SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MAY 30, 2012

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY

BOARD ROSTER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY

County Member Alternate

Los Angeles: Richard Katz (Chair) Jaime de la Vega Member, General Manager, 4 votes Metro Board of Directors City of Los Angeles Department City of Los Angeles of Transportation Mayor Appointee

Michael Antonovich Robert T. Bartlett Supervisor, 5th District Appointed by Metro County of Los Angeles Vice-Chair, Metro Board of Directors

Don Knabe Beatrice Proo Supervisor, 4th District Appointed by Metro County of Los Angeles Metro Board of Directors

Ara Najarian Maureen Micheline Councilman Transportation Deputy City of Glendale Metro

San Bernardino: Patrick Morris (Vice-Chair) Larry McCallon* Mayor Mayor 2 votes City of San Bernardino City of Highland President, SANBAG Board of Directors

Paul Eaton Alan D. Wapner* Mayor Council Member City of Montclair City of Ontario

Orange: Paul Glaab Michael Hennessey* Mayor Appointed by OCTA 2 votes City of Laguna Niguel Chair, OCTA Board of Directors

Carolyn Cavecche Mayor City of Orange

One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 SCRRA Board of Directors Roster Page 2

Riverside: Ron Roberts Greg Pettis* Council Member Council Member 2 votes City of Temecula Cathedral City

Daryl Busch Karen Spiegel* Mayor Council Member City of Perris City of Corona Vice-Chair, RCTC Board of Directors

Ventura: Keith Millhouse Brian Humphrey Councilmember Commission Member 1 vote City of Moorpark VCTC

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS

Southern California Association of Governments:

Michele Martinez Councilwoman City of Santa Ana

San Diego Association of Governments:

[CURRENTLY AWAITING APPOINTMENT]

Contact: Linda Culp Principal Planner - Rail

State of California/Caltrans:

Michael Miles Director, Caltrans District 7

Alternate: [CURRENTLY AWAITING APPOINTMENT]

*Alternates represent either member Revised 05.09.12

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY SCRRA SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

WEDNESDAY, May 30, 2012 10:00 a.m. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) BOARD ROOM ONE GATEWAY PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a brief general description of items of business to be discussed or transacted. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Authority may take any action that it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action.

A person with a disability may contact the Board Secretary’s office at (213) 452-0255 or via email [email protected] at least 24-hours before the scheduled meeting to request receipt of an agenda in an alternative format or to request disability-related accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting. Late requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The agenda, staff reports and supporting documentation are available from the Board Secretary, located at One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and on the Metrolink website at www.metrolinktrains.com under the Board Agenda link.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item appearing on the agenda may do so by completing a Speaker’s Form and submitting it to the Board Secretary. Speakers will be recognized by the Chairman at the time the agenda item is to be considered. When addressing the Board, please state your name for the record. Please address the Board as a whole through the Chair. Please note comments to individual Board members or staff are not permitted when addressing the Board. A speaker’s comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item not on the agenda, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board, will be taken under Item 7 (Public Comment), and will be subject to the same guidelines as noted above.

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 SCRRA Special Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 2

REGULAR CALENDAR

3. Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy

At its meeting on April 27, 2012 the SCRRA Board directed staff to initiate a public outreach process to solicit feedback on a potential 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, or 9% system- wide average fare increase that would take effect on or after July 1, 2012. The public comment period was opened at the SCRRA Board meeting of April 27, 2012 and will be continued to the May 30, 2012 Board of Directors meeting. The board report provides the California Environmental Quality Act analysis, Title VI analysis, a summary of public comments received regarding a potential fare increase, new Title VI service delivery policy and a staff recommendation for a fare increase.

Staff recommends the Board:

1. Conclude the public outreach process that opened at the April 27, 2012 meeting to solicit comments on the proposed fare increase and Title VI Service Delivery Policy*; and, following the conclusion of the public outreach process:

2. Approve a 7% system-wide average fare increase for all tickets types, except for the Weekend Pass, that would take effect on or after July 1, 2012 to offset an increase in operational expenses.

3. Approve the Title VI Fare Equity Analysis.

4. Waive the 2004 Fare Restructuring Policy cap that limits any station pair to have a maximum increase at 8% for any station pair.

A fare increase of 7% will generate an estimated $4.5 million to cover operational expenses. Page 1

4. Chief Executive Officer’s Report . Agency Update

5. Chair’s Comments

6. Board Members' Comments

7. Public Comment

8. ADJOURNMENT

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 2429, 2012

MEETING DATE: May 30, 2012 ITEM 3 REVISED MAY 29, 2012 TO TO: Board of Directors INCLUDE ENTIRE eCOMMENT PERIOD – ENDED MAY 29, FROM: Chief Executive Officer 2012 NOON

SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy

Issue

At its meeting on April 27, 2012 the SCRRA Board directed staff to initiate a public outreach process to solicit feedback on a potential 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, or 9% system-wide average fare increase that would take effect on or after July 1, 2012. The public comment period was opened at the SCRRA Board meeting of April 27, 2012 and will be continued to the May 30, 2012 Board of Directors meeting. This report provides the California Environmental Quality Act analysis, Title VI analysis, a summary of public comments received regarding a potential fare increase and the new Title VI service delivery policy and a staff recommendation for a fare increase.

Recommendation

Staff recommends the Board:

1. Conclude the public outreach process that opened at the April 27, 2012 meeting to solicit comments on the proposed fare increase and Title VI Service Delivery Policy*; and, following the conclusion of the public outreach process:

2. Approve a 7% system-wide average fare increase for all tickets types, except for the Weekend Pass, that would take effect on or after July 1, 2012 to offset an increase in operational expenses.

3. Approve the Title VI Fare Equity Analysis.

4. Waive the 2004 Fare Restructuring Policy cap that limits any station pair to have a maximum increase at 8% for any station pair.

*The Title VI Service Delivery Policy will be brought to the Board for approval at a later date.

One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor – Los Angeles, CA 90012 1 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 2 Alternatives

The Board may choose to conclude the public hearing and take no action regarding staff’s recommendation on the fare increase and/or the Title VI Service Delivery Policy.

Alternatively, the Board could choose to approve a fare increase of 5%, 6%, 8% or 9%.

Background

Last year, through the implementation of operational efficiencies and a 9% ridership growth, staff developed a budget that included a 14% increase in train miles, without requesting additional subsidy from member agencies or a fare increase.

Despite staff’s continued financial stewardship and efficient management practices, the proposed FY13 budget has a $13.0 million funding shortfall. Some of the costs impacting this year’s budget are as follows:

• $4.2 million increase in major contractor costs including but not limited to the rise in Amtrak’s contract to reflect their nationwide labor settlement and associated overhead increases, as well as an increase in administrative costs • $4.0 million increase in fuel costs ($1.9 million from the higher cost and $2.1 million from an increase in train sets, longer train sets and heavier, safety-enhanced Guardian cars) • $2.5 million in Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) costs reflected as part of new transparency and budget policy • $1.3 million in transfer costs for Metrolink riders option to transfer onto other transportation providers’ systems, primarily the MTA System to provide seamless ridership for Metrolink passengers

As discussed at the March 9, and April 13, 2012, Board meetings, diesel fuel costs have risen dramatically over the past three years. Average fuel prices per gallon for FY10 were $1.80, FY11 were $2.40, and FY12 are $3.40. The cost of diesel fuel used by Metrolink trains could increase to an average cost of $3.75 per gallon for the proposed FY13 budget. Every $.05 increase in the price of diesel fuel translates into an additional expense of approximately $350,000 annually. Additionally, the agency is purchasing more fuel due to the continued introduction of the heavier crash energy management Guardian cars to the Metrolink fleet and the increased number of cars on train sets to accommodate a 9% growth in ridership over the past year. SCRRA has sought to negotiate and execute contracts for FY2012-13 in an effort to reduce the overall fuel costs.

Staff developed a preliminary FY2012-13 budget which was presented to the Board of Directors on April 13, 2012. The total operating and maintenance of way costs are estimated at $194.0 million, with offsetting revenues of $99.9 million. The resulting net subsidy is $94.1 million, which is a $13 million increase over the FY2011-12 budget.

2 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 3 The current economic climate requires tough decisions by transportation leaders to fund operations at a level that will continue to meet the region’s transportation needs. Many transportation providers across the country and in the Southern California region are faced with the same challenges, and have responded by raising fares up to 35%.

Staff is recommending a system-wide average 7% increase to the base ticket price implemented on or after July 1, 2012. A 7% increase would generate an additional $4.5 million in revenue to cover Metrolink operating costs. Reference the chart below for other percent increases and the amount generated.

This proposed fare increase is separate from the 2004 Board-adopted policy to restructure fares from a zone-based fee to mileage-based fares over a ten-year period. This phased restructuring did not generate additional revenues for Metrolink, but was implemented to ensure a fair and equitable fare policy. When combined with the proposed 5% to 9% increase, this could result in increases of up to 13.58% for less than 1% of Monthly Pass holders depending on their particular station pair. Consequently, this will require waving the 2004 restructuring policy that no set of station pairs will have a rate increase of more than 8% in a year. The Board has previously authorized an override to this policy in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010.

Member agency breakdown Proposed FY 12-13 Total Budget amount $ millions generated LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Fare Increase: 5% $3.2 $1.7 $.7 $0.2 $0.5 $0.1 6% $3.9 $2.0 $.9 $0.3 $0.6 $0.1 7% $4.5 $2.3 $1.0 $0.3 $0.7 $0.1 8% $5.2 $2.6 $1.2 $0.4 $0.8 $0.2 9% $5.8 $3.0 $1.3 $0.4 $0.9 $0.2

CEQA : Environmental Review & Findings

The proposed fare increase is exempt from CEQA by operation of the statutory exemption contained in Public Resources Code 21080(b)(8) which states in relevant part that CEQA does not apply to:

(t)he establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of:

3 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 4 A. Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, B. Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, C. Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, D. Obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas

As set forth in Attachment A, the proposed fare increase qualifies for an exemption under Public Resources Code 21080 (b) (8).

The funding from this action will be devoted exclusively to permissible purposes; primarily the operation and maintenance of Metrolink service within existing service areas and it will not fund capital projects to expand the system. The proposed change in fares will increase revenue. Because of the on-going nature of the proposed changes, references to current budget documentation are for illustrative purposes only and do not limit Metrolink’s ability to expend any projected revenue increases for other exemption-eligible purposes in this or later fiscal years.

Title VI Analysis

As a recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) financial assistance, Metrolink is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to carry out the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Title VI regulations by evaluating fare changes at the planning and programming stages to determine whether those changes have a discriminatory impact on certain segments of the population. (Reference: Circular FTA C 4702.1A).

Metrolink expects operating expenses in FY2012-13 to increase by 8.6% from a year ago. In order to meet these higher expenses Metrolink is proposing a general across-the-board general fare increase of 5%-9%. As part of the fare equity analysis, Metrolink conducted a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the fare increase and related fare policy changes in compliance with Title VI requirements.

No disparate impact and no disproportionately high and adverse effects were found and no further analysis or mitigating strategies were determined to be necessary

Reference Attachment B for the complete assessment of Title VI and Environmental Justice analysis.

Public Comments

Public Comments Counts as of Close of Public Comment Period, May 29, 2012 at noon

Item (ALL COMMENTS) Support Oppose Neutral Total Responders* Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% 12 125 9 146 0

4 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 5

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% 3 99 5 107 0 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% 2 95 4 101 0 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% 0 101 2 103 0 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% 3 125 4 132 0 Totals 20 545 24 589 159 Percent of All Comments 3% 92% 4% 0 *Responders refers to the individuals that made a comments. Each individual may have commented up to 5 times, one for each level of potential increase percentage.

Please refer to Attachment F for detailed counts.

A total of 342 589 comments from a total of 96 159 responders were received via eComments, in addition, we received one (1) letter and 2 faxesweb email, fax and during the public workshops as of Tuesday, May 2229, 2012 at noon.

 Most commented on not having pay raises but having pay cuts and not being able to afford any increase.  Fare enforcement was a common theme. Responders believe this effort should be stepped up to bridge the budget gap before asking passengers to pay more for already high prices.  Many considered fuel prices an excuse to increase fares.  Several comments were raised around the expectation that a fare increase should be balanced with better and more service and/or added value.  Comments included the discontent with the elimination of the 10-trip ticket, concern about senior and disabled fare increases and latest service delays.  Comments included requests to look at other measures to save costs, increase ridership and increase revenue with advertisements.

Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 5% (92 146 - 2725% of all responses)

Oppose – 78 125 people opposed the fare increase at this level (8586% of responders) Others support this level or are neutral

“This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely dependent on this service to be able to survive? the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top. If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout. It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times. The public is not responsible for lack of company management? we shouldn't have to bail the economic

5 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 6 mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit" DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do! If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refund my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours?”

“Instead of increasing fares for paying passengers, why not do more to make sure that ALL passengers buy a ticket in the first place? I rarely see the Sheriff checking any more, maybe 3-4 times a month. If the conductor would check tickets on EVERY train to catch those who do not pay, fares could stay low for everyone who DOES pay. Although I ride various trains, I most frequently ride AV Line 208 and 217, and I ALWAYS buy a monthly pass or ticket!”

Support and Neutral – Of the few (1421) that supported this proposal, passengers prefer the lowest increase compared to the higher 9% option.

“I support the increase but Metrolink is getting ripped off by passengers who do not pay their fare along the San Bernardino line beginning at San Bernardino through Rancho Cucamonga. I saw 3 Sheriffs sit in their seats and didn't check any tickets until I overheard them say they will begin in Fontana. I've seen like about 10 passengers in San Bernardino get on for free and I've seen 5 passengers get on at Rialto without paying the fare. Metrolink you will still lose money even if you raise the fare.”

“I agree with the fare increase. I have a few comments you can do to increase your revenue. I have been a full time rider for the last 12 years and a part time rider for 3 years prior to that. One way to increase revenue is to have the conductors check tickets and passes more often. When they do check, make sure they look not only at the month? but the year. A few guys who ride the train cover up the year on the pass with their fingers showing only the month. They have been using the same July pass since 2009. Also, some passengers by a monthly pass from Covina to LUSD when they embark and disembark from Rancho Cucamonga. Their monthly pass cost is cut in half because of this. Of all the years I have been riding the trains I have only seen a few passengers get citied. Most of the time the passengers talk their way out. The conductors should have a zero tolerance. Either you have a ticket or you don't. The conductors do not realize what is said about them once the passengers have talked their way out of a ticket. The comments are not kind. Some folks say why buy a ticket, they do not check and if your caught we just talk our way out of it. If word goes out that the conductors have zero tolerance and the whole pass is checked (for month and YEAR and the stations) revenue will go up. Thanks.”

“I remember when the increases were 3 percent each year. Although gas has increased in price, I am asking that you take into consideration the current economic situation of your riders. I work for the courts and we have not received an increase in salary or even cost of living raise in the last 3-4 years. Prices are rising and our pay is currently going nowhere. But if you have to increase, please do so at the lowest percentage possible. I thank you for

6 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 7 your consideration in this matter. I am praying for a favorable outcome. That you would be led by God to do the right and equitable thing. God Bless!”

“I hope that Metrolink will NOT gouge the Senior/Disabled folks like they did in the last fare adjustment. We are the group who can least afford it. We did not have a 6% raise? it was more like 25%.”

Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 6% (61 107 – 18% of all responses)

Oppose – 58 99 people opposed the fare increase at this level (9592% of responders) Others support this level or are neutral

“I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing fuel prices. However? here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occurred. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times. I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip. At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time.”

Support and Neutral – Of the few (38) that supported this proposal, passengers prefer the lowest increase compared to the higher 9% option.

Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 7% (57 101 – 17% of all responses)

Oppose – 53 95 people opposed the fare increase at this level (9394% of responders) Others support this level or are neutral

“I am against the fare increase of 7% due to the fact I can barely afford to pay the current monthly pass now. A 7% increase would cause me to stop riding everyday during the week.”

7 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 8 Support and Neutral – Of the few (46) that supported this proposal, passengers prefer the lowest increase compared to the higher 9% option.

Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 8% (55 103 – 1617% of all responses)

Oppose – 53 101 people opposed the fare increase at this level (9398% of responders) Others support this level or are neutral

“I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final destination.”

“If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62.”

“Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to lower the fares when fuel costs go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arranging transportation at both ends.”

Support and Neutral – Of the few (5) that supported this proposal, passengers prefer the lowest increase compared to the higher 9% option. 2 indicated they were neutral to the increase at this level.

Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 9% (55 132 – 2322% of all responses)

Oppose – 73 125 people opposed the fare increase at this level (9995% of responders)

“Need more income to offset fare increase. Police officers have to pay to ride. Bike riders need to pay extra for having a bike on the train. People that bring more that one large or two small carry on need to pay extra especially when they take up 3 or 4 seats.”

“Disappointed with Metrolink on this proposal to increase fares that are already high. Any increase would force me and several other monthly pass holders to carpool. Metrolink should worry more about passengers with no passes that are riding for free on a daily basis. If daily or more frequent ticket checks would be preformed Metrolink would see this increase is not necessary. I have been a monthly pass holder for four years and I personally have seen an increase in passengers without any pass. Very rarely do we see any conductor or law enforcement agent checking passes. Metrolink should reconsider any fair increase and if any increase is approved many of us would be forced to commute in our own vehicles.”

“My family and I are trying very hard to pull ourselves out of the financial devastation that has dogged us since 2007. Now the train tickets are going up again. I was fine with the monthly pass and 10 trip for months I didn't work at least 18 days. Then you jacked the price of the 10 trip up $15 and added that awful weekly pass that makes me pay for 7 days

8 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 9 when I only work 4. The cost of the monthly pass has been steadily creeping up. I realize the fuel is outrageous? but I'm sure it doesn't justify a 9% increase (and according to your flyer it may be as much as 20%). Also mentioned is a nationwide labor settlement--I haven't have a raise in over 4 years. I hope Metrolink has explored cutting waste with endless consultants and high salaries at the top before making it even more difficult for us to go to work and earn a living.”

Support and Neutral – 1 7 person people either support or are neutral regarding an increase at this level.was neutral

“This is the one you are going for so I will comment on this. I hope that a fare increase means better performance like being on time.”

“I support the fact that you have to raise the price to cover the cost however, what I don’t support is taking away the convenience factor shuch as the ten trip card. For those riders that travel 2-3 times per week there is no viable option other than stand in line and buy these tickets. There are a lot of us out there as you should know. In addition, improve the service when you raise the price by introducing wifi on the train. This doesn’t cost much but will save a lot for many riders that are now using MiFi devices at $60 a month.”

“While I do support the increase in fares by as much as 9%, a level which is easily afforded by riders based on average household incomes, Metrolink’s supporting agencies should consider pressing for an increase in the gas tax throughout the Metrolink region to fund operational costs and infrastructure investment such as electrification, which would permit faster service (via increased acceleration) and lowered operational costs.”

Reference Attachment C for all public comments received regarding the fare increase as of May 24. A separate attachment will be provided to the Board that includes all additional comments up to May 29 at the Board meeting on May 30.

Reference Attachment D for all public comments received regarding the Title VI Service Delivery Policy as of May 24. A separate attachment will be provided to the Board that includes all additional comments up to May 29 at the Board meeting on May 30.

History of Fare Restructuring Program and Past Fare Increases

In April 2004, the Board approved a 10-year restructuring program beginning July 1, 2005, which changed the fare structure from a zone system to a driving-mileage-based station- to-station fare structure. The purpose of this restructuring was to provide a fair, consistent and equitable pricing policy in the future by using a driving mile equivalent system. Due to deep discounts enjoyed by some stations in the former 11-mile zone structure, it was decided that the adjustment was to be phased in over multiple years to arrive at a consistent station-to-station pricing structure after 10 adjustments so that certain station pairs would not receive steep increases at one time.

9 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 10 The Metrolink fare structure is complex because a separate fare must be calculated for each station pair, for each category of rider, for each fare type, and for weekend or weekday fares. As a result, the data system includes more than 53,000 discrete fares which change annually. In addition, the system must support the special fare discount program fare tables. Station to station pair increases vary.

While the restructuring provides for an equitable fare policy, it does not, produce additional revenue for Metrolink. As a result, in addition to fare restructuring, the Board in 2004 noted that additional system-wide fare increases may be needed in the future to meet operating cost increases. Therefore, the Board put in place a provision that when combining the restructuring fare increases with a system-wide increase, the impact on any station pair was to be limited to an 8% annual increase.

Since the range of percentages is above 3.5%, the Board would need to wave the limit of an 8% annual fare increase for any particular station pair in order to ensure that the Metrolink services can continue to be delivered at the level of service the passengers have come to expect. When combining the proposed system-wide average fare increase with the phased restructuring fare increase the majority of station pairs will remain well below the 8% annual policy restriction.

Past Fare Increases*

1992 No Increase 2002 5% 1993 No Increase 2003 No Increase 1994 No Increase 2004 3.5% 1995 No Increase 2005 4.5% 1996 No Increase 2006 5.5% 1997 No Increase 2007 3.5% 1998 4% 2008 5.5% 1999 No Increase 2009 3.5% 2000 4% 2010 6% 2001 No Increase 2011 No Increase

*The increases from 2005 – 2010 reflect system-wide average increases stemming from the Board’s 2004 approved Fare Restructuring Policy.

Past and Planned Fare Increases by US Commuter Railroads

Metrolink is not the only commuter rail agency that is impacted by an increase in fuel prices. The chart below shows the various fare increases that other commuter rail agencies have implemented due to increases in expenses.

10 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 2429, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 11 Agency Region Last Fare Fare Change Proposed Change changes in the next 12 months MBTA Boston Jun-05 20% 35-45% Virginia Railway Washington DC Jan-10 6% 3% Express SEPTA Philadelphia Jul-10 6-8% 7% Long Island Railroad New York Dec-10 9% 8.5% NJT New Jersey May-10 25% n/a Front Runner Salt Lake City, May-11 12% - Base 4% - Base Fare UT Fare METRA Chicago, Ill. Jan-12 25% n/a Caltrain San Jose, CA Jul-11 9% Up to 9% Metro-North New York Dec-11 ~8.8% ~8.5%

Public Outreach Materials

Please reference Attachment E for the public outreach materials.

Budget Impact

A fare increase of 7% will generate an estimated $4.5 million to cover operational expenses.

Prepared by: Mark Waier, Manager, Marketing and Sales Claudia Ziebell, Communications Manager Henning Eichler, Manager, Research and Planning Nancy Weiford, Chief Finance Officer Sherita Coffelt, Media and Public Relations Officer Olga Yero, Chief of Staff

JOHN E. FENTON Chief Executive Officer

11

ATTACHMENT A

12 Attachment A

FINDINGS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: FARE INCREASE ACTIONS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012

1. On April 27, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Board or SCRRA or Metrolink) scheduled and conducted a duly noticed public hearing following the implementation of a public communications outreach plan on budget development which included a potential fare increase.

2. Metrolink is the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes for these discretionary decisions which can result in potential increases in fares or in costs to its passengers. As lead agency, Metrolink must conduct a review under CEQA which begins with the determination of whether any exemption from CEQA applies to the proposed actions or "project" for CEQA purposes. Metrolink adopted and implemented a public communications outreach plan on April 27, 2012 to solicit public comments and suggestions on its budget development options for the budget for FY2012-13. The public outreach and notice solicited input on proposed fare increases and related fare policy actions designed to increase revenue. Those proposals were documented for the record at the public hearing on April 27, 2012.

3. If a project is determined to be exempt under CEQA, there is no requirement to conduct an Initial Study or to prepare either a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. A "statutory exemption" from CEQA is a legislative action exempting certain types of projects from CEQA. Since CEQA is a state statute, the state legislature is able to adopt legislative exemptions for any number of reasons that may or may not be related to environmental goals. In each instance of a statutory exemption, the state legislature has determined that the interest promoted by the exemption justified the removal of any requirement for further environmental review or documentation.

4. The applicable statutory exemption for fare modifications is found in the CEQA statute at California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (8) and in the companion section of the State CEQA Guidelines at Section 15273.

5. The statutory exemption contained in Public Resources Code 21080(b) (8) states in relevant part that CEQA does not apply to the following "activities": (8) The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of: a) Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, b) Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, c) Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, d) Obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas,

13 Attachment A FINDINGS OF THE SCRRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS PURSUANT TO CEQA: FARE INCREASE ACTIONS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012 Page 2

6. The State CEQA Guidelines in Section 15273 restates the relevant exempt purposes of California Public Utilities Code Section 21080 (b) (8) and also clarifies that the exemption does not apply to rate increases to fund capital projects to expand a system.

7. Both the CEQA statute and the State Guideline section require the lead agency to incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding claiming this exemption setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of the exemption. These findings are incorporated in the record to meet that requirement.

8. The SCRRA is a public agency and independent joint powers authority with member agencies which are the transportation commissions of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. SCRRA collects fare revenues on behalf of each member agency and those funds are applied towards the operating costs of Metrolink commuter train service. Revenues are collected by line segment in each member county and offset each agency’s contribution towards the total funding necessary for the operation of train service. Unlike many other public transit agencies, SCRRA does not have any independent sources of revenue to fund transit operations such as a dedicated sales tax.

9. Due to the ongoing loss of local public agency revenues as a result of the recent economic downturn, the SCRRA member agencies cannot provide sufficient additional funds to subsidize the current level of service within the current service area. Additional funds are needed from other sources.

10. With farebox recovery estimated to be under 50% in FY2012-13, meaning fares cover less than 50% of the cost to provide a trip on Metrolink commuter train service, any additional revenues from the proposed fare increase will only serve to reduce the required member agency contributions of other funds to operate service at current levels and will be dedicated exclusively to offset operating expenses to maintain existing service or another of the eligible expenditures.

11. The estimated expenses required to operate the Metrolink commuter rail system in FY2012-13 are currently estimated to be $194 million with operating revenues expected to total $99.9 million. The proposed 7% average system-wide change in fares and additional policy changes are expected to generate approximately $4.5 million in increased revenue during FY2012-13 in order to maintain service within the existing service area as indicated in the record before the SCRRA on March 9, and April 13, 2012 board meetings, incorporated by reference into these findings as if set out herein. In combination with other measures to cut costs and increase revenue to achieve a balanced budget for FY2012-13, these fare increases, as they may be adopted or amended by the Board, will be limited to expenditures eligible for the statutory exemption.

14 Attachment A FINDINGS OF THE SCRRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS PURSUANT TO CEQA: FARE INCREASE ACTIONS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012 Page 3

12. There are a number of examples in the Metrolink budget of expenditures for operating expenses, and the purchase or lease of supplies, equipment or materials which collectively exceed in cost any anticipated revenues from the proposed fare changes. This demonstrates with specificity that the revenues can be limited to purposes which are within the eligible statutory exemption, primarily in the categories of operating expenses and purchase or lease of equipment or materials, although funds could be spent for the other eligible categories as well.

13. The project has been reviewed on the basis of the staff recommended actions and report and the relevant portions of Metrolink budget and fare restructuring documentation, which constitute the primary documents of the record herein.

14. The proposed increase in fares effective July 1, 2012 is for one or more of the four listed relevant permissible purposes listed in Public Resources Code 21080 (b) (8) (A) – (D).

15. The funding from this action will be devoted exclusively to the operation and maintenance of Metrolink's service within existing service areas or another of the eligible expenditures, and will not fund capital projects to expand the system.

16. This restriction and allocation is consistent with SCRRA budgeting and expense policies and practices in place since the initiation of train service in 1992, and the staff can apply any additional revenues from this action to these CEQA exempt purposes and as part of the Board action has been directed to limit these revenues to these CEQA exempt eligible purposes.

17. The record in this matter includes, but is not limited to, the staff reports from this and other relevant meeting dates relating to SCRRA fares and budget matters including adoption of a public communications outreach plan for the public review process in advance of the public hearing, and SCRRA budget related and fare related documentation. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project herein meets the requirements of the statutory exemption from CEQA in California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15273.

15

ATTACHMENT B

16 Attachment B

Southern California Regional Railroad Authority

TITLE VI and ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) ASSESSMENT Of the Proposed July 2012 Fare Policy Changes

In Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

the Federal Transit Administration Circular 4702.1A, Chapter V,

and the Environmental Justice Policy Guidance FTA C 4703.1

May 2012

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 1

17 Attachment B

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 2

Table of Figures ...... 3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4

2. TITLE VI REGULATORY BACKGROUND ...... 5

3. METROLINK RIDERSHIP DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ...... 6

4. ANALYSIS APPROACH ...... 8

4.1 Data Sources ...... 8

4.2 Geographic Coverage ...... 9

5. FARE POLICY CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 10

5.1 Definition of Title VI Disparate Impact and Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects ...... 10

5.2 Fare Product Usage by Title VI and EJ populations ...... 10

5.3 General System-Wide Fare Increase Impact Assessment ...... 12

5.4 Fare Rounding Impact Assessment ...... 13

5.5 Fare Restructuring Impact Assessment ...... 14

5.6 Discontinuation of Metrolink Ten-Trip Tickets ...... 16

5.7 Discontinued Acceptance of Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets ...... 17

6. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS OUTREACH PLAN ...... 18

Appendix A: Effect of Fare Rounding on a 5% Fare Increase ...... 20

Appendix B: Effect of Fare Restructuring ...... 24

Appendix C: Methodology ...... 28

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 2

18 Attachment B

Table of Figures Figure 1: Assessment of Fare Policy Changes ...... 4

Figure 2: Trip Purpose (weekday) ...... 6

Figure 3: Trip Purpose (weekend) ...... 6

Figure 4: Fare Product Usage (weekday) ...... 6

Figure 5: Fare Product Usage (weekend) ...... 6

Figure 6: Ethnicity (weekday riders) ...... 7

Figure 7: Ethnicity (weekend riders) ...... 7

Figure 8: Income (weekday riders) ...... 7

Figure 9: Income (weekend riders) ...... 7

Figure 10: Transit Dependency...... 7

Figure 11: Data Sources ...... 8

Figure 12: Metrolink Service Area ...... 9

Figure 13: Fare Product Usage by Minority Status ...... 11

Figure 14: Fare Product Usage by Low Income Status ...... 11

Figure 15: Fare Product Usage by Environmental Justice (EJ) Status ...... 12

Figure 16: Sample Fares before and after a 7% Fare Increase ...... 13

Figure 17: Rounding Effects on Oneway Tickets at Different Rates of Fare Increase ...... 13

Figure 18: Minority Station Catchment Areas ...... 14

Figure 19: EJ Station Catchment Areas ...... 15

Figure 20: Fare Restructuring Impacts ...... 16

Figure 21: Impact of Discontinued Ten-Trip Ticket on Minorities ...... 17

Figure 22: Impact of Discontinued Ten-Trip Ticket on EJ Populations ...... 17

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 3

19 Attachment B

TITLE VI ASSESSMENT Of the Proposed July 2012 Fare Policy Changes

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) financial assistance Metrolink is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to carry out the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Title VI regulations by evaluating fare changes at the planning and programming stages to determine whether those changes have a discriminatory impact. (Reference: Circular FTA C 4702.1A).

Metrolink expects operating expenses in Fiscal Year 2013 to increase by 8.6% from a year ago. In order to meet these higher expenses Metrolink is proposing a general across-the-board general fare increase of 5%-9%. As part of the fare equity analysis Metrolink conducted a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the fare increase and related fare policy changes in compliance with Title VI requirements.

No disparate impact and no disproportionately high and adverse effects were found and no further analysis or mitigating strategies were determined to be necessary (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Assessment of Fare Policy Changes

Disproportionately Disparate High and Adverse Recommended Fare Policy Item Impact Effect Mitigation Action General System-Wide Fare Increase No No N/A N/A

Rounding of Fares to nearest $0.25 No No N/A N/A

Fare Restructuring No No N/A N/A

Discontinue sale of Metrolink Ten-Trip Tickets No No N/A N/A

Discontinue acceptance of Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets No No N/A N/A

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 4

20 Attachment B

2. TITLE VI REGULATORY BACKGROUND Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) provides that: “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The scope of Title VI was expanded by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-209) to include all of a recipient’s and contractor’s programs or activities whether federally assisted or not.

The February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice added low income to minority and requires that disproportionately high and adverse impacts be identified and addressed. Environmental justice applies to all programs, policies, and activities of the transportation program and is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Executive Order 12898 also requires public involvement and mandates that transportation agencies ensure there is no exclusion from participation, no denial of benefits, and no discrimination in the services which they provide.

FTA requires all transit operators who receive federal funds to conduct assessments of Title VI to demonstrate nondiscrimination of services and facilities for minority and Environmental Justice communities.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 5

21 Attachment B

3. METROLINK RIDERSHIP DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE In Fiscal Year 2011 Metrolink carried 11.14 million riders. Weekend riders accounted for five percent of all trips taken. The overwhelming majority of weekday trips are work- or school-related (88%), whereas three in four weekend trips (73%) are leisure trips. 21% of weekend trips are work-or school-related.

Figure 2: Trip Purpose (weekday) Figure 3: Trip Purpose (weekend)

Sixty-two percent of weekday riders use either a Monthly Pass (58%) or Seven Day Pass (4%). Oneway, Roundtrip, and Ten-Trip Tickets account for 32% of all weekday trips. The remaining weekday trips (6%) utilize a variety of free or third party fare products.

The most popular fare product for weekend riders are Oneway and Roundtrip Tickets (42%) and the Weekend Pass (35%). Monthly and Seven Day Passes and Ten-Trip Tickets are used by 15% of weekend riders.

Figure 4: Fare Product Usage (weekday) Figure 5: Fare Product Usage (weekend)

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 6

22 Attachment B

Metrolink ridership is predominately minority: 59% of weekday riders (Figure 6) and 71% of weekend riders (Figure 7) identify themselves as member of a minority group. The percentage of minority ridership has increased over the past decade but seems to have stabilized now.

Household income among Metrolink riders differs significantly for weekday and weekend riders: 71% of weekday riders and 37% of weekend riders reported household incomes of more than $50,000). This, in part, reflects the higher proportion of non-work trips during the weekend (Figure 9). Lower incomes are also reflected in the higher rate of transit dependency among weekend riders, many of whom are students and individuals unable to drive (Figure 10).

Figure 6: Ethnicity (weekday riders) Figure 8: Income (weekday riders)

Figure 7: Ethnicity (weekend riders) Figure 9: Income (weekend riders)

Figure 10: Transit Dependency

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 7

23 Attachment B

4. ANALYSIS APPROACH

4.1 Data Sources The fare equity analysis utilizes the following data sources:

Figure 11: Data Sources Data Source Provider Collection Use Methodology

American Community U.S. Census Sample of the general Household income data Survey (ACS) 2005-2009 Bureau population

2010 U.S. Census SF 1 U.S. Census Census of the general Ethnicity data Bureau population

Onboard Surveys Metrolink Scientific sample of Fare product usage, income, (2008, 2010, 2011, 2012) Metrolink ridership trip characteristics, and ethnicity data

Station catchment areas Metrolink Origin-Destination Travel shed and service area data analysis

Fare media sales Metrolink Sales transactions Station demand estimates

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 8

24 Attachment B

4.2 Geographic Coverage This analysis covers the entire Metrolink service area which is defined by the travel shed of Metrolink riders (Figure 12). The service area consists of Metrolink line corridors in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Northern San Diego Counties.

Census data is analyzed at the census tract level which has been aggregated to individual station catchment areas.

Figure 12: Metrolink Service Area

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 9

25 Attachment B

5. FARE POLICY CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Title VI guidelines require transit agencies to test for disparate impact and disproportionately high and adverse effects from changes in fare policy. The following sections provide detailed information on fare product usage by Title VI and EJ populations and an assessment of the effects of fare changes on these populations. There is also an assessment of the effects of fare policy changes on individual stations and the populations served.

5.1 Definition of Title VI Disparate Impact and Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects Disparate impact refers to facially neutral policies or practices that have the effect of disproportionately excluding or adversely affecting members of a group protected under Title VI.

Pursuant to FTA Circular 4702.1A, a disproportionately high and adverse effect is defined as an adverse effect that:

(1) is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or

(2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population.

Metrolink follows the fare equity analysis methodology detailed in Methodology to test for impacts of fare policy changes on Title VI and EJ populations.

5.2 Fare Product Usage by Title VI and EJ populations Using the latest available onboard survey data from 2010 Metrolink has identified fare product usage by minority status. Usage rates had to be estimated for two fare products, the Seven Day Pass and the Weekend Pass, which were introduced only after the survey was conducted. Since the Seven Day Pass competes most directly with the Ten-Trip Ticket, both fare products are deemed comparable and the same distribution of minority status is assumed. The Weekend Pass is most comparable to Metrolink’s Weekend Roundtrip Ticket and is assumed to have the same usage by minority status. Although all fare products are used predominately by minorities, a disproportionate minority usage was determined for Weekday Oneway and Roundtrip Tickets, and for the Weekend Oneway Ticket (Figure 13).

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 10

26 Attachment B

Figure 13: Fare Product Usage by Minority Status

Fare Media Minority Not Minority Total Monthly Pass 57% 43% 100% Seven Day Pass* 59% 41% 100% Ten Trip Ticket 59% 41% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WKD) 65% 35% 100% Oneway Ticket (WKD) 70% 30% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WND) 61% 39% 100% Oneway Ticket (WND) 77% 23% 100% Weekend Pass* 61% 39% 100% Other 67% 33% 100% Overall 59% 41% 100% * estimated

14.2% of households in the Metrolink service area are classified as low income.1 Overall, 10% of Metrolink riders fall into that category. After a review of onboard survey data it was determined that minority usage is disproportionately high for Oneway and Roundtrip Tickets, as well as for the Weekend Pass (Figure 14). The “Other” category includes free fares, such as promotional tickets and Access Services passes.

Figure 14: Fare Product Usage by Low Income Status

Not-Low- Fare Media Low Income Inocme Total Monthly Pass 5% 95% 100% Seven Day Pass* 7% 93% 100% Ten Trip Ticket 7% 93% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WKD) 18% 82% 100% Oneway Ticket (WKD) 32% 68% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WND) 35% 65% 100% Oneway Ticket (WND) 49% 51% 100% Weekend Pass* 35% 65% 100% Other 43% 57% 100% Overall 10% 90% 100% * estimated

1 Less than $20,000 household income in 2009.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 11

27 Attachment B

Environmental Justice populations are defined as populations that are either minority or low income or both. 64% of Metrolink ridership falls into this category. The following fare products were found to be disproportionately used by EJ populations: Oneway Tickets (weekday and weekend), Roundtrip Tickets (weekend), Weekend Pass (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Fare Product Usage by Environmental Justice (EJ) Status

Fare Media EJ Not EJ Total Monthly Pass 61% 39% 100% Seven Day Pass* 62% 38% 100% Ten Trip Ticket 62% 38% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WKD) 70% 30% 100% Oneway Ticket (WKD) 77% 23% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WND) 84% 16% 100% Oneway Ticket (WND) 69% 31% 100% Weekend Pass* 84% 16% 100% Other 81% 19% 100% Overall 64% 36% 100%

* estimated

5.3 General System-Wide Fare Increase Impact Assessment Metrolink expects operating expenses in Fiscal Year 2013 to increase by 8.6% from a year ago. In order to meet these higher expenses Metrolink is proposing an across-the-board general fare increase of 5%-9% applied to all fare products with the exception of the Weekend Pass and special Group Fares. The exact rate of the fare increase is subject to a vote by the Board of Directors.

Since Metrolink Ticket Vending Machines require tickets to be priced in increments of $0.25 all fares are rounded to the nearest $0.25. This has the effect that a given fare may be higher or lower than the average rate of a fare increase whereby larger than average increases are off-set by lower than average increases. For example, a 5% system-wide fare increase for an average trip of 39 miles results in fares increasing between 4.9% and 5.3% depending on fare product (Figure 16). These particular results are for illustration only and may not be typical for all stations.

There are no disparate impacts or disproportionately high and adverse effects on Title VI protected populations as a result of the general system-wide fare increase. A separate analysis of the impact of rounding on fares is presented below.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 12

28 Attachment B

Figure 16: Sample Fares before and after a 5% Fare Increase

Rancho Cucamonga - Cal State LA Average Price after (39 miles) 5% Fare Increase Fare Media before after % change Monthly Pass $262.00 $275.00 5.0% Seven Day Pass $66.50 $69.75 4.9% Roundtrip Ticket (WKD)a, b $19.00 $20.00 5.3% Oneway Ticket (WKD)a, b $9.50 $10.00 5.3% Roundtrip Ticket (WND)a, b $19.00 $20.00 5.3% Oneway Ticket (WND)a $9.50 $10.00 5.3% Weekend Pass $10.00 $10.00 0.0% a. Title VI Fare Product; b. EJ Fare Product

5.4 Fare Rounding Impact Assessment Metrolink Ticket Vending Machines require all fares to be priced in $0.25 increments. Due to this limitation fares are rounded up or down to the nearest $0.25. This rounding has no effect on most fare products, but some lower priced fares may change by more or less than the system-wide average rate of fare increase. On average, however, rounding is more likely to result in a lower rate than would have been the case without rounding (Figure 17).

There are no disparate impacts or disproportionately high and adverse effects on Title VI protected populations. Detailed tables showing the rounding effect for individual stations are provided in Appendix A: Effect of Fare Rounding on a 5% Fare Increase.

Figure 17: Rounding Effects on Oneway Tickets at Different Rates of Fare Increase

One-Way Tickets Rounded Unrounded Fare Increase: 5% 4.4% 4.4% Fare Increase: 6% 5.2% 5.3% Fare Increase: 7% 6.2% 6.1% Fare Increase: 8% 6.9% 7.0% Fare Increase: 9% 7.8% 7.8%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 13

29 Attachment B

5.5 Fare Restructuring Impact Assessment In addition to the across-the-board general fare increase Metrolink is continuing with the phased implementation of the Fare Restructuring Policy. This policy, adopted in 2004, transitions Metrolink’s zone fare structure to a mileage-based fare structure which removes inequities in the pricing of trips. These inequities result in some short distance trips being priced higher than some longer distance trips.

Although the general fare increase applies the same rate increase to all fare products it is possible that individual stations may experience different rates of fare increases due to the effects of the fare restructuring program. In order to test for disparate impacts of the fare restructuring on individual stations Metrolink has determined the minority status of Metrolink stations based on an analysis of census data for each station’s catchment area. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census Metrolink’s service area covers a population that is 66% minority. There are 21 minority stations as displayed in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Minority Station Catchment Areas

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 14

30 Attachment B

A similar analysis was conducted to identify Environmental Justice populations within our station catchment areas. Using the most current census data low income and minority Census Tracts were identified and aggregated by station catchment area (see Methodology). 39 Metrolink stations were identified as exceeding the threshold for qualifying as an EJ station catchment area (Figure 19).

Figure 19: EJ Station Catchment Areas

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 15

31 Attachment B

Based on the designation as minority or EJ stations it was determined that the fare restructuring has the effect of resulting in a larger average fare decrease for Minority Stations than for Non-Minority stations. The same is the case for EJ Stations (Figure 20). Metrolink has also analyzed the effects of the fare restructuring on individual stations and has determined that there are no disparate impacts or disproportionately high and adverse effects on Title VI protected populations. Detailed information on the effects of the fare restructuring is provided in Appendix B: Effect of Fare Restructuring.

Figure 20: Fare Restructuring Impacts

Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates Station Type 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% Minority Stations -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% Non-Minority Stations -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8%

EJ Stations -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% Non-EJ Stations -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.7%

5.6 Discontinuation of Metrolink Ten-Trip Tickets On May 14, 2012 Metrolink has eliminated the sale of the Ten-Trip Ticket, in conjunction with a May 2011 Board action. Metrolink will honor these tickets until they are all either used by the passenger or they reach the 45-day expiration date on June 28, whichever comes first. Metrolink customers will have other ticket options including Monthly Passes, Weekly Passes and Oneway and Round-Trip tickets.

For Ten-Trip Ticket customers who make more than seven Oneway-trips per week (3.5 roundtrips) the Monthly Pass and the Seven Day Pass present lower cost options. Also, the Seven Day Pass is priced lower than a comparable Ten-Trip Ticket and thereby reduces the financial outlay required for advance purchases.

However, for those Ten-Trip Ticket customers who make seven or fewer Oneway-trips per week (3.5 roundtrips) the best option are Oneway or Roundtrip Tickets which do not carry the 5% discount of the Ten-Trip Ticket. This loss of the 5% discount does not disproportionately impact Minority (Figure 21) or EJ Populations (Figure 22).

No disparate impact and no disproportionately high and adverse effects exist and no further analysis or mitigating strategies are required.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 16

32 Attachment B

Figure 21: Impact of Discontinued Ten-Trip Ticket on Minorities

Not Fare Media Minority Minority Total Ten Trip Ticket (all users) 59% 41% 100% Ten Trip Ticket (impacted users)* 52% 48% 100% System Average 59% 41% 100% * riders making seven or fewer Oneway trips per week

Figure 22: Impact of Discontinued Ten-Trip Ticket on EJ Populations

Fare Media EJ Not EJ Total Ten Trip Ticket (all users) 62% 38% 100% Ten Trip Ticket (impacted users)* 55% 45% 100% System Average 64% 36% 100% * riders making seven or fewer Oneway trips per week

5.7 Discontinued Acceptance of Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets Metrolink has been accepting Amtrak Monthly Passes and Ten-Trip Tickets as fare payment on Metrolink trains as part of the Rail-2-Rail agreement on the Ventura County and Orange County Lines only.. In order to stem widespread abuse of this policy and to be consist with the policy decision to discontinue Metrolink’s Ten-Trip Ticket it is proposed that effective July 1 Metrolink will no longer accept Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets. Metrolink will continue to accept Amtrak Monthly Passes as fare payment.

Users of Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets have the option to purchase Amtrak Monthly Passes. They also have the option to purchase less expensive Metrolink fare products. For example: the price of an Amtrak Ten-Trip Ticket from Los Angeles Union Station to Irvine is $111, which compares to $9.75 for a Metrolink Oneway Ticket (or $97.50 for ten Oneway tickets) – for an 11% saving over Amtrak prices.

No disparate impact and no disproportionately high and adverse effects exist and no further analysis or mitigating strategies are required.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 17

33 Attachment B

6. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS OUTREACH PLAN A public communications outreach plan has been developed to solicit comment on the proposed fare increase as soon as July 1, 2012. This increase will allow Metrolink to offset operational cost increases caused by a rise in fuel prices and other critical operating areas.

In addition to the 2004 Fare Restructuring Policy, that includes incremental adjustments over a 10 year period, Metrolink is considering a 5% to 9% system-wide average fare increase effective on July 1, 2012.

The public notification process uses several different strategies to communicate the reasons for a potential fare increases and to solicit public comment. The public must be notified of each subsequent fare increase proposal and their comments must be presented to the Board prior to Board approval of the fare increase.

Notification Process Public notification will be accomplished using printed materials, Metrolink publications, digital and social media and public notices and forums.

Printed Materials  Charts will be created showing how fares will change with the modified, proposed increase. Charts will also show all proposed fares for each station pair.  Notices of the proposed fare changes will be sent to stakeholders.  Notices will be distributed on trains providing information on public input opportunities.  Appropriate advertisements will be placed in newspapers of general circulation to inform the public of the public hearing.

Metrolink Publications Articles will be published in the following:

 Metrolink Matters  Corporate Scoop  Seat drop bulletins on all trains

Digital and Social Media Information  The Metrolink website will contain up-to-date information about the fare increase. Members of the public will be able to provide input through the website.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 18

34 Attachment B

 The website will also have up-to-date information on the fare restructuring, downloadable files showing all new fares.  A recorded message tells callers to (800) 371-LlNK how to provide input.  Stakeholders will be notified by e-mail, through our website, (800) 371-LlNK and Metrolink publications.  Notices and links will be posted via Twitter and Facebook.

Public and Media Relations  Facts about the fare adjustment being considered will be made available as background for articles in newspapers. These stories will serve as a forum for staff and the Board to expand on SCRRA rationale for the next fare increase.  Media will be informed of the proposed fare increase and ways the public can make comments.

Public Comment/Public Hearing  The emphasis will be on soliciting public comment electronically. This has been the preferred method for the public to provide input to SCRRA. The special e-Comment section of the website will be activated.  One public hearing with an opportunity for the public to comment at a Board meeting will also be scheduled.

Community Meetings SCRRA has held workshops in the past for the public to comment on fare adjustments but in recent years attendance has been extremely light or non-existent. Members of the public have shown a strong preference to provide comment through electronic means. Public comments via e-comments numbered in the hundreds in response to the last fare adjustment implemented in 2010. However, this is still an option should the Board elect to expand the outreach.

Member Agencies and Station Cities Staff will reach out to the member agencies and station cities staff to expand the outreach via their communications networks.

A report compiling the input from the public will be presented to the Board. A summary of the results is provided in Appendix C: .

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 19

35 Attachment B

Appendix A: Effect of Fare Rounding on a 5% Fare Increase

One-Way Ticket Monthly Pass Minority Stations Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded ANAHEIM 4.2% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% BALDWIN PARK 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% CAL STATE LA 4.4% 4.7% 5.0% 5.0% COMMERCE 4.9% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% DOWNTOWN POMONA` 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% EAST ONTARIO 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% EL MONTE 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% FONTANA 3.8% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% INDUSTRY 4.2% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% LA UNION STATION 4.4% 4.6% 5.0% 5.0% MONTCLAIR 4.1% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% MONTEBELLO / COMMERCE 4.8% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% NORWALK / SANTE FE SPRINGS 4.0% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% OXNARD 4.3% 4.4% 4.9% 4.9% PALMDALE 4.7% 4.8% 5.2% 5.2% PEDLEY 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% POMONA - NORTH 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% RIALTO 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% SUN VALLEY 4.5% 4.6% 4.8% 4.8% SYLMAR / SAN FERNANDO 5.1% 5.2% 5.5% 5.5% Grand Total 4.3% 4.4% 4.6% 4.6%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 20

36 Attachment B

One-Way Ticket Monthly Pass Non-Minority Stations Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded ANAHEIM CANYON 4.1% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% BUENA PARK 4.1% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% BURBANK 5.7% 5.6% 6.1% 6.1% BURBANK AIRPORT 5.9% 5.8% 6.4% 6.4% CAMARILLO 4.5% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% CHATSWORTH 5.0% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% CLAREMONT 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% COVINA 4.1% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% EAST VENTURA 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% FULLERTON 4.5% 5.0% 5.4% 5.4% GLENDALE 4.8% 4.9% 5.3% 5.3% IRVINE 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% LAGUNA NIGUEL / MISSION VIEJO 4.0% 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% LANCASTER 4.9% 5.1% 5.7% 5.7% MOORPARK 4.8% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% NEWHALL 4.5% 4.7% 4.9% 4.9% NORTH MAIN CORONA 4.6% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% NORTHRIDGE 4.6% 4.4% 4.6% 4.5% OCEANSIDE 4.7% 4.7% 5.2% 5.2% ORANGE 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% RANCHO CUCAMONGA 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA 4.1% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% SAN BERNARDINO 4.6% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% SAN CLEMENTE 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 4.0% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% SANTA ANA 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% SANTA CLARITA 5.0% 5.1% 5.4% 5.4% SIMI VALLEY 5.0% 5.1% 5.5% 5.5% TUSTIN 3.4% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% UPLAND 4.2% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% VAN NUYS 5.1% 5.0% 5.3% 5.3% VIA PRINCESSA 5.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.1% VINCENT GRADE / ACTON 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4.5% WEST CORONA 4.2% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% Grand Total 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 21

37 Attachment B

One-Way Ticket Monthly Pass EJ Stations Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded ANAHEIM 4.2% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% BALDWIN PARK 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% BUENA PARK 4.1% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% CAL STATE LA 4.4% 4.7% 5.0% 5.0% CLAREMONT 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% COMMERCE 4.9% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% COVINA 4.1% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% DOWNTOWN POMONA` 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% EAST ONTARIO 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% EL MONTE 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% FONTANA 3.8% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% FULLERTON 4.5% 5.0% 5.4% 5.4% INDUSTRY 4.2% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% LA UNION STATION 4.4% 4.6% 5.0% 5.0% LANCASTER 4.9% 5.1% 5.7% 5.7% MONTCLAIR 4.1% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% MONTEBELLO / COMMERCE 4.8% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% NORTH MAIN CORONA 4.6% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% NORTHRIDGE 4.6% 4.4% 4.6% 4.5% NORWALK / SANTE FE SPRINGS 4.0% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% ORANGE 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% OXNARD 4.3% 4.4% 4.9% 4.9% PALMDALE 4.7% 4.8% 5.2% 5.2% PEDLEY 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% POMONA - NORTH 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% RANCHO CUCAMONGA 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% RIALTO 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA 4.1% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% SAN BERNARDINO 4.6% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% SANTA ANA 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% SUN VALLEY 4.5% 4.6% 4.8% 4.8% SYLMAR / SAN FERNANDO 5.1% 5.2% 5.5% 5.5% TUSTIN 3.4% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% UPLAND 4.2% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% VAN NUYS 5.1% 5.0% 5.3% 5.3% VIA PRINCESSA 5.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.1% VINCENT GRADE / ACTON 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4.5% WEST CORONA 4.2% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% Grand Total 4.3% 4.3% 4.5% 4.5%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 22

38 Attachment B

One-Way Ticket Monthly Pass Non-EJ Stations Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded ANAHEIM CANYON 4.1% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% BURBANK 5.7% 5.6% 6.1% 6.1% BURBANK AIRPORT 5.9% 5.8% 6.4% 6.4% CAMARILLO 4.5% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% CHATSWORTH 5.0% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% EAST VENTURA 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% GLENDALE 4.8% 4.9% 5.3% 5.3% IRVINE 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% LAGUNA NIGUEL / MISSION VIEJO 4.0% 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% MOORPARK 4.8% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% NEWHALL 4.5% 4.7% 4.9% 4.9% OCEANSIDE 4.7% 4.7% 5.2% 5.2% SAN CLEMENTE 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 4.0% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% SANTA CLARITA 5.0% 5.1% 5.4% 5.4% SIMI VALLEY 5.0% 5.1% 5.5% 5.5% Grand Total 4.6% 4.6% 4.9% 4.9%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 23

39 Attachment B

Appendix B: Effect of Fare Restructuring

Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates Minority Station 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% ANAHEIM -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.3% BALDWIN PARK -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% CAL STATE LA -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% COMMERCE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DOWNTOWN POMONA` -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% EAST ONTARIO -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% EL MONTE -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% FONTANA -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6% INDUSTRY -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% LA UNION STATION -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% MONTCLAIR -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% MONTEBELLO / COMMERCE 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% NORWALK / SANTE FE SPRINGS -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% OXNARD -0.4% -0.7% -1.0% -1.3% -1.6% PALMDALE 0.0% -0.2% -0.4% -0.5% -0.7% PEDLEY -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% POMONA - NORTH -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% RIALTO -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% SUN VALLEY -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% SYLMAR / SAN FERNANDO 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Grand Total -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 24

40 Attachment B

Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates Non-Minority Station 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% ANAHEIM CANYON -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% BUENA PARK -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% BURBANK 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% BURBANK AIRPORT 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% CAMARILLO -0.3% -0.5% -0.8% -1.0% -1.2% CHATSWORTH -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% CLAREMONT -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% COVINA -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% EAST VENTURA -0.3% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% -1.5% FULLERTON 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% GLENDALE 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% IRVINE -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% LAGUNA NIGUEL / MISSION VIEJO -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.7% LANCASTER 0.4% 0.1% -0.1% -0.3% -0.6% MOORPARK 0.0% -0.2% -0.3% -0.5% -0.6% NEWHALL -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% NORTH MAIN CORONA -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% NORTHRIDGE -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% OCEANSIDE -0.1% -0.4% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% ORANGE -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% RANCHO CUCAMONGA -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.5% RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA -0.4% -0.5% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% SAN BERNARDINO -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% SAN CLEMENTE -1.1% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.7% SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO -0.9% -1.0% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% SANTA ANA -1.8% -1.9% -1.9% -2.0% -2.1% SANTA CLARITA 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% SIMI VALLEY 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% TUSTIN -1.4% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6% -1.7% UPLAND -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% VAN NUYS 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% VIA PRINCESSA 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% VINCENT GRADE / ACTON -0.6% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% WEST CORONA -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% Grand Total -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 25

41 Attachment B

Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates EJ Station 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% ANAHEIM -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.3% BALDWIN PARK -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% BUENA PARK -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% CAL STATE LA -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% CLAREMONT -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% COMMERCE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% COVINA -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% DOWNTOWN POMONA` -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% EAST ONTARIO -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% EL MONTE -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% FONTANA -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6% FULLERTON 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% INDUSTRY -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% LA UNION STATION -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% LANCASTER 0.4% 0.1% -0.1% -0.3% -0.6% MONTCLAIR -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% MONTEBELLO / COMMERCE 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% NORTH MAIN CORONA -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% NORTHRIDGE -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% NORWALK / SANTE FE SPRINGS -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% ORANGE -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% OXNARD -0.4% -0.7% -1.0% -1.3% -1.6% PALMDALE 0.0% -0.2% -0.4% -0.5% -0.7% PEDLEY -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% POMONA - NORTH -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% RANCHO CUCAMONGA -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.5% RIALTO -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA -0.4% -0.5% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% SAN BERNARDINO -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% SANTA ANA -1.8% -1.9% -1.9% -2.0% -2.1% SUN VALLEY -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% SYLMAR / SAN FERNANDO 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% TUSTIN -1.4% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6% -1.7% UPLAND -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% VAN NUYS 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% VIA PRINCESSA 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% VINCENT GRADE / ACTON -0.6% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% WEST CORONA -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% Grand Total -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 26

42 Attachment B

Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates Non-EJ Station 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% ANAHEIM CANYON -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% BUENA PARK 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% BURBANK 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% BURBANK AIRPORT -0.3% -0.5% -0.8% -1.0% -1.2% CAMARILLO -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% CHATSWORTH -0.3% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% -1.5% CLAREMONT 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% COVINA -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% EAST VENTURA -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.7% FULLERTON 0.0% -0.2% -0.3% -0.5% -0.6% GLENDALE -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% IRVINE -0.1% -0.4% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% LAGUNA NIGUEL / MISSION VIEJO -1.1% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.7% LANCASTER -0.9% -1.0% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% MOORPARK 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% NEWHALL 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% Grand Total -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.7%

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 27

43 Attachment B

Appendix C: Methodology

Title VI and Environmental Justice Equity Analysis Methodology for Fare Changes May 2012

1. Introduction

In compliance with the mandates in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Environmental Justice (EJ) provisions in Presidential Executive Order 12898, Metrolink will conduct a fare equity analysis in regards to minority (Title VI protected classes) as well as EJ populations (persons who are either members of a protected minority or persons with incomes below 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level). The FTA Environmental Justice guidelines define “low-income” as household income that “is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services’ [HHS] poverty guidelines.” The HHS poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for federal and other programs and vary by household size. In 2009 (the reference year for income information) the base level is $10,830 for a one-person household, increasing by $3,740 for each additional person. The average household size in the Metrolink service area is 3.05 (2012 Regional Transportation Plan, Southern California Association of Governments ). The corresponding poverty guideline for a family of three is $18,310. This analysis defines low- income status using a $20,000 household income threshold to ensure consistency between U.S. Census figures and Metrolink ridership demographic data.

This analysis will be conducted using the methodology described below for all fare changes or changes to fare media rules, fees or eligibility, or to the availability of fare media as required in Metrolink’s Service Delivery Policy.

2. Determination of Minority or EJ Status

The determination if the fare product or fare media being changed is disproportionately used by Title VI or EJ populations is accomplished through an examination of onboard survey data that identifies the minority status or income of passengers using Metrolink services by fare product. For each fare product or media being considered for change the percentage of minority or EJ users shall be identified. If reliable onboard survey data are not available the determination of minority or EJ status of individual stations census data shall be utilized. The results shall be presented in tabular form. A full equity analysis shall be conducted if there is a disproportionate use by Title VI or EJ populations.

1. Minority status of a fare product is determined if the percentage of Title VI users is at least 5 percentage points higher than the system-wide average of Title VI riders.

2. EJ status of a fare product is determined if the percentage of EJ users is at least 5 percentage points higher than the system-wide average of EJ users (either minority or low income).

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 28

44 Attachment B

3. Minority status of individual stations is determined based on census data for each station catchment area. Stations will be considered as Minority Stations if the percentage of minorities within the station catchment area is greater than the average for all catchment areas.

4. EJ status of individual stations is determined if the percentage of minorities within the station catchment area is at least 5 percentage points greater than the average for all catchment areas, or if the percentage of minorities exceeds 50 percent, regardless of what the percentage of minority populations is in the comparison geographic unit.

5. Stations will also be considered as EJ Stations if the percentage of low income households within the station catchment area is at least 5 percentage points greater than the average for all catchment areas, or if the percentage of low income households exceeds 50 percent, regardless of what the percentage of minority populations is in the comparison geographic unit.

3. Determine Title VI Disparate Impacts or EJ Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects

3.1 Disparate Impacts on Title VI Populations Metrolink will determine if any of the proposals or alternatives would have the effect of disproportionately excluding or adversely affecting people based on race, color or national origin and thereby create a disparate impact. Alternatives may include other existing fares or new fare options.

A disparate impact is deemed to exist:

1. if the cost of a specific fare product that has been determined to be disproportionately used by Title VI populations is increased at a rate more than 20 percent higher than those fare products not disproportionately used by Title VI populations (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25); or

2. if the cost of a specific fare product that has been determined to be disproportionately used by Non-Title VI populations is decreased at a rate more than 20 percent lower than those fare products disproportionately used by Title VI populations, it shall be considered to have disparate impact (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25); or

3. if fare policy restructuring results in an average rate of a fare increase that is higher for Minority stations than for Non-Minority stations for the same fare product (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25).

Disparate impact will only be considered to exist if the difference between the minority and non-minority fare product is also greater than 5 percentage points.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 29

45 Attachment B

For other fare system changes such as, but not limited to, eliminating a fare or product, increasing a fee or changing the availability of a specific product an appropriate evaluation shall similarly determine if the proposed change or alternatives creates disparate impacts.

3.2 Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects on EJ Populations If the fare product(s) being changed are used disproportionately by minorities or low income groups, Metrolink will determine if any of the proposals or alternatives would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on these EJ populations. Alternatives may include other existing fares or new fare options.

A disproportionately high and adverse effect is deemed to exist:

1. if the cost of a specific fare product that has been determined to be disproportionately used by EJ populations is increased at a rate more than 20 percent higher than those fare products not disproportionately used by EJ populations (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25); or

2. if the cost of a specific fare product that has been determined to be disproportionately used by Non-EJ populations is decreased at a rate more than 20 percent lower than those fare products disproportionately used by EJ populations, it shall be considered to have disparate impact (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25); or

3. if fare policy restructuring results in an average rate of a fare increase that is higher for EJ stations than for Non-EJ stations for the same fare product (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25).

3.3 Results If there are no disparate impacts on Title VI populations, and no disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations, for the preferred fare alternative no further action is required. A final report shall be prepared and presented for consideration to the Board of Directors. A copy of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting where the Fare Equity Report was considered will be submitted to the FTA along with a copy of the report. If there are disparate impacts for Title VI populations the planning process must continue to the next step.

If there are disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations but there are sufficient offsetting benefits or mitigations, the changes may be implemented. The proposed fare changes may also proceed if it is found that further mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations are not practicable. No further analysis or action is required for EJ populations. The conclusions regarding EJ populations will be integrated into the final report for Board consideration and minutes forwarded to the FTA.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 30

46 Attachment B

4. Title VI Disparate Impacts Analysis

A final report will be prepared for the Board of Directors’ consideration. The report will identify which alternative fare change is recommended for implementation. The report will confirm that there are no alternatives that are less discriminatory and would still accomplish Metrolink’s program objective. If the recommended alternative includes disparate impacts on Title VI protected populations the Metrolink Board of Directors will pass a motion confirming the change meets both of the following tests:

4.1 There is substantial legitimate justification for adopting the proposed fare change by meeting a goal that is integral to the mission of Metrolink; and 4.2 The alternatives would have a more severe adverse effect on Title VI protected populations than the preferred alternative

A copy of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting where the test was approved by Board will be submitted to the FTA along with a copy of the report.

SCRRA Planning and Research Department 31

47

May 30, 2012 Special Board Meeting ITEM 3 Attachment C

Passenger Comments for July 1, 2012 on Proposed Fare Increase for FY2012-13 As of May 29, 2012 noon cutoff

48 eComment Report

Metrolink Notice of Public Hearing / Potential Fare Increase FY2013 Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Top Discussion Item

Agenda Item Position %

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5%

Support Oppose None Total Number of Comments: 120 5% 86% 7%

Public Comments Summary

Opinion Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% 7 104 9 120

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% 0 77 5 82

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% 0 72 4 76

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% 0 76 2 78

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% 3 100 4 107

Total 463

Public Comments Details

49 Page 1 Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% 7 104 9 120

Laurie Ferguson I could support a 5% increase. But I think you should consider alternatives. Like NOT having a Support laurie.ferguson@bnymell $10.00 ride all weekend fare. Or charge more for weekend riders, and not put the cost on 5/23/2012 on.com commuters who ride and support the trains every week day. Also consider taking some trains Antelope Valley during the middle of the day out, when it doesn't affect the daily commuters. Also check Sylmar CA tickets more often, and ticket everyone who does not have their passes. I've ridden the train for 11 years and have never forgotten my pass...

Richard Batenhorst OK with 5% due to rise in fuel cost Support rbatenhorst@nationalwir 5/23/2012 e.com Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA

Sandra Southers I support the increase but Metrolink is getting ripped off by passengers who do not pay their Support [email protected] fare along the San Bernardino line beginning at San Bernardino through Rancho Cucamonga. I 5/20/2012 San Bernardino saw 3 Sheriffs sit in their seats and didn't check any tickets until I overheard them say they will Fontana CA begin in Fontana. I've seen like about 10 passengers in San Bernardino get on for free and I've seen 5 passengers get on at Rialto without paying the fare. Metrolink you will still lose money even if you raise the fare.

Scott Barker I support a slight increase, I understand expenses have escalated this past year & the riders Support [email protected] will have to do thier part to keep things going 5/17/2012 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA

Dave Hodges You conveniently set up this comment section to get us to "say yes to the lesser evil." We Support [email protected] DON'T want any fare increase, but this is better than any of the other options. For me (and 5/17/2012 Orange County probably many others) one helpfule option would be to lower the Senior age limit to 62 (from orange CA 65.)

Ken Lund I agree with the fare increase. I have a few comments you can do to increase your revenue. I Support [email protected] have been a full time rider for the last 12 years and a part time rider for 3 years prior to that. 5/14/2012 San Bernardino One way to increase revenue is to have the conductors check tickets and passes more often. Rancho Cucamonga CA When they do check, make sure they look not only at the month, but the year. A few guys who ride the train cover up the year on the pass with their fingers showing only the month. They have been using the same July pass since 2009. Also, some passengers by a monthly pass from Covina to LUSD when they embark and disembark from Rancho Cucamonga. Their monthly pass cost is cut in half becasue of this.

Of all the years I have been riding the trains I have only seen a few passengers get citied. Most of the time the passengers talk their way out. The conductors should have a zero tolerance. Either you hav e a ticket or you don't. The conductors do not realize what is said about them once the passengers have taqlked their way out of a ticket. Thecomments are not kind. Some folks say why buy a ticket, they do not check and if your caught we jsut talk our way outof it.

50 Page 2

If word goes out that the conductors have zero tolerance and the whole pass is checked (for month and YEAR and the stations)revenue will go up.

Thanks.

charlesduane romero 3 May 2012: Thursday: I have a young friend who is mentally& phyically disabied. He saves Support charlesduaneromero9027 alot of money by taking the metrolink train R/T from Fulterton, CA out to Riverside. Please 5/3/2012 [email protected] keep fares @ a 5 % increase. If possible do not increase the handicapped fares @ all. Thank Inland Empire - Orange you very much. Charles Duane Romero. retired Disabied American, VFW, & USAFR Veteran. County perris CA

Greg Wong Dear Metrolink Board and Committee, None [email protected] 5/23/2012 Antelope Valley I would like to first thank you for giving the public an excellent alternative to driving in LA's Santa Clarita CA congested freeways. It really makes a difference in my life commuting between Santa Clarita and downtown LA. I would also like to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to voice our concerns especially if we cannot make it to a public hearing due to commute times or other personal reasons.

Currently, I would have to oppose any high fare increase (about 7+%) mainly for the reason that Metrolink does not have fare gates and relies entirely upon the traveling public to be on the "honor system". Many times I see people receiving citations for not having a ticket for reasons as ridiculous as "not knowing they had to pay". I've visited Taiwan, Taipei specifically, and they have a wonderful public mass transit system. One can load a card with money and use it on buses and trains. The MRT stations (similar to our Metrorail) all have fare gates and security personnel and cameras to monitor the gates. I'm sure there are people who jump the gates but in the many many times I have used the system, only once did I see someone board a bus when they are supposed to pay when boarding. Sometimes one must pay when stepping off the bus, it depends on the bus/route.

I would really like to see Metro employ fare gates to force people to be honest. Let's face it, if the public didn't have to pay for something, knew the rules would not be enforced and could

51 Page 3 get away with it, how many people would pay for something like bus or train fare? I would imagine thousands if not millions of people across the country would take advantage of that business model.

Metro is not a charity but a business. As such it needs to make money to survive. If the riding public is not forced to pay for something they need, won't. Plain and simple. I don't mind paying for a service I receive but I do mind sponsoring others to ride for free. Sure, people get tickets but I've also seen them get ripped up as soon as the officer is out of sight. That's right. Ripped up then the people laugh and joke.

I don't know how many board members frequent the trains but it's the sad reality that people won't pay if they don't need to or if caught, they don't care.

I hope that something changes with Metro and Metrolink because I'd sure hate to drive to work everyday.

Alberto Martinez I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: None [email protected] - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine 5/22/2012 m to Union Station. Orange County - Add a third train from Irvine to LA Union Station at/about 6PM. Right now we have a 4:19 Downey Ca From Irvine to Union Station and a 5:10 from Irvine to Union Station.

Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested.

52 Page 4 JOAN MCCOY I only ride the metrolink occassionally. I am 73 years old an enjoy the trip to LA. Recently my None [email protected] daughter and I took the train for business in LA There was an elderly hispanic woman across 5/20/2012 Antelope Valley from us who showed her access pass when tickets were checked. Coming back there was a LANCASTER CA young man sitting across from us who I would say was in his twenties who also had a access pass. The young man was telling a gentleman sitting by him how easy it was to get the pass and travel for free. He said he visited his family using the free pass. He incouraged the gentleman to go get one. This is one of the reasons the train is loosing money. Able bodied people having a free pass.

James Takos While I am normally opposed to any fair increase, I believe you need to modify the ticketing None [email protected] machines so I can use two debit cards/credit cards to pay for my monthly pass. My employer 5/18/2012 Orange County only pays a portion of the fair and I pay the rest. I get the pass by mail, which sometimes is lte Fullerton CA for the next month due to the date my employer provides the money. If I could use two debit cards, I would not need to mail in for my monthly pass. You could, through attrition or reassignment, then reduce the workers currently involved in the mail in process.

Justin Fischer I'm commenting on the cheapest option since this is about fares in general. None [email protected] 5/18/2012 San Bernardino I've been using Metrolink to commute from my home in LA to my weekday work in Rancho Los Angeles CA Cucamonga for two years - a "backwards" commute in the low-traffic direction. During this time I've paid about $270 per month for passes. However, I'm switching to a car pool next month - here's why. * Faster - backwards commuter trains are frequently required to stop and wait for the other side to pass. * Cheaper - I'll only be paying $160 for car pooling plus $84 for an EZpass, a total of $244.

I humbly suggest that Metrolink investigates creating a new "backwards commute" monthly pass. Currently these train cars are mostly empty, so there's a good chance that lowering specific fares would actually raise profits by increasing ridership.

It's perfectly reasonable to give the majority of commuters preferential treatment in terms of which train waits and which train passes, but this makes it a far less appealing deal for those of us in the minority.

If Metrolink ever adds a second track to the San Bernardino line or adopts a more balanced monthly pass system, please email me and I would be happy to become your customer again.

Sincerely, Justin Fischer

Sue Clemons I hope that Metrolink will NOT gouge the Senior/Disabled folks like they did in the last fare None [email protected] adjustment. We are the group who can least afford it. We did not have a 6% raise, it was 5/16/2012 Antelope Valley more like 25%. Santa Clarita CA

Jesus Escatiola I respectfully submit that another way of mitigating some of the proposed fare increases being None [email protected] considered might be to find a way to verify that all passengers boarding the trains have a valid 5/14/2012

53 Page 5 Inland Empire - Orange ticket. I don't know whether or not Metrolink has statistics as to the number of non-paying County passengers riding the system and how much potential income it is loosing as a result. Colton CA PAULINE NGUYEN On new fiscal year 2012-2013, I just work 35 hours/week. My budget can't affort for metro None phuong.x.nguyen@lausd. link fare anymore 5/9/2012 net I don't know why metrolink can't reduce fare same like Riverside Foothill Transit is proposing a promotional fare reduction on the Silver Streak from $2.75 to City Industry ca $2.45 I don't support fare increase for Metrolink fare at any %

Devin Campbell I believe that any system wide increase in fares MUST be accompanied by a review of in- None [email protected] service trains and cars for mechanical soundness. I have experienced a drastic decrease in on 5/7/2012 Orange County time performance over the last few weeks and months. It has mostly been due to mechanical Rancho Santa Margarita failures of my train/car or a different train/car that affects my on-time performance. CA Accountability and transparency must be a part of any fare increase.

Samantha Noyes I oppose even a small fare increase for Metrolink tickets as there will no longer be an incentive Oppose [email protected] for me to ride! 5/29/2012 Orange County I have been riding daily for almost six months but have found it is both faster and cheaper to Los Angeles Ca drive. I have to wake up much earlier to catch a train that will get to Irvine at a time there will be a bus available. I have to pay $60/month on top of my monthly pass to park at Union station as well. I would like to keep riding metrolink but can't justify paying more than I already do! Perhaps offer special commuter passes and raise prices on normal tickets?

Gary Clure Metrolink should focus on increasing its ridership rather than constantly increasing rates. I Oppose [email protected] have been a Metrolink rider for many years and have seen a fare increase almost every year. If 5/29/2012 Orange County another increase is approved. I will seriously consider changing my hours and driving. Laguna Hills CA Currently it takes me twice as long on the Metrolink as it does to drive, but is nice not to have to drive with the cost being about the same. If the cost keeps increasing, I will definitely consider other options. Obviously, the 5% increase would be the preferable to the 6%, 7%, 8% & 9% hikes.

Rosario Valadez Instead of trying to keep passing increases due to poor management on Metrolink side why Oppose [email protected] not cut on your expenses such as printing in a nice glossy paper on color and this same applies 5/29/2012 San Bernardino to the schedules. Creating a bike cart? San Bernardino CA Buying new carts that fit less people, are uncomfortable, half the time bathrooms do not work. Creating a weekend train where you can ride for $10.00? This is a crazy approach this people are not your regular commuters and they are the ones getting the discount and we all need to pay for those trains. We are a hard working class that every dollar makes an impact in our economy all together save money by discontinuing your weekend trains that will cut on your budget you would not need to run a train at a full price getting paid only a fraction of the price and paying employees full salaries to run train with passengers that half the time don't even have a ticket.

Rose Bourassa A fare increase at any level will cause me to have to cut something from my home Oppose

54 Page 6 [email protected] budget...again. Between increases in ultities, food,gas and pay cuts and furlough days, a hit on 5/29/2012 Inland Empire - Orange my monthly pass is big deal. County Why doesn't Metrolink monitor riders on a daily basis? La Mirada Ca get those folks who don't buy tickets and ride for free because they know the odds of getting a ticket check are slim to none on any given day....the honor system does not work...and those of us who pay are getting stuck paying for those who don't! it's just not right or fare.

I use 3-4 different lines in one day, depending on my time of travel....the only time anyone askes for my ticket or pass is at the beginning of the month. And what happens when my first train of the day is late getting into Union Station and I miss my connnection? Do you pay for the time I lose at work? No....but you want me to pay more for my pass.

I know it doesn't matter what any rider says, the increase will go through and we will all pay. You really need to go after the free riders....get them to pay for the ride and see how much money you can really bring in for a month...we might not need the increase at all. Pam Bell Since we did NOT receive raises this year, this would be a huge penalty for me. Further, why Oppose [email protected] do you have the weekend trains? No one on the weekend trains have tickets. The working 5/29/2012 San Bernardino class, me and many, many others have to pay for the weekenders. You did not ever propose a Lake Arrowhead ca raise for these riders. Also, why does Metrolink pass out fliers on quality paper with obvious art support. Instead of passing your costs onto us, why don't you get rid of the weekend train and the fancy fliers? I bet you will blame this raise on Fenton since he is leaving and an easy scapegoat. Why don't you come onto the train and ask your commuters why they think.

Susie Navarro This is writing to Metrolink for the Continued fare increases that Metrolink keeps having. Is Oppose snavarro@sheppardmulli Metrolink even aware that basically no one, but Metrolink employees are getting salary 5/29/2012 n.com increases. With the struggling economy, companies have stopped increasing salaries, and San Bernardino instead choosing to keep positions. How can Metrolink increase the rates for Monthly train Rancho Cucamonga CA pass holders, and give the weekend riders a $10.00 fare and use that very same pass all weekend. Metrolink has probably asked to see my train pass probably five times this whole year. Are you aware of all the violators that do not even purchase a train pass, because they know that passes are never asked for. Are you aware of many people pretending to be handicap (board the train on a wheel chair, and ride for free on many occasion, along with a friend, since passes (the Access pass), if never asked for. We've already proposed to car pool if this goes through. So keep giving your employees raises, on our account. ingrid mota As a divorce mom with 2 kids the increase affects me alot...the cost of housing here is already Oppose [email protected] consuming a substantial part of my paycheck & food prices have gone up & so have utilities 5/28/2012 Orange County costs like electricity & water...now the cost of riding to train is going up as well ...everything is oceanside ca already a struggle !!

Susan Larriva No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/28/2012 m

55 Page 7 Antelope Valley Palmdale CA

L Pagdilao Who designed the train layout? Overall, the train layout is nice, but it can use some Oppose [email protected] improvement. It needs more leg and seat room for the average passenger. Tall commuters 5/26/2012 San Bernardino cramped for legroom and space have pain in their back, knees, and legs from sitting in a Fontana CA limited space for quite some time. In addition, curvaceous commuters do not have options in the model size seating, which is uncomfortable. Furthermore, the cart has limited outlets and tables for passengers that would like to work during their long commutes. The bottom line is that everything needs to be in the best interest of the main stakeholder - the commuters! So, leave or reduce the fares for the passengers until services are improved. Do not stick more costs to the commuters by politicians and administrators. My suggestion is to reduce the salaries between five and nine percent of your administrative staff and politicians in order to comply with Title VI, if that is in fact the genuine objective.

L Pagdilao Why is there only one conductor per train? There should be more than one conductor per Oppose [email protected] train. If there were an emergency in one of the carts, a passenger would not have the access 5/26/2012 San Bernardino to locate a conductor quickly to inform him or her because they would have to search the top Fontana CA and bottom of many carts in order to locate that one conductor, which would be wasted time during an emergency. There needs to be additional staff in a central location, in the event of an emergency, to request an immediate response team for assistance and to eliminate a safety and security breach. Who and why was the San Bernardino train schedule changed without any notification and justification for the schedule change? The 320 train at 4:20pm deliberately has to slow down after dropping off passengers at the Rancho Cucamonga Station in order to let the incoming train pass by since there is only one track, which contributes to Train 320 always arriving late to the Fontana station. This keeps passengers on the train longer than the one hour and thirteen minutes required by the schedule for an additionally ten to fifteen minutes. It is a disservice when commuters are so close to their stop and delayed from departing the train, due to travelling slowly or coming to a complete stop in order for the other train to pass. It inconveniences commuters that have rides waiting for them or have other transportation to take. Train 320's schedule is to arrive at the Fontana station is 5:33pm, but it always arrives at the Fontana station between 5:40pm - 5:45pm, due to the schedule change. The original schedule never required the delaying of Train 320. What is the staffing allocation? The resources of staff allocation are inappropriate and ineffective. From observation, staff at the Union Station stand outside the train to check fares before people enters the train, which is a waste of time and staff resources. There are usually two staff members outside of each cart. Any intelligent person would find it more beneficial to have the staff members circulate the Quiet Cart throughout the trip and be centrally located there in case of an emergency while the conductor counts his or her carts.

L Pagdilao Improve Services before Considering Fare Increases Oppose [email protected] Who proposed the fare increases and who decides the percentage of increase? I guarantee 5/26/2012 San Bernardino that it is not a daily commuter without perks like me. I am a passenger that commutes Fontana CA Monday - Friday on the San Bernardino line from Fontana to the Los Angeles Union Station.

56 Page 8 Train 307 at 6:03am and Train 320 at 4:20pm are the trains that I ride daily. The fare increases should never have been proposed and considered. Current service improvements should be the objective, not increasing fares. Why and how were these express train locations determined? All commuters have a right to access express trains at their original location stops, instead of having to drive out of their way to a different location station. This wastes additional time and gas for commuters. For this reason, I feel that there should be a reduction in fares since everyone does not have equal access to an express train at his or her home station stop. Where is the accountability on the additional revenue? During a bad economy, the fares are already too high, especially for a monthly pass. This additional revenue does not compensate the overworked single conductors for an entire train. Administrators and politicians pocket this additional money for mismanagement of funds, while shortchanging the Metrolink front line staff and passengers. For instance, I observe only one conductor on the entire train to service many carts and passenger needs, which is ridiculous in the event of an emergency. Who regulates the Quiet Cart? This cart is not always quiet and regulated. There are constantly ringing cell phones, talking loud, blasting IPods, etc. Commuters should not have to get off work and do additional work by telling other passengers to be quiet on the Quiet Cart. That is the job of the conductor and Sherriff to remove the passengers out of these carts for violation of the quiet cart rules. Patrolling the Quiet Cart more often ensures that every passenger is complying with the rules by being quiet. Additional postings of the Quiet Cart signage should be in visible locations with a large font to eliminate excuses of not knowing that it is the Quiet Cart. To be continued...

Connie Jackson I strongly oppose any fare increases for the Orange County line for the following reasons: Oppose [email protected] 5/25/2012 Orange County - OC Link Pass allows unlimited travel between Buena Park and San Clemente (and stations in Downey CA between) for $7. This is nearly 1/3 of the cost that I pay traveling between Norwalk - San Juan Capistrano. I think it is unfair to increase MY fair when OC passengers only have to pay $7 dollars for unlimited travel. My $19 roundtrip ticket (or $264 monthly pass) only covers OCTA buses that services Metrolink stations whereas the $7 OC Link pass allows for unlimited travel on ALL OCTA buses and trains traveling through OC. Why should those of us traveling from/to LA Union, Norwalk and Oceanside be subjected to a fare increase and OC passengers only have to shell out $7?

- I feel that this increase is partially due to the expenses incurred by Metrolink from the Chatsworth fiasco in 2008 and I resent these increases for Metrolink's mistakes.

- OC Line riders traveling southbound have extremely limited options from Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs compared to service traveling northbound towards Union Station. Why should WE be subjected to the same fare increase as those with more commuting options? Two AM southbound trains and one northbound PM train is inadequate for those of us who work south of Irvine! Frankly, we should be getting a discount due to the lack of service traveling

57 Page 9 southbound NOT a fare increase.

For these three reasons, I am opposing the proposed fare increases as there have been no positive changes since I began riding Metrolink in 2008!

Diana Osura I do not agree with the increase at any percentage. Due to the economy and lack of jobs Oppose [email protected] available to a person, public transportation becomes the only option to afford getting to work. 5/25/2012 San Bernardino To help save money i believe Metrolink should take cars off of trains that are not usually full. CA Also Metrolink could save money by reducing the amount of after noon trains on the San Bernardino line so that they could maybe leave every 2 hours instead of every hour. thank you

Michele James If your trains were more reliable I would be willing to consider the fare increase to be Oppose [email protected] reasonable. My train is late on a daily basis, and your lack of reliability is causing me an undue 5/25/2012 ourts.gov hardship. I already pay $348 for a monthly pass and any potential increase would cause me to Antelope Valley consider other transportation options. I have been a Metrolink rider since your service started, but enough is enough.

Tonni Thomas I oppose a 5% fare increase. I understand that the Notification Process should have included Oppose [email protected] charts that show all proposed fares for each station. Nothing I have seen included any types 5/25/2012 San Bernardino of charts. One sentence said "one percent of station pairs could have increases as high as Rancho Cucamonga CA 13.58%." You have got to be kidding! That's one heck of an increase. 5% is bad enough. You should take a poll of the riders to see who has received a salary increase of anything close to that in this economy! I strongly oppose a 5% increase.

Carol Edwards You have got to be kidding! I've been riding the Metrolink for 12 years and do you know how Oppose [email protected] many times I've seen a fair increase?! You are making it so people can't afford to take public 5/25/2012 Orange County transportation. I save absolutely no money by taking the train vs. driving as it is and now this? San Juan Capistrano CA Forget it, you'll lose me as a customer if you raise your prices at all. Think of another way, do not punish your customers! Several are mad at this proposal

58 Page 10 Alise Kabakoff Your fares have consistently risen in the 15+ years I have been riding the train. Ridership has Oppose [email protected] increased due to the price of gas; and in typical Metrolink fashion, you have discontinued the 5/25/2012 Ventura County 10-trip tickets, which will undoubtedly drive riders away. If you continue to hammer the West Hills CA riders with continuous fare increases, folks will have no choice but to get back in their cars and drive because at some point in time, it will be cheaper for them to do so rather than spend an exhorbitant amount of money taking Metrolink.

If you don't know this already, there is a recession going on. Everyone is hard pressed financially. Don't make this any harder on folks than it already is.

Mari Ruiz I take the train from Norwalk and I have to pay for a parking pass as well. I take the 6:06am Oppose [email protected] train to Fullerton and have to wait for the 6:44 Amtrak to Irvine. I would not mind paying more 5/24/2012 m money if you added an earlier train or more trains that would go all the way to Irvine to give Orange County us options. I am seriously considering not riding the train anymore because of the lack of train availability and pricing.

David Bell I understand the need for the potential increase, however, with what I see happening on the Oppose [email protected] train lines I ride with fare evaders, and the cleanliness of the trains being naught, I find it hard 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley to accept the increase for the level of service. I see so many riders, who when asked to show Santa Clarita CA their right to ride, are not in possession of a pass or ticket. The Sheriffs give a citation but allow them to continue riding. If these riders were escorted off the trains, it would make us feel better since the rules are being enforced.

Christine Calderon I understand gas prices have gone up but not that severe that would justify a 5%-9% or more Oppose [email protected] increase. Service has definitely not improved. Our train set is usually delayed at least 3 days 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley out of the week. Even if it is 5 minutes late, it is delayed. Even though Metrolink doesn't recognize that as a delay.

The last fare increase, I saw a major decline in riders and believe it will impact Metrolink even further if you increase fares. Increasing fares is not going to increase ridership.

Daniel boe I love taking the metrolink. When I first started taking the train 2 years ago, I would go back Oppose [email protected] and forth between Metrolink and Amtrak, based on availability. When Amtrak increased their 5/23/2012 Orange County fares, I made adjustments to take the metrolink because you guys didn't increase your rates Orange CA when your competitor did. Increasing the fares, even only 5%, is not the right thing to do. Instead you should focus your time on advertising. I've never seen a metrolink commercial. You could increase your total amount of travelers which will lead to an increase in profit. Thank you for providing a great service.

Chris Concepcion I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare Oppose [email protected] increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding 5/23/2012 om from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy San Bernardino access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible.

Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we

59 Page 11 are expected to pay more.

Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers.

Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution.

Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride

nancy hensien You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Oppose [email protected] Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom 98.50 to 154.25. So YES i got raised last 5/23/2012 Inland Empire - Orange year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise County evweryone else. temecula ca

Karin Wakefield Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and Oppose [email protected] to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. Thank you. 5/23/2012 Ventura County Reseda CA

Jennifer Eckhart Why is it that when fuel prices decrease the fare stays the same, but when there is an Oppose [email protected] increase, it goes up? As per the notice on potential fare increases, this is also due to a 5/23/2012

60 Page 12 Antelope Valley nationwide labor settlement. Until we are able to address the long term fiscal problems with labor unions, this will be an ongoing issue and potentially lead to a shut down of Metrolink. The causes for these fiscal problems at Metrolink are not being addressed and riders are given the burden to close the funding gap. Please work on a more permanent solution to this ongoing problem as the fare is costly already. Yearly fare increases will not resolve this issue! QUAN TRUONG Your reasons to increase the fare are not appropriate because your organization has not Oppose [email protected] improved the public transportation. You encouraged people to use the public transportation 5/23/2012 m and the problem is that people arrive late to their work, so what benefit for people to show up 91 late to work? I am not willing to pay for a low quality service! Corona CA salah alamoodi I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more Oppose [email protected] profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare 5/22/2012 Antelope Valley them before you adjust the rates. Lancaster Ca salah alamoodi I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more Oppose [email protected] profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare 5/22/2012 Antelope Valley them before you adjust the rates. Lancaster Ca

Esmeralda Valencia I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's Oppose valencia_esmeralda@hot not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final 5/22/2012 mail.com destination. Riverside Downtowne Pomona

Markus Quon I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase Oppose [email protected] significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 5/21/2012 Orange County 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing Oceanside CA fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times.

I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip.

At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and

61 Page 13 time.

Carolyn Delgado I am truly not happy with a 5% increase, I do understand the cost of living keeps going up on Oppose [email protected] everything but possibly a 3% increase will be better. I struggle now with paying the monthly 5/20/2012 v pass & if the increase goes to high I won't be able to purchase the monthly pass to ride San Bernardino everyday & look into other means of transportation. Rialto Ca nancy rhodes Also in addition to my other comment, maybe there could be a check of fares/tickets and Oppose [email protected] passes more often. I am sure that people that do not pay and ride for free is taken into 5/20/2012 Riverside consideration in the raising of fares. I don't think it is right that we should have to subsidize rancho cucamonga ca those that ride free. thanks nancy rhodes I remember when the increases were 3 percent each year. Although gas has increased in price, Oppose [email protected] I am asking that you take into consideration the current economic situation of your riders. I 5/20/2012 Riverside work for the courts and we have not received an increase in salary or even cost of living raise rancho cucamonga ca in the last 3-4 years. Prices are rising and our pay is currently going nowhere. But if you have to increase, please do so at the lowest percentage possible. I thank you for your consideration in this matter. I am praying for a favorable outcome. That you would be led by God to do the right and equitable thing. God Bless!

Justin Case This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely Oppose [email protected] dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously 5/20/2012 San Bernardino expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. Covina ca If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top.

If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in

62 Page 14 every single rout.

It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times.

The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit"

DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do!

If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours?

Ray Aller This is very misleading. Oppose [email protected] Recent policy changes have made it impossible for riders (those who ride 2-3 days each week) 5/18/2012 Orange County to purchase tickets Oceanside CA with pre-tax dollars.

This has resulted in the effective fare almost doubling.

The real shame is that most of this increase in cost does NOT flow to Metrolink - rather, it goes to the Federal Government in income tax.

We pointed out this problem in our comments a ye ar ago. Apparently management chose to ignore the concern.

I wouldn't mind paying even a significant fare increase - if the money was going to Metrolink. I have a realy problem with it going to the IRS.

Eileen Haniuk Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went Oppose [email protected] from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown 5/18/2012 m Burbank. To increase the fare another 5% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At Orange County a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same

63 Page 15 and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons.

Eileen Haniuk Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went Oppose [email protected] from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown 5/18/2012 m Burbank. To increase the fare another 5% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At Orange County a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons.

Alicia Garcia Enough of the increases - no improvement - no seats, cancellations, toilets are unbareable. Oppose [email protected] Seniors have gotten 3 times an incrase from the last time they increased. 5/18/2012 Inland Empire - Orange County Quail Valley CA

V McDaniel A fare increase of ANY amount would effect riders in a negative way. It seems that your Oppose [email protected] company would take a pulse of the economy and how it has effected us riders. Many of us 5/18/2012 Riverside working class people had to take cuts in pay and bonuses have been eliminated. Many Riverside ca companies no longer give cost of living increases and they tell us "just be lucky" to have a job.

Health insurance premiums have increased, as well as the tuitions to keep our kids in college.

64 Page 16 We are being squeezed from almost EVERY area.

Please, please consider this a very bad time for fare increases. Can you look at other areas such as reducing the amount of cars on the train to save fuel. The bike car seems to be a waste. I never see anymore than 2-3 bikes at the most.

Have you considered work furlough days and pay freezes for your staff to shave costs? Everyone is in the same boat and have to make sacrifices.

Any fare increase would have a negative impact, but we could probably live with a 1-2% increase.Please NOT a 5-10% increase. Most people moved to the IE to avoid the high costs associated with living in LA County. But, Metrolink continues to take more and more money from us and more frequently than ever before.

Please consider a 1-2% increase if any at all.

Susan Bird Instead of increasing fares for paying passengers, why not do more to make sure that ALL Oppose [email protected] passengers buy a ticket in the first place? I rarely see the Sheriff checking any more, maybe 3- 5/17/2012 Antelope Valley 4 times a month. If the conductor would check tickets on EVERY train to catch those who do Santa Clarita CA not pay, fares could stay low for everyone who DOES pay. Although I ride various trains, I most frequently ride AV Line 208 and 217, and I ALWAYS buy a monthly pass or ticket!

Theresa Fagan I have been riding Metrolink for 9 years. I, of coure, am opposed to the fare increase. With Oppose theresa.fagan@libertymu one kid in college and another starting college in two years, I hope to keep the cost of 5/17/2012 tual.com commuting to a minimum. One of the issues I have is that there does not seem to be any Ventura County consequence for riding without a ticket. I am a monthly pass holder...I buy each month and Simi Valley Ca carry my ticket every day. Tickets are rarely checked...and the few times they are checked, Ive seen people get off with a "warning". Where is the consequence?! I've seen a lot of people get "free rides" and I don't think it is fair. Those of us who legitimately ride with valid proof of fare are going to get penalized with a fare increase while there are some who take a chance of not getting caught. There needs to be a better system for checking tickets...make those who ride pay and maybe Metrolink won't have to increase fares as frequently!

Steven Grossman Whether the fare increase is 5% or more, my comment is that I ride the train three to four Oppose [email protected] times a week, 5/17/2012 Orange County twice a day. In the last 30 days and more, I have Brea Ca not been asked for any fare payment. If you enforced people to show that they paid like Amtrack does each time, you would have more people paying and you would have more money coming in. The need for such an increase would not be as necessary. The way it is now, the honest fare paying people are subsidising those that don't pay.

Justin Rogers I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising Oppose

65 Page 17 [email protected] fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate 5/17/2012 om behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long Orange County delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is Buena Park CA horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered. Jon Lyle It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The Oppose [email protected] frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very 5/17/2012 Orange County frustrating to me and others as your customers. Anaheim Ca

Lisa Darling Metrolink needs more effecitve Budget Analysis and Expense Reviews to prevent increases Oppose [email protected] such as the one proposed passed down to riders this July 2012. Rising fuel costs is a given and 5/17/2012 91 should be budgeted and anticipated, it is an insult to use this as a means of explanation for a Lake Elsinore CA proposed increase in any year. We all deal with fuel price increases and ebbs and flows - when is the last time we saw a reduction in fares when there's relatively lower fuel costs - never. I would feel more supportive of increases if it were in line with current economic trends and payroll realities of your riders. I know that I did not receive a 5% increase in pay this year - let only 9%. If Metrolink employees compensation or any labor dispute resolution was not anticipated, let alone budgeted for in advance, should not be the responsiblity of Metrolink ridership to in essence be tasked with resolving through higher fares imposed. If I had some assurances that higher fares were being used towards a increased budget analysis team or expense review committee with benchmarked goals and timelines for resolution enforced - I might feel better about supporting fare increases. As a side note - no one, and I mean, NO ONE in the ridership community, that did not have any direct ties or connnections to Metrolink - would have or do to this day, support the decision made for NEW train cars and crash improvement technology which I'm inclined to believe is the thrust of the major expenses incurred that Metrolink is now playing catchup for over the past few years - if one unattentive conductor who chose texting over driving a train, hadn't been doing that - Metrolink wouldn't be in this deficit position or having these increase discussions at all. Not the the riderships problem to solve.

Paula Hoffman Why should we have to pay for your lack of safety? I strongly urge you not to increase rates. Oppose [email protected] Stop the newsletter and other costly things you don't need. KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 5/17/2012 Ventura County AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Camarillo ca

Albric Ghokasian Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to Oppose [email protected] lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse 5/17/2012 cgov.com to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's Orange County cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging Santa Ana CA transportation at both ends.

Albric Ghokasian Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to Oppose [email protected] lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse 5/17/2012 cgov.com to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's

66 Page 18 Orange County cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging Santa Ana CA transportation at both ends. mary smith ANY INCREASE IN FARE WOULD NOW CAUSE ME TO RIDE THE BUS. YOUR CONSISTENT RISE IN Oppose [email protected] FARES WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ANYONE RECEIVING A COST OF LIVING INCREASE IN 5/17/2012 91 WAGES IS OUTRAGEOUS DURING THESE TIMES OF HARDSHIP! fullerton ca

Yvette Robinson I have used the 10 Trip Ticket for the last 4 years. This ticket is no longer available making my Oppose yvette.robinson@liberty trip more expensive as of 5/16/12. I have calculated by trip is now 5% more expensive my 5/16/2012 mutual.com eliminating the 10 day trip ticket. San Bernardino An additional increase would not be fair or reasonable. Claremont CA

Pam Pert I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. Oppose pamela.pert@libertymutu This would increase my fare to a total of 10%. 5/16/2012 al.com Orange County San Clemente ca

David Wetzel My biggest concern today is the elimination of the 10 trip tickets without informing the public Oppose [email protected] or advanced notice. This IS a defacto rate increase. I do not know the laws or regulations 5/16/2012 Orange County surrounding fare increases, but it seems to me that a decision like this would be prohibited Laguna Niguel CA without notification or public hearing.

Jeff Carlon I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch Oppose [email protected] the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. 5/15/2012 Antelope Valley I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks Pearblossom ca through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon

Mary Alexander See comment under 9% Oppose [email protected] 5/15/2012 Orange County Mission Viejo CA

Lenora Mitchell This comment is directed toward all potential fare increases. While I understand that your Oppose [email protected] increased costs will be passed along to the commuter, I would like to draw your attention to 5/14/2012 91 the details regarding the notice of your hearing. When I boarded my train in Downtown Riverside CA Riverside (91 Line) on May 10, each individual seat had your printed notice of the public hearing on potential fee increases. This notice was printed on glossy paper which is expensive and in colored ink which is also expensive. This extravagant waste of money certainly makes one wonder at how well Metrolink is managing finances by throwing away money on

67 Page 19 unnecessary glossy paper notices printed in colored ink. I am opposed to your fee increases until you demonstrate better fiscal management.

Efren Malagon A 5-9% increase is difficult. Furthermore, the elimination of the 10 day trip ticket is going to Oppose [email protected] really hurt me. I only ride the train three times a week. Now I will be forced to pay for a 5/14/2012 v monthly pass. Metrolink wants the individuals who work Monday thru Friday to pay for San Bernardino services that are provided mid day and on weekends. You should eliminate weekend services. Fontana CA

Joanne Choi No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/14/2012 Riverside

Sandy Ikeda Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate Oppose [email protected] transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the 5/14/2012 Ventura County burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less PORT HUENEME ca convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now.

Carlos Garibay Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to Oppose [email protected] avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on 5/14/2012 m the train if the fare increase is approved. Riverside Rowland Heights Ca

Angela Perez With City of LA furloughs & pay cuts, I would not be able to afford to ride the Metrolink. I Oppose [email protected] would have to find another means of transportation. 5/14/2012 Ventura County Simi Valley CA

SUKHMINDER SINGH Fare increase is unfair. Itis being raised every time and I am already paying $328.00 every Oppose singhsukhminder@yahoo. month and that increase will be added to that. 5/14/2012 com Riverside As in case of Metro the system runs by getting funding from many other sources in addition to Riverside CA fare. Why Metrolink not funded by state, county and cities. Is it because rich people having cars (or auto industry lobby) don't care about common people with limited resources? danny Quezada Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is Oppose [email protected] metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on 5/14/2012 m implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase Ventura County ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Oxnard ca

68 Page 20 Maggie Martinez With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the Oppose [email protected] gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and 5/14/2012 Ventura County increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro Chatsworth ca to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders.

Matt Barrett Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before Oppose [email protected] passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and 5/14/2012 m ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being San Bernardino ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. Upland CA

Alicia Chavez My salary starting the month of July is going to be reduce 10%. I been ridding the train for 10 Oppose [email protected] years and I been able to pay the increases but at this time it will be very bad for my economy. 5/14/2012 San Bernardino Please help us in this matter not increasing the fares Rancho Cucamonga CA

Robert Carlson So far in 2012 I have had my ticket checked twice and that was on back to back mornings in Oppose [email protected] February, so why not better enforcement checking tickets instead of making the honest hard 5/14/2012 Inland Empire - Orange working people who buy there monthly passes front the bill for all those who ride free. I have County actually heard people taking since there is basically no enforcement any more that there going Lake Elsinore CA to "roll the dice" and while I personally would never do that I would or will get back in the car with any additional increase in fares. paul ruelas Any fare increase would be a hardship. Increases have been imposed over the past few years. Oppose [email protected] When will it end? Budget cuts within local companies coupled with furloughs and salary cuts 5/13/2012 San Bernardino have made the cost of living in So Cal very difficult. There has to be another solution for cost covina ca savings within your agency instead of putting the load on the backs of commuters. paul ruelas Any fare increase would be a hardship. Increases have been imposed over the past few years. Oppose [email protected] When will it end? Budget cuts within local companies coupled with furloughs and salary cuts 5/13/2012 San Bernardino have made the cost of living in So Cal very difficult. There has to be another solution for cost covina ca savings within your agency instead of putting the load on the backs of commuters.

Casate Yuri I find it hard to believe that you cannot find cost efficiencies with in your organization to cover Oppose [email protected] your the monetary shortfall. Going back to your customers, while it's the path of least 5/11/2012 91 resistance, should be your last resort, instead your management should challenge the unions Corona ca and re think your business model so real time adjustments (both increase and decrease) due to fuel price fluctuations are be reflected in the price of the fare. Any other operational costs increases should be handle in the form of challenges to management to reducing costs.

Rick Ehrlich Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule Oppose [email protected] over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to 5/11/2012 Ventura County GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to Camarillo CA your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800

69 Page 21 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is 55-60 minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now.

I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like.

I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to email me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages.

Thank you, Rick

Kirstin Largent I think it outrageous to increase my fares when the train has been running late on a regular Oppose PARALEGAL1369@HOTM basis for the past past months. You might feel its only late five minutes but the train being 5/11/2012 AIL.COM late cause me to miss my bus which means that i need to wait for the next bus which makes Riverside me even later. Rowland Heights CA

Ernesto Munilla Any fare increase will be devastating because it it NOT CALLED for. There are other ways to Oppose [email protected] make up for the mismanaged shortfall. 5/11/2012 Orange County 1. Stop the nonsensical Weekend service. It's not needed. This is not Amtrak. Metrolink was not formed to support family vacations on weekends. You can save millions in fuel costs, labor, track usage costs and maintenance.

2. Check tickets ON EVERY boarding just the way Amtrak does it.

3. For Amtrak ticket riders, make tickets work with current validators.

4. Stop all beach trains, tickets that are valid thru the whole weekend and all that junk.

5. Stop further orders of those stupid Korean uncomfortable cars that no one likes.

70 Page 22

6. Reduce clerical and office staff. With most of the services being contracted, Metrolink should be able run it's operations with a staff of no more than 30 people.

Thomas James Even a 5% increase will have a negative impact, since wages are not increasing comparibly. A Oppose [email protected] 9% increase will put Metrolink above the cost of an Amtrak monthly pass, and there would be 5/10/2012 Orange County NO incentive for me to continue to ride Metrolink in that case. There is no mention of how the San Juan Capistrano CA proposed increase will improve on-time performance or even the cleanliness of Metrolink trains, both of which are noticeably becoming worse.

Brenda Vasquez This would be painful, but possibly doable. Oppose [email protected] 5/9/2012 m Inland Empire - Orange County Sylmar CA

Robert Theobald No written comment was submitted. Oppose rtheobald@paragon- 5/9/2012 precision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca

Paula Schiffman I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any Oppose [email protected] fare hike at this time (5% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the 5/9/2012 u past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Ventura County Los Angeles CA Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in other areas!

Travis Anderson I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is Oppose [email protected] ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant 5/9/2012

71 Page 23 Antelope Valley efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem Lancaster CA and not operating within its means. Elizabeth Lawlor Whether or not average fares increase by any amount, without a 10-day pass, I will be less Oppose [email protected] likely to commute by bike and Metrolink. Bicycle commuters need a flexible pass to allow for 5/9/2012 Riverside inclement weather. I have relied on the 10-ride pass to commute from Riverside to Industry, Riverside CA riding 2 miles from the station to Mt. San Antonio College. On rainy days and during Santa Ana conditions, I drive instead for safety (from swerving cars). Metrolink is not an option on those days because Foothill Transit does not schedule buses between the Industry station and Mt. SAC, timed for the trains. Starting soon, frequent but irregular riders like myself will have a disincentive to use Metrolink. Why would I pay for 7 (really, 5) days of commuting, or a whole month, in October through March if the weather might not cooperate that week or month? My best alternative would be to buy multiple advance round-trip tickets in a tedious series of transactions, and keep track of the separate tickets, with not even a slight discount for being a frequent rider. Please reinstate a flexible rail pass for bicycle commuters.

Sonya Rivera No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA

Blanchie Hollier Hi my name is Blanchie and I just travel from Riverside to Norwalk five (5) day a week. I have Oppose [email protected] been traveling on the metrolink 91 line since January 2012. I work in Los Angeles and my 5/8/2012 91 current employer does not supplement my fair in any way. My monthly fair is $285. I travel Moreno Valley ca because it is cheaper than driving. If the fare increases I would really consider driving because I really want see any decrease in what I pay out of pocket presently. I enjoy the comfort as well as the decrease in stress as it relates to the traffic but that will soon change with an increase in fare.

Raed Elaraj I Personally getting a 5% pay cut on July 1 as a result of City's budget deficit. Gas prices are Oppose [email protected] going up and causing inflation. We can not take any increase in fares at this time. Please 5/8/2012 91 reconsider. Corona

M Walters I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is Oppose walterspartyof4@sbcglob already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those 5/8/2012 al.net passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is Ventura County not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day Simi Valley CA and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness.

Beverly Kurz Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of Oppose [email protected] the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the CA biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also

72 Page 24 assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles.

The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along.

Dale O'Brien Regarding - Notice of Potential Fare Increases Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Please don't Sylmar CA I have been commuting from the San Fernando Valley to downtown to work at the School District headquarters for the last 6 years My wages are literally 15% less then they were 6 years ago. If you account for inflation and how it seems every other Municipal and company are raising their rates, I make 20% to 25% less then 6 years ago. We have not even received any cost of living increases. When I started over 6 years ago I believe the monthly pass was $140, now it is $181, this is already a 30% increase. You should save money by ending the 10 day pass, which was abused. Also there are a lot of free loaders on the Lancaster line. Maybe on occasion you should have/request somebody to check the Lancaster/Palmdale stations at "Boarding time" instead of during travel time. Also, how about a 5% wage cut for all employees. Also we have hope that gas prices will come down.

Matthew Miller I am opposed to the annual fare increase that Metrolink forces onto their loyal passengers Oppose [email protected] year after year. I have been a monthly pass holder for over 8 years. I understand that with 5/8/2012 Riverside increased fuel costs and improvements you have to make up cost someplace. What is not Upland Ca understandable is why Metrolink has not used advertising on their trains to supplement operations costs. You can put advertising graphics on the inside and outside of the trains that Movie industry, retail, and food industries would jump at. Enough with the arrogant thought process that Metrolink is trying to put a corporate atmosphere on their trains that the riders enjoy. Riders enjoy their daily commute to be enjoyable yet economical. If you took a pole on this topic riders would overwhelmingly vote in favor of lower fare versus advertising being on the train. Just my humble opinion. Thank you Matt Miller

73 Page 25 Chris Beacham I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many Oppose chrisbeacham420@yahoo riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check 5/8/2012 .com a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs Riverside continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers.

David Stegenga Any fare increase will hurt me because unlike in the "Real Word", Unlike Metrolink where you Oppose [email protected] are guaranteeing the conductors and Engineers a 5% increase in pay every year, a pay increase 5/8/2012 San Bernardino at my job hasn't ococcured in 4 years. Also if Metrolink actually cchecked tickets you would Redlands CA increase your revenue. My tticket hasn't been looked at in over a month and a hhalf, and I ride 4 trains a day. Berdoo to LA and LA to Burbank.

Calvin Chang Metrolink shall check tickets more often to catch those passengers who did not pay. You shall Oppose [email protected] set up gates to check tickets before allowing anyone even get to the platforms. You may be 5/8/2012 San Bernardino able to make up the $13 million gap if you enforce the tickets rules. instead, you are trying to El Monte CA increase the fare, this is just like to ask us to pay for those passengers who did not buy tickets. This is not fair. I oppose the fare increase.

S S Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one Oppose [email protected] of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the 5/8/2012 Riverside equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. eric watkins i travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. Im already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My Oppose [email protected] standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at 5/8/2012 Orange County the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares irvine ca

Tinna Li While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving Oppose [email protected] every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does 5/8/2012 San Bernardino not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted.

Dennis HunterDennisH I respectfuly oppose any potential fare increase for FY 2012-13. My opposition is basd on my Oppose [email protected] dissatisfaction with the service on the Antelope Valley line. 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA My morning train, #202, is unreliable in terms of arriving on time; it's late once or twice per month. The conductors, while friendly, don't enforce rules like "no feet on seats" and the "Quiet Car Guidelines". These rules are announced, but not enforced. Also, I've seen people smoking on the Union Station platform #3/4 without Metrolink staff paying the smoker any mind. The seats on both the older cars and the "Guardian Fleet" are woefully uncomfortable; I

74 Page 26 try to avoid the Guardian Fleet because it's the more uncomfortable of the two.

In my opinion, the service on the Antelope Valley line is not worth the $234.25 I pay per month. If there are any fare increases, regardless of percentage, I will cancel my monthly pass effective August 2012. Thank you for your consideration.

Duane Neja I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that Oppose [email protected] does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 5/7/2012 Orange County days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do Fullerton CA not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. wes hinson I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is Oppose [email protected] now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the 5/4/2012 Antelope Valley afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved.

Grace Ito You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Oppose [email protected] Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, 5/3/2012 a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised!

Monique Lopez Before considering even the smallest fare increase you should devise a plan to ensure that Oppose [email protected] EVERY rider on the train has a ticket! That would be the first place to start. The honor system 5/3/2012 Antelope Valley just doesn't work.

75 Page 27 Canyon Country CA

Tammi Ba bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip Oppose [email protected] does them no good. 5/3/2012 Ventura County Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't Sherman Oaks CA penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late.

D Lee I'll start driving....the last so called 5% ended up being 14%! Oppose [email protected] 5/3/2012 San Bernardino Fontana ca

Ann Genovese First I want to say I love taking Metrolink. But...you would have more riders if you bring back Oppose genoveseannmarie21@g the 10 trip. Also, have the Sheriffs check fares consistently - no fare - no ride. People still know 5/3/2012 mail.com they can ride for free and they do. If you made sure with turn-stiles like they are putting in for Ventura County MTA or conductors who just check tickets your revenue woudl go up. And Ventura line does Northridge CA not run on Sat. & Sundays so the weekend trip ticket is of no use for us. Thank you - higher fares = less riders = more debt to you.

Randy Gonzales The fare has been increasing every year because of maintenance and fuel cost and that's Oppose [email protected] because for some reason someone thought a massive locomotive is needed to bus an X 5/3/2012 Antelope Valley amount of people. To be honest, the Metrolink trains does nothing more than a Metro light Santa Clarita Ca rail can and has always kept fares low. They can travel almost the same amount of distance, with the exception of the Inland Empire Line, possibly. Why do we need this for? We have amtrak for great distances. I just think it's crazy and ridiculous to have such an oversized and overprice train and at the same time impacts the environment. Please pass this on to Metro, I'm sure they have a better idea.

Shane McCullough I have been commuting nearly 4 years between Orange and Downtown LA for work. During Oppose [email protected] that time the fares have continued to increase while the quality of service and timeliness of 5/3/2012 m schedules has decreased. I have been late for important events and experienced crowded Orange County rush hour trains all while being asked to pay more. I myself, like many riders, have not Orange CA received cost of living increases and every dollar of additional dues is money away from my family. Please consider eliminating trains that do not have consistent ridership and allocate funds towards increasing routes during peak commuting times (i.e. 5:40-6:30 pm M-F). Your consideration is appreciated.

Janelle Bielak I don't agree with any of the fare increases. It just becomes more and more unaffordable to Oppose

76 Page 28 [email protected] ride Metrolink. 5/2/2012 m San Bernardino

Julie Miller Honestly I could probably absorb it. I do begin to wonder in the 4 years of riding from Oxnard Oppose [email protected] to Union Station I've seen fare increases, not exactly sure the total amount, that have added 5/2/2012 Ventura County up. I have had no trains added giving me flexibility to my schedule. There comes a tipping Oxnard Ca point when the lack of trains to and from Oxnard and rising price of tickets makes me seek bus or van pool options!

Abraham Lora I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that Oppose [email protected] your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases 5/2/2012 San Bernardino despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I Ontario CA would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose ANY increases.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% 0 77 5 82

Alise Kabakoff Your fares have consistently risen in the 15+ years I have been riding the train. Ridership has None [email protected] increased due to the price of gas; and in typical Metrolink fashion, you have discontinued the 5/25/2012 Ventura County 10-trip tickets, which will undoubtedly drive riders away. If you continue to hammer the West Hills CA riders with continuous fare increases, folks will have no choice but to get back in their cars and drive because at some point in time, it will be cheaper for them to do so rather than spend an exhorbitant amount of money taking Metrolink.

If you don't know this already, there is a recession going on. Everyone is hard pressed financially. Don't make this any harder on folks than it already is.

Chris Concepcion I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare None [email protected] increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding 5/23/2012 om from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy San Bernardino access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible.

Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more.

Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would

77 Page 29 appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers.

Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution.

Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride

Alberto Martinez I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: None [email protected] - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine 5/22/2012 m to Union Station. Orange County - Add a third train from Irvine to LA Union Station at/about 6PM. Right now we have a 4:19 Downey Ca From Irvine to Union Station and a 5:10 from Irvine to Union Station.

Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested.

Alberto Martinez I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: None [email protected] - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine 5/22/2012

78 Page 30 m to Union Station. Orange County Downey Ca Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. Dale O'Brien Regarding - Notice of Potential Fare Increases None [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Please don't Sylmar CA I have been commuting from the San Fernando Valley to downtown to work at the School District headquarters for the last 6 years My wages are literally 15% less then they were 6 years ago. If you account for inflation and how it seems every other Municipal and company are raising their rates, I make 20% to 25% less then 6 years ago. We have not even received any cost of living increases. When I started over 6 years ago I believe the monthly pass was $140, now it is $181, this is already a 30% increase. You should save money by ending the 10 day pass, which was abused. Also there are a lot of free loaders on the Lancaster line. Maybe on occasion you should have/request somebody to check the Lancaster/Palmdale stations at "Boarding time" instead of during travel time. Also, how about a 5% wage cut for all employees. Also we have hope that gas prices will come down.

Gary Clure Metrolink should focus on increasing its ridership rather than contantly increasing rates. I have Oppose [email protected] been a Metrolink rider for many years and have seen a fare increase almost every year. If 5/29/2012 Orange County another increase is approved at this exorbitant rate. I will seriously consider changing my Laguna Hills CA hours and driving. Currently it takes me twice as long on the Metrolink as it does to drive, but is nice not to have to drive with the cost being about the same. If the cost keeps increasing, I will definitely consider other options.

Susan Larriva No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/28/2012 m Antelope Valley Palmdale CA

Dan Swenson Metrolink fares have continued to rise year after year at a much faster pace than the incomes Oppose [email protected] of riders (assuming their incomes have risen at all). With additional fare increases, the 5/27/2012 Riverside economic hardship placed on riders will only get worse. In addition, the City of Industry Chino Hills CA announced this year it will begin charging riders for parking for the first time since the station was constructed. Add these increasing costs to the already difficult economic times, and ridership is almost certain to suffer. For myself, I do not understand how fuel costs can have increased 78% (I don't think gas prices have raised anywhere near this amount), and with additional costs, I may have to look at driving as an alternative to riding the train. I urge the Metrolink Board of Directors to avoid any further fare increases at this time, and if they elect to proceed with an increase anyway, to make it the absolute smallest possible. Increasing fares should be the last resort. I hope Metrolink will consider every possible efficiency in terms of train scheduling, number of cars, use of staff, and any new technologies that can be

79 Page 31 used to reduce costs.

L Pagdilao The bottom line is that everything needs to be in the best interest of the main stakeholder - Oppose [email protected] the commuters! So, leave or reduce the fares for the passengers until services are improved. 5/26/2012 San Bernardino Do not stick more costs to the commuters by politicians and administrators. Since law Fontana CA enforcement travels at no cost, this benefit needs to extend to other service occupations as well like military, educators, etc. My suggestion is to reduce the salaries between five and nine percent of your administrative staff and politicians in order to comply with Title VI, if that is in fact the genuine objective.

L Pagdilao Why is there only one conductor per train? There should be more than one conductor per Oppose [email protected] train. If there were an emergency in one of the carts, a passenger would not have the access 5/26/2012 San Bernardino to locate a conductor quickly to inform him or her because they would have to search the top Fontana CA and bottom of many carts in order to locate that one conductor, which would be wasted time during an emergency. There needs to be additional staff in a central location, in the event of an emergency, to request an immediate response team for assistance and to eliminate a safety and security breach. Who and why was the San Bernardino train schedule changed without any notification and justification for the schedule change? The 320 train at 4:20pm deliberately has to slow down after dropping off passengers at the Rancho Cucamonga Station in order to let the incoming train pass by since there is only one track, which contributes to Train 320 always arriving late to the Fontana station. This keeps passengers on the train longer than the one hour and thirteen minutes required by the schedule for an additionally ten to fifteen minutes. It is a disservice when commuters are so close to their stop and delayed from departing the train, due to travelling slowly or coming to a complete stop in order for the other train to pass. It inconveniences commuters that have rides waiting for them or have other transportation to take. Train 320's schedule is to arrive at the Fontana station is 5:33pm, but it always arrives at the Fontana station between 5:40pm - 5:45pm, due to the schedule change. The original schedule never required the delaying of Train 320. What is the staffing allocation? The resources of staff allocation are inappropriate and ineffective. From observation, staff at the Union Station stand outside the train to check fares before people enters the train, which is a waste of time and staff resources. There are usually two staff members outside of each cart. Any intelligent person would find it more beneficial to have the staff members circulate the Quiet Cart throughout the trip and be centrally located there in case of an emergency while the conductor counts his or her carts.

80 Page 32 To be continued...

L Pagdilao Improve Services before Considering Fare Increases Oppose [email protected] Who proposed the fare increases and who decides the percentage of increase? I guarantee 5/26/2012 San Bernardino that it is not a daily commuter without perks like me. I am a passenger that commutes Fontana CA Monday - Friday on the San Bernardino line from Fontana to the Los Angeles Union Station. Train 307 at 6:03am and Train 320 at 4:20pm are the trains that I ride daily. The fare increases should never have been proposed and considered. Current service improvements should be the objective, not increasing fares. Why and how were these express train locations determined? All commuters have a right to access express trains at their original location stops, instead of having to drive out of their way to a different location station. This wastes additional time and gas for commuters. For this reason, I feel that there should be a reduction in fares since everyone does not have equal access to an express train at his or her home station stop. Where is the accountability on the additional revenue? During a bad economy, the fares are already too high, especially for a monthly pass. This additional revenue does not compensate the overworked single conductors for an entire train. Administrators and politicians pocket this additional money for mismanagement of funds, while shortchanging the Metrolink front line staff and passengers. For instance, I observe only one conductor on the entire train to service many carts and passenger needs, which is ridiculous in the event of an emergency. Who regulates the Quiet Cart? This cart is not always quiet and regulated. There are

81 Page 33 constantly ringing cell phones, talking loud, blasting IPods, etc. Commuters should not have to get off work and do additional work by telling other passengers to be quiet on the Quiet Cart. That is the job of the conductor and Sherriff to remove the passengers out of these carts for violation of the quiet cart rules. Patrolling the Quiet Cart more often ensures that every passenger is complying with the rules by being quiet. Additional postings of the Quiet Cart signage should be in visible locations with a large font to eliminate excuses of not knowing that it is the Quiet Cart.

Connie Jackson I strongly oppose any fare increases for the Orange County line for the following reasons: Oppose [email protected] 5/25/2012 Orange County - OC Link Pass allows unlimited travel between Buena Park and San Clemente (and stations in Downey CA between) for $7. This is nearly 1/3 of the cost that I pay traveling between Norwalk - San Juan Capistrano. I think it is unfair to increase MY fair when OC passengers only have to pay $7 dollars for unlimited travel. My $19 roundtrip ticket (or $264 monthly pass) only covers OCTA buses that services Metrolink stations whereas the $7 OC Link pass allows for unlimited travel on ALL OCTA buses and trains traveling through OC. Why should those of us traveling from/to LA Union, Norwalk and Oceanside be subjected to a fare increase and OC passengers only have to shell out $7?

- I feel that this increase is partially due to the expenses incurred by Metrolink from the Chatsworth fiasco in 2008 and I resent these increases for Metrolink's mistakes.

- OC Line riders traveling southbound have extremely limited options from Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs compared to service traveling northbound towards Union Station. Why should WE be subjected to the same fare increase as those with more commuting options? Two AM southbound trains and one northbound PM train is inadequate for those of us who work south of Irvine! Frankly, we should be getting a discount due to the lack of service traveling southbound NOT a fare increase.

82 Page 34

For these three reasons, I am opposing the proposed fare increases as there have been no positive changes since I began riding Metrolink in 2008!

Michele James If your trains were more reliable I would be willing to consider the fare increase to be Oppose [email protected] reasonable. My train is late on a daily basis, and your lack of reliability is causing me an undue 5/25/2012 ourts.gov hardship. I already pay $348 for a monthly pass and any potential increase would cause me to Antelope Valley consider other transportation options. I have been a Metrolink rider since your service started, but enough is enough.

Tonni Thomas A 6% increase in Metrolink fares would be unfair to the general public. Not once this month Oppose [email protected] has the conductor asked to see my monthly pass. Today is May 25th. I could have been riding 5/25/2012 San Bernardino for free. Just like I know several people do. Get the conductor to check tickets on a regular Rancho Cucamonga CA basis, you would not need to increase the fares. Most people who ride the train are not receiving increases, but are being told to be happy they are employed. A 6% increase would be a hardship for many riders.

Carol Edwards You have got to be kidding! I've been riding the Metrolink for 12 years and do you know how Oppose [email protected] many times I've seen a fair increase?! You are making it so people can't afford to take public 5/25/2012 Orange County transportation. I save absolutely no money by taking the train vs. driving as it is and now this? San Juan Capistrano CA Forget it, you'll lose me as a customer if you raise your prices at all. Think of another way, do not punish your customers! Several are mad at this proposal

Alise Kabakoff Your fares have consistently risen in the 15+ years I have been riding the train. Ridership has Oppose [email protected] increased due to the price of gas; and in typical Metrolink fashion, you have discontinued the 5/25/2012 Ventura County 10-trip tickets, which will undoubtedly drive riders away. If you continue to hammer the West Hills CA riders with continuous fare increases, folks will have no choice but to get back in their cars and drive because at some point in time, it will be cheaper for them to do so rather than spend an exhorbitant amount of money taking Metrolink.

83 Page 35

If you don't know this already, there is a recession going on. Everyone is hard pressed financially. Don't make this any harder on folks than it already is.

Dave Bell I understand the need for the potential increase, however, with what I see happening on the Oppose [email protected] train lines I ride with fare evaders, and the cleanliness of the trains being naught, I find it hard 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley to accept the increase for the level of service. I see so many riders, who when asked to show Santa Clarita CA their right to ride, are not in possession of a pass or ticket. The Sheriffs give a citation but allow them to continue riding. If these riders were escorted off the trains, it would make us feel better since the rules are being enforced.

Also, with the economy being still in a lull point, now is not the time to ask for, or act on any increases. The rate increase will only drive those who are on a tight budget away from the trains and cause you to lose more money, not make more money.

Enforce the current rules, improve safety on board the trains, and keep them cleaner will go a long way. If you have to sit in seats where people continue to put their feet, or dirty the seats with personal waste, that makes us want to not ride the trains.

I appreciate any feedback from the Board of Directors on my comments.

Christine Calderon I understand gas prices have gone up but not that severe that would justify a 5%-9% or more Oppose [email protected] increase. Service has definitely not improved. Our train set is usually delayed at least 3 days 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley out of the week. Even if it is 5 minutes late, it is delayed. Even though Metrolink doesn't recognize that as a delay.

The last fare increase, I saw a major decline in riders and believe it will impact Metrolink even further if you increase fares. Increasing fares is not going to increase ridership.

Laurie Ferguson No written comment was submitted. Oppose laurie.ferguson@bnymell 5/23/2012 on.com Antelope Valley Sylmar CA

Richard Batenhorst Need more ticket enforcement to increase fee income before increasing rates Oppose rbatenhorst@nationalwir 5/23/2012 e.com Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA

Chris Concepcion I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare Oppose [email protected] increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding 5/23/2012

84 Page 36 om from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy San Bernardino access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible.

Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more.

Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers.

Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution.

Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride nancy hensien You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Oppose [email protected] Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom 98.50 to 154.25. So YES i got raised last 5/23/2012 Inland Empire - Orange year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise County evweryone else. temecula ca

Karin Wakefield Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and Oppose [email protected] to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. Thank you. 5/23/2012 Ventura County Reseda CA

Jennifer Eckhart Will no longer continue to use the Metrolink if there is another fare increase. Oppose [email protected] 5/23/2012

85 Page 37 Antelope Valley

QUAN TRUONG Not acceptable! Oppose [email protected] 5/23/2012 m 91 Corona CA salah alamoodi I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more Oppose [email protected] profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare 5/22/2012 Antelope Valley them before you adjust the rates. Lancaster Ca salah alamoodi I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more Oppose [email protected] profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare 5/22/2012 Antelope Valley them before you adjust the rates. Lancaster Ca

Alberto Martinez I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: Oppose [email protected] - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine 5/22/2012 m to Union Station. Orange County - Add a third train from Irvine to LA Union Station at/about 6PM. Right now we have a 4:19 Downey Ca From Irvine to Union Station and a 5:10 from Irvine to Union Station.

Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested.

Esmeralda Valencia I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's Oppose valencia_esmeralda@hot not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final 5/22/2012 mail.com destination. Riverside Downtowne Pomona

Markus Quon I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase Oppose [email protected] significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 5/21/2012 Orange County 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing Oceanside CA fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times.

I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and

86 Page 38 eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip.

At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time.

Sandra Southers Raising the fare passengers will still ride for free. I've seen too many get on without paying. Oppose [email protected] 5/20/2012 San Bernardino Fontana CA

Carolyn Delgado I am against the 6% increase, this would really cause a hardship and I would not abe able to Oppose [email protected] ride everyday during the week. 5/20/2012 v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/20/2012 Riverside rancho cucamonga ca

Justin Case This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely Oppose [email protected] dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously 5/20/2012 San Bernardino expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. Covina ca If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top.

If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout.

It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an

87 Page 39 optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times.

The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit"

DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do!

If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours?

Eileen Haniuk Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went Oppose [email protected] from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown 5/18/2012 m Burbank. To increase the fare another 6% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At Orange County a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons.

Alicia Garcia no more raises without improvements. Oppose [email protected] 5/18/2012 Inland Empire - Orange County

88 Page 40 Quail Valley CA

V McDaniel No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/18/2012 Riverside Riverside ca

Scott Barker I think that the 5% increase should be enough, at some point I think the riders may go to other Oppose [email protected] means of transportation,that would be a shame since the train gets so many cars off the road 5/17/2012 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA

Justin Rogers I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising Oppose [email protected] fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate 5/17/2012 om behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long Orange County delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is Buena Park CA horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered.

Jon Lyle It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The Oppose [email protected] frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very 5/17/2012 Orange County frustrating to me and others as your customers. Anaheim Ca

Dave Hodges If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Orange County orange CA

Dave Hodges For this increase you are getting greedy, and I definitely oppose it. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Orange County orange CA

Paula Hoffman KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Ventura County Camarillo ca

Albric Ghokasian Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to Oppose [email protected] lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse 5/17/2012 cgov.com to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's Orange County cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging Santa Ana CA transportation at both ends. mary smith ANY INCREASE IN FARE WOULD NOW CAUSE ME TO RIDE THE BUS INSTEAD OF THE TRAIN. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012

89 Page 41 91 fullerton ca Pam Pert I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. Oppose pamela.pert@libertymutu This would increase my fare to a total of 11%. 5/16/2012 al.com Orange County San Clemente ca

David Wetzel My biggest concern today is the elimination of the 10 trip tickets without informing the public Oppose [email protected] or advanced notice. This IS a defacto rate increase. I do not know the laws or regulations 5/16/2012 Orange County surrounding fare increases, but it seems to me that a decision like this would be prohibited Laguna Niguel CA without notification or public hearing.

Sue Clemons No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/16/2012 Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA

Jeff Carlon I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch Oppose [email protected] the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. 5/15/2012 Antelope Valley I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks Pearblossom ca through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon

Mary Alexander See comment under 9% Oppose [email protected] 5/15/2012 Orange County Mission Viejo CA

Efren Malagon No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/14/2012 v San Bernardino Fontana CA

Joanne Choi No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/14/2012 Riverside

Sandy Ikeda Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate Oppose [email protected] transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the 5/14/2012 Ventura County burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less

90 Page 42 PORT HUENEME ca convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now.

Carlos Garibay Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to Oppose [email protected] avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on 5/14/2012 m the train if the fare increase is approved. Riverside Rowland Heights Ca

Angela Perez Because of City of LA furloughs & pay decreases, I will not be able to afford to ride Metrolink if Oppose [email protected] you increase the fare. I have been a rider for 8 years. 5/14/2012 Ventura County Simi Valley CA danny Quezada Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is Oppose [email protected] metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on 5/14/2012 m implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase Ventura County ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Oxnard ca

Maggie Martinez With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the Oppose [email protected] gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and 5/14/2012 Ventura County increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro Chatsworth ca to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders.

Matt Barrett Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before Oppose [email protected] passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and 5/14/2012 m ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being San Bernardino ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. Upland CA

Casate Yuri I find it hard to believe that you cannot find cost efficiencies with in your organization to cover Oppose [email protected] your the monetary shortfall. Going back to your customers, while it's the path of least 5/11/2012 91 resistance, should be your last resort, instead your management should challenge the unions Corona ca and re think your business model so real time adjustments (both increase and decrease) due to fuel price fluctuations are be reflected in the price of the fare. Any other operational costs increases should be handle in the form of challenges to management to reducing costs.

Rick Ehrlich Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule Oppose [email protected] over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to 5/11/2012 Ventura County GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to Camarillo CA your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price

91 Page 43 of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is 55-60 minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now.

I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like.

I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to email me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages.

Thank you, Rick

Kirstin Largent I think it outrageous to increase my fares when the train has been running late on a regular Oppose PARALEGAL1369@HOTM basis for the past past months 5/11/2012 AIL.COM Riverside Rowland Heights CA

Brenda Vasquez This increase would be an extreme hardship. You are going to be making train usage only Oppose [email protected] feasible for the highly compensated person. 5/9/2012 m Inland Empire - Orange County Sylmar CA

Robert Theobald No written comment was submitted. Oppose rtheobald@paragon- 5/9/2012 precision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca

Paula Schiffman I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any Oppose [email protected] fare hike at this time (6% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the 5/9/2012

92 Page 44 u past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Ventura County Los Angeles CA Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in other areas! Travis Anderson I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is Oppose [email protected] ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant 5/9/2012 Antelope Valley efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem Lancaster CA and not operating within its means.

Elizabeth Lawlor Whether or not average fares increase by any amount, without a 10-day pass, I will be less Oppose [email protected] likely to commute by bike and Metrolink. Bicycle commuters need a flexible pass to allow for 5/9/2012 Riverside inclement weather. I have relied on the 10-ride pass to commute from Riverside to Industry, Riverside CA riding 2 miles from the station to Mt. San Antonio College. On rainy days and during Santa Ana conditions, I drive instead for safety (from swerving cars). Metrolink is not an option on those days because Foothill Transit does not schedule buses between the Industry station and Mt. SAC, timed for the trains. Starting soon, frequent but irregular riders like myself will have a disincentive to use Metrolink. Why would I pay for 7 (really, 5) days of commuting, or a whole month, in October through March if the weather might not cooperate that week or month? My best alternative would be to buy multiple advance round-trip tickets in a tedious series of transactions, and keep track of the separate tickets, with not even a slight discount for being a frequent rider. Please reinstate a flexible rail pass for bicycle commuters.

Sonya Rivera No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA

Raed Elaraj Personally getting a 5% pay cut on July 1 as a result of City's budget deficit. Gas prices are Oppose [email protected] going up and causing inflation. We can not take any increase in fares at this time. Please 5/8/2012 91 reconsider. Corona

M Walters I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is Oppose walterspartyof4@sbcglob already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those 5/8/2012 al.net passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is Ventura County not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day Simi Valley CA and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness.

Beverly Kurz Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of Oppose [email protected] the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the CA biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also

93 Page 45 understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles.

The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along.

Chris Beacham I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many Oppose chrisbeacham420@yahoo riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check 5/8/2012 .com a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs Riverside continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers.

S S Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one Oppose [email protected] of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the 5/8/2012 Riverside equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. eric watkins I travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. Im already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My Oppose [email protected] standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at 5/8/2012 Orange County the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares. irvine ca

Tinna Li While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving Oppose [email protected] every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does 5/8/2012 San Bernardino not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted.

Duane Neja I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that Oppose [email protected] does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 5/7/2012

94 Page 46 Orange County days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do Fullerton CA not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. wes hinson I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is Oppose [email protected] now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the 5/4/2012 Antelope Valley afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved.

Grace Ito You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Oppose [email protected] Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, 5/3/2012 a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised!

Tammi Ba bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip Oppose [email protected] does them no good. 5/3/2012 Ventura County Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't Sherman Oaks CA penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late.

D Lee NO! the last 5% ended up being 14% Oppose [email protected] 5/3/2012 San Bernardino

95 Page 47 Fontana ca

Ann Genovese First I want to say I love taking Metrolink. But...you would have more riders if you bring back Oppose genoveseannmarie21@g the 10 trip. Also, have the Sheriffs check fares consistently - no fare - no ride. People still know 5/3/2012 mail.com they can ride for free and they do. If you made sure with turn-stiles like they are putting in for Ventura County MTA or conductors who just check tickets your revenue woudl go up. And Ventura line does Northridge CA not run on Sat. & Sundays so the weekend trip ticket is of no use for us. Thank you - higher fares = less riders = more debt to you.

Janelle Bielak No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/2/2012 m San Bernardino

Abraham Lora I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that Oppose [email protected] your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases 5/2/2012 San Bernardino despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I Ontario CA would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose ANY increases.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% 0 72 4 76

Alberto Martinez I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: None [email protected] - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine 5/22/2012 m to Union Station. Orange County Downey Ca Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested.

Matt Barrett Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before None [email protected] passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and 5/14/2012 m ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being San Bernardino ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. Upland CA

Elizabeth Lawlor How could the counties served by Metrolink tie a gasoline tax increase to maintenance and None [email protected] improvement of Metrolink service? 5/9/2012 Riverside

96 Page 48 Riverside CA

Chris Beacham I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many None chrisbeacham420@yahoo riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check 5/8/2012 .com a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs Riverside continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers.

Gary Clure Metrolink should focus on increasing its ridership rather than contantly increasing rates. I have Oppose [email protected] been a Metrolink rider for many years and have seen a fare increase almost every year. If 5/29/2012 Orange County another increase is approved at this exorbitant rate. I will seriously consider changing my Laguna Hills CA hours and driving. Currently it takes me twice as long on the Metrolink as it does to drive, but is nice not to have to drive with the cost being about the same. If the cost keeps increasing, I will definitely consider other options.

Susan Larriva No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/28/2012 m Antelope Valley Palmdale CA

Dan Swenson Metrolink fares have continued to rise year after year at a much faster pace than the incomes Oppose [email protected] of riders (assuming their incomes have risen at all). With additional fare increases, the 5/27/2012 Riverside economic hardship placed on riders will only get worse. In addition, the City of Industry Chino Hills CA announced this year it will begin charging riders for parking for the first time since the station was constructed. Add these increasing costs to the already difficult economic times, and ridership is almost certain to suffer. For myself, I do not understand how fuel costs can have increased 78% (I don't think gas prices have raised anywhere near this amount), and with additional costs, I may have to look at driving as an alternative to riding the train. I urge the Metrolink Board of Directors to avoid any further fare increases at this time, and if they elect to proceed with an increase anyway, to make it the absolute smallest possible. Increasing fares should be the last resort. I hope Metrolink will consider every possible efficiency in terms of train scheduling, number of cars, use of staff, and any new technologies that can be used to reduce costs.

L Pagdilao Who designed the train layout? Overall, the train layout is nice, but it can use some Oppose [email protected] improvement. It needs more leg and seat room for the average passenger. Tall commuters 5/26/2012 San Bernardino cramped for legroom and space have pain in their back, knees, and legs from sitting in a Fontana CA limited space for quite some time. In addition, curvaceous commuters do not have options in the model size seating, which is uncomfortable. Furthermore, the cart has limited outlets and tables for passengers that would like to work during their long commutes. The bottom line is that everything needs to be in the best interest of the main stakeholder - the commuters! So, leave or reduce the fares for the passengers until services are improved. Do not stick more costs to the commuters by politicians and administrators. Since law

97 Page 49 enforcement travels at no cost, this benefit needs to extend to other service occupations as well like military, educators, etc. My suggestion is to reduce the salaries between five and nine percent of your administrative staff and politicians in order to comply with Title VI, if that is in fact the genuine objective.

L Pagdilao Why is there only one conductor per train? There should be more than one conductor per Oppose [email protected] train. If there were an emergency in one of the carts, a passenger would not have the access 5/26/2012 San Bernardino to locate a conductor quickly to inform him or her because they would have to search the top Fontana CA and bottom of many carts in order to locate that one conductor, which would be wasted time during an emergency. There needs to be additional staff in a central location, in the event of an emergency, to request an immediate response team for assistance and to eliminate a safety and security breach. Who and why was the San Bernardino train schedule changed without any notification and justification for the schedule change? The 320 train at 4:20pm deliberately has to slow down after dropping off passengers at the Rancho Cucamonga Station in order to let the incoming train pass by since there is only one track, which contributes to Train 320 always arriving late to the Fontana station. This keeps passengers on the train longer than the one hour and thirteen minutes required by the schedule for an additionally ten to fifteen minutes. It is a disservice when commuters are so close to their stop and delayed from departing the train, due to travelling slowly or coming to a complete stop in order for the other train to pass. It inconveniences commuters that have rides waiting for them or have other transportation to take. Train 320's schedule is to arrive at the Fontana station is 5:33pm, but it always arrives at the Fontana station between 5:40pm - 5:45pm, due to the schedule change. The original schedule never required the delaying of Train 320. What is the staffing allocation? The resources of staff allocation are inappropriate and ineffective. From observation, staff at the Union Station stand outside the train to check fares before people enters the train, which is a waste of time and staff resources. There are usually two staff members outside of each cart. Any intelligent person would find it more beneficial to have the staff members circulate the Quiet Cart throughout the trip and be centrally located there in case of an emergency while the conductor counts his or her carts.

To be continued...

L Pagdilao Improve Services before Considering Fare Increases Oppose [email protected] Who proposed the fare increases and who decides the percentage of increase? I guarantee 5/26/2012 San Bernardino that it is not a daily commuter without perks like me. I am a passenger that commutes Fontana CA Monday - Friday on the San Bernardino line from Fontana to the Los Angeles Union Station. Train 307 at 6:03am and Train 320 at 4:20pm are the trains that I ride daily. The fare increases should never have been proposed and considered. Current service improvements should be

98 Page 50 the objective, not increasing fares. Why and how were these express train locations determined? All commuters have a right to access express trains at their original location stops, instead of having to drive out of their way to a different location station. This wastes additional time and gas for commuters. For this reason, I feel that there should be a reduction in fares since everyone does not have equal access to an express train at his or her home station stop. Where is the accountability on the additional revenue? During a bad economy, the fares are already too high, especially for a monthly pass. This additional revenue does not compensate the overworked single conductors for an entire train. Administrators and politicians pocket this additional money for mismanagement of funds, while shortchanging the Metrolink front line staff and passengers. For instance, I observe only one conductor on the entire train to service many carts and passenger needs, which is ridiculous in the event of an emergency. Who regulates the Quiet Cart? This cart is not always quiet and regulated. There are constantly ringing cell phones, talking loud, blasting IPods, etc. Commuters should not have to get off work and do additional work by telling other passengers to be quiet on the Quiet Cart. That is the job of the conductor and Sherriff to remove the passengers out of these carts for violation of the quiet cart rules. Patrolling the Quiet Cart more often ensures that every passenger is complying with the rules by being quiet. Additional postings of the Quiet Cart signage should be in visible locations with a large font to eliminate excuses of not knowing that it is the Quiet Cart.

Connie Jackson I strongly oppose any fare increases for the Orange County line for the following reasons: Oppose [email protected] 5/25/2012 Orange County - OC Link Pass allows unlimited travel between Buena Park and San Clemente (and stations in Downey CA between) for $7. This is nearly 1/3 of the cost that I pay traveling between Norwalk - San Juan Capistrano. I think it is unfair to increase MY fair when OC passengers only have to pay $7 dollars for unlimited travel. My $19 roundtrip ticket (or $264 monthly pass) only covers OCTA buses that services Metrolink stations whereas the $7 OC Link pass allows for unlimited travel on ALL OCTA buses and trains traveling through OC. Why should those of us traveling from/to LA Union, Norwalk and Oceanside be subjected to a fare increase and OC passengers only have to shell out $7?

- I feel that this increase is partially due to the expenses incurred by Metrolink from the Chatsworth fiasco in 2008 and I resent these increases for Metrolink's mistakes.

- OC Line riders traveling southbound have extremely limited options from Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs compared to service traveling northbound towards Union Station. Why should WE be subjected to the same fare increase as those with more commuting options? Two AM southbound trains and one northbound PM train is inadequate for those of us who work south of Irvine! Frankly, we should be getting a discount due to the lack of service traveling southbound NOT a fare increase.

99 Page 51

For these three reasons, I am opposing the proposed fare increases as there have been no positive changes since I began riding Metrolink in 2008!

Connie Jackson I strongly oppose any fare increases for the Orange County line for the following reasons: Oppose [email protected] 5/25/2012 Orange County - OC Link Pass allows unlimited travel between Buena Park and San Clemente (and stations in Downey CA between) for $7. This is nearly 1/3 of the cost that I pay traveling between Norwalk - San Juan Capistrano. I think it is unfair to increase MY fair when OC passengers only have to pay $7 dollars for unlimited travel. My $19 roundtrip ticket (or $264 monthly pass) only covers OCTA buses that services Metrolink stations whereas the $7 OC Link pass allows for unlimited travel on ALL OCTA buses and trains traveling through OC. Why should those of us traveling from/to LA Union, Norwalk and Oceanside be subjected to a fare increase and OC passengers only have to shell out $7?

- I feel that this increase is partially due to the expenses incurred by Metrolink from the Chatsworth fiasco in 2008 and I resent these increases for Metrolink's mistakes.

- OC Line riders traveling southbound have extremely limited options from Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs compared to service traveling northbound towards Union Station. Why should WE be subjected to the same fare increase as those with more commuting options? Two AM southbound trains and one northbound PM train is inadequate for those of us who work south of Irvine! Frankly, we should be getting a discount due to the lack of service traveling southbound NOT a fare increase.

For these three reasons, I am opposing the proposed fare increases as there have been no positive changes since I began riding Metrolink in 2008!

100 Page 52 Michele James If your trains were more reliable I would be willing to consider the fare increase to be Oppose [email protected] reasonable. My train is late on a daily basis, and your lack of reliability is causing me an undue 5/25/2012 ourts.gov hardship. I already pay $348 for a monthly pass and any potential increase would cause me to Antelope Valley consider other transportation options. I have been a Metrolink rider since your service started, but enough is enough.

Tonni Thomas It is my opinion that a 7% increase in fares would force a good portion of Metrolink riders to Oppose [email protected] the bus. Salaries have not been increasing for most of the passengers who take public 5/25/2012 San Bernardino transportation. I just may be one of them. My salary is not keeping up with inflation, but Rancho Cucamonga CA switching to the bus would put money back in my purse.

Carol Edwards You have got to be kidding! I've been riding the Metrolink for 12 years and do you know how Oppose [email protected] many times I've seen a fair increase?! You are making it so people can't afford to take public 5/25/2012 Orange County transportation. I save absolutely no money by taking the train vs. driving as it is and now this? San Juan Capistrano CA Forget it, you'll lose me as a customer if you raise your prices at all. Think of another way, do not punish your customers! Several are mad at this proposal

Alise Kabakoff Your fares have consistently risen in the 15+ years I have been riding the train. Ridership has Oppose [email protected] increased due to the price of gas; and in typical Metrolink fashion, you have discontinued the 5/25/2012 Ventura County 10-trip tickets, which will undoubtedly drive riders away. If you continue to hammer the West Hills CA riders with continuous fare increases, folks will have no choice but to get back in their cars and drive because at some point in time, it will be cheaper for them to do so rather than spend an exhorbitant amount of money taking Metrolink.

If you don't know this already, there is a recession going on. Everyone is hard pressed financially. Don't make this any harder on folks than it already is.

Christine Calderon I understand gas prices have gone up but not that severe that would justify a 5%-9% or more Oppose [email protected] increase. Service has definitely not improved. Our train set is usually delayed at least 3 days 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley out of the week. Even if it is 5 minutes late, it is delayed. Even though Metrolink doesn't recognize that as a delay.

The last fare increase, I saw a major decline in riders and believe it will impact Metrolink even further if you increase fares. Increasing fares is not going to increase ridership.

Laurie Ferguson No written comment was submitted. Oppose laurie.ferguson@bnymell 5/23/2012 on.com Antelope Valley Sylmar CA

Chris Concepcion I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare Oppose [email protected] increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding 5/23/2012 om from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy San Bernardino access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible.

101 Page 53 Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more.

Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers.

Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution.

Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride

nancy hensien You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Oppose [email protected] Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom 98.50 to 154.25. So YES i got raised last 5/23/2012 Inland Empire - Orange year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise County evweryone else. temecula ca

Karin Wakefield Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and Oppose [email protected] to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. Thank you. 5/23/2012 Ventura County Reseda CA

Jennifer Eckhart Will no longer continue to use the Metrolink if there is another fare increase. Oppose [email protected] 5/23/2012

102 Page 54 Antelope Valley

QUAN TRUONG Not acceptable! Oppose [email protected] 5/23/2012 m 91 Corona CA salah alamoodi I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more Oppose [email protected] profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare 5/22/2012 Antelope Valley them before you adjust the rates. Lancaster Ca

Alberto Martinez I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: Oppose [email protected] - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine 5/22/2012 m to Union Station. Orange County - Add a third train from Irvine to LA Union Station at/about 6PM. Right now we have a 4:19 Downey Ca From Irvine to Union Station and a 5:10 from Irvine to Union Station.

Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested.

Esmeralda Valencia I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's Oppose valencia_esmeralda@hot not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final 5/22/2012 mail.com destination. Riverside Downtowne Pomona

Markus Quon I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase Oppose [email protected] significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 5/21/2012 Orange County 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing Oceanside CA fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times.

I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I

103 Page 55 personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip.

At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time.

Sandra Southers No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/20/2012 San Bernardino Fontana CA

Carolyn Delgado I am against the fare increase of 7% due to the fact I can barely afford to pay the current Oppose [email protected] monthly pass now. A 7% increase would cause me to stop riding everyday during the week. 5/20/2012 v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/20/2012 Riverside rancho cucamonga ca

Justin Case This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely Oppose [email protected] dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously 5/20/2012 San Bernardino expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. Covina ca If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top.

If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout.

It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an

104 Page 56 optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times.

The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit"

DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do!

If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours?

Eileen Haniuk Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went Oppose [email protected] from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown 5/18/2012 m Burbank. To increase the fare another 7% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At Orange County a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons.

V McDaniel No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/18/2012 Riverside Riverside ca

105 Page 57 Scott Barker I think that the 5% increase should be enough, at some point I think the riders may go to other Oppose [email protected] means of transportation,that would be a shame since the train gets so many cars off the road 5/17/2012 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA

Justin Rogers I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising Oppose [email protected] fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate 5/17/2012 om behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long Orange County delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is Buena Park CA horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered.

Jon Lyle It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The Oppose [email protected] frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very 5/17/2012 Orange County frustrating to me and others as your customers. Anaheim Ca

Dave Hodges If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Orange County orange CA

Dave Hodges For this increase you are getting greedy, and I definitely oppose it. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Orange County orange CA

Paula Hoffman KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Ventura County Camarillo ca mary smith ANY INCREASE IN FARE WOULD NOW CAUSE ME TO RIDE THE BUS WHICH IS ALREADY Oppose [email protected] CHEAPER AND DROPS ME AT THE DOOR OF MY BUILDING! 5/17/2012 91 fullerton ca

Pam Pert I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. Oppose pamela.pert@libertymutu This would increase my fare to a total of 12%. 5/16/2012 al.com Orange County San Clemente ca

David Wetzel My biggest concern today is the elimination of the 10 trip tickets without informing the public Oppose [email protected] or advanced notice. This IS a defacto rate increase. I do not know the laws or regulations 5/16/2012 Orange County surrounding fare increases, but it seems to me that a decision like this would be prohibited Laguna Niguel CA without notification or public hearing.

Jeff Carlon I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch Oppose

106 Page 58 [email protected] the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. 5/15/2012 Antelope Valley I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks Pearblossom ca through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon Mary Alexander See comment under 9% Oppose [email protected] 5/15/2012 Orange County Mission Viejo CA

Efren Malagon No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/14/2012 v San Bernardino Fontana CA

Joanne Choi No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/14/2012 Riverside

Sandy Ikeda Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate Oppose [email protected] transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the 5/14/2012 Ventura County burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less PORT HUENEME ca convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now.

Carlos Garibay Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to Oppose [email protected] avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on 5/14/2012 m the train if the fare increase is approved. Riverside Rowland Heights Ca

Angela Perez Because of City of LA furloughs & pay decreases, I will not be able to afford the Metrolink if Oppose [email protected] you increase the fare. I have been riding Metrolink for 8 yrs. 5/14/2012 Ventura County Simi Valley CA danny Quezada Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is Oppose [email protected] metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on 5/14/2012 m implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase Ventura County ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Oxnard ca

107 Page 59 danny Quezada Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is Oppose [email protected] metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on 5/14/2012 m implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase Ventura County ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Oxnard ca

Maggie Martinez With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the Oppose [email protected] gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and 5/14/2012 Ventura County increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro Chatsworth ca to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders.

Rick Ehrlich Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule Oppose [email protected] over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to 5/11/2012 Ventura County GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to Camarillo CA your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is 55-60 minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now.

I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like.

I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to email me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages.

Thank you, Rick

Rick Ehrlich Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule Oppose [email protected] over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to 5/11/2012 Ventura County GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to Camarillo CA your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your

108 Page 60 fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is 55-60 minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now.

I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like.

I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to email me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages.

Thank you, Rick

Kirstin Largent No written comment was submitted. Oppose PARALEGAL1369@HOTM 5/11/2012 AIL.COM Riverside Rowland Heights CA

Robert Theobald No written comment was submitted. Oppose rtheobald@paragon- 5/9/2012 precision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca

Paula Schiffman I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any Oppose [email protected] fare hike at this time (7% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the 5/9/2012 u past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Ventura County Los Angeles CA Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in

109 Page 61 other areas!

Travis Anderson I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is Oppose [email protected] ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant 5/9/2012 Antelope Valley efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem Lancaster CA and not operating within its means.

Travis Anderson I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is Oppose [email protected] ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant 5/9/2012 Antelope Valley efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem Lancaster CA and not operating within its means.

Sonya Rivera No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA

Raed Elaraj Personally getting a 5% pay cut on July 1 as a result of City's budget deficit. Gas prices are Oppose [email protected] going up and causing inflation. We can not take any increase in fares at this time. Please 5/8/2012 91 reconsider. Corona

M Walters I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is Oppose walterspartyof4@sbcglob already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those 5/8/2012 al.net passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is Ventura County not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day Simi Valley CA and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness.

Beverly Kurz Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of Oppose [email protected] the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the CA biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles.

The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually

110 Page 62 have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along.

Dale O'Brien No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Sylmar CA

Chris Beacham I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many Oppose chrisbeacham420@yahoo riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check 5/8/2012 .com a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs Riverside continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers.

S S Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one Oppose [email protected] of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the 5/8/2012 Riverside equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. At this point, it starts to cost me about what it costs in gas to drive everyday, which defeats the purpose, so I'd probably stop riding the train altogether and go back to driving. eric watkins I travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. I'm already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My Oppose [email protected] standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at 5/8/2012 Orange County the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares. irvine ca

Tinna Li While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving Oppose [email protected] every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does 5/8/2012 San Bernardino not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in

111 Page 63 commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted.

Duane Neja I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that Oppose [email protected] does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 5/7/2012 Orange County days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do Fullerton CA not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. wes hinson I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is Oppose [email protected] now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the 5/4/2012 Antelope Valley afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved.

Grace Ito You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Oppose [email protected] Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, 5/3/2012 a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised!

Tammi Ba bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip Oppose [email protected] does them no good. 5/3/2012 Ventura County Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't Sherman Oaks CA penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as

112 Page 64 Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late.

D Lee No! I'll start drive as it would be cheaper Oppose [email protected] 5/3/2012 San Bernardino Fontana ca

Ann Genovese First I want to say I love taking Metrolink. But...you would have more riders if you bring back Oppose genoveseannmarie21@g the 10 trip. Also, have the Sheriffs check fares consistently - no fare - no ride. People still know 5/3/2012 mail.com they can ride for free and they do. If you made sure with turn-stiles like they are putting in for Ventura County MTA or conductors who just check tickets your revenue woudl go up. And Ventura line does Northridge CA not run on Sat. & Sundays so the weekend trip ticket is of no use for us. Thank you - higher fares = less riders = more debt to you.

Janelle Bielak No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/2/2012 m San Bernardino

Abraham Lora I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that Oppose [email protected] your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases 5/2/2012 San Bernardino despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I Ontario CA would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose ANY increases.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% 0 76 2 78

Alberto Martinez I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: None [email protected] - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine 5/22/2012 m to Union Station.

113 Page 65 Orange County Downey Ca Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested.

Angela Perez I am a City of LA employee that has endured Furloughs & pay cuts, and I will not be able to None [email protected] afford an increase to the Metrolink fare. I would have to find another means of transportation 5/14/2012 Ventura County after riding Metrolink for 8 yrs. Simi Valley CA

Gary Clure Metrolink should focus on increasing its ridership rather than contantly increasing rates. I have Oppose [email protected] been a Metrolink rider for many years and have seen a fare increase almost every year. If 5/29/2012 Orange County another increase is approved at this exorbitant rate. I will seriously consider changing my Laguna Hills CA hours and driving. Currently it takes me twice as long on the Metrolink as it does to drive, but is nice not to have to drive with the cost being about the same. If the cost keeps increasing, I will definitely consider other options.

Susan Larriva No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/28/2012 m Antelope Valley Palmdale CA

Dan Swenson Metrolink fares have continued to rise year after year at a much faster pace than the incomes Oppose [email protected] of riders (assuming their incomes have risen at all). With additional fare increases, the 5/27/2012 Riverside economic hardship placed on riders will only get worse. In addition, the City of Industry Chino Hills CA announced this year it will begin charging riders for parking for the first time since the station was constructed. Add these increasing costs to the already difficult economic times, and ridership is almost certain to suffer. For myself, I do not understand how fuel costs can have increased 78% (I don't think gas prices have raised anywhere near this amount), and with additional costs, I may have to look at driving as an alternative to riding the train. I urge the Metrolink Board of Directors to avoid any further fare increases at this time, and if they elect to proceed with an increase anyway, to make it the absolute smallest possible. Increasing fares should be the last resort. I hope Metrolink will consider every possible efficiency in terms of train scheduling, number of cars, use of staff, and any new technologies that can be used to reduce costs.

L Pagdilao Who designed the train layout? Overall, the train layout is nice, but it can use some Oppose [email protected] improvement. It needs more leg and seat room for the average passenger. Tall commuters 5/26/2012 San Bernardino cramped for legroom and space have pain in their back, knees, and legs from sitting in a Fontana CA limited space for quite some time. In addition, curvaceous commuters do not have options in the model size seating, which is uncomfortable. Furthermore, the cart has limited outlets and tables for passengers that would like to work during their long commutes. The bottom line is that everything needs to be in the best interest of the main stakeholder - the commuters! So, leave or reduce the fares for the passengers until services are improved. Do not stick more costs to the commuters by politicians and administrators. Since law

114 Page 66 enforcement travels at no cost, this benefit needs to extend to other service occupations as well like military, educators, etc. My suggestion is to reduce the salaries between five and nine percent of your administrative staff and politicians in order to comply with Title VI, if that is in fact the genuine objective.

L Pagdilao Why is there only one conductor per train? There should be more than one conductor per Oppose [email protected] train. If there were an emergency in one of the carts, a passenger would not have the access 5/26/2012 San Bernardino to locate a conductor quickly to inform him or her because they would have to search the top Fontana CA and bottom of many carts in order to locate that one conductor, which would be wasted time during an emergency. There needs to be additional staff in a central location, in the event of an emergency, to request an immediate response team for assistance and to eliminate a safety and security breach. Who and why was the San Bernardino train schedule changed without any notification and justification for the schedule change? The 320 train at 4:20pm deliberately has to slow down after dropping off passengers at the Rancho Cucamonga Station in order to let the incoming train pass by since there is only one track, which contributes to Train 320 always arriving late to the Fontana station. This keeps passengers on the train longer than the one hour and thirteen minutes required by the schedule for an additionally ten to fifteen minutes. It is a disservice when commuters are so close to their stop and delayed from departing the train, due to travelling slowly or coming to a complete stop in order for the other train to pass. It inconveniences commuters that have rides waiting for them or have other transportation to take. Train 320's schedule is to arrive at the Fontana station is 5:33pm, but it always arrives at the Fontana station between 5:40pm - 5:45pm, due to the schedule change. The original schedule never required the delaying of Train 320. What is the staffing allocation? The resources of staff allocation are inappropriate and ineffective. From observation, staff at the Union Station stand outside the train to check fares before people enters the train, which is a waste of time and staff resources. There are usually two staff members outside of each cart. Any intelligent person would find it more beneficial to have the staff members circulate the Quiet Cart throughout the trip and be centrally located there in case of an emergency while the conductor counts his or her carts.

To be continued...

L Pagdilao Why is there only one conductor per train? There should be more than one conductor per Oppose [email protected] train. If there were an emergency in one of the carts, a passenger would not have the access 5/26/2012 San Bernardino to locate a conductor quickly to inform him or her because they would have to search the top Fontana CA and bottom of many carts in order to locate that one conductor, which would be wasted time during an emergency. There needs to be additional staff in a central location, in the event of an emergency, to request an immediate response team for assistance and to eliminate a

115 Page 67 safety and security breach. Who and why was the San Bernardino train schedule changed without any notification and justification for the schedule change? The 320 train at 4:20pm deliberately has to slow down after dropping off passengers at the Rancho Cucamonga Station in order to let the incoming train pass by since there is only one track, which contributes to Train 320 always arriving late to the Fontana station. This keeps passengers on the train longer than the one hour and thirteen minutes required by the schedule for an additionally ten to fifteen minutes. It is a disservice when commuters are so close to their stop and delayed from departing the train, due to travelling slowly or coming to a complete stop in order for the other train to pass. It inconveniences commuters that have rides waiting for them or have other transportation to take. Train 320's schedule is to arrive at the Fontana station is 5:33pm, but it always arrives at the Fontana station between 5:40pm - 5:45pm, due to the schedule change. The original schedule never required the delaying of Train 320. What is the staffing allocation? The resources of staff allocation are inappropriate and ineffective. From observation, staff at the Union Station stand outside the train to check fares before people enters the train, which is a waste of time and staff resources. There are usually two staff members outside of each cart. Any intelligent person would find it more beneficial to have the staff members circulate the Quiet Cart throughout the trip and be centrally located there in case of an emergency while the conductor counts his or her carts.

To be continued...

L Pagdilao Improve Services before Considering Fare Increases Oppose [email protected] Who proposed the fare increases and who decides the percentage of increase? I guarantee 5/26/2012 San Bernardino that it is not a daily commuter without perks like me. I am a passenger that commutes Fontana CA Monday - Friday on the San Bernardino line from Fontana to the Los Angeles Union Station. Train 307 at 6:03am and Train 320 at 4:20pm are the trains that I ride daily. The fare increases should never have been proposed and considered. Current service improvements should be the objective, not increasing fares. Why and how were these express train locations determined? All commuters have a right to access express trains at their original location stops, instead of having to drive out of their way to a different location station. This wastes additional time and gas for commuters. For this reason, I feel that there should be a reduction in fares since everyone does not have equal access to an express train at his or her home station stop. Where is the accountability on the additional revenue? During a bad economy, the fares are already too high, especially for a monthly pass. This additional revenue does not compensate the overworked single conductors for an entire train. Administrators and politicians pocket this additional money for mismanagement of funds, while shortchanging the Metrolink front line staff and passengers. For instance, I observe only one conductor on the entire train to service many carts and passenger needs, which is ridiculous in the event of an emergency. Who regulates the Quiet Cart? This cart is not always quiet and regulated. There are

116 Page 68 constantly ringing cell phones, talking loud, blasting IPods, etc. Commuters should not have to get off work and do additional work by telling other passengers to be quiet on the Quiet Cart. That is the job of the conductor and Sherriff to remove the passengers out of these carts for violation of the quiet cart rules. Patrolling the Quiet Cart more often ensures that every passenger is complying with the rules by being quiet. Additional postings of the Quiet Cart signage should be in visible locations with a large font to eliminate excuses of not knowing that it is the Quiet Cart.

L Pagdilao Improve Services before Considering Fare Increases Oppose [email protected] Who proposed the fare increases and who decides the percentage of increase? I guarantee 5/26/2012 San Bernardino that it is not a daily commuter without perks like me. I am a passenger that commutes Fontana CA Monday - Friday on the San Bernardino line from Fontana to the Los Angeles Union Station. Train 307 at 6:03am and Train 320 at 4:20pm are the trains that I ride daily. The fare increases should never have been proposed and considered. Current service improvements should be the objective, not increasing fares. Why and how were these express train locations determined? All commuters have a right to access express trains at their original location stops, instead of having to drive out of their way to a different location station. This wastes additional time and gas for commuters. For this reason, I feel that there should be a reduction in fares since everyone does not have equal access to an express train at his or her home station stop. Where is the accountability on the additional revenue? During a bad economy, the fares are already too high, especially for a monthly pass. This additional revenue does not compensate the overworked single conductors for an entire train. Administrators and politicians pocket this additional money for mismanagement of funds, while shortchanging the Metrolink front line staff and passengers. For instance, I observe only one conductor on the entire train to service many carts and passenger needs, which is ridiculous in the event of an emergency. Who regulates the Quiet Cart? This cart is not always quiet and regulated. There are constantly ringing cell phones, talking loud, blasting IPods, etc. Commuters should not have to

117 Page 69 get off work and do additional work by telling other passengers to be quiet on the Quiet Cart. That is the job of the conductor and Sherriff to remove the passengers out of these carts for violation of the quiet cart rules. Patrolling the Quiet Cart more often ensures that every passenger is complying with the rules by being quiet. Additional postings of the Quiet Cart signage should be in visible locations with a large font to eliminate excuses of not knowing that it is the Quiet Cart.

Connie Jackson I strongly oppose any fare increases for the Orange County line for the following reasons: Oppose [email protected] 5/25/2012 Orange County - OC Link Pass allows unlimited travel between Buena Park and San Clemente (and stations in Downey CA between) for $7. This is nearly 1/3 of the cost that I pay traveling between Norwalk - San Juan Capistrano. I think it is unfair to increase MY fair when OC passengers only have to pay $7 dollars for unlimited travel. My $19 roundtrip ticket (or $264 monthly pass) only covers OCTA buses that services Metrolink stations whereas the $7 OC Link pass allows for unlimited travel on ALL OCTA buses and trains traveling through OC. Why should those of us traveling from/to LA Union, Norwalk and Oceanside be subjected to a fare increase and OC passengers only have to shell out $7?

- I feel that this increase is partially due to the expenses incurred by Metrolink from the Chatsworth fiasco in 2008 and I resent these increases for Metrolink's mistakes.

- OC Line riders traveling southbound have extremely limited options from Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs compared to service traveling northbound towards Union Station. Why should WE be subjected to the same fare increase as those with more commuting options? Two AM southbound trains and one northbound PM train is inadequate for those of us who work south of Irvine! Frankly, we should be getting a discount due to the lack of service traveling southbound NOT a fare increase.

118 Page 70

For these three reasons, I am opposing the proposed fare increases as there have been no positive changes since I began riding Metrolink in 2008!

Michele James If your trains were more reliable I would be willing to consider the fare increase to be Oppose [email protected] reasonable. My train is late on a daily basis, and your lack of reliability is causing me an undue 5/25/2012 ourts.gov hardship. I already pay $348 for a monthly pass and any potential increase would cause me to Antelope Valley consider other transportation options. I have been a Metrolink rider since your service started, but enough is enough.

Michele James If your trains were more reliable I would be willing to consider the fare increase to be Oppose [email protected] reasonable. My train is late on a daily basis, and your lack of reliability is causing me an undue 5/25/2012 ourts.gov hardship. I already pay $348 for a monthly pass and any potential increase would cause me to Antelope Valley consider other transportation options. I have been a Metrolink rider since your service started, but enough is enough.

Tonni Thomas I believe that an 8% increase to way too much for the public to bear. Perhaps if the Oppose [email protected] conductors were to take the time to check tickets at all you would be able to recoup a lot of 5/25/2012 San Bernardino your losses from those passengers who do not purchase tickets. Rancho Cucamonga CA

Carol Edwards You have got to be kidding! I've been riding the Metrolink for 12 years and do you know how Oppose [email protected] many times I've seen a fair increase?! You are making it so people can't afford to take public 5/25/2012 Orange County transportation. I save absolutely no money by taking the train vs. driving as it is and now this? San Juan Capistrano CA Forget it, you'll lose me as a customer if you raise your prices at all. Think of another way, do not punish your customers! Several are mad at this proposal

Alise Kabakoff Your fares have consistently risen in the 15+ years I have been riding the train. Ridership has Oppose [email protected] increased due to the price of gas; and in typical Metrolink fashion, you have discontinued the 5/25/2012

119 Page 71 Ventura County 10-trip tickets, which will undoubtedly drive riders away. If you continue to hammer the West Hills CA riders with continuous fare increases, folks will have no choice but to get back in their cars and drive because at some point in time, it will be cheaper for them to do so rather than spend an exhorbitant amount of money taking Metrolink.

If you don't know this already, there is a recession going on. Everyone is hard pressed financially. Don't make this any harder on folks than it already is. Dave Bell I understand the need for the potential increase, however, with what I see happening on the Oppose [email protected] train lines I ride with fare evaders, and the cleanliness of the trains being naught, I find it hard 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley to accept the increase for the level of service. I see so many riders, who when asked to show Santa Clarita CA their right to ride, are not in possession of a pass or ticket. The Sheriffs give a citation but allow them to continue riding. If these riders were escorted off the trains, it would make us feel better since the rules are being enforced.

Also, with the economy being still in a lull point, now is not the time to ask for, or act on any increases. The rate increase will only drive those who are on a tight budget away from the trains and cause you to lose more money, not make more money.

Enforce the current rules, improve safety on board the trains, and keep them cleaner will go a long way. If you have to sit in seats where people continue to put their feet, or dirty the seats with personal waste, that makes us want to not ride the trains.

I appreciate any feedback from the Board of Directors on my comments.

Christine Calderon I understand gas prices have gone up but not that severe that would justify a 5%-9% or more Oppose [email protected] increase. Service has definitely not improved. Our train set is usually delayed at least 3 days 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley out of the week. Even if it is 5 minutes late, it is delayed. Even though Metrolink doesn't recognize that as a delay.

The last fare increase, I saw a major decline in riders and believe it will impact Metrolink even further if you increase fares. Increasing fares is not going to increase ridership.

Laurie Ferguson No written comment was submitted. Oppose laurie.ferguson@bnymell 5/23/2012 on.com Antelope Valley Sylmar CA

Richard Batenhorst Need more ticket enforcement to increase fare income before hiking rates Oppose rbatenhorst@nationalwir 5/23/2012 e.com Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA

Chris Concepcion I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare Oppose [email protected] increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding 5/23/2012

120 Page 72 om from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy San Bernardino access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible.

Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more.

Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers.

Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution.

Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride nancy hensien You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Oppose [email protected] Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom 98.50 to 154.25. So YES i got raised last 5/23/2012 Inland Empire - Orange year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise County evweryone else. temecula ca

Karin Wakefield Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and Oppose [email protected] to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. This is totally unlikely for me. Thank you. 5/23/2012 Ventura County Reseda CA

Jennifer Eckhart Will no longer continue to use the Metrolink if there is another fare increase. Oppose [email protected] 5/23/2012

121 Page 73 Antelope Valley

QUAN TRUONG The Board of Directors should review the information below and reconsider before you make Oppose [email protected] the decision to increase the train fares! 5/23/2012 m .Has the snow and ice kept the trains delayed today? No it's Southern California, we don't 91 have that kind of weather condition that would cause this kind of trouble. The problems are Corona CA mainly the inefficient & unintelligent Metrolink managers, the unmotivated staffs, lazy dispatchers from the Red Signal Control Unit, and unqualified technical support team. If they can't make it to work because of low working moral most employers have to dock their pay or send them to the unemployment office. .Acknowledge that you have many of your staff who are having a hard time being punctual while operating the trains, or proving the best public transportation services. .You have not lived up to your mission statements and goals. salah alamoodi I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more Oppose [email protected] profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare 5/22/2012 Antelope Valley them before you adjust the rates. Lancaster Ca john brown you need to do a better job on wage contracts. I haven't had a raise in 6 years, my medical Oppose [email protected] goes up every year my co pays go up every years. I haven't had a raise in years. Stop spending 5/22/2012 Riverside Ontario ca

Esmeralda Valencia I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's Oppose valencia_esmeralda@hot not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final 5/22/2012 mail.com destination. Riverside Downtowne Pomona

Markus Quon I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase Oppose [email protected] significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 5/21/2012 Orange County 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing Oceanside CA fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times.

I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I

122 Page 74 personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip.

At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time.

Sandra Southers No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/20/2012 San Bernardino Fontana CA

Carolyn Delgado I am against the the fare increase of 8% because I can barely afford the rate I'm paying now. I Oppose [email protected] would have to stop riding everyday if this increase goes up to much. 5/20/2012 v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/20/2012 Riverside rancho cucamonga ca

Justin Case This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely Oppose [email protected] dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously 5/20/2012 San Bernardino expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. Covina ca If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top.

If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout.

It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an

123 Page 75 optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times.

The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit"

DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do!

If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours?

Justin Case This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely Oppose [email protected] dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously 5/20/2012 San Bernardino expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. Covina ca If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top.

If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout.

It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times.

The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit"

DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do!

If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you

124 Page 76 going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours?

Eileen Haniuk Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went Oppose [email protected] from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown 5/18/2012 m Burbank. To increase the fare another 8% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At Orange County a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons.

Alicia Garcia No improvements - no increases. Write the reasons for the increases in a language we can Oppose [email protected] understand. 5/18/2012 Inland Empire - Orange County

125 Page 77 Quail Valley CA

V McDaniel No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/18/2012 Riverside Riverside ca

Scott Barker I think that the 5% increase should be enough, at some point I think the riders may go to other Oppose [email protected] means of transportation,that would be a shame since the train gets so many cars off the road 5/17/2012 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA

Justin Rogers I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising Oppose [email protected] fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate 5/17/2012 om behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long Orange County delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is Buena Park CA horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered.

Jon Lyle It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The Oppose [email protected] frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very 5/17/2012 Orange County frustrating to me and others as your customers. Anaheim Ca

Dave Hodges If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Orange County orange CA

Dave Hodges For this increase you are getting greedy, and I definitely oppose it. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Orange County orange CA sam anthone I oppose Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 m Ventura County Simivalley CA sam anthone I highly Oppose the potential fare increase by any amount. Oppose [email protected] Would be great if you can run the trains quicker than what they are now.The far increase can 5/17/2012 m surely divert people to car pool/van pool. Ventura County Simivalley CA

Paula Hoffman KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Oppose

126 Page 78 [email protected] 5/17/2012 Ventura County Camarillo ca Yvette Robinson I have used the 10 Trip Ticket for the last 4 years. This ticket is no longer available making my Oppose yvette.robinson@liberty trip more expensive as of 5/16/12. I have calculated by trip is now 5% more expensive my 5/16/2012 mutual.com eliminating the 10 day trip ticket. With a proposed 8% increase, my fare now increases by San Bernardino 13%. Claremont CA An additional increase would not be fair or reasonable.

Pam Pert I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. Oppose pamela.pert@libertymutu This would increase my fare to a total of 13%. 5/16/2012 al.com Orange County At this point, the fare starts to become unreasonaly high and I will have to start working from San Clemente ca home more often.

Sue Clemons No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/16/2012 Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA

Jeff Carlon I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch Oppose [email protected] the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. 5/15/2012 Antelope Valley I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks Pearblossom ca through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon

Mary Alexander See comment under 9% Oppose [email protected] 5/15/2012 Orange County Mission Viejo CA

Efren Malagon No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/14/2012 v San Bernardino Fontana CA

Joanne Choi No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/14/2012 Riverside

Sandy Ikeda Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate Oppose

127 Page 79 [email protected] transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the 5/14/2012 Ventura County burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less PORT HUENEME ca convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now. Carlos Garibay Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to Oppose [email protected] avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on 5/14/2012 m the train if the fare increase is approved. Riverside Rowland Heights Ca danny Quezada Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is Oppose [email protected] metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on 5/14/2012 m implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase Ventura County ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Oxnard ca danny Quezada Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is Oppose [email protected] metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on 5/14/2012 m implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase Ventura County ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Oxnard ca

Maggie Martinez With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the Oppose [email protected] gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and 5/14/2012 Ventura County increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro Chatsworth ca to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders.

Matt Barrett Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before Oppose [email protected] passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and 5/14/2012 m ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being San Bernardino ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. Upland CA

Casate Yuri No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/11/2012 91 Corona ca

Rick Ehrlich Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule Oppose [email protected] over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to 5/11/2012 Ventura County GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to Camarillo CA your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price

128 Page 80 of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is 55-60 minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now.

I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like.

I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to email me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages.

Thank you, Rick

Kirstin Largent No written comment was submitted. Oppose PARALEGAL1369@HOTM 5/11/2012 AIL.COM Riverside Rowland Heights CA

Robert Theobald No written comment was submitted. Oppose rtheobald@paragon- 5/9/2012 precision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca

Paula Schiffman I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any Oppose [email protected] fare hike at this time (8% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the 5/9/2012 u past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Ventura County Los Angeles CA Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in

129 Page 81 other areas!

Travis Anderson I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is Oppose [email protected] ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant 5/9/2012 Antelope Valley efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem Lancaster CA and not operating within its means.

Sonya Rivera No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA

M Walters I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is Oppose walterspartyof4@sbcglob already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those 5/8/2012 al.net passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is Ventura County not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day Simi Valley CA and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness.

Beverly Kurz Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of Oppose [email protected] the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the CA biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles.

The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along.

Chris Beacham I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many Oppose chrisbeacham420@yahoo riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check 5/8/2012 .com a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs Riverside continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are

130 Page 82 free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers.

S S Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one Oppose [email protected] of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the 5/8/2012 Riverside equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. At this point, it starts to cost me about what it costs in gas to drive everyday, which defeats the purpose, so I'd probably stop riding the train altogether and go back to driving. eric watkins i travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. I'm already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My Oppose [email protected] standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at 5/8/2012 Orange County the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares. irvine ca

Tinna Li While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving Oppose [email protected] every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does 5/8/2012 San Bernardino not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted.

Duane Neja I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that Oppose [email protected] does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 5/7/2012 Orange County days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do Fullerton CA not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. wes hinson I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is Oppose [email protected] now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the 5/4/2012 Antelope Valley afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55

131 Page 83 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved.

Grace Ito You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Oppose [email protected] Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, 5/3/2012 a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised!

Tammi Ba bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip Oppose [email protected] does them no good. 5/3/2012 Ventura County Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't Sherman Oaks CA penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late.

D Lee NO! I'll start driving again as it would be cheaper Oppose [email protected] 5/3/2012 San Bernardino Fontana ca

Janelle Bielak No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/2/2012 m San Bernardino

Abraham Lora I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that Oppose [email protected] your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases 5/2/2012 San Bernardino despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I Ontario CA would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose

132 Page 84 ANY increases.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% 3 100 4 107

Bror Andringa I support the fact that you have to raise the price to cover the cost however, what I don't Support [email protected] support is taking away the convenience factor such as the ten trip card. For those riders that 5/17/2012 Orange County travel 2-3 times per week there is no viable option other than stand in line and buy these Laguna beach Ca tickets. There are a lot of us out there as you should know.

In addition, improve the service when you raise the price by introducing wifi on the train. This doesn't cost much but will save a lot for many riders that are now using MiFi devices at $60 a month.

Brigs Y I understand that PEAK OIL is looming upon us. Global oil supplies are peaking around the Support [email protected] world, but demand from growing economies like China and India are biting larger pieces of the 5/12/2012 Riverside "oil pie" causing prices to increase worldwide. Suburbia and the spread out nature of Southern City of Industry CA California will be tough to sustain, even with mass transit. I highly recommend Metrolink switches to electricity for much longer sustainability. In ten years, the price of oil could be dramatically higher as countries like China and India continue to thirst for more oil to keep their economies fed. Food for thought.

Paul Druce While I do support the increase in fares by as much as 9%, a level which is easily afforded by Support [email protected] riders based on average household incomes, Metrolink's supporting agencies should consider 5/3/2012 Orange County pressing for an increase in the gas tax throughout the Metrolink region to fund operational Trabuco Canyon CA costs and infrastructure investment such as electrification, which would permit faster service (via increased acceleration) and lowered operational costs.

Grant Dawdy My main concern has to do with the TIMING of the announcement. None [email protected] 5/29/2012 Orange County I and many of my colleagues are participants in Commuter Choice programs, through which Tustin CA we save on taxes by setting aside pretax dollars to pay for transit passes, including Metrolink. By announcing the fare increases so close to implementation, you leave us with NO opportunity to make the proper paycheck deduction adjustment for July passes. The deadline for most programs is June 10. By announcing the fare increase on June 13, you are ensuring that virtually ALL Commuter Choice participants will be left SHORT on funding for the July benefit month, causing rejections on attempts to purchase July Metrolink passes. When this happens, a complex and completely avoidable maze of special handling by participants, their companies, and Commuter Choice program providers takes place.

133 Page 85

If you know the dollar amount of the potential increases, it would be far better to announce them a minimum of six weeks before they take effect (rather than 2.5 weeks), in order to provide ample time for communications PRIOR to deadlines, and avoid a lot of pain by participants and program administrators. If there is any way to know the amount of fare increases by this Friday, June 1, we would still have sufficient time to communicate to hundreds of pretax participants to let them know to make adjustments to our deduction elections before the deadline. A lot of pain and confusion would be avoided.

Thank you for your consideration!

Phyllis Trabold This is the one you are going for so I will comment on this. I hope that a fare increase means None [email protected] better performance like being on time. 5/22/2012 Ventura County Los Angeles CA

Larry Green I have been riding Metrolink to Cal-State/Union Station for over 10 years. I have seen None [email protected] increases over the years but not once have I considered taking another form of transportation, 5/14/2012 San Bernardino especially driving. Although I would prefer rates to stay where they are, I understand the need Glendora CA for the increase. And with the logistics involved in scheduling, I am impressed that the trains arrive on time as frequently as they do. Thank you for this invaluable service.

Hank Fung I agree that public meetings are necessary in order to comply with title VI. I suggets that None [email protected] meetings be held at Union Station or the MTA building, and drop in tables with poster boards 5/7/2012 San Bernardino explaining the need for the change and comment stations be provided in the minority and EJ communities with pen and paper and tape recorders (to comply with ADA) in the comment station. This is important since some Title VI protected individuals do not have access to computers or the Internet at home, and must use limited time at the library to compose their comment.

As far as the fare increase goes I would be very careful to evaluate unintended consequences of changes and domino effects on local transit operators. One example is the Glendale Beeline Express which is slammed with passengers between Glendale and Burbank trying to avoid the fare jump, or the crowds at Cal State LA boarding Metro Local buses to get downtown. Also rationalization of ticket prices such that ticket prices from previous stations down a line do not cost less than the current station (i.e. Via Princessa tickets costing less than Santa Clarita tickets). 9% fare increase is very high and Metrolink needs to show that it is doing everything

134 Page 86 to control costs. If a fare increase is imposed, there needs to be value added benefits to pass holders. Weekend privileges, Rail to Rail, and Flyaway are a start. Weekend systemwide privileges should be extended for 7 day pass holders as the incremental cost is negligible.

I do not support or oppose a fare increase if it is necessary but Metrolink should not be surprised if ridership drops by double digits should this occur. Competing commuter bus prices (Foothill Transit, OCTA) are not increasing. The longer distance, intercounty trips are still competitive in cost with driving and other transit but shorter trips are less competitive with driving, and relatively fast transit options like Commuter Express buses, Metro Orange Line to Chatsworth, and vanpooling are available.

Orange County residents have access to the Orange County premium day pass, which is sometimes cheaper than the weekly or monthly pass for certain longer station pairs. For some of the outer counties where there is capacity (San Bernardino and Riverside), the CTCs should consider these passes to help sell unused capacity on the outer ends of the 91, San Bernardino, and Riverside trains.

Rosario Valadez Cut down on your weekend train instead of having us paid for those trains by increasing our Oppose [email protected] fare. 5/29/2012 San Bernardino San Bernardino CA On your retirement why not save and pay for your own retirement like the rest of us common folks do. Cut down on your salaries

Gary Clure Metrolink should focus on increasing its ridership rather than constantly increasing rates. I Oppose [email protected] have been a Metrolink rider for many years and have seen a fare increase almost every year. If 5/29/2012 Orange County another increase is approved at this exorbitant rate. I will seriously consider changing my Laguna Hills CA hours and driving. Currently it takes me twice as long on the Metrolink as it does to drive, but is nice not to have to drive with the cost being about the same. If the cost keeps increasing, I will definitely consider other options.

Susan Larriva You're asking for a fare increase while it is rare that tickets are checked. I've been asked only Oppose [email protected] twice in the last 45 days to show my ticket. Rest assured that people know that tickets are not 5/28/2012

135 Page 87 m checked and there are many that do not buy them. Conductors are rarely seen - In fact, I'm Antelope Valley not even certain what their role in other than to announce the stops. They certainly do not Palmdale CA enforce the rules, even when problems are pointed out to them. Maybe you should begin by ensuring that those currently riding, have tickets. You want to increase fares when service has gone down, including the basics of cleaning restrooms. It is not uncommon to find them unstocked and dirty from the previous day. So does the proposed fare, come with better service, more on-time trains, cleaner, safer trains??? Let's be clear - if I performed at the level that Metrolink currently does and walked in to my manager's office and asked for a 9% raise although I underperformed and didn't meet my deadlines he would tell me ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The same should apply to Metrolink. Dan Swenson Metrolink fares have continued to rise year after year at a much faster pace than the incomes Oppose [email protected] of riders (assuming their incomes have risen at all). With additional fare increases, the 5/27/2012 Riverside economic hardship placed on riders will only get worse. In addition, the City of Industry Chino Hills CA announced this year it will begin charging riders for parking for the first time since the station was constructed. Add these increasing costs to the already difficult economic times, and ridership is almost certain to suffer. For myself, I do not understand how fuel costs can have increased 78% (I don't think gas prices have raised anywhere near this amount), and with additional costs, I may have to look at driving as an alternative to riding the train. I urge the Metrolink Board of Directors to avoid any further fare increases at this time, and if they elect to proceed with an increase anyway, to make it the absolute smallest possible. Increasing fares should be the last resort. I hope Metrolink will consider every possible efficiency in terms of train scheduling, number of cars, use of staff, and any new technologies that can be used to reduce costs.

Dan Swenson No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/27/2012 Riverside Chino Hills CA

Dan Swenson Metrolink fares have continued to rise year after year at a much faster pace than the incomes Oppose [email protected] of riders (assuming their incomes have risen at all). With additional fare increases, the 5/27/2012 Riverside economic hardship placed on riders will only get worse. In addition, the City of Industry Chino Hills CA announced this year it will begin charging riders for parking for the first time since the station was constructed. Add these increasing costs to the already difficult economic times, and ridership is almost certain to suffer. For myself, I do not understand how fuel costs can have increased 78% (I don't think gas prices have raised anywhere near this amount), and with additional costs, I may have to look at driving as an alternative to riding the train. I urge the Metrolink Board of Directors to avoid any further fare increases at this time, and if they elect to proceed with an increase anyway, to make it the absolute smallest possible. Increasing fares should be the last resort. I hope Metrolink will consider every possible efficiency in terms of train scheduling, number of cars, use of staff, and any new technologies that can be used to reduce costs. Metrolink fares have continued to rise year after year at a much faster pace than the incomes of riders (assuming their incomes have risen at all). With additional fares increase, the economic hardship placed on riders will only increase.

L Pagdilao Who designed the train layout? Overall, the train layout is nice, but it can use some Oppose

136 Page 88 [email protected] improvement. It needs more leg and seat room for the average passenger. Tall commuters 5/26/2012 San Bernardino cramped for legroom and space have pain in their back, knees, and legs from sitting in a Fontana CA limited space for quite some time. In addition, curvaceous commuters do not have options in the model size seating, which is uncomfortable. Furthermore, the cart has limited outlets and tables for passengers that would like to work during their long commutes. The bottom line is that everything needs to be in the best interest of the main stakeholder - the commuters! So, leave or reduce the fares for the passengers until services are improved. Do not stick more costs to the commuters by politicians and administrators. Since law enforcement travels at no cost, this benefit needs to extend to other service occupations as well like military, educators, etc. My suggestion is to reduce the salaries between five and nine percent of your administrative staff and politicians in order to comply with Title VI, if that is in fact the genuine objective. L Pagdilao Why is there only one conductor per train? There should be more than one conductor per Oppose [email protected] train. If there were an emergency in one of the carts, a passenger would not have the access 5/26/2012 San Bernardino to locate a conductor quickly to inform him or her because they would have to search the top Fontana CA and bottom of many carts in order to locate that one conductor, which would be wasted time during an emergency. There needs to be additional staff in a central location, in the event of an emergency, to request an immediate response team for assistance and to eliminate a safety and security breach. Who and why was the San Bernardino train schedule changed without any notification and justification for the schedule change? The 320 train at 4:20pm deliberately has to slow down after dropping off passengers at the Rancho Cucamonga Station in order to let the incoming train pass by since there is only one track, which contributes to Train 320 always arriving late to the Fontana station. This keeps passengers on the train longer than the one hour and thirteen minutes required by the schedule for an additionally ten to fifteen minutes. It is a disservice when commuters are so close to their stop and delayed from departing the train, due to travelling slowly or coming to a complete stop in order for the other train to pass. It inconveniences commuters that have rides waiting for them or have other transportation to take. Train 320's schedule is to arrive at the Fontana station is 5:33pm, but it always arrives at the Fontana station between 5:40pm - 5:45pm, due to the schedule change. The original schedule never required the delaying of Train 320. What is the staffing allocation? The resources of staff allocation are inappropriate and ineffective. From observation, staff at the Union Station stand outside the train to check fares before people enters the train, which is a waste of time and staff resources. There are usually two staff members outside of each cart. Any intelligent person would find it more beneficial to have the staff members circulate the Quiet Cart throughout the trip and be centrally located there in case of an emergency while the conductor counts his or her carts.

To be continued...

L Pagdilao Why is there only one conductor per train? There should be more than one conductor per Oppose [email protected] train. If there were an emergency in one of the carts, a passenger would not have the access 5/26/2012 San Bernardino to locate a conductor quickly to inform him or her because they would have to search the top Fontana CA and bottom of many carts in order to locate that one conductor, which would be wasted time during an emergency. There needs to be additional staff in a central location, in the event of

137 Page 89 an emergency, to request an immediate response team for assistance and to eliminate a safety and security breach. Who and why was the San Bernardino train schedule changed without any notification and justification for the schedule change? The 320 train at 4:20pm deliberately has to slow down after dropping off passengers at the Rancho Cucamonga Station in order to let the incoming train pass by since there is only one track, which contributes to Train 320 always arriving late to the Fontana station. This keeps passengers on the train longer than the one hour and thirteen minutes required by the schedule for an additionally ten to fifteen minutes. It is a disservice when commuters are so close to their stop and delayed from departing the train, due to travelling slowly or coming to a complete stop in order for the other train to pass. It inconveniences commuters that have rides waiting for them or have other transportation to take. Train 320's schedule is to arrive at the Fontana station is 5:33pm, but it always arrives at the Fontana station between 5:40pm - 5:45pm, due to the schedule change. The original schedule never required the delaying of Train 320. What is the staffing allocation? The resources of staff allocation are inappropriate and ineffective. From observation, staff at the Union Station stand outside the train to check fares before people enters the train, which is a waste of time and staff resources. There are usually two staff members outside of each cart. Any intelligent person would find it more beneficial to have the staff members circulate the Quiet Cart throughout the trip and be centrally located there in case of an emergency while the conductor counts his or her carts.

To be continued...

L Pagdilao Improve Services before Considering Fare Increases Oppose [email protected] Who proposed the fare increases and who decides the percentage of increase? I guarantee 5/26/2012 San Bernardino that it is not a daily commuter without perks like me. I am a passenger that commutes Fontana CA Monday - Friday on the San Bernardino line from Fontana to the Los Angeles Union Station. Train 307 at 6:03am and Train 320 at 4:20pm are the trains that I ride daily. The fare increases should never have been proposed and considered. Current service improvements should be the objective, not increasing fares. Why and how were these express train locations determined? All commuters have a right to access express trains at their original location stops, instead of having to drive out of their way to a different location station. This wastes additional time and gas for commuters. For this reason, I feel that there should be a reduction in fares since everyone does not have equal access to an express train at his or her home station stop. Where is the accountability on the additional revenue? During a bad economy, the fares are already too high, especially for a monthly pass. This additional revenue does not compensate the overworked single conductors for an entire train. Administrators and politicians pocket this additional money for mismanagement of funds, while shortchanging the Metrolink front line staff and passengers. For instance, I observe only one conductor on the entire train to service many carts and passenger needs, which is ridiculous in the event of an emergency. Who regulates the Quiet Cart? This cart is not always quiet and regulated. There are

138 Page 90 constantly ringing cell phones, talking loud, blasting IPods, etc. Commuters should not have to get off work and do additional work by telling other passengers to be quiet on the Quiet Cart. That is the job of the conductor and Sherriff to remove the passengers out of these carts for violation of the quiet cart rules. Patrolling the Quiet Cart more often ensures that every passenger is complying with the rules by being quiet. Additional postings of the Quiet Cart signage should be in visible locations with a large font to eliminate excuses of not knowing that it is the Quiet Cart. To be continued...

Connie Jackson I strongly oppose any fare increases for the Orange County line for the following reasons: Oppose [email protected] 5/25/2012 Orange County - OC Link Pass allows unlimited travel between Buena Park and San Clemente (and stations in Downey CA between) for $7. This is nearly 1/3 of the cost that I pay traveling between Norwalk - San Juan Capistrano. I think it is unfair to increase MY fair when OC passengers only have to pay $7 dollars for unlimited travel. My $19 roundtrip ticket (or $264 monthly pass) only covers OCTA buses that services Metrolink stations whereas the $7 OC Link pass allows for unlimited travel on ALL OCTA buses and trains traveling through OC. Why should those of us traveling from/to LA Union, Norwalk and Oceanside be subjected to a fare increase and OC passengers only have to shell out $7?

- I feel that this increase is partially due to the expenses incurred by Metrolink from the Chatsworth fiasco in 2008 and I resent these increases for Metrolink's mistakes.

- OC Line riders traveling southbound have extremely limited options from Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs compared to service traveling northbound towards Union Station. Why should WE be subjected to the same fare increase as those with more commuting options? Two AM southbound trains and one northbound PM train is inadequate for those of us who work south of Irvine! Frankly, we should be getting a discount due to the lack of service traveling

139 Page 91 southbound NOT a fare increase.

For these three reasons, I am opposing the proposed fare increases as there have been no positive changes since I began riding Metrolink in 2008!

Michele James If your trains were more reliable I would be willing to consider the fare increase to be Oppose [email protected] reasonable. My train is late on a daily basis, and your lack of reliability is causing me an undue 5/25/2012 ourts.gov hardship. I already pay $348 for a monthly pass and any potential increase would cause me to Antelope Valley consider other transportation options. I have been a Metrolink rider since your service started, but enough is enough.

JOHN DOE From my understanding the rail way should be funded from State and Federal Funds. Oppose [email protected] Why charge the weekly commuter for something they may never use.That have nothing to do 5/25/2012 OM with Local Communting. Inland Empire - Orange An increase will hurt in more than one way. People will find a way to ride-share and cut the County cost to eleviate the train. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA

Tonni Thomas Right now I spend $269.75 for a monthly pass. A $24 increase will put me on the Express Bus Oppose [email protected] from the Montclair Transcenter at almost half the cost. Salaries have not increased and many 5/25/2012 San Bernardino people are still out of work. We could be so lucky to receive a 9% salary increase. Rancho Cucamonga CA

Carol Edwards You have got to be kidding! I've been riding the Metrolink for 12 years and do you know how Oppose [email protected] many times I've seen a fair increase?! You are making it so people can't afford to take public 5/25/2012 Orange County transportation. I save absolutely no money by taking the train vs. driving as it is and now this? San Juan Capistrano CA Forget it, you'll lose me as a customer if you raise your prices at all. Think of another way, do not punish your customers! Several are mad at this proposal

140 Page 92 Alise Kabakoff Your fares have consistently risen in the 15+ years I have been riding the train. Ridership has Oppose [email protected] increased due to the price of gas; and in typical Metrolink fashion, you have discontinued the 5/25/2012 Ventura County 10-trip tickets, which will undoubtedly drive riders away. If you continue to hammer the West Hills CA riders with continuous fare increases, folks will have no choice but to get back in their cars and drive because at some point in time, it will be cheaper for them to do so rather than spend an exhorbitant amount of money taking Metrolink.

If you don't know this already, there is a recession going on. Everyone is hard pressed financially. Don't make this any harder on folks than it already is. shannon hanley The 9% increase would push the cost of my fair from Moorpark to Union Station to Oppose [email protected] $308/month (its currently $282). Based on my calculations that same amount of money would 5/25/2012 Ventura County get me about 5 tanks of gas. Most people riding your line either haven't had a pay raise in moorpark ca years, or are endouring furloughs and modified schedules, or a reduction in benefits. This is all while Metrolink looks to raise its fairs 9%. I used to be able to have $150 of my ticket paid for pre-tax. This benefit no longer exists, which has essentially already increased the cost of my ticket. I am afraid you will be "pricing out" the lower income riders with such high costs. Also, there are many days on train 117 for which people don't even have a seat to sit in. This is especially apparent between Downtown Burbank and Van Nuys. I think it isn't really fair to charge someone over $300/month to stand on the train. Perhaps in exchange for raising fees, you could add an additional car, such as a bike car. No matter what you decide I will still have to take the train because between the cost of parking, gas, and insurance, Metrolink will (hopefully) always be cheaper than driving, but the increase does make me think twice about advocating others with a shorter commute or free parking take Metrolink. richard barth Advertising can provide the dollars instead of the riders. Oppose richard.barth@impremedi 5/25/2012 a.com Ventura County camarillo ca

David Bell I am opposed to all of the various increases but only will comment on the first and last Oppose [email protected] options. 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA I understand the need for the potential increase, however, with what I see happening on the train lines I ride with fare evaders, and the cleanliness of the trains being naught, I find it hard to accept the increase for the level of service. I see so many riders, who when asked to show their right to ride, are not in possession of a pass or ticket. The Sheriffs give a citation but allow them to continue riding. If these riders were escorted off the trains, it would make us feel better since the rules are being enforced.

Also, with the economy being still in a lull point, now is not the time to ask for, or act on any increases. The rate increase will only drive those who are on a tight budget away from the trains and cause you to loose more money, not make more money.

141 Page 93 Enforce the current ruels, inprove safety on board the trains, and keep them cleaner will go a long way. If you have to sit in seats where people continue to put their feet, or dirty the seats with personal waste, that makes us want to not ride the trains.

I appreciate any feedback from the Board of Directors on my comments.

Christine Calderon I understand gas prices have gone up but not that severe that would justify a 5%-9% or more Oppose [email protected] increase. Service has definitely not improved. Our train set is usually delayed at least 3 days 5/24/2012 Antelope Valley out of the week. Even if it is 5 minutes late, it is delayed. Even though Metrolink doesn't recognize that as a delay.

The last fare increase, I saw a major decline in riders and believe it will impact Metrolink even further if you increase fares. Increasing fares is not going to increase ridership.

Laurie Ferguson No written comment was submitted. Oppose laurie.ferguson@bnymell 5/23/2012 on.com Antelope Valley Sylmar CA

Laurie Ferguson No written comment was submitted. Oppose laurie.ferguson@bnymell 5/23/2012 on.com Antelope Valley Sylmar CA

Richard Batenhorst More ticket enforcement to increase fare income before hiking rates . Oppose rbatenhorst@nationalwir 5/23/2012 e.com Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA

Chris Concepcion I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare Oppose [email protected] increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding 5/23/2012

142 Page 94 om from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy San Bernardino access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible.

Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur. A major positive change includes the installation of improved break systems on the trains in response to the tragic Chatsworth incident, which has ensured to the customers, to me, that we will be safer during our rides to work. Also, the addition of the Express Train on the San Bernardino line has been a HUGE convenience to us, as our trip home has been expedited. I am appreciative of all of those positive changes.

However, there have also been some negative issues that have occurred. I am at least 5 minutes late to work every morning, because my train is constantly running behind schedule. I have notices some conductors are better about gently nudging people to move more quickly when getting on the train, as opposed to the usual slow pace that occurs in the morning. This has not occurred on my train for quite some time. In addition, I've seen on some trains that a "bike car" has been added. While I certainly support efforts to encourage biking in areas to reduce green house gasses and encourage physical activity, I've also never seen more than one or two bikes in these cars at a time. In my opinion, this was a waste of money. There has been several initiatives which have occurred, which to me, have been a waste of resources. So in my opinion, it is challenging for people to accept an increase in ticket prices, when wasteful additions have been made.

Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from t nancy hensien You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Oppose [email protected] Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom 98.50 to 154.25. So YES i got raised last 5/23/2012 Inland Empire - Orange year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise County evweryone else. temecula ca

Karin Wakefield Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and Oppose [email protected] to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. This is totally unlikely for me, financially. 5/23/2012 Ventura County Thank you. Reseda CA

Karin Wakefield No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/23/2012 Ventura County

143 Page 95 Reseda CA

Monica Perches 9% is way too much!! Parking at the Norwalk has already been incresed by the city. The Oppose [email protected] increase in cost would make make commuting by car cheaper! 5/23/2012 91 Norwalk CA

QUAN TRUONG My humble recommendations: Oppose [email protected] 1.SCRRA Board of Directors need to implement the performance improvement process that 5/23/2012 m increases Metrolink's productivity and organization efficiency which will allow more resources 91 to be transferred to undertaking more performance improvement tasks. There is no doubt Corona CA that evident Quality Improvement techniques can be applied successfully in your organization. The best way to safeguard the well-being of the passengers is to combine public service with the highly reliable techniques of quality improvement. By eliminating inefficiency, error, and redundancy, Metrolink can continually improve critical processes and reduce costs associated with poor quality. 2.Metrolink managers must establish a QI plan, support request process, and educational resources are expected to guide all units in integrating Performance Improvement into daily operations. It refers to a continuous and ongoing effort to achieve measurable improvements in all sectors of processes and services. This will increase accountability and productivity, improve management decisions, and enhance service quality. Ultimately, it will help the Department achieve its mission to protect health, prevent disease, and promote health and well-being. 3.For Metrolink to reach its full potential, it must strive towards improving its performance, efficiency, and services. Metrolink leaders must be willing to make a long-term commitment to developing processes that demonstrate improved results and drive inefficiency from the system. 4.Large-scale change is seldom quick or easy and cannot be done without the commitment and personal stewardship of the Board of Directors. salah alamoodi I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more Oppose [email protected] profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare 5/22/2012 Antelope Valley them before you adjust the rates. Lancaster Ca

Alberto Martinez Hello, a 9% increase would affect me by $20 on my route from the Norwalk/Sante Fe Springs Oppose [email protected] Metrolink Station to the Irvine Metrolink station. The reason this is unacceptable is because 5/22/2012 m just last month (April 24, 2012), the city of Norwalk voted to increase the parking rate at the Orange County Norwalk/Sante Fe Springs Metrolink Station from $20 to $30 per month. Downey Ca An addition increase of $20 would put my monthly commute cost at $262 from $232.

I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine to Union Station.

144 Page 96 Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested.

john brown need more income to offset fare increase. Police officers have to pay to ride. Bike riders need Oppose [email protected] to pay extra for having a bike on the train. people that bring more that one large or two small 5/22/2012 Riverside carry on need to pay extra sepecially when they take up 3 or 4 seats. Ontario ca

Esmeralda Valencia I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's Oppose valencia_esmeralda@hot not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final 5/22/2012 mail.com destination. Riverside Downtowne Pomona

Markus Quon I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase Oppose [email protected] significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 5/21/2012 Orange County 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing Oceanside CA fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times.

I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip.

At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time.

Sandra Southers No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/20/2012

145 Page 97 San Bernardino Fontana CA Carolyn Delgado I am against the fare increase of 9%....with this fare increase I won't be able to ride everyday Oppose [email protected] because I can barely pay what the fare is now. 5/20/2012 v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/20/2012 Riverside rancho cucamonga ca

Justin Case This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely Oppose [email protected] dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously 5/20/2012 San Bernardino expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. Covina ca If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top.

If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout.

It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times.

The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit"

DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do!

If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours?

Eileen Haniuk Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went Oppose [email protected] from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown 5/18/2012 m Burbank. To increase the fare another 9% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At Orange County a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not

146 Page 98 operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons.

Alicia Garcia 9% OR 5% THE MESSAGE IS VERY CONFUSING TO WHAT THE INCREASE IS AND FOR WHAT Oppose [email protected] CATEGORY. I AM A DISABLE PERSON WHO TRAVELS FROM QUAIL VALLEY TO ORANGE 5/18/2012 Inland Empire - Orange COUNTY. TWO HOUR COMMUTE. OUR RATES WERE RAISED AND THEN DISCOUNT WAS ONLY County 25% INSTEAD OF 50% - THREE TIMES INCREASE FOR MONTHLY. NOW, WE HAVE MORE Quail Valley CA INCREASES. I, LIKE OTHERS, ARE FEELING THE STRESS OF JOB LOSES, INCREASE FOOD/RENT/GASOLINE PRICES - GOVERNMENT CUT BACKS. MY 3% ANNUAL INCREASE IS BEING EATEN UP BY TRANSPORTATION CAUSES. THE TRAINS ARE SO PACK THAT I CANNOT GET A SEAT MOST OF THE TIME - DISABLE SEATING IS USED BY OTHERS. WHEN WILL THIS STOP. DELAYS IN TRAIN OR CANCELLATIONS - NO SEATS AND BUSES TO GET TO TRAIN IN RIVERSIDE OTHER THAN THE COMMUTERS, CHARGE FOR RIDING. I HAVE TO TAKE THE BUS 7 (PAY FARE) THEN 206 TO NORTH MAIN TO ANAHEIM CANYON (METROLINK FARE) - GAS TO THE OUTLET - PARK AND RIDES AND FAR AND FEW. TRAVELLING HAS BECOME A NIGHTMARE.

V McDaniel No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/18/2012 Riverside Riverside ca

Scott Barker I think that the 5% increase should be enough, at some point I think the riders may go to other Oppose [email protected] means of transportation,that would be a shame since the train gets so many cars off the road 5/17/2012 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA

Robert Torres Disappointed with Metrolink on this proposal to increase fairs that are already high. Any Oppose [email protected] increase would force me and several other monthly pass holders to carpool. Metrolink should 5/17/2012 Inland Empire - Orange worry more about passengers with no passes that are riding for free on a daily basis. If daily County or more frequent ticket checks would be preformed Metrolink would see this increase is not Corona necessary. I have been a monthly pass holder for four years and I personally have seen an increase in passengers without any pass. Very rarely do we see any conductor or law enforcement agent checking passes. Metrolink should reconsider any fair increase and if any increase is approved many of us wold be forced to commute in our own vehicles.

147 Page 99 Justin Rogers I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising Oppose [email protected] fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate 5/17/2012 om behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long Orange County delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is Buena Park CA horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered.

Gerry Geronimo I understand that increased costs have pushed prices up for all consumer goods and services Oppose [email protected] up as well. I didn't see any differences in the quality of service and the improved performance 5/17/2012 om of the trains with the last fare increase. I hope, especially in these times where scandals of 91 public officials and numerous government agencies are coming out with personal use of the Corona Ca funds that should be used for certain "OPERATING COSTS" is really being used. The 91 line never runs on time and 75% of the time the trains have something wrong with them. So, I totally oppose the fare increase. I believe there are other sources to find money for operating costs such as freezing salaries or cutting salaries of executives.

Jon Lyle It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The Oppose [email protected] frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very 5/17/2012 Orange County frustrating to me and others as your customers. Anaheim Ca

Dave Hodges If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Orange County orange CA

Dave Hodges For this increase you are getting greedy, and I definitely oppose it. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Orange County orange CA sam anthone I Oppose Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 m Ventura County Simivalley CA sam anthone Boo- Hoo, a potential fare increase for Metrolink!!! we Oppose [email protected] people take the train to save on the gas, paring etc but with the fare increase seems like a 5/17/2012 m group of 2 people in our family who wor in LA downtown can potentially drive/van pool which Ventura County is more economical and time saving for us, it's not just with us but couple of other families as Simivalley CA well. The potential fare increase is making people to give a second thought on the option to use there own vehicles atleast from places like Simivalley, Van Nuys, Burbank etc which takes almost the same or less time as train to commute. We highly Oppose the thought of fare increase at any cost.

148 Page 100

Paula Hoffman No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Ventura County Camarillo ca

Paula Hoffman KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Oppose [email protected] 5/17/2012 Ventura County Camarillo ca

Albric Ghokasian Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to Oppose [email protected] lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse 5/17/2012 cgov.com to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's Orange County cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging Santa Ana CA transportation at both ends.

Albric Ghokasian Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to Oppose [email protected] lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse 5/17/2012 cgov.com to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's Orange County cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging Santa Ana CA transportation at both ends.

Albric Ghokasian Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to Oppose [email protected] lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse 5/17/2012 cgov.com to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's Orange County cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging Santa Ana CA transportation at both ends.

James Freeman A 3-5% increase is acceptible, given rising costs of fuel. 9% is rediculous and will force many Oppose [email protected] riders to considers other options. Feels like an attempt to increase profits at commuters 5/17/2012 91 expense. Given the average cost of living increase of 3% or less annually, it will take 3-5 years Corona CA for the average rider to catch up with the increase. And by that time you will have raised fares at least 4 times. It's wrong, and will affect your bottom line by (literally) driving away customers. mary smith NOW IS THE TIME TO START RIDING THE BUS IF THE FARES ARE INCREASED AND TO TELL ALL Oppose [email protected] OF THE OTHER TRAIN RIDERS TO DO THE SAME. 5/17/2012 91 fullerton ca

149 Page 101 mary smith THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! ANY INCREASE IN FARE WOULD CAUSE ME TO RIDE THE BUS AND I Oppose [email protected] WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST IT TO EVERY TRAIN RIDER I KNOW - THE BUS DROPS YOU AT 5/17/2012 91 YOUR DOOR AND IS CHEAPER! fullerton ca

Yvette Robinson I have used the 10 Trip Ticket for the last 4 years. This ticket is no longer available making my Oppose yvette.robinson@liberty trip more expensive as of 5/16/12. I have calculated by trip is now 5% more expensive my 5/16/2012 mutual.com eliminating the 10 day trip ticket. With a proposed 9% increase my fare is now 14% more San Bernardino expensive. Claremont CA An additional increase would not be fair or reasonable.

Pam Pert I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. Oppose pamela.pert@libertymutu This would increase my fare to a total of 14%. 5/16/2012 al.com Orange County At this point, the fare starts to become unreasonaly high and I will have to start working from San Clemente ca home more often.

Sue Clemons No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/16/2012 Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA

Jeff Carlon I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch Oppose [email protected] the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. 5/15/2012 Antelope Valley I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks Pearblossom ca through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon

Mary Alexander My family and I are trying very hard to pull ourselves out of the financial devastation that has Oppose [email protected] dogged us since 2007. Now the train tickets are going up again. I was fine with the monthly 5/15/2012 Orange County pass and 10 trip for months I didn't work at least 18 days. Then you jacked the price of the 10 Mission Viejo CA trip up $15 and added that awful weekly pass that makes me pay for 7 days when I only work 4. The cost of the monthly pass has been steadily creeping up. I realize the fuel is outrageous, but I'm sure it doesn't justify a 9% increase (and according to your flyer it may be as much as 20%). Also mentioned is a nationwide labor settlement--I haven't have a raise in over 4 years. I hope Metrolink has explored cutting waste with endless consultants and high salaries at the top before making it even more difficult for us to go to work and earn a living.

Efren Malagon No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/14/2012 v San Bernardino Fontana CA

150 Page 102 Joanne Choi The real estate market in the Inland Empire is not doing very well, the job market in the US is Oppose [email protected] also not doing well, the gas price is going up, people in the Inland Empire depend on public 5/14/2012 Riverside transportation to get to work. When peopl already have a hundred pound on their shoulder, increase in Metrolink fares means puting an extra pound on their shoulder. Please re- consider, if you can delay in increasing the price or when the job market is getting a little better, I don't think I would oppose to a 5% increase but right now is not a good time.

Sandy Ikeda Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate Oppose [email protected] transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the 5/14/2012 Ventura County burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less PORT HUENEME ca convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now.

Carlos Garibay Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to Oppose [email protected] avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on 5/14/2012 m the train if the fare increase is approved. Riverside Rowland Heights Ca

Angela Perez I am a City of LA employee that has endured Furloughs & pay decreases, and will not be able Oppose [email protected] to afford an increase in the Metrolink fare. I would be forced to find another means of 5/14/2012 Ventura County transportation after riding the Metrolink for the past 8 yrs. Simi Valley CA danny Quezada Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is Oppose [email protected] metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on 5/14/2012 m implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase Ventura County ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Oxnard ca danny Quezada Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is Oppose [email protected] metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on 5/14/2012 m implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase Ventura County ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Oxnard ca

Maggie Martinez With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the Oppose [email protected] gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and 5/14/2012 Ventura County increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro Chatsworth ca to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders.

Matt Barrett Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before Oppose [email protected] passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and 5/14/2012 m ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being San Bernardino ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. Upland CA

151 Page 103 Bob Garcia From its budget documents Metrolink is anticipating to keep 98% of its riders, despite raising Oppose [email protected] fares by 9%. I am an economist and know a bit about elasticity, and this is absolutely incorrect. 5/13/2012 m Metrolink will probably lose at least 10% of riders when the fare goes up, and possibly more. San Bernardino This means that the budget hole is exactly the same after raising the fares, and Metrolink is no Fontana CA faster to solving the budget deficit. It is one thing if oil and gas prices keep going up, but if fuel prices stay stable Metrolink is not going to gain riders, when there are express buses, the new toll lanes on the 10 freeway which will provide another option, and vanpools. Instead of raising fares implement more express trains - they are really popular, and cut back some of the midday trains. They added some midday trains but how many people actually use them, and how much fuel are you burning with them? Replace them with charter buses so that people can still have options but not at the high cost of running an empty train.

Also MTA just got into trouble with their Title VI analysis. Metrolink needs to analyze every increase and make sure that there is no discrimination. Otherwise some lawyer with an ax to grind can file a lawsuit or complain to the FTA, just like what happened with the MTA when they had to suspend their service changes. One key area of possible discrimination I see is in Orange County where the predominantly white residents of that county have the Metrolink OC Pass, while other counties which might be more minority don't have that and have to pay full fare for their suburban trips. Eliminate the OC Pass or have the same kind of pass used on the trains in SB and Riverside, because they are often empty in that area.

Casate Yuri I find it hard to believe that you cannot find cost efficiencies with in your organization to cover Oppose [email protected] your the monetary shortfall. Going back to your customers, while it's the path of least 5/11/2012 91 resistance, should be your last resort, instead your management should challenge the unions Corona ca and re think your business model so real time adjustments (both increase and decrease) due to fuel price fluctuations are be reflected in the price of the fare. Any other operational costs increases should be handle in the form of challenges to management to reducing costs.

Rick Ehrlich Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule Oppose [email protected] over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to 5/11/2012 Ventura County GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to Camarillo CA your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is 55-60 minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now.

I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink.

152 Page 104 The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like.

I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to email me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages.

Thank you, Rick

Mark Gonzales Fare increase could violate Title VI since you are not raising the fares for the OC pass. It makes Oppose [email protected] no sense that I can travel from Buena Park to Irvine for $7 round trip but my ticket from Buena 5/9/2012 m Park to LA could cost $7 one way. Since Orange County is more white and less minority than Orange County LA County commuters, Metrolink needs to do a Title VI analysis, or raise the OC Link pass just Norwalk CA like all the other passes.

Brenda Vasquez Impossible. You will make metrolink use only possible for those who are in a high income Oppose [email protected] bracket. 5/9/2012 m Inland Empire - Orange County Sylmar CA

Robert Theobald Lower your cost and increase your ridership. Oppose rtheobald@paragon- 5/9/2012 precision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca

Paula Schiffman I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any Oppose [email protected] fare hike at this time (9% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the 5/9/2012

153 Page 105 u past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Ventura County Los Angeles CA Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in other areas! Travis Anderson I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is Oppose [email protected] ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant 5/9/2012 Antelope Valley efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem Lancaster CA and not operating within its means.

Sonya Rivera Are you kidding me!!!! Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA

Raed Elaraj Personally getting a 5% pay cut on July 1 as a result of City's budget deficit. Gas prices are Oppose [email protected] going up and causing inflation. We can not take any increase in fares at this time. Please 5/8/2012 91 reconsider. Corona

M Walters I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is Oppose walterspartyof4@sbcglob already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those 5/8/2012 al.net passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is Ventura County not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day Simi Valley CA and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness.

Beverly Kurz Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of Oppose [email protected] the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the CA biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles.

The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along.

154 Page 106 Dale O'Brien No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Antelope Valley Sylmar CA

Chris Beacham I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many Oppose chrisbeacham420@yahoo riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check 5/8/2012 .com a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs Riverside continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers.

S S Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one Oppose [email protected] of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the 5/8/2012 Riverside equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. At this point, it starts to cost me about what it costs in gas to drive everyday, which defeats the purpose, so I'd probably stop riding the train altogether and go back to driving. eric watkins I would start carpooling if rates increased Oppose [email protected] 5/8/2012 Orange County irvine ca eric watkins I travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. I am already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My Oppose [email protected] standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at 5/8/2012 Orange County the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares. irvine ca

Tinna Li While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving Oppose [email protected] every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does 5/8/2012 San Bernardino not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted.

Duane Neja I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that Oppose [email protected] does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 5/7/2012 Orange County days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do Fullerton CA not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired

155 Page 107 and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first.

wes hinson I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is Oppose [email protected] now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the 5/4/2012 Antelope Valley afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved.

Grace Ito You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Oppose [email protected] Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, 5/3/2012 a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised! charlesduane romero 3 May 2012: Thursday: I do not believe a fare increase of 9 % will work. Folks just do not have Oppose charlesduaneromero9027 the extra money. Please try to obtain Federal funding to off-set any fare increases. I support a 5/3/2012 [email protected] 5 % increase, but I cannot go for a 9 % fare increase @ this time. People are still losing their Inland Empire - Orange homes to foreclosures, & food prices are just going thru the roof. Thank you very much. I have County a disabied young friend who has to rely on Metrolink trains once a month. He cannot afford a perris CA 9 % fare increas. Charles Duane Romero. retired Disabied VFW American USAFR Gulf War Veteran.

Tammi Ba bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip Oppose [email protected] does them no good. 5/3/2012 Ventura County Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't Sherman Oaks CA penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want

156 Page 108 to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late.

D Lee I'll drive! Oppose [email protected] 5/3/2012 San Bernardino Fontana ca

Ann Genovese First I want to say I love taking Metrolink. But...you would have more riders if you bring back Oppose genoveseannmarie21@g the 10 trip. Also, have the Sheriffs check fares consistently - no fare - no ride. People still know 5/3/2012 mail.com they can ride for free and they do. If you made sure with turn-stiles like they are putting in for Ventura County MTA or conductors who just check tickets your revenue woudl go up. And Ventura line does Northridge CA not run on Sat. & Sundays so the weekend trip ticket is of no use for us. Thank you - higher fares = less riders = more debt to you.

Janelle Bielak No written comment was submitted. Oppose [email protected] 5/2/2012 m San Bernardino

Julie Miller This is not something I would absorb. I would look to drive or seek van pool! Crazy high Oppose [email protected] increase for all lines! 5/2/2012 Ventura County Oxnard Ca

Abraham Lora I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that Oppose [email protected] your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases 5/2/2012 San Bernardino despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I Ontario CA would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose ANY increases.

157 Page 109 Case: 00048685 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 5

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00048685

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Nancy E Hensien Account Name Customers Contact Phone (951) 234-9906 Days Open 1 Preferred Phone (951) 234-9906 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address OK

Case Information

Case Number 00048685 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/3/2012 11:45 AM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/3/2012 9:00 AM Train Line Inland Empire-Orange County Trip DayThursday Origin Station North Main Corona

Ticket Type Destination Station Santa Ana Fare Type Train Number 803

Case Details

Subject Proposed Increase Customer You said last year you didn't raise prices, but your wrong you took away a percentage of the Comments Senior/Disabled from 50% to only 25% So therefore my rate did go up. so dont tell me you didn't raise prices. You hit the Senior/Disabled last year and now your going to hit us again. IS THIS FAIR TO US?????????? NO think on that at your meeting.

From a very mad Disabled train rider......

Mailing

158 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000Je1rb/p?retURL=/5004000000Je1rb?srPos=0&srKp... 5/29/2012 Case: 00048722 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 5

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00048722

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Debra Flowers Account Name Customers Contact Phone (909) 714-8704 Days Open 1 Preferred Phone (909) 714-8704 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address 2009-08-27 OK

Case Information

Case Number 00048722 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/3/2012 3:55 PM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/3/2012 9:00 AM Train Line San Bernardino Trip DayThursday Origin Station none

Ticket Type Destination Station none Fare Type Train Number

Case Details

Subject Proposed Fare Increase Customer I am commenting about the fare increase. The monthly pass holders and the 7 day pass holders Comments should not be penalized when we are dedicated riders and contributing financially to Metrolink. Increase the round trip and the one-way. It's not fair when I see riders getting free rides and I pay but I'm going to be penalized with the fare increase. So all that verbiage that "Metrolink cares about it's riders" is bull...basically what you guys are saying is that you don't care about your dedicated riders...just hike up the fare they will ride anyway..they have no choice. We will boycott Metrolink...it can/will be done.

Mailing

159 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000Je5JI/p?retURL=/5004000000Je5JI?srPos=0&srKp... 5/29/2012 Case: 00048731 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 5

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00048731

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Joseph Dunn Account Name Customers Contact Phone 818-815-7128 Days Open 1 Preferred Phone (818) 815-7128 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address OK

Case Information

Case Number 00048731 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/3/2012 6:38 PM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/3/2012 9:00 AM Train Line ALL Lines Trip DayThursday Origin Station none

Ticket Type Destination Station none Fare Type Train Number

Case Details

Subject Fare Increase Customer 1st everyone has to go to the “guru” of transit “New York City” and including the Metrolink board Comments and after that, before they raise their fares they MUST!!! INCREASE THEIR SERVICE BIG TIME- LIKE ONCE AN HOUR 24/7<<

160 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000Je6ra/p?retURL=/5004000000Je6ra?srPos=0&srKp... 5/29/2012 Case: 00048731 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 2 of 5

California's tourist mecca-especially on weekends. What do transit authorities think that the public is a cash cow?. Enough said-I urge the public to demand better service on ALL lines before they go ahead with any fare increase.

Mailing 161

Compensation

Compensation Type Compensation Value

Compensation Serial Number

Additional Information

Mail Returned Date Mail Returned Reason

Created By Integration Process, 5/3/2012 6:38 Last Modified By Illya Robertson, 5/4/2012 1:02 PM PM Closed By Illya Robertson Date/Time Closed 5/4/2012 1:02 PM Web Email [email protected]

Contact Information

MetroLink Contact Information

Customer Number C210522 Contact Owner Metrolink Website Name Joseph Dunn Email [email protected] Account Name Customers Fax Email Domain yahoo.com Primary Contact

Title Special Language

Contact Type

ETC Contact

Phone 818-815-7128 Phone Use Work

Other Phone Other Phone Use Work Mailing Address Other Address Los Angeles, CA 90036

Validated

Bad Address

Customer Privacy

Direct Mail Opt Out Do Not Call

Fax Opt Out Email Opt Out

CPP Data

ETC

https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000Je6ra/p?retURL=/5004000000Je6ra?srPos=0&srKp... 5/29/2012 Case: 00048866 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 6

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00048866

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Chris K Avetisian Account Name Customers Contact Phone (213) 509-6504 Days Open 1 Preferred Phone (213) 509-6504 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address OK

Case Information

Case Number 00048866 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/7/2012 7:53 AM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/7/2012 3:00 AM Train Line Orange County Trip DayMonday Origin Station Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo Station

Ticket Type Destination Station Los Angeles Union Fare Type Train Number 605

Case Details

Subject OTP/Fare Increase Customer Been riding for 15 years. The last three weeks have seen numerous maintenance issues. Worst I Comments have seen. This morning, the power in several cars have been going off, one after another. Conductor scrambling to fix on each occasion. Your maintenance program needs to be revisited. Too many issues, e.g., engine problems, doors don't close, power off in cars. And you want to raise rates? Pricing power comes with quality and excellent service. Oh, I forgot, Metrolink is a public agency. You don't need to deliver quality and excellent service. Just hold a community hearing and make like you are concerned and then continue normal operations...poor service, higher prices. Makes sense.

162 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000JeONG/p?retURL=/5004000000JeONG?srPos=0&... 5/29/2012 Case: 00048867 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 7

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00048867

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Erick Peisker Account Name Customers Contact Phone (949) 981-2346 Days Open 1 Preferred Phone (949) 981-2346 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address 2012-05-07 OK

Case Information

Case Number 00048867 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/7/2012 8:15 AM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/7/2012 3:33 AM Train Line Orange County Trip DayMonday Origin Station Irvine

Ticket Type Destination Station Los Angeles Union Fare Type Train Number 605

Case Details

Subject OTP/Fare Increase/Communication to Passengers Customer Seriously annoyed with the level of service Metrolink continues to display. Lack of announcements Comments is pathetic. I've been riding metrolink first on the San Bernadino Line and now Orange Co Lines for the last year. Customer service staff at the stations and via phone continues to be rude about delays when approached. Overall everyone seems miserable.Trains are late too often and it is becoming very unreliable transit. I have missed so many mertings my boss thinks i am lying when i say we are delayed. With this train this morning we are continuing to have mechanical issues. They should have had a bus or asked us to step off to take the train behind us. I'm stuck on a train with no AC, no power and stuck next to a stinky passenger. I am less than thrilled. I can not see

163 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000JeW3N/p?retURL=/5004000000JeW3N?srPos=0&... 5/29/2012 Case: 00048867 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 2 of 7

how you can request a fare increase with this crappy service. And to see the later train pass us while we are sitting dead in the water infuriates me even more. What are you going to do to make up for this horrible service and all the hours of my life that I've lost to your countless delays????

Mailing 164

Compensation

Compensation Type Compensation Value

Compensation Serial Number

Additional Information

Mail Returned Date Mail Returned Reason

Created By Integration Process, 5/7/2012 8:15 Last Modified By Illya Robertson, 5/8/2012 11:00 AM AM Closed By Illya Robertson Date/Time Closed 5/8/2012 11:00 AM Web Email [email protected]

Contact Information

MetroLink Contact Information

Customer Number C216634 Contact Owner Integration Process Name Erick Peisker Email [email protected] Account Name Customers Fax Email Domain disney.com Primary Contact

Title Special Language

Contact Type

ETC Contact

Phone (949) 981-2346 Phone Use Work

Other Phone Other Phone Use Work Mailing Address PO Box 6281 Other Address North Hollywood, CA 91603-6281

Validated 2012-05-07

Bad Address

Customer Privacy

Direct Mail Opt Out Do Not Call

Fax Opt Out Email Opt Out

CPP Data

https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000JeW3N/p?retURL=/5004000000JeW3N?srPos=0&... 5/29/2012 Case: 00048878 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 5

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00048878

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Era Quarles Account Name AT&T Contact Phone (951) 315-8258 Days Open 2 Preferred Phone Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address OK

Case Information

Case Number 00048878 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/7/2012 10:34 AM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Email Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/7/2012 10:33 AM Train Line Trip DayMonday Origin Station

Ticket Type Destination Station

Fare Type Train Number

Case Details

Subject Fare Increase Customer -----Original Message----- Comments From: Era Quarles [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:02 AM To: Tseko, Perry Subject: Fare increase

It's ridiculous that we have this yearly increase. And why don't you include the weekend fare! In

165 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000JeYgD/p?retURL=/5004000000JeYgD?srPos=0&sr... 5/29/2012 Case: 00048878 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 2 of 5

the past 2 months my train has broke down and I had to exit the train in the rain for the next train. This doesn't include the many train delays!

The trains are not cleaned the same gum stain has been on the floor of a new car for months! The seats has crumbs and litter in them at 5:47am.

I am no longer getting my ticket in the mail through Wageworks, I have to depend on the non reliable ticket machines with a Metro Card!

I am so sick of Metrolink,If had a car to drive I would dropped the train. Sent from my iPhone 166 Mailing

Compensation

Compensation Type Compensation Value

Compensation Serial Number

Additional Information

Mail Returned Date Mail Returned Reason

Created By Illya Robertson, 5/7/2012 10:34 AM Last Modified By Illya Robertson, 5/9/2012 3:00 PM Closed By Illya Robertson Date/Time Closed 5/9/2012 3:00 PM

Contact Information

MetroLink Contact Information

Customer Number C108529 Contact Owner Charlene Ariza Name Era Quarles Email [email protected] Account Name AT&T Fax (714) 259-3765 Email Domain yahoo.com Primary Contact

Title Special Language

Contact Type Small Employer

ETC Contact

Phone (951) 315-8258 Phone Use Mobile Other Phone Other Phone Use Work Mailing Address 4631 Hedrick Ave Other Address Apt 201 Riverside, CA 92505-1418

Validated

Bad Address

Customer Privacy

Direct Mail Opt Out Do Not Call

https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000JeYgD/p?retURL=/5004000000JeYgD?srPos=0&sr... 5/29/2012 Case: 00049051 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 5

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00049051

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Jose Morales Account Name Customers Contact Phone (818) 339-5505 Days Open 3 Preferred Phone (818) 339-5505 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address 2011-09-28 OK

Case Information

Case Number 00049051 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/9/2012 9:12 PM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/8/2012 3:12 AM Train Line Antelope Valley Trip DayTuesday Origin Station Sun Valley

Ticket Type Destination Station Lancaster Fare Type Train Number 217

Case Details

Subject Communication During Bus Bridge/Fare Increase Customer Due to a fire in Acton we were stranded at the Santa Clarita station. We waited for about 20min Comments and nobody knew if we were going to get bused or not. When checking before hand on your website it did state that we were going to be bused. There has to be a better way to get the word out about problems with the trains. Price increase: I would hope that prices dont go up. I have been taking the train for 6years and buying a monthly pass for 6yrs. If you raise the prices again it might just be better to start taking my own car. I ride the train for the convenience and have really enjoyed riding, but might not be able to afford the price increase. Thank you.

167 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000Jf5Ja/p?retURL=/5004000000Jf5Ja?srPos=0&srKp... 5/29/2012 Case: 00049254 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 5

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00049254

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Doug Jeffrey Account Name Customers Contact Phone (661) 287-9451 Days Open 6 Preferred Phone (661) 287-9451 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address 2010-08-20 OK

Case Information

Case Number 00049254 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/11/2012 3:56 PM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/10/2012 9:00 AM Train Line Antelope Valley Trip DayThursday Origin Station none

Ticket Type Destination Station none Fare Type Train Number 689

Case Details

Subject Fare Increase/OTP Customer We pay a lot of money for your service, and we saw that you're asking for an additional increase. Comments This is crazy.

Previously, the CEO said he'd save money by turning the engines off. Yet, they are idling in Union Station every time I'm there.

Speaking of the CEO and the Board, what are the chances they'd take a pay cut to help meet this budget shortfall? How much are these guys making?

168 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000JfVCb/p?retURL=/5004000000JfVCb?srPos=0&sr... 5/29/2012 Case: 00049254 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 2 of 5

Instead of raising ticket costs, what other measures have you tried?

On the 689 from OC to LA Union in the afternoon, you're late OFTEN. And then they don't always wait for us on the Antelope Valley Line. So, you're really going to charge me more for inferior service? 169 Mailing

Compensation

Compensation Type Compensation Value

Compensation Serial Number

Additional Information

Mail Returned Date Mail Returned Reason

Created By Integration Process, 5/11/2012 3:56 Last Modified By Illya Robertson, 5/17/2012 11:28 AM PM Closed By Illya Robertson Date/Time Closed 5/17/2012 11:28 AM Web Email [email protected]

Contact Information

MetroLink Contact Information

Customer Number C170816 Contact Owner Integration Process Name Doug Jeffrey Email [email protected] Account Name Customers Fax Email Domain beckett.com Primary Contact

Title Special Language

Contact Type

ETC Contact

Phone (661) 287-9451 Phone Use Work Other Phone Other Phone Use Work Mailing Address 2400 E Katella Ave Other Address Anaheim, CA 92806-5945 Validated 2010-08-20 Bad Address

Customer Privacy

Direct Mail Opt Out Do Not Call

Fax Opt Out Email Opt Out

https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000JfVCb/p?retURL=/5004000000JfVCb?srPos=0&sr... 5/29/2012 Case: 00049385 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 5

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00049385

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Bob Menn Account Name Customers Contact Phone (714) 213-4479 Days Open 2 Preferred Phone (714) 213-4479 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address OK

Case Information

Case Number 00049385 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/15/2012 11:11 AM Case Owner Illya Robertson Status Closed Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/15/2012 9:00 AM Train Line Orange County Trip DayTuesday Origin Station Fullerton

Ticket Type Destination Station Santa Ana Fare Type Train Number

Case Details

Subject Fare Increase Customer I read the announcement that once again you are considering raising fares due to an increase in Comments fuel costs. Although I am a supporter of the rail system, having used Metrolink and Amtrack almost every weekday for eleven years, I have an observation to make about this.

A few years ago Metrolink prices increased (twice, in fact, in a relatively short period) due to escalating fuel costs. However, there was no corresponding drop in fares when fuel prices dropped (and at obe point, the price of gas dropped dramatically)

170 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000K9MZ5/p?retURL=/5004000000K9MZ5?srPos=0... 5/29/2012 Case: 00049385 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 2 of 5

So it seems to me you already have your increase due to fuel costs. To propose an increase now appears to be a case of "double-dipping."

If you had blamed operating costs, added cars or whatever, fair enough. But blaming it on fuel sounds spurious to me.

Thanks for listening. 171 Mailing

Compensation

Compensation Type Compensation Value

Compensation Serial Number

Additional Information

Mail Returned Date Mail Returned Reason

Created By Integration Process, 5/15/2012 Last Modified By Illya Robertson, 5/17/2012 12:15 PM 11:11 AM Closed By Illya Robertson Date/Time Closed 5/17/2012 12:15 PM Web Email [email protected]

Contact Information

MetroLink Contact Information

Customer Number C218905 Contact Owner Integration Process Name Bob Menn Email [email protected] Account Name Customers Fax Email Domain yahoo.com Primary Contact

Title Special Language

Contact Type

ETC Contact

Phone (714) 213-4479 Phone Use Work Other Phone Other Phone Use Work Mailing Address 1201 Valencia Dr. Other Address Fullerton, CA 92833

Validated

Bad Address

Customer Privacy

Direct Mail Opt Out Do Not Call

Fax Opt Out Email Opt Out

https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000K9MZ5/p?retURL=/5004000000K9MZ5?srPos=0... 5/29/2012 Case: 00049943 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 5

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00049943

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Karen Lee Account Name Customers Contact Phone (626) 325-4410 Days Open 6 Preferred Phone (626) 325-4410 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address OK

Case Information

Case Number 00049943 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/23/2012 10:57 AM Case Owner Escalation Q Status New Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/23/2012 9:00 AM Train Line Antelope Valley Trip DayWednesday Origin Station none

Ticket Type Destination Station none Fare Type Train Number

Case Details

Subject Fare Increase/OTP Customer To Whom It May Concern, Comments My name is Karen Lee and I am a college student that often rides the Metrolink on the weekend. The reason why I like riding the train on the weekend is due to the weekend pass that I can take advantage of. This is very beneficial for me, especially being a college student with very little income. My only concern is about the proposed fare increase. Most people that commute are also college students, traveling to Cal State LA, on the San Bernardino Line. How will the proposed fare increase affect the weekend pass? Will there even be a weekend pass anymore? Is there any

172 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000KAmGN/p?retURL=/5004000000KAmGN 5/29/2012 Case: 00049943 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 2 of 5

type of service that Metrolink can help students benefit from, especially since most people depend on these trains to commute? I understand there is a 10% discount for students, but that does very little to benefit most of us. Also, if you are proposing a fare increase, that is definitely going to take a toll on most students. I appreciate the weekend pass because it does help me a lot on my savings. However, I wish there was a later train that is offered from Lancaster to LA Union at a much later time. If fares increase, will you be able to provide a later train from Lancaster to LA Union at a later time, other than 3:15pm? Being a student, these fare increase and less availability service on the weekend is quite upsetting. Not only is this upsetting, but most of the time when I ride the train, it is usually delayed, and stopped at a red light for other trains to pass through. These little things all add up. There was an actual incident on April 28th, 2012, when the 8:55am train from LA to Lancaster was completely delayed until 10:30-10:45am. That was definitely frustrating! The conductor told me to call the customer service line to get accommodations for the the delay, but did not inform me to save my tickets. Therefore, I was unable to get accommodations for this issue. I hope you will improve your service soon. Looking forward173 on hearing from you.

Best regards, Karen Lee

Mailing

Compensation

Compensation Type Compensation Value

Compensation Serial Number

Additional Information

Mail Returned Date Mail Returned Reason

Created By Integration Process, 5/23/2012 Last Modified By Illya Robertson, 5/29/2012 9:01 AM 10:57 AM

Closed By Date/Time Closed

Web Email [email protected]

Contact Information

MetroLink Contact Information

Customer Number C221521 Contact Owner Integration Process Name Karen Lee Email [email protected] Account Name Customers Fax Email Domain yahoo.com Primary Contact

Title Special Language

Contact Type

ETC Contact

Phone (626) 325-4410 Phone Use Work Other Phone Other Phone Use Work Mailing Address 5233 Walnut Grove Ave. Other Address San Gabriel, CA 91776

https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000KAmGN/p?retURL=/5004000000KAmGN 5/29/2012 Case: 00050104 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 1 of 4

• Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All | Collapse All Case: 00050104

Alert Flag

Case Alert

Contact

Contact Name Stephanie Tucker Account Name Customers Contact Phone (818) 507-9002 Days Open 4 Preferred Phone (818) 507-9002 Contact Email [email protected]

Contact Address OK

Case Information

Case Number 00050104 Case Record Type Comment Date/Time Opened 5/24/2012 8:37 PM Case Owner Web Q Status New Case Origin Web Case Escalated To Case Reason Customer Request Priority Medium Type Complaint

Employee Type

Employee

Twitter Details

Trip Information

Trip Date5/24/2012 9:00 AM Train Line 91 Trip DayThursday Origin Station North Main Corona

Ticket Type Destination Station Glendale Fare Type Train Number

Case Details

Subject Fare Increase Customer Re: Fare Increase Comments I havebeen riding for the past 2 years. I can barely afford the last increase. Is metrolink trying to lose ridership or Cutting back? I will lose ridership. It has already gotten harder and harder to come up with the monthly pass fee. Since January I have had to cut cost by downgrading my car and the car payment and completely stopped driving to save money. Since January it feels like I have two car payments except one is train. Because I am still stuck with the car although downgraded I will lose train ridership because the monthly fees will get to the point where I am better off driving the car with partial payments for

174 https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000KB40f/p?retURL=/5004000000KB40f 5/29/2012 Case: 00050104 ~ salesforce.com - Enterprise Edition Page 2 of 4

gas ($60-$80 each week) and NOT one lump of 297.00 or 172.25 especially since the tax subsidy was downgraded from 230 to 125. However if the tax subsidy goes back up then the metrolink fare increase will not hurt at all as it should not - unless metrolink is trying to lose ridership - weird? Most people are broke. Why use train fuel at all for less than half full trains because people like me are unable to afford to ride much longer due to the large lump cost and due to the tentative increase - uugh. I ask my self and I ask Metrolink - Will trains get any faster with a fare increase? Will the 91 line schedule increase? I seriously doubt it but will wait and hope for the best until I am finally shut out both financially and time wise. Sad that some people like myself may lose ridership due to another fare increase.....which means I will be forced to drive my car everyday. Mailing 175

Compensation

Compensation Type Compensation Value

Compensation Serial Number

Additional Information

Mail Returned Date Mail Returned Reason Created By Integration Process, 5/24/2012 8:37 Last Modified By Illya Robertson, 5/29/2012 8:37 AM PM

Closed By Date/Time Closed

Web Email [email protected]

Contact Information

MetroLink Contact Information

Customer Number C222676 Contact Owner Integration Process Name Stephanie Tucker Email [email protected] Account Name Customers Fax Email Domain sbcglobal.net Primary Contact

Title Special Language

Contact Type

ETC Contact

Phone (818) 507-9002 Phone Use Work Other Phone Other Phone Use Work Mailing Address 1121 Baywood Drive Apt 201 Other Address Corona, CA 92881

Validated

Bad Address

Customer Privacy

Direct Mail Opt Out Do Not Call

https://na2.salesforce.com/5004000000KB40f/p?retURL=/5004000000KB40f 5/29/2012 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189

May 30, 2012 Special Board Meeting ITEM 3 Attachment D

Passenger Comments for July 1, 2012 on Service Delivery Policy As of May 29, 2012 noon cutoff

190 eComment Report

Metrolink Notice of Public Hearing / Service Delivery Policy Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Top Discussion Item

Agenda Item Position %

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak Support Oppose None period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains 0% 83% 16%

Total Number of Comments: 6

Public Comments Summary

Opinion Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; 0 5 1 6 DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; 0 1 3 4 DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of

191 Page 1 available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains PERFORMANCE MEASURE: On-Time Performance (schedule adherence); 0 1 2 3 CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Schedule adherence is reported manually by Metrolink conductors as part of the “Delay Report,” which may also be validated using Metrolink’s Centralized Automated Dispatch system.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% of all trains arrive at their final destination within five minutes of their scheduled time. This measure does not apply to trains annulled or canceled en-route due to force majeure.

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: On-Time Performance (schedule adherence); 1 0 0 1 CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Schedule adherence is reported manually by Metrolink conductors as part of the “Delay Report,” which may also be validated using Metrolink’s Centralized Automated Dispatch system.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% of all trains arrive at their final destination within five minutes of their scheduled time. This measure does not apply to trains annulled or canceled en- route due to force majeure.

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Service Span (hours of service); CATEGORY: 0 1 1 2 Service Availability; DEFINITION: Service span is the hours during a day that service is provided, starting from the time of the first train of the day until the last train of the day. The service span may differ by day of week and station.; SERVICE STANDARD: Weekday: min. 12 hours - Saturday: min. 9 hours - Sunday: min. 9 hours

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Station amenities; CATEGORY: Service 0 0 1 1 Quality; DEFINITION: Station amenities refer to items of comfort and convenience available to the general riding public. These items include, but are not limited to, benches, shelter, ticket vending machines, schedules, and maps.; SERVICE STANDARD: Station amenities to be provided at a minimum: Canopies, Platform, furniture, Information Kiosk/Display Cases, Passenger Information Phone, Ticket Vending Machine, Parking (min. 500 spaces for new stations), ADA accessible ramp, Schedules and maps, Electronic displays and PA systems.

Total 17

Public Comments Details

192 Page 2 Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; 0 5 1 6 DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains cheng ming chuong I am not sure it belongs to this category. None [email protected] 5/21/2012 Orange County I feel strong about the canceling of 10 trip ticket. Irvine CA It is not about the price which you can adjust. It is aabout the inconvenience. Many of us take train depending on the schedule, and mix it with AMTRAK 10 ticekts. By canceling it, we have to buy ticket many times. Already the vending machine has lines lined up.

In many other cities, there are procedures to reduce these lines and help serve the purpose of saving time for transit. You are doing this backwards.

Some officer says it because people do not punch their card. This will not save the problem by canceling 10 trip tickets.

I hope you reinstall 10 trip ticket. They can be single ticket X 10 price.

regards

Cheng Ming Chuong Professor of University of Southern California [email protected]

L Pagdilao Continuation... Oppose [email protected] Who designed the train layout? Overall, the train layout is nice, but it can use some 5/26/2012 San Bernardino improvement. It needs more leg and seat room for the average passenger. Tall commuters Fontana CA cramped for legroom and space have pain in their back, knees, and legs from sitting in a limited space for quite some time. In addition, curvaceous commuters do not have options in the model size seating, which is uncomfortable. Furthermore, the cart has limited outlets and tables for passengers that would like to work during their long commutes. The bottom line is that everything needs to be in the best interest of the main stakeholder - the commuters! So, leave or reduce the fares for the passengers until services are improved. Do not stick more costs to the commuters by politicians and administrators. My suggestion is to reduce the salaries between five and nine percent of your administrative staff and politicians in order to comply with Title VI, if that is in fact the genuine objective.

L Pagdilao Continuation... Oppose

193 Page 3 [email protected] Why is there only one conductor per train? There should be more than one conductor per 5/26/2012 San Bernardino train. If there were an emergency in one of the carts, a passenger would not have the access Fontana CA to locate a conductor quickly to inform him or her because they would have to search the top and bottom of many carts in order to locate that one conductor, which would be wasted time during an emergency. There needs to be additional staff in a central location, in the event of an emergency, to request an immediate response team for assistance and to eliminate a safety and security breach. Who and why was the San Bernardino train schedule changed without any notification and justification for the schedule change? The 320 train at 4:20pm deliberately has to slow down after dropping off passengers at the Rancho Cucamonga Station in order to let the incoming train pass by since there is only one track, which contributes to Train 320 always arriving late to the Fontana station. This keeps passengers on the train longer than the one hour and thirteen minutes required by the schedule for an additionally ten to fifteen minutes. It is a disservice when commuters are so close to their stop and delayed from departing the train, due to travelling slowly or coming to a complete stop in order for the other train to pass. It inconveniences commuters that have rides waiting for them or have other transportation to take. Train 320's schedule is to arrive at the Fontana station is 5:33pm, but it always arrives at the Fontana station between 5:40pm - 5:45pm, due to the schedule change. The original schedule never required the delaying of Train 320. What is the staffing allocation? The resources of staff allocation are inappropriate and ineffective. From observation, staff at the Union Station stand outside the train to check fares before people enters the train, which is a waste of time and staff resources. There are usually two staff members outside of each cart. Any intelligent person would find it more beneficial to have the staff members circulate the Quiet Cart throughout the trip and be centrally located there in case of an emergency while the conductor counts his or her carts. L Pagdilao Improve Services before Considering Fare Increases Oppose [email protected] Who proposed the fare increases and who decides the percentage of increase? I guarantee 5/26/2012 San Bernardino that it is not a daily commuter without perks like me. I am a passenger that commutes Fontana CA Monday - Friday on the San Bernardino line from Fontana to the Los Angeles Union Station. Train 307 at 6:03am and Train 320 at 4:20pm are the trains that I ride daily. The fare increases should never have been proposed and considered. Current service improvements should be the objective, not increasing fares. Why and how were these express train locations determined? All commuters have a right to access express trains at their original location stops, instead of having to drive out of their way to a different location station. This wastes additional time and gas for commuters. For this reason, I feel that there should be a reduction in fares since everyone does not have equal access to an express train at his or her home station stop. Where is the accountability on the additional revenue? During a bad economy, the fares are already too high, especially for a monthly pass. This additional revenue does not compensate the overworked single conductors for an entire train. Administrators and politicians pocket this additional money for mismanagement of funds, while shortchanging the Metrolink front line staff and passengers. For instance, I observe only one conductor on the entire train to service many carts and passenger needs, which is ridiculous in the event of an emergency. Who regulates the Quiet Cart? This cart is not always quiet and regulated. There are

194 Page 4 constantly ringing cell phones, talking loud, blasting IPods, etc. Commuters should not have to get off work and do additional work by telling other passengers to be quiet on the Quiet Cart. That is the job of the conductor and Sherriff to remove the passengers out of these carts for violation of the quiet cart rules. Patrolling the Quiet Cart more often ensures that every passenger is complying with the rules by being quiet. Additional postings of the Quiet Cart signage should be in visible locations with a large font to eliminate excuses of not knowing that it is the Quiet Cart. To be continued due to limited characters...

James Takos Thecars made in ore are not properly designed for western body frame. Any alleged energy Oppose [email protected] reduction in an accident is a pure antisy as people cannot sit properly in the seating. This will 5/18/2012 Orange County invaribly lead to more injuries in an accidnet. I strongly urge the cessation of car replacement Fullerton CA with cars made in Korea.

Lawrence BLANTON Antelope Valley line train 211 is consistently failing to meet its load factor for Oppose starrfire7685@sbcglobal. disabled passengers. This train experiences an almost daily delay at the Sylmar/San Fernando 5/6/2012 net station to double or even triple spot the train. This train needs a dedicated car with fewer Antelope Valley seats and room for 15 to 20 wheelchairs. Metrolink/MTA/SCRRA is failing to address the Valencia CA needs of its disabled passengers at for this route.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: 0 1 3 4 Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly

195 Page 5 load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains Phyllis Trabold Your new "Chatsworth" cars are lousy These are the silver ones with the wosh deisgn. The None [email protected] exterior of the cars is too relflective and they are blinding if the sun is hitting them. The 5/22/2012 rmy.mil interiors are not very conducive to commuter comraderie and force one person to take 2 Ventura County seats. There are none of the odd seats like in the old cars and it seems like a bunch of cubicles Los Angeles CA rather than a train car. The windows are smaller and the cars are less friendly and inviting. There is no leg room and I am only 5 ft 9. The staircases are poorly designed and are an invitation to a concussion. Please discontunue those automated announcements - THEY ARE ANNOYING ESPECIALLY IN THE QUIET CAR. If you have not noticed everyone heads to the old cars if there are any on each train. Please include at least one old car on each train for those of us who like a comfortable seat and a view during our 1-hour train ride.

The bike cars are a good idea and ther should be one on our 117 train going home.

Marilyn Mills I ride the 601 train daily from Buena Park. It is rare that everyone getting on at BP gets a seat, None [email protected] many are standing as we board, no one gets a seat if they board at Norwalk. I wouldn't mind 5/21/2012 Orange County the increase if another car was provided, or better yet add a line between the 681 and the Buena Park CA 601. I get to the station 20 mins early each day to be first or second in line, there are never enough seats for everyone.

Hank Fung This should also discuss bicycle loading policies and set a standard for bicycle availability. For None [email protected] instance assignment of bike cars should be based on projected demand, both on a macro (i.e., 5/7/2012 San Bernardino average bikes per train over a quarter or year) and micro level (i.e., considering bicycle-based Pomona CA events such as Ciclavia and bike races to ensure that bicycle capacity is available on trains arriving before and after the event).

Ann Genovese If the fares were lower - you would have a higher percentage of riders. If you notice, on rainy Oppose genoveseannmarie21@g days the ridership is higher than normal days. And on days when the gas prices leap up - the 5/3/2012 mail.com ridership is higher than normal. So maybe make the roundtrip higher and keep the Monthly Ventura County passes lower - since we "monthly pass holders" ride every work day. Also, it would be good to Northridge ca bring back the 10 trip - I have contract people who work downtown Monday Wednesday and Friday or Tues & Thursdays and 7 day is not cost effective.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: On-Time Performance (schedule adherence); 1 0 0 1 CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Schedule adherence is reported manually by Metrolink conductors as part of the “Delay Report,” which may also be validated using Metrolink’s Centralized Automated Dispatch system.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% of all trains arrive at their final destination within five minutes of their scheduled time. This measure does not apply to trains annulled or canceled en-route due to force majeure.

Devin Campbell I find that over the last 6 months or so my On-Time performance experience has become very Support

196 Page 6 [email protected] poor. Even in the last few weeks, I don't think I have been on time for both direction of my 5/7/2012 Orange County trip more than 25% of the time. This appears to be due to train and/or car mechanical issues, Rancho Santa Margarita either of my train or of a train that effects my trains ability to procede on time. Late times CA range from 15 minutes to 2 hours. This is unacceptable. If the SCRRA is going to implement a 95% on-time standard, I would like to see some accountability and reporting of monthly if not weekly performance. I will also be commenting on the fare increase, especially as it relates to on-time perfromance and percieved poor mecahnical or working order of the trains and cars in operation.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: On-Time Performance (schedule adherence); 0 1 2 3 CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Schedule adherence is reported manually by Metrolink conductors as part of the “Delay Report,” which may also be validated using Metrolink’s Centralized Automated Dispatch system.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% of all trains arrive at their final destination within five minutes of their scheduled time. This measure does not apply to trains annulled or canceled en-route due to force majeure.

Phyllis Trabold Please try to coordinate your Metrolink arrivals with the Metro trains (red, blue, purple). None [email protected] 5/22/2012 rmy.muil Ventura County Los Angeles CA

Phyllis Trabold You measure on time performance at the end of the route. This does not adequately address None [email protected] this issue. It should be done at each station to provide a more complete picture. How can 5/22/2012 rmy.mil your trains be on time 95% when we were late several days last week getting to Moorpark Ventura County from Union Station. Out of 8 total trips last week (Moorpark to Union Station) I was late 3-4 Los Angeles CA times, making your on time performance 50% - 67% much worse than your 95%. Yes, this counts in your 5-minute grace period. It would be nice if the trains had an electronic device to scan them at each station to record arrival time. This would yield more and better data and you could see segements where on time performance is not 95%. And I do not understand why we run at half speed, especially going home and then try to speed up. You still give late trains the right of way which them makes the other train late. Please be consistent and make the late train wait. I would like to see on time performanvce on my route (train 100 & 117) be 95% on time. We get in so late at Moorpark that sometimes we must wait on the southbound Amtrak Sufliner which is using the south track (the signs says Amtrak will use the north platform). Please fix the electronic signs at the Camarillo staion so people can see how on time or late the trains are.

Duane Neja I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that Oppose [email protected] does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 5/7/2012 Orange County days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to.

197 Page 7 In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Service Span (hours of service); CATEGORY: Service 0 1 1 2 Availability; DEFINITION: Service span is the hours during a day that service is provided, starting from the time of the first train of the day until the last train of the day. The service span may differ by day of week and station.; SERVICE STANDARD: Weekday: min. 12 hours - Saturday: min. 9 hours - Sunday: min. 9 hours

Phyllis Trabold It would be useful if you had an earlier train from Camarillo, such as Train 100. Yes, I know it None [email protected] sits on a siding a Moorpark. It causes me to drive all the way to Moorpark from Santa Paula 5/22/2012 rmy.mil since that is the earliest train. Could you find a siding in Camarillo? I sometimes saw an Amtrak Ventura County locomotive parked on a siding when I took the ran from Camarillo. I belive people riding the Los Angeles CA 102 would ride an earlier train if it was available. It would be useful if more trains could run at least as far as Camarillo (westbound). Out of 22 trains on your Ventura Line only 8 run as far as Camarillo.

Efren Malagon To reduce cost Metrolink should eliminate some of the trains schedules. I believe that the Oppose [email protected] trains should only run during peak hours and then maybe run every few hours. There is no 5/14/2012 v need for the trains to run hourly. This will eliminate some of the trains from running empty. San Bernardino Maybe weekend trains should only run a few times a day. Maybe even eliminate weekend Fontana CA services.

Agenda Item Support Oppose None Total

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Station amenities; CATEGORY: Service Quality; 0 0 1 1 DEFINITION: Station amenities refer to items of comfort and convenience available to the general riding public. These items include, but are not limited to, benches, shelter, ticket vending machines, schedules, and maps.; SERVICE STANDARD: Station amenities to be provided at a minimum: Canopies, Platform,

198 Page 8 furniture, Information Kiosk/Display Cases, Passenger Information Phone, Ticket Vending Machine, Parking (min. 500 spaces for new stations), ADA accessible ramp, Schedules and maps, Electronic displays and PA systems. Phyllis Trabold If you want to save some money discontinue your "Metrolink MAtters" newsletter. I use them None [email protected] for sketching. Also print a black and white brochure on less expensive paper. Switch to more 5/22/2012 rmy.mil cost-effective locomtive technology such as stem. Ventura County Los Angeles CA Union Station was not designed for commuter trains and the platforms and passageways to the main "tunnel" reflect this. It would be useful to expand the passageways from the tunnel to the platforms if possible. The traffic-parking lot layout at the Camarillo station is poor. It causes cars to pile up and block the interior roads at the middle and south exits. It is very difficult to leave the south Moorpark Metrolink lot due to signal light timing and the railroad crossing. Caltrans should mark Hwy. 23 as 2 lanes north of High STreet for northbound traffic and consider making changes for better traffic flow at this congested site.

199 Page 9

ATTACHMENT E

200 Attachment E

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 2, 2012

Media contacts:

Sherita Coffelt, Metrolink Media Relations

(213) 452-0318 or [email protected]

Metrolink Conducting Public Outreach Process for Potential 5-9% Fare Increase and Title VI Service Delivery Standards

Increase in fuel costs and contracts due to labor agreements drive $13 million funding gap for FY 12-13 budget

Los Angeles – On April 27, the Metrolink Board of Directors directed staff to initiate a public outreach process for a potential system-wide fare increase to help close an existing $13 million funding gap for Fiscal Year 12-13 budget and Metrolink’s proposed Title VI Service Delivery Policy. The public will be asked to give feedback regarding an average system-wide fare increase between 5 and 9 percent to go into effect on or after July 1, 2012.

“Last year, we were able to delay an increase to passenger fares and member agency subsidies while increasing train service by 14 percent. This year, despite continued efficient management practices, our costs have increased mostly because of the rising cost of fuel and an increase in our operations contracts due to a sweeping nationwide labor negotiation settlement,” said Metrolink CEO John Fenton. “A fare increase is a last resort to be able to maintain current service levels. The proposed fare increase will only cover a portion of the funding gap. It would take a 20 percent fare increase to cover the entire funding gap. Metrolink member agencies are also being asked to increase their subsidy to reduce the amount of the fare increase to passengers.”

201 Attachment E

The major increases include:

• $4.7 million increase in fuel costs (in the past two years, Metrolink’s fuel costs have increased by 78 percent) • $3.2 million in increases to contracted vendor costs due to a nationwide labor agreement • $1.3 million in connecting transit transfer costs for Metrolink riders • $1.0 million in the Bombardier contract to support the rail reliability program and increased car cleaning costs associated with the additional rolling stock additions to the fleet. • $2.5 million for post employment benefits, which weren’t previously budgeted for

“The current economic climate, including soaring fuel prices, requires tough decisions by transportation leaders to fund operations at a level that will continue to meet the region’s transportation needs. Many transportation providers across the country and in the Southern California region are faced with the same challenges, and have responded by raising fares up to 35 percent,” Fenton said.

This proposed fare increase is separate from the 2004 Board adopted policy to restructure fares from a zone-based fee to mileage-based fares over a 10-year period. The phased restructuring is not meant to generate additional revenue for Metrolink, but was implemented to ensure a fair and equitable fare policy. When combined with the proposed 5-9 percent increase, this could result in increases of up to 13.58 percent for less than one percent of Monthly Pass holders and up to 20 percent for less than one percent of one-way or roundtrip tickets. The average increase across the system would be between 5 and 9 percent, however. Fare tables are posted online and will be available at public workshops and at the public hearing to help members of the public determine the potential fare increase’s impact to them.

As a recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding, Metrolink is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to carry out the United States Department of Transportation’s Title VI regulations. Comments and suggestions on the proposed fare increase and the Title VI Service Delivery

202 Attachment E

Standards may be submitted orally or in writing at a public hearing to be held on May 30, 2012 at a special-called meeting of the Metrolink Board of Directors or submitted in advance (by May 29, 2012 at noon) of the public hearing by clicking on the “eComment” option at www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments. Comments can also be submitted by mail in advance of the public hearing by sending feedback to the attention of “Metrolink Fares” at the SCRRA headquarters located at One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA or faxed to the attention of “Metrolink Fares” at (213) 452-0429. No public comments will be considered after the public hearing scheduled for May 30, 2012 begins.

Metrolink will also hold public meeting workshops across its five-county service area to provide additional information to the public and solicit additional input from the public. The locations of these meetings will be announced by May 6 online at www.metrolinktrains.com and in handouts on the trains.

ABOUT METROLINK (www.metrolinktrains.com)

Metrolink is Southern California’s regional commuter rail service in its 19th year of operation. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a joint powers authority made up of an 11-member board representing the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, governs the service. Metrolink operates over seven routes through a six- county, 512 route-mile network. Metrolink is the third largest commuter rail agency in the United States based on directional route miles and the seventh largest based on annual ridership.

###

203 Attachment E

CONDUCTOR ANNOUNCEMENT Potential Fare Increase

DATE: Tuesday, May 15, 2012

TO: METROLINK CONDUCTORS

DATE(s) TO ANNOUNCE: Thursday, May 17 thru May 29th

LINES: All Lines TRAIN: All Trains LOCATION: Prior to departure from all stations. **Please do every station from Thursday, May 17 thru Sunday, May 20 and at heavy-boarding stations from Monday, May 21 thru Tuesday, May 28.**

REGULAR ANNOUNCEMENT: "May I have your attention please, Metrolink will convene a public hearing on May 30, 2012 at a Special Board meeting regarding a potential fare increase. For more information or to submit comments, please visit our website at metrolinktrains.com or review our notices posted at all stations.”

SCRRA 5/15/2012 2:13 PM 204 Attachment E

METROLINK CONDUCTOR ADVISORY

*ATTENTION * Metrolink Conductors Potential Fare Increase

SCRRA will convene a public hearing at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors (Board) on May 30, 2012 regarding a potential fare increase to close a $13 million funding gap in the Fiscal Year 12-13 budget and a new service delivery policy. The funding gap is caused by increased operations costs due to a 78% percent increase in the cost of fuel over the past two years and a nationwide labor settlement increasing the cost of major operations contracts. The Board approved commencing a public comment process at the April 27 Special Board Meeting (agenda item #3 and #4) available at the SCRRA website, www.metrolinktrains.com/meetings related to the proposed FY13 budget. The hearing issues include proposals for (1) the modification or restructuring of fares to for purpose of funding SCRRA’s continued safe operations, and (2) Title VI Service Delivery Policy.

A public hearing will occur at a Special Meeting of the SCRRA Board of Directors on: May 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) Board Room One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

Passengers can find additional information as follows: • Notices posted on TVMs • Notices posted at station info kiosks • Newspaper ads (in 6 languages) • A seat drop w/o 5/7 (public hearing notice) • A seat drop w/o 5/14 (w/workshop dates and locations) • Public Workshops (Oxnard, Palmdale, LAUS, Santa Ana, San Bernardino) • On our website at metrolinktrains.com • On Facebook at facebook.com/Metrolink • By calling the call center at 1-800-371-5465

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 205

Attachment E

METROLINK COMMUTER UPDATE

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS / NOTICE OF POTENTIAL FARE INCREASES / SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) will convene public workshops across its five-county service area on May 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 29th regarding a potential fare increase to close a $13 million funding gap in the Fiscal Year 12-13 budget and a new service delivery policy. The funding gap is caused by increased operations costs due to a 78% percent increase in the cost of fuel over the past two years and a nationwide labor settlement increasing the cost of major operations contracts.

Information at all of the public workshops will be the same. The meetings will be an open house format with a 20-minute formal presentation starting at 6 PM. These meetings are designed to provide a one-on-one dialogue with the Metrolink team members. This is a learning environment in which community members may engage at their own pace and in what interests them most. Additional information will be available for viewing on boards staffed by team members. Metrolink will also conduct a public hearing on May 30, 2012 at 10 a.m. to give members of the public an opportunity to provide feedback to the Metrolink Board of Directors.

The Public Workshops will take place at the following POTENTIAL FARE INCREASE and locations: TITLE VI SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY Monday, May 21, 2012 - 6 PM to 8 PM th A proposed system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares Santa Ana Station - 5 Floor Meeting at 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% or 9% for all ticket types, except for the 1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard Weekend Pass, to be implemented as early as July 1, 2012. (Due Santa Ana, CA 92701 to ongoing fare restructuring, One-Way, Round-Trip and 7-Day

Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 6 PM to 8 PM fares for a less than one percent of station pairs could have Larry Chimbole Cultural Center - Joshua Room increases as high as 20.51% and Monthly Pass fares for less than 38350 Sierra Highway one percent of station pairs could have increases as high as Palmdale, CA 93550 13.58% if the 9% increase level is selected.) The average increase across the system would be between 5 and 9 percent, however. Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 6 PM to 8 PM Oxnard Public Library - Meeting Room B Information regarding the proposed system-wide average fare 251 South A Street increase and the proposed Title VI Service Delivery Policy is Oxnard, CA 93030 available for public inspection on the Metrolink website at www.metrolinktrains.com or in the SCRRA headquarters office, Thursday, May 24, 2012 - 6 PM to 8 PM located at One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Metrolink One Gateway Plaza rd during regular office hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 3 Floor- Union station Conference Room A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Comments and suggestions may be Los Angeles, CA 90012 submitted orally or in writing at a public hearing to be held on

May 30, 2012 at a special-called meeting of the Metrolink Board Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 6 PM to 8 PM City of San Bernardino - Council Chambers of Directors or submitted in advance (by May 29, 2012 at noon) of 300 North “D” Street the public hearing by clicking on the “eComment” option at San Bernardino, CA 92418 www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments. Comments can also be submitted by mail in advance of the public hearing by sending A public hearing will occur at a Special Meeting of the feedback to the attention of “Metrolink Fares” at the SCRRA SCRRA Board of Directors on: headquarters located at One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los May 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Angeles, CA or faxed to the attention of “Metrolink Fares” at (213) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 452-0429. No public comments will be considered after public Authority (METRO) Board Room hearing scheduled for May 30, 2012 begins. For more information, rd One Gateway Plaza, 3 Floor please visit www.metrolinktrains.com. Los Angeles, CA 90012 206 Attachment E

METROLINK COMMUTER UPDATE

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING / NOTICE OF POTENTIAL FARE INCREASES / SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) will convene a public hearing at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors (Board) on May 30, 2012 regarding a potential fare increase to close a $13 million funding gap in the Fiscal Year 12-13 budget and a new service delivery policy. The funding gap is caused by increased operations costs due to a 78% percent increase in the cost of fuel over the past two years and a nationwide labor settlement increasing the cost of major operations contracts. The Board approved commencing a public comment process at the April 27 Special Board Meeting (agenda item #3 and #4) available at the SCRRA website, www.metrolinktrains.com/meetings related to the proposed FY13 budget. The hearing issues include proposals for (1) the modification or restructuring of fares to for purpose of funding SCRRA’s continued safe operations, and (2) Title VI Service Delivery Policy.

The hearing will also consider any California Environmental Quality Act-related requirements (including California Public Resources Code Sections 21080(b)(8), 21065, 21080.32 and related regulations), and the determination of whether the modification or restructuring of fares would constitute a "project", a schedule for a response as necessary to public suggestions on service changes, and fiscal emergency findings within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21080.32, to realize the necessary budget reductions.

POTENTIAL FARE INCREASE and TITLE VI SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY A proposed system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% or 9% for all ticket types, except for the Weekend Pass, to be implemented as early as July 1, 2012. (Due to ongoing fare restructuring, One-Way, Round-Trip and 7-Day fares for a less than one percent of station pairs could have increases as high as 20.51% and Monthly Pass fares for less than one percent of station pairs could have increases as high as 13.58% if the 9% increase level is selected. The average increase across the system would be between 5 and 9 percent, however.

A public hearing will occur at a Special Meeting of the SCRRA Board of Directors on: May 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) Board Room One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

Information regarding the proposed system-wide average fare increase and the proposed Title VI Service Delivery Policy is available for public inspection on the Metrolink website at www.metrolinktrains.com or in the SCRRA headquarters office, located at 1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 during regular office hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Comments and suggestions may be submitted orally or in writing at a public hearing to be held on May 30, 2012 at a special-called meeting of the Metrolink Board of Directors or submitted in advance (by May 29, 2012 at noon) of the public hearing by clicking on the “eComment” option at www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments. Comments can also be submitted by mail in advance of the public hearing by sending feedback to the attention of “Metrolink Fares” at the SCRRA headquarters located at One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA or faxed to the attention of “Metrolink Fares” at (213) 452-0429. Metrolink will also hold public meeting workshops in all five member counties to provide additional information to the public and solicit additional comments. The locations of these meetings will be announced by May 6 online at www.metrolinktrains.com and in handouts on the trains. No public comments will be considered after public hearing scheduled for May 30, 2012 begins.

For Metrolink information, please visit our website at www.metrolinktrains.com, call 800-371-5465(LINK) or call 1-800-698-4TDD for customers with speech or hearing disabilities. 207

Attachment E

METROLINK ACTUALIZACIÓN DE VIAJERO DIARIO

AUTORIDAD FERROVIARIA REGIONAL DEL SUR DE CALIFORNIA (SCRRA, POR SUS SIGLAS EN INGLÉS) AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA / AVISO DE INCREMENTO POTENCIAL A LAS TARIFAS / POLÍTICA DE SERVICIO DE ENTREGA

La Autoridad Ferroviaria Regional del Sur de California (SCRRA, por sus siglas en inglés) celebrará una audiencia pública en una Reunión Extraordinaria de la Junta de Directores (Junta) el 30 de mayo de 2012 con respecto al un potencial aumento de tarifas para cerrar una brecha de financiamiento de $13 millones en el presupuesto del Año Fiscal 12-13 y una nueva política de prestación de servicios. La diferencia de financiamiento es causada por el aumento de los costos de operación debido al incremento del 78% en el costo del combustible en los últimos dos años y un acuerdo de trabajo en todo el país, aumentando el costo de los contratos de las operaciones más importantes. La Junta aprobó iniciar un proceso de comentarios públicos en la Reunión Especial de la Junta del 27 de abril (tema de la agenda #3 y #4) disponible en el sitio en línea de SCRRA, www.metrolinktrains.com/meetings relacionadas con el proyecto de presupuesto Año Fiscal 13. Los asuntos de la audiencia incluyen las propuestas de (1) la modificación o reestructuración de las tarifas con el objeto de financiar las operaciones seguras de SCARRA, y (2) La Política de Servicio de Entrega título VI.

La Audiencia también tendrá en cuenta cualquier requerimiento relacionado con la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (incluyendo el Código de Recursos Públicos de California Secciones 21080(b)(8), 21065, 21080.32 y reglamentos relacionados), y la determinación de su la modificación o reestructuración de las tarifas constituirían un “proyecto”, una programación para una respuesta según sea necesario a las sugerencias sobre cambios en el servicio público, y los resultados fiscales de emergencia, en el sentido de la Sección 21080.32 del Código de Recursos públicos, para realizar las reducciones presupuestarias necesarias.

INCREMENTO PORTENCIAL DE TARIFA y POLÍTICA DE SERVICIO DE ENTREGA TÍTULO VI Un proyecto de incremento de la tarifa promedio de todo el sistema para las tarifas de Metrolink 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% o 9% para todos los tipos de boletos, a excepción del Pase de Fin de Semana, a ser implementado a partir del 1 de julio de 2012. Debido a la restructuración de tarifas en curso, tarifas de Un Sentido, Viaje Redondo y 7 Días para menos de un por ciento de estaciones pares podrían tener incrementos de hasta 20.51% y las tarifas de Pases Mensuales por menos del uno por ciento de las estaciones de pares podrían tener incrementos de hasta el 13.58% si el nivel de aumento del 9% es seleccionado. El incremento promedio a través del sistema sería entre el 5 y 9 por ciento, de todos modos.

La Audiencia pública tendrá lugar en una Reunión Extraordinaria de la Junta de Directores de SCRRA el: 30 mayo de 2012 a las 10:00 a.m. Autoridad Metropolitana de Transporte del Condado de Los Ángeles (METRO, por sus siglas en inglés) Sala de Juntas One Gateway Plaza, 3er Piso Los Angeles, CA 90012

La información relacionada al proyecto de propuesta del aumento de la tarifa promedio de todo el sistema y la Política de Servicio de Entrega Título VI está disponible para inspección pública en el sitio en línea de Metrolink en: www.metrolinktrains.com o en la oficina sede de SCRRA, ubicada en 1 Gateway Plaza, 12vo Piso, Los Ángeles, CA 90012 durante el horario regular de oficina de lunes a viernes, de 8:00 A.M. hasta las 5:00 P.M. Comentarios y sugerencias podrían presentarse oralmente o por escrito en una audiencia pública que se celebrará el 30 de mayo de 2012 en una reunión especial de la Junta de Directores de Metrolink o presentada con antelación (al 29 de mayo de 2012 al mediodía) de la Audiencia pública hacienda clic en la opción “eComment” en www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments. Los comentarios también pueden ser enviados por correo antes de la fecha de la Audiencia pública mediante el envío de información a la atención de Tarifas Metrolink”, en la sede de SCRRA ubicada en One Gateway Plaza, Piso 12, Los Ángeles, CA o por fax a la atención de “Tarifas Metrolink” al (213) 452-0429. Metrolink también llevará a cabo talleres de reuniones públicas en todos los cinco condados para proporcionar información adicional al público y solicitar comentarios adicionales. La ubicación de estas reuniones se dará a conocer el 6 de mayo en línea en www.metrolinktrains.com y en los folletos de los trenes. Ningún comentario público será considerado después del inicio de la audiencia pública prevista para el 30 de mayo de 2012.

Para obtener más información de Metrolink, por favor visite nuestro sitio en línea en www.metrolinktrains.com, llame al 800-371-5465(LINK) o llame al 1-800-698-4TDD para clientes con discapacidades auditivas o del habla.

208 Attachment E

CẬP NHẬT CHO NGƯỜI ĐI LÀM BẰNG VÉ THÁNG METROLINK

NHÀ ĐƯƠNG CỤC ĐƯỜNG RÀY KHU VỰC MIỀN NAM CALIFORNIA (SCRRA) THÔNG BÁO VỀ PHIÊN ĐIỀU TRẦN CÔNG CỘNG/THÔNG BÁO VỀ VIỆC CÓ THỂ GIA TĂNG LỘ PHÍ/CHÍNH SÁCH CHUYỂN GIAO DỊCH VỤ

Nhà Đương Cục Đường Rày Khu Vực Miền Nam California (Southern California Regional Rail Authority - SCRRA) sẽ triệu tập một phiên điều trần công cộng tại một Buổi Họp Đặc Biệt của Ủy Ban Các Giám Đốc (gọi tắt là Ủy Ban) vào ngày 30 Tháng Năm, 2012 về việc có thể gia tăng lộ phí để thu hẹp khoảng hở về tài trợ là $13 trong ngân sách của Tài Khóa 12-13 và một chính sách chuyển giao dịch vụ mới. Khoảng hở tài trợ này là do các chi phí về điều hành gia tăng vì có sự gia tăng 78% phần trăm chi phí về nhiên liệu trong hai năm qua và một sự dàn xếp về lao động trên toàn quốc làm gia tăng chi phí của các hợp đồng chính về điều hành. Ủy Ban chấp thuận cho bắt đầu tiến trình góp ý của công chúng tại Buổi Họp Đặc Biệt của Ủy Ban vào ngày 27 Tháng Tư (nghị trình mục #3 và #4) hiện có tại trang mạng của SCRRA, www.metrolinktrains.com/meetings có liên quan tới ngân sách đề nghị cho Tài Khóa 13. Các vấn đề điều trần bao gồm các đề nghị cho (1) việc bổ sung hoặc tái cấu trúc các lộ phí cho nhằm mục đích tài trợ cho các hoạt động an toàn tiếp tục của SCRRA, và (2) Chính Sách Chuyển Giao Dịch Vụ Tựa Đề VI.

Phiên điều trần cũng sẽ xét đến bất cứ yêu cầu nào có liên quan đến Đạo Luật Chất Lượng Môi Trường California (bao gồm Bộ Luật Các Nguồn Tài Nguyên Công Cộng California các Phần 21080(b)(8), 21065, 21080.32 và các quy định có liên quan), và xác định xem việc bổ sung hoặc tái cấu trúc lộ phí có làm thành một "dự án" hay không, một lịch trình để đáp ứng cần thiết cho các đề nghị của công chúng về các thay đổi dịch vụ, và các phát hiện khẩn cấp về tài chánh trong phạm vi ý nghĩa của Bộ Luật Các Nguồn Tài Nguyên Công Cộng Phần 21080.32, để nhận ra sự giảm bớt cần thiết về ngân sách.

TIỀM NĂNG GIA TĂNG LỘ PHÍ và CHÍNH SÁCH CHUYỂN GIAO DỊCH VỤ TỰA ĐỀ VI Đề nghị gia tăng lộ phí trung bình trên toàn hệ thống cho các lộ phí của Metrolink ở mức 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% hoặc 9% cho tất cả các loại vé, ngoại trừ Thẻ Đi Xe Cuối Tuần, sẽ được xúc tiến sớm vào Ngày 1 Tháng Bảy, 2012. (Do việc tái cấu trúc tiếp diễn về lộ phí, các lộ phí Một Chiều, Khứ Hồi và 7 Ngày cho ít hơn một phần trăm của các trạm đi và về có thể gia tăng tới 20.51% và Thẻ Đi Xe Tháng cho ít hơn một phần trăm các trạm đi và về có thể gia tăng tới 13.58% nếu mức gia tăng 9% được lựa chọn. Tuy nhiên, sự gia tăng trung bình trên toàn hệ thống sẽ là vào khoảng từ 5 tới 9 phần trăm.

Một phiên điều trần sẽ diễn ra tại một cuộc Họp Đặc Biệt của Ủy Ban Các Giám Đốc SCRRA vào ngày: 30 Tháng Năm, 2012 lúc 10:00 sáng Phòng Ủy Ban của Đương Cục Vận Chuyển Đô Thị Quận Los Angeles (METRO) One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

Thông tin về sự gia tăng lệ phí trung bình được đề nghị cho toàn hệ thống và Chính Sách Chuyển Giao Dịch Vụ Tựa Đề VI đã được đề nghị hiện có cho công chúng kiểm tra trên trang mạng của Metrolink tại www.metrolinktrains.com hoặc tại văn phòng đại bản doanh của SCRRA, toạ lạc tại 1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 trong giờ làm việc thông thường Thứ Hai tới Thứ Sáu, từ 8:00 SÁNG 5:00 CHIỀU. Các góp ý và đề nghị có thể được nộp lên bằng lời nói hoặc trên văn bản tại một phiên điều trần công cộng sẽ được tổ chức vào Ngày 30 Tháng Năm, 2012 tại một buổi họp được kêu gọi đặc biệt của Ủy Ban Các Giám Đốc Metrolink hoặc nộp trước (trước Ngày 29 Tháng Năm, 2012 buổi trưa) phiên điều trần công cộng bằng cách bấm vào lựa chọn “eComment” tại www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments. Các góp ý cũng có thể được nộp lên qua thư trước phiên điều trần công cộng bằng cách gửi ý kiến phản hồi lên cho “Metrolink Fares” tại đại bản doanh SCRRA tọa lạc tại One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA hoặc fax cho “Metrolink Fares” tại số (213) 452-0429. Metrolink cũng sẽ tổ chức các buổi hội thảo công cộng tại tất cả năm quận thành viên để cung cấp thêm thông tin cho công chúng và kêu gọi góp ý thêm. Địa điểm của các buổi họp này sẽ được công bố trước Ngày 6 Tháng Năm trên mạng tại www.metrolinktrains.com và trong các tờ truyền đơn trên xe lửa. Không có các góp ý công cộng nào được xét đến sau khi phiên điều trần công cộng đã được quy định cho Ngày 30 Tháng Năm, 2012 bắt đầu.

Để có thông tin của Metrolink, xin viếng trang mạng của chúng tôi tại www.metrolinktrains.com, gọi số 800- 371-5465(LINK) hoặc gọi số 1-800-698-4TDD dành cho các khách hàng bị khuyết tật về lời nói hoặc thính giác

209 Attachment E

메트로링크 통근자 수정안 남부 캘리포니아 지역 철도 당국 (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA)) 공공 심리 통보서/ 잠재적 교통비 인상에 관한 통보서/ 서비스 조달 방침

2012년 5월 30일 남부 캘리포니아 지역 철도 당국은 12-13 회계년도 예산에서의 천삼백만 달러의 부족분을 메우기 위한 잠재적 형태로서의 교통비 인상 및 새로운 서비스 조달 방침에 관하여 이사회 특별 모임에서 공공 심리를 열고자 합니다. 본 부족분은 지난 2년간에 걸친 연료비의 78%의 인상으로 인한 운행비의 증가 및 주요 운영 계약의 비용을 증대기킨 전국 노동 해결안으로 발생한 것입니다. 이사회는 4월 27일 특별 위원회 모임(안건 항목 3, 4)에서 제시된 회계년도 13 예산과 관련하여 공공 의견 과정의 시행을 받아들였습니다. 이는 SCRRA 사이트(www.metrolinktrains.com/meetings)에서 찾아보실 수 있습니다. 심리 안건으로서 (1) SCRRA의 지속된 안전 운행 기금 조성의 목적의 요금의 수정 혹은 재구성 (2) 6. 서비스 조달 방침에 관한 제안서를 포함하고 있습니다. 심리는 또한 캘리포니아 환경 품질 조항 관련 요구사항 (캘리포니아 공공 자원 코드 법조항 21080(b)(8), 21065, 21080.32 및 관련 법규)을 고려합니다. 또한 교통비의 수정 혹은 재구성이 “프로젝트”를 구성하게 될 것인지의 결정 여부를 다루게 됩니다. 서비스 변경에 관한 공공의 제시안에 필요한 답변안에 관한 일정 및 필요한 예산의 감축을 실현하기 위한 공공 자원 법조항 21080.32의 의미내에서 회계년도 비상 기금을 또한 다루게 됩니다.

잠재적 형태의 교통비 인상 및 6. 서비스 조달 방침

메트로링크를 위한 제시된 시스템 평균 교통비 인상은 2012년 7월 1일부를 시작으로서 주말 교통표를 제외한 전체 교통표에 대하여 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% 혹은 9% 가 됩니다(지속적인 교통비 재조정으로 하여 9%의 인상 수준이 채택될 경우 1퍼센트 미만의 정거장 쌍에 대한 편도, 왕복, 7일 교통표에 대하여 20.51%의 인상 및 1퍼센트 미만의 정거장 쌍에 대하여 월별 패스비는 13.58%의 인상이 있게 됩니다. 그러나 시스템의 평균 증가는 5 – 9 퍼센트가 될 것입니다. 다음 일자에 공공 심리는 SCRRA 이사회 특별 모임에서 이루어지게 됩니다: 2012년 5월 30일 오전 10시 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) Board Room rd One Gateway Plaza, 3 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 제시된 시스템 평균 교통비 인상 및 제시된 6. 서비스 조달 방침에 관한 안내사항은 메트로링크 사이트 metrolinktrains.com 의 공공 조사 혹은 SCRRA 본사 사무소(1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, 월 – 금, 정규 영업시간 오전 8시– 오후 5시 )에 안내되어 있습니다. 2012년 5월 30일 메트로링크 이사회 특별 요청 모임에서 열리게 되는 공공 심리에서

210 Attachment E

구술상이나 서면상으로서 의견서나 제시안이 제시되어질 수 있습니다. 혹은 www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments에서 “e의견서” 조항에 클릭하여 공공 심리 이전에(2012년 5월 29일 정오까지) 제출하실 수 있습니다. 또한 공공심리 이전에 우편으로서 의견사항을 SCRRA 본사에 제출하실 수도 있습니다 (받는이: Metrolink Fares, One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA). 팩스 (213) 452-0429로 보내실 경우 Metrolink Fares를 받는 이로 하여 주시기 바랍니다. 메트로링크는 또한 5개 회원 카운티 전체에서 공공 모임 워크샵을 열어 기타 안내사항을 제공하며 의견을 수렴하게 될 것입니다. 이들 모임의 위치는 온라인 www.metrolinktrains.com 으로 혹은 기차에서 전단지로 5월 6일까지 안내되게 됩니다. 2012년 5월 30일 공공 심리가 시작한 이후로는 제안사항을 받지 않을 것입니다.

메트로링크 안내는 www.metrolinktrains.com 를 방문하시거나 800‐371‐5465(LINK), 1‐800‐698‐ 4TDD (청각 및 언어 장애인용)로 연락하여 주시기 바랍니다.

211 Attachment E اخبار خط رفت و برگشت Metrolink

اداره راهآھن منطقهای کاليفرنيای جنوبی (SCRRA) اطالعيه جلسه عمومی / اطالعيه افزايش احتمالی کرايهھا / سياست ارائه خدمات

اداره راه آھن منطقه ای کاليفرنيای جنوبی (SCRRA) در روز 30 می 2012 جلسهای عمومی را در نشست ويژه ھيات مديره (ھيات) برگزار خواھد کرد. در اين جلسه موضوع افزايش احتمالی کرايهھا برای پر کردن شکاف بودجهای 13 ميليون دالری در سال مالی 13‐2012 و نيز سياست جديد ارائه خدمات مورد بررسی قرار خواھد گرفت. شکاف بودجه ای ايجاد شده ناشی از افزايش ھزينه ھای عملياتی به دليل افزايش 78 درصدی ھزينهھای سوخت طی دو سال اخير و نيز توافق کارگری ملی برای افزايش ھزينه قراردادھای عمده عملياتی است. ھيات مديره در تاريخ 27 آوريل در نشست ويژه خود (موارد 3 و 4 برنامه کاری) تصويب کرد که يک نظرسنجی عمومی درباره بودجه سال مالی 2013 برگزار شود. جزييات اين جلسه در وب سايت SCRRA به نشانی www.metrolinktrains.com/meetings آمده است. پيشنھادھای مربوط به (1) اصالح يا بازنگری کرايهھا برای تامين بودجه مستمر عمليات ايمن SCRRA و (2) سياست ارائه خدمات عنوان شش در جلسه عمومی مطرح خواھند شد.

ھمچنين کليه الزامات مربوط به قانون حفاظت از محيط زيست کاليفرنيا (شامل بخشھای (b)(8)21080، 21080.32، 21065 و مقررات مرتبط از قانون منابع عمومی کاليفرنيا) و تصميم درباره اين که آيا اصالح يا بازنگری کرايه ھا در قالب يک "طرح" صورت خواھد گرفت يا خير، زمان بندی ارائه پاسخ الزم به پيشنھادھای عمومی درباره تغييرات مربوط به خدمات و احکام اضطراری مالی در چارچوب بخش 21080.32 از قانون منابع عمومی برای شناسايی کسورات الزم از بودجه، در اين جلسه مطرح خواھد شد.

افزايش احتمالی کرايهھا و سياست ارائه خدمات عنوان شش

افزايش پيشنھادی کرايهھای Metrolink در سطح سيستم به ميزان ميانگين %5، %6، %7، %8 يا %9 برای تمام انواع بليت، به جز بليت آخر ھفته (Weekend Pass) از 1 جوالی 2012 اعمال خواھد شد. به دليل بازنگری مستمر در نرخ کرايه ھا، اگر سطح افزايش %9 انتخاب شود، قيمت بليتھای يک طرفه، دو سره و 7 روزه برای کمتر از يک درصد از جفت ايستگاهھا افزايشی حداکثر 20.51 درصدی خواھد داشت و قيمت بليت ماھانه برای کمتر از يک درصد از جفت ايستگاه ھا با افزايشی حداکثر 13.58 درصدی روبرو خواھد شد. به ھر حال، ميانگين افزايش در سطح سيستم بين 5 تا 9 درصد خواھد بود.

تاريخ برگزاری جلسه عمومی در نشست ويژه ھيات مديره SCRRA: ساعت 10 صبح روز 30 می 2012 مکان برگزاری: ھيات مديره اداره حمل و نقل شھری بخش لس آنجلس (METRO) One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

اطالعات مربوط به ميانگين افزايش پيشنھادی کرايه ھا در سطح سيستم و سياست ارائه خدمات عنوان شش برای آگاھی عموم مردم بر روی وب سايت Metrolink به نشانی www.metrolinktrains.com يا در دفتر مرکزی SCRRA به نشانی Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 1 90012 ارائه شده است. ساعات کاری معمول دفتر مرکزی 8 صبح تا 5 عصر روزھای دوشنبه تا جمعه است. در جلسه عمومی که در تاريخ 30 می 2012 در نشست ويژه اعضای ھيات مديره Metrolink برگزار میشود، امکان ارائه شفاھی يا کتبی نظرھا و پيشنھادھا وجود دارد. ھمچنين افراد با کليک کردن بر روی گزينه "eComment" در نشانی اينترنتی www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments میتوانند نظرھا و پيشنھادھای خود را پيشاپيش (تا ظھر روز 29 می 2012) ارائه کنند. امکان ارائه ديدگاهھا پيش از برگزاری جلسه عمومی با ارسال بازخورد به قسمت "کرايه ھای Metrolink " در دفتر مرکزی SCRRA به نشانی Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 1 يا با ارسال نمابر به قسمت " کرايهھای Metrolink" به شماره 0429‐452 (213) نيز وجود دارد. Metrolink ھمچنين کارگاهھای مربوط به جلسه عمومی را برای ارائه اطالعات تکميلی به عموم مردم و دريافت ديدگاهھای بيشتر در ھر پنج بخش عضو برگزار خواھد کرد. مکان برگزاری اين کارگاهھا تا روز 6 می در وب سايت www.metrolinktrains.com يا در آگھی ھايی که در قطارھا پخش می شود، به اطالع عموم خواھد رسيد. پس از شروع جلسه عمومی مورخ 30 می 2012، ديگر ديدگاهھای عمومی بررسی نخواھد شد.

برای دريافت اخبار Metrolink، لطفاً از وب سايت www.metrolinktrains.com بازديد کنيد يا با شماره (LINK) 5465‐371‐800 تماس بگيريد. افراد دچار مشکالت گفتاری يا شنوايی نيز میتوانند با شماره 4TDD‐698‐800‐1 تماس بگيرند

212 Attachment E METROLINK 通勤最新簡報

南加州地區鐵路管理局（SCRRA） 公眾聽證會通知 / 車費可能漲價通知 / 提供服務政策

南加州地區鐵路管理局（SCRRA）定於 2012 年 5 月 30 日在其理事會（理事會）的特別會議中舉行公 眾聽證會，討論爲了填補 2012-12 財年預算的 1300 萬元資金缺口的車費可能漲價和新的提供服務政策 事宜。該項資金缺口是過去兩年來燃油價格上漲 78%造成的經營費用上漲以及全國性勞資和解帶來的 主要運營合同成本上升所造成的。理事會在 4 月 27 日的理事會特別會議中批准了著手徵求民眾意見過 程（議 程 第 3 項和第 4 項 ） ， 提 議 的 2013 財 年 預 算 的 相關資 訊 可 以 在 SCRRA 網 站 查 閱 www.metrolinktrains.com/meetings。聽證會的事項包括下列提議：（1）爲了資助 SCRRA 的持續安全運 營而對車費進行修改或重組，及（2）第六篇提供服務政策。

聽證會還會考慮與「加州環境品質法案」相關的任何要求（包括「加州公共資源法」第 21080(b)(8)、 21065、20080.32 款機器相關的規定）、車費的修改或重組是否會構成一個“項目”的決定、根據民眾 提出的服務變更建議的必要時間表、以及爲了實現必要的預算削減根據「加州公共資源法」第 20080.32 款定義的財政緊急調查結果。

車費可能漲價和第六篇提供服務政策

Metrolink 車費進行全系統車費平均漲價的提議為 5%、6%、7%、8%或 9%，適用各類車票，但是週末 車票例外，計劃最早於 2012 年 7 月 1 日開始實施。由於持續的車費重組，如果選擇漲價 9%，不到百分 之一車站對的單程、往返和七天車費可能漲價達 20.51%，不到百分之一車站對的月票車費可能漲價達 13.58%。但是，整個系統的平均漲價在 5%至 9%之間。

公眾聽證會定於下列時間和地點在 SCRRA 理事會特別會中舉行： 2012 年 5 月 30 日上午 10 時 洛杉磯縣大都會交通管理局（METRO）理事會會議室 One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

全系統平均車費漲價提議和第六篇提供服務政策提議在 Metrolink 網站 www.metrolinktrains.com 上供民 眾審閱，並且民眾可以在週一至週五上午 8 時至下午 5 時的上班時間到 SCRRA 的總部調閱，地址是 1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012。意見和建議可以在 2012 年 5 月 30 日 Metrolink 理事會 召開的特別會議的公眾聽證會上口頭或書面提交，或者在公眾聽證會之前（在 2012 年 5 月 29 日中午以 前）在網上提交，即 在 www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments 網頁上點擊“eComment”選項。民眾還可以 通過郵件提前提交反饋意見，即寫信到 SCRRA 總部，注明收件人：Attn: Metrolink Fares，地址是 One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA 90012, 或者發傳真至(212) 452-0429，注明收件人：Attn: Metrolink Fares。Metrolink 還會在所有的五個成員縣舉行公眾講座，向公眾提供更多的資訊，並且徵求 更多的意見。這些會議的地點將於 5 月 6 日在 www.metrokinktrains.com 網站上公佈，並且在火車上發 放傳單。在預定的 2012 年 5 月 30 日公眾聽證會開始之後不再考慮公眾意見。

關於 Metrolink 的資訊，請查看我們的網站 www.metrolinktrains.com，致電 800-371-5465(LINK)， 講話或者聽力殘障的客戶可以致電 1-800-698-4TDD

213 Attachment E

POTENTIAL FARE INCREASE AND PUBLIC HEARING WEBSITE POSTINGS

214 Attachment E

AD ON NEWS ON HOMEPAGE HOMEPAGE

LANDING PAGE

215 Attachment E

REMINDER ON FACEBOOK

EVENTS ON FACEBOOK

216 Attachment E

METROLINK Potential Fare Increases and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Public Workshop May 21, 2012

217 Attachment E

Agenda

Metrolink Fare Workshop Presentation

• Metrolink overview • Funding gap overview • Proposed fare increase – Fare restructure – Sample fare increase table • Title VI Service Delivery Policy • Public Comment Options

218 Attachment E

Metrolink Overview

• Metrolink is governed by Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a joint powers authority that was formed 1991 and comprises five county agencies that were tasked with reducing highway congestion and improving mobility throughout Southern California.

1. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) 2. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 3. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 4. San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) 5. Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC)

• Metrolink serves as the link between six Southern California counties by providing commuters seamless transportation connectivity options.

• Metrolink has grown to seven service lines, 55 stations and over 40, 000 daily passengers and covers a 512 route-mile network.

219 Attachment E

220 Attachment E

Where We Are Today

$13 million funding gap in the FY 12-13 budget due to:

• Fuel price / usage increases

• Passenger transfer rate increases

• Contract labor increases

221 Attachment E

Where We Are Today

To close the budget gap a variety of options are under consideration:

• Increasing member agency subsidies

• Increasing fares to passengers

• Service reductions

• Or a combination of these options

222 Attachment E

Where We Are Today

Metrolink is considering a 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% or 9% system wide average fare increase to help offset operational costs expected for fiscal year 2013.

The potential increase is in addition to the 2004 Fare Restructuring Policy, that includes incremental adjustments over a 10 year period to complete the transition from zone based to mileage based fares. This results in varied rates depending on the individual’s station pairs.

223 Attachment E

Fare Restructure

• Prior to 2005, Metrolink’s fares were calculated using a zone based system

• All stations in same ZONE paid same fare to cross zones

224 Attachment E

Fare Restructure

• As new stations were added to zones, inequities emerged system wide

Station Pair Distance Monthly Pass Price Simi Valley to LA 36 miles $163 Tustin to LA 36 miles $200

Station Pair Distance Monthly Pass Price Montebello to Burbank 22 miles $90 Orange to Santa Ana 3 miles $127

225 Attachment E

Solution

Below is a sample of a 7% fare increase of one fare type with the fare restructuring included:

Round Trip July 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Round Trip July 2012 -

Covina Burbank Anaheim Camarillo Claremont Commerce Buena ParkBuena 7% INCREASE Chatsworth Cal State L.A. Baldwin Park Burbank Airport Burbank Anaheim Canyon Anaheim Downtown Pomona Downtown

1 Anaheim - 11.00 18.50 12.50 20.00 19.50 17.00 30.00 25.50 20.00 15.50 18.00 19.50 2 Anaheim Canyon 11.00 - 18.00 13.00 20.00 19.50 18.00 30.50 26.00 20.00 16.00 17.50 19.50 3 Baldwin Park 18.50 18.00 - 16.00 17.00 16.00 13.50 28.50 22.00 14.00 14.50 10.50 18.50 4 Buena Park 12.50 13.00 16.00 - 17.50 17.00 15.00 29.50 23.00 19.00 13.50 17.00 18.50 5 Burbank Airport 20.00 20.00 17.00 17.50 - 10.50 13.50 21.50 14.50 20.00 14.50 17.00 20.00 6 Burbank 19.50 19.50 16.00 17.00 10.50 - 13.00 22.00 15.00 19.50 14.00 16.50 19.50 7 Cal State L.A. 17.00 18.00 13.50 15.00 13.50 13.00 - 25.00 18.50 17.50 12.00 14.50 17.00 8 Camarillo 30.00 30.50 28.50 29.50 21.50 22.00 25.00 - 18.50 30.50 26.00 29.00 29.50 9 Chatsworth 25.50 26.00 22.00 23.00 14.50 15.00 18.50 18.50 - 26.00 19.50 22.50 25.50 10 Claremont 20.00 20.00 14.00 19.00 20.00 19.50 17.50 30.50 26.00 - 18.00 13.50 20.00 11 Commerce 15.50 16.00 14.50 13.50 14.50 14.00 12.00 26.00 19.50 18.00 - 15.50 17.50 12 Covina 18.00 17.50 10.50 17.00 17.00 16.50 14.50 29.00 22.50 13.50 15.50 - 18.50 13 Downtown Pomona 19.50 19.50 18.50 18.50 20.00 19.50 17.00 29.50 25.50 20.00 17.50 18.50 - 14 East Ontario 21.00 21.00 22.00 22.00 24.00 23.50 21.00 34.50 29.00 23.00 21.00 22.00 13.00 15 El Monte 18.00 18.50 11.00 16.00 16.00 15.00 12.50 28.00 21.00 15.00 14.00 12.00 18.50 16 Fontana 25.50 25.50 19.50 24.50 26.00 25.00 22.50 35.00 31.50 15.50 23.50 18.50 25.50 17 Fullerton 11.50 11.50 17.00 10.50 18.50 18.00 16.00 30.50 24.00 19.00 14.50 17.00 18.50 18 Glendale 18.50 19.00 15.00 16.00 12.00 11.00 12.00 23.50 17.50 19.00 13.00 16.00 18.50 19 Industry 17.50 18.50 17.00 17.00 18.50 18.00 16.00 30.50 24.00 19.00 16.00 17.00 12.50 20 Irvine 14.00 14.00 22.00 16.00 23.50 23.00 21.00 33.50 29.00 23.00 19.50 22.00 23.00 21 Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo 16.00 17.00 25.00 18.50 26.00 25.50 23.50 36.00 29.50 25.50 22.00 24.50 25.50 22 Lancaster 35.00 35.00 29.00 32.50 24.50 24.50 28.50 30.00 27.00 30.00 29.50 29.50 30.50 23 Montalvo 32.50 33.00 31.50 30.50 24.50 25.00 28.00 13.00 22.00 32.50 29.00 30.50 32.50 24 Montclair 20.00 20.00 14.00 19.50 20.50 20.00 17.50 30.50 26.00 10.50 18.50 13.50 20.00 25 Montebello/Commerce 17.50 17.50 14.50 15.00 14.50 14.00 11.50 25.50 19.00 18.00 12.00 15.00 17.00 26 Moorpark 29.50 30.00 26.00 27.00 18.50 19.00 22.50 13.00 14.50 29.50 23.50 27.00 29.50 27 Newhall 25.50 26.00 22.00 22.50 15.00 15.00 18.50 25.00 16.50 26.00 19.50 226 22.00 25.00 Attachment E

Title VI Service Delivery Policy Metrolink proposes to set:

1. System-Wide Service Standards: • Vehicle Load • Vehicle Headway • On-Time Performance • Service Availability • Distribution of Transit Amenities

2. System-Wide Service Polices: • Vehicle Assignment • Transit Security

227 Attachment E

Title VI Service Delivery Policy

3. Major Service Change Policy

• A Title VI equity analysis shall be conducted for all major service changes that meet the following thresholds: a) A change of 25% or more in route miles (route length) per route. b) A change of 25% or more in weekday revenue train miles per route. c) A change of 50% or more in weekend revenue train miles per route. d) A cumulative change of 25% or more in revenue train miles per route or system-wide within a consecutive 24 month period. e) A change in the service span of more than two hours per station in a single year.

228 Attachment E

Title VI Service Delivery Policy

4. Fare Change Policy

• METROLINK shall conduct a Title VI fare equity analysis for all increases or decreases in fares, fees or eligibility, or to the availability of fare media.

229 Attachment E

Title VI Service Delivery Policy

5. Public Hearing Process

• Metrolink shall use the following procedures for public review of all fare changes and major service changes: a) A public workshop(s) in advance of the public hearing; b) A public hearing; c) Publish notice describing proposed change in fares in an appropriate newspaper(s) of general circulation; d) Place public notice brochures onboard trains, and at Customer Ticket Window; and e) Consideration must be given to views and comments expressed by the public at such hearings.

230 Attachment E

Public Comments

• Comments and suggestions may be submitted tonight during this public workshop.

• Comments and suggestions may be submitted orally or in writing at the public hearing on Wednesday, May 30, 2012.

• Comments may be submitted in advance of the public hearing via “eComments” at metrolinktrains.com/ecomments by noon on May 28, 2012.

• Comments may also be submitted by mail to One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12 in Los Angeles, CA 90012 or faxed to the attention of “ Metrolink Fares” before the hearing at (213) 452-0421 by noon on May 28, 2012.

231 Attachment E

Public Comments Due

All public comments, regardless of the form of communication, must be submitted and received no later than noon on May 28, 2012. In addition you may also comment at the public hearing Wednesday, May 30, 2012

232 Attachment E

THANK YOU FOR COMING

233

ATTACHMENT F

234 Item (eComments) Support Oppose Neutral Total Unique Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% 7 104 9 120 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% 0 77 5 82 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% 0 72 4 76 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% 0 76 2 78 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% 3 100 4 107 10 429 24 463 133

Item (Fax) Support Oppose Neutral Total Unique Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% 0 1 0 1 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% 0 1 0 1 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% 0 1 0 1 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% 0 1 0 1 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 5 1

Item (Workshops) Support Oppose Neutral Total Unique Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% 5 7 0 12 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% 3 8 0 11 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% 2 9 0 11 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% 0 11 0 11 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% 0 11 0 11 10 46 0 56 12

Item (Web Email) Support Oppose Neutral Total Unique Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% 0 12 0 12 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% 0 12 0 12 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% 0 12 0 12 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% 0 12 0 12 Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% 0 12 0 12 0 60 0 60 12

Item (TOTAL) Support Oppose Neutral Total Unique Totals 20 540 24 584 158 Percent of All Comments 3% 92% 4%

235