I'd like to call to order the executive committee for a month of April and ask for a safety
briefing by Frank Castillon, our chief executive officer, safety security and compliance to
conduct the safety briefing.
Great.
Good morning again, Chair McAllen, committee members and those calling in or viewing remotely.
As a reminder, always be aware of your surroundings and again for those folks that are calling
and today remotely be aware of your building emergency procedures specific to the location
where you are at now. For the folks in this room if we have a fire alarm activation we're
going to exit uniformly, calmly go down the stairs and we will stage in front of the Metro
customer service and wait for further instructions. The event we have an earthquake I would like
you to drop, take cover, shelter in place until the earth stops moving. At that point
time will make a determination if evacuation is necessary. The event of a
first aid situation is required. I will be your first aid provider. I will ask Miss
Peña to contact Metro Security at the front desk where an AED is also located, and in
the event of an active attacker we remind you to run high and fight. That
concludes your safety briefing. I've been asked to lead the Pledge of Allegiance so
if everyone would rise and place your hand over your heart we will begin. I
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, in liberty and justice for all.
Thank you, Fred.
Roll call, please.
Vice Chair Chaffee.
Second Vice Chair Bergson.
Here.
Director Tremblay.
Here.
Director Najarian.
Here.
Chair McCallin.
Here.
We do have a quorum present.
Thank you very much.
what comment time for our meeting. Do we have any public comment? I have not
received any request to speak or any written public comment. Thank you very
much. We'll go on to our regular calendar approval of the meeting minutes of March
8th. Tremblay moved. We have a motion and a second. Roll call please. Vice Chair
Chafee. Second Vice Chair Bergson. Yes. Director Tremblay. Yes. Director Najarian.
Chairman Cowan. Yes. A motion carried unanimously. Next we have action item
adjustment of annual authorization for service agreement by Derek Browning our
manager one of recruitment. Derek. There he is. Good morning chair and members of the committee. So I'm
here to present item 6B agreement of annual authorization for service
agreement government jobs and NEOGOV. Next slide please. All right so during
the June 23rd regular board meeting the board approved the FY23-24 annual
authorization for service license maintenance and support agreements
including in that list of agreements approved was agreement number LI 172-24-002
with government jobs in Yale Gov, in the amount of $50,272.
All right, the agreement for government jobs in Yale Gov
renews actually in December after we've already adopted
the budget for 2324, and so the cost increase
was approximately 7.5%, or $4,300 over FY23.
Additionally, HR made a budgeting error
that costs about $7400 approximately.
But since then we have adopted to increase our budget
about 10% every year to prevent this
from happening in the future.
So FY25 will be solid.
Therefore, the staff has requested
additional authorization of $11,728 to cover
cost for FY24 in the total amount of $62,000.
Next slide.
All right, so it is recommended that the committee
recommend board authorize the CEO to amend
annual authorization for service agreement number LI172-24-002
with government jobs in Yale Gov
from $50,272 to $62,000.
That concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Derek.
Any questions?
Seeing none, this is an action item.
Is there a motion?
We have a motion second.
Madam Clerk, would you call the roll?
Vice Chair Chaffee.
Second Vice Chair Bergson.
Director Tremblay.
Yes.
Director Najarian.
Yes.
Chair McAllen.
Yes.
That motion carried unanimously.
So before Derek Browning leaves the podium.
Come back, Derek.
Come back.
It, I'm really very, very disappointed to have to share this news that Derek Browning who has been
handling our recruitments for us for a number of years, he's been with MetroLink for five years,
will be leaving us his last days in a couple of weeks, I think it's the 19th.
He is going to the small little transit operator whose building we sit in
to work for the HR department here at LA Metro.
I've really, really appreciated working with Derek.
He's been a great, he's stepped up and done it.
I don't know how we're gonna do recruitments
with his departure.
He has done just an amazing amount of work.
And I also had that sort of a special opportunity.
At some point, there was a recognition for staff
about sitting with the new CEO and somehow,
Derek won that opportunity.
I guess this is what it is.
I'm not sure it's an opportunity,
but we had coffee in our building.
We just talked and I really appreciate it
getting to know Derek.
He's a real loss to the agency.
Once again, darn it, Metro, ARA, please.
Can you keep your darn mitts off my people?
And your people, too.
We have a resolution that says
Stephanie stopped stealing our people.
Absolutely, we've got to do something, anyway.
Derek, thank you again for your service
to Metrolink, really, really appreciate it.
been pleasure to work with you. Thank you very good. Next we have a receiving file
evaluation of the October 23rd Antelope Valley Line service expansion and
Enning Eichler, our senior manager of marketing insights and analytics will
tell us all about it. Go ahead Enning. Thank you, good morning Mr. Chair and
members of the committee. Last year the Metro board authorized funding for an
expansion of service on the Antelope Valley line, which commenced on October the 23rd.
This report before you this morning provides a preliminary evaluation of the ridership
response we have seen to date.
Next slide, please.
The service expansion restored weekday service back to the pre-pandemic levels, but in contrast
to the pre-pandemic service levels, the new service was added primarily during non-commute
hours. This is illustrated in the chart here on the screen. Each of the bars indicates
the number of trains, the number of daily trains during each part of the day. Service
was also expanded on weekends. It was doubled from 12 to 24 trains. We noticed an immediate
response in ridership since the schedule change. Within four weeks of the schedule change,
had grown by 18 per cent. But it is important that the schedule change coincided with the
introduction of our free student fairs just two weeks earlier. This, of course, presents
a challenge to identify how much of the ridership change is due to the free student fairs and
how much to the added service. Fortunately, our Metrolink ticket sales allow us to separate
student ridership from non-student ridership. This chart depicts the monthly ridership with
students shown in orange and non-students in blue. We clearly see the immediate jump
in ridership following the October schedule change and free student fares. That is followed
in December with a drop in ridership, which, of course, is entirely due to seasonality.
We always see weak ridership during the winter months.
In addition to that, we had a total system shutdown during the last week of December.
Obviously, the seasonality makes it difficult to compare ridership before and after the
schedule change.
Instead what we have done is we compared ridership each month against the same
month of the prior year. Next slide please. You can see this in this chart. Each of
the bars compares the change in ridership over the same month of the
earlier year. The question that we're trying to answer is, is ridership growing
faster now than it did before the schedule change. Before the schedule
change in October, average annual ridership grew at a rate of 11%, as
indicated by the blue bars on the left. After the schedule change, ridership
growth increased to 19%, that is an 8% difference. So we can interpret this as
as saying the schedule change resulted in an 8% lift
in the rate of ridership growth.
And I believe that is also a conservative estimate
because we are not counting students here
and it is only natural that the increased service,
especially during the off-peak, also benefits students
who would be more likely to take advantage of that service.
Next slide, please.
Additional evidence for the positive response
by our writers comes from a customer survey
that we conducted in October and November.
We received 631 responses from both students
and non-students, commuters and non-commuters,
and responses were overwhelmingly positive.
Next slide, please.
Just a quick illustration.
has a number of comments from those survey respondents.
Just to quote, it greatly expands my desire
to take Metrolink more often in the future.
Next slide, please.
The survey also identified some concerns of our riders.
in particular in terms of personal safety,
concerns about personal security on the train
were ranked highest, and it might suggest
that these concerns might pose a limiting factor
on the potential of ridership growth.
That completes my presentation.
May I ask any questions, may I answer your questions?
Any questions?
Comments?
Go ahead.
I do have a question and I forgot to bring it up in the board briefing but I'll bring
it up now.
So the cleanliness issue.
I know that prior to optimize schedule our trains if I'm not mistaken would come back
to the yard in the middle of the day where they potentially could be gone through.
Now I don't know if that's still the case.
What is our current policy about how often our trains are cleaned, the restrooms and
whatnot?
Mr. Felipe, do you have information that can answer Director Birksen's question?
I will say just anecdotally that generally as we conduct our surveys, the cleanliness
of our trains is typically rated very highly.
But Don, why don't you go ahead and provide more.
Yes.
So under the current schedule, we rotate equipment in and out.
And so equipment is typically looked at or cleaned lightly when it comes in.
So, say we bring a train out in the morning, it comes back in sometime at noon, they'll
go through that train to get it ready for the afternoon run.
If there's any spot cleaning that needs to be done, they'll do that.
We also have some cleaning outside at LAUS, some of the bigger stations where we have
crews that will go out and clean as the train comes in.
So and then at night it's thoroughly cleaned.
What we're looking at with this optimized schedule is focusing our cleaning efforts
not only in the station but how can we do that more frequently outside the station because
these trains will not be coming back in as frequently as they do today.
They will stay out a large part of the day, a large portion of the day.
And so that's something that we'll address.
Now one of the other things that is a big complaint is seats.
The seats in many of our cars are just worn so that we get a lot of complaints about cleanliness,
about the appearance of the inner portion of the vehicle.
We have a program right now that is working on reapposturing all of our seats.
So we have the Bombardier car program that's going on that's refurbishing the entire car,
which also is seating.
But we also have a program with the other cars,
the Rotom cars and the additional Bombardier cars
so that we can get the seats and the carpets,
the interior of that vehicle looking refreshed
and you know, battered.
So I think that will address a lot
of the cleanliness complaints.
We don't get a lot, but the ones that we do,
that'll address some of that.
And then our plan, if the optimized schedule
goes into effect of attacking or addressing
cleaning the cars more frequently
outside of the maintenance facilities
will help deal with those same issues.
So with optimized service, do you foresee,
maybe this is just an example of what I'm thinking.
You know, like an airplane comes in,
everybody gets off, they spend 15 minutes cleaning it,
send it right back on its way.
Is the theory, or would a potential theory be,
is that at the end of the line here at Union Station
or Antelope Valley or Riverside,
wherever the main junctions are,
would we at some point be considering having a crew,
a cleaning crew at each of those stations
where as the train rolls in,
they're doing a quick clean and sending it back out.
With an optimized schedule,
you're gonna have a little break of time
between arrival and departure.
Is that, in theory, what we might be looking at some day
down the line to hopefully help keep things
just rolling all the time?
Yeah, yeah.
Very good point, and absolutely.
We dabble in that now.
We have, as I pointed out, trains that come into LA US.
There's a crew that goes around and spot cleans.
Our ultimate goal is to make sure
that every customer experiences a clean coach.
So with the optimized schedule, that changes our,
just as it changes our schedule
and what people experience riding the train
and how they can ride the train and how often,
it's also going to change the way
that we approach maintenance and cleanliness.
And so we've already had those discussions,
we already have plans laid out to address those.
But to your point, yeah,
that's exactly what's gonna happen.
We know that it's not gonna go into CMF
and sit for four hours.
So that's not our opportunity to clean it.
Our opportunity to clean it is,
where's our largest layover?
Is it gonna come into LA-US and sit for 20 minutes?
That's an opportunity to clean.
Is it gonna go to San Bernardino and sit for 20 minutes?
That's an opportunity to clean.
So what it does is it branches us out
as far as our cleaning crews.
It's going to make us focus on outlining areas,
LA-US, as the focal points for cleaning.
So I think that, you know, just in general,
should be incorporated into the optimized schedule
as a separate component of it, a cleaning component.
Yeah, well, it is definitely a part of the larger picture.
It has not been forgotten.
We obviously know that that has to be addressed,
just like the maintenance.
The optimized schedule helps us with maintenance as well.
We don't have as many vehicles or as many train sets
operating each day it gives us opportunity not only to clean but also maintain those
vehicles so there's a give and take in this program that we're proposing but the cleanliness
has not been forgotten we do have a plan for that and we will address all cleanliness as
we move forward.
Mr. Chair if I can indulge just one more question about the security comments in the report.
you know, are we finding that the issue is that Metrolink itself is having less desirable
folks in other people's eyes around or is it still a confusion between LA Metro and
Metrolink?
That, you know, do we have statistics or any factual numbers that say we've had complaints
that on Metrolink trains, we've had, you know,
hoodlums and villains and whatnot.
Yeah, I definitely would defer to Frank.
But having served in Frank's role, I can tell you right now,
we don't have the same issues as Metro.
Our crime is nowhere near what Metro's is.
And what we're seeing today, I'll defer to Frank,
but what we're seeing today is, you know,
very similar to what we saw in the past.
And it's really just,
the pandemic emboldened a lot of people
because trains were so empty.
And now we're seeing trains starting to get fuller
and we're seeing those people are being called out
and those activities are being called out.
And our security department is addressing those issues.
we have very little crime on this system.
I mean, because in the report,
I know the numbers were kind of high
for safety and security,
so obviously somebody feels a threat.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
There's a difference between actual crime
and the idea that you're unsafe.
I think what we have to address is,
I think our security department
is addressing the crime issue, and always has.
It's, we have to, we have to address the, the, you know, the, the idea that, um, I'm
not safe writing the train or that there's, there's some things there that I'm concerned
about.
We have to address that perspective and make sure people understand that it is safe.
And that's just presence, that's just, uh, marketing and making sure that people understand
we're not Metro, we're Metrolink, we're separate, and we need to maybe promote those statistics,
safe we are.
And I'll wrap this last comment because I know I've taken a lot of time.
But what I would think for future surveys is that somehow within the survey, even in
the instructions or whatnot, there needs to be a qualifier that says Metrolink is Metrolink.
You know, maybe people are confused about which survey they're really thinking about
while they're typing in their answers.
and maybe we're being skewed to things
that aren't really accurate.
Yeah, I think it's an opportunity for us to self-promote.
And it really isn't about Metro or Metrolink.
It's really just about when people go,
transportation is transportation.
They see transportation really in a general sense.
And sometimes we'll maybe just associate crime
with all transportation.
We need to, I think it's an opportunity for us
to self-promote and let people know how safe we are,
how clean we are, what a potentially terrific service
we can provide for you.
That's it.
Mr. Chair, if I could just, I also do, at the same time,
I do not want to minimize the points in this
because we have seen an uptick in activity.
We have added security, additional private security
to the Antelope Valley Line trains.
LA Metro has supported the additional resources
to do everything we can to try it,
because we do know that that is the key,
probably the key factor in people taking public transit
in general is that they feel safe and secure.
And so we recognize that, we've resourced it.
It is out there.
You will see our reports that come out and we have issues.
But we are trying to tackle those head on
so that it is not swept under.
Frank's team is doing a great job
and we're gonna continue to grow that
because I think that is critical for us.
We get painted as a broad brush
in this public transit space.
So, but we do have our areas
that we need to really focus on as well.
And I think our riders also do mention that in this survey.
So thank you, Henning, for making sure
we see both sides of the equation.
Any other comments or questions on this item?
Thank you, Henning.
This is a receive and file.
And without objection, that will be our order.
Next, we have our April legislative update
by Jeff Dunn, our director
of Government and Community Relations.
Good morning, Jeff.
Good morning, Chair, members of the committee.
Next slide, please.
In addition to items addressed in the written update,
I would like to share that the Antelope Valley Line
byline meetings are moving forward on schedule
with the city staff meeting taking place virtually next week,
on Tuesday, April 16th,
and the elected official outreach meeting
the following week on April 24.
As with the successful meetings held last year
with San Bernardino and Ventura County line meetings,
these will focus on issues that our communities
tell us matter most to them.
Expanded service, safety and security, quiet zones,
flexible, fair products, and quality of life issues.
We look forward to robust participation
in both of these meetings,
to share what Metrolink is doing in these areas,
and to listen to the communities we serve
to improve our service.
Board directors, whose jurisdictions traverse the AVL,
have been invited, and we look forward to seeing
and hearing from you at the byline meeting.
Next slide, please.
In state matters, I draw your attention
to the mention in your report of appointment
of our CEO Mr. Kettle as the sole rail representative to the Transit Transformation Advisory Committee,
which is a key statewide working group formed by the California Transit Association that
will promulgate legislative, policy, regulatory, and budget recommendations to CTA for advocacy.
This effort will play a central role, too, in the statutorily mandated reporting of the
Transit Transformation Task Force worn by the administration to deliver policy recommendations
to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the legislature by or before October of
2025.
The working group has just convinced its activity and will keep you apprised and the board
of any important recommendations it is considering as it moves forward.
Turning to federal matters, the big news is, not included in your report, that we just
returned from Washington, D.C., attending the annual American Public Transportation
Association legislative conference and while we were there received the great
news that Metrolinx CEO Mr. Kettle is invited by the subcommittee on railroads
pipelines and hazardous materials of the house transportation and infrastructure
committee to testify next week on April 17 on getting to work examining
challenges and solutions in the commuter rail industry. This is a big deal. It is
As only the second time in recent memory, the subcommittee has held a hearing devoted
solely to the commuter rail sector, and it offers a unique opportunity to testify directly
before the subcommittee of jurisdiction for Metrolink, the needs of our agency within
the context of those presented by representatives of the industry at large, and to directly
answer questions from the subcommittee.
I do not want to steal too much thunder from Mr. Kettle on this, and I know that he is
still developing his testimony, but we are immensely proud that he will be able to represent
Metrolink and the west coast as he joins his colleagues, the chief executives of commuter
rail operators in Indiana, Colorado, and Florida in testimony before the subcommittee. We will
report next month what they talk about and how this hearing can translate into actionable
outcomes beneficial to Metrolink and commuter rail as a whole in the near and medium term
future. Congratulations Darren. I asked Darren how he was gonna get all that we
wanted said to the committee in five minutes that he has to make his
presentation. Hopefully it'll from questions elicit more of the testimony
we'd like to get. Let's hope they do sir. While in DC Metrolinx staff included
including Paul Hubler, Chief Strategy Officer, myself and Michelle Stewart,
senior manager of Locomotive Fleet and facilities, were able to meet with 13
Senate and congressional offices on the Hill to ask for member support of
Metrolink grant applications, including our RAISE application of 25 million
dollars to fund seven new tier four locomotives, our fourth such application
to the program, and our joint climate pollution reduction grant application
with L.A. Metro, OCTA, Anaheim, and L.A. DOT for $498 million, of which 117 million
would fund two Metrolink AVL projects, the Balboa to Sierra Highway Double-Track project
and the Lancaster Station Improvements project.
We also advocated for Metrolink earmark submissions with each of the offices we met with, some
of which we have submitted, and others we are still waiting on forms and guidelines from
the offices. This year, Metrolink will submit 16 earmark requests to House and Senate delegation
offices in total. We expect all requests to be submitted this month. I'm happy to report
we have received some momentum on our RAISE application. Representative Julia Brownlee
is leading a congressional delegation letter of support for the application, and we have
secured a dozen member signatures in the three days since the letter was released for circulation.
We hope to have another dozen before we close the quill.
In addition, while in D.C., Michelle was able to get some FaceTime with FRA Administrator
Amit Bose for the second time this year to remind and urge support from Metrolinx RAISE
application which he personally encouraged us to reapply for in January.
So we remain hopeful the fourth time will be the charm.
Thank you.
This concludes my report.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much, Jeff.
Any questions or comments?
Well, that's a lot of good news, and we appreciate it.
Did you bring back any money with you?
I'll try to bring back some money next week.
How's that?
Very good.
This is a receiving file, and without objection,
that's what the committee will do.
Next, we have our Chief Executive Officer's Report.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Dunn just shared the news
that I was going to share during my CEO's report,
so I think we're covered.
That concludes my remarks, but I'm happy to take questions.
have a question. I know we're supposed to be doing and I assume we are a study that
LA Metro and SBCTA have asked for in terms of the ZMU traversing the San Bernardino line
all the way to Union Station. What's the status of that?
So the chair is speaking about an effort that has been a partnership with SBCTA LA Metro
and of course Metrolink we operate currently multiple units on the nine miles stretch between
San Bernardino and Redlands it's what we know is known as the known as the Aero service.
We are doing a study working through Justin Fornelli's program at on how do we potentially
implement multiple units beyond those nine miles on other parts of our system.
The studies underway I think it's pretty much completed for much of the San Bernardino segment
As we were waiting on funding from the California Transportation Commission that LA Metro had
dedicated to the program, that is the second, I don't call it the second phase, but the
final portion of getting it complete.
So it is in process.
I'd say Justin, what are we, 75 percent complete?
Yeah, okay, good enough.
Director Tremblay, that was a sure thumbs up from Justin Fournelli, by the way, since
You probably didn't see it here in the auditorium, but got it.
So yeah, that's where we are, Mr. Chair.
Well, I'm hopeful that the study will come back
and tell us how we can make it happen,
not why we can't make it happen.
Understood.
It is. That is the direction to the team.
Very good.
Thank you.
Any committee member comments?
I have a comment.
Go ahead.
Just briefly, you know, I was writing in today
And I heard a news report on some meetings that were being held in Orange County.
And I certainly defer to our Orange County members for better and more clear details.
But in particular with regard to our line that runs down the coast, a unique perspective
that I had heard and not heard before was that many of the homeowners
and property owners see our Metrolink Amtrak line
as the last defense of the oncoming oceans
and aren't so supportive of the inland route that has been
discussed.
Of course, we're billions of dollars away from that.
But very much a lot of support for maintaining and fortifying
the line with the riprap and sand and all that.
So I had not heard that perspective,
but it makes sense to me certainly much more cost-effective
than buying right-of-way through inland routes.
And the homeowners very much support us as well.
There was a comment about should the Metrolink line go down,
the waves crashing against the bluffs
would devastate the coastline there, so.
And of course, that's out of my county.
I do defer to our electeds from Orange County.
Or any comment or any further info on that?
Thank you for the comment.
There's a study been done along the cliffs.
There are other areas that need reinforcements.
We're trying to get ahead of that
instead of waiting for somebody to come crashing down.
And I think also what the homeowners may be thinking
is not only do we enforce the line,
we go into the hillside
and reinforce the hillsides when we can.
So it's hard to say that the sand war is going on down there.
And I just soon not to be in a sand fight.
But I think our goal is to strengthen what we have.
That's our first objective.
Putting a relocation is decades away and billions of dollars.
So I think, at least during my time,
I don't see this line being moved anywhere.
So thank you for that comment. I appreciate that
Thank you. Any other comments from committee members?
Seeing none chairs comments
You may notice that Don del Rio isn't here today
the reason being is that his mother has passed 91 years old and
Memorial service is being held today
So without objection, I'd like us to close this committee meeting in memory of his mother
With that then we are adjourned.