Very good morning to everyone and call the meeting of our board
to order
Again as usual with a safety briefing
And so would Hillary cause all our chief safety security and compliance officer. Would you please give us our safety briefing?
Good morning
Chairman Shafi board of directors in the event we need to evacuate the room
We will walk out the door we entered in
Walk down the escalators and hang a right we'll meet in the LA Metro customer service
Area we will take headcount there just when you're exiting the room. Just be mindful of tripping hazards
Maybe some bags cords, and then also remember to push in your chairs in the event of a medical emergency
We do have our LA County sheriff
Deputies and captain in the back they will down 911 and we do have an ad located at the security desk
They will also render aid
In the event of an earthquake will take cover under the the desks wait for the rumbling to stop and see if further
Evacuation is necessary and in the event of an active shooter event will deploy the run hide fight tactic. Thank you
Thank you for the briefing at this time
If you all rise and join us as director do tray leads us in the pledge of allegiance
Thank you very much earlier last week. I had a chance to visit Normandy including, Utah and
In Omaha Beach in the cemetery, so let's do the pledge allegiance to remain of all of our employees over there a day
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God
visible liberty and
Thank You director do tray battle clerk would you please take the call so we may confirm we have a quorum
director Nguyen
director go
director tettimer
Vice chair Burksen
director Spiegel
director Vargas director Molina
second vice chair Tremblay
director Engler
director Barger
director Najarian
director Sandoval
director Solis
director Olson
director Allen
director O'Connor
director Camacho
director McCallin
director Dutray
director Marquez
chair Chafee
Present we do have a quorum present. Thank you. Madam clerk. Do we have any one here who would like to address this board?
It's time for public comment
Madam clerk. I have not received any request to speak under general public comments
But we will call up the request to speak under the items as they come up. We did receive several
written public comments regarding item 6b that have been
printed and are at the dais and then we received a few other bits of correspondence about keeping Metrolink funded and
All those were included with the mail out with the packet last week
All right, we'll take those as they come up then
now
At this point we talked moving to our consent calendar, which are items 13a through 13m in the agenda
I don't click to have any requests from the public to hear an item separately
On those items. I have not received any requests to pull anything from the consent calendar
Members of the board as are are there any of those items you'd like to consider separately Mr. Chair
May I just make a comment with respect to one of them?
And it's item. It's item 13 B on the 2027 calendar just to bring to the chair's attention
That at least five of those dates conflict with Ventura County Transportation Commission meetings for committee dates
And we have this recurring problem where I'm not able to attend the Vafcom meetings
Because of this conflict in schedules. I'll vote to approve this in 13B
But I am hoping that at some point perhaps a poll could be taken of the Baifcom
Directors to say is there another date or time that might be convenient, so thank you for letting me comment
I'll approve 13B together with the rest of the consent calendar if you like. I'm happy to make that motion
Thank you for your comment any other directors have a comment or item you'd like to hear separately
And moved in second and the objection abstention seeing none the items are approved
well, now we go on to
our
Public hearing which is the adoption of the proposed
Aero service budget for the fiscal year
2027 I'm going to open the hearing and
Begin with the staff presentation
Go ahead. Thank you. Good morning chair chiefy members of the board
I'm Tom Shamber, chief financial officer.
This is an action item requesting adoption
of the FY27 Arrow operating and capital budgets.
Development of the Arrow budget was completed in collaboration
with SBCTA staff.
As a reminder, Arrow is funded entirely by SBCTA.
Next slide, please.
Here's what we will be walking through rather quickly
this morning.
Next slide.
Arrow will remain at its current service levels.
Revenue and ridership were based on historical performance,
adjusted only for a limited free college pass program
offered through our CPP program
and then funded entirely by SBCTA.
Program has been in place for most of the past fiscal year
and will remain in place for the entirety of fiscal year 27.
Expenses were limited as much as possible
to increases mandated by agreements.
Next slide please.
And next slide.
Proposed operating revenue is $570,000, a 17.4% decrease
from the FY26 budget.
Total expenses are $18.9 million, an increase of $700,000
from the FY26 budget or 3.8%.
Support from SBCTA is 18.3 million, up 811,000
from the FY26 budget, a 4.6% increase.
Next slide, please.
Here's a look at operating revenues over time.
You can see the strong influence
of the Student Adventure Pass Program in the earlier years.
FY27 was adjusted downward to reflect
the actual results of FY26.
Next slide, please.
And now look at operating expenses which are trending upward.
However, for FY27 there is an increase in equipment maintenance
as the result of planned multiple unit overhauls.
The San Bernardino Sheriff's contract increases are also a
driver of this increase.
Next slide, please.
Moving on to the capital budget, there is a single state
of good repair project of 501,000 related to PTC maintenance.
There is also a $336,000 new capital project comprising Arrow's share
of a new PTC training center.
The attachment containing the details
of this project were inadvertently omented from your packet.
And this next slide shows the details of that project.
And I understand it's very difficult to read, but it is
for that PTC training center
because it is also serving multiple units.
And so the SPCTA operators are also getting training there.
We will send it out so you have the details after the meeting.
Okay, the next two slides show some detail,
historical detail on the capital budgets.
I won't walk through them in detail
in this presentation unless there are questions.
So if we can move forward a couple of slides,
that is the end of my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Well, let's start.
Board members, any questions?
I see none.
Now we'd like, I'm sorry, go ahead, Director Marquez.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This information that we just provided to us
regarding the SBCTA, has this been provided to them
as far as capital improvement?
Yes, it has.
Yes, it has.
The project was accidentally overlooked,
and so it was added after the BAFCOM meeting
earlier this month,
but SBCTA staff were immediately notified.
We shared the details of this project
and they are onboard with it.
You said it was actually presented at the BAFCOM.
This one project was missing.
It was discovered through the BAFCOM presentation
that this one item was missing.
This training facility was entirely on the Metrolink budget
until the realization was made that the SBCTA piece
Related to training for multiple unit operation, you know
And it resulted in an allocation a small very small allocation of that project SBCTA and aero
Any other director questions this time but I would like to open this up to public comments if there are any madam clerk
I'll call Adriana Rizzo up to the podium
My public comment was actually for a different item. But given the opportunity, I do have a quick question for the board
My name's Audrey Anna Rizzo
Representing, California for electric rail. I live in Riverside. I was wondering if staff could provide a little bit
more information about the play in multiple unit overhauls and whether that relates at all to the
any the operation of the
Hydrogen Z mu multiple unit in particular. Thank you
Are there any other members the public who would like to comment I?
See none
So with that we're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to board for any further consideration
questions I
Would note this is not actually part of the Metrolink budget is being picked up entirely by the San Bernardino, correct?
It's been moved there's a second and second any further questions
Objections abstentions seeing none the budget is approved. Thank you for presentation
And now don't go away because now
Item 8 of our regular calendar is a budget development update
We I think we're all like to hear about that. So Tom you're still on. Okay, here we go
So I'm pleased to share that we've made great progress since I last presented to all of you on this topic
Through extensive collaboration with member agency staff we have reached consensus on
a service plan that we believe will get us to an acceptable budget that meets
the funding targets of our member agencies. There are service cuts but they
are not as severe as what we contemplated just a few months ago. These
cuts were targeted at low-performing trains and trains that overlap with
Pacific Surfliner service. The schedule will look more like a commuter rail
service focused on weekdays and peak periods. In addition to thoughtful
schedule modifications to bring down costs, Metrolink will contribute roughly
nine to twelve million dollars in state rail assistance to put a bow on this
budget. This relatively modest fund source is the only direct revenue
Metrolink receives, it originates from a diesel sales tax that CalSTA apportions
to a limited number of rail operators throughout the state. We do not consider
it a stable enough resource to count on as a reliable fund source every year. To
date it has been used for one-time expenses like providing matching funds
for grant opportunities. Next slide please. This is a timeline for getting the
budget over the finish line at this meeting the arrow budget was adopted on
September 28th next Monday the hopefully final budget will be shared
with the member agencies for their review and feedback the Mac meeting on
October 8th provides another opportunity for group review of the budget by member
agencies on October 9th there will be a special board meeting held in lieu of
the BAFCOM. I believe we are expecting that to be a virtual meeting. Is that
still the case? Tom, that is the chair was just going to introduce that idea
after you finished your presentation, but that is the thought process so board
members can start thinking about the possibility of the meeting being virtual
for what will be a single item agenda. We'll ask the board for whether that is
acceptable. I assume it will be, but we'll come back to that after the
presentation. Okay at that time the October 9th meeting the board will
approve formal transmittal of the Metrolink operating and capital budgets
to the member agencies. Two weeks later on October 23rd we will ask the board to
adopt the budget at its regular meeting. Given the meeting times of each member
agencies governing bodies the request for adoption will be contingent upon
on subsequent adoption of each member agency.
Finally, on November 16th,
the new schedule will be implemented.
I should add one milestone that is not on this slide.
On October 5th, a fair increase to one-way tickets,
the SoCal Day Pass and the Weekend Pass will take effect,
you know, a month and a half roughly
before the service changes go into effect.
That concludes my report.
happy to answer any questions. Director has questions. Then I'm going to ask if
for our sorry oh sorry. Thank you I appreciate staff's work on this after
the board laid down that bright line of what we were willing to tolerate and you
just so the public knows because we've been getting a lot of feedback as I'm
sure you have. When you say you are discontinuing certain lines, the decision you are making
are because of poor ridership. How bad is some of the ridership on those lines? I think
there's an impression that these are fully packed trains that we are canceling and it's
the dumbest decision in the world. But some of these lines are very poorly ridden if I'm
I'm not mistaken if I understood the ridership counts.
Briefly, could you just tell us what are the types of lines,
how poorly ridden are they that are leading
to this continuation to save the budget?
Yeah, it's probably out of my depth.
Rod wants to answer that.
Between Rod Bailey, our chief operating officer,
and myself, we can probably tag team this a little bit.
The intent on this was we identified primarily
mid-day trains that were low ridership trains,
literally with 40, 50 people maybe on board those trains,
generally small number trains,
small ridership trains, low ridership trains.
That's what we targeted first,
but even then we still had,
we had to get into some territory where we had,
you know, a few more riders,
but as we tried to get to the number,
that was the primary goal.
The other effort we did find to be successful
is we do have on the Ventura County line
and the Orange County line,
we have overlap with Pacific surf liner trains,
which our riders are able to use tickets for,
their tickets for.
So long as we were able to maintain that program
with Losan, where either the monthly passes
allow for the rail-to-rail program,
so you can use either train,
or on the Ventura County line, a code share,
then we were able to maintain some level of service
that serves throughout the day.
But generally, Director Najarian,
The mid-day trains under Metrolink reimagined
just did not have time to mature
in what their ridership could have been.
We always said it could be three to five years
and unfortunately our shot clock
didn't give us that much time.
So those are the trains that were identified
as being poor performers
and were the ones that created the least amount of impact
on our greatest number of riders
which are generally still commuters.
And this is not to say that those lines
would not be returned pending more favorable financial conditions?
Agreed. We have established through MetroLink Reimagined a great foundation for what it
could be if resources flow. So that is, you know, we've got something locked in whenever
the funding comes our way.
Director Duchary?
I think in talking to our SPCTA staff yesterday, it appears that this will be on the SPCTA's
meeting in November. So that would take place, is that delay the November 16-17
implementation? We are, as Mr. Shamber indicated, we are going to be approving
our budget pending approval from the five member counties. It should not delay
if we do get a, given the effort that's been put in to get to this
consensus, we believe the risk is small that our, that one of our member agencies
may decline to vote yes on that.
If we get a curveball, there's still that risk,
to be honest.
But I think the level of effort that has gone on
in working with the member agency advisory committee staff
and my work with the member agency CEOs
that we have, I'll call it a general person's agreement
for an approval before their boards.
Boards can do their own things,
but this staff is a consensus that we are in a good spot.
Obviously you need time to inform the public as well. So okay. Yep. Yeah moving forward with number. We're over wherever that
November date is that's correct
Don't see any other director
Looking for comment
So thank you for the comments that were made in the clarification as to how they some of the reductions were actually made and the
Hope of bringing them back
When the funding improves we're looking at an october 9 meeting. It's a one-issue item
and a consensus if it's okay, will you do that virtually and assure a quorum that way?
Is there any objection from board members to that concept? I don't see any I think it's kind of a benefit this time.
Yes, go ahead. Can we do it early morning? I mean not like really early but in the
early morning because the afternoon
I'd be I'm up
Like maybe like nine
So director Barger not to speak for director Tremblay, but if you don't mind I will
The
VCTC has a 9 o'clock in the morning meeting at VCTC
So in an effort to try to have Ventura's participation
We were looking at a 10 o'clock that might allow that was Tremblay to participate participate in both. That's fine
Yeah, thank you
All right, with that consensus then we'll make that a virtual meeting at targeting 10 o'clock as the start time
All right. I thank you that presentation and it's been a long
Road to get to this point and I'm hopeful that we'll conclude it and then look forward to a
Some better choices next year as we go forward
Okay, now we come on to our we do have one request to speak on this item. I'm sorry
We do have one request to speak on. Oh, we do. Okay, let's call the speaker, please
Call Adriana Rizzo up again
Hello, Adriana Rizzo
California electric rail coming here from Riverside. I am very frustrated
but a lack of transparency around this budget process that we still don't have a budget with
schedules or a lot of information being presented,
even in this meeting.
At OCGA's finance and audit committee last week,
they unveiled 35% service cuts, which
is a reversal of what was promised at the last board
meeting when we were talking about just keeping
the March service cuts.
And this information was not presented in this meeting
to the full board.
And also coming after the cancellation of two
planned meetings in August, this is,
Metrolink is in crisis right now with these budget cuts.
I'm just not seeing a lot of transparency
and not a lot of oversight at this board.
The timeline between these proposed budgets and the cuts
is extremely short, which I think
is quite disrespectful to riders,
where one train being canceled can make the difference
for whether they can get to work or not
and use the train at all.
Throughout this process, I've really been disappointed
by the lack of cooperation from the counties as well.
Nobody is stepping up to provide enough resources
that would actually make a difference
and prevent service cuts.
And the total amount of money that the deficit is,
an absolute amount, is very small,
but we're looking at sending Metrolink
into a death spiral over tens of millions of dollars.
Just, this is just not working.
This is not how you should be running a transit system.
It really feels like OCGA has a unilateral veto
over service improvements, which is undemocratic
and discounts the voices of everybody
in all of the other four counties who wants more service.
I think Metrolink needs structural reforms
that go beyond just cutting a few staff as Metrolink
has done this year.
Metra like needs control over its own infrastructure and it needs control over its own budget. The current complex is needlessly complex
Inefficient and is not producing good outcomes. Thank you
Thank you those comments. I know we were funded by five agencies each had their own budget
And each had this little board and on those boards sometimes there are subcommittees that review these things, too
so I appreciate
Our CEO coming to ROCTA meetings and including the committee and
Helping us understand where things are and I think we've arrived at a point where we will be approving the proposed budget
Thank staff
Particularly our CEO for his efforts and what he's been doing
With that this is a receiving file item if no objection will be received in file
Okay, now we come on to item 8b which is our multiple unit input nation plan
And it's again receiving a follow-up item and we have a Justin for Nellie if you sir would give us a staff report
Good morning board members. My name is Justin for Nellie chief of program delivery with Metrolinq
I also have Eric bang heart here with HDR who's our technical consultant that assisted us in the development of this implementation plan
Before Eric goes into the technical aspects of this plan
I wanted to provide a little bit of background and context as to how we got here with this plan
Approximately four years ago when SPCTA was rolling out their new arrow service utilizing two car multiple units
They reached out to us and asked us to determine the infrastructure and how to expand the service area of those multiple units
onto the San Bernardino line,
running them all the way to Union Station.
In addition, Metro had received a grant,
TRCP grant from the state of California
for $10 million to look at a pilot project
on the Antelope Valley line
for running multiple units on that line.
So we took the opportunity to combine those two efforts
to look at and complete this implementation plan
for both the Antelope Valley and the San Bernardino line.
When we were about halfway through our assessment,
the state of California executed a contract with Stadler
to manufacture zero emission, multiple units, four car,
zero emission, multiple units for the use
on inner city service throughout the state of California.
So the state then asked us to incorporate the use
of those vehicles potentially for a pilot service
on the San Bernardino line or Antelope Valley line.
So we were able to incorporate that
into the implementation plan as well.
So I just want to highlight that throughout the development
of this implementation plan, there was robust collaboration
between our key stakeholders with SBCTA, Metro,
and Caltrans, and so now we have completed this study,
and I'll turn it over to Eric
to go through the technical aspects.
Thank you, Justin.
My name is Eric Bangart.
I'm HDR's transit section lead in overseeing this study.
I'm going to provide, oh, sorry, next slide.
I'm going to provide a brief overview
of the multiple unit implementation plan
and the key findings of the study.
To begin, the study evaluated two types
of passenger rail equipment,
versus the multiple unit or MU train.
These are single-level passenger cars
that are permanently linked together
and operate as one train set.
They can use renewable diesel
or hydrogen electric propulsions
and typically carry between 125 and 250 seated passengers.
The images on the slide show both a two-car MU,
the vehicle in blue,
and then the four-car hydrogen MU configuration
on the bottom of the slide.
The second is the conventional locomotive hold coach train
that Metrolink primarily operates today.
These trains use locomotives to pull or push
four to six bi-level passenger cars
and accommodate approximately five to 800 seated passengers.
Next slide.
With that basic overview,
I'll now summarize the key findings from the study.
While the smaller MU train sets are well-matched
for lower ridership markets,
most Metrolink service is operated as an end-to-end service.
Ridership levels require larger capacity trains
for much of the trip.
As a result, opportunities replace existing locomotive
hauled trains with MU's are concentrated
on specific service patterns rather than
across entire lines.
I'll dig more into this bullet on the next slide.
Second bullet, to accommodate future ridership demand,
many MU operations would require coupling multiple train sets
together.
So that means coupling putting two of those four-car train
sets together to create an eight-car train.
While this increases passenger capacity,
It reduces some of the operating and cost advantages
associated with operating smaller vehicles
and can increase staffing and operating costs.
Third, the study found that maintenance facilities
are the primary driver for both cost and schedule.
Supporting a dedicated MU fleet would require
substantial investment in maintenance infrastructure,
including facility expansion and new maintenance capacity.
Finally, the study identified an important constraint
for hydrogen-powered ZMUs operating
on the Antelope Valley line.
Under current regulations, hydrogen powered vehicles
are not currently permitted
to operate through those tunnels.
This limitation affects where and how these vehicles
can be deployed on the Metrolink system.
Taken together, these findings indicate that MU vehicles
can play a valuable role in specific corridors
and service applications.
But their limitations would require
significant capital investment
as not a system-wide replacement
for Metrolink's existing fleet.
Next slide please.
So a priority of the study was determined
where MU vehicles could realistically be deployed
within Metrolinx Future Service Plan
on the Antelope Valley Line and the San Bernardino Line.
This analysis was based on service growth development plan
and compared projected ridership demand
against MU vehicle capacity.
On the Antelope Valley Line
between Los Angeles Union Station and Santa Clarita,
all services could be operated using a four-car MU train set
while meeting projected ridership in demand.
For trips continuing to Lancaster,
ridership levels are higher,
so only two of the eight train sets could be operated
as coupled eight-car MU consists
to provide sufficient capacity.
On the San Bernardino line,
opportunities for MU deployment are more limited
due to the higher ridership demand.
The study found that three of the 12 train sets
operating between Los Angeles Union Station and San Bernardino
could be replaced with coupled eight-car MU train sets
while maintaining the required passenger capacity.
Overall, the analysis demonstrates that MU vehicles
may be viable option for selected services and train sets,
particularly where wider ship demand is lower.
However, most services would continue
to require larger train capacity,
which limits the extent to which MU vehicles
could replace the existing locomotive hauled fleet.
Next slide, please.
After identifying the services
where MU deployment could be feasible,
the study evaluated the associated operating
and maintenance costs.
The chart on this slide compares annual operating costs
between Metrolinx's existing locomotive hauled coaches,
fleet and hydrogen powered MU trains.
Costs are broken into three categories,
labor, maintenance, and fuel.
One of the key findings is that labor costs
remain a significant component of operation
regardless of vehicle type.
While MU vehicles are smaller,
they still require train crews and maintenance personnel,
which limits the potential for operating cost savings.
Analysis found that the maintenance and fuel costs
for vehicles can vary.
As a result, the study evaluated
both low and high cost scenarios.
Overall, the study found that MU vehicles
can provide an operating cost savings for a four-car vehicle,
but only for specific low ridership markets
where four-car train sets may better match passenger demand.
When an eight-car train set is acquired,
the O&M cost is no longer competitive.
Next slide, please.
The study found that the largest challenge to MU implementation
is the required capital investment.
To support the MU service plan, Metrolink
would need to acquire 17 four-car MU train sets
and invest in significant supporting infrastructure,
including maintenance and facility improvements
and platform extensions.
Total capital cost is estimated at approximately $1.85 billion,
with about $841 million for San Bernardino line
and $1 billion for the Antelope Valley line.
Importantly, most of the cost is not the vehicles themselves.
Much of the investment is an associated maintenance facility
and supporting infrastructure needed
to operate a dedicated MU fleet.
Given this significant investment,
the study evaluated whether a smaller pilot program
could be demonstrate the benefits of MU service
before pursuing full scale implementation.
Next slide.
Supported by the TERSIP grant from the state of California,
the study evaluated a lower cost pilot program
that could demonstrate MU operations and revenue service.
The pilot could utilize two of the four-car hydrogen
powered Zemu vehicles being manufactured by Caltrans.
Recommended service would be on either the Antelope Valley line
between Los Angeles Union Station and Burbank Airport,
or on the San Bernardino line
between Los Angeles Union Station and Montclair.
support the pilot, temporary maintenance facilities,
and temporary mini-high platforms would be required
to provide ADA access.
The total cost of the pilot is estimated at approximately
19.2 million, and annual operating cost is estimated
between seven and 10 million.
This would provide an opportunity to gain operating
experience with MU technology before making
a larger capital commitments.
This concludes my presentation, and Justin and I
are happy to answer questions.
Questions from the directors.
Yes, go ahead, Dr. Roger.
Thank you, I wanna thank you for this.
You know, I've been a little frustrated
because it's been taken quite a while.
But this report, I haven't had a chance
to look at all 100 pages of it,
but I think it kind of highlights
where we need to go from here
and the decisions we need to make.
Are you in conversations with the state
as it relates to the grant that they provided
and are they giving any input?
I mean, I'm agnostic between the hydrogen versus electric,
but I'm just curious to know what the state's position
given the fact that the grant came via the state? Yes we have been in
conversations with the state they've been engaged in this the development of
this plan I think that they acknowledge that there's going to be additional
funding that's going to be needed to implement the pilot and those
conversations are ongoing but I think they're they're excited to roll out
their zero emission vehicles I think they've run into some issues of where to
operate their trains and so I think there are some opportunities that
Metrolink could be the first place for those trains to operate and so we're
looking to San Bernardino right now because you're operating one in San
Bernardino is that correct there is a two-car zero mission multiple unit
operating on the arrow certain system right now yes and then just is the is a
speed any different on that versus what we're using now the the track speed is I
think at 50 miles an hour on the arrow system a max of 50 miles an hour we have
of track speeds up to 79 miles an hour,
but this equipment is capable of reaching those speeds.
And so really the Antelope Valley line
is off the table given the tunnel issue,
because that's not gonna change if it's hydrogen.
If it's hydrogen, I think what we've identified
is operating up to the Burbank area
would be ideal for a pilot.
I think there's gonna be significant coordination
with the Federal Railroad Administration,
and potentially, right now the condition of those tunnels
The concern is that if there's an incident in the tunnel
with the hydrogen, there could be a fire that would take place.
We don't have a way to currently vent those tunnels.
There's a number of things that we would have to go through
with the FRA to figure out an approach to addressing
use of the vehicle of hydrogen-fueled train
through the tunnel.
And then last but not least, knowing that Burbank
is unveiling their new terminal thing, thank you Ari.
new terminal which is gonna be adjacent to Metrolink,
are you looking at opportunities to capitalize
on people using that to get to Burbank?
If that were to come to be?
I think it would be a great opportunity for this,
especially with this pilot and for these multiple units
to help serve additional ridership to that station, yes.
Okay, well I again wanna thank the consultants
for putting this together.
We'll look at it more closely.
I just wanna make sure that given the discussion
we just had prior to this in terms of services
in all that we are moving cautiously,
recognizing it looks like the cost is greater,
and then even the cost to invest in the trains
needs to be taken into consideration.
How much of the grant is left?
8.5 million of the $10 million grant is remaining.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for those questions and comments, directors.
Yes, so, go ahead, question.
Great, thanks for an informative presentation.
So can you address a little bit how, or whether,
let me put it that way, on whether,
assume that the pilot project was implemented,
how would that impact the broader system?
And forgive me, I have not looked at the study yet,
I haven't had a chance to look at it,
but did the study discuss that?
And what are the impacts?
I think that the impacts really to the broader system,
what we looked at, that there wouldn't be
really operational impacts.
I think the key thing was there would
be some more operational expenses.
I mean, it's another piece of equipment,
different piece of equipment to maintain.
Obviously, the capital investment
for a temporary maintenance facility in downtown Los
Angeles.
But for the existing system, there really
would not be much of any major impacts to the Metrolink system
if we were to roll out the pilot.
But I'm not wrong in thinking.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I was going to say, we looked at it as an additive
to the existing service.
So the full-blown implementation was
looking at replacing trains, the pilot would be looking
at adding more trains to kind of fill some of those spots.
I was thinking even just with respect to the,
let's assume the forsake of discussion
of the pilot system was implemented.
Would there be any concerns since you've gotta have
separate parts and inventories capabilities
for the split, split trains, what that would do
in terms of increase to operational costs?
Yeah, it would increase operational costs.
I mean, there would be new parts supplied
that we'd have to administer.
It would increase the operation costs.
I think that's what we identified
around a seven to $10 million increase
to just run the pilot itself.
So seven to 10 million in operating side
and 19.2 on the capital side.
Correct, for the pilot.
So the total price tag for the pilot
is around 29, 28, 29 million.
Am I somewhere in that range?
Yes.
Okay, that clarifies that for me from a cost standpoint.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
Yes, Director Dutray.
Thank you very much.
Obviously, this is a final receive item on the agenda
today, and we're going to have a discussion about a pilot
project.
I guess the question is, Darren, it's a question to you.
Do you need direction from this board
to at least proceed with some study of the pilot project
after this meeting is file and received,
or what type of directions do you need from the board?
At this point, Director Dautry, I don't know that we need direction.
We certainly have interest from LA Metro and SBCTA of what next steps can be.
So I think that's a consultative process with the two member agencies to see what we would do,
how we might look at the pilot, and we have internal conversations that we're working through.
So this will be something that will come back if we identify.
I think the big question is the funding side of it, and if we can cobble together the resources,
then we can look at that pilot.
But we do have the state's interest
in wanting to support it.
So we want to see how we play that, working with the state,
how they would support the other costs that are associated
with making the pilot happen.
So I think it's too early to say one way or the other,
other than we have told the state we're willing partners,
but we don't have the resources, and our member agencies have
indicated they don't have the resources to support it just
yet either.
Okay, I guess obviously my agency is interested in this along with Metro.
I'd like to see something come back next year or sometime next year.
I don't, again, we need direction to give you to come back to us next year on this.
But that's our preference is that we just don't want to see that this document is file received
and then we forget about it and then two years later we ask, where is it?
is it? Right. I just want to see some more substance in terms of study of a pilot
project and discussions at least have some report come back to the board next
year to determine what the possibility more times needed or something. There's a
there's a commitment on our on Metrolink staffs part to do just that and because
the member agency's interest there's that encouragement there too so we will
have something coming back, we just need some time to sort of digest and figure
out what our next steps are, but the intent here absolutely is to not put
this thing on a shelf and let it gather dust. Thank you. Director Marquez? Thank you sir,
appreciate that. Just two quick questions regarding the supply of
hydrogen. Is that an issue or concern that we were to go this way? So, and the
cost, so yeah, so hydrogen is of course rising in cost right now sadly, so that's
That's why the range in operating costs, we did select a range in there and that was
looking at between 10 to 20 dollars per kilogram which I think is a little, the higher end
is a little bit more what we're currently paying.
The hope is that the market will drive that down a bit, but we did include that kind of
range because the cost is higher.
Is it produced in California by any chance or would it have to go out of state?
Get hydrogen?
I don't know.
Sorry, we can get back.
We can circle back on that.
I appreciate that.
Regarding a fire in a tunnel right now, we're concerned about hydrogen.
do we do with the diesel if that was to catch on fire in a tunnel? Do we have
resources to put that fire up? So we do have resources to put that fire out. I
think the issue with the hydrogen is if there's an incident the current
protocols with the terrain is that they it vents the hydrogen in from a valve
and the issue would be I think within seconds the entire train is engulfed in
and flames with the hydrogen within a tunnel
because of that confined space.
We don't have quite the same issue with a diesel fire
with a diesel locomotive.
So tunnels don't have like an exhaust system?
Those tunnels do not have an exhaust system.
They were originally constructed in the late 1800s,
so it's, yeah, we had to quit it.
With hydrogen, and same with the aero maintenance facility,
the big thing with the change was that was ventilation.
So it would be the same thing with a tunnel.
We'd have to focus on ventilation.
That's how you kind of, the first way
fight a hydrogen fire is ventilated out. Back to Director Tremblay. Thanks Mr.
Chair. Sorry, one other question. Assuming the state is very desirous of doing this,
to your knowledge, has there been any concurrent discussion with the state
relative to our existing funding gap that might be ameliorated potentially in
conjunction with moving forward with the pilot program that's going to cost? I'll
defer that question to Darren. So we've had long ongoing conversations this
last, well this year with the state, both the with the administration and the
legislature unfortunately it didn't bear fruit. We will see what happens with this
because we do know where we are. We've made it painfully, we made it very clear
to the state about our gap in funding and the subsequent budget challenges.
There may be an opportunity there. We will certainly lean on that, that if they
have an expectation that the state would like us to use this equipment in a
Pilot we need them to step up to support it and not put that burden on our member agencies
Public comments on this item we do all right. Let's call the speaker
Adriana Rizzo
Hey, hello. Everybody. This is Adriana Rizzo with California's for electric rail
the
Staff member was very diplomatic
So I'll say this maybe more directly that the results of the study are really not promising for hydrogen
multiple units. As has been discussed there is a substantial safety risk with
explosion in tunnels and most of the configurations do not have the
capacity for the San Bernardino line or the power to get up the grades for the
steeper parts of the Antelope Valley line. Most of these configurations have
substantially higher operating costs, especially the aid car which is the only
one that can actually meet current ridership. At a time when Metrolink is
cutting service and under met met pressure to reduce costs the increased costs are the last thing we need
Finally the funding on hand for a pilot does not even cover the 9
19 million cost of the pilot the state has majorly reduced capital funding this year and
Metrolink is a lot of other
Capital projects with unmet needs that I think would be a better use of funding then such as link us
Rather than
Hoping that we can get more money maybe and
Spending
Public money to make service worse essentially Metrolink should use the remaining zero missions
Pilot money for a study of overhead electrification of the Antelope Valley line which can be shared with California high-speed rail
So this is a this would be require no additional funding and also put
as closer to having high-speed rail reach Southern California, which could unlock funding opportunities.
Los Angeles County is currently studying an enhanced infrastructure
finance district for high-speed rail which could fund the capital cost of electrification and their current plan is to run high-speed rail
using electric, using overhead catenary on part of the Antelope Valley line.
Please do not move forward
With an this unneeded expensive hydrogen pilot that has high cost for no no benefit and
Instead take concrete steps at no additional cost to move us towards electrification. Thank you
Any more comments? Yes
Speaker please Angelo Mike
According to the Department of Energy
95% of hydrogen fuel in America is made from natural gas in large central plants
Then it has to be shipped usually or exclusively
by carbon-emitting methods.
Then there's the problem of storage and hydrogen linking.
According to Stanford, quote,
hydrogen indirectly heats the atmosphere 37 times faster
than carbon dioxide during the first 20 years after release
and 11 times faster than carbon dioxide
in its first 100 years of release.
Hydrogen molecules, quote, readily escape from pipelines,
production facilities, and storage sites, end quote.
according to Stanford scientist Rob Jackson.
Once it releases, it interacts with methane,
effectively supercharging its heating effects
in the atmosphere, and it interacts with other chemicals
that release ozone and stratospheric water vapor,
which are other greenhouse gases.
And it also explodes and kills people easily,
as we saw with the hydrogen truck
that blew up in Colton, killing two.
Now, on the other hand, hydrogen vendors will make money,
And that's good for the economy.
If you're a worker in the gallery,
you're not the economy.
We need massive international cooperation
to abate the worst effects of climate change.
And since we're not getting that,
we need to lead the way on clean energy.
I love writing Metrolink.
I will do it three hours door to door,
even though I could take a lift in half the time.
I believe it's a joyous way of transportation
as well as environmentally sound.
And for the reasons I've stated,
I'm asking the board not to use hydrogen fuel
for Metrolink trains, but to electrify them instead.
Thank you.
You want more pilots?
Paul Dyson.
Mr. Dyson.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and board members.
Paul Dyson with Rail Pack and resident in Burbank.
It's rather disheartening to listen to item 8A, service cuts,
and then have a discussion about plunging funds
into a bottomless pit, a sea of unknown unknowns.
Please be so kind if you can find the time
to read this report, because this
is one of the better reports complete.
Please also spare me a little time
and read my letter if you haven't already done so.
In it, I support the report for the most part,
and I point out that what you're doing
is completely changing the ecosystem.
You're not just buying some new trains.
What you're having to do is create a complete parallel
system of all new maintenance and fueling facilities,
driver education, modifications to the platforms.
Don't even start to go down this road.
This organization started with locomotives, hauling passenger
coaches.
That may or may not have been the best decision.
At the time, it was probably the only decision
because of regulatory constraints.
But you are in that system now.
And to change it will require so much money,
not only that, so much disruption,
so much management time that it will only
have a deleterious effect on the service,
on the punctuality, on the reliability.
Do not change your horses in midstream.
This is the wrong choice altogether.
Even though some misguided individuals
decided to buy some trains that they didn't really
have a home for and are trying to push them on you.
It's not the way to go.
I worked for British Railways in the early part of my career.
We've used four-car electric multiple units.
When it came time to retire them,
we actually replaced them with newer four-car electrical
units.
Even that change was disruptive because the new units were not
quite the same as the old.
They were not quite compatible with the old,
so you couldn't readily interchange them.
Even with an organization with all the resources that we had,
nevertheless, it was still disruptive
to go through that change.
Picture the fact that these would use the same fuel,
the same maintenance depots.
What you're talking about is an alien species.
You're talking about a complete change
from locomotives to multiple units.
It just won't work, and the costs will be enormous.
Please resolve to forget about this whole thing.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dyson.
Madam Clerk, any more speakers?
Yes.
OK.
How many more?
Two.
Two more.
Let's call the next two then.
OK.
Andrea Vidalre.
Hi, everybody.
My name is Andrea.
I'm with the People's Collective for Environmental Justice.
We're a community-based organization
based out of the Inland Empire.
We're incredibly concerned about the high levels
of air pollution and public health consequences
that exist in the Inland Empire, but it also
exists in the broader region.
We work with residents that live right next to the San Bernardino
Depot, the Colton and San Bernardino freight yards,
where past health studies have shown
that there are cancer clusters and increased cancer risk
if you live anywhere one mile from that facility.
Now, although Metrolink is not the main contributor
to that air pollution and cancer risk,
you all still play an incredibly important role
in showing the leadership for the future of rail,
both for passenger and for freight.
And I really appreciate the leadership towards thinking
through lower emission solutions,
but we do have major concerns around hydrogen.
One, because of its flammability,
its costs, the water use it takes to create,
and the fact that the impacts in the case of an emergency
haven't been studied enough,
and it would most likely be the Colton
and San Bernardino communities
where these maintenance facilities are at,
where we would be the guinea pigs to find out
what would happen.
In the past, Colton did have, I think it was
the Nicola Project that tried to come in
and they were gonna put a hydrogen fueling station there
for trucks.
The city council had a lot of concerns.
It never went through because it was gonna be
an unmanned facility that had a lot of flammability options.
Again, if you're from the Lynn Empire,
especially in the San Marino-Colton area,
you know these rail lines are directly
on top of some schools and if not,
10 feet away from people's homes.
And so we're incredibly concerned about the safety.
Now, we're really in favor of zero emissions though.
In fact, to save public lives,
that's probably the only direction we have to go in.
And we would much rather you guys invest the money
and to study technologies that have had many examples
across the world, such as catenary lines
and battery electric options,
which you guys would know have lower costs,
more safety and cleaner air.
And as a board, I think it's a little unfair
that you guys have these,
you're looking at certain options,
but you're not able to compare it to battery or catenary,
so that you have the full scope
of what is the best option for you guys moving forward.
I think the state is most likely gonna continue
to push the need for zero emissions,
but boxing yourselves into just hydrogen
is a disservice to you, to taxpayer money,
and honestly to the public health of your constituents.
So anyways, my first time here,
but I'm excited to be back.
Thank you.
Maybe we have our last speaker.
We have two left now.
Two, well, we can't keep adding them.
If the speaker request is not in before the item is called,
I think it's too late.
Okay.
So, we've called the item,
and what is our next speaker, please?
Maggie McCarty.
Hi.
I want to echo what these people have said.
I'm not a scientist.
I'm a lay person.
But I take Metrolink four days a week, sometimes five.
I come from Irvine, and so I don't understand all the specifics of this, but what I can
see is with Metrolink facing such a budget issue, funding this study is really confusing.
I know that there are much better alternatives.
I am in favor of electric rail.
I think it would be a much better alternative than this hydrogen project, but I don't know
what's going on. We need these trains. I mean I cannot drive long distances
because of vision issues. I have to get to school. People have to get to work. I
don't think now is the time or ever really to be funding a study like this.
We need to have more regular lines. I'm just urging you not to move forward with
this study and work with OCTA. I mean I'm in Orange County so I need to get
in contact with them and get on their asses about it,
because I don't like that they're not
contributing their 19.
I think it's 19%.
They're cutting whatever they're supposed
to give of their 19%.
But anyway, I was also talking to a conductor
on my way up this morning.
I just took the train, the Orange County Line train
from Tustin.
And I think he's going to lose his job.
He told me that he might lose his job.
He's a young man.
He might have a family.
This is something that I'm against, so, of course,
I didn't come as prepared as these other people,
but I just want you to know, I do not approve,
do not move forward with this study,
and think of the riders who need these trains.
Thank you.
All right.
Do we have any more timely requests to speak?
Okay. All right.
So, this is receive and follow item.
I'll make my own comments.
I vigorously opposed hydrogen fuel.
I've studied it for a number of years.
It's mainly made out of methane.
Methane, if you burn it, you release carbon.
But when you create hydrogen out of methane,
you release carbon at carbon molecule.
This should have a sequestration ability.
It's just going to the atmosphere,
the same as if you used it as fuel.
I know we did a study at OCTA where we compared electric buses
with natural compressed gases and hydrogen fuel buses.
The hydrogen buses had a lot of issues,
cost twice as much, did not perform well,
yet we're still moving ahead with that thanks
to state pressure.
So I see hydrogen fuel as a boondoggle, an expensive one,
and I would like to see, as I agree with the speakers,
that it is not a good avenue to pursue using hydrogen.
The curiosity that one of the things that I discovered this,
oh, we'll make hydrogen out of green energy.
We'll split the molecules of water, which has a hydrogen,
two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, we'll split it.
Well, it takes as much energy to split it
as you get out of it.
And then I heard, well, we'll use green energy
to split the atom.
Well, our buses, what do we do with hydrogen?
it runs a generated accrete electricity.
So now you'd create hydrogen out of an electrical source,
and then you put it back in and you use the fuel,
and then again comes back to an electrical source.
It's a waste of energy, money, and expense.
So I agree with the speakers.
I think hydrogen fuel is not a good idea,
yet there's a lot of pressure from regulatory agencies
to use it.
And I know the choice we have as we come down to try to illuminate pollution in the air,
there aren't a lot of choices.
I think the future for me is battery electric, because batteries are getting better,
it's getting easier to charge them, and the electric buses ran very well,
cost about half as much as a hydrogen bus.
So I do, I think it doesn't make sense to try to do higher,
to fuel our fleet with hydrogen.
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
This is a receive and follow item.
And that's my personal opinion.
It's not often shared with others
because of the, I think, the pressure that's coming
down from other places.
Yes, Director Spiegel.
I appreciate what you're saying, and I don't disagree.
I just challenge that people keep talking about the electric, there's issues with electric
also, as far as ability to have.
I mean, Inland Empire really has a severe problem.
To me, if we're looking at a study, I'd rather see a little bit more expansive.
I know that we weren't a part of it, it's been four years ago, I understand all that,
but now, four years later, when we're talking about investing with the limited funds that
we have, we have to look a little more broadly as to really for long term. This
isn't just a fix that I realized four years ago we were in a different
situation but I'd like to hear a couple responses to this for my own knowledge
of you know these pies in the sky from some of these some of them sound very
knowledgeable so I don't want to be misled so I'm asking our experts sir. We
need to move on this is receiving file item. Mr. Chair, just briefly, we are going
to have, this is not our first, our only bite at the Apple, we have a fleet
management plan that we are doing an update on I think next year, Paul Hubel,
you have to correct me if I'm wrong on that, yeah, next year. So that will be a
place where we will be able to dig into that very question of equipment needs
and what that future will look like. So if not through this pilot concept, should
We find resources through the fleet management. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you
so now
Absent objection it is deemed received and filed I see no objection. All right now we're going to move on to an actual
action item where we need to look at
Fixing some items the IHC is a sole source contract
with Westinghouse air brake technologies, so we can buy some new parts and repair and
Make certain that our services and maintenance of railings
Rolling stock equipment are in good shape and not in the repair shed
So please dead Eduardo Tovar, please
Morning chair chief members of the board
Next slide, please
In recent years WapTec has been acquiring
any original equipment manufacturers
that cater to the rail industry.
Most of the parts manufactured by these OEMs
are only available to be purchased directly through WapTec.
We use all the parts from these manufacturers
in all the rolling stock equipment
that we currently own, as well as PTC.
Currently, we purchase all these parts
and return and repair services from these companies
using contract authority that's approved annually
through the annual budget process.
Negotiating a multi-year contract agreement with WapTech
will replace this yearly request that we bring to the board.
Next slide please.
Currently WapTech or all these different companies
that are owned by WapTech is the sole supplier
for 274 one-time use parts and 137 repairable parts
that we currently stock.
Negotiating a multi-year agreement will allow the ability
to get favorable terms, shorter lead times,
lock-in set pricing, and also improve forecasting
of all these parts.
Additionally, with pricing already set,
procurement will be able to process POs
in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.
Next slide, please.
So it is recommended the board authorize the CEO
to negotiate and award a three-year sole source contract
with the Westinghouse Airbreak Technologies, WAPTIC,
for an estimated not to exceed amount of $10,288,510
for the purchase of new parts and repair and return services.
Next slide, please.
That is my presentation, and I'll
be happy to take any questions.
Questions?
Anyway, any speakers?
Just a quick one.
Is this the same WAB tech that does our positive train
control?
It is, same parent company.
Oh, I didn't realize it was Westinghouse.
They always used that.
It's always WAB tech, because he's got the same.
All right, may I have a motion, please?
Or if that's the speed of the comments.
Then moved, is there a second?
Are there any more comments?
Director Spiegel, we've got your light on.
the motion for approval is granted. We move on to item another action item 8d. Again it's
a sole source contract especially the reason it's here at the board level with CalMat
company and this is the old rip rock thing looking at rock necessary to help protect
the right-of-ways and so on. Do we have any public speakers on this item?
I have not received any.
All right any questions?
Combo all right is there any objection abstention seen on this item is approved our next item
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you short, but I
don't think a staff report
No, I none of us are either so
Good morning next item
Good morning. My name. Oh one second. Let the chair introduce because he may be
He may have the same approach as the last one or not
I'm not sure but once again an action item and this concerns restroom refurbishments
We need a staff
Know again have the right combo. All right
It moved in socketed any objections abstentions for the comments seen on item is approved
Other action item this is concerns cash collection counting services
Alfredo Fernandez our fair collections mentioned. Do we need a mr. Chair? I'm sorry. We are an item 8f
I miss yes, so we have it is also an action item though
Ventura line and animal Valley line
rehab and reliability project
Sean Lopez
Make a presentation. Do we need a presentation?
That's how we work together
All right, it moved and seconded.
Any objection and abstentions?
Seeing none, that item is approved.
All right, now, 8G.
Again, an action item.
This is cash collection counting services.
We again need a presentation on this.
Are there any public comments?
No.
All right, we seem to be fine
with materials already provided.
It's been moved and seconded.
All right.
objection abstentions seen on that item is also
Coming on to our eight H. It's a fiscal year customer experience update. It's a receive-and-file item
We want a presentation here
Okay
Alright Lisa bear
Good morning chair chief members of the board
My name is Lisa bar
I'm the chief customer experience officer at much link and I'll be presenting a brief recap of
of Metrolink customer experience division activities
for fiscal year 26, including our Q4 KPIs,
and we'll provide a look ahead
for the current fiscal year.
Next slide.
I'll try to keep it brief.
Last October, we realigned customer experience
to better support Metrolink's strategic priorities,
so growing ridership, revenue,
strengthening regional support,
and improving the customer experience.
We did that without adding any additional agency head count,
redirecting resources towards areas
with the greatest opportunity for impact
and including customer insights,
innovation partnerships, and technology.
Nearly a year later, we have a more focused
and resilient division with clearer accountability,
stronger leadership capacity,
and a structure designed to deliver results.
Next slide, please.
Okay, let's take a look at what we were up to last year.
Next slide.
In fiscal year 26, we shifted from broad advertising
to more targeted campaigns by audience,
corridor, fair product, and a reason to ride.
That allowed us to spend less on paid media
while still delivering results,
and reinvest more broadly in the customer experience
to help turn awareness into ridership.
Arrow is a great example.
Through our partnership with SBCTA,
targeted promotions and free student rides
helped remove barriers to trying the service
and contributing to a 17% increase
in Arrow ridership last year.
Next slide.
In our first year of innovation and partnerships,
we focused on building the strategy
while delivering results.
Our corporate partner program remains a strong foundation,
but we're evolving the model to reach new customers,
including working with partner agencies
on free ride programs like Experience Metrolink.
That strategy is delivering.
In fiscal year 26, corporate partner revenue
reached 5.34 million, which is up 15%
and represented 41% of monthly pass revenue.
We're also diversifying revenue beyond fairs.
So non-fair revenue grew 36%
through advertising, sponsorships, licensing,
special events, and other partnerships.
Next slide.
Our first large sales customer experience
innovation project launched with our IDS team in June
and delivered contactless payments
on the San Bernardino Line and Arrow service.
We're already gaining valuable insight
into customer behavior.
Through August, we saw nearly 1,600 tap-ins,
and the World Cup was accounting
for about two-thirds of that pilot activity.
Most notably, 97% of users have written once thus far,
reinforcing that Contactless is reaching
the new and occasional riders it was designed for.
So customers who value the simplicity
of being able to just tap and ride
without discounts or free transfers,
which we don't have for the pilot.
Next slide.
With public affairs now aligned under communications,
we're strengthening relationships with communities,
stakeholders, and new audiences,
while supporting major projects and agency priorities.
A great example is our World Cup outreach
with Station Cities, which provides a strong model
for engagement ahead of LA-28.
We're also expanding Metrolink's voice
beyond Southern California.
So one proactive safety story grew from NPR
to the Associated Press and generated
nearly 200 media places nationwide.
Next slide, please.
Merging customer communications desk with customer service
has changed how we respond to things when they go wrong.
Bringing customer information and customer care together
under one team.
And the team was busy this year, as you can imagine.
On Christmas Eve alone, we dealt with a tornado,
flooding, sinkholes, and down lines across the system,
and the team worked together to keep customers informed,
moving and supported.
We're also improving how customers navigate the system.
Ahead of the World Cup, we partnered with IDTS,
Elimetro and Moreland to launch new digital signage
at Union Station.
We're taking what we learned from that project
and applying it to next generation of customer information
and wayfinding improvements.
Next slide.
In October, we changed how we measure customer experience.
So looking across customer journey to understand
what's driving acquisition, adoption, retention, revenue,
and of course, loyalty.
That clear view is helping us adapt.
Acquisition and retention remain our biggest opportunities,
but both rebounded significantly from Q3.
Mobile adoption continues to grow.
And as service reliability has improved,
our net promoter score climbed seven points to 44,
which is a good score.
Next slide, please.
Now let's look forward to 27.
Next slide.
Last year showed us that we are successfully
building awareness of Metrolink and our services.
The opportunity now is to convert that awareness into trips.
Our research points to friction in the customer journey,
particularly with our current digital experience.
So as such, digital will be a major focus this year.
We're making much needed improvements to our website
and mobile app to remove friction,
make trip planning easier, and ultimately turn
more potential riders into regular Metrolink customers.
Next slide.
For fiscal year 27 we're targeting
at least 10% revenue growth
across the partnership's portfolio.
Beyond CPP we're expanding advertising,
sponsorships, and brand partnerships
with a focus on turning one time opportunities
into larger, longer term relationships,
which essentially means more money.
And we're building for scale.
So technology tools like our partner portal
will automate manual processes,
make it easier for partners to participate
and allow our team to manage more business efficiently.
Across CX, we'll continue applying
the same innovation mindset.
So, removing friction, simplifying processes,
and building programs that can grow.
Next slide.
And that concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Director's questions.
I don't see any, but Madam Clerk,
do we have any public comment?
Seeing none.
All right, thank you for that report.
Is there a receiving file item?
Go on to our legislative update.
Is there now that the legislature is hopefully done
for the year?
One can always hope.
Yeah, OK.
Good morning, Chair Chafee, members of the board.
Next slide, please.
The state matters, as noted in the report,
the California Air Resources Board made significant changes
in the cap and invest program, significantly
reducing funding to the greenhouse gas reduction fund.
This affects the TIRCP program and the low carbon transit
operations program, very important to Metrolink in the transit sector.
The final state budget agreement was a compromise.
It fully provides for $230 million committed through the zero emission transit capital
program under SB 125.
This is a positive, but funding for TIRCP and LCTOPS came in far below what was previously
expected.
TIRCP will receive $95 million, rather than approximately $400 million, and LCTOPS will
will receive $48 million rather than $200 million.
In other words, the budget preserves some transit investment
during a difficult fiscal year, but it does not
restore the scale of support that rail agencies
need for capital modernization and aggressive ridership
recovery.
Metrolink also pursued a coordinated advocacy strategy
to address the $35 million shortfall in fiscal year
26 and 27.
We secured the support of 11 legislators
across the service area, led by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo urging the Governor and budget
leaders to include that funding in this year's budget legislation.
The effort also included significant outreach in meetings by CEO Mr. Kettle with staff in
the Governor Newsom's office, CalSTA, Senate and Assembly Budget and Policy Committee members
and staff and targeted legislative offices across Metrolinx service area, bearing in
mind that securing a budget set aside for operations funding of a single agency in a
tight budget year, or any year for that matter, is an extraordinary request.
And recognizing that it was not included in the final budget agreement, the advocacy effort
did substantially highlight and strengthen the case for a dedicated state operating funding
source to the sector, an objective long advocated for by transit agencies across the state.
And in fact, we like to think, partially as a result, the state has just recently offered
a unique opportunity to access existing unused state rail assistance funding in the amount
of $66 million made available through a Notice of Funding Opportunity released this month
for which Metrolink is putting together its application for funding that meets the requirements
of the NOFO to hopefully access additional operational support from the state this year.
We will keep you apprised of that effort, which has just started as it progresses in
the coming weeks.
There were also meaningful policy developments this year.
The Senate's Losan Rail Corridor Resiliency Subcommittee reviewed the recommendations
required under SB1098.
The final report calls for stronger corridor-wide coordination, including a shared asset management
and fleet strategy, as well as expanded opportunities for state grants that fund state of good repair
investments.
Metrolink supports these recommendations, while emphasizing a practical point.
Coordination and capital planning only succeeds if agencies have sustainable funding to operate
the service those assets support.
Another positive development was the passage of SB 741, supported by Metrolink.
The bill makes LC Top more flexible and useful at a time when LC Top revenues have been substantially
cut.
It broadens eligible uses to include maintenance, eliminates duplicative omissions and demonstration
requirements for ongoing programs, and allows agencies to continue previously approved services
without restarting the application process.
The flexibility can help MetroLink sustain service and offer programs, such as discounted
fares for students and riders using EBT cards, if funding is restored to the program.
The Governor signed SB 741, Chapter Law 247, on September 18.
Next slide, please.
federal level. MetroLink used the August congressional resource to reinforce
relationships and demonstrate the value of current investments. Staff hosted
Congressman George Whitesides and local Santa Clarita officials on the Antelope
Valley line highlighting customer information display upgrades planned at
Newhall and Palmdale stations. These improvements are supported in part by
$250,000 congressional earmarks secured by Congressman Whitesides. MetroLink also
met with the offices of Congressman Pete Aguilar and senior staff to Senator
Alex Padilla to discuss San Bernardino Line projects and preparations for the
28 Olympic Games. These discussions built on lessons learned from the 26
World Cup and reinforced the need for federal investment in the infrastructure
and service needed to move spectators and workers during the Olympics. The
federal funding outlook however remains unsettled. Congress adopted a short-term
continuing resolution that extends government funding and the current
surface transportation authorization through December 11th.
The extension gives Congress more time to complete fiscal year 27 appropriations and
develop a successor to the IIJA, but it does not extend the IIJA's advance appropriations.
That leaves many discretionary transit and rail grant programs unfunded or underfunded
in the near term, adding uncertainty for agencies planning major rail investments.
Metrolink is also preparing for an increased federal rail
liability requirement.
The US Department of Transportation
raised the required excess liability insurance
cap from roughly $323 million to $402 million,
effective September 4.
Metrolink anticipated the increase
and raised its insurance coverage in June,
so the agency is already compliant.
At the same time, Metrolink and Peer Commuter Railroads
are advocating for a more reasonable notice period,
at least 365 days,
when future liability cap increases are announced.
Finally, Metrolink is demonstrating
that federal Olympic support can be put to work immediately.
Of the $94.3 million made available for transit agencies
supporting the 2028 Olympics
in the FY2070 HUD Appropriations Bill,
Metrolink received approximately $17 million
and promptly applied much of it to the Rancho Cucamonga
and Moringo siding extension projects.
That early action strengthens the case
for continued federal support in the 2027 T-Hud Bill
for Olympics-related transit operations
and capital improvements.
We will continue to press for this funding,
working in collaboration with our member agency partners
and other Southern California stakeholders.
Next slide, please.
That concludes my presentation.
Thank you very much. I'm happy to take questions.
Director, is there any questions?
Oh, I see none, and we're looking forward
to making a headway in the next legislative session
to see if we can get some funding for Metrolinx.
Thank you, sir.
Okay.
Any comments?
No.
Any comments on any of the remaining items, I might ask.
Okay, so we'll just keep going.
We know we have the system security and compliance report
from Hillary Conzal.
Is that, I think we better hear that one.
Good morning again.
I'm happy to present the safety, security,
and compliance KPI reports for Q4.
Next slide please.
So total metro train, or train strikes,
metro link train strikes are down 17%.
We have five less train strikes than we had in Q3.
If you look at the chart under incident type,
trespasser incidents, we've had seven less trespasser strikes
than we had in Q3, which is very positive.
Next slide.
This slide illustrates train strikes by county.
We've had, again, 10 strikes in Q4 versus 15 in Q3.
We've seen a reduction of train strikes
in almost all counties.
LA County recorded seven train strikes
versus six train strikes in Q3.
Next slide.
This slide again illustrates the same data by line.
We've recorded, again, 10 strikes for Q4, 15 for Q3,
reducing train strikes by five.
Ventura County, if you look at the slide,
Ventura, Antelope Valley, San Bernardino, Riverside,
and 91 Paris Valley lines remain flat, and I'm happy
to announce that Orange Arrow, IEOC, Riverside,
and 91 Paris had zero strikes for Q4,
which is extremely positive.
Next slide, please.
So this is fuel, I'm sorry, this is unruly passengers
and fare evasion.
This slide here shows that the fare evasion is up 17%.
This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Again, just as a reminder,
we have increased fare enforcement onboard our trains
as well as street carring operations at Union Station
and we are looking to increase it further.
So these numbers may climb a little bit but the goal is
to get as much fare as we can.
Next slide.
So this slide indicates the number of crew incidents
or crew assaults.
We've had, for Q4, we've had 10 total assaults.
Four non-major and six non-major physical.
The next slide, I'm sorry, the non-major physical is just
pushing and shoving.
There's no, you know, violent acts or anything against the crews.
Next slide please.
Is there law enforcement activities by county conducted by our L.A. County Sheriff's Department,
the Metrolink Bureau, they've conducted a total of 6,028 law enforcement details in Q4.
Next slide please.
This is the same information by line.
It's interesting, you'll notice that the Antelope Valley
and San Bernardino Line has a greater number of activities
or enforcements that we call them.
It's because those are the two main lines where we have most
of our homeless encampments, fair evasion,
and unruly passengers.
So that's the reason for those high spikes in those two lines.
Next slide, please.
This slide is the police activities
from the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department,
which patrol the San Bernardino line
from the Montclair Station, to the Redlands University,
for a total of 3,046 activities for Q4.
Next slide.
I'm happy to announce that we're flat with rule violations.
We had four for the last quarter, quarter four.
However, rule violations are down 70% compared to last year.
So that's an extremely positive number and we're happy to see that.
We continue pushing and observing
and operational testing our staff, so thank you.
Next slide, please.
So reportable injuries, we've had two injuries compared to six in Q3.
One injury was a laceration, a small laceration,
and the other one was a slip, trip, and fall.
Next slide, please.
We continue our training for our conductors, contractors,
SCROM employees.
They receive a host of training that is listed up there.
We've had 67 training classes conducted in Q4,
training 584 participants.
Next slide.
And thank you, I'll take any questions.
Director's questions.
Thank you for those statistics.
Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.
go ahead.
Really quick question.
On the train strikes, I'm just curious,
is that just the Metrolink train strikes
or is that freight train strikes
within our service territory as well?
The train strikes are just Metrolink train strikes
on Metrolink territory or if they occur on UP or BN,
we still count the Metrolink straights,
but the freight is counted separate.
This, again, is a receiving file item.
I'll come to our CEO's report.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Next slide, please.
So I think many people heard and saw the news about what
was going on in San Clemente during the high tide events
that we had a couple of weeks ago.
These are Herzog crews that are out there placing giant rock
riprap.
And there's a reason we needed to go to Vulcan
to get more of it.
You will see what's going to be happening here
as these high tides come in, and what they're doing
so proximate to our tracks and creating an unsafe condition
during this high tide event.
So here in a second, you will start
to see where we end up with a morosian getting
closer and closer to our tracks.
This was a high tide event.
It was alarming.
We did shut down service on a couple of different occasions
and reopened as quickly as it was safe to do so.
We do have another event coming up
in the, we're concerned about in the next couple of weeks.
We understand other high tide event.
And of course, the El Nino is causing
great concern for all of us.
So you can see, don't underestimate
the force of mother nature.
And so these Herzog crews did an exemplary job
making sure that we repaired and were ready
with the right of way so we could get service back
up and operating.
During this period of time, while we were placing ROC,
one of the things that we were able to do,
we were finding is that we would end up
with what's called track indications,
which means our trains could only go at reduced speed,
which is creating some reliability issues for our passengers.
So we at Metrolink, during this time,
we operated trains on the Orange County line
only as far south as Laguna Niguel, not Oceanside.
Surf liner continued to operate, BNSF continued to operate
when it was safe to do so, but all of the trains
that were moving through this corridor were moving
at slow speeds and created on-time performance issues
downstream or upstream.
So in any event, great work by Herzog
and our own Track and Signal team to monitor this
along with some of our consultants
that were out there on this project.
But it is, we recently, the governor has announced a state of emergency in anticipation of the
El Nino, so we will be able to try to get ahead of this for the winter.
And we are, OCTA is working to access $10 million in state funds generally so we can
keep doing the work that you see here being performed by our contractor along the corridor.
Next slide.
So for those of you that follow the memo and were read today, thank you very much, Miss
Beagle.
But it is rail safety month and so we were read in honor of rail safety month and this
is an operation that we take extremely seriously at Metrolink and we have had an extensive
amount of training going on with our own staff and really emphasizing the
importance of see tracks think train and other messages along lines of to to
communicate the importance of rail safety. Next slide. Alright so some of you
may recall or know Alex Barber. Alex Barber has been our assistant director
of general accounting you will recall him particularly when it came to the fuel
will hedge quarterly report and his communications.
Well, Alex is going to be leaving us.
He also served as interim CFO for a period
as I was transitioning here to Metrolink
and Arnold Hackett was in the role.
One of our member agencies, who shall not
be named, has poached another member of the Metrolink team,
Metro, but that's OK.
You guys are getting a great one.
And Alex is going to be really missed.
He has just been such a solid member of our team,
and under his leadership, we have had, I think,
it was seven consecutive GFOA annual awards recognizing
our excellence in reporting.
So Alex has a great team.
He feels good leaving the agency.
thinks he's leaving it in good hands but we will certainly miss him and you're
welcome Metro. Next slide and that concludes my report Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Okay now we have a board member comments and I see director Spiegel is ready with
her light. I'm ready because you're looking like you're ready to go. Okay two
real quick items one is on the calendar I know we already voted on it but I just
want to say I started looking at it and he's sitting on my phone the whole time
because I'm looking at the calendar of trying to figure things out.
And you don't have NACO, which is the National Association of Counties, or CSAC,
which is the California Association, but you have all the league stuff.
So we need to be cognizant of those.
They kind of cut so we don't have a problem next year, but we should look at those.
I was always on the board for years as a city council, so it, but when I moved to supervisor,
I didn't even check that, so.
But while I was looking at that, I
think we need to reconsider the November 12 meeting.
We have a holiday on the 11th for Veterans Day.
And then people would come back on the Friday.
We have the 19th we could move the meeting,
since we're only having one meeting that month.
And Thanksgiving would be the following.
So I think we should consider that,
then having a holiday that bring everybody back for a meeting.
Well, we'll take that under advisement
and see what we can look at.
We have plenty of time, but I just
wanted to make sure we have that in the forefront.
The second thing is, I just hope that everybody
is going to be at Mobility 21, or on Darren's, on the board.
And it is next week, so if you haven't,
you can talk to Darren on how to go.
I think we need to because we should have a peanut gallery.
They give out awards, don't they?
They do?
I think there's somebody we know in this room getting
lifetime achievement, aren't we?
Don't we?
It's printed, you are.
Sorry, it's public.
And it says that you've accepted.
He's all red.
So I do hope, it's only in Anaheim
we can go visit Doug Chafee.
Are you gonna be there?
Yes, I'll be there.
So, as many of us can be there
is support our dear friend.
Lifetime achievement, what an honor.
All right, there we are.
All right, more comments.
Oh, and Mike.
Yeah.
Just want to say that they're still shedding tears in VCTC
over your departure, so
Fair it goes around comes around. I want you to know that. Thank you, sir
My comments, I wish mr. Barber well, and hopefully you can find more money at Metro to pay a
little more to Metro link
We'll loan him to Orange County
Yeah, I wish I could help there. I know okay and mr. Chair just jog your memory need to appoint. Mr
Burks into the LA 28 ad hoc committee
Yeah, so because we lost our inland Empire our San Bernardino
Resigned and so mr. Burks in has been
Fine enough to take on that role
And I wish you well
It's
Difficult, but I know you'll find some days some money to help us with the Olympic Games
Okay, and
I'd also like to wish director agarion a happy birthday
Wow and my colleague
Director Sandoval we both have September birthdays and he'd like to thank the staff for their mini birthday cake. Oh
You got one too. Oh great. Oh, we got a
Sorry, I missed those all right so all right. Well. Thank you staff for remembering the birthdays and
All of you wish you a happy birthday and celebrating with your family if you have a chance
Do that and also like to thank our council
explain to me why we are different of the new Brown Act rules than your city council and
County boards may be
we're not in the same category, so we are not obligated to have the
Electronic comments here still need to be in person
So that that is one of relief that brings it happy for it and mr.
Council do we need a closed session? Yes, the board will now go into closed session under item 12a as described in today's agenda
Thank you chair if I could ask board members to just gather real quickly