screen. Well, good morning everyone. I'm calling to order this special meeting.
And you all care, I hope, of the board of directors. And as usual we're starting with
the safety briefing which we're interested in because we're all in different places.
But Hillary, give it a shot. All right, good morning Chairman Shafee, board of directors.
As Chairman Shafee mentioned, this is a remote meeting. Just be mindful of your evacuation
procedures if you should evacuate or need to evacuate your facility that you're attending
the meeting at, be mindful of tripping hazards and that sort of thing, and make sure that
you're aware of your muster point where to meet in that event you should have to evacuate.
In the event of a medical emergency, have somebody down 911 or we can down 911. I believe
Michelle has a list of your location.
If your facility is equipped with an AED,
and if it's needed, render somebody to get the AED
and administer first aid or CPR, if so equipped.
In the event of an earthquake,
take cover under your table desk,
wait for the rumbling to stop.
If further evacuation is necessary,
evacuate your facility.
And then in the event of an active shooter,
We'll deploy the Run, Hide, Fight tactic.
Thank you.
Thank you, Hillary.
I think that's a very good general safety briefing.
It does fit everybody's situation.
Now, if you'd all rise,
please your hand or heart and join me
in pledging allegiance to the flag of our great nation.
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it means
mission under God and divisible
for the Union of Justice for all.
Right, right.
Thank you all.
Clerk, would you call the roll please?
Certainly.
Director Nguyen.
Director Vau.
Here.
Director Penimer.
Here.
Vice-chair Bergson.
Here.
Director Spiegel.
Present.
Director Vargas.
Present.
Director Molina.
Second, Vice Chair Tremblay.
Present.
Director Engler.
Here.
Director Barger.
Director Sandoval.
Here.
Director Solis.
Director Olsen.
Director O'Connor.
Here.
Director Camacho.
Here.
Director McAllen.
Director Marquez.
Here.
Director Allen.
Here.
Chair Chafee.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. And now are there any public comments? I know note the meeting is being
streaming live. I assume any comments would likely come in via a remote arrangement.
Yes, I have received several written public comments regarding the item that have been
added to the board's correspondence folder with the agenda packet. I do have
have three requests to speak under general public comment.
Three hands raised right now.
So I will first call on Steve.
Yes, hi.
Thank you for getting my call.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay.
I heard what I want to say here.
Thanks for your service
and the service that Metrolinx is providing.
I love Metrolinx
and always encourage people to use Metrolink.
I'm almost seven years old, and I live in San Bernardino,
and I have a problem that I want to get your attention in.
It's impossible to come to you,
but thanks to Michelle, who was very nice
and kind enough yesterday to spend the time with me
and found for me a simple way
to be able to reach you today.
She's very nice and helpful.
Thank you, Michelle.
I use Metrolink in all my transportation.
I cannot drive right now and I love to expect when I, and it's very hard for me to go and
come to Oceanside.
This is my problem.
I have relatives in the Oceanside and I usually often visit them in Oceanside and the only
way I can go there is Metrolink.
transportation is about trust, but I cannot trust Metrolinx on this line
because you can cancel it anytime and you leave me stuck and don't provide
alternative transportation. Last month I was stuck in Oceanside coming back to
Riverside because there was no to San Bernardino and you canceled the line
because in the morning because of a high tide and did not provide any alternative
transportation. So I had to take an Uber, which cost me over $135, and I cannot
afford that. I'm retired and have a very limited income. I did a claim a month
ago, but didn't get any answer, but they told me to be refused anyhow. How can
anybody trust me to remain coming and go on to Oceanside? I know that this portion
between Oceanside and San Clemente is very sensitive because of the ocean. Two
points I want to get your attention. First, when you terminate this portion of the line,
do it as close as possible to the problem area. You terminate it in Lugonan again, three
stations north of the problem area. This makes it more hard for anybody that want to continue
using the metro link if I get the transportation to San Clemente, it would be cheaper than
going to Lugonan again. The second portion, second item is, which is more important, is
alternative transportation. I know that you will close the track but at
least do like the other metro which they provide a bus to take us from this to
the next station so we can continue. So please help us engage public
transportation alternative when you do something like this so it can help us
working in Metrolink.
I love you guys and I love Metrolink.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
So I do see several hands raised,
but I'm not sure if it's for item 6A regarding the budget,
which would be what majority of the written public comments
were for, or if they are for general public comment items
not on the agenda.
How would you like to proceed?
Well, let's inquire if there are any more general comments.
We'll take those.
and then we'll go to our item, which is the proposed budget.
And let's finish with any general comments,
are there any more of those?
So I'll request that any speakers
that are wishing to speak on item 6A,
which is the transmittal of the budget
and dealing with the service,
that they lower their hands
and anyone who wants to speak on general public comment items,
not on the agenda, just like Steve just did,
keep your hand raised.
So I'm seeing some of the hands go back down.
So it looks like we just have a few more requests
to speak on items, not on the agenda.
So I will call on Marvin Norman.
Hi, yes, good morning.
My name is Marvin Norman.
I am actually, I do intend to speak on 6A
but right now I'm on general public comment
because I've come to the Highland City Hall
where it was published at one of the meeting locations
and it is not open.
So I'm looking for someone to open it
so I can come into the meeting location
And I'll have my comment first and say from the meeting.
Thank you.
Thanks.
We'll get in touch with someone over there.
Angeli?
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
My name is Angeli.
I live in Fullerton.
I take Metrolink all the time.
I wanted to say that I love Metrolink.
I take it as much as possible, whenever possible.
I love the service.
I love the amenities.
I love that I can bring my bike on board anytime,
which I do frequently.
specific item I wanted to bring to the board's attention, which is a very minor issue but could
become a larger issue in the future, is simply the transfer issue regarding LA Metro. LA Metro
permits transfers from Metrolink. So for example, if you were to take Metrolink into LA and then
transfer to an LA Metro train, you can use your Metrolink for free, your Metrolink pass for free
transfers, which is fantastic. I love doing that. The issue is that the rules are very unclear.
Nobody is able to elucidate these rules. I've struggled with this for many years. I've asked
LA Metro and Metrolink representatives at stations for clarification, specifically if the transfers
last all day, if they only permit a single transfer or single direction of transfer for Metrolink.
The reason that this is particularly important at this moment is because LA Metro may soon
start fare enforcement using fare gates or other measures. If this is done, there needs to be a
way for Metrolink passengers to transfer into LA Metro and to prove that they do have a transfer.
Number one, the rules of transfer need to be elucidated so that it's clear so that passengers
can successfully transfer onto LA Metro, and perhaps if the rules are elucidated then transfer
back onto Metrolink to come home. And second of all, the way that these transfers are done
at some stations in LA Metro is by way of QR code where you can scan your Metrolink pass
and prove to LA Metro that you do have a valid pass. The problem is that these QR readers are
not present in all of LA Metro stations. And this could potentially block Metrolink passengers
from using their transfers to get onto Metro. So I would just like that to be addressed
to enable Metrolink passengers to transfer back and forth between LA metro
in a seamless manner and with the coming fair enforcement policies that does need to be
clarified so that Metrolink passengers are not stranded. Thank you again so much,
love Metrolink, and look forward to continuing to take it in the future.
Thank you for those suggestions. We need to be consistent with all the things you mentioned.
Madam Clerk, do you have any more general comments?
I see two more hands raised.
For general comments or the.
I'll just remind those with their hands raised,
this is for general public comment for items
not on the agenda, not pertaining
to the service or the schedule as referred to in item 6A.
Just one now.
OK.
Anthony Cordova.
Good morning.
Can you guys hear me?
Yes.
Perfect.
Good morning, everyone.
Yeah, so I'm an active writer.
I'm Metro Link.
I love the service.
I live out in the Fontana area.
I take it a lot for work
because I do have a lot of customers in the LA
and Orange County areas.
And so I take the Riverside to Orange County train.
I take the Fontana to downtown LA train quite a bit.
I've been used to your Ventura line.
They went, takes me all the way out to Burbank
I do have customers out there. So for me, it's very convenient because I get to work on the
trains because you have those tables set up. So it's real nice as a person who is working
and riding the train at the same time. And it doesn't have to worry about congestion on the
freeway because a lot of times if I go see customers, I have to come back and get stuck
in traffic for at least a couple of hours, which is, you know, and I get no work done
because I'm just driving, I'm commuting. So I think Metrolink is a very important aspect
of some people who like me, they use it for work, but I also use it for pleasure and to go to the
Dodger Games and things of that nature. And that's one of the things I have requested, Metrolink,
as a suggestion, because I know revenue is important and getting more ridership is important
to keep your guys' schedules more open. One of the things I suggested was to, you know, I know
in the past you guys had an Angels Express train from Riverside to Anaheim, but however I live in
again Fontana and where I live there's a lot of Dodger fans in you know Inland Empire, Riverside,
San Bernardino area that's closer to the Tin Freeway which is closer to the San Bernardino line
which a lot of ridership I'm sure you guys get a lot of ridership from that line that a lot of
Dodger fans go to. I talked to a lot of Dodger fans, I'm a quarter season ticket holder,
a lot of them do not take the train because they say, well, it's not convenient to come back during
the week. The weekends are fine if it's a day game, but if it's a night game, whether it's the
weekend or the week, it's not convenient to take the train back because there's no train after the
games. I recommend it to Metrolink several times. Is it possible to get a special train like you guys
had for the Angels, for the Dodgers, for people like me who want to ride it, who live out here
and don't want to be driving so late at night, or dealing with being tired, driving home,
to just say, hey, there's a special train for Dodger fans, and this train just for Dodger fans,
and also general public to train back towards maybe like Rancho Cucamonga,
which is the more popular station because of the projects going on there. And again,
it's just a suggestion I've made several times, the Metrolink. They respond with their general
feedback. But it's just something I think ridership is going to be important for the future of
Metrolink and keeping more lines open as you have to get people to pay and go. And if you make it
attractive for enough Dodger fans to hop on that train because they can get back and it's more
convenient and they don't have to deal with the parking and the congestion, I think that'd be
great. But thank you for your time. I'll leave it there. Thank you, sir. Do we have any more
people who have a pre-requested public comments. I don't have any more than a pre-request. We just
have two that just raised their hand during the last public commenter so I'll defer to you chair
if you consider this time. Once the item has been called we don't keep adding new colors.
So if there are no more the public comment that have kind of already lined up we'll move on to our
6A, our business item. All right, I don't see any more. Okay, now we're going to our regular
calendar and I'm now calling transmittal of the fiscal year 27 proposed budget to our member
agencies. That is what we're discussing this morning and we need approval to make that
transmittal. It is not the final adoption of the budget. We need our member agencies to have their
input, and it'll come back to us at a regular meeting. I believe it's on the 23rd is at the
date for further consideration and hopefully adoption at that time. And I would know staff
has been really put to the task to work through the different kinds of iterations of the budget,
and I would note that they considered eight different service plans and we had sick complete
Budget prepared and now we've come forward with a proposed budget now for
Recommended transmittal to the member agencies. So without
Mr. Schramber our chief financial officer, would you make your formal presentation, please?
Sure, I will. Good morning chair Chafee members of the board
Mr. Mr. Chafee just gave half my speech. So this will probably go fast
Um, I cannot adequately express how happy I am to be here this morning to request approval to
transmit the FY27 Metrolink operating and capital budget. We have finally reached consensus on a
budget with the member agencies for their consideration to adopt by their respective
boards. The journey began in September of last year and it has taken nearly 13 months to complete.
The entire agency has put in an incredible amount of time and energy into the process.
We have collaborated with our member agencies though tough times at moments we have reached
this point nonetheless. I'd like to personally thank my budgets team for all their hard work
they've put in including early mornings late nights and more weekends than I can count.
Next slide please. I'm going to walk through the budget starting with the environment which made
this process so challenging. I'll review the assumptions upon which the budget was built
and then I'll go through the highlights of the operating and capital budgets concluding with a
summary of the entire budget. Next slide please. Through extensive collaboration with member agency
staff, we have reached the consensus on a service plan that we believe will get us to an acceptable
budget that meets the funding requests 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 the Pacific Surfliner service. The schedule will look
more like a commuter rail service focused on weekdays during peak periods. Midway through
fiscal year 26 we realized that ridership and fair revenue forecasts produced by our consultant
were significantly overstated. In fact we ended the fiscal year 14 million dollars under budget.
This was sobering, and we realized that not only was FY26 off, but the reality was that our
ridership expectations for FY27 would also need to be recalibrated to reflect the reality of the
current situation. Second, we learned that after the FY27 budget development process began,
that some of our member agencies had specific targets for the level of support they could
provide for this budget year. The post-COVID burden on the member agencies has grown steadily
with fare box recovery ratios down and in the mid-10, down from 30% to 12 to 13% today.
It's also worth noting that the member agencies operating revenues and costs are divided amongst
the member agencies by adopted formulas, which make it very difficult to reach specific targets
for certain agencies since our service lines are often or nearly always shared. The challenges
ahead of us were becoming more evident. In addition to disappointing fair revenue and
funding limitations, we must deal with inevitable cost increases. It is rare, if ever, that costs
don't increase due to overall inflation. But for certain contracts, generally our biggest ones,
those cost increases are dictated by written agreement. While every effort to reduce costs
throughout the course of the process, despite over $16 million in cuts since we started the
process, and while in comparison to FY26, operating costs went down by $5 million. When compared to
actuals, they still increased over 5%. In the end, these factors led us to a place that is
deeply disappointing to us, to all of you, and our writing public. Service cuts were necessary
to balance the budget. In all, we went through eight iterations of a service schedule that would
both provide the required savings and minimize the impact on our writers to the extent possible.
Next slide, please. Let's dive right into the details of the operating budget. Next slide,
please. Here are the assumptions upon which the budget was constructed. Service levels
were reduced 29% on weekdays and 40% on weekends based on train counts.
Due to the urgency of processing these scenarios and the great costs that would be associated with
doing our ridership and fare revenues with a consultant. We did that in-house. Fair increases
were implemented just this week to one-way tickets, SoCal day passes, and weekend passes.
This helped to close the gap, but it was also long overdue. Despite continually rising operating costs,
Metrolink had not increased fares for 13 years. It isn't a sustainable practice.
We hope our riders understand that virtually nothing else in the world has maintained a price
that constant for so long. Due to geopolitical events, gas prices for consumers skyrocketed
almost overnight back in March and have stayed elevated since. When gas prices go up, people
turn to transit as a more economical way to travel. We have assumed that the gas prices will remain
elevated throughout fiscal 27 and our ridership forecast reflects that. Desperate times call for
desperate measures. In order to make the budget work, our CEO put $10.8 million of state rail
assistance into the budget. This is Metrolinx only direct funding source. It doesn't come in large
sums and it is variable with diesel sales tax receipts and we have typically used it as matching
funds for grant opportunities. But it was there and it was necessary to use it for the operating
budget this year. No new fair promotions were budgeted but the 50% student youth discount and
and the 50% mobility for all discount
will remain both funded in whole or in part by grants.
On the expense side,
CEO direction was to hold cost growth to 3%
whenever possible and less mandated by existing agreements.
No new headcount was proposed.
Salaries were budgeted slightly different this year
and prior years each position was budgeted
the top of its scale. We have adjusted down to 90% except when employees already exceed 90% of
scale. Salaries reflect a 3% COLA affected July 1st, but no merit increases will be given.
Travel and training was targeted for a 33% discount decrease from the FY26 budget. No
special trains were budgeted. Next slide, please. This is a look at the service levels that were
necessary to balance the budget. As I said earlier, this is a 29% reduction to weekday service
and a 40% reduction to week-end service. That is compared to the optimized service upon which the
FY26 budget was constructed. Weekend service on the Antelope Valley line and the Orange County line
were particularly hard hit by percentage. Next slide, please. You have the detailed
operating statement in your packet, but here are the highlights. Operating revenue is projected
to be $81.7 million, including fare box, fare subsidies, dispatching, and maintenance of way
paid by other railroads operating over our tracks. This is a 6.2% increase over the FY26 budget.
Operating expenses are budgeted at $348.4 million or a 1.4% reduction under the FY26 budget.
I previously mentioned the contractual increases to our major contracts, including our train operators, equipment and facilities maintenance, sheriffs and our maintenance away contractor.
Another notable expense is fuel.
Diesel is budgeted at a 31% increase in the price per gallon.
Despite the reduction in service smiles related to the service cuts being made,
the fuel budget is still increasing 2.2%.
The resulting member support requirement is $266.7 million.
That is 3.5% under the FY26 budget, and it meets all the requirements set by our member agencies.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows annual fare revenues, including subsidies, since FY19.
It clearly tells the story of how we got to the financial situation we are currently facing.
Despite the flattening from fiscal 24 to 26, we are still projecting a fair revenue
increase.
I mentioned a couple of reasons why this is a reasonable assumption.
We are increasing fares to a limited number of ticket types, and we have seen and expect
to continue seeing induced ridership due to gas prices at the pump.
that despite the hit in FY26 to our budgeted ridership and revenue the year still ended
roughly flat when compared to prior years. I know the focus is always on how the shortfall
from projection but we did have a decent year with a slight amount of growth. Next slide please.
Again total operating support from the member agencies is 266.7 million and this chart shows
the proportional spread between the member agencies. With the addition of state rail assistance,
all targets set by the member agencies were met. Next slide, please. And on to the capital budget.
Next slide, please. Let me, oh, sorry. That's been corrected. The capital program is critically
important to Metrolinx operating and operating safely. Investments must be made consistently
in order to keep the system from adding to a backlog of capital projects. In addition,
with ever increasing costs to the degree we are seeing today, differing maintenance results in
spending even more to do it later. This budget reflects roughly what it takes needed to keep
the system in a state of good repair each year. Not hitting that mark can result in unplanned
or emergency maintenance that can be both costly and can disrupt service. The capital budget is
made up of two components, state of good repair and new capital. The state of good repair request
for this year is 142.6 million, a 3.7 percent increase over the FY26 budget.
The new capital budget is 10.9 million or 30.1 percent under the FY26 budget.
Details of the projects that make up those numbers are in your packet.
The total capital budget is $153.5 million, roughly equal to the FY26 budget.
Again, this request satisfies all member agency funding targets.
Next slide, please. A quick look at the proportional breakdown of the $153.5
million capital budget. Next slide, please. Let's look at the total support amounts
required by each member agency to fund Metrolinx's entire budget for fiscal 27. Next slide.
The combined operating and capital support request is $420.2 million. The amount was
$428.6 million in FY26. That is a year-over-year $8.4 million decrease or 2%. That concludes
my presentation. With your approval, we will transmit the budget officially to the member
agencies for their consideration, and we will bring the final budget to you for adoption
at the October 23rd regular board meeting. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for your presentation, but Madam Clerk, are there any public commenters on this item?
Yes, we do have several requests to speak, so I wanted to first see if you would like to keep
change the time limit for the speakers right now we have 13 hands raised all right and they all
made the request prior to the calling of the item yes right now that we're opening it up for
request so right now it's at 14 so if you want to lock it in well no we uh when i first announced
the item being considered by mr and the presentation only those who had pre-requested
to comment would be considered because we aren't allowing people to kind of
call in and add be added to the list that will go on add infinitum if we do
that. So only those who had requested prior to the item being called will be
considered for comment. Okay well I have 14 and I can't control like lock it in
that's just not how the zoom functionality works. So we have 14
right now so I could we can cut that off at the 14 mark all right we will stop
with the 14 because the item has been called and I would invite anybody that
has calling in late and wanting to comment they can come to our next board
meeting when the formal adoption will be considered this is not the final action
so if he would begin I think two minutes in this case as there's so many callers
would be the appropriate limit.
All right, I will take them in the order
I see them on my list.
We'll start with Anjali.
Hi, thank you again.
One, and I live in Fullerton.
I love taking Metrolink.
I'm really concerned about these schedule changes.
I know that you guys are in a really tough spot
because you can't make money appear out of nowhere.
You've spent a lot of time trying to optimize this budget
and have done the best that you possibly can
with the resources that you've been given.
But I do have serious concerns about this.
I fear that Metrolink is facing a death spiral
where there's decreased service with increased cost to riders.
And it's hard for riders to justify this.
It's not a one-to-one trade-off with Amtrak.
Amtrak doesn't really fill in the gaps
because it's a completely different service.
It's intended for long-term traveling.
And the rules are different.
And so using that to fill in the gaps with Metrolink's upcoming
changes unfortunately doesn't really meet the needs of riders and I worry that these changes
will discourage riders and shift them to cars especially if the costs are too high. For example,
traveling in a group is already more expensive by metro length than just taking a car with that
group. So I do worry that this is going to be the initiating factor for a lot of actual
ridership decreases and thus that can create a decrease in revenue which leads to further
budget cuts which then puts Metrolink in a downward spiral and it eliminates the impetus
for improving schedules in the first place. Unfortunately with transit agencies poor
ridership isn't is is interpreted as a lack of interest or it's actually an indicator that the
services isn't the services aren't meeting the needs of riders. So again I understand that you
can't make something out of nothing. There's strict budget means. But I'd want to express
that these schedule changes are extremely concerning to me, and I think that they will
mark the downfall of Metrolink, and they will seriously reduce ridership. Thank you so much.
Thank you. May I have the next speaker, please?
Jaz Singh. Hi, can you hear me? Yes.
Great. Hello. My name is Joss. I'm a frequent Metrolink rider on the OC line.
I live in Los Angeles and I work in Orange County at UC Irvine, where I'm both a researcher and an
educator in math and data science. I want to first thank Tom for the great presentation. It was very
informative. And additionally, just express my profound disappointment that the member agencies
Okta and LA Metro in particular for the immense cuts that are coming to what I view as a
crucial piece of infrastructure in the entire Southern California region.
The budget that I ran over suggests that farebox revenue is projected to decrease
something like 20 percent due to the combination of increased fares and decreased ridership
hitting at the exact same time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more from the conversation
I have with Metro Linked Riders when I'm actually on the train. As Anjali said, I think this is the
kind of thing that can lead to a death spiral of a system that is crucial to the functioning of the
economic system of Southern California to our climate goals and to alleviating traffic as well.
I understand that this board is not specifically tasked with deciding the budgets that the different
member agencies put in. So the thing I want to express here is the governance structure of
Metrolink, which allows individual transit agencies to just unilaterally make cuts like this.
I couldn't have designed a system that is more susceptible to the tragedy of the Commons than if
if I tried. And so I would urge you that this year to consider major governance reform so that
transit agencies like Opta and Metro can kind of hone the whole system of policy. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. May I have the next speaker, please?
RJ? Yes. Hi. Hello. Good morning.
I'm choosing to speak because MetroLink CEO, Mr. Kettle has been very clear through all of these
meetings that with the service reductions or with the service changes would come crew reductions.
The last time he gave a number I believe was that they would be reduced down to about 73 crews
and that you know there was the back and forth with Alstom or whatever. However Alstom management
is continuing to say there will be no furloughs is not giving any concrete information to the crews
and these are human beings who need to make decisions for their families and for themselves
and waiting until the last second is just cruel frankly and if there's anything that the board
could do to encourage Alston to give actual information to the crews to the union to give
to the crews that would be really helpful. It's just creating chaos rumor mill and distraction
at work which is a safety issue and should be taken seriously and again the crews deserve to
have actual information about how their lives will change come November 16th and we are almost
just a month away from that. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. We have the next speaker.
Mason Buck. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Mason Buck. I'm a resident of Irvine,
also a frequent user of Metrolink, although I mainly use it recreationally. So you can understand
my concern when I look and I see weekend service getting absolutely dudded in Orange County,
50% fewer trains, much less frequent service to Oceanside. Issues like this are extremely
frustrating to me because it feels like such a self-inflicted wound, right? The Metro board,
OCTA, both got the budget, right? You've got to do what you can do here. But when several members
of the Metro board who are members of this board as well don't even bother showing up, like,
Come on! We gotta be better than this. It's very frustrating and it feels like you guys don't care
about the people who actually use this service. This budget, quite frankly, is bad. I don't like it.
It's just bad. I urge you to, in the future, really focus on securing a dedicated funding
resource from the state uh reforming the governance of this board to include riders of transit experts
in the field uh this budget here right now i'm sorry i just have no other words i'm just angry
over it i'm bitter because it's it's always something when i just want an alternative to
driving thank you thank you may have the next speaker shawn good morning board members uh my
My name is Sean Hackam, and I'm a resident of Santa Ana
and Orange County.
I'm here to oppose the proposed Metrolink service cuts.
First, I'd like to thank Tom
for the great budget presentation.
I appreciate the work that went into explaining
Metrolink's financial challenges.
I regularly use the Orange County line
to travel to Los Angeles and the Oceanside.
As a cyclist, I appreciate how bike-friendly
Metrolink is compared to Amtrak,
and how it makes getting around with that car
so much easier.
I would like to use the Paris Valley line
to commute to work, but the trains don't arrive early enough
or depart late enough for a standard eight to five schedule.
I want to take the train,
but the scheduling just makes it impossible
for option for getting to work, you know?
I also question whether Metrolink
has given previous service improvements
enough time to succeed.
Writership doesn't increase overnight.
people need time to learn about new schedules,
adjust their routines and build confidence in the service.
Cutting trains before ridership has a chance to respond
undermines these investments and risk creating a cycle
of deploying service and ridership
or the death spiral that has been mentioned before.
I urge Okta and LA Metro representatives
to push their agencies to restore funding
to the 2025 service levels.
We need consistent clock face scheduling
and better connections,
not fewer trains and higher fares.
And lastly, where is the Metrolink long-term plan
for system-wide electrification?
We should be building a modern, frequent regional rail network,
not making it harder to use.
Thank you.
Appreciate the comment.
Next speaker, please.
Marvin Norman.
Yes, good morning.
My name is Marvin Norman.
I'm a San Bernardino resident
and frequent rider of San Bernardino line
and sometimes rider of IOC line.
And I guess what do we have to say?
This is just what the octal ordered, right?
It should be obvious that if we have a 2% reduction
in the budget that is decimating the service,
something looks wrong with that picture.
And so this isn't a call for you guys to say,
hey, let's go back and see how much more service we can cut.
It's to ask why are we cutting service in the first place?
That the $8 million budget deficit has decimated service
especially for OC and AV lines
and Ventura County line as well.
San Bernardino resident, I don't use those lines
quite as much as I use the San Bernardino line.
And I'm grateful that San Bernardino County
is not as dumb, short-sighted as apparently
Octa and L.A. Metro are in this regard,
but it still is a great disappointment
to see this schedule come out.
At a time when Metrolink should be improving service
and the introduction of the retro link we imagined
two years ago was a great start in that regard.
a serious step backwards. We I know we have an Olympics coming up in 2028 and we're expecting
to be able to show the world a good service for them. We can't cut service now. We if you talk to
the management of Metrolink they will tell you that it's impossible to be able to run a good
service by cutting in den at the levels we want to be able to provide then if we're cutting service
now. It takes several months to get people trained up, get the crews re-established, maintenance
practice etc. So I urge you guys to once again especially those of you who are
representing these other agencies that cut money from the budget to return to
those agencies tell them that we need that funding return to the budget and I
also urge the mentoring management to work on a budget that restores as a
pulse and cloth face scheduling that's also a problem and finally I hope the
Chair Chafee reviews the Brown Act you can't say the call the item and then not
call the public hearing until that people
that can't raise their hand
if you didn't call the public hearing to start.
Thank you.
All right, thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please.
Cooper Crane.
Hello, my name is Cooper Crane.
I'm a graduate student
at the University of California Riverside,
and I'm a historian of the Public Transportation Network
here in Southern California.
First of all, I'd really be interested to know
exactly what's happening with the budget team
because the budget agenda is saying something different
than was just stated here in the meeting.
There's conflicting information as to whether or not
Fairbox revenue is going to increase or decrease
because according to Metrolinx own agenda,
which was just recently published,
they're expecting a $9.3 million loss in revenue,
not an increase.
I also take problem with the assumption
that in 2027, ridership will increase
even with the service cuts
because of the existing fuel crisis
that's currently ongoing.
This assumption seems flawed to me
because the new schedule does not include
clock face scheduling,
which will make it harder for transfers for riders
and make the service more inconvenient.
And moreover, it establishes an adverse relationship
with riders that essentially holds them hostile
to economic conditions which they have no control over.
As of right now, the Metrolink service cuts
to several lines, especially the Antelope Valley line
will mean that the service is no longer really
a practical service for commuters or for workers
who are trying to get to downtown Los Angeles.
And it is going to bring Metrolink into a death spiral,
which can be compared to the historic collapse of services
such as the Pacific Electric here in Southern California.
I do think that I would speak for everyone here
when I say that we don't want to experience
that the budget cuts that have
been made by Orange County and
the lack of government
commitment to the support for
the service is pretty much
exactly what that will lead to.
Thank you.
Thank you.
May have the next speaker,
please.
B. A. Brown.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman board
Thank you, Mr. Chairman board
members.
Thank you for your service.
also a retiree. I do take Metrolink. I'm a writer of choice and all day service is something that's
world class. Not having it is going to dissuade a lot of ridership. So I agree with those who have
said that I think the estimates on fair revenue are wrong. Metrolink reimagined. Imagine the world
class system. This goes completely 180 degrees in the
other direction. San Bernardino line 36% cut weekday 25% cut
weekend. Wow. Okay. And just let's call out the agencies
that are behind this cut LA Metro. Metro's own fair
enforcement efforts are tepid or non existent. You could raise
the revenue needed to support Metro link if you crack down on
fare evasion on your own system. Okta, $87 million contribution in 2026, $71 million
contribution in 27. Wow, $16 million less. Meanwhile, Okta built the OC street car, which
was over budget at $150 million a mile. So we know who the priority is here. This is
really a slap in the face to the greater Los Angeles region. I would call on Okta and LA Metro
to step up, do what's right, give riders what they need, which is a world-class system. We had the
Paris Olympics. Paris has a world-class system. We need to have one. We deserve one here in LA.
So please go back to Okta and LA Metro and do the right thing. Thank you.
Next speaker, please. Sunrise Orange County. Hi, my name is Kevin. I know you guys spent a lot of
time balancing the budget, but I too worry about that spiral with the reduction of service. I'm
an Irvine resident who takes Metrolink often. I often take it between Tuscan and LA. In the past,
I took it to Oceanside and transferred to Coaster to visit friends and family. However, since the
reduction of service during the pandemic, I haven't been able to make those connections.
how are we expecting ridership to increase if our schedules are being gutted and riders left
stranded? I'm asking all member agencies to fully fund Metrolink. Metrolink improves the quality of
life for not just public transit users but also drivers too. If you're a board member who doesn't
take Metrolink, please consider that your commute times two will increase with the reduction of
service because those riders will no longer have a choice but to ride in a private vehicle,
congesting our already congested roadways. Please, please, please fully fund Metrolink.
Do not balance the budget by cutting service because sooner or later there will be no more
service left to cut after all the riders have left. Ellie, Metro and Okta, you know what you
need to do, don't let our trains die. Thank you. Next speaker please. Katie.
Hi, my name is Katie Syme. I'm a planner from City of Riverside and a commuter from Redlands
to Riverside. I'm commenting on this item because, sorry let me pull up my notes,
accepting scenario eight with a proposed elimination of 29% of weekday trains and
and 40% of weekend trains will not allow for future growth and expansion opportunities.
This scenario is actually even more severe than scenario 4 that was previously considered back
in July of this year. Scenario number 4 proposed 20% in reductions and at that time was seen
as a severe proposal of reduction of service. So in order to build public trust and provide
consistent service an alternative scenario to number eight must be considered. So in my personal
experience IEOC 807, 820, 822, and 824 regularly experience delays and cancellations as it is.
Several other IEOC commuters spoke in public comment in the past year and in survey responses
indicating that they would accept increased fares but the predominant message was to not cut their
service. So this proposal directly contradicts the countless responses received this past year.
So this proposal also comes at a time in which public interest in transit has increased.
Cutting services when demand is at an all-time high is poor timing. There's also no proposal
for a time when the service will return after this fiscal year. As several state laws identify
rail service as a key component to new housing, Metrolink is removing to reduce service. So I
I just ask that we consider the long-term implications
of cutting services now for short-term cost savings.
So action items are, I ask that MetroLink
either consider another scenario altogether
or condition the approval of this budget
with a proposal to return to a comparable level of service
in the next fiscal year.
I also ask that the board members
be reminded of the Brown Act
and that we need reasonable opportunity to comment
and maybe announce when public comment
can be opened up again.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next speaker, please. Daniel Salucci. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, sir, we can. Great.
My name is Daniel Salucci. I'm a regular rider on Metrolink. I use it to commute from Glendale
to Fullerton several times a week. Mr. Chafee will be pleased to know that my small business
actually selected Fullerton, California as the site of our office, in part because it was close
to a Metrolink station. We could offer that to our employees as a way for them to avoid having
to take long commutes, especially in my case I avoid an hour and a half drive each way by taking
Metrolink. We work in the city, we regularly patronize businesses in the Fullerton area,
we're supporting the economy there, and I want to be clear the new schedule that is being proposed
right now will make my commute the commute of many others infeasible, both in time and price.
The lack of synchronization between lines is especially egregious. There's no
clean way to get from Glendale to Fullerton now with the proposed schedule,
and Amtrak is not a reasonable substitute, especially with the removal of the rail-to-rail
program. So not only will this proposed budget sabotage Metrolink service in general, it will
make me riding harder and and others. I see many other people on the train who also take the same
route that I do transferring from the Antelope Valley line to the OC line. It will also damage
the economies in this region. We have no reason to stay in Fullerton for instance. If this is,
if we can't reliably offer some way to commute that doesn't involve driving. So thank you very
much. I have nothing else to say. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Austin Nixott.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
Thank you so much.
I just wanted to say hi, my name is Austin Nixott.
And as a 40-week commuter via Metrolink,
I and many of my co-workers take 16 trains a week,
relying on a transfer for each direction of our commute.
As Metrolink most recently reported an 87% on time
percentage, that means that roughly one of every seven
trains is more than 10 minutes late.
The current train schedule as it operates now has redundancies,
But those redundancies are a requirement for the system to function in its current state to be reliable as a transportation option.
I personally do not mind the fare hikes. As operation costs are rising and per your own point, Tom,
alternative transit costs are also rising, but in tandem with service cuts, these changes feel untenable.
As is the proposed schedule for 2027, we have only one weekday MetroLink train that runs from Burbank to LA Union Station between the hours of 2.15 to 4.15pm,
which are key commuting hours, with that single train
scheduled to arrive just five minutes prior
to the departure of the only OC train for an hour,
meaning that even an on-time train
could mean delays of over an hour for commuters like myself.
If your targets remain at their current level
while rolling out these changes,
this will add approximately three hours per week
to my commute by removing any backup options
in the event of a delay, and likely deprecate MetroLink
as an attractive commuting option for myself
as well as several others.
I understand the contributions from partner agencies like Okta and LA Metro have declined
this fiscal year, but that makes the revenue generated by riders much more impactful.
I would urge you to consider the reality of the reliability of your service before implementing
the schedule, as I believe this will lead to a loss of ridership that is more financially
impacted than the operations expenses saved by cutting this many lines.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
How many more speakers do we have?
We only have one more that signed up.
Raise your hand during the time that you called for.
Okay, let's hear that speaker.
Adriana Rizzo, if you're speaking Adriana, we can't hear you.
If you're speaking, we can't hear you Adriana.
Is she still on the line?
I think she left and is rejoining.
Let me see if now, Adriana.
We still can't hear you Adriana.
I think she is rejoining.
Do you want to give it one more chance and then see if it works?
If not, then I invite her to make her comments at our next board meeting.
Okay, let's try it one more time, Adriana.
Hi, everybody. This is Adriana Rizzo from California's Electric Rail.
Thank you for bearing with me with the technical issues.
I'm a Riverside resident.
I ride the San Bernardino line, IOC line, 91 Paris Valley line, mostly on the weekends.
I'm very concerned about these cuts to weekend service.
Metrolink has seen expanded ridership growth on weekends.
Well, weekday peak ridership is still
below pre-pandemic levels.
By making disproportionate cuts to weekend service,
you're losing out on a potential new market
in favor of an outmoded commuter-style pattern
that is not in line with current trends
or international best practice.
I also want to call out as others have the lack of clock face and pulse scheduling which
makes it very difficult to transfer to either other MetroLink trains or local bus service.
There seems to have been no consideration put into schedules that are easy to transfer
to a bus on.
I think for these reasons, in addition to the magnitude of the cuts, I think we're going
to see a lot less ridership growth and ridership loss.
this is going to be a net negative for MetroLink.
I'm very concerned that we're going to be back here
in six months looking at even more severe cuts
and I urge member agencies to really search hard
for additional sources of local funding,
including visiting the allocations
of like existing transit measures
to increase the transit share,
as well as considering new regional tax to fund MetroLink.
As others have said, you know, MetroLink is essential
for the economy, it's essential to keep our region moving
and we cannot just let it die.
So I would urge the board to show some leadership
and really look for creative solutions
to not just keep our transit the same
but actually grow and expand service.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Is that our last speaker no more?
That was the last speaker
when you called the time for speakers too.
Okay, all right then.
Mr. Chambre, would you come back
and respond to any board member comments or questions?
Board members, if you have a comment, question, concern,
now's your chance.
I don't see any hands raised.
All right, then to move this along,
I'm going to move the recommendation
that we transmit the fiscal year metric proposed,
I shouldn't say it's not final,
fiscal year 27 metron operating and capital budget
to the member agencies for their consideration.
And hopefully adoption, they could do some tweaking,
they could make some changes,
but it will come back to us for final consideration
on our next board meeting, which is October 23rd.
So I'm making that motion.
It does not make any substantial changes.
It's just giving the member agencies their next shot
at the proposed budget.
I have a second.
Mr. Chair, I'll second that motion.
Group of Ellie.
All right.
Are there any more questions, comments?
Did you have a question?
I saw your hand was raised.
I don't see.
I just was gonna second it.
That's all.
No, no big deal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We do need to do a roll call vote.
Yes, we do it.
We must do that.
Is this is a, a Zoom meeting?
All right.
Director go.
Yes.
Vice chair Bergson.
Yes.
Director Spiegel.
Vargas will be voting for Spiegel.
She had to step out so I'm a yes.
Okay.
Second by Chair Tremblay.
Yes.
Director Sandoval.
Yes.
Director Camacho.
Yes.
Director Allen.
Yes.
Director Marquez.
Yes.
Chair Chaffee.
Aye.
That motion carried unanimously.
Oh, thank you, Madam Clerk.
And now we can come down to Darren,
your CEO report, please.
Yes, Chair, good morning, all.
So just a couple of things as a follow up to the budget.
First of all, I want to really compliment
Tom Shamber team.
Tom took on the role of CFO and this is his first budget
and I don't know that he could have had
more challenging situation given our 30 something odd years of existence.
So to Tom, Christine Wilson and Johanna Olmos,
who Tom mentioned the amount of time and effort that
his team has put in over the course of the last nine months.
So great work by Tom and the team.
Secondly, there have been a lot of references and Tom alluded to this that related to the budget.
I want to make sure that we're clear from a staff perspective, obviously, when we were given
target reductions in our budget by member agencies, that is a challenge. But we would have
had a fiscal challenge in any event because of the ridership, the fair revenue estimates that we had
that were not realized, and the cost increases just associated with operating a railroad,
whether it's fuel or our contractors and our vendors.
So this is a combination
of issues that we've got us to this point.
I can tell you, Mr. Chair and members of the board,
this is no place where your staff wanted to be
having to have presented that item today.
Just really quickly, we want to touch on that in the budget.
Two non-budget related items.
First of all, some good news.
We had Free Fair Day with Clean Air Day earlier this week, and we had over 28,000 boardings
on our system. Normally we average on weekdays 23,000 or so, so a nice increase in that.
So well done that Clean Air Day brought out ridership. And then lastly, Mr. Chair, my
background. If you will see in my background, you will see this is the San Clemente corridor.
And there is a pedestrian path that's over this shoulder, my right shoulder.
And this is a shout out to OCTA. That path had to be taken down because of landslide issues
associated with the San Clemente area. And while our Orange County members today, Mr. Chafee,
Mr. Tedimer and Mr. Goh. They could have been at a ribbon cutting event celebrating the reopening
of this path. That happened today. It happened earlier today. So congratulations to OCTA for
reopening the ribbon cutting of this path. So congratulations to OCTA for that additional
amenity. Mr. Chair, that concludes my remarks, so thanks for a few minutes.
Well, thank you. If I might comment a little bit, the cuts are painful, but this experience itself,
yeah, it's been very drawn out and not easy, but I think it's been a healthy experience examining
more closely our cost structure, and I think one thing we need to do is at least annually examine
our fare structure. I would note that for every $10 a rider may spend, I'm sorry,
every dollar they spend, we spend about eight and a half dollars that is
subsidized already. It's not a free ride. There is a lot of public service in it.
So recover maybe what 15% through our fare box and the rest is subsidized by
member agencies. So Fairbock's revenue and its growth is really key to something in the future.
I have struggled with my own board trying to increase their commitment,
and they have limited resources of their own, and a different board has to vote on it. I know we've
tried mightily to get a separate funding source through the state legislature without success,
So what we are is a Joint Powers Authority made up of five member counties or rather
transportation agencies. Each has its own board, each has its own budget concerns.
And so that makes it difficult to create a budget of our own as we must work in unison
with all those different agencies. And I thank you, Mr. Chair, CEO, for visiting some of those
different boards. That's a lot of time on your part to make those commitments.
At OCTA, I think part of the reason is to sustain it long term. They get a
budget that they can continue. And one of the things that I discussed with our own
OCTA CEO is where do we go from here. And one of the things that's interesting, we
have the toll road on the 91 expressway and the bonds will be paid off about 2033 and at that
point we have some additional money we could actually put into MetroLink because that happens
and connect Riverside with more service too in that process it is along that all that tollway
so the service cuts are very difficult I'm hoping as we move forward if Fairbok revenue
We can maybe restore some of that as we go forward.
With that, I want to thank all of you, all H Director, for taking the time today to join.
And I appreciate the public comments.
I share most of them.
But I think we all look forward to a better future for MentorLink.
It's not intended to be a death knell by any means, but to build the base now so it can
have a better future.
And with that, that's the end of my comments.
And I simply adjourned the meeting and look forward to meeting with again on October 23rd,
which is our record board meeting.
Thank you all.