEW OF PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS Phase II improvements that are part of the project consists of the following: • A Merced Extension Alignment consisting of upgrades and new tracks and bridges within the UPRR Fresno Subdivision between Ceres and Merced; • New Turlock, Livingston or Atwater, and Merced Stations along the extension alignment; and • A new permanent Merced Layover Facility to support extension operations (which would replace the temporary Ceres Layover Facility constructed in the Phase I).
ACE EXTENSION TO SACRAMENTO The ACE Extension to Sacramento makes up a significant portion of SJRRC’s CIP over the next ten years. Capital projects for the extension includes improvements to existing UPRR track along the Sacramento Subdivision, including track curve reconstruction, new passing siding track, and new crossover track. These improvements are necessary to increase allowable train speeds and meet operational requirements. All of the proposed track work would occur within existing UPRR right of way. Stations and facilities anticipated to be constructed for the Sacramento extension include: • Lodi Station • Elk Grove Station • City College Station • Midtown Station • Old North Sacramento Station • Natomas/Airport Station • Natomas Layover Facility
The environmental work being conducted for the ACE Extension to Sacramento will ultimately determine the improvements, stations, and facilities constructed.
OTHER VALLEY RAIL PROJECTS In addition to the projects listed under the Sacramento and Ceres/Merced extensions, there are a number of projects required as part of the Valley Rail project that are not fully funded by either SB 132 or TIRCP. These include partial funding for the Old North Sacramento, Manteca, Ripon, and Modesto Stations; Sacramento Subdivision track work; the Stockton Wye track connection; and the Madera Station Relocation. $43.44 million of the $70.34 million for Other Valley Rail projects is from the Old North Sacramento and Madera Station Relocation projects. While the Madera Station Relocation is an SJJPA project, it is included within SJRRC’s CIP as it part of the overall Valley Rail project that is guiding SJRRC’s capital improvements over the next ten years.
ACE MAINTENANCE AND LAYOVER FACILITY As part of the Ceres/Merced and Sacramento extensions, two new layover facilities would be constructed; one in Ceres and one in Natomas. Once rail service in Merced becomes operational, the temporary layover facility in Ceres would be replaced by a permanent layover facility in Merced. The layover facilities would be fully fenced and would include temporary buildings for offices and supply storage. Light maintenance of ACE trains at the proposed layover facilities would be limited to cleaning and fueling. Heavy maintenance of ACE trains would occur at the existing ACE RMF in Stockton.
LONG-TERM DEBT REPAYMENT This San Joaquin Council of Governments loan was taken out as advanced funding for the acquisition of the 64‐acre property for the maintenance and Layover Facility project.
41 65 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
UPRR CAPITAL ACCESS FEE An annual capital access fee is required in January of each year to operate the ACE trains along the existing 86‐mile corridor. This is part of the second amendment to the SJRRC/UPRR Trackage Rights Agreement, which was approved in December 2003. The trackage rights fee will increase as a result of the Sacramento and Ceres/Merced extensions capital improvement projects.
CAPITAL SPARES (“PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE”) SJRRC houses an inventory of spare parts to maintain ACE rolling stock, equipment, and structures in a state of good repair. The inventory of parts is kept to ensure the rolling stock is service-ready at all times. Typical purchases include windows for the cars and locomotives, brake shoes, wheels, reconditioning of brake valves, and system and components for the electrical equipment.
STOCKTON TRACK EXTENSION PROJECT Currently, south-bound Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) trains exit the ACE RMF north of the Stockton Station and travel a short distance on the Sacramento Subdivision, switch to the Fresno Subdivision for approximately one mile, then switch from the Fresno Subdivision to the Stockton Station lead/station track. The Stockton Track Extension Project would allow the ACE trains to exit the RMF, operate a short distance on the Sacramento Subdivision, and then proceed directly onto an extended Cabral station lead/station track. The project would also facilitate more efficient connections between the ACE and San Joaquins Amtrak trains by providing flexibility in train dispatching for opposing meets.
ROBERT J. CABRAL STATION EXPANSION PROJECT The Robert J. Cabral Station Expansion Project will see the construction of an additional park and ride lot and related on-street parking, sidewalks, lighting, security, and other passenger amenity improvements near the Robert J. Cabral Station in Stockton. The project is located at the site of the old Western Pacific depot building and will include the renovation of a portion of the building.
PLATFORM EXTENSION PROJECTS To address capacity issues on the existing ACE service, the length of platforms at five ACE stations are being extended to accommodate ten-car trainsets. The five platforms are located at the current ACE stations in Lathrop/Manteca, Tracy, Vasco, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Extending existing station platforms promotes efficient and safe boarding and alighting of passengers at the stations and allows for longer trainsets to carry more passengers. Funding is also being pursued to extend the platform length at the Fremont Station, although costs and funding are not included in the CIP.
EAST CHANNEL STREET STREETSCAPE AND CONNECTIVITY PROJECT In early 2017, SJRRC initiated a planning process to develop streetscape design concepts for Each Channel Street between North Aurora Street and North Hunter Street, with the goal of greatly enhancing walkability and connectivity between Cabral Station, RTD’s Downtown Transit Center, and Downtown Stockton. The first phase of this project would complete improvements along East Channel Street between North Aurora and a ½ block west of North Stanislaus Street. Future phases could provide further enhancements along the Channel Street corridor between North Aurora Street and North Hunter Street, as well as improvements to cross streets. Additionally, improvements will include ADA infrastructure at the intersections and pedestrian crossing signals that will vastly improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Planning work for the project incorporated input from local community members through workshops held along the Channel Street corridor.
42 66 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
SJRRC VISIONARY PROJECTS In addition to a robust Capital Improvement Plan, SJRRC is positioning to implement projects that are conceivable, but not yet fully developed or funded. These project are part of SJRRC’s vision for the mid-term: • Station Are Development & Enhancement – SJRRC is committed to expanding public/private development partnerships with the communities & companies surrounding the stations. SJRRC envisions a facilitation role with communities and private developers ready to lead Transit Oriented Development (TOD) efforts. SJRRC is positioned to provide administrative and professional service in support of transit-supportive land use projects. The East Channel Street Streetscape and Connectivity Project is an example of a funded TOD partnership intended to improve the area surrounding the Cabral Station in Stockton. • Rail Service Amenities – Planning is underway to build on the amenities included in the CIP. Continued enhancements could include station upgrades, rail car upgrades, and equipment modernization.
FUNDING SOURCES Included funding sources are Federal, State, and local funding. These are described below.
FEDERAL FUNDING FTA Section 5307 and Section 5337 Funds – Urbanized Area Formula funds are allocated to two different agencies in the ACE service area: MTC for the San Francisco/Oakland, Concord, and Livermore Urbanized Areas; and SJCOG for the Stockton Urbanized Area. SJRRC anticipates $38.91 million in 5307 and $86.63 million in 5337 in capital funds over the life of the SRTP, including funds for Railcar Midlife Overhaul.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Funds Transfer would provide $2.81 million of FHWA funds to partially fund the Stockton Track Extension project. Also programmed to this project is $1.79 million in FTA Section 5309 funds.
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are administered through a competitive process by MTC and SJCOG, the metropolitan planning organizations within the ACE corridor. An existing allocation of CMAQ for $5.18 million is programmed for railcar purchase ($3.5 million), Robert J. Cabral Station Expansion Project ($1.31 million), and Positive Train Control ($.37 million).
STATE FUNDING State funding accounts for $942.76 million of the $1,158.73 million in available revenue in the Capital Improvement Plan, over 81% of total funding.
The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Project (TIRCP) was created under Senate Bill (SB) 862 and modified by SB 9 to provide grants from the Greenhouse Reduction Fund to fund transformative capital improvements that will modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, as well as bus and ferry transit systems, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by reducing congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) throughout California. TIRCP funds from FY 2016 were applied to the purchase of new Tier IV locomotives and the Platform Extension Projects, accounting for $16.65 million of the SRTP funding. In addition to the TIRCP FY 2016 funds, Carl Moyer Program and Low Carbon Transit Operations Program funds provide an additional $8.15 million over the lifetime of the SRTP towards the purchase of new Tier IV locomotives. The recent award of $500.50 million in FY 2018 TIRCP funds accounts for a substantial portion of funding in the CIP.
Senate Bill (SB) 132 approved $400 million in funds for the extension of ACE service to Ceres/Merced. Proposition 1A approved the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds, $10.58 million of which would partially fund the Stockton Track Extension Project over the life of the SRTP. Additionally, the State repurposed $6.88 million of 2016 earmarked federal funds to partially fund the Stockton Track Extension Project.
43 67 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
State Rail Assistance (SB 1) – It is anticipated that $7.10 million in SJJPA’s State Rail Assistance (SRA) allocation will be utilized to construct a portion of the Stockton Wye track component.
State of Good Repair (SB 1) – This SB 1 program provides funding of approximately $105 million annually to the State Transit Assistance Account and are made available to eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects. SJRRC anticipates $2.79 in funds over the life of the SRTP.
LOCAL FUNDING Local funding consists primarily of transportation sales tax revenues earmarked for ACE service in the Measure B and Measure BB programs in Alameda County and the Measure K program in San Joaquin County, as well as local funds from the SJCOG Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) and bond rebates. SJRRC has also secured $2.00 million in funding from the San Joaquin County Measure K Smart Growth Incentive Program, which is programmed toward the East Channel Street Streetscape and Connectivity Project. The total revenues generated by local funding are $70.75 million over the 10‐year transit plan.
PROSPECTIVE REVENUES While the current revenue sources providing capital funds for the Capital Improvement Plan cover a significant portion of projects, there is still a need receive additional capital funds for some project components within the Sacramento and Ceres/Merced Extensions. SJRRC will continue to work with partner agencies, MPOs, and stakeholders to pursue and acquire these, and other, revenue sources. Below is an outline of the $80.06 million in prospective revenues necessary to fund the remaining capital costs of the service expansion.
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – The STIP is a biennial five-year plan adopted by the Commission for future allocations of certain state transportation funds for state highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements. SJRRC is exploring the possibility of applying for $43.44 million in STIP funds to complete the Old North Sacramento Station and Madera Station Relocation.
FTA Section 5307 – SJRRC anticipates receiving additional 5307 funds once the Sacramento and Ceres/Merced extension become operational. If these funds materialize, it is anticipated that $21.82 million will be available for capital projects. This figure includes $5.00 million in 5307 cost-savings from existing FTA apportionments.
FTA Section 5337 – Over the life of the SRTP, SJRRC is prospecting an additional $3.00 million in 5337 will be made available due to cost savings.
Measure K – SJRRC is exploring the opportunity to receive $8.10 million in additional Measure K funds beyond the normal allocation to complete construction of Manteca and Ripon Stations, although this funding is not guaranteed.
Stanislaus Local Transportation Funds (LTF) – SJRRC coordinating an agreement with StanCOG to provide capital and operations funding from the Stanislaus LTF. The plan assumes StanCOG will begin to allocate capital funds starting in FY 2020, accounting for $3.70 million in capital funds over the life of the SRTP. Continued support from StanCOG and Stanislaus County will be necessary to fully fund the capital costs for the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced project.
44 68 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
5.3 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT, REHABILITATION AND EXPANSION FLEET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Rolling stock servicing, maintenance, repair, and primary cleaning activities are performed at the ACE RMF between evening and morning revenue service. The program meets or exceeds all applicable FRA and CPUC regulations, AAR and APTA standards/recommended practices, and accepted industry standards. The terms of the manufacturer’s warranty on the equipment are complied with, and any obligations of any such warranty are fulfilled. All work is performed in accordance with manufacturer’s maintenance instructions.
Approved maintenance, test, and service forms for the inspections and work performed are utilized in accordance with detailed printed instructions, with sign‐off by individuals performing the work. All work is reviewed and given signature approval by the manager in charge. The program criteria comprise the following elements:
VEHICLE REHABILITATION SJRRC projects that the locomotive fleet requires a midlife overhaul at approximately ten years of current service experience. The scope of locomotive overhaul incorporates all activities to accommodate an additional ten years of reliable service life prior to a complete rebuild. Additionally, EPA Tier requirements for emissions are an integral component of the scope. The prime mover engines are being upgraded from no tier to tier 0+ and the HEP engines are being upgraded from no Tier to Tier 3 emissions standards. These upgrades are anticipated to significantly reduce the ACE service’s emissions, supporting SJRRC’s environmental commitment to the region.
The performance of midlife overhauls of existing ACE railcars will also be required to extend their useful life. The railcars being rehabilitated are approaching twenty years of service, and overhauls will increase the life of each railcar by 25 years. Rehabilitation of existing ACE railcars will help maintain the equipment in a state of good repair.
ROLLING STOCK PURCHASE As previously mentioned, SJRRC is undergoing an ambitious expansion effort to improve the capacity of existing ACE service, as well as extend service to Ceres/Merced and Sacramento. Based on the planned service levels for both the ACE core service and the extensions, additional locomotives and rail cars will be required to provide the necessary capacity for both the core and expanded service.
Due to increase in core ridership (Stockton to San Jose), SJRRC is anticipating increasing consist size to maintain the available core capacity. As a result, SJRRC is pursuing a joint procurement opportunity to purchase five rail cars to augment the existing ACE service. Working in conjunction with the Platform Extension Projects, the new rail cars will create longer train consists that can transport more passengers between the Central Valley and Silicon Valley. These rail cars are anticipated to arrive in the fall of 2020. Additional rail cars will also be needed for service to Ceres/Merced and Sacramento, with SJRRC working with the state to procure additional rail cars. The exact size and scope of future rail car procurement will be known once the environmental processes for the respective expansions are complete. Over the life of the SRTP, $112.89 million is available for ACE rail car purchases.
SJRRC is currently in contract to purchase four new Tier IV locomotives. Two of the new locomotives will replace existing ACE Tier 0+ locomotives, while the other two will be added to the fleet for the Ceres/Merced and Sacramento extensions. The first Tier IV locomotive is scheduled to arrive in December 2019 and replace one of the existing locomotives not soon after. The remaining three Tier IV locomotives are scheduled for delivery in May 2020, with one replacing another existing locomotive. The contract also includes the option to purchase an additional four Tier IV locomotives over the life of the contract, as additional locomotives will also be needed for the service extensions. Over the life of the SRTP, $62.59 million is available for ACE locomotive purchases.
45 69 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
Also included in SJRRC’s Fleet Expansion is the purchase zero-emission buses for the bus bridges between Ceres and Merced. The new buses will begin operation in FY 2023 and provide a link between Merced residents and rail service in Ceres. In total, there is $12 million available for the procurement of buses over the life of the SRTP.
The Fleet Expansion line item in the Capital Improvement Plan also includes $68 million for rolling stock purchase for the San Joaquins intercity rail service. Although this equipment will be procured by SJRRC staff, the equipment will not be used for the ACE service.
DAILY INSPECTION AND SERVICING Beginning on Sunday evening or upon completion of weekday PM revenue peak service, each train consist is cycled into the facility where initial servicing is performed. All daily scheduled inspections are performed in compliance with regulatory requirements, unscheduled repairs are performed as necessary, and cleaning activities are completed.
PREVENTIVE AND PERIODIC MAINTENANCE Each unit of equipment requiring preventive/periodic maintenance is scheduled efficiently to preserve equipment availability requirements. These activities are performed with the intact train approach where practical.
Scheduled preventive maintenance inspections for cars and locomotives provide intermediate analysis of equipment functionality and a preventive type inspection. These identify potential component defects prior to actual failure, comprising: • 30-day cycle for car numbered inspections 1‐12 • 46-day cycle for locomotive and cab car preventive maintenance
Scheduled periodic maintenance inspections for cars and locomotives meet or exceed all regulatory requirements including: • 49 CFR required 92-, 184-, 368- and 1472- day periodic maintenance for cab control cars including air brake • 49 CFR required 184- and 1472-day periodic maintenance for trailer cars including air brake • 49 CFR required 92-, 184-, 368- and 147-2 day periodic maintenance for locomotives, including air brake; this also involves detailed engine, rotating electrical, primary and ancillary systems inspections with performance testing and adjustment
RUNNING AND HEAVY REPAIR Running and heavy repairs are performed as required in the most efficient manner possible. As many repairs as possible are performed with the train consist intact at the Stockton facility. This increases equipment availability while decreasing unproductive change-out of equipment. The need for these repairs is determined from inspections, crew reports, internal audits, oil analyses, regulatory audits and road failures.
REGULATORY MODIFICATIONS PASSENGER RAIL EQUIPMENT SAFETY STANDARDS (PRESS) The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have a Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS) Committee. This committee recommends modifications or changes to passenger rail equipment and other additional safety measures in response to data compiled from rail incidents over the past 10 years. As part of the recommended changes, several modifications to existing ACE equipment will be required over the next several years.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) The Code of Federal Regulations, Part 89, describes emission reduction measures for diesel engines. It includes both the locomotive prime mover engine and the Head End Power (HEP) unit. These reduction measures require that at the time of rebuilding/overhauling an engine, the rebuilt engine must meet specific improved emissions criteria. Typically, engine
46 70 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027 manufacturers develop a modification kit to allow the rebuilt engines to meet the new emissions requirements, but to date, neither Cummins nor Caterpillar, who supply the Head End Power engines for the ACE locomotives, plans to develop a modification kit for their engines.
POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEM (FRA) The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA 08) mandated the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) on all commuter and inter‐city railroads. PTC is a proactive system of train control which uses on‐board computers, wayside signal equipment, radio communications systems, and GPS to continuously monitor train operations. This system applies the brakes automatically if it determines that the train is likely to violate a red signal or is traveling too fast for civil speed restrictions or maintenance activities. All affected railroads to have FRA‐approved and operating PTC systems in place no later than December 31, 2018.
Because ACE operates as a tenant on other railroads’ corridors, ACE is not responsible for submitting a PTC Implementation plan. PTC Implementation plans have been submitted by UPRR and Caltrain. SJRRC’s responsibilities for PTC is limited to the installation of the on‐board computer control systems and coordination with the owning railroads for testing and systems integration. Expenditures and funding for the installation of PTC on‐board equipment is included in the Capital Improvement Program.
47 71 of 158 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Short Range Transit Plan FY 2018-2027
CHAPTER 6: OTHER REQUIREMENTS
6.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH SJRRC conducts frequent public meetings and open houses to receive public input from local businesses, organizations, agencies, riders, and other key stakeholders to ensure that all concerns are considered regarding the ACE Corridor. SJRRC prioritizes public participation in the planning process and provides excellent public transparency via various platforms. All documents made public are provided online as well as in physical form at SJRRC Headquarters. Documents for public comment are also provided at public locations such as local libraries to ensure that all members of the public have adequate access to information and the ability to make public comment. Notices for public comment and participation are typically published in local newspapers such as The Stockton Record, San Jose Mercury News, and the Tri-Valley Herald.
SJRRC released an administrative draft of this FY 2018-2027 SRTP for public and stakeholder review and comments at the May 4, 2018 SJRRC Board meeting.
48 72 of 158 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of August 3, 2018
STAFF REPORT
Item 3.8 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing the Executive Director to Submit and Execute Any and All Grant Applications, Agreements, Amendments and Any Other Documents Necessary to Claim $198,960 in FY 2018-19 State of Good Repair (SGR) Program Funds for Facility Upgrades and Improvements
Background: Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) created the State of Good Repair (SGR) Program to provide approximately $105 million annually to transit operators in California for eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects. The SGR Program is funded from a portion of a new Transportation Improvement Fee on vehicle registrations due on or after January 1, 2018.
The SGR Program will benefit the public by providing public transportation agencies with a consistent and dependable revenue source to invest in the upgrade, repair, and improvement of transportation infrastructure and in turn improve transportation services. As the Program has a specific goal of keeping transit systems in a state of good repair, including the maintenance and rehabilitation of transit vehicles and facilities, staff is recommending the FY 2018-19 allocation of SGR funds be utilized for facility upgrades and improvements. • Facility Upgrades and Improvements: Maintaining and improving ACE’s transit facilities is well aligned with the SGR Program. Funds will be utilized to repair the old Western Pacific Depot building and make the remaining building usable for ACE service.
Future SGR funding will be brought before the Board to determine the allocation among applicable projects.
Fiscal Impact: Allocated SGR funding will be included in a future budget amendment and presented to the Board at an upcoming meeting.
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing the Executive Director to Submit and Execute Any and All Grant Applications, Agreements, Amendments and Any Other Documents Necessary to Claim $198,960 in FY 2018-19 State of Good Repair (SGR) Program Funds for Facility Upgrades and Improvements.
73 of 158 RESOLUTION SJRRC-R-18/19-07
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL GRANT APPLICATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AMENDMENTS AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CLAIM $198,960 IN FY 2018-19 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR (SGR) PROGRAM FUNDS FOR FACILITY UPGRADES AND IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, SJRRC is an eligible project sponsor and may receive State Transit Assistance funding from the State of Good Repair Account (SGR) now or sometime in the future for transit projects; and
WHEREAS, the statutes related to state-funded transit projects require a local or regional implementing agency to abide by various regulations; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (2017) named the Department of Transportation (Department) as the administrative agency for the SGR; and
WHEREAS, the Department has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering and distributing SGR funds to eligible project sponsors (local agencies); and
WHEREAS, SJRRC wishes to delegate authorization to execute these documents and any amendments thereto to the Executive Director; and
WHEREAS, SJRRC wishes to utilize SGR funding for facility upgrades and improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission authorizes the Executive Director to submit and execute any and all grant applications, agreements, amendments and any other documents necessary to claim $198,960 in FY 2018-19 State of Good Repair (SGR) Program funds for facility upgrades and improvements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Commissioners this 3rd day of August 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary STEVE DRESSER, Chair
74 of 158 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of August 3, 2018
STAFF REPORT
Item 3.9 INFORMATION Construction & Installation of the Wayside Power - Contract Change Order #01
Background: On February 2, 2018, the Board of Commissioners approved a resolution for Construction and Installation of the Wayside Power. The contract was awarded to Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. in the amount of $222,000.
The main purpose of the Wayside Power is to provide temporary plug-in power to the trains when the locomotive engines have been shut down and/or disconnected. Eliminating the idling of a locomotive’s diesel engine during maintenance reduces the number of toxins released into the environment, noise pollution, fuel consumption, and wear and tear to the engines. The Rail Maintenance Facility currently has two (2) Wayside Power units and desires to install an additional two (2) more units.
Prior to the pre-construction contract kickoff meeting, Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. notified the Rail Commission through a Request for Information (RFI) that the design for the Wayside Power Cabinets showed each being fed with one (1) four-inch (4”) conduit, three (3) #500 KCMIL, 1/0 Ground from an existing 800 Amperage breaker. The ampacity of the conductors is only half of what is required to feed both Power Cabinets. The error was made by the design engineer, Mott MacDonald, LLC, thus needed to be corrected.
Mott MacDonald revised the design to the correct specifications at no additional cost to the Rail Commission and agreed to lower their overall contract amount by $12,543.
A Contract Change Order (CCO) was necessary to install the required additional conduits and revise the galvanized rigid conduit to Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT) as a value engineering approached. CCO #01 was executed by SJRRC and Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. in the amount of $51,000.
The CCO is within the signature authority given to the Executive Director, therefore Board Action is not required. However, the SJRRC Procurement Manual does require CCO’s of this amount to be reported to the Board. The project has been completed as of July 5, 2018 and is currently operating.
Fiscal Impact: Costs associated with the Contract Change Order #01 are identified in the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2017/2018 Capital Budget.
Recommendation: This an informational item. There is no action requested.
75 of 158 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of August 3, 2018
STAFF REPORT
Item 4 ACTION Conduct a Public Hearing on the Proposed ACE Fare Increase, Accept Report Summarizing Comments Received during the Public Comment Period, and Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Adopting a Fare Increase of 6% for all ACE Service Fare Media Rounded up to the Nearest 25¢, Effective January 2, 2019 for the Altamont Corridor Express Service
Background: In 2012, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) approved a fare increase of 10% for the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service effective January 1, 2013. As part of the public comments, passengers expressed a desire to have annual fare increases in small increments rather than larger increases every few years. This was consistent with the adopted Fare Program which allows for annual increases. However, further evaluation of cost and required staff time involved deemed a biennial increase more acceptable and cost effective.
In May 2014, the Rail Commission approved a 4.75% fare increase, rounding the ticket price up to the nearest $0.25 increment effective October 6, 2014. The fare increase included a grace period of not to exceed 90 days to allow passengers to use up their old ticket stock.
In May 2016, the Rail commission approved a 5.25% fare increase, rounding the ticket price up to the nearest $0.25 increment effective October 3, 2016. The fare increase included a grace period of not to exceed 90 days to allow passengers to use up their old ticket stock.
Discussion: The adopted ACE Fare Program utilizes the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Wage Earner and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area as a basis for fare increases, adjusted by any significant regional or industry factors. The cumulative CPI for December 2016-2018 is 6.2%.
Even though the on-time performance has not been above the desired 90% threshold for the last two years, the increase in costs for insurance (rates rise with increased ridership) and the implementation of positive train control require an increase in fares equal to the CPI. Accordingly, staff recommends a fare increase of 6% beginning on January 2, 2019.
76 of 158
Public Outreach Efforts: Staff engaged passengers and the public several ways, including e-blasts, text alerts, social media postings, reader board announcements, postings at stations, announcements on platform and on trains, and the www.acerail.com website. The proposed fare increase was also published in the Stockton Record, Tri-Valley Herald, and the San Jose Mercury News (Exhibit B).
Response to Public Outreach Efforts: Responses to the proposed fare increase are included in Exhibit C. A statistical summary is included below:
• Via email, 52 responses were documented (as of 7/25/18 for Board mailout) with 51 in opposition of the fare increase • Via Facebook and Twitter, 39 comments were documented (as of 7/25/18 for Board mailout), with 37 in opposition and two alerting other riders about the potential fare increase. All comments were received from Facebook • Total Comments Received as of 7/25/18: 91 – 2% of daily ridership • In Favor: 1 – Less than 1% of comments received • Opposed: 88 – 97% of comments received
A majority of comments in opposition to the fare increase cited certain service improvements requested in conjunction with the fare increase, including added capacity, additional parking, and improved WiFi.
Partner Agency Coordination: The SJRRC Cooperative Services Agreement with Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) states that SJRRC must seek and receive approval from both entities prior to approving a fare increase. SJRRC has not yet received Board approval from VTA and ACTC’s Board which are to meet in September 2018.
Fare Increase Adoption Schedule: As part of the Rail Commission’s fare increase policy a public comment period is required. A proposed schedule is included below:
June 1, 2018 : Open Public Comment Period until August 3, 2018 August 3, 2018 : Public Comment Period Closes : Open Public Hearing : Receive Comments : Close Public Hearing
77 of 158 : Consider Adopting a resolution implementing the fare increase January 2, 2019 : Implementation of the Fare Increase
Staff will assemble the comments received prior to mailout for the August 3, 2018 Board meeting and provide all comments received after the mailout date to the Board during the staff presentation. Additionally, the Cooperative Services Agreement dated June 30, 2003 states the Commission must seek and receive approval from the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) prior to approving the increase. The approval process for ACTC and VTA will not be completed prior to the August 3, 2018 Board meeting. Both boards are scheduled to meet in September 2018.
If approved, staff will redesign the fare media to create a distinctly new identity allowing the Passenger Service Agents (PSAs) to quickly determine valid fares. Ticket stock from the October 2016 fare increase will be honored for no more than 90 days (now through March 29, 2019) for travel or after that time may be upgraded at face value (with exception of the incentive fare tickets for the College Student incentive program – 50% off regular adult fare).
Additionally, to avoid confusion and delay, staff is proposing that refunds be prohibited due to the high cost, passenger inconvenience, and disruptive process of returning partially used and/or previous fare media. However, SJRRC will honor tickets purchased January 2013 and forward for upgrade.
Fiscal Impact: Funding for ticket printing services is included in the SJRRC/ACE Operating Budget under the Ticketing line item. It is estimated this fare increase will generate an additional $600,000 per year.
Recommendation: Conduct a Public Hearing on the Proposed ACE Fare Increase, Accept Report Summarizing Comments Received during the Public Comment Period, and Approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Adopting a Fare Increase of 6% for all ACE Service Fare Media Rounded up to the Nearest 25¢, Effective January 2, 2019 for the Altamont Corridor Express Service.
78 of 158 RESOLUTION SJRRC-R-18/19-08
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION ADOPTING A FARE INCREASE OF 6% FOR ALL ACE SERVICE FARE MEDIA ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST 25¢, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2, 2019 FOR THE ALTAMONT CORRIDOR EXPRESS SERVICE
WHEREAS, the Adopted Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Fare Program directs staff to implement biennial fare increases based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Wage Earner and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area; and
WHEREAS, the ACE fares were last increased in October 2016 by 5.25%; and
WHEREAS, the CPI increase over the last two years have totaled approximately 6%; and
WHEREAS, ticket stock from the October 2016 fare increase as well as any and all tickets purchased after January 2013 will be honored for no more than 90 days (now until March 29, 2019) for travel or after that time may be upgraded at face value (exception for College Student incentive fare program tickets); and
WHEREAS, Tickets purchased after January 2013 will be available to upgrade; and
WHEREAS, refunds are prohibited due to the high cost, passenger inconvenience, and disruptive process of returning partially used and/or previous fare media; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission at their June 1, 2018 meeting approved in concept the proposed fare increase and opened the public comment period to solicit passenger comments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, hereby approve a 6% increase for all ACE service fare media rounded up to the nearest 25¢ for the Altamont Corridor Express Service effective January 2, 2019.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Commissioners this 3rd day of August 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
79 of 158
ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary STEVE DRESSER, Chair
80 of 158 81 of 158 82 of 158 83 of 158 84 of 158 85 of 158 86 of 158 87 of 158 88 of 158 89 of 158 Exhibit C
Public comments:
Part 1- social media (4 pages) Part 2 - e-mails (55 pages)
90 of 158 FACEBOOK
Altamont Corridor Express
Published by Shawn Crary · · June 4 at 2:30pm ·
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
NOTICE IS GIVEN that beginning at 8:00 a.m., on August 3, 2018 (or as soon as the matter can be heard thereafter) at the Robert J. Cabral Station, Headquarters of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, South Hall Meeting Room, 949 E. Channel St. Stockton, CA 95202, a public hearing will be held to receive oral and written statements regarding the Adoption of an ACE Fare Increase of approximately 6% fo...
See More
Andrew Foamer Horta any news on the saturday service on ACE? Jeremy Cook Saturday service will happen when Bart gets extended to Livermore. Ask people in the tri valley how many decades they’ve been waiting on that? Jim Ireland Don't hold your breath. Kelly Ann Beaverhausen So Fremont riders will start getting charged for parking, AND now there’s a rate hike...it’s like you’re telling us to start driving again! Renee Martz Crazy! Joseph Dembowski I just started taking the train with my girlfriend cause the traffic is so bad. You will definitely lose riders if you do that. It’s not practical for that type of increase since there are tons of people on the train to begin with. There won’t be any ...See More Sebastian Lopez ACE is now less affordable than driving. What's the appeal really? Never on time, trains break down and are over crowded. Let's charge you more for mediocre service, yeah!? Jeremy Cook People still ride the ACE train? Might as well buy a car and drive by yourself everyday for the price of a monthly pass now. At least you know then that you can get home when there is an accident. Unlike the ACE where hey hold you hostage on the tra...See More Daniel Baskin I noticed it get worse in the 5 years i have ridden, i used to be to work on time... now im 20 min late every day for the past 3 years Daniel Baskin Wow another increase? Its not like you guys will actually take the written and oral statements into account... or let them have any weight. You only agree to listen but not give two F#%ks in reality and just increate it. You guys JUST got funding from ...See More David W Mcclanahan Wjy don't ace train run Sat sun holidays no equipment being used like mon to fri early am have later trains each way passenger trains runs on freight tracks by freight dispatched freight makes money passenger trains loses money Jim Ireland Because they don't have permission from UP, who own the tracks for starters. David W Mcclanahan jim ireland, if passengers trains dont get people to work & school on time what is the purpose of taking trains freight companies need to realize this thx smiles Jeremy Cook At the rate it’s going it won’t be long until ACE needs a government bailout because ridership has plummeted. Everyday I sit in bumper to bumper traffic at 4:15AM because there is no train to take at that hour. And if there was It wouldn’t get me to work on time anyways. A horse and carriage might be more reliable these days. Henry Penado Another increase?!?! I only started riding the train 4 years ago and there has been several increases with no discernible positive impact. What will this new increase be used for?
91 of 158 Bnard Gallo Wow!! Good job ACE!! Way to take advantage of riders while the freeways are getting alot of constructions and road improvements and longer traffic commutes. � Daniel Baskin Also your new ridership is up so high theres barely anywhere to STAND because its already so damn full... and now you want to increase the cost again? Even after you just got a new fund from the SB 1 tax? Seriously... Altamont Corridor Express We value your feedback, and would encourage you to email comments to [email protected]. Kelly Ann Beaverhausen Nah, rather than sending comments to a random email or attending the meeting where you increase rates regardless of our comments, we’ll just stop riding. That’ll be enough of a comment I think. Joseph Dembowski Crystal Kaufman David W Mcclanahan if passengers trains dont get people to work & school on time what is the purpose of taking trains freight companies need to realize this thx smiles Pamela Fitzgerald If you don't keep the people quiet with their phone calls, and banging on their laptops in the morning on the dim cars I will quit riding! Renee Martz Nice that this hearing is on a Friday when the people that have an opinion will be AT WORK! Becky Lynn How convenient smh Becky Lynn Cara Witt Shavocki 'Kandi' Fulcher Shawn Wolchow-Payne
Altamont Corridor Express
Published by Shawn Crary · · June 12 at 9:17am ·
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
NOTICE IS GIVEN that beginning at 8:00 a.m., on August 3, 2018 (or as soon as the matter can be heard thereafter) at the Robert J. Cabral Station, Headquarters of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, South Hall Meeting Room, 949 E. Channel St. Stockton, CA 95202, a public hearing will be held to receive oral and written statements regarding the Adoption of an ACE Fare Increase of approximately 6% fo...
Richard H. Tran service is still bad, train are late, AC not run fully to the max Bnard Gallo For what!?! Still raising the fares no matter what!! Bnard Gallo Add some freaking curtains!! Snack bar car still not fullfill!! Jamar Jackson Asking for more money but not offering more service.; Kenneth Huntley They will be in the near future
Jamar Jackson Well offer more service first then ask for more money. ��♂️ who is running this organization. What are we paying more for. Promises in one of the most populated states in America Amanda Sturdevant Why are they holding this meeting at a time when all of us affected by this increase are at work? The last train leaves around 7am, this starts at 8am. Sebastian Lopez Because Altamont Corridor Express know they can say there was little opposition to the change if all of us are at work. AcE blows, service sucks, and the cars are crowded because they take the increase and dont reinvest. Trash
92 of 158 Sebastian Lopez Altamont Corridor Express also has the worst media relations and community outreach that I've ever seen. Sebastian Lopez Altamont Corridor Express also has the worst media relations and community outreach that I've ever seen. Jamar Jackson It will inconvenience them to have it on a Saturday when we all in town and rested. Monopoly on the rails no competition Becky Lynn Shavocki 'Kandi' Fulcher Cara Witt Shawn Wolchow-Payne Altamont Corridor Express We value your feedback, and would encourage you to email comments to [email protected].
Bnard Gallo Hearing starts @ 8am!?! Guess what!?! Majority of us are @ work!!!
Bnard Gallo Hearing starts @ 8am!?! Guess what!?! Majority of us are @ work!!! s
Altamont Corridor Express Published by Shawn Crary · · June 20 at 9:29 AM · NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
...
See More
Susanne Moghadam Did you just raise the prices in 2017... I am having enough struggle with rent increase gas, medicine with all the money you received for the ACE expansion was that not enough or you becoming greedy just like everyone else getting on that same bandwagon ?? Manage
Like
· Reply · Message · 1h
Altamont Corridor Express We value your feedback, and would encourage you to email comments to [email protected].
93 of 158 Manage
Like
· Reply · 1m
POSTS DONE ON FACEBOOK & TWITTER ON:
7/19/18
7/10/18
7/6/18
6/26/18
6/20/18
6/12/18
6/4/18
94 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Adriana Ohlmeyer
Chris
Thank you for kindly taking the time to respond and explain the proposal. However, I stand on the belief that 6% is outrageous. The Wi‐Fi on the train barely works, the trains often have signal issues and delays causing a burden to commuters and now an increase in rate! I have been a customer for over 10 years but it is becoming difficult to be loyal!
Again, I appreciate your time and attention!
Adriana
Sent from my iPhone
1 95 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Adriana Ohlmeyer
I believe raising the price by 6% is outrageous. Most people don’t get an yearly raise of 6%! It seems like ACE raises its price more often and in a higher rate then most public transportation in the Bay Area which is unfair to the daily commuters. I used to be able to get fully coverage of a 20 ticket using my employee $100 subsidized. Now I have to pay almost $20 out of pocket. A 6% increase would cost me even more out of pocket and my company will not raise the amount. It will be cheaper to drive or carpool!!
Adriana Ohlmeyer Commuter from San Jose to Pleasanton
Sent from my iPhone
1 96 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Customer Service Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 10:51 AM To: Public Comments Subject: FW: ACE Rail Contact Form
From: no‐[email protected] [mailto:no‐[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 2:32 PM To: Marketing
ContactACEID: 18627
Form inserted: 7/11/2018 2:30:45 PM
Form updated: 7/11/2018 2:30:45 PM
Name: Anna
Subject: General Feedback
Phone: 5106859927
E-mail: [email protected]
Train:
Date:
Message: Why the rates increase to the public we ride everyday the only thing is to have a automatic stop and the insurance has gone up. Im not getting a cost of living increase to help me cover all the cost we all have to pay out and the seats are uncomfortable and the train is late due to various malfunctions lights not working having to wait on freight trains which cause hard ships on your regular customers. who barely have it to cover the fares as they are you just raised the fares not to long ago. theres got to be another way to find what you need then putting more hardship on your riders! you have so many people who need and use your service who depend on your trains and drivers all employees of the train.
1 97 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Barbara Helfer
Chris,
Thanks for your response and for giving details as to what the rate hike will fund. This helps and I hope you will widely publicize why the rate hike is being considered. Most of us understand increased regulation comes at a price.
Have a great weekend, and thanks again for the explanation.
Barb
1 98 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Barbara Helfer
Hi All,
I would like to know what the proposed rate hikes are going to fix? Over the past couple of months there have been several days when the trains have had mechanical issues, and for almost two months the Train Tracking system has not been operational. The last rate hike was said to be going to fix these issues, and it doesn't seem like the extra revenue is actually making a difference. If the extra revenue is going to be for repair and upgrade to equipment, then I am all in. But if you are putting this into a general fund, I am against this proposal.
Personally, I am upset the city of Fremont is now charging for parking and while they said the parking fees were to make the parking lot safer and provide help in policing the areas the money collected is going into the Fremont general fund. The potential $6K/week revenue going into the city of Fremont general fund, and since they are a fiscal train wreck, will never go to improved conditions at the station.
With Fremont adding a $2.00/day charge to the parking, which with this rate hike will mean over $200 to take the train every month from Fremont to Great America. It is becoming more costly to take public transportation than to drive. I thought the idea of providing a low cost way to get cars off the road was the point of mass transit, but you and Fremont are making it hard to justify.
Best wishes on this endeavor, but I think it is coming at the wrong time for the people taking the train from Fremont into San Jose.
Barb
1 99 of 158 Chris Kay
From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:01 PM To: Chris Kay Subject: RE: Rate increase
Hi Chris,
Thank you for the explanations. With this information there is little need to comment. Unfortunately mandatory spending requirements don’t help you expand your operational budget that would trickle down to an improved rider experience.
Best regards,
Bernard
1 100 of 158 Chris Kay
From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 7:03 AM To: Public Comments Subject: Rate increase
To whom it may concern,
A substantial rate increase of 6% needs to be somehow justified. I have not noticed improvements in service since the last rate increase, and have not learned about any commitments doing so with an additional 6% in revenue. As a minimum ACE needs to resolve the ‘mechanical issues’ that are fully in control of the train operator. Here is my proposal: Starting July 1st 2018 , for each month all trains run without delays caused by ‘mechanical issues’ ACE should earn ½% rate increase. If there are no ‘mechanical issues’ causing delays, ACE is entitled for a 3% increase on January 2nd 2019. If there are delays in any given month ACE looses the ½% accumulative increase for that month. For example, there are two ‘mechanical issues’ in the month of October, and in no other month, the increase on January 2nd will be only 2.5%. The next 3% rate increase can be earned from January 2nd 2019 through June 30th 2019, in the same fashion.
Thank you,
Bernard Frey ACE commuter, Livermore
The content of this message is APPLIED MATERIALS CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me, delete this email and do not use or distribute this email.
1 101 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Brandon Manrique
Hey there,
I don't mind the increase too much. I am sure you have your reason but please help fix the WiFi situation in the trains. The signal varies heavily based on which train I take in the morning and at night. If I am going to continue to pay increased rates, I would really like a consistent, strong WiFi experience on all trains and cars.
Thank you.
‐‐ Brandon Manrique
1 102 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Brian Bennion
Hello, I need to comment on this increase. First, there are no documents on acerail.com that I can find that justify this increase. Obviously ACE thinks there is a need, however it would be nice to know why?
Service has not been stellar this year. Many trips have been delayed due to mechanical failures. Will the fare increase address that issue? Will more trains run during the day like caltrain?
What about the new central valley train authority and the money they have received, will that money be given to ACE in any fashion?
I do not agree with any increase due to the poor "track" record of delayed trains. We riders are all on a limited budget.
Sincerely Brian Bennion
1 103 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Brian Schmidt Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:11 PM To: Chris Kay Subject: FW: ACE Fare Increase
From: Charlotte Clark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:55 PM To: Public Comments
Hello,
I am a daily round trip commuter from the Manteca/Lathrop station to the Great America stop. Although I am adamantly opposed to this approximate 6% fare increase, I would like to understand the request for this increase. The details may change my opinion in the matter.
Best Regards, Charlotte Clark
1 104 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Chuck Thota
If the fair increases it would be additional burden for many working class people like me . I will have to cut down on commute and use carpool for travels which is Cheep comparatively.
I vote No on the increase
1 105 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Clifton warren <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:52 PM To: Public Comments Subject: Fare increase
I’m totally against this fare hike. I’ve been riding for about 3yrs and it seem to me like you’re constantly hiking up the fare. The train is good, but it has many flaws. It’s constantly breaking down or late for whatever reason. But we understand why that can happen. Why don’t you guys try and differ from all the other horrible injustices we have suffered since this administration has taken over our lives. Give us a reason to believe again. Give the American people a break. Sent from my iPhone
1 106 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Debbie Roby
It seems like you just had an increase of 6%?! I didn’t get a 6% raise that time nor this time. With all the issues regarding mechanical difficulties, poor condition of the seats on all trains if this doesn’t include re‐upholstery to the seats and new support cushions inside and as well as the false advertising of the free WiFi... what WiFi? It doesn’t work for any of us. This is very unfair for all you claim to do and don’t. The lack of good preventive maintenance on the locomotive is reprehensible, a “Sorry for the inconvenience” doesn’t cut it when it costs me $100’s of dollars every time I’m late or have to get off and take Uber. Everyone does preventative maintenance on their cars for this very reason. Not just an inconvenience. It’s being responsible for those you are carrying. It’s no way to run a business of public transportation. Respectfully Yours, Deborah Roby‐Rojas
1 107 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Lauterbach, Dennis
Nobody has stated why there is a need for the 6% increase.
ACE has never delivered on the promises to the riders on how the increase money is to be spent, the first was for a new ticketing system that would replace the antiquated system they have now. 20+ years later still bad system. The seats are terrible, the trains break down and they have poor customer service from the fare enforcement people and it is clear they cannot keep conductors. To top it off they are habitually late coming and going more often than not. The other consideration is how much can people afford? ACE is not cheap now add another 6% it puts some people over on what they can afford, already people are looking for alternative transportation.
This is a bad idea, there is nothing in it for the passenger other than the same mediocre performance we have come to expect. With the valley continuing to grow as it is many of us riders are looking for the alternative to ACE.
The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby (a) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action with respect to the content of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful, and (b) kindly requested to inform the sender immediately and delete any copies. Coherent is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt.
1 108 of 158 Chris Kay
From: DION JAYAKODDY
To whom it may concern,
I believe the 6% proposed fare increase is totally unfair and neglectful on the part of the Altamont commuter express railroad. The commuter express train, no matter the time, is subject to lowest level priority when it comes to the freight train, the Amtrak train, and any other train that proceeds it, thereby delaying the train schedule on a routine basis. There has been at least 8% to 12% delay in time, from the Tracy station to the San Jose station, in the past few years. However, even though this delay has been routine and growing in time, there has been no refund or reimbursement from the commuter express company. Yet, the commuter express wants to raise or increase the fair almost every other year. This is totally unfair and unjust.
Further, the Altamonte commuter express train company should partner with the BART in order to accommodate its Tracy passengers going to and from the bay area. However, the ace train company has blocked or maneuvered to block the BART from coming to Tracy. Totally unfair for the commuters.
Therefore, I am proposing no increase or a 0% increase or stabilization 0% on the fair for the upcoming year for the ace train company.
Thank you and best regards. Dion Jayakoddy passenger
Sent from my iPhone
1 109 of 158 Chris Kay
From: E G
I understand the fare increase; however, with that should come along with being on time and less breakdowns.
1 110 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Eric
Hi Chris,
Thank you for replying.
One more comment that would be nice to share at the fare increase debate. Why is BART significantly cheaper on a per mile cost basis than ACE?
Current $/mi cost difference: It is 28% more expense per mile to ride ACE (P‐GA) compared to BART (P‐SF). It will be 36% more expensive once the 6% fare increase occurs.
Best,
‐Eric
1 111 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Eric
Reasons why:
‐Inflation was 2.1% for 2017 ‐Ridership seems up because the train seems more crowded (more revenue ‐ less passenger comfort) ‐Most peoples income (mine included) didn't jump 6% since the last fare increase
Best,
‐Eric 925.413.7832
1 112 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Eric Lundelius
Chris‐ Thank you for your response‐ its good to hear where the money is being spent‐ Still would like newer equipment sometime‐ lol. Have a great day
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
1 113 of 158 > Thank you for allowing us to comment are voice concerns over the rate increase. I will refrain from using the word “proposed” as we know it is going to happen. What i would like to know is what is this money going to be spent on? I have been riding the train for better part of 10 years and the only thing i can really say that has gotten better is the fences around the stations and uniforms for the staff. When is this money going to start being used on the snack cars that have been promised or talked about forever? When is this money going to fix the old and worn out cars? The seats are so bad that people complain of back aches because of them. When is this money going to go to getting new Engines so that we are not constantly breaking down and stuck waiting to be pushed by a train an hour later? When are the increases going to fix the horrible intercom systems used to pass information to the riders that seem to go out when we break down? These are things we would like to have addressed‐ appreciate your time. > > Eric > > Sent from my iPhone
2 114 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Eric Lundelius
Thank you for allowing us to comment are voice concerns over the rate increase. I will refrain from using the word “proposed” as we know it is going to happen. What i would like to know is what is this money going to be spent on? I have been riding the train for better part of 10 years and the only thing i can really say that has gotten better is the fences around the stations and uniforms for the staff. When is this money going to start being used on the snack cars that have been promised or talked about forever? When is this money going to fix the old and worn out cars? The seats are so bad that people complain of back aches because of them. When is this money going to go to getting new Engines so that we are not constantly breaking down and stuck waiting to be pushed by a train an hour later? When are the increases going to fix the horrible intercom systems used to pass information to the riders that seem to go out when we break down? These are things we would like to have addressed‐ appreciate your time.
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
1 115 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Nila Cordova Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:12 PM To: Chris Kay Subject: FW: ACE fare increase
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Erika Becerra [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 5:56 AM To: Public Comments Subject: ACE fare increase
The fares keeps increasing but the service does not get any better. The trains breakdown and passengers get stranded regularly. You have too many employees. Costumer service is useless. One time I wanted to buy a monthly ticket in the stockton station but there weren’t none. The woman in the front desk told me to buy a round trip even though that would be an extra expense. It is unacceptable to leave passengers stranded whenever there is an issue. You need to make arrangements with bus service and get personnel that could fix the trains on the spot whenever necessary. You need to improve the service 100% before any increase. Some employers do not tolerate lateness. You cost passengers vacation hours, pay and disciplinary actions. Erika Becerra
1 116 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Hailee Mills
Greetings.....
I have 1 question as of now...... Can u tell me how the extra funds from the increase will be spent? What prompted the increase?
Thank you in advance. Hailee'Mills‐Stanley
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 117 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Hariharan Iyer
Hi ACE team
I understand rising costs make you increase the fare, but we expect some basic things. 1. Increase the length of platform at Pleasanton station 2. Improve Wifi connection, currently its very sketchy and doesnt work in the cars in Stockton end.
Thanks Hari
======Hare Krishna Hare Krishna - Krishna Krishna Hare Hare.. Hare Rama Hare Rama - Rama Rama Hare Hare
1 118 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Jeff Turpin
Hello, I just started riding Ace about 2 weeks ago. I think it works OK for me. But I am a little concerned on why Ace needs a 6% increase. We as riders should have some posters in the trains or on the website so we can see where it will be used. The fee increase could be ok with me as long as it improves service like improving the Wi-Fi, maybe adding a 2nd station in south Fremont for Lam Research, Tesla and the many other companies located off Automall to Warren Rd area. I just found out also that the Fremont station will start charging for parking. no one can tell me how much? When will it start? Pay 7 days a week? etc,etc.
Regards, Jeff Turpin
1 119 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Jesse Langham
Have any grants been applied to PTC operations?
I understand that insurance rates go up with the passenger count, but how is that not already accounted for in the ticket price? Surely if more people are riding, that should mean more money for operations? If not, your organization has serious accounting problems.
1 120 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Jesse Langham
To Whom It May Concern:
The proposal for a 6% fare increase next year after a 5.25% increase not two years ago strikes me as extremely unfair. From your own reckoning from previous budget presentations, rideship is up, fares are above estimates and new grants are available. How exactly does this translate to the need for yet another fare increase?
I think we should look at a full budgetary report for operations, including individual salary breakdowns, contract costs, insurance rates, regular expenses and one‐time expenses before approving any rate hikes. Such information is not readily available and is burred inside cryptic meeting notes.
If you want your 6%, we want some transparency.
Regards, ‐Jesse Langham
1 121 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Jodie
Hello,
I have ridden the Ace train for years. As each month passes, more and more people are using the train. With that said, I now might get a seat on the way home if I’m lucky. But most of the time I have to stand.
You raised rates recently, but you haven’t improved the cars, nor added new cars to offset the amount of riders. Nor do you express any interests in adding more time options.
I am all for paying more, but where’s the “get”? What do we get out of paying more for less? We don’t have more trains running, or more cars. So what do we get out of this?
So, in my response to your attempt to raise cost... it’s a HARD NO!
Regards, Jodie Crabtree
Sent from my iPhone
1 122 of 158 Chris Kay
From: John Beahm
If the reason for the proposed ACE Fare Increase is already determined to be due to the Federal Mandate to install PTC system, and for insurance reasons, then it hardly seems that any public opposition will sway the governing board to decline the increase, and that it will automatically be approved to the dissatisfaction of the paying customers.
I am opposed due to fact that there have already been several fare increases over recent years, none of which are commensurate with a cost of living Increase in wages one might receive, meaning the increases are too high to be reasonably affordable.
More importantly, ACE receives operating revenue from State and Federal grants, plus regional county transportation authorities, which are all derived from taxation, so essentially, the ACE customer is funding the “service” three or four times over, via a combination of taxes and direct ticket purchases.
The above reasons are in addition to the fact that there has been no appreciable improvement in service or train conditions, which have failed to make the ACE as a commute choice any more enjoyable (details of which I have stated in previous correspondence).
Thank you,
John Beahm ACE customer from Lathrop/Manteca to Santa Clara/San Jose 1034 Camphor St. Manteca, CA 95337 [email protected] (209) 612‐5559
Sent from my iPhone
1 123 of 158 Chris Kay
From: John Beahm
As a long‐time‐long‐distance‐monthly pass rider (Lathrop/Manteca) to San Jose, whose income does not see a 6% increase to keep up with such transit fares, and will see an added expense of $240/yr, I have the following comments in opposition to the rate increase, which as I recall was already raised previously not so long ago.
1) I don’t see the justification of the fare increase based on lack of improvements to the quality of the service
Such as: a) lack of decent leg and elbow room in four‐seat configurations in train cars b) lack of sufficient seat padding for longer commutes c) lack of abundant, if any (in some cars), electrical outlets in train cars d) inconsistent Wi Fi service between train cars e) poor quality public address system... inaudible on some days in some cars, uncomfortably blaring loud in some cars on some days. f) restrooms that are not maintained between morning and afternoon runs, plus one car with no restroom, but an unfinished food and drink cubicle g) redundant, interruptive station announcements that disturb the rest and contradict the notion of dim‐lit car quiet. h) frequent delays due to interference with Union Pacific or Amtrak, or ACE mechanical
I) poor ticket validation j) CSAs and Engineers with antagonistic attitudes k) no‐alcohol policy l) no consistent weekend service, nor more frequent runs with more trains, to accommodate more unusual work or travel schedules
2) Why the fare increase when: a) the regional transportation agencies were just granted Federal funding increases b) ridership (revenue) is up
1 124 of 158 3) I surmise that regardless of the public comments in opposition, the fare increase will pass as like with the PG&E rate increases via the P.U.C., and that the open comments period is merely for show, ending up an exercise in futility for the public
Thank you, John Beahm [email protected] (209) 612‐5559
Sent from my iPhone
2 125 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Kristina Valenziano
Hello,
I am writing to request no fare increase. I have been riding the ACE train for over 5 years now. I am a recent college grad and at first, the thought of the ACE train has been great. I have many friends that take BART to the city and they complain about that experience. Since riding the ACE train, rates have gone up but service has gone down. I used to say the train was reliable but with the many delays, internet never working, no additional cars (with additional riders), the experience has gone down significantly. Over the past 5 years, the price has gone up and the value of the train has not. Often times, I am left standing for most of my ride because there are no available seats. They are making "improvements" to the different cars, but in reality, it has taken away more seats. The shuttle service at the Great America station is nice but for 1 full year, I was left standing every ride to and from work because they didn't add another shuttle. Until recently, it has been resolved. A fare increase will aggravate riders as the train experience will not improve.
‐‐ Kristina Valenziano
1 126 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Barbarona, Kristine
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to appeal another rate increase that will affect the majority of the ACE commuters. It was a huge help when we used to get a subsidy whenever we purchase a 20‐pass or monthly pass tickets through work at Stanford. After a drastic budget cut from the funding source, we started to see the impact on our finances in addition to the toll we have to pay on a daily basis from crossing the Dumbarton bridge and the connecting drive by car to our actual workplace. Upon learning of this new proposal, we are very much concerned if we are going to be able to afford this high cost on top of the proposed paid parking at the Fremont station. It seems like every year ACE has increased the fares and mind you not by a mere 1‐2 percent but over 5%. THAT IS HUGE!
What additional services are getting from this fare increase? NOTHING. Trains still run late oftentimes and we still are struggling to find parking every single day at your stations. When you decided to add additional parking spaces at the Lathrup‐Manteca station, you turned the 2‐way road into a 1‐way only and had caused a major back up in the morning for all cars coming in the park and in the afternoon for all cars leaving the lot.
I still don’t see no improvements in the cars, the WI‐Fi still sucks and some people are still non‐compliant when it comes to sitting in the “quiet” cars, they still talk on their mobile phones and either play games or listen to music and we still can hear it despite the posted signs of no talking allowed. The staff doesn’t seem to have much control on these situations and even loud conversations among big groups are a norm now without any regards to the other passengers who are resting.
I am very much opposed to this fare increase simply because the rates are already high as it is and we don’t see any improvements over the years. Find alternative ways to raise funds or cut your operation costs but DO NOT put this on us the commuters, we are already suffering so much being on the road for so long every single day just to make ends meet. Our living cost in the Valley is not as low as it was before and rent have spiked lately as well as property taxes on those houses. We cannot be comfortable with another fare increase of 6% ‐ please reconsider and get the funds somewhere else. We as tax payers put so much on taxes from our paychecks and we can barely survive. Please do not increase the ACE fare again.
Thank you,
Kristine J. Barbarona Discover Stanford Children's on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube
Confidentiality notice: This email communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is 1 127 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Loretta Cryer
To Ace,
While cost continue to rise for public transportation and private transportation, a six percent increase at one time can hurt a lot of riders. It may have been more prudent to have a step increase of three percent each year. The trains are a great way to commute. They could use some remodeling as the seats are worn out.
Thank you for allowing us to give our comments. Loretta
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 128 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Melinda Lim
Hi,
Please do not increase. I can't afford to pay for the fare. I live far and do not get an increase from work. Otherwise, I need to find other transportation to get to work. Probably I will carpool instead.
Mel
1 129 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Mike Fairley
Greetings, I am a long term rider between Livermore and Great America. I fully support the 6% fare increase to fund mandated positive train control and increased insurance costs.
ACE rail is a godsend. The quality of my life is much better compared to commuting via auto. My commute time is productive when I have work to do, and restful when I don’t. This benefits not only me, but also my family, employees and co‐workers.
The service would still be a great value even if fares doubled.
To that end, I would support a greater increase for the purpose of expanding service to include a fifth train or adding cars to respond to increased ridership. In recent months some afternoon trains have been standing room only.
Additionally, cost of fuel has increased, employee pay should increase to keep up with cost of living, etc. Those increased costs must either be addressed through fare increases or by reducing service level. The later is not a desirable path.
The reason I am writing in detail and including some of the obvious is that I have overheard fellow passengers who either are misinformed or don’t understand basic economics. I am sure you have received plenty of negative comments.
By all means approve the fare increase and start working on plans for a subsequent increase to make this already excellent service even more valuable.
Mike Fairley Livermore [email protected] (925) 202‐7486
1 130 of 158 Chris Kay
From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 2:05 PM To: Public Comments Subject: Proposed fare increase
Hi.
I think this increase is a lot, it seems like there is fare increases annually. If that is the case the increase shouldn’t be more than the average inflation rate which is about 2%.
Thanks, Minh
1 131 of 158 Chris Kay
From: M Home
I am regular rider of ACE Train and would like to provide my comments. If there is a fare increase, can WiFi be improved because it is extremely bad and I can barely do any work. Secondly, can ACE shuttle add another stop from Lockheed Martin to Moffett Towers.
Thanks,
Minhaj
1 132 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Moheb Argand
To who it may concern. The fees are already high and should not increased. The increase in fees will discourage people to use Ace‐train. Actually the fee should be reduced a little so more people will start using the Ace Train and you will make more money when more people use the Ace Train.
Sent from iPhone Moheb Arghandiwal
1 133 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Monica Contreras
Hi,
I believe a price of 6% is pretty significant. I have been taking the train since 2004 and have seen a lot more riders due to the increased traffic through the Altamont and Bay Area.
The train seats are very uncomfortable for an hour and 50 min train ride. The validation machines and tickets process seem out dated. Not sure why there hasn't been any type of upgrade to validation machines/ticket process over the last several years. Seems as though ACE still runs on old school system but yet every year, increases fare pricing.
I pay 189.00 for 20 rides because I can't afford a monthly pass. Increasing the rate, means approximately up to 200.00 for 20 rides from Lathrop to Great America.
I see a lot more riders now than when I first started taking the train. Does ACE not see the financial part of the increase of riders? What is the 6% increase for? Will the service get better? Fare price goes up, yet the train system runs the same.
Thank you
1 134 of 158 Chris Kay
From: nielshansen32
Hi,
I wanted to share a comment for the proposed 6% fair increase. I think everyone will be okay with the fair increase if there's something to justify the increase. For example, if the ACE was to increase its speed by 6% (ACE is BEYOND slow right now), that would be a solid justification for the fair increase; it still blows my mind that it takes me forever to go from Tracy to Great America when it really should be less than an hour ride. In short, current customers need to see the value they're getting for the 6% fair increase, otherwise it'll appear that the increase is to feed profits and not to retain customers.
Regards,
Niels Hansen
1 135 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Richard Green
Whilst a Federally mandated upgrade to all trains, ACE and others, is unavoidable this again represents a price increase that is outstripping the underlying rate of inflation. Given this as with all previous fare increases is fait a compli could it be requested that along with higher cost we could have a higher quality of service. This is in reference particularly regarding to enforcement of the rider code of conduct which as a rider since day one I have seen a consistent decline in passenger behavior. This would not be so irksome were it not so evident that some aspects of the code are rigorously policed whilst others seem to be totally ignored.
For example the no feet or bags on seats is enforced with Draconian rigor. Whilst not having ones feet on furniture should be a basic trait of common decency and understood, the latter is questionable when a train is not crowded and nobody is being denied a seat. However the policy is clear and consistently communicated and so enforcement can barely be brought in to question.
The same cannot be said for the food and drink and quiet car policies, these garner no interest from any of the train crew and hence lead to self policing which inevitably result in some confrontations. This can only in time result in serious disorder if that has not in fact already happened.
The journey is long for many, for some it could be over 2 hours each way, so a snack and cup of coffee go a long way in providing relief from the inevitable fatigue of the ride. However breaking out a full blown meal that causes the odor of which to permeate through the entire car is a little harder to accept. Not sure what these people are eating but to be frank I find the smell to be nothing less than offensive. People drinking alcoholic beverages I believe is strictly forbidden not only by the code of conduct but by state law but I have lost count of the number of times I see someone breaking out a cold one.
Quiet cars are the biggest source of tension for many riders, it is the opportunity for many to relax before the coming storm that is their daily routine and to decompress after a long day. However it is a daily occurrence to have this precious tranquil time interrupted in one way or other. People taking calls and not quickly explaining that they are unable to take the call or stepping to another car where they can. Music played so loud over headphones that it bleeds through, even to the extent where other who are wearing the same can hear it. Conversations conducted full on despite the signs and crew announcements at every station. What does not help this is that the train crew on East bound trains add significantly to the disruption of the peace and quiet from their position on the mezzanine level of the head car. Yes they have a train to run but trust me when I say that what I hear has absolutely nothing to do with that. To be blunt i have no need to hear what they got up to at the weekend or what they watched on TV last night.
Thank you for the opportunity to vent my frustrations even though I have zero expectations of any changes in regards the above mentioned, which I know I share with many other riders. Nobody expects things to be perfect but when there is such blatant disregard for the code of conduct and absence of respect for others it deserves to be mentioned.
Regards Richard J Green
1 136 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Richard Green
Whilst a Federally mandated upgrade to all trains, ACE and others, is unavoidable this again represents a price increase that is outstripping the underlying rate of inflation. Given this as with all previous fare increases is fait a compli could it be requested that along with higher cost we could have a higher quality of service. This is in reference particularly regarding to enforcement of the rider code of conduct which as a rider since day one I have seen a consistent decline in passenger behavior. This would not be so irksome were it not so evident that some aspects of the code are rigorously policed whilst others seem to be totally ignored.
For example the no feet or bags on seats is enforced with Draconian rigor. Whilst not having ones feet on furniture should be a basic trait of common decency and understood, the latter is questionable when a train is not crowded and nobody is being denied a seat. However the policy is clear and consistently communicated and so enforcement can barely be brought in to question.
The same cannot be said for the food and drink and quiet car policies, these garner no interest from any of the train crew and hence lead to self policing which inevitably result in some confrontations. This can only in time result in serious disorder if that has not in fact already happened.
The journey is long for many, for some it could be over 2 hours each way, so a snack and cup of coffee go a long way in providing relief from the inevitable fatigue of the ride. However breaking out a full blown meal that causes the odor of which to permeate through the entire car is a little harder to accept. Not sure what these people are eating but to be frank I find the smell to be nothing less than offensive. People drinking alcoholic beverages I believe is strictly forbidden not only by the code of conduct but by state law but I have lost count of the number of times I see someone breaking out a cold one.
Quiet cars are the biggest source of tension for many riders, it is the opportunity for many to relax before the coming storm that is their daily routine and to decompress after a long day. However it is a daily occurrence to have this precious tranquil time interrupted in one way or other. People taking calls and not quickly explaining that they are unable to take the call or stepping to another car where they can. Music played so loud over headphones that it bleeds through, even to the extent where other who are wearing the same can hear it. Conversations conducted full on despite the signs and crew announcements at every station. What does not help this is that the train crew on East bound trains add significantly to the disruption of the peace and quiet from their position on the mezzanine level of the head car. Yes they have a train to run but trust me when I say that what I hear has absolutely nothing to do with that. To be blunt i have no need to hear what they got up to at the weekend or what they watched on TV last night.
Thank you for the opportunity to vent my frustrations even though I have zero expectations of any changes in regards the above mentioned, which I know I share with many other riders. Nobody expects things to be perfect but when there is such blatant disregard for the code of conduct and absence of respect for others it deserves to be mentioned.
Regards Richard J Green
1 137 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Roxanne Cimarrustti
I oppose the increase and would state so at the Friday, August 3 at 8am meeting; however, it is a work day and I will be at work! Please consider an evening meeting so those of us who ride the train and pay the fare may be heard.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 138 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Sally George
Sweet. That's a good place to put the money.
Any chance on repairing any of the worn out seats? There are A few cars that have seats so worn there is no cushion left and a few of us arrive at our destination with back pain.
1 139 of 158 From: Sally George [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:36 PM To: Chris Kay
Thank you for the response... to tell the truth i didn't expect to hear back from anyone.
What is PTC?
Thank you
2 140 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Sally George
Hi. I understand that everything goes up in price but this 6% is really going to hurt me. My yearly raise was not even 3% and your 6% increase of $20 plus the parking in Fremont of $44 is putting me over my little 50cent raise. If i had a vehicle that had better mileage the fee increase would not be worth it. PLEASE I am begging you to please reconsider the amount. I recently had to move because housing forced me. I used to live 2 miles from work now i am 68 so i am already paying more in gas plus train fare.
Thank you for your time
Sincerely
Sally George Manteca .CA
1 141 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Sang Kim
Can you please provide the justification of this increase? I feel that the fare is already high and it was increased not too long ago (2016 I believe). More importantly, I don't see the service improving. In particular, the seats are pretty small and the capacity is becoming an issue (no seats available sometime as more people take the train). I am having a hard time making the connection between the continued increase in fare and service improvement.
1 142 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Senthilkumar Subramaniam
I am very much disappointed with the proposed 6% hike . I will drop ACE and go with other options like scoop which is far more cheaper than ACE .
Thanks ‐Senthil
1 143 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Shiyas Jalaludheen
Hello,
I travel from Tracy to Great America using monthly pass. It is about $280 now and another 6% increase pushes the expense too high.. and someday it will be more than my mortgage interest!! That is scary. When more than one person in a family need to use ACE, that puts it in a very financially not viable option, especially for any small income family to afford. Instead of fair increase, why don't ACE try to explore adding more amenities like coffee shops, restaurant space for people to pickup dinner/breakfast, book/magazine shops, etc on the station and rent those spaces to generate more revenue and add make the people using the ACE rail much better. Vending machines in train also might be great. Also it would be good to have some tie‐ups with mobile phone carriers like ATT/Verizon to have their equipment on‐board to have a more better coverage and speed/security for the internet in the train.
ACE is an awesome facility.. hope that doing innovative things to generate more revenue will make it more sustainable and affordable for everyone using it.
Best regards,
Shiyas
1 144 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Srikanth Madduri
Hi, I live in Fremont and cannot attend the hearing in August about the proposed fare increase. Could you please send me the address to where I can mail my written comments?
Thanks, Srikanth
1 145 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Stephanie James
Hi Chris,
Thank you so very much for your response. I understand that costs are increasing everywhere and for 'us' taxpayers it's worst. My car insurance increased monthly because people insist on texting and driving and we have to pay for their car accidents and my property taxes have increased astronomically as well. Unfortunately, the state keeps making us pay for increasesr and ou salary still stays the same. Go figure! I appreciate your email letting me know why the fare will increase again however, California is always finding ways to keep us overpaying for something. :(
Have a great weekend and stay cool in this hot weather!
1 146 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Stephanie James
Hi, The possible fare increase is a bit astronomical given the fact that ACE just increased the price last year. Central Valley commuters are already paying too much for the ACE train to get to work and financially some commuters cannot afford an increase. The new Merced train route should not affect ACE train CV commuters esp. when these old trains have maintenance issues and break down or delay our long commutes. Pls. DON'T increase the fares because alot of people have already started carpooling from the last price increase which means more people driving on these dangerous highways. Thank you!
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: ACE
From ACE For information about the proposed fare increase, please visit acerail.com under Events and News. Thank you Reply STOP to opt out
1 147 of 158 Chris Kay
From: Stephanie Reynolds
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 148 of 158 Chris Kay
From: venkatesh arunachalam
Hi, I am a regular commuter of the ACE rail who rides Pleasanton‐Great america and have been using this life‐saving rail service for the last 4 years. With the increase in road traffic the importance of having public transportation saves time and also improves air quality. The cost of this transportation is not cheap considering the total commute time and other inconveniences associated with public transportation. I do understand that you have to increase fares to keep up with the costs. But please be aware that a majority of your commuters have not seen the same amount of increase in their paychecks and considering you have not made any significant upgrades to the train service experience namely, 1. Still not reliable service, the train suffers from innumerable delays due to equipment issues 2. No additional trains which can help commuters to have a little more flexibility 3. Parking at stations are limited I do not agree with this fare increase as this will be an extra hit to my pocket for just living in the bayarea.
Rgds Venkat
1 149 of 158 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of August 3, 2018
STAFF REPORT
Item 5 ACTION
ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres and Merced Final EIR Certification
SUMMARY Staff recommends that SJRRC certify the Environmental Impact Report for the ACE Extension to Ceres and Merced, adopt the Findings including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Proposed Project.
BACKGROUND Since 2013, the SJRRC has been evaluating a suite of improvements, known as ACEforward. In May 2017, SJRRC released the ACEforward Draft EIR which analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the phased improvement plan to support increased ACE service between San Jose and the San Joaquin Valley and expanded ACE service in the San Joaquin Valley. In January 2018, SJRRC decided to not advance ACEforward at this time and instead to advance the ACE Extension to Ceres and Merced.
CEQA PROCESS SCHEDULE • January 10, 2018: SJRRC rescinded the prior Notice of Preparation (NOP) and issued a new NOP for the “ACE Extension to Ceres and Merced” project to start a new CEQA process with a 30 day scoping period including a scoping meeting in Ceres on January 29, 2018. • April 13, 2018: SJRRC released a new EIR, with a 45 day public review period including an open house meeting on May 8, 2018 in Turlock. • May 28, 2018: Public Comment period concluded. • June/ July 2018: Final EIR prepared, including response to comments on comments received on the new EIR. • August 3, 2018: Final EIR is presented to SJRRC for certification and project is considered for approval
ACE EXTENSION TO CERES AND MERCED: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The EIR describes the proposed project as including the elements described below. Phase I improvements consist of the following: • A new North Lathrop Station used in combination with the Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station;
150 of 158 • an Oakland-Fresno Subdivision Connection; • a Ceres Extension Alignment consisting of upgrades to track, new tracks and bridges within the UPRR Fresno Subdivision between Lathrop and Ceres; • new Downtown Manteca, Ripon, Modesto, and Ceres Stations along the extension alignment; and • a new temporary Ceres Layover Facility (at the Variant 2 location) to support extension operations until the Merced extension is constructed at which time a layover facility will be built in Merced. Phase II improvements consist of the following: • a Merced Extension Alignment consisting of upgrades and new tracks and bridges within the UPRR Fresno Subdivision from Ceres to Merced; • new Turlock, Livingston or Atwater, and Merced Stations along the extension alignment; and • a new Merced Layover Facility West of SR99 to support extension operations (which would replace temporary Ceres layover facility).
KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN RAISED IN SCOPING AND DRAFT EIR COMMENTS The following issues are some of the issues raised in scoping comments and/or comments on the Draft EIR. All scoping comments are included in Appendix A of the DEIR. All DEIR comments are included in the FEIR. • Farmland—Scoping and DEIR comments expressed concern over loss of Important Farmland. • Biological Resources—DEIR comments requested further information about impacts to biological resources, particularly at river crossings. • Cultural Resources—DEIR comments requested further information about impacts to cultural resources, particularly at river crossings. • Flooding—DEIR comments expressed concern over the direct and cumulative effect of the project on flooding. • Land Use— Scoping comments requested information about land use impacts relative to certain station alternatives as well as impacts to the Stanislaus County Fairgrounds. • Recreation— Scoping and DEIR comments expressed concern about disruption of recreation in and adjacent to rivers where new bridges would be constructed. • Traffic—Scoping comments expressed concern over the impact of the project on traffic due to new stations and additional gate-down time at the at-grade roadway crossings along the project route.
151 of 158 • Core Capacity—Scoping comments expressed concern over the effect of the extension on riders on the existing service and whether they might be “crowded out” if there is no increase in core capacity. • Alternatives—Many scoping comments were submitted about the choice of the Livingston vs. Atwater Station. DEIR suggested opposition to the proposed Merced Layover Facility and support for the East of SR99 Merced Layover Facility. • Other Issues—Scoping and/or DEIR comments raised concern about other environmental impacts and alternatives. All substantive environmental scoping issues are addressed in the EIR. All suggested alternatives were considered. All DEIR comments are responded to in the FEIR.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The EIR presents the project’s environmental impacts in detail and they are summarized in the Executive Summary. A brief overview of the environmental impacts is presented below. The Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation for all environmental resource areas except for the following: • Construction Noise: Construction require construction activities in the daytime, and possibly nighttime, in order to maintain existing freight rail service. Although mitigation would reduce impacts in many locations, this may not always reduce impacts during nighttime construction to a less-than-significant level. • Operational Noise: The project would add additional train and horn noise along the ACE Extension. Mitigation measures would help to reduce this impact, but may not avoid significant impacts at all locations. • Operational Transportation and Traffic: Phase I operations in 2020 would result in a significant and unavoidable impact at one intersection (Coldwell Avenue/North 9th Street intersection in Modesto) as no feasible mitigation has been identified. In 2040, Phase I operations would have significant and unavoidable impacts at two intersections. For the Austin Road/Moffat Boulevard intersection in Manteca, this intersection would be temporarily significant and unavoidable until the SR 99/SR 120 Connector project is completed. The impact at the remaining intersection (Coldwell Avenue/North 9th Street intersection in Modesto) would be significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation has been identified.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED As discussed in EIR Section 6.6, the SJRRC considered a wide range of alternatives suggested during the scoping process and then conducted a three-part screening evaluation to select the alternatives to be analyzed in this EIR. Alternatives determined to be infeasible, to not avoid or substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the Proposed Project, or to not meet all or most of the project’s purpose and need were dismissed from further analysis.
152 of 158 Based on the screening process results, this EIR analyzed seven alternatives to the Proposed Project and made the following conclusions: • No Project Alternative: This alternative is required to be analyzed under CEQA. This alternative would not meet the project objectives. • Lathrop Area Single Station Scenarios: Single Station Alternatives were considered at a new North Lathrop Station, the Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station or a Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station. The Proposed Project would increase train service flexibility by allowing for both shuttle trains from the Ceres Extension (and later the Merced Extension) to provide transfers at the North Lathrop as well as trains from the Ceres Extension (and later the Merced Extension) to use the Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station when trains are going all the way to San Jose. This would allow for superior ridership compared to single-station alternatives over time as ACE will be able to better adapt the service scenario to market demand by having both stations in operations. Thus, the Lathrop Area single-station alternatives would not meet the project’s objectives as well as the Proposed Project. • Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station with North Lathrop Station: This alternative would require permanent conversion of 5.8 acres of Important Farmland and would displace industrial park designated lands that could be used for future business growth whereas the Proposed Project would have no impacts on farmland and would be consistent with local land use designations. This alternative would cost $68.4 million compared to the Proposed Project’s cost of $43.5 million for Lathrop Area stations. Thus, this alternative would result in greater environmental impact and greater cost than the Proposed Project. • Ceres Layover Facility, Variant 1 alternative: Variant 1 is designated for future urban land use to support the growth of Ceres and is much closer to Ceres than Variant 2 (Proposed Project) which is designated for agriculture. Placement of the layover facility at Variant 2 instead of Variant 1 would better promote local and regional land use and transportation sustainability goals by allowing for future Ceres growth closer in to the City of Ceres as currently planned. Although Variant 2 would have slightly higher biological resource habitat and farmland impacts, these impacts can be mitigated. Thus, the Ceres Layover, Variant 1 alternative would not meet the project’s objectives as well as the proposed project and would not avoid any significant impacts of the Proposed Project. • Merced Layover East of State Route (SR) 99 alternative: The proposed Merced Layover Facility and the Merced Layover East of SR 99 alternative have tradeoffs in terms of cost, proximity to the Fresno Subdivision, and environmental impacts. Both options require further project-level analysis in the subsequent CEQA project-level document to fully document their construction and operational impacts in order to make a more informed decision. As such, both options are to be carried forward to the subsequent CEQA project-level document for further analysis.
153 of 158 RIDERSHIP Ridership for Phase I is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. ACE Extension—Annual System Ridership with Phase I Operations
>% from >% from 2015 2020 2015 2040 2015 No Project Alternative 1,285,200 1,511,700 18% 2,186,800 70% Scenarios with Ceres Extension, 4 trains to San Jose Phase I Operational Scenario Ab -- 1,946,500 51% 2,807,800 118% Phase I Operational Scenario Bc -- 1,947,500 52% 2,809,300 119% Notes: b 4 trains from Stockton - San Jose, 4 train shuttles from Ceres - Lathrop, 4 bus shuttles from Merced - Ceres. c 3 trains from Stockton - San Jose, 1 train Ceres - San Jose, 3 train shuttles Ceres - Lathrop, and 4 bus shuttles from Merced - Ceres.
Ridership for Phase II will be developed during the subsequent project-level CEQA evaluation when service planning is further developed.
COSTS Capital costs associated with Phase I improvement aspects of the Proposed Project would be approximately $292 million. The cost of additional rolling stock required for Phase I operations is estimated as $67 million (2017 dollars) which would be a one-time cost. Capital costs associated with Phase II improvement aspects of the Proposed Project could be approximately $350 million for infrastructure improvements, depending on coordination with the host railroad (UPRR) and subsequent project-level environmental analysis.1 Existing annual operations and maintenance costs are estimated at approximately $21.6 million. Anticipated revenue associated with the No Project Alternative in 2020/2025 and 2040 would be approximately $10.6 million and $15.4 million, respectively. With Phase I operations, annual operations and maintenance costs are estimated at approximately $28.4 million to $29.6 million, depending on the operational scenario implemented. Anticipated revenue associated with Phase I operations would be approximately $14.4 million in 2020 and approximately $20.7 million in 2040. With Phase II operations, annual operations and maintenance costs are estimated at approximately $33.2 million to $35.7 million, depending on the operational scenario implemented. ACE system revenue associated with Phase II operations have not been determined but will be determined in the subsequent project-level CEQA review. The service increases may be implemented in phases. For example, service along the extension to Ceres and Merced may be phased in with smaller service levels initially (such as one or two daily roundtrip trains) and then later increasing up to four daily roundtrip trains.
1 Rolling stock costs required for Phase II operations are not included in this total. This would be identified and disclosed in future project-level environmental analyses for the Phase II improvements.
154 of 158 FUNDING As part of SB 132 passed in April 2017, SJRRC was awarded $400 million for the ACE service expansion in the San Joaquin Valley, including associated system improvements. The $400 million in SB 132 will be used towards the following costs: • Rolling Stock - $67 million • Stations - $90 million • Track Work - $200 million • Environmental - $1.8 million
Staff will continue to work with funding partners to identify full funding for the Phase II improvements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SJRRC ridership studies have shown that expansion to Ceres and Merced can provide substantial increases in ACE ridership and provide substantial congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas benefits and increased mobility options for the northern San Joaquin Valley. Given the use of existing rights-of-way, the environmental impacts are manageable overall and the project can obtain its necessary environmental permits.
1. Staff recommends certification of the EIR as fully addressing the project’s environmental impacts, appropriately considering viable alternatives, and responding to substantive public comments on the Draft EIR.
2. Staff recommends adoption of the CEQA findings including the Statement of Overriding Considerations as making the appropriate findings for environmental impacts and alternatives and for identifying the overriding considerations relative to impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level.
3. Staff recommends adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which identifies how the identified mitigation will be implemented for the Phase I and Phase II elements.
4. For Phase I, staff recommends approval of the Proposed Project.
5. For Phase II, staff recommends carrying forward for project-level CEQA evaluation the Proposed Project elements along with further evaluation of the East of SR99 Merced Layover Alternative as well as analysis of a new Merced Station location in the event that the California High Speed Rail Authority changes their proposed Merced Station location.
155 of 158
RESOLUTION SJRRC-R-18/19-09
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN, APPROVE PHASE 1 FOR THE ACE EXTENSION TO LATHROP TO CERES AND MERCED PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission intends to advance feasible projects to increase ACE ridership and their associated congestion, air quality, greenhouse gas, mobility, and access benefits; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the impacts of the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres and Merced Project; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission found that the adoption of the mitigation measures described in the EIR, the Project would reduce all but three significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has adopted findings concerning the three significant unavoidable impacts and has articulated the overriding economic and environmental benefit considerations in approving the project despite these impacts, and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has considered alternatives to the project and found that there are no feasible alternatives that would meet the project’s objectives as well as the proposed project, while avoiding or substantially reducing the severity of the project’s significant impacts, and
WHEREAS, the EIR analysis of Phase 1 of the Project is at a project-level, while some of the analysis of Phase II of the Project is at a programmatic level and requires further project-level review, and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission did circulate the Draft EIR for agency and public comment as required by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission did consider any comments made by agencies and public prior to making its decision on the project; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has independently reviewed EIR and considered the reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Commission; and
156 of 158 WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has prepared the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project incorporating all of the mitigation recommendations of the EIR;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission finds that on the basis of the whole record before it, including the EIR and the agency and public comments received, there is no substantial evidence that this Project will have a significant effect on the environment other than the three identified significant unavoidable impacts for which overriding circumstances have been identified;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does hereby certify the EIR;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does hereby adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project and incorporates the mitigation measures contained therein as conditions to the Project;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does hereby approve Phase I of the project as defined in the EIR for the Extension to Ceres;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does hereby direct the staff to complete the project-level CEQA review for Phase II of the project for the Extension to Merced at an appropriate time in advance of the timeframe in which adequate funding sources have been identified to allow it to proceed. The CEQA review shall include analysis of Phase II, as defined in the EIR, including potential stations at Turlock, Livingston, Atwater and Merced and shall also consider the East of SR 99 Alternative for the Merced Layover Facility as well as City of Merced and California High-Speed Rail Authority planning for a High-Speed Rail station in Merced at the time of the CEQA review.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does hereby authorize the Executive Director to execute and file the Notice of Determination as required by CEQA;
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does hereby authorize and direct the Executive Officer to place the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on file at its offices at 949 E Channel Street, Stockton 95202.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Commissioners this 3rd day of August 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT:
157 of 158 ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary STEVE DRESSER, Chair
158 of 158