With that, I'd ask for Hilary Conzahl to begin our reading talking about security among other things.
Good morning chairman, board of directors. In the event we need to evacuate the boardroom,
we will be notified via alarm or public address system. We'll exit the room
down the escalators and we'll exit the front of the building to our right and we'll meet in front of the customer service center.
When evacuating the room, please be mindful of some tripping hazards, bags, cords, that sort of thing.
In the event of a medical emergency,
we do have predetermined staff and emergency responders
in the room who will render aid in Dow 911.
And in the event of an earthquake, we'll take cover
under the desks and wait for the rumbling to stop
to see if further evacuation is necessary.
And in the event of an active shooter event,
we'll deploy the Run, Hide, Fight tactic.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
At this time, I would ask Director Wapner
if you'd lead us in pledge of allegiance.
Thank You director Wapner
Madam clerk would you call the roll to establish a quorum?
Yes
director Nguyen
director go
director Tettimer present Vice chair Burksen
director Spiegel
director Vargas
Director Malina
second vice chair Tremblay
director Engler here
director Barger
Director Najarian here director Sandoval
director Solis
director Olson
director Allen
director O'Connor here
director presciado
director McCallen here director Wapner here dr. Dutray
director Marquez and
Chair chafee president. Thank you. You have a quorum present. Thank you madam court. We now come to public comment
So I'll turn it back to our court if you would call any public commenters as well as any written comments we've had
We have received requests to speak one general request to speak and some regarding items 7a and 7b
Additionally, we have received written public comments regarding restoring the Angels Express service
Suggestions for increasing fare revenue that will have a limited impact on writers and several emails regarding 7a and 7b
The comments on items on the agenda that were received yesterday afternoon have been printed and provided
The remaining comments will be emailed after the meeting
Thank You, Madam Clerk I
Understand Jeff Shafer would like to make general public comments if he is present. Would you please step to the podium?
morning board chair
My name is Jeff Shafer president of atu local 1277 which represents dispatchers chief dispatchers communication coordinators and customer relations representatives
At MetroLink, we've been engaged in bargaining with MetroLink since January.
We've reached tentative agreements on a few topics.
Many crucial elements remain open.
Regrettably, MetroLink seems disinterested in addressing the union's concerns
and appears to be more interested in punitive and unproductive proposals.
HU remains committed to bargaining for a fair contract.
However, reaching agreement may prove difficult if MetroLink continues to focus
on punishing its own employees.
We hope that when bargaining resumes in April, that Metrolink will return to the table
with a fresh attitude of cooperation and problem solving in order to reach a fair agreement.
I thank you for your time.
Thank you, sir, for your comments.
We now come next, no further public comment as I take it.
There's some specific ones.
That's correct.
Now come to our consent calendar, which are items 11A through 11E.
Would any director like to have an item considered separately?
I see none were there any members the public that would ask
Seeing none may have a motion to approve approval McCallum second moved in second any objection and Senate calendar is approved
Thank you
Welcome to
7a and we do have some public commenters there
See
Now or we could have the staff presentation and the public staff presentation first public commentors can then
Make any comments about what they've heard as well
So we want to start with our CEO, if you would begin on staff.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
So both the reason 7A and 7B are on this agenda
is to make sure we provide the board adequate time
to ask questions of staff on these two matters.
Obviously, the need to quickly pivot a week or so ago
to operate a temporary service due to mechanical challenges
and equipment availability because we were running
into a significant number of annulments and cancellations
of trains that were just completely unexpected
because of the limited equipment.
So we had devised a schedule that we believe served most
of our riders, after looking at lines that were,
and trains that were less productive,
put together this schedule that we now have operating.
We are continuing to run a, normally, just real briefly,
we operate under our old service level
that we were running before this temporary shutdown.
We need about 35 or 36 train sets.
We had fallen to a level where we were able to do it
with 33, and then we continued to run into
mechanical challenges that showed that we were just
generally falling behind on being
able to keep our equipment working.
So rather than our customers being surprised because we
happened to do an annulment, we devised this strategy that
allowed us to give ourselves time
to get some of the backlog of our equipment
where we've had some mechanical issues up and operating,
giving us the time, the mechanical team time,
to come up with a program to get back to 35, 36 units train
sets.
So this is just an opportunity on this item 7A
to open this up to the board if you have questions.
We have Don Flippe, Chief Operating Officer,
who called me on the Tuesday or Wednesday night
a week or so ago asking, we are in dire straits.
We are trying to catch up, but we
continue to have another mechanical failure and that's when we were able to
say relatively quickly with the modified schedule because we knew we were having
challenges with equipment we were able to implement this temporary reduction of
service for now and this is going to be related back to 7b on the budget side
because of some of the challenges we have on the budget so these two items
items can go a bit hand in hand but first on that I want to open up to the
board if you have questions on 7a that either myself or Don or the operations
team can can respond to a board members have you have questions you're on after
we hear from the board we'll invite the two public speakers that have given
The speaker slips up.
Board members, any questions?
Yes.
Oh, well, my question is, how confident are we
that in May, when we anticipate resuming service,
that we will have the parts that we
will be able to provide reliable service?
So this is where operations and Tom Shamber, of course,
as the Chief Financial Officer oversees the materials management inventory program.
So, we have both of them here.
We have a robust parts order program that should be in.
We feel confident that the parts issue barring some other crazy run will be ready
for being able to meet this service after May 8th.
There are other factors that go into this question
that I think we'll talk about with the board at another point.
But we believe that we are in a good spot.
We'll be ready to do it after 45 days.
There is the one proviso of if some other run on fuel
manifolds, but we have a large order that's
supposed to be delivered, or spider shafts.
Again, parts are incoming.
We should be fine.
Not just the parts, though, is that we
We have issued a work directive to Alstom to add an additional four members to the
mechanical team whose job it is to try to catch up on the backlog that we have and focus
on those so that we get back to the availability of 35, 36 units.
One of the reasons for that also is we are however many days away from the World Cup
and the service that we expect to be able to want to run
and we're working with LA Metro for funding
to support that extra level of service.
So we need that equipment for that reason as well.
So Director O'Connor, longer winded answer
than you probably asked, wanted,
but that's where we stand.
Thank you very much.
I'm curious, are we at the point
where we're actually harvesting parts out of some trains
to put into the others?
Or is it just a question of when something fails,
we have fewer parts, but are we actually harvesting parts
from one train to the other?
The word we use is cannibalization.
And it is not long ago.
It is a horrible practice.
It is a practice of ours that we've had for quite some time,
and it's something that could not continue,
because all we're doing is bringing in a part that
is eminently going to fail, probably, as well.
We, Mr. Philippi, gave direction to Alstom
to no longer cannibalize equipment.
So we are not doing that any longer.
We're only purchasing new parts.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
How many working units do we actually have?
I know you said we need, optimally, 36.
What do we have now?
My recollection of this morning's call
is we have 30 operating locomotives right now.
And then the main issue is parts.
It's not personnel wanting to service.
No, it's Director Marquez.
It parts as an issue, but part of it
is just catching up on a backlog.
What happens is when these mechanical failures occur,
it takes time, and it takes shop space to get them caught up.
And we've had such a run on mechanical failures,
we've had trouble catching up.
So some of the mechanical team that's parachuting in will be,
we've cleared a different track at central maintenance
facility for some of the repairs that can be made that are not required to go
under the shop. So those are some of the areas that we're trying to catch up on.
And then we feel pretty confident that we for 45 days I think it is the schedule
reduction and after that span of time we should be okay. Correct and part of this
is the target of having the equipment available for World Cup service. The
board may very well because of some of our budget struggles we may want to have
another conversation about how we roll service back out after the World Cup.
So actually A and B really are same conversation just over different issues, and my question
is when we're doing these reductions, how strategic are we doing these to look at for
for the cannibalization issue, and then the budget issue.
And are we going to keep the same lines down?
And is it fairly across the board?
Is it for membership contributions?
I mean, how are you determining which lines?
The effort that we took, it was strategic.
It was identifying our lowest producing trains,
lowest ridership trains, very much based on load factor,
so that we identified new trains that weren't carrying as many.
I will say that the pain is pretty well shared
amongst the seven lines.
And we would be looking at, as we look towards the future,
on the second element, the budget related service
reductions, done the same exact way,
just to a slightly deeper level because of the budget
challenges, but the focus of Don's team and the huge amount of work looking at
load factors, productivity, longer term we're able to look at some things like
how do we minimize transportation for crews or hoteling space, because that is
something that's a cost to us. This case was dealing with the immediacy of the
issue that we just we just couldn't do it. So the longer term conversation is
is even more specific and strategic to those making sure
that we're keeping some efficiency
and doing what we can to maintain
some level of optimized schedule, the program
that we started a year and a half ago.
So a lot of work went into it by Don's team.
I'm just going to express my concern
that I hope that this is not going
to lead to that nail on the profit.
I'm just really concerned that as we
disappoint our ridership, that it's
going to have longer term effect than anticipated.
And that's why I'm saying those lines that we
aren't going to suddenly, in whatever it may,
whenever the goal is, that we start
moving around different lines, because then you're
going to really upset ridership even more across the board.
And we have to be very strategic that if a line is now
being temporarily, maybe that should be the same line
depending, and I hope you're listening to your partners
because as I've said at the last meeting,
Riverside wanted to increase lines.
At the same time, two of our partners are looking
at decreasing, or at least decreasing funding,
and when you decrease funding, there has to be
a consequence to that.
Point taken, yes, and I can tell you that this,
if it should, and I say should, but likely a second phase
of service reductions be required
because of the budget issues.
It generally tracks with what we are doing right now,
just at a slightly deeper level.
Well, yeah, that's good.
Excuse me, Chair Chaffee and Darren
and board members, if I may.
When you speak, could you please speak
right into the microphone or use a booming voice like Darren
because the folks in the back can't hear
as well as those of us closer to the front row seats.
Care for what you ask for.
I knew I could count on you.
Oh, you can.
Thank you.
I'm worried about the time frame as well.
I would rather have longer time and surprise people
with an earlier fix.
But I think disappointing twice is a hard thing
to take for the riders.
We're already cutting service.
And my thoughts also are revenues.
We haven't changed our fares in such a long time.
Are we doing enough in that area to address the issues?
We have the mechanical issues.
That's something we have to deal with as well.
But I'm mainly concerned with people who ride the trains
and depend on them.
And we're giving them, I think if we shortchange the time
that we need to fix things, that we're
going to hurt them even more and lose the faith
that they have in us.
And hope that we don't, you know,
maybe we have to cut costs in other areas,
things that we would like to do,
but maybe we save that for a future project.
But I don't, I think I really feel for the riders.
And in May, you know, if we have to,
if we have to cut even more service then
because we didn't give ourselves enough time,
I worry about that too.
So I just wanted to express that concern.
Just briefly, we will be,
the board will be having an opportunity.
we will be coming in with a recommendation
in the coming months of a fair increase
on a couple of our ticket types.
Because we have not raised fares in 14 years.
Director Engler.
Thank you, yes.
Just a couple of questions.
I think it bleeds more into 7B.
But is the reduction in our train sets
resulting in any reduction or furloughing
of some of our crews, is that the beginning of that?
The shorter answer is no, yet.
The provisions we have in our contracts with Alstom
does require, if we're going to do a certain level of service
reduction, requires a noticing period.
And given the level of service reduction,
that may be a six-month noticing period, which would then
lead potentially to workforce-related changes.
And then this 45-day period
when we're doing fewer train sets,
that's gonna result in some decreased revenue as well.
Is that a factor we need to worry about too much right now?
It's early to say, Director Engler,
we're one week into this.
We have seen only the smallest reduction in ridership.
I mean, it's less than percentage points kind of thing.
It's been a very small reduction.
Now the question will be really starting in the month of April
when riders buy their monthly passes.
That will be the next indicator as to how the service
modifications may affect ridership,
because monthly passes are such a large part
of our revenue stream.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I might ask a couple of questions.
At 40 locomotives, 10 are out of service.
As we get one of those 10 mechanically sound,
do we rotate another one in
so you always have 10 out of the service?
How are we gonna work that for the other 30 sound?
They don't need service or are we having a rotation?
Really, Mr. Chair, what our direction has been
is in anticipation of the Olympics and the Nellie Twin,
We want to have every piece of equipment ready to go.
In the meantime, we're trying to get to our 35 or 36 units.
There are preventative maintenance programs
that have to be responded to, those types of things.
But it is a matter of getting that stable back
to where we need to be now.
And of the 40, we only have 40 of the F125 locomotive.
Keep in mind we have Don 15 MP36s and then another a few F59s
that are even older.
So we are trying to get all of those back up
into operating order.
So that is why the work directive
to add resources on the mechanical side
to get us back to where we need to be is so critical.
I think the object is to be in a state of good repair with all of our equipment
Certainly, that's the plan for the for LA 28 and the sooner we can get there the better I
Agree sooner than later
We have a gasoline shortage. I'm wondering if we have a program
Tri-metro link and not ride the car and pay for gas
Taking any advantage of that we have been in fact so we
Meredith Yalman our director of communications was interviewed by ABC. Am I remembering that right Meredith which which
Which was it ABC?
So we have been putting that out. We also do it in on social media
So we are hitting all of those programs, but it has been a message that we have been trying to deliver
So yes short answer is yes, we're doing that and we'll continue to
Thank you any more director questions. I'll come back after air our public speakers for one more round of director questions if there are any
The first public speaker chair. I noticed that the public speakers are wanting to talk on 7a and 7b
and
So I don't know if we would want to come because we've somewhat combine this conversation and they're both receiving file items
They're not they're not an action item
So we could touch on 7b and then have the speakers come up
does that separate report for that. The only portion that is separate that the reason this
item is before you is to be very very clear that here we are on March 23rd. This board is aware
that we are under our JPA, we are supposed to provide a budget to our member agencies by May 1st.
We are not going to make that date because of all of the moving.
There's three items identified in your board report
that explained how complex this is, how complicated it is.
And then we add this wrinkle now of the Alstom contract.
So that's a real sort of a fourth because of the timeframe it'll take to make any changes.
This is to really just make sure you're aware that it'll very likely we'll have to do some sort
continuing authorization that gets us ideally so that we can approve a final
budget by July. But I wanted you to be aware in spirit of complete
transparency that we will probably be needing to make that request. That is
what it boils down to. That's the reason the item is on the agenda but obviously
we put a little bit more information there so that if you have questions we
can address those now. I will say that we have done a very similar, I did a very
similar conversation last week with the member agency CEOs for a better part of
two hours going through the hour and a half of what this budget situation is.
And at this point they understand that this is not a simple, there's not a
simple solution. There is no silver bullet. So we have had those
conversations and I at least understand some of you have been had been briefed
Coming out of that meeting. This is just an opportunity again for you to raise any questions you have given where we are right now
Director Spiegel
Yeah, we're in it as you all kind of says, you know 7a 7b related
So I do have a few questions that I thought were more 7b, but I can wait till after the public comment
See director Spiegel well minds regarding 7b
No
You know when we're looking at the budget, and we're looking at some member agencies reducing their share
We have to go back and look at the purpose of Metrolink and this reimagine was wonderful
But I think we have to go back to the ongoing ridership and start focusing back on
Those that are on a regular basis and when we start. I mean, that's why we started cutting some of the lines a few years back
mine going back, I mean I could get here,
but I couldn't get home for several hours.
And that's why I drive, now I'm stuck in the traffic.
But regardless, with that being said,
if we don't stay focused,
I realize we have some important games coming on.
But after those games are gone,
is that going to, focusing on those,
I don't want us to lose our regular ridership.
And I think that's critical in the midst
of what's going on with the budget.
that we have to stay focused, watch closely that reimagine.
And I know that was exciting and we all went into it,
but has that really benefited us?
Or do we need to go back and look at our regular ridership?
We don't have that five day a week rider anymore, very few.
So we have to go back and look at the lines
that have that regular ridership.
We have to do more strategic.
and also those that are continuing our commitment
with the contributions for our share,
make sure that that's in par with not cutting
across the line fairly if we are continuing those,
even though we're smart.
I realize Orange County and LA are 70% of the budget.
I mean, that's the sad part, but the good part.
I mean, we're thankful for that.
But then again, everything goes in and out of LA,
all but one of our lines in Riverside County.
So with that being said, we are beholden.
But yet, we shouldn't be penalized.
Because as I keep saying,
Riverside wanted to start increasing.
So now we won't be able to meet our ridership demands.
So we have to be very strategic and fair
and make sure that this is gonna work
for everybody in the end.
So I just wanna make sure that that is really honed in
on when we start looking at these lines.
And Director Spiegel, I've coined the term a little bit
as we've worked through this budget cycle
that we're in right now.
I'm calling it our Back to the Future budget.
It's taken us back to a little bit more
to all call it our roots, really focusing
on what we had been.
I don't think it's where I certainly hoped we would be.
We haven't given the optimized service.
Metrolink reimagined the time that it probably
needed to fully bake.
to see how it can be a success.
But here's where we are, and so we can't just keep
blindly going in that direction.
So the budget that ultimately we will be working through
is strategic, constrained, and does shift us
back more to the, more around the commuter model
versus the regional passenger rail model.
Maybe that'll change someday if other resources come in,
but for now, this is where we find ourselves.
It would be nice if we got the bailout that BART got one time.
It would be, and since you teed that up so nicely for us, what BART is able to do with
this loan that they're getting right now is that region has rallied around a regional
sales tax measure that is going to be on the November ballot, which will then pay off that
bailout if it's successful.
We as a region have not rallied around Metrolink the way that the three counties in the Bay
Area have rallied around Caltrain, BART, and AC Transit.
This is where we are.
Mr. McCowlin.
So, as we're kind of on that topic, so, right, because right now we're kind of at the some
existential crisis that we're dealing with on some of it might be because we added service.
But bottom line, even if Metrolink goes back to the future more limited service, we really,
I think, as board members, need to think seriously about the future funding.
I mean, sure, we can limp along, finding funding for Metrolink service the way we have been.
But I really think we should start thinking
about working together.
Can we work together and figure out a way
to approach the state, try to get more funds for operations?
Can we come together as five counties work on that?
Maybe it is beyond the pale that we
could get five counties to work together
on a regional self-help tax.
But I don't know why would we just give up on that
and just say it can't be done.
And we've heard, too, there might be other possibilities,
other ways of getting some income fees happening.
So I guess I just wanted to say that and add
that I hope that I'm not a regular board member.
I'm an alternate.
So I don't have a stronger connection to my agency,
but I still would advocate with my agency
that we need to look at other ways to fund Metrolink.
and it's on us, individual board members, to decide.
We're not deciding this today.
Is our future for Metrolink seeing that over the next decade
it's going to just be kind of what it always has been,
just operates not at its full potential,
and kind of limps along.
And also think about, and then if crises happen,
maybe we have to cut service again.
And think about what the region would be without Metrolink.
Think about what each of our agencies, each of our areas
that we live in.
There'd be added congestion.
There'd be impacts to air quality.
But more important, we impact the people's lives,
the people who use us to go to work,
whether it's on a regular, old-fashioned office commute
schedule or for other jobs that have other schedules.
For students, we've seen how successful it has been
for students using this and cutting that,
and just the other uses of people.
And if those are taken away, I think
our individual agencies will not be able to pick up the slack,
will not be able to add to people's call.
It would be taking away those opportunities.
And each one of us can't provide some service
within our county and maybe work better to coordinate.
But still, those are longer trips than on transit
other than the locomotives on the transit Metrolink runs.
So I guess I would just say, and maybe we can't answer it today,
but I think we really do need to come together
and have serious discussions about whether we can,
again, go to the state and find other ways
to fund Metro Link in the longer run.
Thank you for those comments.
Dr. McAllen?
Thank you very much.
Obviously, this financial problem
is not just a one-year issue.
Obviously, we keep talking about LA 28 coming.
we will need to identify additional resources we'll need to be able to
support LA-28 to the capacity they want us to obviously because we're gonna be
in a reduced service situation so we need to start you know telling them that
also Brightline West is coming it's going to be connecting with Metrolink
and they're gonna want more frequent service on the San Bernardino line and
that's going to be another issue that we're gonna have to face here in the
next three or four years. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My concern is that you guys are
moving forward with development of a budget but you really need some policy
direction otherwise you're going to develop a budget we're gonna go back and
change it all and I'm talking specifically about the suggestion that we
may need to raise fares obviously we haven't raised a long time and normally
I wouldn't object to that but I think combining that with a reduction of service just doesn't sound right
I just I guess what I'm saying is I think it really deserves a policy discussion as you move through the budget process
I'm not saying wait
So some of these major policy shifts that you might be suggesting the budget bring it to us to talk about so that at least
you have the
The policy direction that you need to develop the budget. Yes, sir
Thank you. Any other director comments what this time I'd like to hear from our speakers
And I'll come back one more time and see if they're for the director comments. I have a speaker form from Adrienne
reso
Chartini I just want to also say that due to ongoing network issues in the room the CEO's executive assistant
Jenina who is controlling the slide deck will be using a timer on her phone and
We'll put it up to the microphone when the timer goes off after three minutes. Thank you
Hello everybody, thank you Metro link chair and staff and board. My name is Adriana Rizzo
I'm here representing Californians for electric rail, which is a statewide grassroots organization pushing for green abundant regional transportation
I'm a Metro link writer
I took it in from Riverside today and I'm deeply concerned about these
Service cuts that we're seeing due to the failure of the F
125 fuel manifolds and supply agent issues this is sort of the worst time for this to happen given
Rapidly rising gas prices as well as Metrolinx ongoing budget crisis
I'm disappointed that Metrolinx was not able to find
replacement locomotives from other agencies or work with local transit agencies to price some
Supplemental bus service to help
Competite for these issues
They think these ongoing mechanical issues highlight the urgent need for Metrolink to have a plan to transition to
electric trains powered by overhead catenary
These have lower operating costs elects complex engine design and fewer moving port parts with fewer points of failure like this
Electrification can also attract more riders by shortening trip times as seen on with the massive success of Caltrain which is
the fastest growing transit agency in the country
post-electrification.
California's electric rail recently released
a report modeling that electrification
of the Antelope Valley line would bring a trip
from Santa Clarita to Los Angeles to under an hour,
making it very attractive, competitive with driving.
Now, there's a lot of opportunities
to take advantage of this right now.
The latest high-speed rail,
California high-speed rail business plan has a proposal
to have high-speed rail share tracks
of the Antelope Valley line as an interim route
that could start construction in the next decade,
sharing with electrified tracks just like Caltrain.
Students for All also just released reports
showing that enhanced infrastructure financing district
around the high speed rail stations,
which are also MetroLink stations.
In LA County, you could pay for all of this interim plan.
And so I encourage MetroLink to get on board,
particularly LA County board members to support the move
for an EIFD and initiate planning studies
to move forward with electrifying the antelope value line.
As far as the budget situation,
this is deeply concerning.
And I know that really there are no easy solutions
with the rise of hybrid work.
People who are going to the office every day
for their nine to five, that's fear and fear of people.
And we need to make sure we're having service
that supports different types of riders.
I really, I'm happy to see not your link imagine
in this move to regional rail type service
and I hope that that will continue to be prioritized
as you work with the challenges with the new budget.
Okay, I was hoping this I would have
two separate meetings or comments on this
but thank you so much for your time
and have a great day.
Thank you.
Now may we hear from Michael Voulet.
I'd say that right.
Okay, thank you everyone.
My name is Michael Voulet.
I'm a resident of Little Tokyo
and I'm part of volunteer for Streets for All.
And I wanna talk about items 7A and 7B.
So as Adriana mentioned, electrification will help
reduce the number of points of failure.
And not to mention that since Caltrans from the Bay Area
uses it, there's a potential for a partnership
to share some resources, even if it's not one-on-one.
And the best time to migrate to a different fleet
is when the current fleet's failing,
versus if there's a need to buy new parts or train system.
So I encourage electrification from that perspective.
But also, we see that from the world geopolitical landscape,
right, oil prices can affect us a lot.
And developing independence from that would be very
important, not to mention how in Caltrans,
electrification helped increase ridership.
So that's the first part.
The second part for financing,
I know that, like, maintaining trust is tough,
but regaining it is even tougher.
So, like, we've seen that from the pandemic,
it took a while for ridership to recover
from, like, at least LA Metro,
and I imagine for Metrolink as well.
And I realize right now we have, like,
a fractured funding system from different counties,
and I encourage that we should have, like,
a more consolidated governance for that.
Because I know that train systems generate a lot of wealth.
We see that with like EIFDs and SB 79.
But right now, Metrolink doesn't get the funding
that reflects that.
And I guess what I'm trying to say for that
is the political landscape in California is changing.
I would like Metrolink to have that consolidated governance
so that they're ready to be part of that.
she was like a dedicated funding source.
Maybe short term, like you said,
like a bailout similar to NorCal,
but I would like that in the long term
that they could be profitable, something like Japan Rail.
Because right now, I see like two paths.
We could either start like going bare bones
and cut costs with bare bones services,
or maybe it'd be something like Japan Rail
where we could provide like three to six minutes head ways
and be one of the best passenger rail in the country,
if not the world, although I know the lot right now,
but I'd like MetroLink to go
and I hope the Metro Board sees that as well.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for your comments.
Madam Clerk, are there any other commenters?
I have not received any additional requests to speak.
We thank you and come back to the board on items 7A and B.
Are there any further questions, comments?
Director O'Connor.
My questions are a little more tied to the budget side a bit.
Right now, for the past few years,
the amount of the surplus has been growing.
Each year, agencies are getting funding back and just wondering,
is there any way we can tighten the budgeting process?
Because rather than taking money from the agencies
than having it there and giving it back, perhaps, again,
by tightening it, wouldn't require as much of an ask
of the agencies.
Well, just for clarification, Director O'Connor,
for the last two years, the surpluses
that have been available at the end of the year have gone down
as we continue to try to tighten our budget.
This year, because I have heard from our member agency
CEOs, the issue you raise regarding surplus.
The direction to our finance team and all of our chiefs
were to go back and look at our trends over the last few years
over certain light items.
And if we continue to be, say, 50% below,
why are we budgeting at a higher amount?
So they were directed to bring in lower numbers.
We're already seeing some savings on that.
But I think one of the things to keep in mind
is we operate on about a 300 million dollar budget,
operating budget is about 300 million every year.
Our surplus that may be available this year,
and we're not even sure of that because the revenues
have not come in anywhere near where we would like,
might be in the 10 million, 15 million dollar range, maybe.
We do not have reserves, Metrolink does not have reserves.
So we do public budgeting at 300 million,
and we come back at the end of the year
and we have 10 or 15 million left,
that's somewhere around a 5% margin of difference
on an annual budget.
And I would ask any one of our member agencies,
if you ever come in at 5% of what you
budgeted in an annual year, we are tight.
So the surplus is there.
The surplus may have ballooned a bit at one point,
and we've tried to get it under control.
but it's because there is some concern or anxiety
on the part of Metrolink.
If we get to a point and we have to go back
to the member agencies three quarters of the way
through the year and say we're not gonna get it done,
we need more.
So we have built in maybe more cushion than we should,
so we're swinging that pendulum back a bit.
But when I had this conversation with the CEOs,
I said, if we get to the point that we're needing
to come back because we have tightened this so tight,
don't bust our chops when we come back asking
for a little bit more because we did everything we could
to get the number down.
So this has got to be something
where we're working together on it,
but we have been committed getting that number
in a more managed state and I think we're doing,
I would put our budgeting up against any one
of the five counties.
And then my other question, thank you for that,
is obviously, you know, 7A, we're cutting the service back,
is there going to be any cost savings
not providing those service?
Yeah, mainly fuel.
Don, am I getting that right, mainly fuel?
That's correct.
Fuel would be the biggest savings that we have.
And some dispatching revenues that we would save on as well.
Yeah, so if we have to pay the class one railroads
to operate it on the line,
if we're not running a train on that,
then we don't have to pay that bill.
You speak on.
You know, in the big scheme of things,
And I'm not doing a hindsight,
but I'm just seeing future going forward.
If there's more transparency, and we realized,
and I didn't hear this cannibalization going on very long,
those surpluses should have been used
to create a little bit of funding
for that lack of cannibalization and looking forward.
And if there was issues that we were having
and sending money back, then we could have shifted,
at least talk to the board or talk to the CEOs,
about using that, instead of sending it back,
to make a little headway into some of the challenges
that we were having.
So we wouldn't get to the point we are now
to where things weren't properly handled
and taken care of on the maintenance.
And we have tremendous maintenance.
We've been talking about the state of good repair
for years that I've been on this board.
And I don't think we've really seriously chipped away at that.
And so maybe that surplus should be set aside
for a state of good repair than sending it back.
Director Spiegel, I'm looking at Justin
for Nellie right now, which is,
he's out there tap dancing over what you've just said.
Because there's that, but again,
we work with five counties.
Those CEOs this last year,
I asked for a portion of the surplus
to replace seat covers on some of our equipment
because our seats were in such bad shape and they agreed.
They said, OK, we'll do that.
But at the same time, the member agencies
do see that surplus as their money.
And we regularly write a check back every year.
Even though we say we could use it for this, there is no,
we want it back.
And then you can figure out how you do the budgeting
for that the next year.
That perpetuates the situation that we're in.
And what is our purpose sitting here
if the CEOs are making the decisions
that the board's supposed to make?
I think that I'd guess.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'll just let that one lie.
And I'm not bashing CEOs.
I'm just saying I didn't know that was happening.
The CEOs make that decision, not us.
Yes, what we end up is I would, as a former CEO executive
director of a member agency, I can speak to the fact
that we would say, at least in Ventura at the time,
we would roll it over to the next year.
So we had it because we were always poor.
I have this thing about being poor evidently
in my professional career.
So every county does it differently
and it would take something on the part I'm imagining each
member agency saying, in your case, RCTC saying,
our policy is going to be that rolls over.
Because for now that's not the way that it works.
So it is a matter of trying to have all those levels
of communication and maintaining the relationships that we have
of the CEOs are member agencies who are very influential
in the funding of our agency.
I'm sure they're going to hear this discussion.
I think that we as representatives of the agencies need
to be talking to our CEOs and find
out what our individual organizations are doing
in our agencies and let's get consistent on behalf of us,
sitting here on the board
that we need to have better communication
and agreeance on how we're doing things.
Cause we're sitting here making hard decisions
when there's no money.
And if there's a surplus going back
that could have been used for these minor things,
I mean, seat covers or lack of candle as if,
cause that word is just driving me crazy.
But the lack of putting us further behind.
I mean, it's proven now, it didn't work.
So we've got to find a way going forward.
We can beat up the past, but let's just make an improvement
and learn from the past and say going forward,
let's make a consistent policy
and we should all be talking to our agencies.
Thank you, Vice Chair Purse.
I'm really not sure how to follow that.
So I'm just gonna throw out a couple things.
One, is it a possibility that we could utilize
freight locomotives to push or pull Metrolink car train sets in lieu of our own.
It's not simple historically we have had to do that in the past I think we are going to
put our mechanical situation in a place where that that such that is that alternative wouldn't
be necessary it also comes it would come at a significant expense when we did have to
use freight railroad freight locomotives we lease them from BNSF that was a number of
years ago, and that came at an expense.
I think us focusing the way we are on getting this fleet to
where it needs to be in these next 45 days is the quick and
most affordable solution for us.
OK, well doable.
We also recognize the fact that our tier four locomotives are
the only ones that were built, and the parts that are needed
aren't on anybody's shelf anywhere.
And what we now know that the rehabs that are being done
or that are needed in a sooner period than what we thought,
what other things are gonna break on these
that we're not thinking about today
that are gonna hit us tomorrow
and we need to have a plan B.
What happens if it's a year from now,
a year and a half from now right before
some major events are coming
and all of a sudden we're in the same boat we are today.
So we need to have that plan B.
even at an expense, the knowledge of what it would be
so that in the event we come into this crisis mode again,
we're able to react not the same way
that we're reacting this time.
We certainly can look into it, how we might do that.
That's something that Dawn's team on the operations side,
there are a lot of moving factors,
having things set up with positive train control,
our engineers operating that equipment.
It's not a, but we do need to be prepared for,
I hear you saying a plan B.
Prepare, prepare, right.
And then the next thing is what?
I think you in the staff report
said we were about 30 million short.
Is that the right number?
We believe that is the ballpark number, yes sir.
So I, you know, I watch, you know,
professional sports events on TV.
When you're talking about something like a Super Bowl,
you're talking about multimillion dollar 30 second spots.
So what's to say that we don't consider some,
I don't know, $30 million price tag on train wraps
for the Olympics for sponsorship of some sort.
Obviously the five counties I think would have to agree
if not just the board, but perhaps we could fill
a funding gap, a major funding gap with a major sponsor
if that's something the board wants to consider,
if that's something that we're even legally permitted
to look at.
So it's just an idea to possibly come out
with some kind of funding that is an untapped resource.
So that's one thing.
Mr. Vice Chair, we are actually working with LA-28
right now on that very opportunity.
Good.
Well, hopefully we get the money from it.
Oh yeah, no, no, we're not going to give it to them.
We need it.
Okay, and then the last thing on my thing,
I've mentioned it numerous times in the past,
because as Supervisor Spiegel had mentioned,
the olden days are gone with our Monday through Friday
riders, the going to work and coming is just not happening.
We recognize that most people are now three days a week.
And they're not always the same days.
So you may get Monday through Friday riders
that we could focus on, but we can't rely just solely on that.
And so going back and looking at what the current ridership is
and how we've maximized availability for the Monday
through Friday riders and when they're actually going
would be great.
But I've said it before.
I'll say it today, and I'll say it in the future.
We need to have a way to promote event locations
at every station.
You should say, you know, the Northridge Station has these five event centers that are within
a mile from it that you could go and enjoy whatever it is, you know, or Ventura or whichever
station.
We should have that and it could be something then that goes on our advertisements, our
media, in the trains, you could have, you know, different little posters that show different
places that you could visit, open the door to people that don't know where the train
is going to take them. Let them experience the journey of traveling and getting off at
a station they wouldn't have necessarily gotten off at, but now they see that there's something
going on and that they could find entertainment or shopping or whatever it is that they're
looking for. Those are the kinds of things that bounce around in my empty head, but hopefully
we can utilize some of that in some fashion to help. Director Parrisciado. Yes good morning
everyone. Actually I wish I would have taken the train this morning, but I think we recognize
that this is an essential service and everybody uses it and to stay within five percent of
budget every single time. Just a lot of credit to you and the staff and I think that that's
probably why sometimes we're not awarded with a bailout because we do such a great
work but um and I apologize for this you know it's through the history of
Metrolink and if you could maybe help me out is why did this JPA an agency in
such a large structure never or what would it take to get some dedicated
funding aside from sales and I do apologize again you want to keep that as
short as you can and tell me offline later that's fine there is a long
history. We have looked at it multiple times. It does require consensus given our structure,
consensus of five counties coming together and agreeing on whatever that way to get dedicated
revenues. Whether it's going to the state and saying, okay, we're going to rally and say at
the state, we want this set up in the five county region of Southern California. If we wanted to
come together, you know, there to the five counties, that would be another way to do it,
creating effectively like a special district or something like that.
There's different ways to do it, but it requires just because of the nature of
this sort of confederacy of a train system how it would come
together. And all five counties have different things that are important to
them, how they want to see something proceed. And so because of that, we'd
We'd never, again, sort of come, we don't come together to find that one, here's going
to be, this is going to be our ask, whether it's of Sacramento, have a legislative solution
or a regional one.
Well, hopefully we can get those CEOs in a room one day, maybe, maybe the Olympics or
maybe the World Cup will put them in a little suite and tell them to work this out.
And then out of curiosity also is our fleet, and especially with the issues of parts, that's
not a funding issue, that's a parts issue and mechanical issue.
But even just building out, let's just say one locomotive, it's not like we can build
it in a week.
What is usually that timeline?
For a new locomotive, from the time we placed it in order, probably three years?
Three years.
Okay.
What would it take if it were like an electrification one or a hydro one?
Was that looking at a three year one also?
in the event, at least that, and of course with anything that's electrification, you've
got to have the power to operate it.
And when we start having some of those conversations, again, we are 34 years old, and our legacy
system is all built on, you know, being big trains going all over the place.
So our maintenance facilities, all of those things are not designed.
In the case of Caltrain, they had a whole new facility built for their electrified system.
that there is a significant investment that would need to go into any other
alternatives. So I think we're pointing out that there's no short of priorities
that we want to put them all up there in a roadmap to one day create policy as
Wapner was saying. But also I just want people to understand it's not something
that we can switch from one day one year to the next as much as we'd love to and
like to but it's good to put everybody into a roadmap and maybe we we can't
come up with a solution I believe we can we do have a great team and looking
forward to it thank you for the information thank you I forgot to ask if
if at the end of the 45 days I'm transparency is key here what would be
the next extension of time, if we needed more time?
Are we looking at another 45 days?
What realistically are we looking at?
We are trying to be very sensitive to our customers.
And based on where we think our budget is right now,
there's things that we have to do to meet federal laws related
to the Federal Transit Administration
when we're doing any major changes in service.
We're concerned that we do a stop, start, stop, start.
So we are going to be evaluating, Director Molina, what
makes sense from a customer perspective.
I've used the term whiplash.
I want us to, if there's a way to make this happen
and avoid whiplash, reduce service,
then bring back the regular service only to go back
and cut some more service back to the budget related
reductions, that's really hard for our customers.
Heck, I'm the CEO.
I'm the customer.
I have trouble figuring it out half the time.
So that is just the nature of what we're looking at.
So I don't want to say it's going
to be 45 days or 60 days, because it may make sense
that we just rip the Band-Aid off and deal with a reduction,
because we're going to have to do that anyway,
because of the budget.
And I think our customers will understand
that as painful as it can be, as compared to stop, start,
stop, start.
Director Marquez.
Thank you, sir.
This is not really for me, but it's for the public.
As far as funding sources that we have, we don't have any.
How do we pay our bills?
I get a tin cup, and I go to five counties.
And to a degree, yes, there's humor in that.
But that is part of what we do.
So we are funded from fares from our riders.
And right now, that makes up about 13% of our operating
costs and round numbers.
But the primary source of our revenue
comes from the five counties.
And they get different colors of money.
Some of our counties pay us with local sales tax measure dollars.
Some of our counties use Transportation Development
at TDA, LTF, or state transit assistance dollars.
And then there's some federal funding
that we receive through the member agencies.
We generate it because of the miles we operate,
which is what's called attributable.
We run miles, but the money goes back to the member agencies
and the member agencies then, in many cases,
provide it back to us.
Those are our primary funding streams.
We do not have, there's a very, very small bucket
called State Rail Assistance that amounts to,
what is it, Tom, $4 or $5 million a year?
$6 million.
So it barely moves the needle.
We use that to match grants and that kind of thing.
So those are our funding sources,
but that $6 million is the only one
that actually is dedicated to us.
That's $6 million, State Rail Assistance.
Just one follow-up question.
We do think outside the box such as emu and redlands, but I know we have demu
Locomotives have they been considered
Diesel multiple units they're operating great on the arrow line
they're considered in the sense that we are working on a study that is funded by SBCTA and
LA Metro about how we would implement multiple units again. They're a very different type of piece of equipment, so there will be
elements that
It can be done short answers it can be done the studies says yes, this can be done
But these are going to be the cost associated
like a
Entirely different maintenance facility because they operate so differently than our larger our larger equipment the pushable locomotives
But it is something that it should be on the table can be on the table just eyes wide open about
What's involved in the cost to do that? It's more just in from not not
regular service, but just to enter well
I mean if it's it would
there are so many different factors director Marquez that
It's if we're gonna go to as if Metro link were to choose to go down a multiple unit path. It would be a
Wouldn't be an interim. It would need to be something that is
An all-in that we're going to run multiple units and we're gonna run
legacy I'll call it legacy fleet
Push-pull locomotives with with trailer cars
Thank you very much chair Chafee
So obviously a lot of the directors have commented about the challenges we face and there are multiple challenges that all sort of feed into a
challenging financial situation and
Anticipating there's going to be the need for a continuance to allow Metrolinx staff to work on the budget
My perspective is I think
The agency would do well to form an ad hoc committee to work through these issues with a little more
frequency than the regular monthly board meetings.
That's a provision that's allowed for in the bylaws
to the chair as the authority to form an ad hoc committee.
And I think one, I think the things that are before us
warrant that, normally I know there's been a historical
committee structure but I understand that's been sort of
suspended at least for now.
But I think the depth and breadth of the issues
that are being, we're struggling with,
warrant the need for an ad hoc committee.
I appreciated the comment about the policy issues
that we would need to grapple with,
and maybe that would be an early item
for the ad hoc to work through.
But I think the ad hoc also would need to be
a composition of looking at the financial implications
but the operational implications as well
since they sort of interact with each other.
So my ask to the chair would be to please
Give strong consideration to the formation of an ad hoc that could meet on a more regular basis more than monthly if need be
To work through these issues and bring them back to this board for consideration
That's my that's my suggestion to the chair. Thank you. Thank you that I've had discussed that with council
and because of our structure there's some issues with how we do that, but I
See we can work through that
it's better now back on the discussion of the
Vision of the change of the lines
Do you?
Who makes those decisions on which lines?
So what we've tried to do is we're working with our scheduling team and based on load factors
How we you know there's there's a lot of factors that go into this director speaker. We're trying we tried to find
Again, where we where we have the lowest load factors because we're not getting revenue from those trains
That was a that was a critical part of it
But then there are others where we were trying to identify making sure we got the best utility out of crews
so there was a handful of things that went into the development of the schedule so that we would
To get to the 30 million dollar savings that we need to get to so that was a big that was a critical part of it
so it was the combination of
Again, load factors, transportation, hoteling.
How do we get the most efficient use out of crews
so we're not parking trains for a long period of time?
And then still having them be available
for the mechanical work.
So those are the primary elements that are in it.
And then we presented the schedule concept to the CEO
so that they are aware of this is what we would be looking at
so that we shared that across the board.
Now, we had hoped to have better information out of Alstom
on the costing of that schedule because crews
are a big part of the savings.
And we don't have that yet.
We don't have a final number.
So we're not daylighting that schedule
until we know that it actually works.
We think it does, but we don't know it yet.
So it does go through the CEOs.
And then we're told what's done.
We share it with the CEOs, hey, this
is what we're going to be, what we're proposing,
we'll be taking to the board for consideration.
And this is what gets us to the budget number.
Because it's really, Director Spiegel,
it is targeted on the budget and trying
to get the best savings we can to get
to that number with the minimal impact on our members
and our writers.
So those are the factors that go in any further questions comments
Seeing none these two are receiving file items objection they shall be received in file
See
Policy doesn't look like Cynthia. No, what something transforming good morning
Good morning Chair members of the board.
Angelos Kastecyanaki, Senior Manager
of Contracts and Compliance.
Ms. Minix was on a well today so I'm filling in for her.
I'm presenting item 7C,
the contracts and procurement policy change.
Lexa, please.
The annual process is a process
that you probably are familiar with,
those who have been sometime.
It's a long time practice, we have outlined it,
but we have not outlined it
in the contracts and procurement policy.
This item is to actually incorporate it
in the procurement policy
and to set the rules how it will work.
Currently, the original equipment manufacturer
fought with the OEM list.
Once the supplier contract authorities exhausted,
the project manager needs to go back to the board,
to you, and seek additional funding.
That provides a lot of delays in the process,
and it might have the ability to impact the service,
availability of the locomotives.
Next slide please.
So this item addresses the revision
of the contracts of Mosquimic Policy
to include the section six item E for the annuals.
And as background information,
We have currently 43 items on that list
that you approved in the budget for fiscal year 26,
and the total amount is for $18,764,831.
Next slide, please.
So the recommendation is for the board
to approve the revision of the policies
and the ability for the CEO or designee
to reallocate contract authority for the annuals,
specifically for original equipment manufacturers
of running stock components based on demand
with the board approved,
within the board approved, not to exceed amount.
Thank you.
That concludes my presentation.
I'll be happy to take any questions.
Director McAllen.
Thank you very much.
Since the new policy would authorize
the chief executive officer
to reallocate contract authority,
I think it would be appropriate to include there
report to the board maybe quarterly by the CEO on how that has occurred over
the prior months so that would be my suggestion that that be added to to the
policy that a quarterly report from the CEO on the reallocation. Would you make
a motion to that effect? I'll make a motion that we accept the policy changes
with that addition. I'll second that with a question of will this help in our
cannibalization? We don't do cannibalization anymore. We stopped. Okay good.
So yes. Okay. It all works together. Okay directors any comments, questions? Do you
We have a motion and the objection abstentions to it seen on as a slightly revised emotion
carries.
Thank you.
It comes to 7D.
It's our Valley Track Project.
Janae, Korea.
Contract number C3166-26 will rehab and replace several sections of track on the Valley Subdivision.
I think this PowerPoint is not up to date.
We have tie rail and a crossing rehab
and these improvements will enhance the safety
and reliability of the Metrolinx railway system
and keep our assets in the state of business there.
Next slide.
Next slide, sorry.
We released the IFB on January 16th, 2026.
We received four bids with the DRS contract
in cooking the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
It is recommended that the board authorize the CEO
to award contract B315626 for the Valley subdivision project
to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder,
DRS contracting, for $4,371,907,
plus the 10% contract contingency
for a total not-to-exceed amount of $4,809,097
Thank you questions I see none they have a motion motion that has been moved
inside a second every seconds there's three seconds all right any comments
seeing none if there is no objection or extensions the item is approved thank
Thank you.
Ride share alternative transportation contract with Uber and Lyft, presented by Sabrina Davis.
Good.
Good morning Board Chair, Chief E and members of the board.
Next slide, please.
I want to share some context about how the Quality Service Pledge works.
First we always attempt to obtain buses when our service is disrupted.
Sideshare is a supplement used when buses cannot arrive on time or when the available
buses cannot accommodate all passengers in the event of a service disruption.
Once the number of passengers requiring support is confirmed, staff can immediately then request
vouchers for eligible quality service pledge situations to ensure the customers are not
left stranded.
We also have program controls and oversight,
vouchers have a $50 limit and can be programmed
with GPS based service boundaries,
and each trip is traceable with pickup
and drop off details and timing.
We also track usage by incident and by spend,
enabling us to identify impacts related
to the various causes of service disruptions.
Next slide please.
The action we are requesting today is approval to award multi-year agreements with Uber and
Lyft to support QSP alternative transportation.
The term is three years with one optional two-year renewal and the not to exceed contract
authority of $3,250,000 for the base term plus the option.
Funding for this is included through the annual budget process.
This supports our board approved QSP policy and rider promise to ensure no one is left
behind when service is disrupted.
We are not recommending an RFP because Uber and Lyft are the only providers with a voucher
program at a scale we need across our entire service area.
Also Metrolink already uses Uber today and Lyft now offers a comparable voucher program
providing us with continuity and backup capacity.
we request board approval of the recommended action thank you I'm happy
to take any questions or any questions thank you mr. chair do we get reduced
rates or pay the same as retail we do not get reduced rates sir but we
actively communicate with uber and lift to work with them to reduce our costs
in how the vouchers are used.
For instance, can we have split payments with customers
so they're sharing a voucher versus each
using their own voucher, stuff like that.
We look for cost-saving opportunities in that way.
So there are no negotiations?
There's no negotiations with Uber and Lyft, unfortunately.
Dr. Spiegel?
So if the vouchers are $50 and it's only 32 for the trip?
We will only be charged 32.
OK.
Yes.
You said, Dokoshi, I was concerned
that they'd keep the extra 18.
No.
OK.
Vice Chair Bergson.
I was thinking, didn't we just do this?
Didn't we just have an extension to this?
And possibly, I was trying to remember,
was it one that was one of those reports
that you bring back, Darren, that shows the contracts you
execute under your authority?
Did that, is that the case that we did?
Yes, you are correct, I was here a few months ago.
Okay.
Presenting with our contracts department on this.
We have historically implemented our Uber voucher usage
as a single source, because Lyft now has a voucher program
as well, and to refrain from renewing this process
every single year, we thought we would do
multi-year contract to ease that burden. Okay so we're not duplicating. Not at all.
We're adding the second option and just lengthening the service term.
Correct. Thank you. So it's $50 per person, either one, but are the rates
charged by Uber and Lyft comparable? Yes, in general I don't know if you're
familiar with Uber and Lyft, I have both apps on my phone. Lyft can oftentimes be a cheaper
ride. It depends on the situation. It depends where you're at. It depends on the demand
in that exact area where you're trying to get the ride share. But generally Lyft is
known to be slightly cheaper than Uber.
It makes me want to think that we should be showing some preference here because if the
the two entities side by side,
taking two people from point A to point B,
we're gonna spend more for one than the other?
That's what I'm hearing, that could be an outcome?
Right, there's a few other things to consider.
Many drivers are both Uber and Lyft drivers.
There are also customers who use Uber or use Lyft,
and they have a preference in that way as well.
in my discussions with Lyft and Uber,
talking about the voucher,
the technological capacity and improvements
that we ask for to improve our customer experiences,
that would also be a factor.
But there's just, there's a level of complexity
between the two and using them.
I don't know if I answered your question.
Well, it's complicated, I guess.
It is.
It's one way to say that.
my preference if we're talking preference my preference we find the
lowest cost option and not pay more for somebody because that's their model
versus the lower cost one so I don't know how we can affect that practically
in the field but that would be my observation that we should always give
deference to those I guess back to the comment about negotiations it would be
nice if you can negotiate saying it'll be the same rate at least try to agree
on that that way we know we're not putting our thumb on the scale one way
another from a cost perspective. Thank you. Director Engler. Yeah, thank you. I think I
appreciate the cost savings. I do use both and Lyft is a slightly cheaper
but we have to remember why we're using them at this time. We've already
disappointed our customers by not completing our trip. So everything we can
do to make that transition to an easier completion of the trip really should be
where we concentrate on even if it is a touch a touch more expensive the
customers are already upset so we want to make sure we take care of that good
point any more of thank you mr. chair just real fast I think this is a great
thing that we do the quality service pledge I think it's fantastic question
for you, my background being a fireman for 30 years,
when you get into an unsafe area
where you can't really get people off the train,
what do we do?
We work with our security operations center
and our operations dispatch teams
and they immediately dispatch our sheriffs
to the location, so we're supporting our riders
who may be in that situation.
We reward them with anything?
Free rides, I mean, in the future?
So once we are able to safely get them off the train,
we will have either made an arrangement for a bus
or we will do a Google pin drop
for them to utilize a voucher.
So the assumption is that, say, they were able to deboard
and there's a local street nearby, we'll drop a pin.
An Uber voucher would be GPS located
to that very specific spot and they'll be able
to request you for vouchers at that point.
Seeing none, do we have a motion to approve?
I'll second it.
Moved and seconded, any abstention, direction?
No, okay, item is approved.
Thank you for your review.
Thank you.
Talk about safety and our compliance with Hilary Conzal.
Good morning again.
So, what I'm going to do is just go over the second quarter summary of activities.
Next slide.
So, here you'll see we've got a 67% increase in trespasser incidents, as well as, well,
incidents total, but most of them are trespasser due to trespasser and vehicle incidents.
I'll dive down a little bit deeper where we're seeing these, these incidents occurring
and what we're doing to address those.
Next slide, please.
So this is the same data then broken down by county.
You'll see that Los Angeles County
and Orange County have seen the largest increases,
and we've deployed law enforcement assets
to address these increases.
One thing I want to point out is we have a robust,
data-driven process.
So what we're seeing right now is unprecedented.
There aren't trends that we've seen before.
We've seen a lot of more homeless encampments coming up,
And they're mostly coming up in separate lines,
but more in like Los Angeles County.
Next slide.
So, again, this is the same data displayed by line.
And this chart indicates the highest number
of incidents you'll see are occurring on the AVL line,
the San Bernardino and Orange County lines.
So, in those lines, most of those incidents,
even though they're on those lines,
are occurring in Los Angeles County.
Next slide.
So, unruly passengers are down 2%, and fare evaders are up 10%.
And the reason the fare evasion number is higher, or is up,
I should say, is because we redeployed additional security
from our allied security team to do additional street carring.
So, we're catching more passengers and more customers trying
to evade the system.
Next slide, please.
So, we've seen an increase in non-major assaults in the month of November, which was unique.
But a lot of those are non-major.
So, for example, we had a couple events where a customer was upset
and threw water on a conductor.
So, those are types of non-major events that we're seeing as far as conductor assaults.
And we're addressing those.
We're going to, we have, our LA County Sheriff's Department provides de-escalation training
for conductors, and whenever we provide that training or refresher training,
we see those incidents go down, because what we want is we don't want the altercation
to become personal, you know, that's when it gets, you know, into the assault area.
Next slide.
So again, our law enforcement and security deployment, this is all data driven.
And these numbers change.
These are all of the different activities
that a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
has performed throughout the last three months.
And our analysis of crime stats
from December 2024 to December 2025,
we've seen an 83.1% reduction.
So that's how we know that in crime on our system.
So that's how we know that
our data-driven approach is working.
So for example, if you look at Ventura County,
you'll see that there haven't been a lot of activities
in the county, but that's because we had to redeploy
a lot of the law enforcement to address the trespasser
and homeless issues on the Los Angeles County part
of the line, which covers Chadsworth, Northridge,
Van Nuys, Sylmar, San Fernando, and Burbank.
So those are on the Ventura Line.
Those are the areas that we're having issues with
that we're addressing right now.
And then overall, you know, it's like a moving target,
but I just wanna make sure that the board knows
we're not neglecting any county, you know,
but we are using our data-driven approach
to address the issues on that line within that county
within several counties because it runs through several counties, next slide.
Then again, this is the same data presented by line.
You'll see the law enforcement activity increased on the Antelope Valley line and the San Bernardino
line.
So, a lot of those activities as well, you know, like I said, a lot of, we're seeing
a higher number of homeless encampments popping up and trespassers on those lines.
Next slide.
Then this is a new slide.
So, last year we brought our San Bernardino County
increased their patrol staff.
And these are the activities that they performed
on their line, on the San Bernardino line,
specifically in San Bernardino County,
from Montclair to Redlands University
for the last quarter.
Next slide.
Then this is happy to report rule violations
they're down 67 or 66.7%.
We continue to work with our operations team
to make sure that everybody's well-informed
and understands the rules and understands how to apply them.
Next slide.
Then FRA reportable injuries are up by two for the quarter.
So we are working with the vendor.
We just completed a agency-wide safety blitz
with all of our contractors and vendors and employees.
So hopefully that will help.
Next slide.
Then just to recap our employee training,
you know we do a lot of employee training, mentoring.
We've conducted 52 training classes,
trained 918 participants
in various forms of safety awareness training,
active shooter G-Core, hazard management,
and that sort of thing.
So we're continuing to do that.
One thing I do want to bring up and invite the board to
is we're having an active shooter event,
or it's actually a simulation training,
April 8th at our Melbourne facility.
It's hosted by Metrolink and LASD,
and we're inviting law enforcement partners as well.
So I'd like to invite the board out to see that.
It's April 8th at our Melbourne facility in Pomona,
starting at 7 a.m.
And then coffee with the captain,
April 23rd at our Fullerton station from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m.
And next slide.
And that's all I have, if anybody has any questions.
Questions?
Yes, Director Najarian?
Thanks for the report.
I've been receiving several emails and comments
about a large homeless encampment
between Glendale and Union Station.
I believe perhaps, if I'm not mistaken,
near the Figueroa Street Bridge, if I'm correct on that.
And I guess that serves both the venture
and the Antelope Valley line.
So in light of the law of the anti-camping ordinance,
which was, I guess it was a Supreme Court law
which permitted that,
I really think we need to keep our right-of-ways
just sacred ground, and keep campers, those challenged,
finding shelter out of that region.
It's not safe for them.
It's not safe should something occur for our riders.
And to the extent we, I'm not sure what the process is,
do we contact law enforcement and say,
hey, we'd like some enforcement in this particular zone?
or does our own sheriff?
No, in that area that you're talking about,
we are actually increasing.
So we would perform, we call them encampment removals,
but we have a process in place
where we give them a 72-hour notice.
We'll go out on a Monday and then we'll hang notices up,
tell them that they have to vacate within 72 hours.
If they're not gone, we come back Thursday
and we clean up the area
and we'll remove all of their belongings.
And then the LA County Sheriff's Department
is the one that does that with our right-of-way team.
So that's our process.
We're actually going to increase that to twice a week
in certain areas because it's, like you said,
we're seeing a lot more homeless encampments
pop up along the railroad right-of-way.
And what we're actually, we have a meeting with the NSF.
We had one meeting.
We're trying to have another meeting.
But a lot of their issues right now are the container thefts.
So when we remove them from our right-of-way,
they'll go over to their right-of-way.
And a lot of times, it's adjacent to our tracks.
So there's still trespassing, crossing back and forth.
So we need to get the freights engaged, as well.
But it's, you know, I agree with you hardly.
That's why we're increasing the amount of encampment removals
that we're doing.
I think 72 hours, just my comment, is very generous
for someone who has scaled offense,
entered secured property, and 72 is the law?
It's the law, yeah.
Gotta give them that minimum.
Yeah, it is.
Okay, maybe we can work on that in our legislative.
Thank you.
There's an election coming up.
Thank you.
All right, thank you for the comment.
Any other questions?
Seeing none, I'll just receive a file item.
Thank you for the information.
Now we come to the ridership
and revenue and financial results for February, 2026.
And I see, I like your hat this morning.
Thank you.
Spring.
Christine Wilson.
Good morning, Chairman Shafee and members of the board.
As described, this is the presentation
of revenue, ridership, and financial results.
And before I begin, I would like to point out
that this report covers year to date activity
through February 28th, 2026, the most recent closed month.
I believe this immediacy of financial reporting
is a first for Metrolink.
We have been working for some time
on improving the efficiency of our processes
to speed activities while still ensuring accuracy.
Henceforth, we will present information
on the month immediately preceding the board meeting,
whenever the board date is such
that the timing allows us to do so.
This has been also one of the benefits
of deferring the committees because they happen so early
that it's impossible for us to get closed
and reporting on time to bring the prior month to the board.
Next slide, please.
You see here the ridership for each month through February.
The blue columns are actuals with the recovery rate inserted
in them, and by recovery we're talking about compared
to pre-pandemic 2019, indicated in the center of the columns.
The green line is the original KPMG SBIRI forecast,
which is the budgeted number.
The orange line is the refresh forecast provided
to us by KPMG in January.
Through February, the original forecasted ridership was six
6.1 million, a 77% recovery.
The refreshed forecast is a 4.6 million, a 58% recovery,
while the actual is 4.6 million, a 58% recovery.
The shortfall from the original forecast is 1.5 million,
while the refreshed forecast provides a comparison
of 24,000 over the refreshed forecast.
Next slide, please.
Here's the revenue for the eight months ended February.
Once again, the columns are actual.
The green line is the original forecast and budget.
And the orange line is the refreshed forecast.
Through February, the original forecasted revenue
was 37.5 million, a 69% recovery.
The refreshed forecast is 28.4 million,
a 52% recovery, while the actual is 28.6 million,
52% recovery. The shortfall from the original forecast is 8.9 million, while the refresh
forecast provides a comparison that actuals are actually over by 238,000. I just want
to mention here, and this is a personal opinion, I'm really disappointed to see us getting
away from the optimized service because the one area where we are actually over the FY19
pre-pandemic numbers are in the weekends.
So our revised service actually has made it so that the weekends are even bigger than
what it was in 2019.
I just wanted to say that.
Next slide.
This slide shows ridership, by month,
displaying the portion of the ridership which
was subsidized, the lighter color at the top of the column,
and the portion of the ridership which was paid by passengers,
the darker portion at the bottom of the column.
The slide also shows the comparison by month
of this year versus last year.
FY25 is brown colors, while the FY26 is in blue colors.
Looking closely, you will note that paid ridership is an increase over FY25 in each month.
The black line is the original forecast and budget, while the green line is a refreshed forecast.
It is continuing to be quite accurate to the actual revenue.
Next slide.
This slide shows ridership by month through February.
The brown colors are last year's actuals, the blue are this year's actuals,
the green is the original forecast, and the pink is the refresh forecast,
which you can see is much closer to the actuals.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows system-wide fair revenues as compared to last year and the two forecasts.
You will see every month shows paid revenue higher than last year.
Next slide.
Here we see the information by line.
Compared to actual FY25, to actual XY26,
to the original forecast and to the refresh forecast.
You will note that five of the seven lines
are higher than last year,
even including the large student adventure pass
in the prior year.
Next slide.
The financial results for MetroLink.
Through eight months ending February 28th, 2026,
Operating revenue is 41.8 million,
under budget by 8.1 million or 16.3%.
Total expenses are 215.0 million,
under budget by 20 million or 8.5%.
Overall member agency support it required
is currently in surplus by 11.9 million.
Major drivers of the underage from the budget
are as shown on the slide.
many expenses include accruals.
Next slide.
Here you see the revenue section
of the Metrolink operating budget.
And you can see that we are under
at on pro forma fair revenue by the 8.9 million.
Next slide.
These are the train operating expense details.
Next slide.
Next are the totals showing the expense under by 20 million
and the member support in surplus by 11.8 million.
Next slide.
This is arrow service ridership by month.
This year compared to last,
the black and green lines are original budgeted
and refreshed forecast respectively.
Next slide.
This is arrow revenue by month.
The reduction of the difference
made by subsidized ridership is a reflection
of our lower draw on the LC top grant
to prevent running out of funds before year-end.
And that's why you see that between those two months,
it drops so precipitously.
Next slide.
As to arrow, finance, through the eight months
ended February.
Operating revenue is $333,000, under budget by $112,000 or 25%.
Expenses are 10 million under budget by two point one million or seventeen point three percent
Support is nine point seven in surplus by two million or seventeen percent
Your packet includes copies of both Metro Lincoln arrow service detailed February 26
operating statements for further review and the packet also includes us a
supplemental attachment containing by line by month
comparisons of actuals to budget for ridership
That concludes my report may I answer any questions questions directors. I don't see any
Chair I was having a hard time this button my question has to do with the the updated forecast
With what is now going to be this reduction in service has that been?
Incorporated or are we going to basically fall short?
Because of this new issue. We are going to be asking KPMG sperry capital to do another forecast that accounts for
Whatever service reduction we end up with okay, so we so we count for that when we get our next report
Once this happens it'll and have incorporated
Okay
It will likely director Burke's and be a part of the the the budget
Process when we would move it forward because it'll be factored into that as a revenue. Okay. Thank you
Questions I see none. Thank you. It's a receive and file
Which rate you react your report?
Now we get to learn about what's happening with our first while legislators
Mr.. Dunn
Thank you. Good morning chair Chafee members of the board
Next slide, please
In state matters first I would like to provide update on developments to a couple of bills outlined in your report first
beginning with SB 667 by Senator Bob Archuleta, Metrolink following your
direction has opposed this bill which would require installation of additional
wayside detector system costing millions of dollars to implement and maintain but
it provides no funding and the bill would reduce potentially train travel to
10 miles per hour on sections of the system not meeting requirements of the
bill. Other partners including CTA, San Joaquin Rail, Caltrain, and both class 1
freight railroads have opposed this bill. LA Metro's executive committee has
recommended to its board a seeks amendments position on the bill to
remove the 10 mile per hour requirement and replace it with another penalty that
is unspecified but explicitly would not harm public transportation as well as a
provision explicitly specifying that freight railroads are to be
financially responsible to implement requirements of the bill. We will track
this bill carefully and work with Metro should it need our technical or subject
matter expertise as it works with the author. The bill which passed the Senate
last year by 2611 vote is presently held at the assembly desk. It's not yet
referred to committee. However, deadline to move from second house policy
committees is not until July 2nd. The bill should it move must go back to the
assembly for concurrence in the Senate amendments and we're going to keep you
apprised of its status throughout the year. We will be on hand to register
opposition already communicated with the author at any committee hearing should
it be held. Next Senate Bill 1136 by Senator Catherine Blake-Speare also in
report as a bill we have interacted with the senator's office extensively over
the past couple of weeks with author's amendments that will be incorporated
to address concerns that we and other impacted rail partners including the
North County Transit District in San Diego County, Losan, Caltrain and other
operators have had with this bill. As introduced, the bill would condition
receipt of state rail assistance funds by rail operators on complying with
requirements of the bill to develop plans and to offer augmented service to
special events which are not defined in the bill. The author's amendments would
remove this provision of tying receipt of SRA funds to compliance with the bill.
It would require operators to develop plans and offer service to special
events to the extent feasible, but would not mandate such service.
The amendments do require rail operators to offer ticket interoperability to passengers
for service for Metrolink.
This would potentially expand its ticket interoperability with Losand and it would require it with NCTD.
We have these proposed amendments in draft and once in print, we will continue to work
with the author's office and with our partners in passenger rail to meet the author's objectives
to enhance coordination among rail operators, especially for special event train service,
while making the passenger ticketing and travel experience as seamless as possible.
SB 1136 is referred to the Senate Transportation Committee with first policy committee hearing
scheduled for April 14.
Senator Henry Stern's SB 1411 noted in the report is a bill that would allow California
high-speed rail to enter into new funding commitments outside the Bakersfield to
Merced segment. Currently that is statutory limited to 500 million dollars
to any amount for additional activities that maximize the efficiency of
delivering the project. The objective of this bill is to give authority to
advance more funding for bookend projects near the population centers of
northern and southern California. A long-held objective of Metrolink and
its partners. MetroLink has not yet gone on record in support of the bill, but we expect
to, in coordination with our partners, report to you on the status of the bill as it moves
through the process. Next slide, please.
Federal matters, as noted in the board report, MetroLink submitted 11 congressionally-directed
spending applications, also known as earmark requests, to members of its delegation in
the House and Senate for possible inclusion into the FY27 T-HUT appropriations bill.
These projects were selected from throughout the network based on both operational and
capital priority, as well as the extent to which they conform to project guidelines set
forth by Congress to maximize their opportunity for success, bearing in mind that every member
receives far more requests than he or she can submit to the Budget Committees for consideration.
And all these aggregate into excess of $30 million of requests.
Because it is an election year, it is assumed that the Congress will pass all 12 appropriations
bills, whether individually or in omnibus or minibus form prior to the end of the current
federal fiscal year of September 30th. We will keep you apprised.
Metrolink's strategy and government relations staff will be in Washington for the Aptanational
Legislative Conference April 12th through the 14th, and we use this opportunity to advocate
these requests directly on the Hill with members of the Metrolink delegation and to thank the
members for their consideration.
We will, too, advocate for Metrolinx Olympics needs and especially its security needs before
the Department of Homeland Security, which has received funding for $1 billion from the
Big Beautiful Bill for security related to the 2028 Games, but, to date, has not released
guidance for the application or allocation of those funds.
We will stress the need to obligate funding this year in order to provide time to properly
secure our network for the Games.
Additionally, we will seek to meet with members of the White House Task Force on the Summer
Olympics to articulate this priority request and the need to provide federal support this
year or risk being too late to fully prepare our system for the Games from a security standpoint.
Additionally, we will be prepared to meet with appropriate members and staff of the
House and Senate authorizing committees if the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
confirms it will be holding markup on the Surface Transportation Authorization Bill
bill this year. While committee chair Sam Graves of Missouri has indicated his intent
to hold markup in mid-April, that date has been a moving target throughout the year and
there is growing sentiment that the Congress may continue the IIJA past its expiration
on September 30 until after the midterms where the new Congress can move the bill next year
perhaps under different leadership. Our CEO Mr. Kettle too will be in Washington in May
with Mobility 21 as part of its annual federal advocacy
trip to advocate these key objectives.
In addition to the broader priorities
of that organization, though federal support of the Olympics
are a prioritized advocacy objective of Mobility 21
as well.
Thank you.
That concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Questions?
I see none.
Thank you for keeping us surprised.
We'll look forward to what actually happens
with some of these bills.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
All right Mr. CEO.
Mr. Chair, members of the board,
you've heard quite a bit from me today.
So you need not have to suffer
through a long chief executive officer's report.
Really it's just a matter of,
let's say, hey, great job by the Dodgers in opening day.
Dodger fans, we're off to a three-peat
and I'm going to, recognizing the Dodgers,
this is a recognition of the city of Ontario
and the Ontario Tower Buzzers,
who's the Dodgers affiliate here in single-A baseball
in the brand-new ballpark in Ontario.
First pitch is April 2nd.
Am I correct in that, Director Whelburn?
April 2nd, 635.
There you go.
I'm a Harin's pitching out the first pitch.
So go Dodgers, go Blue.
Thanks, everybody.
That's all I have, Mr. Chair.
Well, the Angels won too yesterday.
we couldn't believe we couldn't believe that either but yes
go american league
well i've heard a lot of interesting things today uh... as tested ad hoc we
have an unusual jp structure and has to match with the brown act
so see we can figure something out uh... to
as much participation we can if we're able to do that
uh... i've heard
possibility maybe some advertising on our trains i don't know i know on our
buses and OCD carry advertising we do get revenue so I don't know if that's
something we want to do but something to look into definitely and if we're gonna
find some more grants like making a student ride free again that would be
wonderful if we could and then I'd like to thank staff this is pressure time on
our staff too we're looking at the cutbacks all the work they're doing is
not easy and so I want to say thank you to that and with that I'm going to
to join the meeting. Thank you all for attending today.