Good morning everyone and welcome to our meeting. I'm going to call the meeting
order now and first we'll begin with our safety briefing with our Chief
Safety Security Compliance Officer Frank Castellone. Good morning Vice Chair
Chafee, board members as a reminder in the event of a fire alarm activation we
are all going to collectively go downstairs and we will stage outside of
Metro's customer service so wait for further instructions whether or not
we're going to exit the building or re-occupy it. In the event of an earthquake, we're going
to drop and cover again, wait for further instructions. In the rare event, there's
a first aid situation. I'm going to be your first aid provider. I'm going to ask Ms. Panya
to contact Metro Security and 911. And then finally, in the event of an active attacker,
I brought a few folks with me that I think they're going to help out with that, but we always use
the saying, run a high fight. And finally, this weekend, it is warm. It's continuing to be warm.
Friendly reminder if you're thirsty you're probably dehydrated. So stay hydrated stay cool, and that concludes this morning's safety briefing
Thank you any questions from the board
Seen none. Thank you for the safety update now if you'd all rise I've asked my colleague from the Orange County Transportation
agency mark Murphy to lead us
Thank you if you'd all rise if you're able
Place your hands over your heart and join me in the salute to the flag of this great nation
Thank you. Mr. Chair. Thank you, and a clerk. Would you please call the roll certainly?
director Wapner
director do tray
director Marquez
Vice chair chafee
president director Nguyen director Murphy here
second vice chair burks in
director Spiegel
director Middleton director Vargas
director Tremblay
director Chavez
Director barger, yeah
director Krekorian
director Najarian
director Solis
director Hughes Leslie
director O'Connor
director Allen
director press the auto
chair McCallen
We do have a quorum present
Thank you, madam clerk just as a reminder this meeting will be streaming live
To ensure that all recording can capture the auto is requested
They want a member motions or seconds of motion to please denounce our last name for the record
We now move to a public hearing and I call the public hearing to order and Madame quirk. Will you read the item?
Public comment system
Okay, I'm sorry
again, thank you
I'll get it down
First we start with public comment. Do we have any members the public that want to address the public?
We do have one written public comment and then one request to speak
Okay
Please proceed with the public comment and then if you would call that person
Good morning. My name is Kyle Stafford and I have been a lifelong resident of Southern, California over the past 24 years
I have lived worked and studied in San Bernardino Riverside and Orange counties
I have used Metro link to go to LA Union Station LAX multiple times and have thoroughly enjoyed using Metro link
I recently moved within walking distance of Santa Ana's Metrolink station and
currently work within biking distance of Riverside's Hunter Park slash UCR stop.
Recently, I have looked into utilizing Metrolink trains to travel to work and have been disappointed at Metrolink's schedule for the route.
When I looked further into other stations, I quickly became disappointed overall at services not focused on LA Union Station.
Trains conversing between Riverside and Santa Ana, two county seats are unrealistic for
large number of passengers to ride despite over 200,000 people traveling between both counties,
according to data from a decade old from the state. The current schedule does not start early
enough to arrive at work or late enough to return from work while most trains would route me through
LA adding another hour to my travel. Every day I see stop-and-go traffic along the 91 freeway and
wonder how many cars would be removed if a reliable train schedule was implemented. As Metrolink and
and the world continue to adjust to a post-pandemic world,
increasing frequency between all counties
can have the most impact on cost-effective mass transit.
Thank you for your time.
And then we will call up Paul Hike to speak.
I'm glad to be here, gentlemen.
I have a couple of items.
One, would one of your board members like to join,
help join Low Sand and Low Sands working
on getting rid of the homeless that are on the right-of-way camping.
And we have a group in Orange County called Board of Continuing Care
that does outreaches to find these people and help them get re-situated.
Number two, with what I heard on the public comment,
she's also got the 200 out of San Bernal all the way to Disneyland down to 91.
It's a bus, Riverside has a bus into Orange County and then we have good buses in Orange County.
We have, we've got 543, we got the 553 on Maine.
A good terminal would be the Anaheim Arctic.
That's a good location, a lot of our buses go in there and you can get all over Orange County.
And I'm trying to get them to come up with a card system
where we honor your cards, your tab cards in LA,
and they honor our cards.
We honor LA's cards in Orange County,
and you honor our Orange County cards along
with San Bernardino and San Diego.
We're bringing in the light rail due to open in 2024,
and they're still building it.
I'd like to have somebody come to the next board of congen-
Also, if anybody would like to come to the board of continuing care,
it's the last Wednesday of the month in Santa Ana, down at the courthouse.
I have an address, 400 Ross Boulevard, two to four.
You're welcome to come in and listen to what we have to say
about helping the homeless and what's in the works.
And we also have other boards all over.
LA County, Ventura, San Diego, come on down.
I'll gladly give you my phone number.
Thank you, do we have any other public commenters?
I haven't received any other requests to speak under the public comment period.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Now we come to our public hearing which is public outreach for the Low Income Fair
and call it public hearing to be open.
And the item is presented by Henning Eichler,
our Senior Manager of Market Insights and Analytics
And Sylvia Novia, our public affairs manager for Government and Community Relations.
Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the board.
Sylvia and I are presenting item 6EA, which recommends making the low-income fair part
of the Metrolink fair policy.
Next slide, please.
On May 26, the board directed staff to initiate the public outreach for the continuation of
of Metrolink's low-income air discount.
This 50% discount for low-income riders
was launched as a pilot in September of 2022,
and is fully subsidized through an LC Top grant.
Since then, the number of low-income tickets sold
has more than tripled and has reached 10,532 in June.
That is an average 15% growth every month.
If approved, the low income fair discount will become part of the regular fair structure
with continued funding through LC Top.
I'm also excited to announce this program will be known as Mobility for All.
As required under Title VI, the authority has conducted the fair equity analysis and
no disparate impacts and no disproportionate burdens were found to exist as a result of
the discount.
Now Metrolinx Public Affairs Manager, Sylvia and Voa, will brief you on the public outreach.
Good morning Board. Thank you for having me here today. Next slide, please.
We did a public outreach effort starting on May 26th and when we started that, we opened
up a web tile and in that tile we asked people to please give us comments on what they thought
of the low income fair. On June 21st, 2023, we had a public meeting where we had about
12 people participating, but the notice regarding the meeting went out to about 4 million next
door participants.
There was a notice sent out on July 28 that was put in non-English papers.
There's about 12 of them, and we posted the information regarding the hearing today.
So if they were interested in participating, they could do so.
And then we also put a tile, and we put it on our CIS boards, which are the electronic
boards when you go to take our train it reminded people that we would be having
the meeting and that they were welcome and encouraged to participate in the
public hearing. Next slide please. We had a total of 27 people respond to our
survey that was on the tile. 24 were in English and three were in Spanish. All
respondents to the survey without questions supported the idea of the low
income fair and actually asked for more discounts, if at all possible, and how they could actually
get the discount, and then how the EBT worked and how it would, would it impact their benefits?
12 participants were in the June 21st virtual meeting. It was a bilingual meeting, and it
would have been open to any language if they had other language, if they had told us that
they needed us to provide translation for them, and the questions dealt with the program
duration, if there was going to be any impact on the existing fair to people who didn't
participate with EBT cards, and just general overall support for continuing the program.
We had about 94,000 people look at our information through Nextdoor, and 10 people commented
on what they thought of the fair.
Next slide, please.
Thank you, and then back to Henning, I think.
So at this point, we ask the board to approve the recommendation to make the low income
fair part of the regular fair policy.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing.
I would ask if we have any written or oral speakers.
Do you want to make comments?
Do we have any written comments?
I have not received any written public comment or any requests to speak on this item.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
In that case, we'll close the public hearing
and bring it back to the board for consideration.
This consideration of the recommendation
that is before you, that recommendation,
is to adopt the low-income fair discount
as part of metric's regular fair structure
until grant funding is exhausted
or other funding sources are identified.
But note there is no budget impact.
100% of the cost of the low-income fair discount
funded through a grant and so I'd ask board members to have any comments or
questions. Yes, Director Spiegel. My question is there's two things one is
mobility for all is awesome I really like that title I think it's a great way
of just inclusiveness rather than exclusive and when it talks about the
fair structure until grant funding is exhausted and yet we were said it was
said that it's going to be part of the MetroLink Fair Policy.
So when you have policy, it's hard to have an until time.
And how are we going to determine that?
Because then you've got to change your fair policy again.
So can you explain to me how that's going to happen?
Yes, we currently have funding in place
through LC Topp that will last several years.
Currently, we have only used up just over 5%
of the available budget.
So until that fund is used up,
we will have to identify additional funding sources
to kick in at that point.
So you'll bring it back if we're,
when the funds start getting on the low end?
That is correct.
If no funding can be identified,
we will have to bring the item to the board
and consider discontinuation.
Thank you.
And with that, when the time is,
I'd like to make the motion.
Thank you, Director Spiegel.
director perciado
or say uh... thank you very much for the presentation uh... if it passes
and uh... and i'm sure it's already been out there
kid uh... somebody send me the uh... like social media stuff
second share it
sure who has a light on here
paid back director weapon
thank you very much mister cheery i don't think it was a second of current
motion
uh... and i kind of have some of the same concern secure
and i mentioned that the committee is that
I'm sure this is gonna be a successful program
and I appreciate the fact we have grant funds available
but I think we need to start looking now for alternatives
instead of waiting till the funds run out.
We can't have people depend on this
because they have a need and then all of a sudden
pull it up from under them.
And I don't think that's any of our intent,
but I just wanna make sure we can find some way
to continue the funding.
Thank you, Director Barger.
Yeah, and actually, I was gonna say the same thing.
I think we need to begin to be aggressively
pursuing other forms.
And then I just have to say, I mean, at MT,
you know, the whole issue of Metro
is ensuring those that need it are getting it
and that they in fact do qualify.
And so I really wanna praise you on the EBT.
I think that is a thinking outside the box
in terms of making sure the people
that are genuinely in need of it and qualify
have access to it.
But I guess I also would ask to get an update
each month in terms of who is accessing it because I was a little disappointed
with the number of people that participated in the public hearing no
fault of yours but I just want to make sure that we're saturating and getting
it out getting the word out because many that probably would qualify may not may
not know where to go to get it so you know we will in my office I'd be happy
to help facilitate that in terms of LA County as well thank your office because
because your office did post something for us
and we did get a lot of participation thanks to your help.
So thank you for that.
Thank you, directors.
Any more comments?
Light is still on.
Is there another comment?
Well, I have trouble getting mine on, but thank you.
I believe we have a motion from Director Spiegel
and a second by Director Raffner.
Did I get that right?
All right, and it being no further comments,
all those in favor, please say aye.
Hi, are there any extensions any objections motion carries unanimously. Thank you for your presentation
And we have a consent calendar, which is items 12a through 12i
As any director wants to consider an item
Separately, is there any member of the public that wanted to hear one item separately by pulling it from the consent calendar?
Seeing none are there any public speakers in a consent item item they're not they're not. Thank you, madam quirk
I'll move it burger it move boot and second it any objection
Abstention motion carries unanimously. Thank you
Now we come to our regular calendar
Which is item 8a zero missions technical analysis and a little valley line pilot
Next stops that's a receiving file item. I think
We have it a staff report, please
My name is Michelle Stewart senior manager special projects. I'm joined here today by Mike Tergaras from Hatch
Good morning, Vice Chair Tafee and board members with the board's leadership in 2021 Metro link adopted the climate action plan
Which set a target of transitioning the diesel locomotive fleet to zero missions and in recent years there have been exciting
technology advancements in zero emissions rail that can operate without costly full electrification.
Since late 2021, staff with the help of our consultant team have undertaken extensive
zero emissions rail and supporting infrastructure market research.
This included interviews with manufacturers, discussions with industry groups, engagement
with agencies deploying zero emissions equipment.
The project team has conducted an analysis of the applicability of these technologies
to Metrolink.
This analysis has helped to inform Metrolink's planning for the $10 million in TARCP funding
that was awarded to Metro in 2020 for the Antelope Valley line.
This has really been a great opportunity for staff across the organization to learn about
these new emerging technologies and this research and analysis is summarized in
the reports that are attached to this board item. As I mentioned today I'm
joined today here by Mike Tergaris from Hatch who's representing the consultant
team who developed the analysis. Mike will now provide an overview of the work
that was conducted in some of the highlights from the report. Thank You
Michelle and board members. Currently Metro Link principally uses diesel
electric locomotives pulling bi-level coaches and for the Aero service at SBCTA
diesel multiple units. We focused our study on four propulsion and vehicle
combinations based on viable current emerging technologies. Full system
electrification and other options were not evaluated due to costs and other
factors. The four combinations analyzed were, as shown on this slide, battery electric locomotive,
a hydrogen fuel cell battery locomotive, battery electric multiple unit, and a hydrogen fuel cell
battery multiple unit. Next slide please. For the selected combinations, we configured our
simulation for an apples to apples approach based on transporting similar numbers of passengers.
There were other differences between the vehicle types that affected performance in the simulations and these differences are reflected in our results.
The first combination used was a locomotive hauled train set with two existing bi-level coaches.
This technology has the flexibility of adding additional cars to increase train length, but they are heavier.
Next slide, please.
The second configuration used was a multiple unit train set
similar to the Aero Diesel Multiple Unit,
but with additional inserted passenger cars
for increased passenger seating.
This is a self-powered train
and the cars are semi-permanently connected.
Next slide please.
The four combinations were simulated
over the Antelope Valley line.
The AVL was selected because funding for the study
was targeted for the AVL.
and it is the worst case for slope elevation gain,
nearly 3,000 feet in length, 76 miles.
Similar relative results were achieved
with simulations performed for shorter runs on the AVL,
for example Union Station to via Princessa,
as well as on the San Bernardino and Paris Valley lines.
The locomotive results for the AVL simulation,
as shown here, concluded that a battery locomotive
could make one complete round trip,
and a hydrogen locomotive can make one and a half round trips.
For comparison, a diesel locomotive can make five round trips
and the fueling and charging times are also shown here
for each type.
Next slide, please.
The ZEMU results for the AVL simulation as shown here concluded
that a battery multiple unit could make a one-way trip
and a hydrogen multiple unit could make one complete
round trip.
For comparison, the diesel multiple unit can make
three round trips. And again fueling and charging times are shown. Back to you, Michelle.
The next two slides, you can see there, the next two slides outline several key takeaways
from our study. First, zero emissions rail vehicles operating without full electrification
are still very much in the early stages of advancement. And to move these technologies
further, the next step will really be to push forward on vehicle demonstration and pilots.
Secondly, the 25 to 30 year useful life of rail rolling stock is considerably longer
than passenger vehicles or buses.
This leaves fewer opportunities for investments to be made to reduce emissions, and additionally
this also means there can be less incentive for manufacturers to invest their own research
and development dollars into passenger rail, given the small market and the infrequency
of equipment turnover.
Getting R&D funding available at the state and federal level will be crucial to this
commercialization and transition.
As my strategy office colleagues have updated the board in previous meetings, the CARB in
use locomotive regulation was passed.
The regulation will require that locomotive purchases are zero emissions starting in 2030.
The passage of this regulation makes the advancement of zero emissions rail vehicle technology
critical to ensuring that there are viable alternatives to diesel equipment.
Finally, zero emissions transition will be costly
and it is currently unfunded.
There is limited funding available to advance pilots,
but the full replacement of diesel rolling stock
over the coming decades will be extremely costly.
We can go to the next slide, please.
Oh, okay.
Okay, sorry, yes.
So the opportunity, so there are challenges,
but there are also great opportunities
facing this transition.
So we have the opportunity to collaborate with others
the industry, so certainly exploring partnerships to test equipment and to spread the risk of
new technology across multiple agencies could be really beneficial to Metrolink. Additionally,
we're very excited to see SBCTA's pioneering hydrogen fuel cell zero emissions multiple
unit, arrive stateside, and then ultimately operate, we will be ultimately operating that
service on AERO. Additionally, Metro, in partnership with MetroLink, secured $10 million in state
funds to support a Zero Emissions pilot on the AVL, which we'll be discussing more on
the next slide.
Today's presentation of the board concludes this first milestone. The technical analysis
will continue to be useful as a reference guide for the work to come, and it will also
be useful in the support of our advocacy efforts for new grant programs and other funding mechanisms.
The next key effort is for Metrolink to develop a robust rail multiple unit implementation
plan for the Antelope Valley line.
This plan will provide the agency with a comprehensive understanding of the improvements needed to
support multiple unit operation on the legacy Metrolink system.
This implementation plan will be undertaken in conjunction with a parallel plan on the
San Bernardino line.
This effort will be partially funded by 2020 TRCP funds and Metro Link has reached an agreement
with Metro to transfer the project and the allocation request will go to the California
Transportation Commission in August and then the notice to proceed on this implementation
planning effort is expected in the fall.
The study is expected to take between 12 and 18 months to complete.
And then lastly, Metrolink will also continue discussions with Caltrans and the California
State Transportation Agency about opportunities to host and test Caltrans procured equipment.
That concludes my presentation.
We're happy to address any questions.
Thank you.
Yes.
Director Barger.
Thank you.
And thank you for this.
I mean, I know that when CalSTA awarded this three years ago,
I was hoping it would go a little quicker.
And I would just say that with the fleet modernization study
and now the zero emissions technical analysis
before us today, I mean, we're gonna study this to death.
And I think we have enough of a baseline information.
Are you in contact with CalSTA to keep them appraised
in terms of what we're doing?
Yes, we did have an opportunity to meet with CalSTA about the findings of this effort and what our next steps were that were outlined in the board item in the spring of this year.
I do think it's important when you get a grant from the state, you want to keep them in the loop, especially three years into it in terms of where we are.
So are you telling me then that in fall is when we'll see something in terms of movement?
That's when we expect the work to begin
on this implementation planning effort,
and really the intent of this implementation planning effort
is to do a much more comprehensive cost estimating
and sort of engineering level analysis
that will help to fully understand
what the cost might be of supporting the operations
of rail multiple units on the Antelope Valley line,
so that way everyone, or all of our stakeholders,
will be aware of the costs of making sure that that effort is successful.
And so that we view as a really critical next step for us to know that and to be able to
provide that information.
So when do you see us notifying CalSTA regarding the grant provided three years ago?
When do you see the pilot actually moving forward?
So we will be moving forward with the initial allocation request at next month's California
Transportation Commission meeting,
so that will just be a portion of the $10 million.
The study is expected, or this pilot implementation plan
is expected to take between 12 and 18 months.
So between fall of next year and I guess spring of 2025,
that effort will be wrapped up.
So at that point, we will have all of the information
and data in front of us in terms of the costs
of supporting such a pilot.
I mean I know that system-wide, I am sensitive to the fact
that we are looking at how we are going to transition
to the zero mission, so I know it's not black and white,
and we saw even the implications in terms of service,
what that will look like, and I understand that,
but I just wanna make sure that with CalSTA,
because this grant was something
that they were very focused on,
and we were very grateful to receive
as an opportunity to do a pilot,
and I just hope that we keep pushing it,
we don't study it to death.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Director Parger.
Any other questions?
Seeing none, this is a, one more.
Real quick, I'm a Mnesseer and this is my thing.
I think there's unrealistic challenges put forth.
So I'll just put that out there in the beginning.
I appreciate the efforts, the studies.
We're not getting any closer to the reality
of what is now mandated to what we're able to do.
I don't know if we are having these heavy discussions in, in Darren and your talks
with other organizations, if anybody else have any guide that we're going to get to
the end of the tunnel or is that tunnel going to close on us?
Director Spiegel, there's a lot of conversations happening in the industry right now about
zero emission equipment.
It is really early, as Michelle indicated,
that this is just, it's very early stages.
The Commuter Rail Coalition is actually assembling
a group of us who want to move more quickly
on zero emission, but there's a reality
that it just hasn't gotten off the ground just yet.
So, frankly, Metrolink is probably as much a leader
in this discussion as anybody,
and will continue to play that role,
but it is in the most early stages.
And I think, to Ms. Stewart's point,
we're doing this in the Southern California region.
We have a great pilot to start with
with the hydrogen fuel cell on the nine miles of arrow.
That will give us, that will be instructive for us.
But we also wanna make sure we're looking at all options.
So this is gonna be something,
this is a long game conversation,
just as our climate action plan is a long game conversation.
That's where we are with the equipment as well.
But everybody, there's a lot of curiosity.
There are some properties that have no interest
in wanting to go zero emission in this country.
We are ones that wanna take a leadership role.
So, let me get, I understand.
2030 is when you can't add new diesel cars
to our inventory.
Exactly, so if we were to make
a new locomotive purchase in 2030,
the expectation is that it would be
a zero emissions locomotive.
So up until that point, we can make purchases
of diesel equipment, but then starting at 2030,
any locomotives that we would be purchasing
would have to be zero emissions.
With just, you know, again,
recognizing that there is a check-in period
with the California Air Resources Board in 2027,
that where is the technology,
the state of the technology at that point.
And again, it's our strategy that we currently have 40,
tier four diesel locomotives.
It is our strategy that by 2030,
we will have a full fleet of 55 pretty darn new locomotives
that are tier four.
That will actually give the manufacturing sector
of zero emission, you know, we won't 2030,
I don't know that we'll be in the market for zero emission
if the technology exists,
because we get to use the locomotives
that we are purchasing, have purchased
and will be purchasing over the next seven years.
with that picture painted a little differently
that makes it a little more hopeful
that if people are smart they're gonna buy them all now
and then they can transition in
like we did with our Tier Force.
It takes an awful lot of years to transition them in.
And the second question would be,
is there gonna be the diesel adequately available
if that's supposed to be depleted at the same time?
Well, certainly the manufacturers are tooled up
to be able to deliver diesel locomotives,
I think we'll be fine.
The question for us of course is, we're turning over every stone for grant funding to replace
those last three years.
I'm an actual diesel to propel our engines.
Oh, the fuel.
Well, again, we use renewable, the renewable diesel, so there is ample product for that.
Okay.
The light's a little bit brighter.
Thank you.
Any other comments?
Madam Clerk, do we have any written or comments or any who wish people should speak on this
item?
Yes.
received 23 written public comments on this item that will be compiled and sent
to the board after the meeting and I will call up Elena Garza to speak on
this item. Thank you. I would like to briefly highlight some potential
limitations of Stadler and other similar MU's of which you may desire
awareness when evaluating rolling stock. They are ideal for the arrow line but I
I would like to share matters in which they may be
inappropriate or primary commuter lines.
One potential problem source is semi-permanent coupling,
which allows significantly less customizable train set length
than the current carriages with knuckles at both ends.
The ability to choose the optimal train set length
based on different factors like platform length,
season or time of day helps Metrolink operate
more efficiently, but this is more difficult to achieve
with Stadler MU's.
If Metrolink was required to implement hydrogen or battery
technology, this would have the issue of power storage
limiting and taking space throughout the length
of the train set.
A locomotive, though, would concentrate power storage
in one place and maximize space for passengers in carriages.
Not transitioning to MU's would allow Metrolink
to take full advantage of its current locomotive fleet
until mandated to replace it.
Additionally, being someone who is very accustomed
to the standard North American web tech
locomotive control station,
I personally find that the Stadler cab may be unusual
and in some ways not intuitive to a locomotive engineer
or at least a North American one.
I believe that using locomotives
with the standard web tech controls
could reduce the need for training engineers to get accustomed with the controls
of a very different standard or MU and the necessity for experts
in two different categories of controls and trains.
Furthermore, you may consider refurbishment of the single F40PH, the F59PHs and F59PHIs
to reduce the material cost in the event
that there was a mandate to replace the locomotive fleet.
Thank you for your comments, any other speakers?
Mr. Chair, if I could very briefly,
as the board secretary indicated,
we will circulate the public comments.
You will see a very common theme in the 23 public comments
for the interest of the audience
and those that are watching over the internet.
The common theme of those comments
is along the lines of not supportive
of hydrogen fuel cell technology for the purposes
of the work that we're doing,
that there's a very strong belief that battery electric
with overhead cantonary throughout our system
is the preferred zero emission path.
So you will see those, but again, just in the interest
of making sure that everybody was aware
of those public comments, that's the common theme
you will hear or see.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Any more comments from the board?
Seeing none, this is a receive and file item.
If no objection, the item will be ordered,
received and filed.
Let's move on now to item 8B,
this needed adventure pass program.
May we have a staff presentation, please.
Thank you, Vice Chair Chaffee and members of the board.
My name is Amber Moyers, I'm the partnership manager
with the customer experience team,
led by Chief Customer Experience Officer Lisa Barr.
Next slide, please.
As you know, we currently offer a 25% discounts to students
with a valid student ID.
The discount can be applied to any ticket type
and is available on the mobile app
as well as ticket machines.
Students currently account for only 17.6%
of Metrolink's overall ridership
and 15.7% of overall revenue.
We know that the majority of students
purchase one-way and round-trip tickets,
but 30% of seven-day pass and monthly pass
sales are from students.
With over 2.7 million K-12 students and 2 million college students enrolled here in
Southern California, students represent a tremendous opportunity for MetroLink to gain
new riders in the short term and retain those riders in the future as they graduate and
move into the workforce.
Implementing a student pass program not only aligns with our agency's strategic goals,
but it's also a fiscal year CEO performance goal.
We know that we want to remove as many barriers as possible for all students, and make it
an easy decision for them to choose to take Metrolink by increasing the current student
discount from 25% to 100%.
Like our current student discount, it will be available to all students with a valid
student ID.
The student adventure pass will be available to ticket machines as well as the mobile app,
and it will continue to offer free connections as well as other benefits such as rail-to-rail.
The Student Adventure Pass students will be able to travel system-wide and be able to
take the train anytime for school, work and leisure throughout Southern California.
The pilot program for the Student Adventure Pass will benefit MetroLincoln several ways.
First, we will drive increased ridership by attracting a larger number of students to
take the train and help fill trains during off-peak periods, thereby reducing operational
costs.
The student at Venture Pass will build customer loyalty and cultivate a new generation of
riders.
When students have a positive experience with Metrolink, they'll be more likely to continue
using the service in the future when they graduate and move into the workforce.
The student at Venture Pass pilot program will highlight Metrolink's commitment to supporting
younger generations and the communities we serve, enhancing our brand reputation and
image.
We'll also continue to collaborate with partnerships with schools throughout Southern California
to promote the program, driving further success and building advocacy for continuation of
the program.
Lastly, the Student Adventure Pass will provide valuable data and insights about ridership
patterns, demands, and usage trends.
The information that we receive will help make us inform decisions regarding service
planning, resource allocation, and future program enhancements.
Next slide, please.
In May, staff applied for a $4 million LC top grant.
Although we initially expected to receive
grant approval in July, staff has been in touch
with the grant tour and we now anticipate
receiving grant approval in August.
Upon approval, we will launch the program on September 5th.
The pilot program will last for six months
or until funds are exhausted and has the potential
to generate 1.23 million in ridership
and will have no impact on the budget.
Next slide please.
Staff expects to receive grant approval in August
and continues to plan and coordinate
to ensure we have a successful launch.
Staff has also been working with our member agencies
and meeting with transit agencies throughout the country
to learn more about how they implement
and fund their student pass programs.
This will better enable staff to make a recommendation
on how to fund the program long term
once the program concludes.
At the conclusion of the pilot program,
we will provide a comprehensive report to the board.
Next slide please.
On this map we want to highlight just some of the colleges
and universities we are partnering
with throughout Southern California
to promote the student pass program.
Next slide please.
I appreciate your time today and I would be happy
to answer any questions.
Any questions please?
We'll see a light on.
So I'm going to have a couple of questions.
One is, I'm complaining about there's no Panther.
The K-12, do we not discourage for our youth at a certain age to write unaccompanied on the train?
So we will have...
I don't know if we have a limit?
Certainly, I'm not sure of the operational standards or if there's policies around age and ridership and riding unaccompanied.
When we think of K-12, MetroLink is not necessarily that first choice or option for that level
of schooling to take to attend school, but we wanted to address it because it is part
of our youth student program now where they qualify for a 25% discount.
No, I'm in favor of because I look at it differently, but I'm just asking about that question, because
if you have students and you can get more families writing if their children are free,
I mean, it helps reduce a day trip.
So I get that, but I was just curious.
We were counting them into the big school area, so there's really not much K-12.
Maybe some of your higher grades.
It would be minimal, but certainly the safety and security of our riders is first and foremost
with our.
No, I that's what my concern was.
And if I can't remember the numbers, 17% was the budget.
Is that what is on the slide of the ridership?
Percentage was overall ridership and revenue.
So I guess I'm trying to figure out how there's not an impact on the budget.
Is the impact not there?
If we get the grant, is that what implication is fully subsidized by the grant?
Okay, so it is all dependent whether we get the grant I think it's great so I'm just asking the questions
Thank You director Spiegel
Madam clerk do we have any public comments?
We have not received any written public comment, but we do have a request to speak from Elena Garza on this item
So we'll call her up
Thank you
I shall commence by discussing primary target students the driving students can save money and skip traffic with Metrolink
driving students have got the most to gain from it and making commuter rail
more attractive to them should be a primary objective. Less young persons are
choosing turn motoring licenses than in previous decades. Only about 61% of 18
year olds in the US had a driver's license in 2018. Fortunately Metrolink
provides them with the freedom to travel expeditiously without constraint from
schedules of other drivers, like friends or family. Consequently, facilitation of
the riding experience for non-driving students is key. An easy, safe, and
convenient experience can motivate students to ride Metrolink after pass
expiry. Convenience of First Mile, Last Mile transfers determines whether
Metrolink is feasible to students. I recommend highlighting the variety of
of free transfers to multitude of connecting services
available to them.
Emphasize unlimited free rides on participating operators,
local services from easy paths,
a program of which even I wasn't aware before today.
Unfortunately, students with inconvenient
or restrictive first mile,
last mile connections may choose
to not ride Metrolink at all.
Examples of this include waiting for their parents' cars
or riding local buses with numerous intermediate stops.
As the potential rider study says,
riders' experiences on other transport services
can color their entire memory of the journey.
I propose coordinating with schools and universities
to develop and promote direct bus and shuttle routes
to and from stations where appropriate.
However, shuttles may not be appropriate
where bus and rail connections
are already convenient or direct.
Because of limited time, I would like to conclude
by also proposing the creation of short student-targeted
guide films to prevent a lack of knowledge
about public transport from overwhelming them,
making commuter rail a more feasible travel option
for students, help secure regular riders
and revenue for Metrolinx future.
Thank you your comments any further speakers
Thank you madam clerk to receive and file item. There's no objection. It shall be received and filed
We go on now to our next item, which has our mentoring potential writers study
Another receiving file item will be resented by any Eichler our senior manager and market insights and analytics
presenting item 8C.
This item is submitted by the customer experience department
under the leadership of Lisa Barr.
Next slide, please.
We are now in the third year since the start of the pandemic
and Metrolink ridership is still less than 50%
of pre-pandemic levels as many former commuters
are now working from home, some or all of the time.
Building occupancy data show that in any given week,
On average, half of workers work from home.
And that has direct consequences on Metrolink ridership.
Over the last two years, we have conducted surveys
and focus groups with Metrolink's corporate partners
to learn how we can better serve the needs of their employees.
And we have heard what improvements they need.
More convenient schedules, stations, shorter travel times,
more security and lower cost.
But nearly half of all metrolink trips today
are taken by non-commuters.
And we believe that is a market with significant growth
potential.
Therefore, in our latest potential rider study,
we wanted to go beyond commuters and focus
on all potential riders who live near a metrolink station.
Next slide, please.
Our study used a research design that
It was aimed at understanding how people make more choice decisions.
In the first stage we conducted a quantitative online survey to collect demographic and psychographic
data.
And psychographics refers to opinions, attitudes, and values.
We used predictive statistics to understand how the likelihood to take Metrolink is shaped
by underlying psychological and social factors.
Then we performed a market segmentation
to identify target segments within the potential ridership
market.
And finally, we held a series of focus groups
for a deep dive into the issues that were identified.
Our online survey provided the data foundation
for this study with 3,400 valid responses
from potential riders.
And these respondents came from
throughout Metrelink service area.
The chart on the right indicates
how many respondents came from each county.
And those percentages are in line
with actual rider origins.
This survey data allowed us to segment
the potential ridership market
into different potential rider segments
to identify target segments
that had the highest likelihood to try Metrolink.
Members in each of these segments share similar opinions
and attitudes, as illustrated in this chart,
with segments ranging from the least likely to right
on the left to those most likely to right on the right.
Next slide, please.
And finally, we conducted a number of focus groups
with survey respondents to discuss in depth the factors
that influence their decision to write or not to write.
These participants for their qualitative research
were chosen to represent the different market segments
and came from all five counties.
Next slide, please.
Based on this research, we can summarize the key findings.
First, there are concerns about personal security.
as the main barrier for many non-riders,
those least familiar with Metrolink.
Quote, crime is the main factor
that keeps me from riding the train.
But even those familiar with Metrolink
are concerned about crime, not necessarily on the train,
but at stations and on connecting transit.
Second, potential riders identified
the inconvenient schedules as a barrier,
especially limited service in the evening
and on weekends, kept many non commuters from riding the train.
Third, Metrolink service is perceived as unreliable.
Just one in four non-riders thought
that Metrolink trains were reliable enough
to get them to work on time.
Both many potential riders felt that it was too expensive
to take the train every day.
But our research also revealed that many
were unaware of available discounts, and that they could use the metrolink ticket to transfer
to other transit services without paying an extra fare.
Fifth, we also heard that many potential riders found there was a lack of information, and
that better signage and how-to-ride information would make them more likely to take the train.
And finally, fixing these barriers is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for ridership
growth.
The study has shown that the motivation to ride Metrolink is shaped by subjective perceptions
and opinions.
That means it is not enough to, say, increase safety and reliability unless we also communicate
that Metrolink is safe and reliable.
As a next step, we are developing messaging strategies
to influence some of those perceptions
that keep potential riders from taking the train.
We are planning a wayfinding study
to improve signage and station information,
and in September, we will discuss this study
with the member agencies.
Staff is also finalizing work to optimize our schedules
for a post-pandemic travel pattern.
Since the board approved our low-income fare
as the mobility for all, we will be relaunching this program
to target a larger group of potential riders
with low income.
And finally, the free fare pilot for students
is planned to be launched in September.
And that completes my presentation.
I'd be happy to take your questions.
Any questions from board members?
about our public comments a public commenters
i have not received any written public comments or any request to speak on
this item
thank you ma'am
is chairman uh... if you go back the recommendations please
every hour
number one of a three every few study recommendations and in the three
final answers grove do you have a time frame when these would take place so
come back to the board
we already uh... ready to launch some of those new messaging strategies and uh...
Yes, I think this will be reported on a regular basis to the board.
Yeah, I think the messaging, the branding, getting out to the public that it is safe
to ride Metrolink, and I ride it all the time, we're not all the time, but at least once,
once or twice in one of them on Metrolink, it is a very safe system compared
to other systems out there, so I think just getting that message,
really marketing what Metrolink is all about, and, you know, all the opportunities
that you can take Metrolink to get you somewhere,
at the final part it's all about convenience I've learned is if you want to get people out of their cars into a
Train or a bus it's about convenience not only being safe
But getting to the point from point a to point B at the fastest times it is possible. So
I've been looking forward to
More stuff that staff will be implementing to really get the message about naturally. Thank you. I
Guess I'm a little perplexed right now. So 8b we talked about
the request that was supposedly to the resolution in June,
but it's all dependent on the grant.
And this was the receiving file.
Now 8C says that we will launch in September of 2023,
pending board approval,
but I thought it was depending on whether we have the grant.
I know it may be.
Yeah, it's pending the grant.
I think we have a typo on that slide.
it's all about the grant being available for us to implement it so that's a typo.
I just want to make sure. Good catch, Director Spiegel. Thank you.
To no further comment or questions this item will be received in file.
item Jeffrey Dunn I know you're ready to go. Good morning Chair Chafee, members of
the committee. Next slide please. Starting with the local section the low
income fair discount program title 6 hearing was held by the board today and
and it has taken action on that item.
With respect to the byline community outreach meetings,
Metrolink will follow the San Bernardino Line meetings
previously reported to you with community meetings
on a to be determined line, likely to be held in October,
to continue our efforts to build our partnerships
with communities along our network,
to identify issues that are both common and unique
to each line, and to demonstrate ongoing
community outreach efforts that will support
Metrolink future grant applications where appropriate.
We'll provide more information to you
at your September meeting.
Next slide.
In state matters, as you are likely aware,
in July, on July 10th, the governor signed the state budget
for the 23-24 fiscal year and a number of trailer bills,
including SB 125 for transportation.
Overall, the news is very good.
The budget contains the funding provisions
outlined in your report, including $5.1 billion
for transit capital and operations funding.
The budget restores the full $4 billion of TIRCP funding
that was proposed to be cut in half
by the governor's budget released in January,
in addition to establishing a new zero emissions
transit capital program funded at $1.1 billion
allocated over the next four fiscal years.
Both of these funding sources can be potentially
fully flexed to transit operations.
This level of flexibility is generous
and is testament to the successful advocacy provided by the industry
led by the California Transit Association.
MetroLink 2 has taken a leading role in arguing
the need for additional transit operations funding,
both in its efforts last year to enhance funding to the State Rail Assistance Program,
which provides this flexibility,
and continuing this year to call out the need for additional transit operations funding
among the top priorities
of Mobility 21's advocacy messaging to the state legislature
this budget cycle.
It is important to note that up to 100 percent of this 5.1 billion dollars of funding that
is flexed to pay for operations is subject to certain accountability requirements established
in the legislation.
Also important to note is all of these funds from both the TIRCP and the ZE program are
allocated directly to the member agencies and passed through to MetroLink based upon
the decisions made by the agencies as to operational need.
The amount flowing to each agency from the TIRCP funding is proportional based upon population.
The ZE program funding is allocated 50-50 on the basis of both population and revenues
generated by the operator.
The accountability requirements described in the budget bill will be further articulated
in guidelines presently under development by CalSTA, likely to be released in late July
or early August.
There are also efforts in the transit industry to develop trailer bill legislation to provide
more clarity on these requirements.
CTA will maintain a leadership role both working with the administration to develop these guidelines
and to craft the trailer bill language.
We will keep you updated as they are developed.
Finally, in Sacramento, our CEO has been invited to testify before the Senate Subcommittee
on Lo San Rail Corridor Resiliency on August 15 with OCTA, Lo San and other statewide stakeholders
to provide update on the completed work at Casa Romantica in San Clemente as well as
to look ahead at what can be done in the future to prepare for and mitigate future instability
in the area to secure the tracks for ongoing operation.
Next slide please.
Transitioning to federal matters.
In addition to what has been covered in your report, there's been a lot of activity in
the appropriations process.
Since the Congress raised the debt limit, it is now endeavoring to pass all spending
bills by or before the end of this federal fiscal year, September 30.
Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee have marked up their respective
transportation bills.
They are different, of course, and these differences will need to be resolved in conference committee
before they can be voted on by each chamber and passed to the President.
The House bill is more fiscally austere than the Senate, which is much closer to current
year funding.
Thus, we can reasonably expect the final appropriating legislation for the coming year will be a
compromise between the two and will effectuate some level of cuts relative to present-year
funding in most areas, keeping in mind that the present funding levels in both formula
and discretionary programs are significantly higher than ever before since the passage of
the IIJA, the bipartisan infrastructure law, in 2021.
The Senate bill proposes $28.4 billion in USDOT discretionary funding, down just slightly
from the present $28.7 billion of current funding.
The House bill, however, proposes $21.6 billion of discretionary funding, which is a 25 percent
reduction of about $7.1 billion.
The majority of the reduction in discretionary funding in the House bill is achieved by decreasing
or eliminating annual supplemental appropriations funding for grant programs that already receive
advance appropriations from the bipartisan infrastructure law.
I'd like to briefly summarize what this means for two important discretionary programs for
Metra-Ling.
First, the RAISE program, the Senate Bill provides the same level of funding provided
in the current year, that's $1.5 billion in advance appropriations from the bipartisan
infrastructure law, an additional $800 million of supplemental appropriations for this year.
It also maintains the current $45 million maximum award amount of any individual grant.
The House bill maintains the $1.5 billion of advance appropriations from BIL, but does
not include the $800 million of supplemental appropriation.
The other discretionary program is the Chrissy Grant Program.
The difference between these two bills was also quite pronounced.
Current year crisis appropriation is $560 million nationwide, in addition to the $1
billion of advance appropriation by the BIL.
The Senate bill proposes to modestly increase that amount to $578 million, and the House
bill, though, reduces it to $258 million.
Both keep the $1 billion of advance appropriation, however.
The final bill will likely land somewhere in between these two amounts.
And especially I'd also like to call out the amount of funding in reserves for earmarks
in the Senate, 72.8 million, and in the House bill 28.8 million.
This is important because it is from this pod that Metrolink earmark requests are funded.
It brings us to some good news.
I'm pleased to share that both the House and Senate bills contain Metrolink earmarks.
In the House bill, only six California CRISI-funded projects were included, but among those, one
was a $1 million request for a Metrolink track intrusion demonstration project submitted
by Brad Sherman representing the San Fernando Valley to test and implement cutting-edge
crossing technology, detection technology to identify trespassers in the right-of-way
and communicate a stop or slow message using PTC technology.
In the Senate bill, a $1.6 million Metrolink request is included to implement wireless
crossing near-side station stop technology at key crossings to minimize gate downtime,
vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion, and unsafe driver actions to eliminate unnecessary
gate activation near a station stop.
That was submitted by Senator Alex Padilla.
The earmark requests were extraordinarily competitive for this budget year, and especially
so for rail projects.
We are extremely grateful to Senator Padilla and Congressman Sherman for their submissions
and advocacy on our behalf, and we will keep the board apprised as the bill moves and hopefully
passes before the end of the fiscal year.
This concludes my report, and I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you.
Are there any questions from board members?
Thank you for keeping us updated on where all the dollars are.
Certainly going after them if we can are there any public commenters?
We've not received any written public comment or request to speak on this item. Thank you, Madam Clerk
It's a receiving file item if there's no objection. It will be received and filed
Now we come to the thing. We've been all been waiting for our chief executive officers report
Thank you, mr. Chair
Actually, I'm really pleased to give today's report. We could go to the next slide
So for the first time in more than 12 years or so a Metrolink extended service outside of its normal territory
over the course of last weekend
we
Extended trains that we had started on the Ventura County line. We started weekend service
To total round trips each day Saturday and Sunday, but it only got to East Ventura
This last weekend we extended our service to the Ventura County Fairgrounds in support of the the X Games
along with Amtrak Pacific Surfliner it was a
key strategy for the Ventura downtown area that is notoriously gridlocked around downtown and the fairgrounds with major events and
The strategy paid off very limited congestion and it was a success story across the board
So my thanks to our operations team for pulling that off.
Again, it's not something we've done in a long, long time.
That said, we also learned some lessons
because we haven't done something in a long, long time.
So it was a good opportunity for us to find out
what we need to continue to improve upon,
but it was still a good news story for us.
Next slide.
So we're going to show a video here very quickly,
but this is just to share again the good news we have
have regarding the resumption of service on Monday, July 17th. Thanks in large part to
the work, and I will mention some names here in a bit, but I do want to run the video first
for the construction of this barrier wall at Casa Románica in San Clemente. Why don't
we go ahead, Jennifer? Can we run that video? Thank you.
On April 27th, a landslide occurred on the back terrace of the famed Casa Románica Cultural
Center in San Clemente with the hillside dropping 15 feet, depositing debris onto the railroad tracks below.
Passenger rail service was halted and although service temporarily resumed in May,
it was stopped again on June 5th as another significant slide threatened the safety of rail passengers and crew.
MetroLink and the Orange County Transportation Authority came together to quickly assess the situation
and made plans for a temporary barrier wall to be built to protect the tracks from continued landslide debris.
Once an emergency design bill contract was awarded, crews worked extended hours and
over weekends to build a 12 foot high and 250 foot long barrier wall in just under three rules.
On July 17th, service resumed through San Clemente.
Just in time to provide service for opening day at the Del Mar Throwbird Club into the Comic Con Convention in San Diego.
So, Mr. Chair, that project, again, was completed ahead of schedule and under budget.
A lot of individuals and organizations were involved in making that happen.
Of course, we couldn't have done it without the partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority,
who has helped secure the funding to make sure that we cover the costs of the construction of the wall.
I've received great positive feedback from the Losan Pacific Surfliner because they have
just a couple of very, very big weekend weekends or weeks during their season in the summer and
Comic Con and the Del Mar races are their largest revenue generators. So it was it was a very
I wanted, what I wanted to do with that video was I really wanted to do a soundtrack and have Fleetwood Max
landslide, song landslide play in the background.
But I was told we'd have to pay royalties for that, so we decided just to go with our own staff involved in that.
But I also want to recognize, and I think we have some of the key players in the room today,
Conden Johnson was our contractor, very familiar with the territory. I don't know, is Joel
Krewinski and Cole Benson here by chance from Conden Johnson? Alright, maybe they're
working on another project in San Clemente, not ours, but so Conden Johnson was the contractor
actually and they were the contractor that did the earlier tie-back wall project for
or OCTA. They clearly know their stuff and were able to deliver a project faster than
we could have, I think, expected. How about with HDR, who's our engineering consultant,
Jim Starick and Aaron Rubio, by chance are they here? There we are, HDR. Thank you guys
for your work. With Herzog, who is our contractor for Maintenance of Way and Track and Single,
We had David Lucas, Andy Yamada, and Rick McIntosh from Herzog.
Are you guys around by chance?
There we go.
One of the other things that we were able to do to accelerate the project is work closely
with BNSF who allowed us.
They had been running freight through this corridor in the middle of the night, and they
gave us a two-day freight embargo that allowed us to continue to keep our equipment out on
the site, keep the work going.
It turned out we only needed,
Condon Johnson only ended up needing one night
of being able to not have equipment come in and out.
So, and we were still able to deliver the project
in that fashion.
And then of course, last but not least,
Liz Lunn, Maria Leibel,
Fia Asu from our staff at Metrolink that led the project.
I know they're here.
So if I get Maria and Liz and Fia just to quickly stand up.
I had the good fortune with, to work with Justin Fournelli, our chief of program delivery,
all three of, Maria and Liz work for Justin, Fia works with operations, you guys can go
ahead and sit down, it was embarrassing enough for you, I'm sure that you would have to stand
up.
To deliver this work, but Justin and I had a chance while Conden Johnson was out on site
on a Friday morning, Maria came down, showed us what was going on in the project and I
looked up at that hill it was before the barrier wall was in and I'm thinking
that hill's gonna come down and what we've done with this barrier wall is it
it's it's not a retaining wall because when you look at that hillside you're
just gonna say it's gonna happen and it what that project does is it protects
our right away for when it does happen and so again great work by everybody
involved that again it happened ahead of schedule and under budget one last
comment Mr. Chair that I just want to in my CEO remarks is I'm really pleased to
announce if you haven't already heard it and congratulate Gloria Roberts our new
District 7 District Director where it has been officially announced that she
has removed the interim title and she now has the full District 7 District
Director position and it's going to only be a matter of time before she gets the
appointment to actually serve in the official capacity as the ex officio
of the OCal trans member to this board.
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Are there any board member comments?
When it comes to my comments,
I simply stay hydrated.
Yes, absolutely.
Meeting is adjourned.
Thank you all for attending.