not accurately reflect the modern realities
of commuter rail and regional rail
in a post COVID environment.
As I'm sure the Metrolink board is aware,
most of the ridership growth numbers
during the year of 2025 and 2026
has been in weekend service.
It is weekend service trains that are primarily being cut
as a result of the new proposed budget.
For example, weekend service on the Antelope Valley line
is nearly being completely eliminated.
And this will result in a ridership plummet,
which will create a spiral for Metrolink's revenue stream.
At the last finance board meeting on October 9,
the Metrolink Budget Committee revealed
that the reason that they are switching back to this model
is because of assumptions that were produced
by an outside consulting group that
had suggested that the revenue increase
for Metrolinx return from fares would go up
when they switched back to a commuter model.
These assumptions have not been made available
to the public and they do not follow available data
either from the New York Marin Institute of Urban Management
or the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies.
No available data anywhere has been published
and it makes it difficult for us to understand
what the working model for why Metrolink
is proposing these cuts at this current time.
Additionally, the current cuts as proposed
under the new budget would eliminate weekday service
to Oceanside.
This would make it impossible for commuters
to transfer from Coaster, making it difficult
for commuters either from the LA area going to San Diego
or from San Diego riders going to the LA area
to commute without taking the surf liner.
As I'm sure you are all aware, the Surfliner is already the most heavily used rail corridor
in the state of California and is second only to the Northeast Corridor in the United
States in terms of its passenger ridership numbers.
Once again, Californians for Electric Rail urges the Metrolink board to reconsider the
new budget and return to 2025 service levels.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
And we have one more speaker.
Yes.
Pete Slice.
I went to the September Metro board meeting and heard some misinformation about Metrolink,
so I decided to share some history.
I bought a brand new house on a 10 mile per hour branch rail line.
The rail was running a single, once a week, Thursday afternoon train in San Dimas, slowly
passing by and returning back shortly after.
This condition existed for many years before I bought my house and continued for 10 years
afterwards.
Then Metrolink cobbled together several other short lines and built a new 80 mile per hour
commuter main line with all new rail in our community, often within a very narrow
corridor without doing a full environmental study. They all bypassed
appropriate safety and noise mitigations. Just imagine if a 10 mile per hour
street next to your house was converted to 80 mile per hour. After the new
repurposed line began service, the community uproar to the conditions it
created, the severe impact fit the definition of what is supposed to be
triggering a full environmental study which Metrolink blatantly ignored while
while instead giving a negative declaration,
went on for years,
but those same conditions still exist today.
In other words, in San Dimas,
the foundation of Metrolink was a lie.
The results could easily be predicted.
A regular string of fatalities have followed,
and when the vague 2005 federal train horn rule was enacted,
there was even more unnecessary disruption
of our former peace and quiet.
Our crossing alreadys had crossing arms,
flashing lights, and clangers for awareness.
now mandatory use of train horns were oriented to our houses,
not directly in front of the train, as would be expected.
This was for situations the federal rule was addressing,
like crossings in the middle of corn fields
without any existing warning system,
not our situation in San Dimas.
Metrolink also created three redundant suburban stations
within three miles of each other,
something no competent planner would ever design.
And Metrolink through Metro is allowing an estimated
$80 million to be wasted to perpetuate this
and lock in a degraded service.
I also heard comments about no fare increases in 13 years,
which is true, though even after this fare increase,
the fare is still cheaper on the San Bernardino line
than it was back then.
So while we had no fare increases,
we did have significant fare decreases.
There was also a comment that low volume trains
had about 50 riders.
I wrote on one from Pomona to San Bernardino,
and when I mentioned to the conductor
about being the only rider in my rail car,
he explained a bunch of people
had gotten off at Cal State LA, watching empty cars pass by while waiting at a
crossing in a car, these rail cars pass by, in San Dimas. It's not environmentally
sound and certainly there are better options to transport riders for such a
short distance and better ways to measure ridership and their impact. I'd
like to submit my comments for the record. Thank you sir, your comments will
be in the record. Are there any further speakers? I have not received any
additional request to speak under general public comment. Just one more under item
8b. Thank you Madam Clerk. We come to our consent calendar which are items 13a
through 13l on our agenda. As I ask if any of our directors or if there's a
member of the public who'd like to hear any of those items separately. 13j, I'm
Sorry, which one 13 J 13 J. We'd like to hear that one separately
If I could yeah
I'm happy to move if you want to do it in two separate pieces
Then I'm happy to move the remainder or your pleasure. Are you just making a comment or you making a different vote?
I'd like to have some consideration on a slight amendment. Okay. Well then let's
Like a motion to approve the balance if we make the motion to approve the balance
Move in second a objection the balances approved now. Let's go to that item. Thank you very much. So this has to do with the
CEO's ability to I do need to confirm with director McCallum virtually that
He's in favor. Oh, we have to ask it's not a rule
Dr. McCallum would did you join in the motion to approve?
Yes
Okay, I
Understood from Council we because of the accommodation in this case. We didn't need to do a roll call
We do need to check with all with director McCallum as to his vote. That's correct. That's correct
You can avoid a roll call here, but we should check with director McCallum separately. Yes. Thank you
All right. Now let's go on to that item that we're hearing separately. Thank you very much chair
So this has to do with the CEOs ability to award contracts up to five hundred thousand dollars
and we get reports for the 250,000 to 500,000 I was just gonna ask to amend
the motion or amend the item to say just give us a complete list of all the
contracts that are awarded under his authority and if they want to partition
it between the 500 to 250 and then everything below 250 so I will move the
item with that recommendation that future disclosures include all the
contracts that are authorized by the CEO under his or her authority is a
proposed motion with an amendment that would give us more disclosure I believe
that's the intent yes just for transparency counsel just some
clarification I believe this threshold was created by the board based on a
policy years ago so this 250 and 500 is the basis of a board approved policy I
I think if you want to make that change, it would be more appropriate to bring that policy back,
have the board discuss it, and then amend it from there to fully understand
where this threshold requirement came from. In response with general counsel, what we
could do, Director Tedimer, is within the next month, maybe two, we can bring that policy back
before so that the board can consider it and then that would be able to allow us to
Proceed as you're suggesting at our next quarterly update
Okay, so it'll come back
We'll bring the policy discussion over why the threshold
I think when I brought this up during the briefing and you had said you weren't sure of the why correct
With what the history was but mr. Del Rio has been around for a long time
So if we're looking at institutional memory, um, there are members of this board
Of course that have a lot of history as does mr. Del Rio so we can build out a little bit more facts on it and bring
back the policy. Just curious do you know why they would have that threshold and
it was years ago and I think some of the underlying rationale was the board
didn't want to hear about you know a thousand dollar contract approved or a
fifty thousand they just felt that 250 was a more appropriate without
overburdening the agenda that was the underlying rationale I'm not saying that
was a good rationale or not but there was underlying rationale as to why they
created that threshold so I think it's important just to revisit that if you
Are interested in amending that policy? Just to clarify
I'm not looking for anybody to walk us through all them just saying attached to the report saying here's a list of all the things
That have been done. That's it. Just in the interest of transparency. So everyone understands what transactions are going on
Nothing more than that that would still constitute an amendment to the existing policy. Fair enough, right, but I wasn't looking for
verbal reports on $100 expenditure by any means just an attachment
I'll move the item if that's going to come back then for actually a receiving file item
Okay, thank you. So we received a file and we'll get a more detailed discussion at a future time
All right, there's no objection to receiving and filing the item
And it is deemed received and filed
now let's move on to
7a has been
Moved who I believe our next meeting and our CEO mr. Kettle would like to explain that
Sure. Thank you. Mr. Chair
And this is just a little bit more background as this board's aware
we have had been marching down a path of a public hearing today and the adoption of
a budget that
Had significant service reductions that were being proposed in order to meet that the budget targets
that we have in front of us.
About a month or so ago, the California State Transportation
Agency put out a notice of funding opportunity
that had a very small pool of eligible candidates, a total
of about $67 million being made available primarily
to commuter railroads and state inner-city funded railroads.
What we've done, if you'll forgive
this somewhat generational reference.
The Hail Mary, Doug Flutey to Jared Phelan
when Boston College came back to beat the University of Miami
and Bernie Kosar was a true Hail Mary and that's where we are
with this today.
We have submitted an application to CalSTA
in the amount of $20 million.
We have been receiving support letters for that application
from throughout Southern California with a variety
of stakeholders, all of our member agencies either have already submitted a letter of
support or in the process of submitting a letter of support, as have a number of transportation
advocacy firms, the business community including the LA Chamber, AAA, we have marshaled a tremendous
amount of support for our application.
We have received a commitment from CalSTA staff that we should be notified of whether
we received that award in early November.
And if we are able to receive that award, we would be able to maintain the existing
level of services today, the services that we had to drop to back in March due to mechanical
issues.
But we would be able to retain the existing level of service that we have today through
June of 2028.
This has been done all in consultation with member agency executives.
All the CEOs have a consensus around this approach.
Because this board has approved a continuing resolution through December of this year,
we are able to operate under that continuing resolution to buy us time to allow us to see
if we can – if we can – this Hail Mary will be completed.
And however, if either we do not receive the allocation that we've requested or the conditions
placed on Metrolink for the receipt of those funds are considered to be untenable or not
doable on the part of ourselves and the member agencies, we would be taking to our November
board a budget that reflects what we have been posting in the last couple weeks with
service cuts.
we do receive the funding there will be no need for the those cuts we would take
an action at our November board meeting that would continue the service
operations that we have out there today so I could only say stay tuned at this
point we'll see how this all plays out if we do have to go to what I consider a
doomsday scenario I don't think it's a place where any of us want to be but the
finances drive us to this spot if we are at a place where we're not we don't
receive the funding or that, again, the conditions are not something we can handle, we would
look at a modification in our service rather than it being November 16th as has been proposed
if we had to approve a budget today. It would be effective January 4th. So that's where
we are. I just want to make sure because, again, we had noticed the public hearing for
anybody that may have been observing online or in the audience that is the
those are the that's the explanation behind what we're trying to do to give
us a shot to preserve our service levels for the next for all intents and
purposes two years and put us in a place where we could then consider more
sustainable funding longer term thank you mr. chair that concludes my remarks
I think that's all good news, and so we'll put whatever effort there is into getting that approval,
and so we are set anyway through the end of the year with no change in service for what we are today.
One further remark, because the Board directed that item 8A also has been postponed,
the Board directed that the employee reclassifications and salary adjustments,
that that go at the time that the budget was adopted,
that item too has been postponed
to our November board meeting.
So those are the reasons for those two,
because they were linked.
So those two items, 7A and 8AA.
Correct.
And now continue to our next board meeting?
Correct.
All right.
And now that brings us to 8B,
which is our modernization path analysis.
and we have Lisa Colicchio.
I hope I say that right.
So close.
Colicchio.
If you would explain our modernization path, please,
and the analysis that goes with it.
Yeah, happy to do so.
Good morning, Chair, members of the board.
I just want to tee this up a little bit
before I get into the slides and frame up the conversation.
This is a significant capital decision.
The financial, operational and environmental effects
will shape Metrolink for the next 30 years.
But this isn't a new item.
In 2021, staff completed a fleet modernization study.
The board authorized us to approve grant,
to seek grant funding for new tier four locomotives.
That took over four years and multiple attempts.
But as of last June, we secured $140 million
and committed grants.
We're back before you today because during our procurement,
we uncovered costs and market conditions
that weren't originally present
when we had applied for those grants.
Some may say that this is difficult timing,
given our budget and financial environment,
but it actually is the right time.
Today's budget pressures
are why we have to think holistically.
Environmental sustainability remains a core commitment
for Metrolink, but we must also be financially sustainable.
Next slide.
We looked at three different pathways
over a 30 year time horizon.
Path A, purchasing new tier four locomotives,
has an estimated cost of over $1 billion.
Path B, overhauling our existing fleet
at a cost of $375 million,
and path C procuring hybrid locomotives
for a cost of 471 million.
Next slide.
When you look at the financial comparison side by side,
it becomes very clear.
Path A after procurement and applying grants
and member agency match has a funding gap of 33 million.
On the operation side, the service contract,
the life cycle maintenance,
along with maintenance of our remaining tier two fleet
has an estimated cost of over $1 billion.
In comparison, PATH-B forgoes new procurement,
retains the existing fleet,
and instead performs maintenance overhauls
at the 15 and 30 year marks
for a total operations cost of 375 million.
Lastly, PATH-C, we analyzed procurement
of the same quantity of 12 locomotives,
but more sustainable models of diesel battery hybrids
and that could help reduce fuel use.
This path has a procurement funding gap
after grants of 54 million
and a total operational cost of 471 million.
The takeaway we learned from our findings is straightforward.
Capital procurement for new locomotives
could be manageable with available grant funding.
However, the critical financial exposure
lies in the ongoing operations.
Maintenance costs create a massive unfunding gap
that dwarfs procurement for which no grant subsidies exist.
This is mostly attributed to the advanced technologies
and how these locomotives are built.
They're very sophisticated with a lot of computer components
and require costly technical services contracts
with the manufacturer to maintain.
Next slide.
I'm just gonna quickly touch on the trade-offs.
Path A gives us a modern fleet
that meets current emission standards,
but at the highest long-term cost,
and locks us into a minimum 30-year commitment
out of useful life.
Next slide.
There is no immediate funding gap with Path B,
and it's the lowest total cost overall.
It's equipment that we know well,
and keeps us flexible to move towards their emissions
locomotives and technology as that industry matures.
There is a future risk that California
may update emissions standards for tier two locomotives,
but we're gonna closely monitor that.
Next slide.
Path C has real environmental benefits,
but the battery technology brings new challenges
of handling and storage.
And it has a considerably higher operational cost
of over 100 million more as compared to path B.
Next slide.
Staff recommends approving path B,
overhauling our existing tier two fleet
as the most financially prudent path.
We originally presented this item to the MAC members
back in June and did receive consensus on our recommendation.
As next steps, we will notify the grantors
and voluntarily remit the 140 million grant funds.
We'll work closely with our member agencies
in reallocating the 10.7 million match
towards capital budgeted projects.
And lastly, in FY28, we do plan to update
our fleet management study and the findings
of this analysis will be incorporated as a foundation.
That concludes my message, my topic,
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
And if I could, Mr. Chair, before you call on a couple
of board members who have lights on.
Two other elements.
Lisa mentioned the convening with the MAC.
I had the same conversation with member agency CEOs
laying out the facts as Lisa has described them.
And there was consensus in this recommendation as well,
particularly related to the operations costs
that put so much pressure on all of us.
The second element is we have, in doing our research,
one of the things we did find is that Caltrans itself
is overhauling their tier two locomotives
rather than purchasing new tier four.
So with Caltrans going down that path,
we are not alone in this decision
to look at a more affordable solution.
And again, for us, the emissions reductions
really go to getting people out of their cars and into our trains.
That is the greatest emission savings we can find.
Nothing against the Tier 4s.
They're critically important, and we're proud of that.
But having more trains and more people in trains is going to be what brings down our
emissions in this region more so than a cleaner-burning locomotive.
Those are my remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, and so we just, go ahead, please.
Oh, okay, thank you for that.
I'm just curious, is there a scenario
that you see where we eliminate path A,
which I completely understand today,
and then begin pursuing plan B,
but also further dig on plan C
as it relates to possibilities,
rather than just closing the door on it?
Can you go down a parallel path?
I mean, we can study this, it's just that we feel pretty confident in our analysis.
It's really the ongoing operations and these technical service contracts that are incumbent
with any new locomotive.
And those are the costs that are so cost prohibitive, and for which there is no funding.
There's no grant funding for that.
So the reason I mean because I know for instance Stadler is the only OEM who manufactures this
type of locomotive and can meet the Buy America.
But I met with Kinkashario who expressed interest as well.
So have we fully explored all manufacturers that are possible?
Supervisor Barger, Justin Fortnale, Chief of Program Delivery.
I think there's an opportunity to be looking at these new technology as part of our fleet
management plan which I believe is going to be kicked off in FY28 so I think there is
an opportunity to continue to look at this technology.
One of the issues that we ran into with the other vendors that are out there around the
globe is a lot of them are not bi-America compliant.
In addition to that is that there is also specific FRA regulations and requirements.
The reason we did look at the Stadler vehicle is that there is a contract that was recently
executed with VIA Rail in Canada,
basically making sure making that that equipment,
piece of equipment would be North America,
essentially FRA certified.
So that's why we kind of opened it up to look to a vehicle
that is, would not be truly Buy America compliant
at this point.
But to your point, I think there is an opportunity
as part of our fleet management plan to continue to look
at our fleet or our path to zero emissions.
That's what I want to hear.
I mean, I understand the plan B,
but I think it's important.
because I know Kikushara would meet the Buy America
because they do have a plan up in Palmdale.
And if expansion was possible, and I'm just curious,
I just want to make sure that we're keeping our ears
to the ground to make sure there's opportunities.
I guess with my hair on the back of my neck when you said,
we know our equipment well.
With all the times that we've had to pull service because we
We don't have supplies, trains, whatever.
That's where I get a little nervous.
No matter how much we rebuild, I know we have to continue
to keep supplies and parts and everything off to the side
so that we don't have to stop service.
But I mean, my whole focus is how can we keep
the trains moving and filling the service?
Because that's where we're getting a black eye.
And so what's gonna be the most efficient?
and obviously cost-effect, I agree.
Plan A is a dream.
We're trying just to fix the $20 million budget,
let alone $100, a billion, you know?
So we have to really focus on what's cost-effective.
But I'm just kind of disillusioned
on how long it takes our suppliers to do the overhauls
and to do all this.
Is that gonna be delayed again?
Is it going to continue to be a long drug out process?
This is the beauty, Director Spiegel, of Plan B.
The Tier 2s have been the most reliable locomotives we have,
the ones that we'd be overhauling over the course
of the next five to seven years.
They are the most reliable we have in the fleet.
They are all sort of the locomotive
that are found throughout the country of similar railroads.
All across the country, the manufacture
of that tier two locomotive.
They have a fleets from Chicago to Florida,
New Mexico, across the country.
Unlike our F-125s, we're the proud owner
of the only Ford he ever built.
And so that's where we run into supplier problems.
We do not have supplier problems with our MP-36s.
And the overhauls are a known commodity for the industry
as compared to the F-125 because the F-125
is the only game in town.
So that's another element of the beauty of.
You had me there.
Okay, very good.
Director Engler.
Thank you.
We're faced with this kind of a decision to be made.
Do we stick with a known quantity
or go for something that brings us into the future?
I think my question really is,
the older units are tier two.
Are we simply investing in something that is
gonna go obsolete here at a certain point?
Or is it, can we use those units
well into the future without any problems?
So the overhaul program would be a 15 year life extension.
Once we see and use the vehicles for another 15 years,
I think we have an opportunity to then do another overhaul
at that time to extend the life of those vehicles.
I think we would hope by within 15 years,
we've identified other technologies
that we could potentially transition to
something that's more fuel efficient for the fleet.
Thank you.
So I understand that the MAC looked at this in June,
and here we're sitting here in October,
is there anything materially different
from what was presented to the Mac in June
versus what we see here today?
Yes, it was path C.
We had received news about the diesel hybrids
and we paused this analysis
because we felt it important to look at those thoroughly
and see would there be an advantage
and also would there be a cost differential
as compared to Path A, and at the end of the day,
there really isn't much of a cost differential.
So back in June, Metrolink was gonna say Path C,
and now it's Path B, do I understand?
No, sorry, we've always been,
we initially analyzed Path A,
which is tier four locomotives that we had the grant funds
for, and Path B, which is keeping the existing fleet,
and that was presented to the MAC.
But shortly after June, we received information
about the diesel battery hybrids,
and we felt that we needed to pause this analysis
and include that as path C. And so that
is the new information that's being presented to you today.
But as the economics are not any better,
we are still recommending path B.
So I guess where I go is, when do we
have to make this decision?
because the longer we wait we get smarter
and have more information.
And is this a decision we have to make?
We can certainly express a preference.
But I wouldn't want to make this decision
until we absolutely had to make it
because it's a dynamic circumstance, costs,
what are all the things that you're analyzing.
And I want to make sure that MAC
is fully vetting all this information as well.
So, Mr. Cattle, in terms of the time sensitivity
of having to make this decision today
versus waiting six months, I'm throwing out discussion.
Director Temer, the pressure such as it is
that we have on us is our grantors.
They have money that is sitting in a bank
and if we're not going to use it,
they need to repurpose it.
So we've received funding from the Air District.
They've been asking, what's your status?
What's your status?
Also through Caltrans
and the California Transportation Commission.
So where we have time pressure
is the fact that we are grantors.
If we're not gonna use it,
they have other places they can use it.
And the analysis that we've had to us appeared very clear
that the path B was the right one,
even after the new information we had with path C,
which is really, as Lisa said, three months into it,
came out of somewhat nowhere.
I don't think that if we were to delay it one more month
or two more months that it's gonna create
any greater heartburn with our grantors,
but out of respect for their request after the review
and our own analysis, this was the prudent approach,
given what we understood through the analysis.
Okay, and are there immediate actions that will be taken,
obviously, for those releasing of funds
or whatever that is, but is there anything else?
Nothing else.
Okay, thank you.
Director Bergson.
Yes, thank you.
A few things.
One, I was unclear in regards to the 40 tier 4
locomotives we have today.
What is the status of those?
Are they gonna be discontinued?
Are we gonna keep those rolling?
Where are we with that?
I didn't notice any information on that.
Those tier four F125s would be continued
to stay in service, yes.
So that leads me to a question
in regards to the tier twos.
Apparently parts are not an issue
and we know the tier fours have had issues in the past
but it has also been expressed to the board
that those part issues have been resolved.
So if I'm looking in the future to next year
or the future beyond that, are we seeing that
our parts issues have been resolved once and for all?
Or is there gonna be some kind of another issue
where different parts may go defective
and we start that cycle all over again?
What can you tell us about that?
Director Burksen, if you'd asked me last year,
what do we know about fuel manifolds?
I would have said, we have no issues with fuel manifolds.
This, going back to what Ms. Colecio said,
this quippant is, the technology is evolving.
It is one of a kind.
So I can't say that we're not gonna have other problems
with other pieces, other parts,
but we do, through our materials group,
working with Alstom, we are dialing in
the parts element of it.
We do not have the same level of lead times
as it relates to fuel manifolds and spider shafts
and capacitors and some of the things that have been failing.
So we're in a much better place, making sure
that we do have equipment material on hand for the F125.
I think right now we have somewhere
in the order of eight locomotives that are parked
waiting on material.
And that can be an evolving situation day to day.
But right now we've been generally six to eight
locomotives parked waiting on material.
So it's not as much a material issue is as it is with Alstom
performing and getting our fleet back to where it needs to be.
So it's really a two-part process.
Material, I think we're in a good place.
We are working with Alstom to get dialed in on getting the fleet
where it needs to be.
So then my next comment has to do
with the obsolescence of the tier twos.
Because as we know, every time we turn around,
the state or federal government is
making things more restrictive, not less restrictive.
So at some point, the tier twos may not make the cut
and have to be replaced regardless.
So if we start spending millions of dollars
to rehab the equipment, what certainty or comfort level
are we going to have that those will actually
make it to the end of their life cycle and we didn't just throw money out and waste it.
As Ms. Kalik you indicated, there is some risk in this approach and that is that the
rules of the game could change, but I look again recognizing across the country the MP36
locomotive is arguably the most common commuter railroad locomotive that's a diesel-powered
locomotive in the country and the fact that Caltrans, I believe it's 25 of their
state-owned locomotives are going through this same overhaul approach
that we are. It means we don't do this alone so we would be advocating our
position based on the use of public dollars and the prudent use of public
dollars. So I'm not going to sit here and say yes there's no risk at this. This is
you know and certainly in California where air quality matters to all of us
I do think we are at a place that we are positioned appropriately with this but
there is risk. The other side is as if we're going and buying a whole bunch of
MPF tier four locomotives, the risk we have is not being able to operate
service because our operating costs go through the roof because of the cost to
operate and so it's a kind of a there's the potential of a damned if you do damned
if you don't. But I think we're confident that our arguments on the case can be
made that this is the wise choice, the prudent choice. And and I guess I'll just
kind of wrap up my comment with the fact that what Metrolink means to this
region, we've been the first. The first with PTC, the first with tier four, the
first with a lot of innovation and technology.
And of course, it would be a shame to see us reverse course.
So if this is a temporary one-time kind of fix,
and in the future, we look to enhance our technology,
then that would seem prudent.
But I also would caution all of us
because we are about to have an election that we
will have a new governor.
And I don't know what the policies are going to be
with either of them, if whomever gets sworn in,
as well as all the state and federal legislators
that are up for election.
So obviously, I would say that this is great conversation,
but I think it would be great if we knew more next,
you know, earlier next year when things are more in place
and we can kind of see what the political climate is
In regards to maybe additional funding, maybe different rules on environmental issues.
So I think we should at least be cautious about making immediate decisions until we
get a little better feel for a political climate next year.
I'll wrap it up with that.
Thank you.
All right.
Dr. Marquez.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate that.
First of all, great report.
Thank you very much.
For's how many told we actually bought the first 40 is that correct?
So that is that was my second question. Is it the only 40? Yes. Yeah, what are the companies out there produce your force?
Currently the only other company that's by America compliant that provides cells to your for is this is Siemens
So they do have a somewhat of a monopoly on the tier 4 market. I'm currently my understanding
They're still having the same problems that we're having
they they have
cost elements of the pricing that miss Colecchio talked about as it relates to
the
Equipment name this maintenance contracts those kind of things those are all based off of current contracts that Siemens is a party to in
After they've sold one of their tier four locomotives to
commuter railroads
So we have very real-time cost figures for those and what their their contracts are for maintenance
So we have very clear data on that just a follow-up question
And I know the Olympics are right around the corner, correct?
Right around the corner.
So we need to do whatever we need to do with our locomotives to be the best in 2028.
So tier two sounds to me like that's sort of a, I mean, we should be doing that.
Certainly the tier twos have proven to be our most reliable locomotive in our fleet.
Sir, thank you very much for that information.
Thank you.
And just kind of a follow up question on spare parts for all our engines, especially our
125s.
using some of the out of service rigs in the past for keeping you know for spare
parts has the part situation rectified so that we're not doing that anymore
both both especially for the 125 but also Archer twos we have we have director
angler we've given direction to Alston that the process of cannibalization
needed to cease. There are one-off occasions that under our chief operating
officer's authority that we will grant the need to move one part to
another so we have availability of fleet, but that is supposed to be a very
isolated circumstance. It does happen on occasion, but it's very limited, and again
mainly because we're getting the parts side of the house more dialed in
through the cooperation between our materials management team and our
operations team in Alstom. Director Spiegel? I think there's a risk at either
approach. I know we've talked about pros and cons. I guess my concern is
is Alstom the only company that I know we have the bundle and I think that
there's been some downside to this. I'm not sure if they're producing as much
as we anticipated. They're seem a little slow. So would I say Director Spiegel not
to kick the can too far down the road because I think it's the very next item
that we are going to be talking about reliability and fleet equipment and that
kind of thing. And so it's a very good question and I think part of this can be
answered in our next item. You hear that, Carlos and Rod and Manny? Okay, all right.
And Siemens is also, does American may, when you talk about their involvement
in T4? Siemens manufactures their tier four locomotives out of Sacramento.
You know, when we talk about this and how long it's taking and we're the only one
with a significant amount of T4, go back to the Jetsons.
I mean, they came up with the idea years ago,
and we're still not having flying cars, so.
All right, do I see any more?
Well, then I'd like to remark that we use biodiesel.
I don't see there's any future pollution issue as long
as we use biodiesel in whichever engine it is.
And I think the Tier 2, I wish we had purchased more of them
instead of the Tier 4 in the first place.
Tier 4 break down all the time, a lot more.
And they're just more complicated.
And I think it was an unfortunate investment
that was made a long ago.
If I could trade all the Tier 4s or Tier 2s, I'd do that.
I don't think there's anybody out there
that would take on more Tier 4s.
We're the only one that has them.
And so I see this is a terrific analysis.
Thank you for doing that.
And I think this is something that is very cost effective.
And we need to do this in these difficult times
where budget means a lot.
So I'm going to move the recommended action.
We do have a request to speak on this item.
So we have a comment on that?
All right, yes, we do need just one.
Just one.
All right, let's take the speaker.
Cooper Crane.
Hello.
Thank you again, honorable members of the board.
I actually want to specifically respond to some of the comments that were made by some
of the chairman, specifically Chairman Enger, Chairman Tedermann, and Chairman Marquez.
Chairman Marquez, the only Tier 4 diesel locomotive that is currently produced in the
United States for passenger operations is the Siemens charger, as CEO Kettle indicated.
This is the locomotive that is currently used on San Diego's coaster, and it is also in
service with Amtrak-specific surf liner.
While these locomotives are very advanced,
they are also very expensive and very complicated.
I'm sure as you are aware, the same problems that
are affecting the EMD125 have occasionally
affected the chargers as well.
And this brings us to the point that both Chairman Nger
and Chairman Tetterman made, which
is that the question of obsolescence.
Diesel locomotives are increasingly
becoming obsolescent for the 21st century.
These are technologies that, in order
to maintain mission levels required
by the federal government, require incredibly advanced
computer parts and computer components.
But there is, frankly, an easier option.
And it's one of the reasons why we at Californians
for electric rail are kind of surprised
that this wasn't considered, is electrification.
Electrification of the entire Metrolink system
was considered as early as the 1990s,
when Metrolink was first beginning operations.
And it remains the gold standard for any kind of passenger rail
operation anywhere in the world.
Electric trains are less complicated.
They have less components.
They're more efficient.
They are lighter.
They accelerate faster.
You can therefore run them with greater frequency
for lower costs.
And there are already companies in the United States
from which Metrolink can acquire rolling stock and equipment
that would be compliant with Buy America.
Stadler, for example, who is one of the partners
that Metrolink has worked with on the 125,
they produce the KISS set that is currently
in use with Caltrain in San Francisco
and would be an excellent train set for Metrolink to consider.
Californians for electric rail submitted a longer written comment to the board secretary that goes into more detail
Outlying the reasons why electrification should be considered
We currently support the plan B that has been outlined and that has been recommended by Metrolink staff
But we do urge the Metrolink board to consider that this is only a temporary solution
And it is essentially kicking the can further down the road the ultimate solution really needs to be electrification. Thank you
Thank you with that. I will repeat my motion to approve this staff recommendation
May I have a second?
We got a second from director Engler
Any objection to approving the recommendation?
All right, it looks like we are in agreement
director McAllen, sorry, yes
Yes
Thank you
All right
Well, we have approval to go down with plan B and that of course can be modified as technology changes
As we need to purchase new engines, we'll look at what the vest is at that time.
But this keeps us going at a responsible cost with a locomotive that does not
break down, particularly as like the Tier 4 student. With that, we're now moving on
to item 8C, which is a receive and file item, talking about a Rolling Stock
mechanical update and we have Emanuel Valles if you sir would help us out and
then I think you have Cynthia Minnaks and Kevin Gray might also participate
with you. Please go ahead. Members of the board, next slide please. This first slide is an
overview of our total system delays. I'm sorry, Emanuel, give me one second and
you're gonna, I can already tell Mr. McCallen on, Director McCallen's gonna need
you just speak up into the mic because he put his ear like this to whatever he was listening
to. I want to provide a little context to why this report is before you board members.
Several months ago, as we were wrestling with the mechanical challenges that were very,
very public, very real, over the course of that spring and that necessitated the change
and service levels, we had rightfully questions
from our board members about, hey,
we need to do a more thorough review.
And there was a question of, do we do an audit of some sort
or something along those lines?
And at the time, as we were trying
to get our arms around that, what we committed to
was coming into this board on a quarterly basis
and bringing you a deep dive into where we are.
I hate that term, a deep analysis, a thorough analysis
of our fleet situation, where we are with delays,
what causes them, where it's mechanical,
where it's contractual.
And so this is the first quarter,
so this is gonna be what Mr. Vyse is gonna be presenting,
is the first quarter of the fiscal year we are in now,
FY27, that attempts to go into that level of analysis
so that this board has a full awareness
of what we've experienced in the first three months
and every three months after that on a quarterly basis,
so you're fully informed on that rather than,
and I understand a motion that was made at LA Metro
is still requesting an audit review
that this board will need to consider at some point,
but for the time being,
this is our attempt to make sure
you have all the information,
So you have it real time, what we've experienced
in the last quarter.
So with that introduction, go ahead,
Emmanuel, take it away.
All right, thank you, Mr. Kettle.
All right, next slide, please.
This slide is an overview of our total system delays.
We had 35,171 minutes of total system delays.
Mechanical attributed failures was at 19.4%
of the overall delays.
We had 5,310 minutes for locomotive delays,
1,183 minutes attributed to late turns,
and a 319 of minutes for a car and other mechanical delays.
Total on-time performance for the same time period
was at 97.38%.
Next slide, please.
This slide represents mechanical locomotive availability.
Our locomotive availability is measured weekly
against a minimum target of 105%.
So contractually, all sum is required
to provide 105% of the equipment for the service required
for our current schedule.
As you can see, in the summer months, we did take a dip.
Heat-related failures and HVAC failures
had caused a decline in our equipment availability
when it comes to locomotives.
Next slide, please.
Our two systemic issues that have been plaguing us
for our F125s is our fuel canister failures.
So a little bit of background,
we've gone through multiple iterations
for corrective actions with the OEM.
The OEM for our engines is Caterpillar.
The picture on the left is a picture of the fuel canister.
There's three of these fuel canisters
with the common manifold.
In the picture, you can see that it cracked.
When we first experienced these failures,
we started documenting cataloging it.
And we proactively ordered replacement material.
We thought maybe the material was getting
fatigued because these locomotives are aging.
So we involved Caterpillar.
We ordered a new batch of canisters.
And we started replacing those canisters.
Also started failing.
and they started failing at a faster rate.
We were seeing canisters crack within three days of service.
We still tie off with Caterpillar.
Caterpillar's been engaged, their engineering's been engaged,
so we ordered a second round.
We sent in canisters for laboratory testing,
and Caterpillar's engineering analysis determined
that this is an issue that went back to overseas,
to the casting and the foundry and the metallurgy
of the canisters that were being supplied to Caterpillar.
It did not meet the OEM specifications
when these were originally designed.
So we ordered a second round of canisters,
which was paid for by Caterpillar
because this was a warranty issue.
Those canisters had arrived
and they didn't even get sent to Metrolink.
Those canisters did not pass the initial
quality assurance checks from Caterpillar.
So we're on our third round of canisters.
So as of late, we have over 25 of the F125 canisters
are installed with the third round of material.
and we have had one failure, unfortunately.
Caterpillar has that material,
and they're sending it back in for an engineering analysis.
Next slide, please.
We are still tracking it, and CAT is engaged.
They are gonna be mobilizing engineers to come on site
to facilitate other corrective actions.
We are looking at possibly removing the fuel canister
housings off the engine and mounting them
onto the locomotive to reduce maybe vibrational failures.
Next slide, please.
Second predominant failure is our spider shaft failures.
We've had extensive work with progress rail engineering,
laboratory testing is in progress to determine the root cause.
The root cause has not been identified yet.
The pictures on the bottom show different failure modes
that we've experienced on our spider shafts.
The spider shafts is a torque coupling
that's built in the traction motor and the axle arrangement.
Corrective actions in place now.
Stadler has introduced a re-engineered spider shaft.
Stadler's current estimate is expected
to improve the spider shaft strength by 30 to 40%.
We haven't received these yet.
These are expected in November.
The next step is also to arrange for on-track testing
of the F125 locomotive,
measuring the actual torque and displacement values
at the coupler to aid in the root cause investigation.
Progress Rail and Stadler are gonna be
assisted in this analysis.
Next slide, please.
Our third issue is our heavy repair backlog
of our rolling stock.
Also continues to work on the backlog in conjunction
with managing our planned maintenance
on scheduled repairs along with SCRA's F125 engine
replacement program for the engine overhauls.
We currently have nine long term out of locomotives
that have been shopped.
These have all been shopped prior to 2026,
and one of those locomotives was awaiting materials
of September 30th.
Also is projected to have the remaining nine long term units
released by the end of year,
pending no additional material constraints.
to help with the backlog.
All sums brought in six temporary contractors on site
to help reduce the backlog
and bring the engine replacement program back on track.
In addition, all sums restructuring their labor forces
to enable seven day per week for ship shop operations
with the flexibility to add a second shift
to further increase shop productivity
and reduce the locomotive out of service dwell time.
Next slide, please.
And that is it.
Is there any, move it over to Cynthia.
Thank you.
Cynthia Minix, director of contraction procurement.
Chair and Board members.
Next slide please.
Make sure you speak directly into the mic, Cynthia.
Thank you.
Okay, better?
All right.
Well, Director McAllen will let us know
if it's not better.
How's that?
Okay.
All right, I'm here to talk to you
about the material availability
and our process improvements.
So our challenge, as mentioned a couple of times earlier today,
is the sole source and limited source F125 components
remains a constant constraint for us.
Main causes, purchase orders were not placed
in a timely manner and because it wasn't staffed properly,
we had minimum contracts in place,
extended lead times from suppliers,
as well as delivery dates that were constantly moving.
In November of last year, I actually paused
the entire contracts and procurement team.
So that was nine CAs and we put everything on hold for the agency and focused
on clearing our material backlog.
We did that for about six weeks until the end of December
and we're seeing some improvements now.
So some of the results that we've seen when we started looking
open requisition line items.
There were 232.
We have been down as low as 38 requisition line items,
aging over 15 days, and now we've reduced those to 113 to 4.
That number of fluctuates, we get requisitions
in on a regular basis.
So what we've tried to do to streamline the process is
to enter into multi-year agreements.
You will notice that in the last few board meetings, we've come to you either for approval
to award a single source contract to Progress Rail, WebTec, QAN, et cetera.
Or on the quarterly report where the procurements are between 250 and 500,000,
you will see that that list increased.
So the last few quarters, that's a longer list.
That's because we've been putting agreements in place with the companies
so that the purchasing PO process is streamlined.
Meaning that the CA doesn't have to go and get a quote
and ask lead time and get pricing.
If we have the pricing up front, they can go ahead
and place those orders.
A problem that we had was resources.
My department is currently the bottleneck for the agency
and it has been for years.
I think we all understand why.
So without getting additional head count, the only way out for us is to automate the process.
We have been approved for contracts, life cycle management system,
but we won't start implementation until next year.
So in the meantime, I have dedicated two CAs to work on the material requisitions.
This has caused us to increase our cycle time on CTOs,
work directives, amendments, and new procurements.
And I've also have three senior CAs
that work on new procurements.
All three of them are working on materials projects now.
Previously.
CAs are contract administrators.
Thank you, Chief Catworth.
So, we, I'm sorry, I lost my thought.
So, instead of having one senior contract administrator work
on the materials, all three are working on those.
We are now prioritizing any materials, contracts,
any materials purchases, and the new model is
if we don't run trains, we don't need the other projects, right?
So the focus is on that.
Additionally, as you heard, the tier four pricing has increased,
so we do see the costs going up year over year, but we have had to,
along with everyone else, reduce our budget.
Last year, we were, for the first time, we were able
to buy some additional spare parts.
So, April, May timeframe,
we ordered some additional alternators.
Around October of last year, we were, we received money
to order critical parts, couplers, wheel sets,
traction motors, et cetera.
Just recently, two months ago, we were, we were allowed
to order additional critical parts, and we have all
of those parts on order except for two invitation
for bids that we need to post.
That material is long lead time, so it's starting to come
in now and it'll be coming in through 2027.
One of the reasons why we felt it was really important
to advocate getting more money
to purchase these critical parts is
so that we can get these parts in in 2027
before the Olympics arrive.
Because if you're ordering parts in 2028,
we wouldn't get them to 2029, so we would miss that window.
So working with operations to see what parts
we should order, we've done that.
And I think we're in a pretty good place right now.
I will say that right now our numbers are better
for the department across the board.
We are very much focused on the materials aspect.
We had not been in the past due to turnover
and other major procurements that we had to purchase.
Thank you.
And I will now turn it over.
So while I've been working on the procurement process
this year, and the end of last year.
We also realized that we needed to look
at our materials process.
And so our chief technology officer, Kevin Gray,
is here to speak to you about the materials TIGER team.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning, Chairman Chafee, directors.
Can you hear me?
All right.
I'm Kevin Gray, chief technology officer,
and I'm leading the TIGER team.
In June, we convened a small cross-functional group
of Metrolink subject matter experts
focused on process and tool improvement related
to the materials management and related functional areas
that impact the availability of parts and materials
we need to keep our trains running.
We call this group a Tiger Team.
You all may have heard the terms task force or strike team
or special action team used to describe groups like ours.
We convene this group with the understanding
that materials management is dependent upon a complex supply
chain consisting of vendors, people,
interconnected processes, and technology solutions.
We also convened the team with an assumption
that our materials problems are not
the result of one or a few simple issues,
but rather many potential problems large and small.
So far, our findings are supporting this assumption.
So our target team has collapsed our organizational silos,
reduced bureaucracy, and provided us
with an environment for the discussions.
We need to find the solutions to the myriad
of potential problems that can impact our ability
to provide the parts we need to ensure
the availability of our fleet.
The core team and its governing steering committee
include members from contracts and procurement, materials
management, finance, asset management, capital programs,
maintenance of equipment, and IDTS.
So we've identified several large-scope problems,
such as insufficient storage space
at our central maintenance facility
for the parts inventory needed to maintain smooth fleet operations.
And we've identified and fixed several other smaller scope problems,
such as unnecessary process steps that add no value, and problems that have prevented us
from tracking how often we did not have the parts we needed in stock to repair our equipment.
Disciplined, transparent, continuous,
and incremental improvement in materials management
is the team's mission.
And in my opinion, we are achieving that mission
by engaging all of the key stakeholders
in our materials management function,
bringing full visibility to the performance of the function
across multiple key performance indicators,
fixing the law-hanging fruit processes and technology issues
we find, recommending solutions for the larger scope problems we find, and executing on those
recommendations when the capacity, funding, and resources are available to us.
Thank you, sir.
Director's question.
Dr. Spiegel, are you home?
Yes, several things.
Not so much for him.
But when we talked about the canister, I guess my biggest problem is where does Allstrom's
responsibility come in. I'm seeing that we had this bundle, I was not 100% behind it,
I think it was an awful lot of money and now I'm even feeling worse about it because I'm
not seeing where they're involved with all this. The canister with Caterpillar or Alstrom.
I mean, you know, all these things, who's doing what? Why and how do we reduce the requisition
line? I mean, the contract administrators, are they working with Alstrom? Are they working
for us? I'm not sure. I'm feeling that there's not a connection that Alstom's
responsible for anything. Well, Alstom is certainly responsible for a lot of
things. So contract administrators work for us and our contract administrators
work closely with our own internal materials management division. So we have
a materials function. We're getting almost everything. We're getting the
parts for these locomotives or all of that equipment. Alstom has the
responsibility to maintain, install in some cases these parts in the case of
the manifolds Caterpillar's actually doing the installation because it's been
operating under warranty work that kind of thing so that is their responsibility
that is very clearly a parts failure problem that Caterpillar has I believe
it was mr. Vyas who informed me that this piece of equipment this this
engine, the Caterpillar engine was designed for either stationary or marine purposes.
It's a very different environment on a vibrating locomotive and so there is some belief that,
as Manny said, maybe moving these manifolds to some place that's not quite as vibrating will help.
But that is very much a Caterpillar problem, not an Alstom problem. What we would suggest is an
Alstom problem is all of that equipment that's parked waiting to the nine
locomotives that were identified in the list that are a backlog that they have
committed will be cleaned up on that backlog will be done by the end of this
year that is an that is absolutely Alstom's responsibility and we have put
Alstom on notice of what our expectations are on that and as I think
I've shared with the board as we've wrestled with this issue is we have as
As I heard earlier today, the honeymoon is over with Halston.
It was over on July 1 of this year.
That's when we could start charging LDs,
and we are charging LDs.
That's my next question.
We are absolutely holding them accountable for this.
And to their credit, they have brought in contract staff
at their own expense.
They're doing some modification of their leadership
to try to get things back to where our expectations are.
So we are absolutely on them.
Okay, so come the end of this year, in December,
if those seven aren't back in line,
then what's the consequence?
There will continue to be liquidated damages charged.
And when we come back with the quarterly report
that would include October, November, December,
We will have a report to you as to just where we are
on that backlog and what the situation is
with that backlog.
Thank you.
Director, is there any more questions?
I see none.
This is the receiving follow item.
If there's no objection.
Mr. Chair, if I could.
Go ahead, Mr. Teneiter.
Thank you.
So there was one mention about KPIs.
And this, to me, feels like it calls out
to have some sort of a dashboard for Alstom,
for our own processes internally.
I'm not sure what that suite of things would be,
but it feels like this would be a good opportunity to sort
of start to measure productivity.
The report is great.
It puts a lot of narrative.
But having something that's more dashboard centric
that we can use and monitor along the way.
So that would be my recommendation.
I know this is a receiving file,
but I think this is a circumstance given the
challenges we face.
I think it's one of those things where those could be useful tools, not only to staff as
they consider things, but also to this board as they consider policy issues and whatnot
down the road.
It can be internal too, right?
How are we doing?
How's Alston doing?
But also possibly looking beyond that into the industry, how are we measuring up on certain
aspects of what we do versus the industry?
And that may be difficult to do, but it starts with trying to find some ways to do those
Metrics and use those tools so I just throw that out there for
Consideration thank you. Thank you
Any more comments questions? Oh, this is a receiving file item
so now we'll move on to
Item 8d and understand there's a
Quest for public comment on 8d. What would cause that speakers, please occur?
Peter W
understand that there's also F40PH-4C locomotives out there,
because Chicago Metra ordered their tier 4 locomotives
from a manufacturer that is offering an upgraded version
of the classic F40.
I know it's only a 3,000 horsepower locomotive,
but it might be the temporary stopgap solution for us,
because it was the very unit the coaster used in a tier two
model before the tier four model came out.
And then the Altamont Commuter Express
went to a tier three model.
Sir, we're on the fuel purchase policy.
With regard to fuel, how are we calculating our fuel now
that diesel for a car is in the $8.50 range per gallon,
where regular gasoline is in somewhere in the middle sixes
because of the current problem in the Middle East.
Every time we have a problem in the Middle East,
our fuel prices go through the sky.
And that affects not just Metrolink,
but Amtrak, Toaster, Caltrain, everybody
that has to deal with diesel fuel.
Thank you.
Are there any other speakers?
All right, thank you, Mr. Schamber.
We have your update, please.
Good morning, Chair Chafee, members of the board.
Next slide, please.
And next slide, please.
Metrolink's fuel hedging program has been in place for many years
and it has substantially buffered us
against changes in fuel prices.
Our policy results in a very conservative fuel hedging
strategy designed to limit the risk of locking in hedging contracts that could subsequently
decline in price.
Over the past few years, this approach has served the agency well, as fuel markets have
generally trended upward.
Due to current geopolitical events, we are in a more uncertain price environment.
Adopting a more flexible hedging policy that is effective in both rising and falling fuel
price environments would better position Metrolink
to achieve the primary objective of the fuel purchase program,
which is minimizing budget risk associated with fuel purchases.
Next slide, please.
Our current policy allows us to hedge 80%
of our projected diesel fuel consumption six months
into the future.
This leaves six months of each fiscal year fully exposed
to price changes.
Next slide, please.
The proposed change will allow us to hedge an additional six months at 30
to 60 percent of our projected consumption.
This would provide some level of protection for the entire fiscal year.
As always, we work closely with our fuel hedge consultant
and will adjust the hedge as market conditions warrant.
Next slide, please.
The objective of extending the hedge horizon is
to strengthen Metrolink's overall risk management strategy by improving cost certainty,
protecting the operating budget, stabilizing cash flows,
and enhancing longer term financial planning.
A phased 12-month hedging strategy reduces exposure to fuel price volatility while avoiding the risk
of committing the entire annual fuel requirement at a single market price.
This layered approach provides flexibility to respond to changing market conditions.
Although fuel prices remain elevated today,
high prices do not necessarily indicate that prices will decline in the near term.
Structural market factors, including geopolitical tensions, global supply constraints,
refinery capacity limitations, and shipping disruptions
may continue to support higher fuel prices for an extended period.
Consequently, the financial risk of remaining under hedged
may exceed the risk of extending the hedge coverage.
Our goal in making this coverage is to change, is to provide coverage for the entire fiscal
year.
With a 12-month hedge, we have a better idea of fuel prices for the next fiscal year when
the budget is developed.
Next slide, please.
This concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
I would just add to Mr. Shambur's remark.
This item was reviewed by the Fuel Hedge Ad Hoc Committee, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Marquez.
and
There was from that ad hoc committee
Consensus to bring us to the board for your approval
comments directors director Spiegel
This is an action item
Any objection
Seeing none the item is approved. Thank you. Thank you, Director McAllen. Are you a yes?
Yes
Sorry, Laura. I keep forgetting about you. All right. I don't mean to do that
Okay, all right now we have our legislative update
How's that good? Okay?
Chair Chafee and members of the board. I'm Anna Denneke senior manager of government relations
next slide please
First on the state side the legislature concluded. It's 20 25 26 session last month
SB 741 Blake spear which Metrolink supported was signed into law
The bill expands eligible uses of the LC top program and makes it easier for agencies to continue funding previously approved services
We also have final agreement on the state's
2627 greenhouse gas reduction fund expenditure plan enacted through a B 113 the agreement provides
130 million for zero emissions transit capital this fulfills the remaining commitment under SB 125
It also provides 95 million for TARC P
and
Excuse me 48 million for LC top
Unfortunately funding for TARC P and LC top remains at approximately one quarter of recent levels
We continue to work with our state partners to advocate for sustainable funding to support regional rail and a full
realization of the TARCP and LC top funding levels called for in the
original cap and invest expenditure agreement. And then as we heard at the
beginning of this meeting we submitted a 20 million dollar application for the
second cycle of the state's flexible state rail assistance program. Again as
we heard this request would help us maintain current operating service
levels over this fiscal year and next. This request is urgent and critical. The
executive team, government relations, CX, together we have worked to secure
letters of support from a broad group of stakeholders and as of this morning we
have received 27 letters from everybody from legislators to business groups,
labor, advocacy organizations, colleges, and schools. We have a deadline of this
evening and we expect many more letters over the course of the day. Turning to
the federal side, Congress extended government funding and portions of the IIJA through December
11th, but they did not, as a part of that agreement, extend Division J, which provides
advanced appropriations.
This means we could see an impact to our funding.
Section 5307 formula funding, which goes directly to our member agencies, remains unchanged.
However, section 5337 State of Good Repair funding is temporarily reduced because a portion
of this requires or relies on advanced appropriations.
It remains uncertain but possible whether an eventual annual appropriations bill will
make up that difference.
The greatest direct impact to us is in discretionary rail grants, including the Fed-State Partnership
Program and CRSSI.
These programs received significant funding through IIJ advanced appropriations and the
loss of that funding could substantially limit our future grant opportunities.
We prepared letters of support to key members of Congress, including members of our delegation
that serve on appropriations and transportation and infrastructure committees.
We've urged them to restore federal investment to fiscal year 26 levels when voting on a
successor to the current CR.
With that, I will take any questions.
You'll see anything here, so let's look for a good year in the legislators next year. Thank you
All right
Mr.. CEO your report. Yes. Thank you mr. Chair next slide, please
We're gonna show you a very quick video. This is a really cool project that happened over the course of a
Weekend or so ago October 10th and 11th
and in your neck of the woods, Mr. Thierry,
down in Orange County, Mr. Tedimer,
go ahead, let's run the video.
All right, so that's the way you build a bridge
on a weekend, and it's pretty cool.
So that is a City of Irvine project, if I'm not mistaken.
We happen to be, because of course our railroad,
we are completely engaged in making sure
that it's done to our standards and everything else,
but it is a impressive project
and sort of a new way of approaching building railroad
grade separation projects that really remove so much
of the costs associated with the time of building
under the tracks and that kind of thing.
So it's a pretty cool project to be a part of.
So I was looking over at Director Tettimer, who's
an engineer, if I'm mistaken, and he's looking at this thing.
And he could just see the joy in his face watching it.
This is cool stuff to be able to watch and be a part of.
Alright, next slide.
So we are in, we've heard quite a bit about our preparations
and what we need to do in advance of the Super El Nino.
And we've had a bit of a, you know,
a bit of a, you know, hey, this is what's coming kind of
thing these last couple of months.
So this is just a picture of what you've seen,
what we see out there today.
But I wanna share with the board some of our preparations
that will help us through this Super El Nino season,
generally December through March.
What we are looking at, first let's go to the next slide,
a couple of pictures.
So these are rock dumpers,
and we have had rock delivered October 9th through 11th.
I'm told by our operations team,
we had 3,500 tons of riprap, that's big rock,
and 800 tons of ballast, small rock,
delivered in a stockpile now just outside of San Clemente
so that we are able to deliver rock to protect the corridor
through San Clemente during El Nino.
We have equipment on hand.
We have two side dumps, two excavators, one loader,
one speed swing, one low railer, one high rail swivel
dump truck, and a branch truck.
I have no idea what any of that equipment is,
but it is impressive heavy duty equipment.
There we go.
Those are our side dumps that we have ready to go.
But that is our preparation for Super El Nino.
Next slide.
One of the things that we're also doing in a couple of weeks
through San Clemente is one of the things we've been having
is, and of course next week we will be truncating service
at Laguna Niguel.
Normally we go all the way to Oceanside on weekdays.
We will be truncating service at Laguna Niguel
because what we're finding is a,
when the water gets onto our tracks,
It sends a signal along the system
to require us to go at slow order.
So our trains are tremendously delayed through this.
We are exploring, we're gonna test out this idea
about raising the track level.
So during that November 7th, we will be raising the track,
putting in more ballast and lifting the track
in hopes that we have better drainage
and improve our opportunity
so that we do not have a signal indication
that then requires us to go at slow speeds
so that we can maintain service
all the way down to Oceanside.
And of course, if it's, well, it will be safe to run,
so there may be freight trains,
there may be surf liner trains,
they will be significantly delayed.
When we have had to run through here
with a signal indication, our trains are delayed
anywhere from 40 to 50 minutes from Oceanside,
and of course, the highest percentage of our riders
are getting on from Laguna Niguel North.
So we're trying, we're not pleased about this,
we wish we didn't have to, but in the best interest
Keeping a reliable service for the vast majority of our Orange County line riders. That's what we're doing, but hoping that
Raising the trackal will help next slide
And that's it. Mr. Chair. Thanks
Thank you
Mr. Kettle now board members comment. I see you
Director Marquez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to apologize. I was late this morning
I'm the president of skag and we had a delegation from chilling it came out. They were supposed to be there 915
They didn't get there till 9 45. So I do apologize for being late
Okay, thank you for coming
Comments. All right. Well, my comments now is a scary time, but we do have two birthdays
Yeah, Vice Chair Bergson and director McCallum has a birthday
So I wish you both a happy birthday
And may you enjoy Halloween and get lots of candy to celebrate your birthdays
Staff always takes care of us
That's got it. Well if you're talking about birthdays
Brains one that's up for reelection. So we want to wish anybody else who is up for election
Lots of good luck. Hopefully it's not going to take luck but fingers crossed and get over the finish line. It's
What is 11 days left?
You're it Brian all right with that
Counsel would you direct us on the closed session?
Yes, the board will now go into closed session under item 12 a B&C as described in today's agenda. Thank you, Chair
All right, and with that we're going to closed session