and I am on now maybe.
Good morning again.
It's my pleasure to call the meeting to order in our meeting
with the safety briefing by Hilary Conzow, our chief safety
security and compliance officer, Hilary.
Good morning, Chairman Shafi, board of directors.
In the event we need to evacuate the boardroom,
we'll exit the room, take the escalators down.
We'll exit the front entrance, and we'll turn to our right,
And we will meet in front of the Metro customer service.
Just when evacuating the boardroom,
just be mindful of tripping hazards and cords
and chairs and briefcases, that sort of thing.
In the event of a medical emergency,
we do have predetermined staff members
who will dial 911 and render aid.
In the event of an earthquake,
please take cover under your desks
and wait for the rumbling to stop
and we'll determine if further evacuation is necessary.
And then in the event of an active shooter,
we'll deploy the run-hide fight tactic.
Thank you.
Thank you, Hillary.
I've asked Director Marquez
if he'd please lead us in a pledge of allegiance.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ready, begin.
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Director Marquez.
Now, we do have a new board member, Mark Tetimer,
from Lake Forest.
And Mark, if you'd induce yourself
and ensure opportunity to sell anything you want.
I appreciate that.
Thank you, Chair Chaffee.
First of all, thank you to Chair Federico from OCTA
for appointing me to the position as a board alternate.
I appreciate that.
And I look forward to working with all of you
and helping MetroLink move forward.
Thank you.
Thank you for that introduction.
I might mention that at OCTA, we have an annual bus rodeo.
And Mark won the trophy for doing the best job driving
the bus among the directors.
I don't know how he would be driving a train,
but he's a great job with the bus.
And now, Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?
I need to do the roll call first.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I forgot that little detail.
OK, would you please do the roll call?
Director Nguyen? Director Goe? Present. Director Tennermer? Vice Chair
Bergson? Here. Director Spiegel? Director Vargas? Here. Director Molina? Second Vice Chair
Tremblay? Here. Director Engler? Here. Director Berger? Director Najarian? Here.
Director Sandoval? Director Solis? Director Olsen? Director Allen? Here.
Dr. O'Connor
Dr. Preciado
director McCallen
director Wapner
director do tray
director Marquez
chair chafee present. We do have a quorum present. Thank you. Oh, do we have any public comments? I
Have received one written public comment from Michael Mansurian
Regarding his perspective as a rider
Around the potential tap card integration and some suggestions for successful fair integration
Dependent on broad acceptance of fair media so that email will be sent to the board after the meeting
I have not received any requests to speak, but we also did run out of
Speaker cards, so I'll allow this is an opportunity if anyone wishes to speak
See no one
Thank you madam clerk
And with that we'll move to our consent calendar
If there's any item that a director would like to hear separately, please let us know and there's no one from the public here
Asking for a separate item. I see anyone. I don't see anyone
with a
Light on or request or hand up. Okay, so may have a motion to approve the consent calendar
move McCallum I
Do see a light on I'm sorry
All right, the consent calendar is approved unanimously
so let's go to our regular calendar and we now have our
Adoption of investment policy for 2026 and we are going to be presented by Tom Schammer our chief financial officer
Good morning chair chafee members of the board. I
Want to thank you for letting me go first it clearly shows your interest in the investment policy. We're putting before you today
So thank you for that
Next slide please.
In this item, we are doing two things.
Every year, we're required to do these two things.
One is to review our investment policy
to make sure it is current with all current government code.
And secondly, we require you to designate the treasurer
every one year annual period.
And we are asking you to designate me, the CFO,
as the treasurer for the coming year.
Next slide.
So we reviewed our policy against California Government
Code and the local agency investment guidelines.
We did not find any material changes needed.
There were a handful of administrative changes,
the biggest one being a strengthening
of the reporting to the CFO treasurer
if our cash balance falls below the $50 million threshold.
We now believe with these changes we're fully compliant.
Next slide, please.
So we are recommending that you approve the proposed investment
policy annual revision and that you designate the chief financial
officer as treasurer for the agency for an additional year.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Director, is there any questions?
I don't see anyone with a hand raised or light on.
Oh, I direct.
Yeah.
Just move the item.
Do you see one now?
Okay move the item okay, that that's good. Do I have a second?
Is there any objection? I see none therefore we'll declare the
Matter approved unanimously, so thank you and congratulations on serving as our designated person for the year. Thank you
And we're talking about a mid-year budget amendment and Christine Wilson
Is that a hat?
It's a fascinator hat and I figured if I'm bringing a budget amendment I better try to be fascinating
So good morning
chairman chafee and members of the board
As I said, I'm bringing on a mid-year budget amendment next slide, please
Now this slide really just shows the the policy the financial policy that allows us to make amendments to the budget
for new
Circumstances and so I wanted you to see that next slide
So this year we have three
Circumstances that staff beliefs provide basis to request an amendment to the fy-26 budget
First a request from LA Metro to increase the outside 20 project to include the Pasadena
Subdivision which has recently been turned over to us
for maintenance
That is in an amount of
00029 and Metro has already provided an amendment to their FY26 MOU to cover this
Second I believe that we're all aware of the difficulties
we're experiencing in securing parts for the repair of our locomotives and the extent to which our services is impacted by this
The solution we feel is to order parts now
Lead times can exceed a year and to provide an adequate amount of parts
We will need to order almost three million dollars in additional inventory over the course of the time
We expect six hundred thousand of this to be issued and therefore charged to expense in fY 26
This will require an amendment of six hundred thousand to our materials budget
finally
Deterioration of seat covers on our passenger cars requires emergency replacement
This will require an amendment of 500,000 to our capital budget. In other words state of good repair
next slide
so the requested
Operating
Amendments and therefore staff requests the approval of an additional
314,000 Oh 29 for outside 20 and
An additional six hundred thousand for material issues
So the total requested amendment to the operating budget is
914,029 next slide
for the capital budget in state of good repair staff recommends the approval of an amendment of
500,000 to cover the seat replacements next slide
That concludes my report. May I answer any questions directors questions?
Not a very inquisitive group this morning. Oh, yes a director Marquez, please mr.
Mr. Shavey, just real fast.
Regarding the equipment, we're having to order.
Why is it so difficult to get a hold of the equipment?
Is there a problem acquiring the equipment?
Yeah, because we're the only ones who have the F125s.
So we didn't have any foresight to buy the equipment?
We bought the equipment initially?
I'll feel this, Christine.
So Director Marquez, when we went down the path with the F125,
There were two manufacturers that were out there.
We ended up going with Progress Rails, F125.
Again, we now are the proud owners
of the only 40 that existed,
so we do wrestle with getting Progress Rail
to be responsive and providing parts for that locomotive.
We've seen some improvement in the last few months
as we've really put pressure on trying to access
those parts through our materials management team.
We certainly didn't know in 2016, 2017,
when we acquired the F-125s, we would be in this boat,
where we'd be the only owners of that piece of equipment.
So that has been one of the issues.
And then there's just supply chain issues
is hitting heavy equipment across the board,
whether you're in our business
or other heavy equipment business.
So it's taking time to get that kind of those parts.
So that's why we need to try to get ahead of it.
And our, if anything, our budget, we really,
As we've tried to be responsive on our budget issues,
we've probably not put our parts budget where
it needed to be to make sure that we had the inventory on hand.
So that's where we are now and trying to get there
in a better place.
It's good that we're doing something, number one.
Number two, when you buy a new car, there's a warranty.
Was there any warranty with these locomotives?
Yes, and we are now effectively out of warranty.
Thank you.
Questions I've seen on may have a motion
Any objection
Seeing none the item is approved again unanimously
we now come to the rebuild of some of our rail cars and
They're requiring an increase in the contract authority presented by Christian Velez our project engineer
Thank you
next slide, please
So for the total car fleet count the authority owns 258 passenger rail cars
121 of which are the Bombardier rail cars and then 137 for the Honda. I wrote them cars
For the Bombardier fleet 88 of the generation one cars are executed under contract
and currently being rebuilt and
There remaining 33 cars for so the 7 gen 2 cars and the 26 generation 3 cars are
going to be addressed in today's request and then for added information 57 out of
the hundred thirty seven Hyundai Rotom cars our cab cars and then 80 our trailer
cars. Next slide. So on May 10th 2019 contract EP 19919 was awarded for 50 of
the generation one cars to be rebuilt and then later on April 30th of 2025
option order one was executed to add the remaining 38 additional of the
generation one cars to be rebuilt so for a total of 88 cars and then now we're
here today to request an increase in contract authorization for option order
number two to be executed for the 26th generation three cars to be rebuilt
first and then later as an option order three for the 7th generation two cars
when funding becomes available. The photos above show the improvements that
are being made on the generation one cars during the rebuild. The top photo to
to the left shows the before and after
the restroom system improvements there.
And then the photos in the middle show the improvements
being made to the seating area,
going from a fabric type material to the vinyl.
And then also the addition of charging ports
in between every seat for added customer convenience.
And then both of which have actually received
great customer feedback, so that's good.
And then the photos to the right show
some other improvements to the interior
with the carpet being replaced to a more durable
and easier to maintain flooring,
and then also the replacement
of the interior lighting to LEDs.
And there's other work that's being done on these cars
and all are gonna get done on the generation three cars
and generation two cars if approved.
And that all of this work is also increasing reliability,
it's enhancing customer experience,
and it's also extending the service life of the equipment.
Next slide.
For the total cost to do the 33 cars
is 89.4 million.
With a 10% contingency of 8.9 million,
the total project cost is 98.4 million.
And after applying the remaining existing contract authority
of 15 million,
we're needing a requested additional contract authority
of 83.3 million.
So it is recommended that the board authorize the CEO
to amend contract number EP 199.19
for the rebuild of the Bombardier railcars
with taco sister joint venture,
increasing the total contract authorization amount
from $152,871,246.50 to $236,231,989.32 And this will support the execution of optional
number two for the 26th generation three cars first and then a future option order three
for the seven generation two cars when funds become available.
Next slide.
And this concludes my presentation.
Thank you.
Director has questions.
Director Marquez.
Sorry.
Sorry, I want to ask you, I know the Olympics are coming up in a couple years.
All our cars are going to be at a certain level that we're anticipating?
Sorry, what was your question?
We're doing some work right now, right?
Are all the cars that we have, are they going to be at a certain level for the Olympics coming up in 2028?
Yeah, so right now we have 88 of the Generation 1 cars executed under contract,
so those are expected to be completed before the Olympics.
And then if we were to go forward with the generation
three cars of 26, 24 of those would be completed.
So it's a total of 112 cars completed out of the 121.
So we're going to be in pretty good shape then?
Yeah.
OK.
One other question, a follow-up.
I know I've talked to our CEO on the exterior of some
of our cars.
Are we going to get those at a higher level?
Because some of them are pretty not very nice looking.
For the Bombardier fleet, yes, it's part of the scope
for them to paint the exterior with the new Metrolink scheme.
And if we do see a problem out there,
commissioners, directors, we can let you guys know
to get them offline and do something with them?
Yeah, the appearance, the appearance are a flake.
It's everybody's first impression.
And so it's important to us.
That's why we've gone with the rebranding
on the color scheme and that kind of thing.
So if we hear about it, we'll adjust it.
One quick thing after though with Christian was we will at some point not proceed or postpone
moving some of that equipment for rehabilitation during the Olympics so that we have the full
fleet available to us so we won't send some of the cars to Wisconsin where the overhaul is done
so that we have them available for the games and so there will be a period that we will see
not some work not being performed to ensure we have every piece of equipment available thank you sir
director trampley thank you mr chair um thank you for the report and the recommendations and
i understand but i had a couple questions so according to the staff report there were multiple
scenarios that were considered you know one was to exercise the the tacho sister options the second
was to procure a new overhaul contract the third was to procure all new rail cars and again i'm not
questioning the recommendation.
But I found it interesting that the new overhaul initially
appeared less expensive.
But then the factors came in and it
didn't account for, number one, contingency.
So not quite clear on that.
Number two, procurement risk, or three scheduled delays.
Was procurement risk quantified in some way?
I think we just historically is what we based it off of.
So, estimating, you know, about a year in procurement
and then that's if we're able to find another contractor
to do the work, and then, yeah, so.
Well, I'm just wondering, the recommendation is based on,
you know, exercising, you know, the particular option
that that's the basis for the staff recommendation
as being the lowest risk and avoiding delay.
But what was the greatest criteria that staff used
in making the recommendation.
Was it timely delivery prior to the 2028 Olympics?
Sorry, I'm the contract administrator for this contract.
Thanks, Torothea.
So one of the things for the risk
was to make sure that we had every piece of equipment
available for the Olympics.
But also, when you're talking about procurement risks,
the time and schedule, we would lose an entire year
before we had another contract.
So this equipment would not be overhauled.
would not be touched. So there's the risk of not actually awarding a contract. So
this is really a situation one could imagine where the primary driver for
the recommendation is that we have these we have these deliverables for the 28
Olympics and I'm balancing that against what we thought might be the lesser
overall cost if we went with an overhaul contract right but because we have the
would it be fair to conclude that because we have the 28 Olympics and we
need to have those... where I'm going with this is I think this is an
example of where from a cost standpoint we are spending more money as opposed to
the alternative just to make sure that we have these cars available on a timely
basis. I'm not faulting that but I think is that a fair
conclusion to draw. Director this is Justin Fournelli, Chief of Program
Delivery. I think that that factor in regards to the Olympics is one of many
factors that we took into account. I think one of the big things to consider
with this is that as Christian mentioned the build quality of these cars with
this existing contractor has been phenomenal. We've had the use of these is
what 99.6% of availability of these cars. The other part of this is have you
heard from the previous item in regards to our parts availability, having the
same vendor providing the same overhaul and improvement makes sure that we have
all the same systems and parts throughout the entire fleet. And so I
think that was probably a larger consideration than the Olympics.
The Olympics did play a part but really this comes back to the systems and the
parts and the quality, the build quality that we're getting from this vendor. Okay
because as I was reviewing the staff report
and thinking about it, and that makes sense.
And it's not that I disagree with the recommendation,
but I wanted to be sure I knew where the criteria,
what the primary criteria were.
Because otherwise, if we voted in concert
with the staff recommendation,
this would be another example, I think,
where from a fiscal standpoint,
we are spending more money with the 28 Olympics
as the driver, and I'm concerned
about the lack of support to date from the federal government.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I won't go into this.
I've been spouting off on this since December of 2023
in terms of the cost of the rate payers.
But if you're telling me, Justin,
that the continuity standpoint
and the excellent workmanship, et cetera, that's good.
That would be a greater weight in the criteria?
Very much so.
I would say the primary weight in this decision.
Okay, thank you.
Thanks, Martha.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dutry?
I just wanna compliment the,
you said it, Justin, compliment the bombierders,
the refurbish looks really good.
I wrote another one today and it looks brand new, basically.
But my question is on the Rotem cars.
So that's a newer car.
When is the life of that car end?
We'll get to the point we have to replace it
or refurbish it, is there a time frame for that?
So right now those cars are just reaching midlife.
And so there is some money set aside
Have work continued to at least take care of some of the issues on the cars in the meantime. We're waiting to get those cars overhauled
So yeah, so that's assume after 28 that we start having a discussion. I move for approval. Okay
It's your second. I'll go ahead in second and but for this price tag
I think they should just throw in the refurbishing of the last seven as well
We'll attempt that in the negotiations. Thank you. Thank you
All right, we have a motion a second. I think it's important for our ridership purposes to that we have outstanding
Cars for people to enjoy when they ride the system
So without any objection to the staff recommendation I seen on
so the motion as is approved now we go on to
7d on our
Agenda which is a cab room camera local to digital video recorder system replacement
So I need that one to be explained. So please please
Kevin please go ahead. Thank you chair. Good morning to the board members
next slide, please
The authority currently has an incab camera and locomotive digital video recorder system installed across the fleet
This includes one outward facing and two inward facing cameras in the engineer cab room in each locomotive and cab car
Existing system components have become obsolete and failures have increased
Additionally, a new FRA regulation requires that each passenger train be equipped with an LDBR system with crash-hardened memory by October 2027
Next slide
An RFP for a new LDBR system was issued in September 2025
Six proposals were received by the deadline of which four were found to be technically acceptable
Following technical and price scoring railhead corporation was found to be the highest ranked proposer. Next slide
Following negotiations, Railhead's final cost was determined to be fair and reasonable.
Railhead is the current supplier for the authorities' LDVR equipment, so is already familiar with our fleet.
Additionally, Railhead confirmed that several cost items were built into their kit price, which reduced their overall cost,
and confirmed that all deliverables and requirements would be met.
Railhead's equipment is also currently in use by other railroads, which have already received FRA approval under the new LDVR regulation.
Next slide.
Is recommended that the board authorized the chief executive officer to negotiate and execute contract number EP?
249-26 for cabroom camera and LD VR system replacement with rail head for a total not to exceed contract authority of two million
seventy three thousand two hundred thirty-five dollars and twenty cents
So what is subject to resolution of any timely filed protests next slide that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions
directors questions
Yes
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a question on why were requesting a 20% contingency when
we think all of the costs are much lower because they're familiar with the system, familiar
with our cars and everything. Why 20%? Primarily due to the fact that the deadline
is coming up soon and we want to make sure that we're covered should anything come up
as we approach that deadline during the installations.
I still don't understand why 10% even with that answer.
Yeah, it's Justin's coming to the mic now.
So, yeah.
Director, I think the contingency to Kevin's response
is gives us staff a little bit more flexibility
in case we run into any issues that we
can use that that continues to continue to advance the program. I think the
concern is with this deadline that if we have any cars that are don't have this
new system in place by that deadline they have to be parked. We can't operate
them at all until this system is installed and so I think the key thing
with us for us is you know we're supporting our operations team we want
to make sure that we have all equipment available for operations. And if I could
real quickly I think one of the other things may be involved in this is
because we have such a quick time frame we may dip into a contingency quicker
because we are asking them to do effectively more work faster and it
gives us that flexibility that Justin's mentioned. Appreciate the answer I'll
move the item. I'm not questioning it. It got passed over but we didn't mean to do that. Sure you
didn't. I'm past that midlife and I'm wondering what overhaul I need on that
20% is that also because of the fact of if there needs to be additional monies
and we're not able to meet to to approve it is that part of that contingency
right okay I just want to make sure that was a key part thank you all right any
more questions seeing none and we do have a motion all right is there any
objection from any director to the recommended action. Seeing none, the action
is approved unanimously. I come to a series of receive and file items in our
agenda. I would ask if there's no objection, we kind of don't need to hear
them all, but there's some that are of particular interest and we should
Hear them like I think a report. I like the you hear the report on ridership revenue financial results
I'd like to see how that's going and
I don't know does the annual financial
Comprehensive of the financial report of interest anyone at this point or should we move past that I mean
I'm interested in one of the findings I
Get it get an answer on that. I'd be fine
And they're in there at the podiums
There is a finding in there about the management
overriding
Good practices in terms of making sure we don't have any
Issues from a standpoint of fraud or whatever
It's on
Mr.. Barb. Yes, going with this one all right Alex barber. I'm the assistant director of general accounting
I believe you're referring to the finding associated with our revenues
So we did have a finding that was associated with our insurance revenues
Essentially what was happening was the timing of the recognition of those revenues
No, it's really the management override of internal controls
It's a significant risk identified
Yes, and I believe that comment was made in in relation to the
So the let us know who you are. Oh, my name is Kyle Bartle. I'm with I Bailey when the senior managers overseeing the audit
So in the audit in our professional standards, we are required to identify areas that are a risk that requires
Specific
Of those risks some meet the criteria of what we call a significant risk
These were things that we have
documented internally before several years ago.
The auditing standards change in which we now have
to disclose those to you,
or those items that we consider to be significant risks.
Those three items you have listed there,
beginning with the management override of internal controls,
that is a risk that's inherent to all organizations
that rely upon internal controls for the preparation
and recording of financial transactions.
No specific?
Nothing unique to your organization.
That is inherent to every single organization
that we would audit.
OK, I just wanted to know if we had an issue there
with management.
Thank you.
If there was a matter that was regarding an issue
with management's controls, we would report those to you.
As Alex did mention, there was a finding recommendation
from our audit.
It's not an issue with management.
It's a matter of an issue of an area of improvement
in internal controls.
Any other questions?
Thank you, Director Dutry.
Yeah, going back to risks,
it mentions, let me go back to the prior slide, please.
On the risk, it mentions estimated pension amounts
and other little bit of amounts
and then also revenue, recognition, what does that mean?
So in the preparations of financial statements,
there are certain estimates that management
must rely upon.
When they rise to a level of a significant estimate
based upon generally their value,
there's other subjective criteria,
we identify that as a significant risk
because we do need to perform specific audit procedures,
become comfortable with the amounts that management has.
So, again, it's not because of the nature
of your unique estimate that's being used.
It's inherent because those relate to your pension
and your other post-employment benefits
in which you rely upon an actuary
and assumptions that have been applied
to project a long-term amount that we say is subject
to possibly change, but as we know,
it fluctuates significantly every year.
Thank you.
I don't see any other hands or lights on.
With that, thank you for those explanations.
This is a receive and file item.
And without objection, that we received and filed.
Next one is our December monthly report
of ridership, road and financial results.
So how are we doing?
Chris Wilson again.
Next slide please.
This chart shows the system-wide ridership
for each month of FY26.
The columns are actuals while the black line is the budget.
Year to date, in the first half of the fiscal year,
ridership was forecast at $4.5 million or a 75% recovery,
while the actual is $3.4 million or a 58% recovery
under budget by $1 million.
Next slide.
This slide displays the system-wide fare revenues
for each of the first six months of fiscal year 26.
Through December, Fairbox revenues were budgeted at $27.2 million or a 66% recovery,
while actual is $21.8 million or a 53% recovery under budget by $5.5 million.
Because actuals were trending under the original forecast, and therefore the budget provided
by Sperry Capital KPMG, we requested a refresh of that forecast.
Next slide, please.
We see here the results of that refreshed forecast.
The original forecast for the year was 51.7 million,
while the new forecast is 37.1 million.
This indicates that our actual Fairbok revenue will come
in at a shortfall of 14.7 million, or 28% to budget.
Variances by line are as shown on this slide.
Next slide. We see here the results of that refreshed forecast.
The original forecast was, oh, I'm sorry, I already did that, sorry, excuse me.
We will not be amending the FY26 budgeted revenue for this shortfall,
nor will we be requesting additional funding related to this forecast refresh.
Beginning in our January report, we will be showing variances between both the budget
and the refreshed forecast.
So this slide shows systemwide ridership
by month through December.
The columns are actuals.
Brown is last year, and blue is this year.
Darker colors at the bottom of the columns
are paid ridership, while the lighter top are subsidies.
You will note that for paid ridership,
each month of this year is greater than last year.
Next slide.
This slide shows system-wide fare revenues by month through December.
This is fare revenues by line.
In this slide, the additional green bar is budget.
Four of the seven lines performed better this year than last,
even at the level including subsidies.
You can see that the lines with lesser overall performance compared to last year
were those that depended heavily on subsidies
from the Student Adventure Pass last year.
Next slide.
Next slide, please.
These slides show system-wide and each line by month
compared to budget for ridership.
I will allow you to review those yourself.
Next slide.
So these are the individual lines showing each month
for each individual line.
Next slide.
Next slide.
So the financial results for December of 25.
Total operating revenue is 31.5 million
under budget by 5.1 million or 13.4%.
Total expenses are 159.4 million under budget
by 16.1 million or 9.2%.
Overall member agency support required
is currently in surplus by 11.1 million.
And, of course, I point out to you that the reason
that we're not requesting any extra funding is
that we're thinking that this $11.1 million surplus will cover
the anticipated future shortfall in revenue.
The major categories that are under budget are shown
on this slide.
Next slide, please.
This is showing you the first page of the operating statement.
And as you can see there, we are under budget by $5 million
or 24% at the top of the revenue line.
That's just FairVox revenue not including
our various subsidies.
And at the line of operating revenue,
we're under by $5 million.1.
Next slide.
This is just, once again, all the individual lines
in the operating budget and how much they're individually
under budget.
Next slide.
And this shows at the bottom here, the $11 million
that we are in surplus currently from the budget.
Next slide.
Arrow services next.
Next slide.
This shows the ridership by month compared to budget.
Even with considerable dependent on the student adventure pass,
Arrow has, for the past two months,
exceeded the previous year as far as the base ridership.
Next slide.
This slide shows revenue by month.
The variance is attributable to the ending
of the student adventure pass.
Next slide.
Arrow financial results through December.
Operating revenue is 247,000 under budget by 88,000.
Expenses are 7.6 million under budget by 1.5 million
or 17% and support is 7.3 million under budget by 1.4 million or 17% next slide that concludes
my report may I answer any questions questions I don't see any questions I'll thank you for
the report this again as a receiving file item looks like we've got some more work to
do on ridership. Yes, thank you. Well there aren't that many left. We now have our onboard
survey of the market insights and analytics. Any Eichler? Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chair,
members of the board. I'm pleased to share with you the results of our 2025 onboard survey.
Metilink's first onboard customer survey since 2018. While the pandemic made
in-person onboard service impossible, we were limited to online surveys which
pointed to fundamental changes in our ridership base. But only in-person
onboard surveys can really guarantee that the service results are in fact
representative of our actual ridership which makes this onboard survey our gold
standard. Next slide please. The survey was conducted in June of last year with
trained surveyors surveying riders on all lines on both weekday and weekend
trains. In total we received four thousand three hundred fifty seven
responses for a response rate of 85%. That makes the results accurate with a margin
of error of plus minus 1.27% and 95% confidence. Next slide please. Findings
point to three important transformations in Metrolink ridership.
First, our riders are changing. The data provide evidence of just how ridership
has changed. How it has grown demographically and economically more
diverse. Second, the journey itself is evolving. Findings reveal that
underlying changes in the nature of travel have resulted in more infrequent
and non-commute trips. And finally, as Metrolinx becomes a regional railroad,
the customer experience is becoming more polarized the data show how commuters
and non commuters experience and evaluate the service vastly different
next slide please as the ridership grows more diverse it also more closely
resembles the California population overall the most significant change has
has been the growth in the share of Hispanic riders.
That share has grown to 40%.
That's up from 30% in 2018.
Now Hispanics form the largest ridership segment,
as you can see in the chart above.
When we look at the age characteristics of our riders,
we see that post-pandemic ridership growth
has been driven by two age groups.
First of all, there's the young riders.
That's those under 30 years of age
who now account for 25% of our ridership.
And secondly, there's seniors, those over 65 years of age.
Their share has grown by, has almost doubled to 11%
since 2018.
And those are the two groups that are also
less likely to have access to a car.
So we have seen that with a growth in these two segments,
our transit dependency has also grown,
from 17% to now 27%.
Next slide, please.
Growth in younger and older riders
also explains the increase in lower income groups
that we have seen.
Riders with incomes under $50,000
grew by 13 percentage points from 23% in 2018 to now 36%.
It also reflects 18% fewer riders who employed full time.
Much of that can be traced to the doubling of student
ridership from 15% to now 27%.
Next slide, please.
The change in the Metrolink ridership
can be best illustrated by these two charts.
The left chart shows ridership by frequency.
In 2018, 60% of our rides were five days a week or more.
Now that share has declined to 35%.
At the same time, trips of one to four days per week
have increased from 23% to now 39%.
And obviously, it reflects the increase in hybrid work
among our commuters.
Those trips of less than once a month
have nearly doubled from 10% to now 18%.
The second chart on the right shows the change by trip
purpose.
work still accounts for a slight majority of trips, with 53%.
But that is down from 74% in 2018.
So today, non-work trips account for 47% of ridership.
That's specifically for leisure and social visits,
which have doubled since 2018.
What's interesting is also, obviously, ridership in 2018
was almost double what it is today.
But in actual numbers, today we're
carrying more non-commuters than we did in 2018.
Next slide, please.
So what does all this mean for MetruLink moving forward?
Today, more than ever before, MetruLink
is serving two large distinct ridership markets.
First, there's the leisure riders,
with new generation of younger, diverse, and more
price-sensitive occasional riders. And that is our growth engine currently. And
second, there's our frequent and most loyal riders. Many of them have been
riding MetruLink for five, ten, or more years. They offer stability and
predictability of our fare revenue. But they also perceive service quality to
decline. So for us the challenge as the regional railroad is that sustainable
growth depends on meeting the needs of both of these ridership groups. Next slide
please. So for the next steps we will be sharing the results of this survey with
our riders and stakeholders and we will be continuing to track satisfaction
metrics the survey has identified as what are the most important aspects of our service
to our riders.
That completes my presentation, and I'd be happy to take your questions.
Director's questions, see any fascinating data and may have some insight as to how we
should market our services, I think.
But basically the survey is telling us that our ridership has changed different ways
But the more riders who are dependent on the system are also more dependent on subsidies less
You know fares we have discount fares for seniors discount fare for students that camera we have we have discount fares for
Low income, but that becomes more of a need to for our riders
Yes, I mean obviously we have seen those riders have responded to their discounts that we have implemented
Yes, so riders that were willing to pay the full amount is becoming less and the riders are dependent on discounts is growing essentially
Yes, but obviously if we're looking at students, yes, the hope of course is that we introduce students to
Metrolink right and they have been you know, very happy with the service. So we hope of course that once they
Gain employment. They will continue to ride. Okay. Well, that's one of the challenges that we have a board is is you know
we're trying to our affairs are
for dropping obviously our we just changed the
Projections for next year we're gonna lower the amount of fairs
We're gonna receive and that requires our memory agencies to increase subsidies to go forward
I know that's be a discussion Darren. You're having those discussions right now with memory agencies and going through next year's
fiscal year budgets, and I think couple of, at least one or two agencies, I think one agency is asking for a reduction
in their subsidies going forward. And so my question to you is in the fiscal year coming up,
I mean, what happens if some of the agents begin to say that we can't afford these subsidies? We haven't dropped it.
I mean, I think you're also discussing possible service reductions.
What I've been quoted as saying in various forums is everything's on the table.
We do have our challenges on the revenue side as it relates to ridership
We will have to look at
What we do here from our member agencies. We I think we are now up to two
Member agencies that one official notice one unofficial, but we understand the officials coming. It is going to be a really challenging budget year
For us as an agency. We're going to be looking at a variety of
options some will be service reductions I think some we have not adjusted fares
in this at Metrolink in over 10 years 12 years so we are going to have some hard
conversations director do tray and the the new the new forecast as it relates
to ridership is you know we've got a one-time fix because we have this
surplus right now that gets us through this this year but the hens come home to
roost real quick and so I don't want to you know the team is working on where
we where we find that as we speak we're not there yet but I can assure you we
are gonna have some hard conversations coming up. I would agree with that and I
know we're gonna talk about the service growth as well on the agenda itself but
I think as a board and we had the workshop we discussed as the workshop
and but I think we're out of time now if we don't start seeing some improvements
in our revenue, those conversations we're speaking of,
that's not gonna be this year, this fiscal year coming up,
it could be the next fiscal year,
right in the middle of the Olympics, too.
So, I'll leave it there.
Excuse me.
Dr. Spiegel?
Well, Riverside's not there.
In fact, we're looking for additional service,
so I just want to be proud
that we are still strong supporters.
But with that being said,
we kind of skirt the issues of convenience
on time performance and that is what regardless of age, regardless of going to work, I mean
if you're going down and meeting family, time is a factor and I think those are the things
that we need to really focus on is make it convenient when someone goes up to the station
of all ages because some of us on the older end, we were just talking about the three
of us. Okay. That machines and stuff and getting tickets still is complicated. For young kids
and older, then it just whatever. And then the secondary, you know, is it, what is the
reason for the constant delays? I say constant because that's what the word was used for
me. You just need to figure that out because for, if we want to get the work folks back
Even if it's only one to three days a week, it seems like a five day work week is obsolete now.
Director Spiegel, I mean, there's three things that we hear from our riders that needs to be safe,
it needs to be clean, it needs to be reliable.
We do that.
That's the blocking and tackling.
Those are the fundamentals of doing what we do.
And, you know, one of the things we certainly struggled with was on-time performance
during the second half of 2025.
I'm biting my tongue as we say this,
but in the month of February,
we're at about, Metrolink Responsible,
about 95% on-time performance.
So the stuff that we control, we're getting better at,
working with our mechanical team and our operations team.
So we're seeing some progress there.
There are gonna be those areas,
as you've seen when you get our notices
from our communications team about strikes,
and you don't hear all the news
about freight railroad interference,
but that continues to plague us.
We continue to work on that.
We've actually developed,
the member agencies have been great
wanting to help step up and support that.
Don Felipe is working in fact with Sheldon Peterson
at RCTC on trying to wrangle some of these things
to address freight railroad issues.
That is gonna be the area where
if people need to be able to count on us
and that is one of the areas that we know
we have an issue on amongst other things
We discuss at the workshop, but the the nature of you know getting our reliability
Where it needs to be is going to be something that our we know customer matters to customers
Thank You mr. Chair just a quick question. I know there's a tipping point
I know that seniors and young people basically are paying their fair share to get where they want to go
But I noticed that I go out of North Pomona and this past year
I'm having to pay for parking or before I didn't have to is that a tipping point where basically I might be using all my
Money to to use Metro link and now I'm having to pay for parking and is this happening at all our stations or just North Pomona
It's at this point. It is just North Pomona
That was something that was put in place by LA Metro with the extension of the a line to to North Pomona
Because of the the what was anticipated to be this increase in need for parking they have
Started charging at that location most of our stations don't have that is we have and it's generally done
locality by locality
So it's it's varying but certainly Pomona that's been the change is because of the a line extension
Just a question follow-up question on that. I know the parking that we used to have for Metro link is no longer for Metro link
It's for the a line. So they have a big parking lot
our way and everybody that we used to park at MetroLink we no longer have the
spaces that we used to have. My recollection or understanding is the
what we'll call the MetroLink parking that you were accustomed to is still no
charge. You charge now. We're charging it okay I'm getting a head nod so so I
think the intent director Marquez there was you don't have one that's free and
one that's not. So it makes sense that we would collectively would charge, but
again those stations are owned by either the local community or Metro instigated
the charging at that location. I think again it ties
together back with the A-line extension. Just one follow-up question on the
money stamp we do pay like I pay. Do we get a share of that money or is it go to
LA Metro? We do not get a share of that. Thank you. I would urge you to park at
Montclair. Well I just want to say instigated is a kind of tough word being
thrown at Metro but I'll let it go. How can you not let it go because it is only
one station and it's not in Riverside County? Well it's you know too bad Tim
was in here, who is the mayor of Pomona, who would have a little more info exactly on how
that goes, but otherwise I would be speculating. Metro doesn't have that many stations that
they charge for, like North Hollywood, which isn't even a MetroLink station, but the rest
of them, like Glendale, let's say, is a city owned and the city develops the policies on
fees for that so but everyone might I don't know the specific details of that
station so we'll hit Tim up next time okay we know we're not to park then
okay this is a receiving file item with enough for the questions the item will
be received and filed now we come to our legislative we update hopefully it's one
And it has some money in it, I hope.
We can always dream.
Morning, Chair Chafee, members of the board.
Next slide, please.
In-state matters, as noted in your report, January 31st
was the deadline for each house to pass bills introduced
in that house last year.
February 20th was the last day for bills
to be introduced this session.
Senate Bill 667 by Senator Bob Archuleta of Pico Rivera
is a railroad safety bill that would
require Railroad Corporation to install and operate wayside detector systems
every 10 miles on or adjacent to track used by Class 1 freight trains. Non
compliance would result in a 10 mile per hour speed limit. The bill passed the
Senate in January by 26 11 vote and is now in the assembly not yet referred to
committee. The California Transit Association has very recently taken an
opposed position on this bill. Joining the freight railroads and the San Joaquin
regional rail Commission and JPA in opposition. We know too Caltrain is
considering opposing and Metrolink is also considering its options as the bill
does impose significant costs to install equipment whose safety, efficacy and
passenger rail is under question. The 10 mile per hour requirement too is
unworkable in practical terms on our shared network. We'll keep the border
prize should the bill continue to move through the legislative process as
transit and rail stakeholders become more engaged on this bill.
Since the bill introduction deadline last week, there have been a number of other bills
impactful to the rail sector.
First, dealing with CEQA exemption for certain railroad crossings, authorization to fund
more high speed rail related projects beyond the Merced to Bakersfield corridor, including
bookend projects from the greenhouse gas reduction fund, and legislation to clarify transit oriented
development zones for projects near high frequency transit stops following legislation passed
last year by Senator Scott Wiener, SB 79, intending to incentivize more transit oriented
development. Such legislation can be impactful to Metrolinx stops in station cities and we
will closely monitor these efforts, which include a couple of spot or intent bills to
further clarify what was passed last year. We will keep the board apprised.
Finally, in state matters, I would like to share that on February 18, the California
State Transportation Subcommittee on Low SIN Rail Corridor Resiliency held an informational
hearing strengthening governance and performance of Southern California Rail.
State leaders from Caltrans and CalSDA outlined ongoing resiliency investments and service
restoration efforts, while a second panel featuring Metrolink CEO Mr. Kettle and Caltrans
Jason Baker addressed operations and revenue realities
on their respective systems.
If I could just real quickly, Jeff, interrupt there.
This speaks to the question you raised of me, Director Nizari.
And that was the February 18th event.
Chair Blakespear asked a number of questions
about the challenges that we're experiencing
that we've sort of daylighted here just a while.
We've been daylighting for a while,
but we just discussed during Mr. Eichler's presentation
Where we were where we were sharing the news about what our fiscal challenges are and she was asking questions about well
What where is Metro Lincoln? Why are you not coming to?
Sacramento to ask for additional resources and I was able to explain a little bit about our governance structure and our fiscal
process that we have here
That was saying this is as a five county system a JPA
We operate very much of the five counties coming together and at this point while we do see that there's a appears to be a
Significant need for additional resources to continue our rail operations
In a deep in a status quo level that right now. That's
We don't have consensus in the region about how we might pursue that
and so those are the remarks that I had made and
Amongst other things just a nature of what our system is how we're performing that kind of thing
So directing dish iron. I don't know if that answers your question, but I wanted to make sure I hit that cuz you had made that request
That's perfect. Yes, sir. I just wanted to say though
We have received our office as we always do from the subcommittee in each of mr. Kettles prior appearances deep appreciation
from the senators and staff for sharing his time expertise to assist the
committee's role in dealing with the challenges that are endemic to the
corridor. Next slide please. Mr. Chair before we leave state, I'd like to move
that we oppose the first bill that he mentioned. Which one was that?
I'd like to move that we take a position of
opposing that bill
With that is there a possibility of amending it to make it acceptable or is it just a bad bill?
This was debated both at legislative committee at CTA
And at the retreat in La Quinta this weekend
And it is the considered judgment of the association the bill cannot be amended to make it acceptable to the association
Add door to us
Yes
So that I think that the suggestion then is that we oppose it
I see some lights on I wonder
Spiegel let's take some comments ladies first
Wasn't about the bill so if you're gonna have the conversation, but I do have a question on the bill
Can you is the print I just want to know a couple of the points of why it's being opposed
One of my assumptions is there's no funding for it
Yes, it would impose an unfunded mandate
of about $5 million just to implement the program
on our system, and then ongoing implementation costs.
The prescriptive nature of the bill slowing trains
down to 10 miles an hour is just completely unworkable both
on the passenger and the freight side.
And then I would say also
that this bill was introduced principally
to address freight railroads in the wake
of the Palestine incident.
But it has very real impacts on us
as a passenger rail agency.
There have been no zero incidences of loss of life
or property on passenger railroads in the United States
in history due to the failure of these particular pieces
of equipment that the bill is trying to bolster up.
So in light of all of these factors,
this is causing considerable consternation
in the passenger oil space.
Thank you very much.
I'm in agreement, by the way.
Director Spiegel?
Finish here on the bill.
I'm not on the bill.
He is, though.
OK, go ahead.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, Rick.
Oh, did you want to go ahead, Larry?
Oh, go ahead.
OK.
I just made the motion that we take
a position of oppose.
Before we get to before we get to a vote on that two questions
Can you talk a little bit about wayside detector systems?
Because I heard I heard an inference that there is a question as to their viability
well as to their efficacy in passenger rail into actual safety and that speaks to the
aforementioned comment I had about the fact that there's never been this kind of failure that has led to any kind of significant
Issue in passenger rail it was more directed at freight rail what happened in East Palestine was obviously on the freight corridor
So I'm gonna have to defer to someone with more expertise on the actual equipment. It's who's standing right behind you right now
If you look over your shoulder Jeff, he's right there. You've got a you've got a be quiet. I'm getting out of my depth
Good morning
Directors, can you repeat exactly what you were interested in on the detectors? What is a wayside detector system?
So there's multiple they have what we refer to as a high-wide detector
It will it will detect if a load is too wide or too high for that that
section of track
So that it'll alert you so these stop the train and don't cause damage to any bridges or overpasses
We have a hot hot box detector which will determine if a wheel axle or journal is
Overheating which could result in a derailment and those are the ones just sorry done
Those are the ones that are being contemplated in the bill. Those are the that the hotbox is the issue that is in play
That the senator would like to mandate to be every 10 miles
So that was the that's the one there's other kind of
There's a number of detectors, but that is the one that is
In reference to the bill. Thank you. And then mr. Chair just a question legal counsel
This item
Would we be able to vote on this item today?
Relatively yes, you can although the item is agendized as an information only you have in the first page of your agenda the right
To create an action item related to this item. So yes, you can
Then I'll second if there isn't a second yet I'll second
Discussed it pretty well. It's not a good bill
Of opposition
Your motion carries. Thank you for making that and I'll please finish your presentation. Oh
I'm sorry. Okay
Now I couldn't even remember it. Um
Your comment on the incentive of transit oriented developments. That's not part of the bill, correct?
No, that's a different right that you had already legislation. There are a couple of intent bills that are intended
to clean up legislation from last year that we're going to be monitoring and coming back to you on.
My question is, has there been proven that there's an increase in ridership by creating
transit-ordering development? I'm not aware of any specific data,
but I think that is the underlying assumption of having TO day near Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Assumption only. And the reason why I'm asking that is when you incentivize, who's getting the
incentive. The developer, are there municipalities around it that have to
create different infrastructure being a transit oriented? Yeah, I mean all of the
above and it depends upon you know the legislation that would be introduced. I
know there is definite consternation and lack of clarity in the bill that passed
last year by Senator Weiner, so I think that's you know underlying the cleanup
efforts this year whether how much and local governments would be charged with
that responsibility, potential encroachment on land use
authority for local governments, et cetera.
So these are all issues.
Absolutely.
That was where my next part of the discussion was,
is that it's once again, it's when
Sacramento is trying to dictate and take over local control.
And I really am impressed.
We did this in Corona.
We were one of the first transit oriented districts
intentionally.
I mean, it was with a full housing and everything
around the train.
I don't know if we've done any kind of study.
And we could ask a.
Stag has, I know.
We could certainly.
Be interested that it's in my own city, too.
But the point I'm saying is that it really has.
That's why I was asking where the incentive is.
Because the local jurisdictions don't get anything.
They're just told what to do, and with no support
once it's been mandated.
So that's why I'm really concerned.
So I want you to keep your ears open on that portion of it is anything else that takes away local control. I can't support
Alright, mr. Chair. I
Was going to I'd have to agree. I think the League of California cities a number of the cities were opposed to that bill
And it mainly a local control issue and I know in Covina. We did surveys of our
of our housing
next to multiple units next to our station.
And we find that what Weiner is saying doesn't add up.
So it's a, sorry to bring,
sorry to continue making an issue of this,
but it was a bad bill.
So the League of California cities,
the majority of the cities were not very well.
Thank you.
Director Dutry?
Darren, you met early this month, you were in Sacramento.
Do they understand the positions
that was translated as you're in right now?
Because we had this report,
I'm gonna go back to the study for two years.
It just came out.
This is the one that you're on.
I know Colby was on it.
Colby was on it as long as I am.
And it's been all this time for two years
trying to figure out how to generate revenue
at the end of the report.
It just came out zero.
So, I mean, I understand the Bay Area just got a loan.
One of the transit agencies got a loan in the state.
I don't know what the term to loan is
and how they're going to pay it back.
But do they understand the positions we're in?
I think that there's recognition to a degree.
The Bay Area has definitely taken a lead
on how they're trying to approach their fiscal cliff.
This $590 million loan that will be tested because there'll
regional sales tax for public transit in the Bay Area that the intent is that if
it passes in November we'll pay off that loan and then continue on with
operations so they have done they have done that and so what I did share in my
remarks to the Senate committee was along those lines that this is this is
happening and I spoke to the transit transformation task force report that
that was silent on new funding
and that that was one of the designs behind it.
And to Senator Blake Speer's credit,
she has actually said that the transportation,
the Transit Transformation Task Force report
did not deliver as it was supposed to.
That's all well and good,
but until someone comes up and writes a check,
we are going to be in a world of hurt.
And that is the way I expressed it.
And that is what we're gonna be seeing here
over the course of this, our own real fiscal challenges.
So I think that there's awareness.
I just haven't, this is a crisis moment
and we will see how we respond in a crisis moment.
I'll leave that there.
I'll leave that alone.
Right, directors, thank you for all the great questions.
Now I think we need to talk about the federal side, maybe.
Absolutely, thank you.
this has been a very informative discussion.
In federal matters, as noted in the board report,
the Congress did pass and the President signed
many bus legislation to keep the federal government
running through the end of the fiscal year on September 30th,
with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security.
The impasse over DHS is ongoing and our advocates advise,
just yesterday, the proposals are being shared
between the caucuses, but with no immediate indication
of breakthrough or resolution.
The T-Hud appropriations bill within the package
that passed provides for $94 million for transit agencies
supporting the Olympics and 100 million for agencies hosting
the World Cup in 11 cities around the country.
Again, I will defer to my CEO for more details
on the how of the appropriation of those dollars
at the agency level will be ultimately determined
as it is not explicitly clear in the legislation.
But I will share at a high level that Mr. Kettle
has communicated to his counterpart at the FTA
in Washington following the departure
of the FTA administrator last week of Metrolink's immediate
Olympics operations need of $16.2 million for FY26
from the appropriations bill just passing.
In addition, Metrolink will be making directed inquiries
with the Department of Homeland Security
to expedite immediately from the $1 billion dedicated
by the big beautiful bill for Olympics security,
none of which has been allocated
and for which not even funding guidelines
have yet been issued to allow Metrolink
to immediately begin the process to procure and install cameras and software on our trains
and at dispatch to protect against attack, and as well as other infrastructure security
needs as they are identified from the ongoing vulnerability assessment being conducted by
federal officials, which will be more fully known by mid-2026.
Certainly, it is not lost upon Metrolink, the attempted sabotage of the French and Italian
rail systems in the 2024 and 2026 Olympic Games and our message to the federal government
is we need your help to secure our network as well as to support it operationally to
meet the needs of the 2028 Games in LA and throughout Southern California. We need that
support to begin this year in order to be prepared. Thank you. That concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
think we stand by and appreciate the direction to oppose a bad bill. I think
that was a good insertion. With that I'll just receive a follow-up. Thank you Mr. Dunn.
Come to service growth development plan. Mr. Yes, so Mr. Chair, I mean I want to
be respectful of everybody's time. We were going to have this item on a
workshop. I think we have, and Mr. Vaughn is prepared to do a presentation, but
but Rory, can you do this in five minutes?
I can do a version of it in five minutes, okay.
You're on the clock.
And as Rory approaches the podium,
you might ask, why are we having a conversation
about service growth development given the doom and gloom
that I feel like I have been sharing with this board
as it relates to our fiscal situation?
Well, this is where we are today.
The doom and gloom is a little bit where we are today.
The nature of the service growth development plan
is looking at our potential, it's aspirational.
So at some point we will be past the doom and gloom
and we will be at a point where we could look at service
that makes sense for all of Southern California.
So that's the sort of the juxtaposition of the two issues
and I want to make sure that Rory has that.
Rory, you got five minutes.
Sounds good, thank you.
There, in the packet, there was the actual report
that came out of this and so if there's any questions
that I can get to that. I'll try to skip through a lot of it. I'll also note that
hopefully some of this, a lot of this will feel familiar to a lot of you
because one, over the last several years we've come back to this board with the
findings of our different analyses as well as our recommended strategies and
then two, that led to the Metulink reimagined schedules that were
implemented about a year ago that were approved by the board. Next slide. Next
Next slide, next slide.
Next slide.
This is a quick overview of the process.
Just a quick thing to kind of point out
is that the blue part to the left,
much of that happened about two plus years ago.
It also led to the metric re-imagined work
that came out that the operations department advanced.
And the time since then has largely
been kind of iterating on the longer term
about if we could grow, if we had the resources to grow,
what would that growth look like?
And that's where I'm going to try to skip ahead, too,
that's the part that is the most new to probably many of you. Next slide, next slide, next slide.
Really key point from the market side just to kind of remind everybody is that
in the new world that we live in with a reduced commuter peak period, the difference between the
peak period and the off-peak is much less. So another way a lot of the demand that's out there
there to serve is in the off-peak.
I just want to kind of point that out.
Next slide.
One kind of key takeaway from the operational assessment.
There are very significant economies of scale
to unlock if we are able to go, if we have the resources
to grow.
60% of our fixed costs, or 60% of our overall costs
are fixed costs.
That's things like we have to inspect the track a certain
number of times, whether we were on one train or 10 trains
or 50 trains.
And so what that means is that as we grow service,
that service can be added economically.
Next slide.
Next slide.
The strategy we've shared before,
again, this is the same strategy.
The underlying dimension can reimagine schedules before.
That graph actually looked familiar
because we've shared it a number of times.
So I'll skip over this as well.
Next slide.
All right, so here's where we get into the new stuff.
There's a lot more detail in the report.
And in the interest of time,
I'm not gonna go into all of the details here.
I will note that we're still in kind of an evolving world.
So, for instance, you'll see timing of the completion
of phase A of Lincoln Station.
And we know that things are changing there
because Metro is doing a really good push
to try to accelerate that project.
And that date will hopefully move up
with the benefits that it provides to the system.
I also wanna note that this is a simplified,
hitting a couple of the really kind of key highlights.
But there is growth throughout the system.
It is detailed in the report.
So for instance, growth in Riverside County on the 91
and IOC lines, strengthening the peak
and filling in the off peak.
We had to cut it because we were trying to just kind of hit
a really kind of key headline items here.
But this report looked system-wide
and the details are in the report.
Next slide.
I want to get into the particular details of this here,
just to kind of point out that when you look at train miles
and the cost, or the net cost,
the operating support to add service,
the service that we add is gonna be very cost effective.
A near doubling of train miles
in the recommended growth scenario,
but with operating support increasing by 30%,
under 30%, adjusting for inflation across time.
That's very cost effective operational growth.
That being said, does it generate ridership?
That's an important question, because empty train,
well, not so much the empty trains,
but trains that aren't attracting riders,
is, it would be a concern.
And so, in this mechanic growth scenario,
that 31% growth in operating support generates
about 50% growth in ridership increase.
Potentially more, but we try to be conservative
in these analyses.
Next slide.
I also want to note that we had, we looked at two scenarios
that we produced based on member agency feedback.
The recommended scenario which would be, again,
if we can find the resources to grow,
this is what we'd recommend to pursue.
But we also wanted to share a more constrained scenario based
on that feedback where, as you can see, the growth is less,
the operating support required is less,
and the ridership growth, which in this case is about 40%,
is less as well.
Next slide.
Next slide.
Next slide.
So with this, the report that we've shared
is kind of the final report wrapping up
this several year-long project that's been,
I think, very influential in the service
that we operate out today and the service
we hope to operate in the future.
It unveils, though, some kind of key questions
about this is attractive growth.
This is cost-effective growth.
It attracts ridership, but it is growth.
It does require additional resources.
And how would you attract that kind of resources to the system
is not the question this report is intended to ask.
To that, though, we are embarking
on a strategic business plan, the MetraLink Reimagined
Strategic Business Plan that we hope
to complete in this next year that will, among other things,
look at how to fund and implement growth,
as well as other initiatives to improve the MetraLink system.
Outreach to the board has begun on that so if you get requests for to meet and
Discuss we really appreciate your engagement
We got some great engagement last time, and we look forward to great engagement this time around I
Hope I hit five minutes if there's any questions. I'd be happy to answer them
Thank you. It's a great five minutes questions for members
See none this receiving file item and it could be some excitement ahead
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Oh
Mr. CEO.
Yes, Mr. Chair, just briefly, my monthly report.
Next slide, please.
So we had a really great transit equity day,
nearly 30,000 boardings on our train.
That's a free ride day for us.
It was a nice increase over the same date a year ago.
So close to 7% increase of people using trains.
So that is a positive.
So appreciate.
This was really very much a regional affair,
multiple transit agencies in Southern California,
for that matter, across the country,
we're providing free rides on that day.
Next slide.
My thanks to a number of folks
that participated in Customer Appreciation Day
on February 12th.
You can see who all participated.
My thanks to board members for coming out
and taking the time,
because it was an early morning to join us.
And so you can see who joined us here at the,
I was at LA Union Station, but I was on a train that morning
from Camarillo.
And second vice chair, Trembly, happened
to be at the Simi Valley Station.
So I jumped off the train, took a quick photo,
and jumped right back on my train
so that we could head into Los Angeles,
where I had a chance to see Director O'Connor, who
helped us at LA Union Station.
It is a great event to do customer appreciation day.
Other board members have been able to be there in the past.
But of course, it is a good experience.
And you can tell our customers appreciate being appreciated.
That's a really, that's a very positive feeling.
Next slide.
We have been successful with a couple Apta Adwhal awards.
We are regular, we're going to have
to get a larger trophy case with the Holiday Express having
won in the special event category.
And my personal favorite, and I think
many of our customers' personal favorite
the Metrolink Alerts rollout that is telling our customers what's going on with their train.
We were recognized for that as it related to the how we got that word out and the use of Metrolink
Alerts, which again is a big hit from our riders. Next slide. I earlier referenced our on-time
performance improvements that we are seeing as we've entered the new year, both January,
February our numbers are far improved from where we were in the fall of 2025
as we get some of our mechanical and crew related issues settled in so that's
a positive and next slide and then I have had I've had my traveling shoes on
a little bit I had the opportunity to speak to the SCAG transportation
committee on February 5th number of my board members were there so I appreciate
you guys all having Metrolinx back.
It was a very, I thought it was a really good conversation.
And there was, oddly, I was applauded at the end of it.
It was really quite unusual for me to get applause from any public.
I'm very glad that you ended the conversation.
I think that's exactly what it was, yeah.
They were, everybody was, is he done yet?
Mobility 21, I was as part of the delegation trip to Sacramento with Mobility 21, where
I did raise the issue related to our fiscal cliff with Secretary Toxo Mashakan and the
impacts we're going to have because of what we anticipate to see, we know we're going
to see in a reduction in member agency support.
And then finally, as Mr. Dunn mentioned, I testified before at the Losan Rail Corridor
Committee at the request of Senator Katherine Blakespear. Next slide, I think
that concludes it. Thank you Mr. Chair, those are my, that's my report. Thank you
Mr. CEO. Board members, any comments this time? I got one. So I enjoy of course the
customer appreciation day and I did charge a fee to a few lucky customers. The
The fee was tell me one thing you like
and one thing you dislike about our service.
And the two things that I'll just point out
that I got from multiple people had to do with scheduling.
Obviously, they want more in Riverside,
which we're trying to work on.
But secondly, which perhaps, although we
did approve an item today that will assist in this,
but maybe this is a shorter term fix.
And that is apparently the plugs at the tables in our cars.
It's hit and miss whether they work or don't work.
So that was the other big thing that multiple people have
made comments to me about.
So maybe there's a way for us to at least see
if there's a loose wire here or there.
I don't know.
Otherwise, I guess we have to wait until the whole rehab
happens.
But that was what I wanted to share.
Thank you, Vice Chair Burks.
that's that's helpful for us on you know if we if we hear about it market
conductors do make take notes if there's something so we just always our boots on
the ground are our customers so if they tell us we can we can absolutely look
into it thank you I've just been told yes thank you for that comment and now
any other director comments seeing on my commissary brief I appreciate all
coming together here and the collective wisdom I think is very important to come
together and find actually a great deal of consensus among us and so I
appreciate that and it's an opportunity to kind of see where we are in different
places and yet come together so I thank you for that and with that counsel do we
need a closed session yes the board will now go into closed session on agenda
item 11a as described in that agenda thank you thank you we'll adjourn to
close session.