B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S F E B R U A R Y

Transcription

1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS F E B R U A R Y 2 6,

2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD ROSTER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY County Member Alternate Orange: Shawn Nelson (Chair) Jeffrey Lalloway* Supervisor, 4 th District Mayor Pro Tem, City of Irvine 2 votes County of Orange, Chairman OCTA Board, Chair OCTA Board Gregory T. Winterbottom Public Member OCTA Board Todd Spitzer* Supervisor, 3 rd District County of Orange OCTA Board Riverside: Daryl Busch (Vice-Chair) Debbie Franklin* Mayor Mayor 2 votes City of Perris City of Banning RCTC Board RCTC Board Karen Spiegel Council Member City of Corona RCTC Board Frank Johnston* Council Member City of Jurupa Valley RCTC Board Ventura: Keith Millhouse (2 nd Vice-Chair) Brian Humphrey Councilmember Citizen Representative 1 vote City of Moorpark VCTC Board VCTC Board Los Angeles: Michael Antonovich Roxana Martinez Supervisor, 5 th District Councilmember 4 votes County of Los Angeles City of Palmdale Metro Board Metro Appointee Hilda Solis Supervisor, 1st District County of Los Angeles, Chair Metro Board Paul Krekorian Councilmember, 2 nd District Metro Board Ara Najarian Council Member City of Glendale Metro Board Joseph J. Gonzales Councilmember City of South El Monte Metro Appointee Borja Leon Metro Appointee Walter Allen, III Council Member City of Covina Metro Appointee One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

3 SCRRA Board of Directors Roster Page 2 San Bernardino: Larry McCallon James Ramos* Mayor Supervisor, 3 rd District 2 votes City of Highland County of San Bernardino, Chair SANBAG Board SANBAG Board Paul Eaton Mayor City of Montclair SANBAG Board Alan D. Wapner* Council Member City of Ontario SANBAG Board EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS San Diego Association of Governments: [CURRENTLY AWAITING APPOINTMENT] Contact: Linda Culp Principal Planner Rail Southern California Association of Governments: State of California: Art Brown Mayor, City of Buena Park Ryan Chamberlain Director, Caltrans District 12 Alternate: [CURRENTLY AWAITING APPOINTMENT] *Alternates represent either member Revised 02/05/16

4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS BUDGET WORKSHOP AND MEETING FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, :00 A.M. (Item Nos. 1 5 including Workshop) LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) MULHOLLAND CONFERENCE ROOM ONE GATEWAY PLAZA, 15 TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (Item Nos. 6 24) METRO BOARD ROOM ONE GATEWAY PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a brief general description of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Authority may take any action that it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. The Chair reserves the right to discuss the items listed on the agenda in any order. A person with a disability may contact the Board Secretary s office at (213) or via holmank@scrra.net at least 72-hours before the scheduled meeting to request receipt of an agenda in an alternative format or to request disability-related accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The agenda, staff reports and supporting documentation are available from the Board Secretary, located at One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and on the Metrolink website at under the Meetings & Agendas link. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS AND ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item appearing on the agenda or any item not on the agenda, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board, may do so by completing a Speaker s Form and submitting it to the Board Secretary. All speakers will be recognized by the Chairman and will be considered under Item 4 (Public Comment). When addressing the Board, please state your name for the record. Please address the Board as a whole through the Chair. Please note comments to individual Board members or staff are not permitted when addressing the Board. A speaker s comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

5 Board of Directors Budget Workshop and Meeting Agenda Page 2 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Public Comment BOARD WORKSHOP 5. FY Preliminary Budget A workshop will be held for Board members, and the five member agency Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Chief Financial Officers (CFOs), and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members to review the FY Preliminary Budget. The workshop will focus on the operating budget and the capital/rehabilitation budget. The objective of the workshop is to provide information about the assumptions and cost drivers used to formulate the preliminary budget estimates. REGULAR CALENDAR 6. Approval of Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting It is recommended that the Board approve the minutes of the February 12, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting. Page 1 7. Contract No. E Engineering and Technical Support for Rolling Stock Acquisition, Maintenance, and Overhaul Extend Agreement Terms and Increase Contract Funding Authorization Continued professional engineering and technical services are needed to support a wide variety of rolling stock acquisition, maintenance, and overhaul for Authority s Equipment Department. The term extension for Contract No. E with STV is needed in order to continue work already authorized under existing CTOs until a new contract is in place for these services. Staff is currently in the negotiation stage and estimates that the pre-award audit requirements will be completed by the end of June 2016 at which time new contracts will be in place. It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to amend Contract No. E with STV Incorporated (STV) to extend the period of performance by 4 months to July 30, 2016 and increase the contract funding authorization by $800,000 for a not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $7.8 million. Funding for engineering and technical support for rolling stock acquisition, maintenance, and overhaul is available in the FY Maintenance of Equipment capital, renovation, and rehabilitation budget. Page 16

6 Board of Directors Budget Workshop and Meeting Agenda Page 3 8. Contract No. EP Emergency Generator Replacement Recommendation for Award Global Power Group, Inc. Replacement of an aged and inoperable stand-by facility protection generator is needed. Due the age of the equipment and compliance with the current South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) emissions standards a replacement stand-by generator is needed. It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. EP for Emergency Generator Replacement to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Global Power Group, Inc., for a total amount notto-exceed $168,500. The award is subject to resolution of any protest timely filed. Funding for the emergency replacement generator is included in the FY Operating Budget. Page Contract No. MS Track and Structures Maintenance Services Request for Additional FY Budget and Contract Funding Authorization for Rehabilitation, Capital and Third Party Recollectable Support Work Veolia Transportation Maintenance and Infrastructure, Inc. Additional contract funding authorization is required to fund track and structures rehabilitation, capital, third party and extraordinary support services from Veolia Transportation Maintenance and Infrastructure, Inc. (VTMI). It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to approve $1,350,000 of additional contract funding authorization for Contract No. MS with VTMI for FY This amount includes $900,000 for increased Contract Task Order (CTO) capacity largely associated with accelerating approved programmed or re-programmed high priority storm preparation work performed as Authority rehabilitation funded projects and $450,000 for extraordinary maintenance that resulted from an unusually high volume of emergency and unplanned inspections and repairs performed under the FY approved Operating Budget. This increase in funding authorization of $900,000 for the proposed CTO work will be performed with programmed or reprogrammed approved rehabilitation or capital funds for third party work subject to reimbursement agreements, and, therefore has no impact to the FY Operating Budget. Funding for the requested $450,000 additional extraordinary maintenance will be offset by underruns in other portions of the Maintenance of Way Operating Budget and, therefore, will be absorbed within the FY Operating Budget. Page Contract No. SP Train Wrap Services Exercise Second Year Option and Increase Contract Funding Authorization Dean Hesketh Company, Inc. Continued Train Wrap Services for rail passenger cars and locomotives are required to support the Authority s in-house promotional campaigns.

7 Board of Directors Budget Workshop and Meeting Agenda Page 4 It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the second one-year option to extend the period of performance from March 31, 2016 to June 30, 2017 to align with the fiscal year end and increase contract funding authorization by $150,000 for a new not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $350,000. Funding for the Train Wrap Services is included in the FY Operating Budget. Work under this project for FY will be funded by third party recollectable funds. The funds spent as a result of the Angels Express train wrap with OCTA will be a recollectable and reimbursed to the Authority. Page Contract No. SP Security Services for Metrolink Recommendation for Award AlliedBarton Security Service Security services are required to protect the Authority s interests in and around stations, trains, and layover facilities. It is anticipated that the level of security services to be provided under Contract No. SP with Allied Barton will remain approximately the same as the current contract with RMI. Security services are also made available to cities and other agencies on a recollectable basis. In emergencies, security officers are required to safeguard the Authority s assets when equipment is at locations other than layover facilities. It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. SP Security Services for Metrolink to AlliedBarton Security Service (AlliedBarton) for the base period of three years with a one two-year option effective July 1, Contract funding authorization for this contract will be requested through the annual budget process. Award is subject to resolution of any protest timely filed. Funding for Security Services for Metrolink will be included in the FY Operating budget. Funding for subsequent years will be requested in future budgets. Page The Pulse of Metrolink Staff is providing an update on Metrolink s on-time performance (OTP) with a closer look at two of the largest delay types from the 10-year performance analysis. The Board may receive and file this report. There is no budgetary impact as a result of this report. Page Operation s Realignment to Focus on Safety and Compliance To support the continued emphasis on safety and compliance, an additional Deputy Chief Operating Officer position within the Operations Department is required to refocus and realign safety and compliance roles and responsibilities. It is recommended that the Board approve:

8 Board of Directors Budget Workshop and Meeting Agenda Page 5 1) Adding a Deputy Chief Operating Officer for System Safety, Security and Compliance (Grade S -$148,377-$231,706); and 2) Eliminate three (3) vacant positions: a) 2 - Field Operations Administrator, Trainee positions (Grade G - $51,784- $80,919) b) 1 - Department Assistant (Grade E - $41,309-$64,557) The additional costs associated with the new position will be offset by eliminating 3 vacant positions including 2 in field operations management and 1 vacant position in PTC. Any additional labor costs incurred will be absorbed in the current FY budget through current vacancies in Operations. Page Fiscal Year Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Single Audit The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Single Audit for FY have been completed. A representative from the external auditor, Moss Adams LLP, will provide the Board with the required communications and other necessary information regarding the completed audits and report distribution. The Board may receive and file this report. There is no immediate budget impact as a result of this status report. Page Report on Alternate Bus Bridge Providers for More Reliable Connections for Passengers Motion Staff is providing an analysis of alternate bus bridge providers as directed in a motion introduced at the January 15, 2016 Board meeting, including the County Sheriff's Department. The Board may receive and file this report. There is no budgetary impact as a result of this report. Page Report on San Bernardino Metrolink Train Quality of Service Motion In response to the motion introduced at the January 15, 2016 Board meeting, staff is providing an update on efforts to improve the San Bernardino Line schedule. The Board may receive and file this report. There is no budgetary impact as a result of this report. Page 69

9 Board of Directors Budget Workshop and Meeting Agenda Page Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update With six months of ridership and revenue results since the launch of the Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program that began on July 1, 2015, this report provides an update on the program. This six-month evaluation includes a more refined analysis of ridership response that accounts for shifts of existing riders between ticket types, travel patterns, and demographic characteristics. The Board may receive and file this report. There is no immediate budget impact as a result of this update. Page Year Strategic Plan and Five-Year Short Range Transit Plan Final Draft Feedback Update Staff is providing an update on the comments received by the member agencies on the 10-Year Strategic Plan and Five-Year Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) following a workshop held on December 18, The Board may receive and file this report. There is no budgetary impact as a result of this report. Page Operating Statement Actual versus Budget for the Month of December 2015, and for the First Six Months of Fiscal Year (Year-to-Date) and Quarterly Forecast to Year End The Chief Executive Officer has directed staff to provide the Board an operating statement for each month. Staff has also been directed to provide a forecast to year end each fiscal quarter. The statements show the actual results versus budget for the month of December and actual results versus budget for the six months ended December 31, 2015 (YTD). The Board may receive and file this report. This report represents a summary of the Actuals versus Budget for the month of December 2015 and for the six months ended December 31, 2015, and the Quarterly Forecast to Year End for Fiscal The report has no budget impact. Page Preliminary Fiscal Year Budget The Authority is required, under the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, to provide to its Member Agencies on or before May 1 of each year, a Preliminary Budget (effective July 1, the starting date of the fiscal year) for individual agency consideration and approval.

10 Board of Directors Budget Workshop and Meeting Agenda Page 7 The Board may receive and file this report. This report represents a summary of the Preliminary FY17 Budget for consideration. As such, there is no impact to the current (FY16) budget. Page Chief Executive Officer s Report Authority Update 22. Chair s Comments 23. Board Members' Comments 24. ADJOURNMENT NEXT MEETING: Friday, March 11, 2016

11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING February 12, 2015 BOARD MEMBERS/ALTERNATES IN ATTENDANCE: Votes OCTA: SHAWN NELSON (Chair) 1 1 (2 votes) GREGORY WINTERBOTTOM 1 ITEM 6 RCTC: DARYL BUSCH (Vice-Chair) 1 (2 votes) KAREN SPIEGEL 1 Deborah Franklin VCTC: KEITH MILLHOUSE 1 (1 vote) Brian Humphrey METRO: MICHAEL ANTONOVICH (4 votes) PAUL KREKORIAN Roxana Martinez Joseph Gonzalez 1 SANBAG: PAUL EATON 1 (2 votes) Alan Wapner 1 EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS SCAG State of California Art Brown Ryan Chamberlain STAFF/PRESENTERS: ARTHUR T. LEAHY, Chief Executive Officer ELISSA KONOVE, Deputy Chief Executive Officer PATRICIA TORRES BRUNO, Chief Administrative Officer SHERITA COFFELT, Director, Public Affairs RODERICK DIAZ, Director, Planning and Development DON O. DEL RIO, General Counsel HENNING EICHLER, Planning Manager, (Planning & System Performance Analysis) GEOFFREY FORGIONE, Associate General Counsel TOM FRANKLIN, Interim Chief Financial Officer 1 Chair Nelson joined the meeting prior to the discussion of Item No. 5 and chaired the remainder of the meeting. 2 Director Antonovich joined the meeting during the discussion of Item No Director Krekorian joined the meeting during the discussion of Item No. 24. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

12 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 2 GARY LETTENGARVER, Chief Operating Officer PETER MULLER, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager ERIC SMITH, General Manager, Passenger Locomotive Sales, Electro-Motive Diesel RICK TRIPOLI, Director, Maintenance of Equipment MARK WAIER, Manager, Sales and Marketing ARACELI BARAJAS, Executive Secretary to the Board Secretary KARI HOLMAN, Assistant to the CEO/Board Secretary Meeting minutes are prepared in a format that corresponds with the Board Meeting Agenda, which is incorporated by reference with these minutes. Board Agendas are available online at under the Meetings and Agendas link or from the Board Secretary at (213) Call to Order The February 12, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Busch at 10:03 a.m. at the Metro Board Room, One Gateway Plaza, 3 rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA Pledge of Allegiance 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse led the group in the pledge of allegiance. 3. Roll Call The Board Secretary called roll to confirm a quorum of the Board was present. 4. Public Comment At this time, Vice-Chair Busch inquired if the Board Secretary had received any Request to Speak forms, and it was confirmed that no requests were received. The Public Comment period was now closed. Vice Chair Busch noted that roll call vote would be only be taken upon an objection or abstention from a Director otherwise the assumption was that all members present were in favor. Vice-Chair Busch commented that he attended the Women in Transportation Association (WTA) Inland Empire Awards Banquet and accepted an award on behalf of the Authority. He noted that the new Chief Executive Officer for Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), Deborah Flint was the guest speaker at the event. REGULAR CALENDAR 5. Approval of Consent Calendar Director Martinez requested to pull Item No. 24 for discussion. 2

13 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 3 ACTION: Upon a motion by Director Eaton and seconded by 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse the Board approved Consent Calendar Items [Consent calendar items are contained on page 12 of these minutes.] There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. 24. Operations and Safety Update Director Martinez expressed concern regarding the report presented at the Executive Management and Audit Committee regarding Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) violations and other safety issues. She felt that the Board should be made aware of any violations and introduced a motion requesting that all violations be presented to the Board. Chair Nelson inquired if this information was currently not being provided. Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer explained that a request for information was received which was responded to orally in the interest of time, however the information was generally made available. Chair Nelson asked Gary Lettengarver, Chief Operating Officer if the information could be provided in writing. Lettengarver affirmed that it could. Director Winterbottom requested that the information be provided to the Board via electronic format to avoid paper waste. Director Martinez asked if the public would have access to the information. Arthur T. Leahy responded that the information was public record. Chair Nelson reiterated that staff is directed to include FRA violations and make them fully available as part operations update. The motion was then withdrawn. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse requested that the agenda be taken out of order to consider Board Member Comments. Chair Nelson agreed for comments from 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse to be considered at this time. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse mentioned a recent news article that was released regarding service delays which pointed out the following causes for delays in service: Mechanical Issues Signal Failures Equipment Malfunction Train Meets & Passes Bus Bridges & Los Angeles County Sherriff Incident Response Time 3

14 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 4 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse stated that these were important issues that needed to be addressed. Chair Nelson agreed and indicated that these topics should be considered at the March Board Workshop. 6. Adoption of 2015 Metrolink Rail Fleet Management Plan Roderick Diaz, Director, Planning and Development provided a brief background on this item as detailed in the staff report and requested approval of staff s recommendation. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse commented that in the past, the Board engaged in discussions with staff on making improvements to the fleet, such as supplying additional power outlets throughout the cars and inquired if these improvements were included in the maintenance plan. Roderick Diaz responded that the scope of the Maintenance Plan was a high level overview, however, the plan included rehabilitation of the Bombardier fleet which would include the addition of power outlets as part of the procurement strategy on that fleet rehabilitation. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse requested that staff work with the Board and the customers to determine the features and amenities they would like to see added to the trains. Director Gonzales asked what the anticipated savings would be from the implementation of the plan and how the savings would be utilized. It was also his understanding that the Authority was at capacity in terms of space for inventory of parts and asked if staff was looking to add additional space or facilities. Roderick Diaz noted that with this maintenance plan, costs would be reduced over the life of locomotives and cars, and noted that the costs would be reduced early on - prior to midlife over-haul, but costs would be balanced out over the life of the vehicle. Director Gonzales asked how the inventory of parts would be handled for the Tier 4 locomotives under this type of maintenance program. Rick Tripoli, Director, Maintenance of Equipment responded that this program used the progressive over-haul method [costs spread out over the life of the equipment]. He explained that operating budgetary costs would be moved into the capital budget along the way and this process would be used throughout the life of the vehicle. Arthur T. Leahy referred to Director Gonzales earlier question on storage capacity for inventory and asked Rick Tripoli to respond. Rick Tripoli responded currently there was enough storage capacity for inventory. Arthur T. Leahy remarked that this item mentioned the 2012 Board approved equipment and locomotive fleet maintenance plan that was not implemented. He stated that much of the Authority has experienced over the last several years of deferred maintenance had a negative impact on performance and reliability. The Authority was on the path to correct these issues, and indicated that a policy would be established in the budget documents to require the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to notify the Board on any and all requests to defer maintenance. Chair Nelson commented that he believed much of the Authority s problems were a lack of maintenance overall and that under the leadership of the current CEO, the Authority has been re-building stability and 4

15 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 5 addressing these critical issues. He noted that the purpose of the upcoming Board workshop in March would provide time to focus on these issues and correction plans in greater detail. Director Martinez mentioned if there were overnight capacity issues in Lancaster and asked if staff could provide more information on the future plans to address capacity concerns. Roderick Diaz responded that the plan indicated that if service level projections were realized, then there would be a need for maintenance facility needs in both Lancaster and Colton at the Authority s Eastern Maintenance Facility (EMF). Director Martinez asked if growth increased when the plan would be developed. Roderick Diaz responded that when service growth surpasses the capacity of the maintenance facility, then staff would need to plan ahead to account for that maintenance facility need. Arthur T. Leahy confirmed that facility needs would be addressed prior to the start of additional service. He also noted that the Orange County Sales Tax measure included funding for a maintenance facility in Irvine, and that a similar request could be considered in the Lancaster area as part of the upcoming Los Angeles County Sales Tax measure. Chair Nelson affirmed that Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) did purchase property for maintenance storage in Orange County over the last 24 months. Upon a motion by Director Winterbottom and seconded by 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse, the Board approved staff s recommendation. There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION: The Board adopted the 2015 Metrolink Rail Fleet Management Plan. 7. I-5 Commuter Study Henning Eichler, Planning Manager, (Planning & System Performance Analysis) provided a brief background on this item as detailed in the staff report. Chair Nelson stated that with the data presented, staff should focus its efforts for increasing ridership by targeting large employers located near the existing train stations. He stated that both Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have expressed a desire to participate in legislation that would encourage office building development within a short radius Metrolink stations and encouraged the Authority s legislative staff to get involved and lead the concept. He mentioned that the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana could handle large office developments and for the Authority to be aware of locations were ridership could be increased, for example, the Disneyland theme park would be an example of a large employer to contact. He stressed the need to not lose sight of the Authority s main focus which are commuters. Director Winterbottom noted that reliability seemed to be one of the Authority s main problems but the data indicated only 1% of surveyors commented on that issue. Henning Eichler responded that reliability was an issue for people who ride on a regular basis and this study included people who were not previous riders. 5

16 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 6 Director Gonzales asked if staff was looking to add station locations to any of the lines. Henning Eichler responded that the potential to add stations was limited and depended on the member agencies and cities. He mentioned that there were some long range scenarios included in the Strategic Plan but no short-term plans. Chair Nelson noted that the City of Placentia has provided funding for a station in its City. Director Gonzales asked what type of promotional programs have been developed to encourage new ridership. Henning Eichler responded that the I-5 study was an example of a promotional campaign and the results have shown the effectiveness of raising awareness of surrounding stations while encouraging people to ride the train as an option. Director Gonzales asked how staff handles corporate outreach. Arthur T. Leahy noted that the budget included a component in the marketing program with a focus on corporate outreach. Chair Nelson stated that marketing would need to contact the large companies near Metrolink stations, and noted that for example, the County of Orange was one of those companies. Director Krekorian noted that 13% of the people found the schedule times were inconvenient and asked if staff was able to determine what modifications could be made to help get that percentage of people to become regular riders. Henning Eichler responded that one thing people mentioned was the limited trains operating either earlier or later in the day. In many cases there was not enough travel options to match their work schedules. Arthur T. Leahy added that most lines had no midday or late night service, so unless people had normal business hours, the current schedule would not be a viable option for them. The PowerPoint presentation is available upon request from the Board Secretary. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 8. F125 Locomotive Production and Delivery Update1 Rick Tripoli, Planning Manager, Director, Maintenance of Equipment introduced Eric Smith, General Manager, Passenger Locomotive Sales, Electro-Motive Diesel (EMD) to provide a brief update and review the production & delivery timeline. Eric Smith reviewed the timeline as shown in the presentation 4. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse inquired if the Tier 4 locomotives include inward and outward facing cameras. Eric Smith responded that the locomotives were so equipped. 2 nd Vice- Chair Millhouse asked who the independent third-party inspector to ensure the locomotives were built as designed. Rick Tripoli responded that STV Incorporated had been involved in the project throughout the entire process with representatives in both Valencia, Spain and Muncie, Indiana. He reported that issues have been discovered and they are collaborating with EMD to rectify. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse reiterated the 4 The PowerPoint presentation is included in these minutes as Attachment A. 6

17 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 7 importance of ensuring that the Authority received the product that was both designed and paid for. Chair Nelson asked if there were any lessons learned from manufacturing out of the country. Eric Smith responded that the biggest issues encountered was taking the three dimensional (3D) model and transferring that into a manufactured product, noting there were some fit issues, and that minor design modifications were made to correct the fit issues. Chair Nelson noted that the project was innovative and cutting-edge and asked if staff was ensuring that communication was issued on the schedule, on the Metrolink website, and crediting its funding partners. Public Relations was working to inform the public that the arrival of this locomotive was approaching. Sherita Coffelt, Director, Public Affairs responded over the last three months, the marketing, community relations and government relations staff along with the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) local community and AQMD have been in discussions on the arrival of the first locomotive. Staff will plan to host a large press event at that time and would keep the Board informed on the timeline. Chair Nelson inquired if information on the new locomotives was easily found on the Metrolink website. Sherita Coffelt responded that it was staff s practice to share information with the Board prior to posting on the public website. Chair Nelson noted that all parties should be excited about this investment that will promote cleaner air quality and better reliability and recommended that the website be updated with pictures of the new locomotives. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse asked if the engineers were able to provide feedback on the design of their post onboard the train. Rick Tripoli responded that an Amtrak representative traveled to Valencia with staff, to provide input on the design and ergonomics. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 9. Metrolink Service during Upcoming 91 Steer Clear Freeway Closure Sherita Coffelt, Director, Public Affairs provided a brief background on this item as detailed in the staff report. She noted staff worked collaboratively with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) on this promotion and confirmed that RCTC agreed to fund the additional service for that weekend. Director Winterbottom stated that in a previous discussion, staff talked about having ambassadors or representatives on site to provide assistance to customers. He asked if data would be collected from this project in order to track new ridership. Sherita Coffelt responded that the data would be collected and explained that there was some information from the previous I-405 Carmegeddon promotion that could be used for comparison data. She pointed out that because of the enhanced media coverage, there was almost the same amount of exposure as if paying for advertising. She stated that the Authority has been working with RCTC and OCTA to promote this service. Director Winterbottom stated that it was important to give the best experience possible. 7

18 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 8 ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 10. FY Budget Update Thomas Franklin, Interim Chief Financial Officer provided a brief update of the FY Budget as detailed in the staff report and reviewed the budget milestones dates. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse asked if there was anything in the budget regarding extending the BNSF locomotive lease and whether that would be necessary in light of the amount of time it has taken to place them in service. Arthur T. Leahy responded that the Authority was not recommending additional monies at this time. However, should it become necessary, staff would return to the Board to seek a budget amendment. He mentioned that Elissa Konove, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Tom Franklin had been working very hard on reducing costs in the FY17 budget. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 11. Operating Statement Actual versus Budget for the Month of November 2015, and for the First Five Months of Fiscal Year 2016 Thomas Franklin, Interim Chief Financial Officer provided a brief background on this item as detailed in the staff report. Arthur T. Leahy reiterated that deferred maintenance had been underfunded in the budget for the last several years and stated that if there was a need for maintenance, staff would be upfront and clear with requests included in the budget. Chair Nelson agreed that staff should provide an honest assessment of maintenance needs. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 12. Mobile and Online Ticketing Project Update Mark Waier, Manager, Sales and Marketing provided a brief background on this item as detailed in the staff report. He noted the timeline for the release of the Mobile Ticketing App and mentioned 3 limitations: 1) Transfers onto the Metro rail system would not be available until the optic readers are installed. 2) Monthly pass riders would not be allowed to ride Amtrak trains until further integration occurs to allow for Amtrak conductors to scan the mobile ticket as part of the Rail2Rail program. 3) Corporate Pass Program card holders would not be able to use the mobile app until further integration occurred. 8

19 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 9 Chair Nelson inquired how long the integration with Amtrak would take. Mark Waier responded that this was a unique project for the vendor, Masabi and that it was anticipated that the development would take approximately three months for integration. Chair Nelson asked which would be the first full-active line and when was the anticipated release date. Mark Waier responded that the IEOC Line would be the first active line and would be released sometime during the week of February 29 through March 4, with a system-wide rollout was expected to be three weeks later. He noted that the Angels Express tickets would be available on the mobile app on April 4 th for the season launch. Chair Nelson suggested that staff look into redesigning the website to ensure it was userfriendly. Mark Waier responded that there was a budget request in the FY17 budget for website refreshment. Chair Nelson mentioned the issue of fare evasion, which continued to be a problem and asked how this situation would be monitored when the app goes live. Arthur T. Leahy responded that an assistant conductor was added to the Antelope Valley line by suggestion from Director Antonovich over the past year, which seemed to be help with increasing levels of inspection and compliance on that line. He stated that Gary Lettengarver would be ensuring that conductors have regular fare checks. Chair Nelson stressed the importance of increasing fare enforcement and changing behavior with enforcement. Gary Lettengarver, Chief Operating Officer replied that fare enforcement measures were increasing with the goal of 100% fare enforcement. He noted that the addition of the mobile scanners seemed to be a very efficient way of quickly checking tickets. Director Martinez questioned if there were any delays with Metro for mobile integration on their system. Mark Waier responded that the project was on schedule for installation of the optic readers for the Metro system. He reminded the Board that they approved an item at the January meeting to procure the optic readers and stated that Metro has been very cooperative with this program. He explained that the optic readers would be installed at the Metro TAP gates throughout its rail system and that following development and testing, it was hoped to be deployed during the September / October 2016 time frame. Director Winterbottom asked for confirmation that the app would be free. Mark Waier affirmed that he was correct. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 13. State and Federal Legislative Update Peter Muller, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager provided a brief background on this item as detailed in the staff report and noted that the focus on both the federal and state side for the last month was on budget proposals which were addressed in the report. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 9

20 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page Chief Executive Officer s Report Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer provided the following updates on the activities of the Authority: Potential Los Angeles County Sales Tax Measure in November 2016 noted that potential projects for consideration included: o mid-day and late night service, o connections with the High Desert, o grade separations and double tracking, and o Green line to Norwalk with connections to High Speed Rail, Metrolink, and the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) connection to LAX. Metro Loan Repayment Communications were sent to Metro outlining the repayment plan for an $18 million loan due in Elissa Konove provided leadership on this item. $3.00 Station-to-Station fares the pilot program system-wide began January 1, 2016 reporting overall ridership was up approximately 10%. BNSF leased locomotives Six locomotives are currently in service. Los Angeles Union Station Update (LAUS) meeting with Amtrak, High Speed Rail, and Metro representatives and discussed capacity increases following the completion of The Southern California Regional Interconnection Project (SCRIP). A working group would be developed among the agencies to plan what needs to be done to move away from LAUS in order to maintain reasonable capacity requirements. Rail2Rail Program LOSSAN suggested a higher payment to Amtrak. Staff does not agree with LOSSAN and believed that the Rail2Rail program provides an increase in revenue for Amtrak not the opposite. LAUS Maintenance Requirements The Authority is required to maintain the platforms at LAUS and included $2 million in the FY17 budget to comply with contractual obligations that have not been fulfilled since Perris Valley Line / 91 Extension Currently running non-revenue service. Recent Service Delays at LAUS - Gary Lettengarver responded to a request from Director Antonovich regarding service delays at LAUS in January He explained that on January 14 th and 15 th the system experienced some service delays which were initially thought to be signal failure but the system actually went into a fail safe mode. He stated that the problem was actually related to the turnouts and that metal shavings had accumulated on the rail which released a small electrical current which alerted the system to think that a train was on the track. He further explained that under the prior administration, some budgetary reductions were made which reduced inspections from weekly to monthly. He stated that staff has once again implemented weekly inspections to occur. He also indicated that the LAUS plant was 20 years old, and staff was performing evaluations to consider what upgrades needed to be made to keep the plant operating. Director Antonovich asked if it could be determined whether the shavings were coming from the rail or from the engine. Gary 10

21 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 11 Lettengarver responded that most of the shavings came from the rail and some from the wheel due to the wear. Director Antonovich inquired if the issue was due to a manufacturing problem of the wheels and asked if all wheels produce these types of shavings. He explained that about 1.5 million moves have gone through the plant and the wear was visible. Director Antonovich asked if there was a protocol in place to replace the wheels. Gary Lettengarver responded that there was and stated that it was part of a regular 90-day inspection. Director Antonovich questioned if there were more shavings today than before. Gary Lettengarver responded that the plant has always had the problem, and noted that the inspections helped to avoid shaving build up. Chair Nelson stated that maintenance cannot be overlooked and requested Gary Lettengarver to inform the Board and CEO of maintenance and operating needs to ensure operations run smoothly. Arthur T. Leahy reiterated that a policy would be included in the budget that would require the CEO to report any deferred maintenance or inadequate equipment maintenance issues. 15. Chair s Comments Chair Nelson mentioned that staff requested to hold a Budget Workshop with the Board, Member Agency Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Chief Financial Officers (CFOs), and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members. He polled the Board to see if the workshop should be held on Thursday, February 25 or Friday, February 26. After some discussion, it was determined to hold the Workshop on Friday, February 26, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. The Board meeting would follow the Workshop. 16. Board Members Comment 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse commented regarding the upcoming schedule adjustments in the spring and asked that if the schedule change does take place, for staff to ensure appropriate notifications in a timely fashion be provided for effective outreach. He reiterated his comments made at the last board meeting regarding Amtrak trains Nos. 777, 785, 774 and 796 not stopping at the Moorpark station. He noted that even though there are late options, when the Amtrak train doesn t stop at one of the stations it does not benefit the rider. Arthur T. Leahy agreed and stated that the reason why the LOSSAN Board was assigned the Amtrak service south of San Luis Obispo was to provide that level of service. He commented that the LOSSAN and Metrolink Boards need to work together to create a synergy between these services. Director Eaton asked if the freight railroads that share the track with Metrolink were aggressive in checking for shavings. Gary Lettengarver responded that on the main lines the freights put in 24 switches which was less of an angle and they perform weekly inspections. 11

22 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 12, 2016 Page 12 CONSENT CALENDAR (As referenced in Item 5) 17. Approval of Meeting Minutes January 15, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting ACTION: The Board approved the minutes of the January 15, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting. 18. Compensation Report FY Second Quarter (October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015) ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 19. Advisory Service Operating Statements Actual versus Budget for September and October 2015, Month to Date and Year to Date c-SR ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 20. Advisory Service Timely Invoice Payment Architectural/Engineering, Maintenance, and Public Works/Construction Contracts SR ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 21. Internal Audit Department Update ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 22. Fiscal Year Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Single Audit Update ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 23. Ticket Vending Machine Availability and Performance Update ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 25. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:32 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kari Holman Assistant to the CEO/Board Secretary 12

23 Attachment A Tier 4 Locomotive Production Status Update February 12, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting Locomotive Prototype 1 Current Production Status Assembly complete Unit in test Will be complete in mid-january 2 13

24 Attachment A Prototype Unit # 1 File for EPA Tier 4 on 3/28/16 (formalizing previously achieved results) Deliver unit to Metrolink on 5/10/16 and arrive 5/26/16 Display from 5/27 through 5/31 Acceptance testing and training, including PTC 6/1/16 through 6/30/16 Receive Tier 4 certificate from EPA and conditional acceptance no later than 7/9/16 Revenue service 3 Locomotive Prototypes 2 and 3 Production has begun on Prototype 2 and will begin validation testing by the end of January Prototype 3 is in the first stage of production 4 14

25 Attachment A 2016 Production and Delivery Schedule Unit # Ship Delivery Conditional Acceptance 1 5/10/2016 5/26/2016 7/9/ /9/2016 9/17/ /3/ /13/ /21/2016 1/11/ /18/2016 7/18/2016 8/11/ /30/2016 7/27/2016 8/17/ /18/2016 8/13/2016 8/31/ /27/2016 8/25/2016 9/14/ /13/2016 9/14/ /3/ /29/2016 9/28/ /17/ /12/ /12/ /27/ /26/ /26/ /14/ /11/ /9/ /30/ /24/ /23/ /14/ /3/ /8/2016 1/3/ /16/ /21/2016 1/12/ /30/2016 1/6/2017 1/23/ /13/2016 1/17/2017 2/2/ /28/2016 1/26/2017 2/15/

26 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 7 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy Contract No. E Engineering and Technical Support for Rolling Stock Acquisition, Maintenance, and Overhaul Extend Agreement Terms and Increase Contract Funding Authorization STV Incorporated Issue Continued professional engineering and technical services are needed to support a wide variety of rolling stock acquisition, maintenance, and overhaul for Authority s Equipment Department. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to amend Contract No. E with STV Incorporated (STV) to extend the period of performance by 4 months to July 30, 2016 and increase the contract funding authorization by $800,000 for a not-toexceed contract funding authorization of $7.8 million. Alternatives The Board may authorize funding at a different level. Background In January 2011, the Board awarded Contract No. E for Engineering and Technical Support for Rolling Stock Procurement, Maintenance and Overhaul activities to STV Incorporated, for a base term of three years with a single two-year option for a not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $7 million. Work under this contract was issued under Contract Task Orders (CTOs) on an as-needed basis. The current contract will expire in March Since its inception, the Authority has required engineering, technical and management support services for new rolling stock purchases and maintenance of existing fleet. With ridership growth, service expansion and plans to acquire additional passenger rail cars and locomotives, the requirement for such services continues. Also, as the Authority s rolling One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor Los Angeles, CA

27 Contract No. E Engineering and Technical Support for Rolling Stock Acquisition, Maintenance, and Overhaul - Extend Agreement Terms and Increase Contract Funding Authorization Page 2 stock fleet ages, equipment overhauls and/or rebuilds are necessary, creating the need for continued engineering and technical expertise. The term extension for Contract No. E with STV is needed in order to continue work already authorized under existing CTOs until a new contract is in place for these services. The Board at the January 15, 2016 meeting awarded replacement contracts for these services. Staff is currently in the negotiation stage and estimates that the pre-award audit requirements will be completed by the end of June 2016 at which time new contracts will be in place. The overall anticipated backlog of future work for which STV would be utilized through the CTO process from now through July 30, 2016 is estimated to be $800,000 of requested capacity to support the management of the Tier 4 Locomotive Procurement. Therefore, it is recommended the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to amend Contract No. E with STV Incorporated (STV) to extend the period of performance by four months to July 30, 2016 and increase the contract funding authorization by $800,000 for a not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $7.8 million. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)/Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Requirements This contract had no DBE goal commitment as it was issued under Race Neutral Participation. STV committed to use DBE s and has attained as of this date a percentage usage of 20.42%. Budget Impact Funding for engineering and technical support for rolling stock acquisition, maintenance, and overhaul is available in the FY Maintenance of Equipment capital, renovation, and rehabilitation budget. Prepared by: Richard Tripoli, Director, Equipment Sean Carpenter, Senior Contract and Compliance Administrator Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer Elissa K. Konove Deputy Chief Executive Officer 17

28 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 8 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy SUBJECT: Contract No. EP Emergency Generator Replacement Recommendation for Award Global Power Group, Inc. Issue Replacement of an aged and inoperable stand-by facility protection generator is needed. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. EP for Emergency Generator Replacement to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Global Power Group, Inc., for a total amount not-to-exceed $168,500. The award is subject to resolution of any protest timely filed. Alternative The Board may reject all bids and direct staff to re-issue the Invitation for Bid (IFB). Background The Authority uses a Cummins 350 kilowatt diesel power emergency generator to provide standby power to locomotive rail car shops including fire and life safety equipment, alarms, and lighting. This emergency stand-by generator has been in service for more than 24 years (useful life of 25 years) and during a routine preventive maintenance and testing, the generator became inoperable and unrepairable. Due the age of the equipment and compliance with the current South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) emissions standards a replacement stand-by generator is needed. Procurement Approach An Invitation for Bid (IFB) was issued on January 7, The solicitation was posted on the Authority s website, advertised in publications in the five member counties, and notices were sent directly to over 290 firms registered with the Authority s online vendor database. Twenty-one firms downloaded the solicitation. Two firms attended the pre-bid conference One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

29 Contract No. EP Emergency Generator Replacement Recommendation for Award Page 2 and job walk that was conducted on January 12, Two bids were received on January 28, 2016 and the results are as follows: Bidder Total Bid Amount Global Power Group, Inc. $168,500 Gammill Electric, Inc. $168,842 Global Power Group, Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. They have provided similar equipment to El Monte Superior Courthouse, Lakewood Sheriff Station, and Metro Center, Southgate. In accordance with the Board-adopted Contract Administration and Procurement Policies and Procedures CON-5, Cost and Price Analysis, staff determined the price proposed by Global Power Group, Inc. to be fair and reasonable. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)/Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Requirements This project is not federally funded; therefore, the DBE/SBE program is not applicable. It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. EP for Emergency Generator Replacement to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Global Power Group, Inc., for a total amount not-to-exceed $168,500. Budget Impact Funding for the emergency replacement generator is included in the FY Operating Budget. Prepared by: Gary Thompson, Director Special Projects Sonny Ibrahim, Senior Contract and Compliance Administrator Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer Elissa K. Konove Deputy Chief Executive Officer 19

30 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 9 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy Contract No. MS Track and Structures Maintenance Services Request for Additional FY Budget and Contract Funding Authorization for Rehabilitation, Capital and Third Party Recollectable Support Work Veolia Transportation Maintenance and Infrastructure, Inc. Issue Additional contract funding authorization is required to fund track and structures rehabilitation, capital, third party and extraordinary support services from Veolia Transportation Maintenance and Infrastructure, Inc. (VTMI). Recommendation It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to approve $1,350,000 of additional contract funding authorization for Contract No. MS with VTMI for FY This amount includes $900,000 for increased Contract Task Order (CTO) capacity largely associated with accelerating approved programmed or reprogrammed high priority storm preparation work performed as Authority rehabilitation funded projects and $450,000 for extraordinary maintenance that resulted from an unusually high volume of emergency and unplanned inspections and repairs performed under the FY approved Operating Budget. Alternatives The Board could authorize funding at a different level. Background Contract No. MS with VTMI was competitively procured and awarded on August 22, 2008 to VTMI for a six-year term with one four-year option that was exercised by the Board at the February 14, 2014 meeting. VTMI began track/structures maintenance and other maintenance responsibilities January 1, 2009 and the current contract expires December 31, One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor Los Angeles, CA

31 Contract No. MS Track and Structures Maintenance Services Request for Additional FY Budget and Contract Funding Authorization for Rehabilitation, Capital and Third Party Recollectable Support Work Page 2 Contract No. MS specifies a budgeting process that requires VTMI to provide an annual budget based on maintenance-of-way criteria provided by the Agency s Track and Structures Department. At the June 12, 2015 meeting, the Board authorized $12,616,952 for operating maintenance, and $7,000,000 of CTO contract capacity for performance of rehabilitation projects and support of reimbursable third party projects to be incurred within FY The $7 million of CTO contract capacity has historically been sufficient to fund routine rehabilitation, capital and third party support projects, with some capacity ($2 million) reserved for unanticipated work that would arise during the course of the fiscal year. Additional CTO authority is requested for track, structures, flagging and right-of-way maintenance services. Approximately $2.2 million of the authorized $7 million in CTO contract capacity was consumed accelerating the El Niño storm preparation work performed under the approved rehabilitation programs. Another $1.8 million of the $7 million CTO contract capacity was consumed performing an unusually large volume of unanticipated third party support work. When combined with more routine expenditures, $6.63 of the $7 million in CTO contract capacity has been consumed to date. Current estimates indicate that $1.36 million is required for the remaining four months of the fiscal year. The $1.36 million includes $0.46 million in remaining CTO contract capacity combined with another $0.9 million in additional requested contract funding authorization. Separate from the forecasted CTO contract funding authorization increase, the Authority has encountered a much higher volume of extraordinary expenses this fiscal year to date. Extraordinary expenses include response, inspection and repairs related to the following incidents: vehicle strikes, pedestrian incidents, debris on track, coastal high tides and storm surges, trains making emergency stops, unusually hot or cold weather and storm events. Such incidents are unplanned and must be responded to very quickly to minimize the impacts to train movement The Board authorized $12,616,952 operating budget which included a budget of $398,000 for extraordinary response. Through the end of December 2015, $467,000 in extraordinary expenses have been incurred. An increase to the extraordinary operating expense budget by $450,000 is needed. This amount will be funded through reallocations of funds from underruns in various line segment cost categories included in the FY Operating Budget. Therefore, it is recommended the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to amend Contract No. MS with VTMI to increase the extraordinary operating expense budget by $450,000 for a not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $13,066,952 for FY and increase the CTO contract capacity by $900,000 to support programmed rehabilitation, capital and third party support projects for a not to exceed amount of $7.9 million for a not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $20,966,952 through June 30,

32 Contract No. MS Track and Structures Maintenance Services Request for Additional FY Budget and Contract Funding Authorization for Rehabilitation, Capital and Third Party Recollectable Support Work Page 3 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)/Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Requirements This contract had no DBE goal commitment as it was issued under Race Neutral Participation. Budget Impact This increase in funding authorization of $900,000 for the proposed CTO work will be performed with programmed or reprogrammed approved rehabilitation or capital funds for third party work subject to reimbursement agreements, and, therefore has no impact to the FY Operating Budget. Funding for the requested $450,000 additional extraordinary maintenance will be offset by underruns in other portions of the Maintenance of Way Operating Budget and, therefore, will be absorbed within the FY Operating Budget. Prepared by: Wayne Mauthe, Assistant Director, Track and Structures Darrell Maxey, Deputy Chief Operating Officer (PTC and Engineering) Sean Carpenter, Senior Contract and Compliance Administrator Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer Elissa K. Konove Deputy Chief Executive Officer 22

33 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 10 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy Contract No. SP Train Wrap Services Exercise Second Year Option and Increase Contract Funding Authorization Dean Hesketh Company, Inc. Issue Continued Train Wrap Services for rail passenger cars and locomotives are required to support the Authority s in-house promotional campaigns. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the second one-year option to extend the period of performance from March 31, 2016 to June 30, 2017 to align with the fiscal year end and increase contract funding authorization by $150,000 for a new not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $350,000. Alternatives The Board may: 1) Modify the amount of the contract authorization; or 2) Decline to exercise the option and direct staff to issue a new Request for Proposal (RFP). Background On March 8, 2013, the Board awarded Contract No. SP Train Wrap Services to the Dean Hesketh Company, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000. The contract term was for two years with three one-year options. In April 2015, the Authority exercised the first one-year option under the Purchasing Agent s authority which extended the performance period to March 30, 2016 with no increase to the contract funding authorization. Since awarding Contract No. SP362-13, the Marketing Department has consumed $167,559 in train wrap services with the following Contract Task Orders (CTOs): One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

34 Contract No. SP Train Wrap Services Exercise Second Year Option and Increase Contract Funding Authorization Page 2 CTO Amount Description Funding Type SP $ Bike Car Window Repair Operating SP $7, Weekend Day Pass train wrap Operating replacement panel SP $ Train vinyl wrap maintenance Operating SP $14, CPP interior banner on Rotem Fleet Operating SP $16, Interior Safety Train Wrap Decals Recollectable SP $29, Fwy. Train Wrap & Removal Recollectable SP $5, PTC Logos on Exterior of Cab Cars Operating SP $45, Interior train signs: Civil Rights, Bike, Operating Emergency SP $ Bike Car Replacement Windows Operating SP $37, Interior Train Graphic print and install: Operating Safety Number, Revenue Ad- Pacific Clinical Research SP $ PTC Decal Install - Boxer Press Operating Conference SP $7, Revenue Ads - Claremont COC Operating Total Released $167, Dean Hesketh Company, Inc. has provided services for printing and installation of vinyl decals on the interior and exterior of the Metrolink engines and passenger cars, and replacement for window vinyl treatments due to wear and tear. These decals included several revenue advertising banners and a Corporate Program banner to promote tax benefits. The vendor also installed on all passenger cars vinyl decals to provide civil rights information in nine languages, bike safety and handrail signs, and emergency exit decals. Dean Hesketh Company, Inc. also printed and installed the interior decals for the SMARTY safety car and installed a full passenger car train wrap to promote the extension of the Perris Valley / 91 Line. The additional funding will be allocated as follows: 1. Angels Express train wrap, funded by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and estimated at $31, Replace the safety train wrap windows, funded by the Safety department and estimated at $5, Printing and installation of 8 ads on 4 rail cars promoting online and mobile ticketing, funded by the online/mobile ticketing project and estimated at $40, Printing and installation of Bag, Bike, Board decals to identify the newly equipped cars once they are added to the system, funded by the Marketing budget and estimated at $10,

35 Contract No. SP Train Wrap Services Exercise Second Year Option and Increase Contract Funding Authorization Page 3 The remaining contract authority requested would be used to cover any additional decals, train wraps, revenue ads or outside funded train decal requests that may arise during the remainder of the contract period. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)/Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Requirements This project is not federally funded; therefore, the DBE/SBE program is not applicable. Therefore, it is recommended the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the second one-year option and increase contract funding authorization by $150,000 for a new not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $350,000 for Train Wrap Services. Budget Impact Funding for the Train Wrap Services is included in the FY Operating Budget. Work under this project for FY will be funded by third party recollectable funds. The funds spent as a result of the Angels Express train wrap with OCTA will be a recollectable and reimbursed to the Authority. Prepared by: Mark Waier, Manager, Marketing & Sales Andrew Conriquez, Senior Contract & Compliance Administrator Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts & Procurement Robert Turnauckas Chief Marketing and Communications Officer Elissa K. Konove Deputy Chief Executive Officer 25

36 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 11 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy SUBJECT: Contract No. SP Security Services for Metrolink Recommendation for Award AlliedBarton Security Service Issue Security services are required to protect the Authority s interests in and around stations, trains, and layover facilities. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. SP Security Services for Metrolink to AlliedBarton Security Service (AlliedBarton) for the base period of three years with a one two-year option effective July 1, Contract funding authorization for this contract will be requested through the annual budget process. Award is subject to resolution of any protest timely filed. Alternatives The Board may: 1) Reject all proposals and direct staff to re-issue the Request for Proposal (RFP); and 2) Extend the current Contract No. SP with RMI and increasing the contract funding authorization for Temporary Security Guard Services. Background Security services are needed to provide armed and unarmed protection to Authority passengers, personnel and property in and around Metrolink stations, yards, shops, maintenance facilities, terminals, layovers, and Los Angeles Union Station. Under the temporary Contract No. SP with RMI International Inc. the following security services and coverage are provided to the following locations: Location # of Post(s) Coverage Type Hours Per Week Dispatch Operations Center 2 24/7/ Security Operations Center at the DOC 2 16/7/ Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) 1 24/7/ One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

37 Contract No. SP Security Services for Metrolink Recommendation for Award Page 2 Location # of Post(s) Coverage Type Hours Per Week Keller Yard 1 24/7/ Eastern Maintenance Facility 2 24/7/ Moorpark 1 24/7/ East Ventura 1 24/7/ Lancaster 2 24/7/ LAUS 4 16/7/ Cal State 1 13/5 65 LAUS Supervisor 1 16/7/ Program Manager 1 24/7/ Total Weekly Hours 2,445 ($47, average per week) It is anticipated that the level of security services to be provided under Contract No. SP with Allied Barton will remain approximately the same as the current contract with RMI. The funding level for this contract will be reflected in the FY budget, and staff will be returning to the Board in June to request approval to fund Contract No. SP with AlliedBarton. Security services are also made available to cities and other agencies on a recollectable basis. In emergencies, security officers are required to safeguard the Authority s assets when equipment is at locations other than layover facilities. Procurement Approach In accordance with the Board approved evaluation criteria for the procurement of Security Services for Metrolink, the Authority issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on August 10, The solicitation was posted on the Authority s website, advertised in publications in the five member counties, and notices were sent directly to firms registered on the Authority s website. Sixty-four firms downloaded the solicitation. Fifteen firms attended the pre-proposal conference held on August 18, On September 17, 2015, sixteen proposals were received from the following firms: Proposer Proposer 1 A.G. Cost, Inc. dba California Panther Security 9 G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. 2 ABC Security Services, Inc. 10 Global Force Protective Services, Inc. 3 AlliedBarton Security Services 11 National Security Industries 4 Alltech Industries, Inc. 12 Platinum Security Inc. 5 American Guard Services 13 RMI International Inc. 6 Command Security Corporation 14 Surveillance Security Inc. 7 Cypress Private Security 15 U.S. Security Associates 8 Fortress Guard Services 16 Universal Protection Service 27

38 Contract No. SP Security Services for Metrolink Recommendation for Award Page 3 Evaluations were conducted in accordance with the Board-adopted Contract Administration and Procurement Policies and Procedures CON-13, Proposal Evaluation. The evaluation team consisted of one staff member from the Authority s System Safety department, an outside evaluator from Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and two outside evaluators from Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Technical proposal were reviewed and scored. After the initial technical proposal review, AlliedBarton Security Services, G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. and Universal Protection Service exceeded the minimum technical score of 52.5 points (70%) and proceeded to the evaluation of the cost proposal. The results of the combined technical and cost scoring are shown below: Firm Technical Cost Score Total Score AlliedBarton Security Services G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. Universal Protection Service AlliedBarton was determined to be the highest scored responsive and responsible proposer because they demonstrated the strongest technical qualifications and the most extensive expertise in providing security service. AlliedBarton s proposal offered the best value and is most advantageous to the Authority. The fixed unit rates provided by AlliedBarton were comparable to the other proposers and are nine percent higher than the current contract with RMI. AlliedBarton is a national security service company with a strong local presence of more than 4,500 employees in California. They have secured some of the nation s top transit systems, including Denver RTD, New York MTA, Houston Metro and Amtrak. AlliedBarton is also a member of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) with active involvement in the APTA s Committee on Public Safety and Security Policy Committee. Most recently, AlliedBarton was selected by the Los Angeles Sheriff s Department to secure Los Angeles County facilities throughout the county, as well as Ventura County. Additionally, reference checks for AlliedBarton have been favorable. In accordance with the Board-adopted Contract Administration and Procurement Policies and Procedures CON-5, Cost and Price Analysis, staff conducted an analysis of AlliedBarton s cost proposal and determined it to be fair and reasonable. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)/Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Requirements This project is not federally funded; therefore, the DBE/SBE program is not applicable. 28

39 Contract No. SP Security Services for Metrolink Recommendation for Award Page 4 Therefore, it is recommended that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. SP for Security Services for Metrolink to the responsive and responsible proposer AlliedBarton Security Service on the basis of fixed unit hourly rates proposed for the base period of three years with a one two-year option. Contract funding authorization for this contract will be requested through the annual budget process once the coverage levels are determined for Fiscal Year and for future fiscal years. Budget Impact Funding for Security Services for Metrolink will be included in the FY Operating budget. Funding for subsequent years will be requested in future budgets. Prepared by: Rodney Harris, Security Manager Manchi Yi, Senior Contract and Compliance Administrator Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer Elissa K. Konove Deputy Chief Executive Officer 29

40 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 12 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy The Pulse of Metrolink Issue Staff is providing an update on Metrolink s on-time performance (OTP) with a closer look at two of the largest delay types from the 10-year performance analysis. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background On-time performance remains one of the most important service quality aspects for Metrolink riders. All trains are monitored and determined to be on-time if their arrival time at the destination station does not exceed six minutes from the scheduled time. OTP is reported as a system-wide percentage of all scheduled trains. I. General On-Time Performance On-time performance was 89.17% in January This was a decrease from December 2015 s OTP of 90.28% and January 2015 s OTP of 95.18%. While January 2015 had higher on-time performance, Metrolink was facing fewer challenges at that time. In January 2016, Metrolink experienced Positive Train Control (PTC) issues and the effects of El Niño storms, as well as various trespasser incidents across Southern California rail lines which led to additional delays. Positive Train Control (PTC) Issues Implementation of PTC has caused additional delays that Metrolink did not encounter in January 2015 as it had not yet been implemented. In January 2016, PTC was responsible for about 500 minutes of delays and almost doubled the amount of delays in December 2015, from 21 to 39 delays. Additionally, January 2016 PTC delays almost doubled from the previous two months. The majority of these delays were due to cascades from late meets and late turns. PTC causes late meets, which occurs when trains do not meet their signals at their scheduled time and therefore, must wait for other trains to pass. As PTC implementation is further along, these issues will continue to resolve in regards to timing and late meets. The introduction of a new program will always incur some delay as the One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

41 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 2 mechanics are familiarized, but as PTC continues to develop, the increase in experience will include less delays. El Niño Weather In 2015, heavy rains were not an issue for Metrolink s fleet. However, early 2016 brought El Niño storms, which caused delays along various lines. Weather restrictions on tracks, windshield wiper issues, water leaks, and flash floods were all issues that caused delays or annulments as a direct result of El Niño. Trespasser Incidents Four separate trespasser incidents occurred in January 2016 one on Metrolink-owned track, one on Union Pacific (UP) owned track, and two on BNSF-owned track. Three of these incidents caused cascade delays for Metrolink trains, with some lines able to provide buses for passengers, and other lines with delays of up to an hour to their destination. Additional Delay Causes Comparing January 2016 to December 2015, the majority of each delay type increased in January 2016, which contributed to a 1.11% drop in OTP. However, one of the delay types that decreased in January 2016 was Operations, which has, in the past, proven to be one of the more challenging delays to handle. The Operations category will be discussed in further detail later in this report. Figure 1. Month-to-Date On-Time Performance Month to Date OTP August September October November December January OTP 2014 OTP 2015 OTP

42 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 3 II. Delays Figures 2 and 3 compare the various responsibilities that caused delays along Metrolink s lines from 2005 to To clarify the specific causes of each responsibility, they are defined below. Figure Delay Count by Responsibility Delay Count by Responsibility CONNEX OPS AMTRAK AMTRAK INTER CITY BNSF EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING OPERATIONS OTHER SCRRA SDNR UPRR Jan 14 Feb 14 Mar 14 32

43 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 4 Figure 3. Delay Cause Definitions Delay Count by Responsibility Numbers Delay Count by Responsibility RESPONSIBILITY Jan 14 Feb 14 Mar 14 Total CONNEX OPS AMTRAK AMTRAK INTER CITY BNSF EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING OPERATIONS OTHER SCRRA SDNR UPRR Systemwide Total CONNEX: OPS-AMTRAK: AMTRAK-INTER CITY: BNSF: EQUIPMENT: ENGINEERING: Delays under Connex responsibility, including crew and equipment (Contract ended in July 2010) Delays under Amtrak Operations responsibility, including crew and equipment Delays under Amtrak responsibility, including crew and equipment Delays under Burlington Northern Santa Fe responsibility, including crew and equipment Mechanical delays within Metrolink responsibility Track and signal delays within Metrolink responsibility OPERATIONS: Delays caused by rules testing, crew-related issues, passengers, meet/pass, holds, dispatch, congestion, and special trains OTHER: SCRRA: Any delays that could not be categorized into already-created categories (See New Delay Codes in 2014) Delays under the Southern California Regional Rail Authority responsibility, including personnel and equipment 33

44 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 5 SDNR: UPRR: Delays under San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR Operator of COASTER) responsibility, including crew and equipment Delays under UPRR responsibility, including crew and equipment New Delay Codes in 2014 By 2014, it was understood that the Authority s delay categorizations at the time were vague and inefficient in reporting delays. In March 2014, specific delay codes were created to make the coding process more effective and organized. Those new delays codes are seen in Figures 4 and 5 and are defined below. New Delay Code Definitions INTER-CITY AMTRAK: FORCE MAJEURE: BNSF: MECHANICAL: TRACK: Any delays under Amtrak responsibility, including crew and equipment Delays caused by civil authority, heat restriction, safety/security threats, vandalism, pedestrian and auto strikes, and other natural disasters Any delays under Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) responsibility, including crew and equipment Delays caused by mechanical issues within Metrolink (see Figures 8 and 9) Delays caused by rough track, late releases of track, speed restrictions, unannounced flags, terminated and annulled track OPERATIONS: Delays caused by rules testing, crew-related issues, passengers, meet/ pass, holds; dispatch, congestion, and special trains (See Figures 6 and 7) SIGNAL: CROSSING: COMMUNICATIONS: UPRR: Delays caused by dark/downgraded signals, red signals, switch failure, detected malfunctions, annulled and terminated signals Delays caused by broken gates, unknown activation, annulled and terminated crossings Delays caused by code line failures, problems with office radio, problems with Customer Information System (CIS) Any delays under Union Pacific Railroad responsibility, including crew and equipment 34

45 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 6 RED LINE: NCTD: CAD: PTC: Delays caused by Metro rail lines, such as last trains of the day which are sometimes held for late Red Line passengers, or rare and unusual emergency circumstances that may affect the entire station area Delays under the North County Transit District responsibility, including crew and equipment Delays caused by problems with dispatch work stations, system failure, inaccurate train sheet information, train ID tracking Delays caused by PTC red fences, IT, and cascades Figures 4 and 5 compare the responsibilities from 2014 to 2015 using the new delay codes, which are described below. Figure Delay Count by Responsibility OPERATIONS BNSF MECHANICAL FORCE MAJEURE UPRR SIGNAL CROSSING INTER CITY AMTRAK CAD COMMUNICATIONS NCTD TRACK RED LINE PTC NOTE: *new delay codes implemented in March

46 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 7 Figure Delay Count by Responsibility Numbers Delay Count by Responsibility DELAY TYPE (RESPONSIBILITY) Responsibility Total PTC Red Line Track NCTD Communications CAD Inter-City Amtrak Crossing Signal UPRR Force Majeure Mechanical BNSF Operations System-wide Total III. Operations Because Operations is the category with the highest delays over the last ten years, and to gain a better understanding for why Operations encounters so many delays, this section expounds on the various causes for Operations delays. 36

47 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 8 Figure 6. Operations Delay Causes Operations Delay Causes Figure 7. Operations Delays by the Numbers PAX/PNA Meet/Pass Cascade Ops Crew Rules/Test Run Time Near Miss 10 8 Annulled/Annulled Ops 7 11 Congestion 7 6 Dispatch 6 8 Hold 5 6 Terminate/Terminate Ops 5 5 Specials 4 1 Total Figures 6 and 7 show the operational delay causes in 2014 and There was an increase in delays in 2015, almost double the amount of delays in 2014 in some categories. The top three delay causes are Passengers (PAX)/Passengers Needing Assistance (PNA), meets/passes, and cascades. As referenced on the previous Pulse of Metrolink report, an increase in ridership has also led to an increase in passengers needing assistance. Operational procedures for Metrolink require train adjustments to accommodate 37

48 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 9 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for passenger loading and offloading. By law and in order to comply with ADA regulations, Metrolink must make these types of adjustments at every station with passengers needing assistance. A meet/pass delay occurs when a train stands by to wait for another to pass it on the track, before continuing on its route. Meet/pass delays increase any time there is an incident that causes congestion on the tracks, as well as whenever a train is behind schedule for reasons such as waiting for passengers needing assistance. Cascades occur as a culminating result of other delays on the tracks. These original delays could be due to passengers needing assistance, meets/passes, signals, etc. A high-profile example of cascades is a trespasser incident. When a trespasser incident occurs, the train is required to stop on the track and wait to be cleared by officials. This prevents other trains from using that track, causing delays for later trains. January 2016 Decrease In January 2016, the Operations category decreased by 21%. This was due to a significant drop in meet/pass delays, as well as an overall drop in the majority of causes. IV. Mechanical As the second-highest category of delays over the last ten years 1, this section will focus on the various causes for Mechanical delays. Figures 8 and 9 show the mechanical delays from 2014 to With the exception of cascades, the numbers in 2014 are fairly comparable to those in The highest mechanical delay causes are Cascades, followed by Annulled trains and then Main Engine issues. 1 From , Mechanical delays were labelled Equipment. 38

49 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 10 Figure 8. Mechanical Delay Causes Mechanical Delay Causes Figure 9. Mechanical Delays by the Numbers Delay Type Cascade Annulled Main Engine Terminated No Load/Electrical Air Brake System Door Problem HEP 10 9 Air System 8 11 Running Gear 4 11 Restroom 3 0 Total As mentioned under Operational delays, cascades occur when an original delay also causes delays for the following trains. This is the only delay that had a significant increase in 2015 when compared to Cascades occur as an effect of all other delay causes. The next highest delay is Annulled trains. Trains that are not run at all are considered annulled. Trains are annulled for reasons such as mechanical or engine failure, long-term incidents, or crew safety. For example, if an incident occurs on the tracks which deems those tracks unusable, trains will be annulled according to their schedule until the tracks can be used. 39

50 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 11 Main engine issues are the third-highest cause of mechanical delays. Main engine issues can be the result of wheel slips, hot engines, or defective starters. In 2015, main engine issues decreased. Mechanical delays continue to be a problem as a result of Metrolink s locomotives being overdue for mid-life overhauls. Many of the units are over 20 years old, and mid-life overhaul usually occurs at 15 years. Additionally, the locomotives are used every day with minimal resting time. When older parts are eventually processed to be replaced, material acquisition has long lead-times parts are not in stock and can take up to six months or more to arrive. With the implementation of the Authority s new Fleet Management Plan, locomotives can be kept in their best running condition. The Plan outlines the management necessary to keep locomotives in their best shape, including mid-life overhauls. As a result of the implementation of this plan, the Authority expects to see fewer locomotive issues, and therefore less mechanical delays. V. Effects of Single Track 2 In November 2015, the IEOC Line performed at 100% OTP at many stations (See Figure 10 but did encounter delays at the San Clemente and West Corona stations due primarily to single track. The outbound IEOC Line generally starts at 100% OTP then, due to single tracking, loses OTP percentage points en route to San Clemente. Performance recovers to 100% by the time trains arrive at the Irvine station. After the Anaheim station, however, trains must travel from the Orange, onto the Olive, and finally onto the San Bernardino subdivision. It is possible to encounter congestion along this path due to single tracking. Trains on the IEOC line regain 100% OTP at the destination station of San Bernardino due to built-in schedule padding. 2 This data was obtained from the Automatic Passenger Counting system (APC). The APC pilot has now ended and this data source is no longer available. This will be the final stationlevel OTP report this system can provide. 40

51 The Pulse of Metrolink Page 12 Figure 10. IEOC Line Station-Level OTP IEOC Outbound November 2015 OTP % % % % % % % % 90.00% 90.91% 81.82% 81.82% 81.82% 81.82% 75.00% 75.00% 70.00% OTP 50.00% 30.00% 10.00% % IEOC Stations Budget Impact There is no budgetary impact as a result of this report. Prepared by: Kelcy Dungo, Special Services Employee Karthik Swamy, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer Kimberly Yu Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Planning and Project Delivery) 41

52 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 13 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy SUBJECT: Operations Realignment to Focus on Safety and Compliance Issue To support the continued emphasis on safety and compliance, an additional Deputy Chief Operating Officer position within the Operations Department is required to refocus and realign safety and compliance roles and responsibilities. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board approve: 1) Adding a Deputy Chief Operating Officer for System Safety, Security and Compliance (Grade S -$148,377-$231,706); and 2) Eliminate three (3) vacant positions: a) 2 - Field Operations Administrator, Trainee positions (Grade G - $51,784-$80,919) b) 1 - Department Assistant (Grade E - $41,309-$64,557) Alternatives The Board may reject or modify staff s recommendation. Background Since the release of the Metrolink Commuter Rail Safety Peer Review Panel s Final Report in 2009, major initiatives have been sponsored and approved by the Board to promote safe and secure commuter rail operations, foster a top-to bottom safety culture and exercise appropriate oversight of safety and operational performance (See Attachment A). These initiatives included the implementation of: (1) In-Cab Video Recording, (2) Positive Train Control (PTC), (3) Crash Energy Management vehicles, One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

53 Operations Realignment to Focus on Safety and Compliance Page 2 (4) Change in DigiCon Dispatch, (5) Instituting annual medical evaluations and (6) Implementation of Federal Railroad Administration Rail Safety Advisory Committee s process of implementing hours of service/split shift. Moreover, staff developed the System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) in 2012 to outline clear and simple Standard Operating Procedures to protect personal safety and the safety of our customers, employees, contractors, public and the Authority s commuter rail system. These focused policies and programs helped to enhance the safety culture within the organization. Key indicators such as the number of reportable injuries and rule violations reflect the agency s safety culture. If there are upward trends in these numbers, it would underscore that there are unsafe behaviors that need to be investigated and corrected in order to reintroduce safety culture within an organization. At the close of calendar year 2015, there were 29 reportable injuries on our system. These injuries, as staff reported at the November and December Board meetings, indicate an 81% increase from the previous calendar year. The reportable injuries from 2012 and 2013 combined is also lower than the 2015 number. Although staff added additional resources and attention to the compliance side of operations, integrating the safety, security and compliance departments as one cohesive unit will help to refocus and prioritize key safety programs. Current Oversight of Safety and Security With a direct reporting relationship to the Chief Executive Officer, the Director of System Safety and Security currently provides industry safety and security updates, risk mitigation, statistical trends, incident response, root cause follow up, System Safety Program development, and American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and Federal Railroad Administration audits for system oversight. The Compliance department is located in the day-to-day operations and dispatch arm of Operations and is primarily responsible for: (1) developing operational testing plans for Dispatchers, Mechanical Department employees, Train and Engine service and Contractor Testing Officers; and (2) maintaining and executing an efficiency testing plan for these operations employees. An efficiency plan includes identifying all Metrolink and contractor testing officers qualified to conduct efficiency tests on safety critical positions, producing a schedule to observe each safety critical position within an acceptable timeframe, creating a template to be used by the testing officers for consistent application of observations of pertinent safety critical rules, submission of observation results, identifying review officers to analyze the data and ensuring compliance with the plan. 43

54 Operations Realignment to Focus on Safety and Compliance Page 3 Recommended Realignment in Organization Structure The recommended structure will bring together compliance officers and safety staff to work together to oversee the essential aspects of operations safety. (See Attachments B and C: Current Organization and Proposed Realignment, respectively.) This realignment will crosstrain compliance and safety staff under one umbrella, which will provide the operational flexibility and strengthen oversight of contractor work. The functions that will be handled by compliance and safety staff are based on Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and outlined below. Part 213, Track Standards Federal rules and regulations to govern track standards and inspections and stipulating how track maintenance contractor Veolia Transportation Management Inc. (VTMI) and track standards are efficiently managed and maintained on the Southern California Regional Rail Authority s (Authority) railroad. Part 214, Railroad Workplace Safety/Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) Federal rules and regulations explicitly describing how watchman lookout protection is afforded and the rules to be followed on railroad property to maintain and manage safety for personnel working on and around main, yard and other tracks. This rule covers signal and communications (S&C) contractor Mass Electric, VTMI and other third party contractors on track safety provisions. Part 217, Railroad Operating Rules Federal rules and guidelines explaining and dictating how all railroad safety-sensitive employees are overseen and outlining the effectiveness of an efficiency testing system (ETS). Part 217 explains and requires specific qualifications, training and documentation of an ETS program, along with performance metrics to revise ETS according to findings within certain periods of time and review process. Part 218, Railroad Operating Practices (Blue Signal Protection) Federal rules and regulations describing how mechanical contractor, Bombardier, and other third party contractors protect human work force when working on, under or between equipment. The rules are explained in a Blue Signal Site-specific plan, training, and rules efficiency to enforce compliance through an ETS program. Part 219, Control of Alcohol and Drug Use Federal rules and guidelines explaining how a random testing program works within the railroad environment and covers all of the safety-sensitive work force. Specific rules on who 44

55 Operations Realignment to Focus on Safety and Compliance Page 4 is to be trained, description of what training is to be afforded employees, contractors and supervision/oversight guidelines to mitigate and manage the use of alcohol and drugs in the workplace. This rule manages all safety-sensitive work classification, including transportation contractor Amtrak s Engineers and Conductors, Dispatchers, Signal Workers, key staff within mechanical workforce, and will soon include track maintenance-of-way (MOW) workers. Part 225, Accident Incident Reporting and Investigation Federal rules and instructions on what federal reporting is required, definitions of reporting classifications, and records retention. This is a requirement that pertains to contractor and Authority supervision, incident reporting and management obligations. Part 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards Federal rules and instructions on how railroad equipment is inspected, tested, deemed crashworthy, design requirements, safety recommendations, locomotive electronics and how static noise testing within cab of locomotive is manages and overseen. This rule is managed by Bombardier, overseen by Authority personnel and impacts Amtrak and customers when defects are not addressed or mitigated. Part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Equipment The purpose of this work is to prevent collisions, derailments, and other occurrences involving railroad passenger equipment that cause injury or death to railroad employees, railroad passengers, or the general public; and to mitigate the consequences of such occurrences to the extent they cannot be prevented. This pertains to Bombardier and Authority oversight and is directly related to historical accidents, most recently the Metro North and Amtrak 188 incidents. Part 239, Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Federal rules and specific requirements that require training on emergency response, written plans, coordination with other host railroads and dispatch operations, and a lessons learned debrief and critique process. This rule is managed and overseen by the Authority, supported by Bombardier, and delivered by railroad dispatch, Train and Engine crews, and emergency management services throughout the five member counties. Part 240, Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers Federal rules describing components and explaining how locomotive engineers, Authority staff, and contractors should implement the certification process. Part 240 may consist of medical standards, procedures for skills performance testing, procedures for performing national or state driver s check, verifying and/or obtaining motor vehicle driver history and recording data, reviewing procedures, and submission and approval of locomotive engineer 45

56 Operations Realignment to Focus on Safety and Compliance Page 5 qualification program. This rule is overseen by Authority staff, Amtrak and Joint Railroad Operations. Part 242, Qualification and Certification of Conductors Federal rule designed specifically for Conductors highlighting territory qualification, joint operations, medical standards, procedures for obtaining and evaluating motor vehicle data and records, approval of Conductor Certification Program, and other program requirements. This rule addresses how Amtrak conductors are monitored and qualified for safety certification. It is managed by Amtrak and overseen by Authority staff. Staff recommends that this realignment will meet the key objectives of the Safety Peer Review Panel s Report, which includes developing an agency with strong and more unified safety culture with a reporting mechanism and oversight functions that would help measure and monitor key safety performance capacities. Budget Impact The additional costs associated with the new position will be offset by eliminating 3 vacant positions including 2 in field operations management and 1 vacant position in PTC. Any additional labor costs incurred will be absorbed in the current FY budget through current vacancies in Operations. Prepared by: Fred Jackson, Director, System Safety and Security Kimberly Yu, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Planning and Project Delivery Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer Attachment A Metrolink Commuter Rail Safety Peer Review Panel s Final Report 2009 Executive Summary Attachment B Current Organizational Chart under the Chief Executive Officer Attachment C Current Organizational Chart under the Chief Operating Officer Attachment D Proposed Organizational Chart under the Chief Executive Officer Attachment E Proposed Organizational Chart under the Chief Operating Officer Attachment F Deputy Chief Operating Officer Job Description 46

57 Attachment A METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER REVIEW PANEL Final Report - January 5, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board Meeting Motion and Ad Hoc Subcommittee At its Board meeting on September 26, 2008, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Board of Directors approved a motion authorizing its Chairman to appoint an Ad Hoc Subcommittee to establish an independent Commuter Rail Safety Peer Review Panel to review the Metrolink system and make recommendations to increase safety and reduce risk. Board Chairman Ron Roberts appointed Board Vice-Chair Keith Millhouse and Director Richard Katz to be the ad hoc subcommittee to select the independent Panel members and to later transmit its recommendations to the Board. Panel Member Selection Panel members were selected by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee members, based on industry knowledge, specialized expertise in a given field, and overall railroad safety experience. In addition, the Panel was staffed with members from diverse backgrounds including public agencies, private companies, and members of academia. Panel Focus The Panel utilized a holistic approach to safety during the course of the review. It was noted that: 1. Further safety improvements should reduce accidents and their consequences 2. Even with a vigorous, proactive safety program in place, inherent vulnerabilities still exist that require constant focus on operational safety. The Panel focused on two areas during the course of this study: 1. Metrolink s operating system, including Operating Contract Service Providers (OCSPs); and 2. SCRRA s organization structure and staffing levels. The Panel conducted interviews of Metrolink staff, including senior management, and its primary contractors. In addition, a technical team consisting of experts in their given field interviewed operations staff to ascertain the process by which Metrolink conducts the operation and maintenance of its railroad. The Panel also reviewed the contracts of the four OCSPs, the System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) and other documents relative to the overall operations of the Metrolink system. In addition the Panel did a comparison to best practices within the industry. 47

58 Southern California Regional Rail Authority CURRENT AS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2016 Attachment B SCRRA Board of Directors General Counsel Risk Management Chief Executive Officer Arthur T. Leahy Internal Audit Deputy Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer Chief Marketing and Communications Officer System Safety and Security Chief Operating Officer Chief Administrative Officer Information Technology Controller/ Treasurer Customer Relations Administrative Services Purchasing, Contracts and Contract Compliance General Accounting and Payroll Accounts Receivables and Collections Budgets and Financial Analysis Grants Administration and Fiscal Management Communications Public Affairs Marketing and Sales Planning and Development Program Management Facilities and Fleet Maintenance Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Planning and Project Delivery Fare Collections Services Maintenance of Equipment Materials Management and Warehousing Engineering and Construction PTC Communications Systems PTC Network Control Operations PTC Systems Management Deputy Chief Operating Officer, PTC and Engineering Track Rehabilitation and Maintenance PTC Technical Support C & S Train Control Maintenance Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Operations and Compliance Vacant Dispatching Services Field Operations Management Train Operations CURRENT AS OF Board Secretary/ Assistant to the CEO Government and Regulatory Affairs Human Resources

59 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Office of the Chief Operating Officer CURRENT AS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2016 Attachment C Chief Executive Officer Arthur T. Leahy Chief Operating Officer (015047) Gary Lettengarver Director, System Safety and Security Fred Jackson Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Planning and Project Delivery) Kimberly Yu Deputy Chief Operating Officer (PTC and Engineering) Darrell Maxey Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Operations and Compliance) Vacant Maintenance of Equipment Fare Collections Services Planning and Development Program Management Engineering and Construction PTC Communications Systems Track Rehabilitation and Maintenance PTC Technical Support PTC Systems Management Operator Services Compliance/Field Operations Management Dispatch Services Materials Management and Warehousing Facilities and Fleet Maintenance PTC Network Control Operations C & S Train Control Maintenance 49 CURRENT FOR 2/26/2016

60 Southern California Regional Rail Authority PROPOSED FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2016 Attachment D SCRRA Board of Directors General Counsel Risk Management Internal Audit Chief Executive Officer Arthur T. Leahy Deputy Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer Chief Marketing and Communications Officer Chief Operating Officer Chief Administrative Officer Information Technology Purchasing, Contracts and Contract Compliance Controller/ Treasurer General Accounting and Payroll Accounts Receivables and Collections Budgets and Financial Analysis Grants Administration and Fiscal Management Customer Relations Communications Public Affairs Marketing and Sales Planning and Development Program Management Facilities and Fleet Maintenance Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Planning and Project Delivery Fare Collections Services Maintenance of Equipment Materials Management and Warehousing Engineering and Construction PTC Communications Systems PTC Network Control Operations PTC Systems Management Deputy Chief Operating Officer, PTC and Engineering Track Rehabilitation and Maintenance PTC Technical Support C & S Train Control Maintenance Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Dispatch and Operator Services Vacant Dispatching Services Operator Services Deputy Chief Operating Officer, System Safety and Compliance Vacant System Safety and Security Compliance/Field Operations Management PROPOSED FOR Administrative Services Board Secretary/ Assistant to the CEO Government and Regulatory Affairs Human Resources

61 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Office of the Chief Operating Officer PROPOSED FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2016 Attachment E Chief Executive Officer Arthur T. Leahy Chief Operating Officer (015047) Gary Lettengarver Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Planning and Project Delivery) Kimberly Yu Deputy Chief Operating Officer (PTC and Engineering) Darrell Maxey Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Dispatch and Operator Services) Vacant Deputy Chief Operating Officer (System Safety, Security and Compliance) Vacant Maintenance of Equipment Fare Collections Services Planning and Development Program Management Engineering and Construction PTC Communications Systems Track Rehabilitation and Maintenance PTC Technical Support PTC Systems Management Dispatch Services Operator Services System Safety and Security Compliance/Field Operations Management Materials Management and Warehousing Facilities and Fleet Maintenance PTC Network Control Operations C & S Train Control Maintenance PROPOSED FOR 2/26/

62 Attachment F Southern California Regional Rail Authority Job Description PROPOSED Job Title: Deputy Chief Operating Officer (DCOO) PCN: for 1 position and separate PCNs (015227, ) for each individual promoted to the position Cost Center: Operations Reports To: Chief Operating Officer FLSA Status: E Prepared By: Shapiro 06/18/2015 Updated by: Shapiro 02/18/2016 Salary Grade: S SUMMARY Under the leadership of the Chief Operating Officer, this position will provide direction to line operations for staff and contractors who are responsible for the delivery of services in the business units reporting to the Office of the Chief Operating Officer. The individual selected for this position may rotate within Deputy COO positions as part of the succession planning; for example, DCOO for Dispatch and Operator Services, DCOO for System Safety, Security and Compliance, DCOO for PTC and Engineering and DCOO for Planning and Project Delivery. This position may be located at the Dispatching and Operations Center (DOC), 2704 N. Garey Avenue, Pomona, CA 91767, the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF), 1555 San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, CA and/or Melbourne Services Facility (MSF), 2700 Melbourne, Pomona, CA JOB DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Under the leadership of the Chief Operating Officer, this position is responsible for the following: Ensure the delivery of safe, efficient and convenient commuter rail service every day; Ensure the railroad delivers the highest level of customer service possible each and every day; Ensure coordination and cooperation of services among assigned departments; Build a cohesive team of management staff dedicated to ongoing improvement of business operations; Provide functional direction and supervision to various cost centers under the leadership of the Chief Operating Officer; Establish best practices within the Office of the Chief Operating Officer; Work closely and as the COO s liaison with Safety and Security and be accountable for maximum safety performance in the assigned departments; Provide direction and management for disaster preparedness, active shooter and emergency response; Become involved as necessary and as required in security issues; In collaboration with human resources, coordinate and implement a variety of training programs for the various functions reporting to the Deputy Chief Operating Officer; Manage and negotiate contracts with assigned contractors to ensure on time performance and cost efficiency; Coordinate special studies, investigations and analyses to determine root cause of issues surfaced at various meetings; prepare results in report format and recommend solutions; Participate as necessary with the development of the budget for various business units within the Office of the Chief Operating Officer; 1 52

63 Attachment F Take action to address and resolve issues as agreed upon by the parties; Ensure implementation of programs, policies and procedures and standard operating procedures to improve service quality; Provide direction and recommendations to solve complex operational issues and problems in the assigned departments; Direct and coordinate with other key management team staff on operational system planning documents; Review and make recommendations to the COO on the impact of various changes to the commuter rail service; Work closely with direct reports and provide performance feedback and development for each individual and for the team as a whole; Act as the COO s backup for work related to the Board of Directors including preparation and review of all Board Committee and Board Agenda items related to the reporting departments; Represent SCRRA to external audiences and stakeholders; In collaboration with the other staff participate in the development of the Capital and Rehabilitation Plans; Interpret and provide guidance on a variety of laws, rules, regulations, policies, procedures and contracts; Ensure subordinates are properly informed about programs, proposals, changes in operational direction and staffing issues; Participate in various cross-functional teams in order to deploy resources properly based on SCRRA organizational strategy and goals; Work closely with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA); California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other governmental and regulatory bodies; Perform other related duties as assigned. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Bachelor s degree in Transportation, Business Administration, Public Administration or a related field preferred; Minimum five (5) years of work experience in railroad operations in a senior management position; Minimum seven (7) years of work experience supervising, managing and directing management level staff; Strong understanding of the railroad industry and demonstrated knowledge/capabilities in the areas of planning and development, field operations, contract management, financial analysis; Must have the ability to maintain composure in dealing with authorities, executive, customers, contractors and the public in high pressure situations and during railroad disruptions or incidents; Must have the ability to analyze situations, identify problems, develop solutions and evaluate outcomes; Ability to understand the interdependencies between various departments providing services in a public environment; Conversant and knowledgeable of Federal Railroad Administration regulations and the ability to review and monitor the delivery of services under those regulations; Experience in strategic planning and possess the ability to contribute effectively to the planning efforts undertaken at SCRRA; 2 53

64 Attachment F Ability to develop relationships with appropriate railroad or functional industry partners and is current on issues, practices and procedures; Prior work experience that shows accomplishments that enhance results by ensuring that problems are prevented through analysis, measurement and process improvements; Prior work experience that demonstrates a genuine interest in helping direct reports and encouraging collaboration across the SCRRA; Demonstrate an understanding of how to provide superior value to SCRRA customers and make each interaction with internal and external customers a positive one; Ability to identify opportunities for operating efficiencies and oversee their implementation both within the department and SCRRA; Must be able and willing to build team cohesiveness by establishing, communicating and reinforcing shared values and norms; Ability to provide clear direction and policies to eliminate or reduce potential conflicts; Ability to make formal presentations to large and small groups, the Board, Committees and the public; Proficient in Microsoft Office; Demonstrate strong and effective organizational and time management skills; Valid class C Driver s License with a satisfactory driving record of no more than three moving violations within the last three years. PHYSICAL DEMANDS The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. Transition between standing, walking and sitting at varying lengths of time; Climb or balance and stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl; Use hands to finger, handle, feel and grasp tools to perform the duties of the position; Ability to lift, hold and move objects up to 25 lbs.; Hear and perceive the nature of sounds; Listen and express or exchange ideas by means of spoken words; Work in normal office environment with little exposure to excessive noise, dust, temperature and the ability to adjust visual focus; Work in an outdoor environment with exposure to varying weather conditions including hot and cold; Frequent exposure to freight, passenger and vehicular traffic; Periodic exposure to electrical (EMF/EMI) components, mechanical and physical hazards; Ability to work on and around railroad right-of-way and construction sites; Work irregular hours, nights, and weekends when necessary. 3 54

65 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 14 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy Fiscal Year Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Single Audit Issue The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Single Audit for Fiscal Year have been completed. A representative from the external auditor, Moss Adams LLP, will provide the Board with the required communications and other necessary information regarding the completed audits and report distribution. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background Moss Adams LLP (Moss Adams) is an independent public accounting firm engaged by the Authority under Contract No. QM to perform external audit services of the Authority s fiscal years Moss Adams is currently conducting these services for the fiscal year ended June 30, The CAFR presents the audited basic financial statements of the Authority, management discussion and analysis, supporting footnotes, required supplementary information and statistical information. The Single Audit is an audit of the Authority s compliance with the requirements of law, regulations and grant agreements applicable to federally funded projects. The CAFR, Single Audit, and Required Communications will be provided under separate cover. Budget Impact There is no immediate budget impact as a result of this status report. Prepared by: David Rogers, Senior Auditor Elisabeth Lazuardi, Senior Auditor One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

66 Fiscal Year Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Single Audit Page 2 David Rogers Senior Auditor Elisabeth Lazuardi Senior Auditor 56

67 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 15 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy Report on Alternative Bus Bridge Providers for More Reliable Connections for Passengers Motion Issue Staff is providing an analysis of alternate bus bridge providers as directed in a motion introduced at the January 15, 2016 Board meeting, including the County Sheriff's Department. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background On January 15, 2016, the Board approved a motion by Director Antonovich directing Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Authority) staff to work with the Member Agencies county Sheriff Departments to determine the feasibility of utilizing Sheriff Department bus fleets as well as other alternative transportation means for Metrolink passengers during service disruptions. The January 15, 2016 motion (refer to Attachment C) requested updates on the following: 1. Feasibility of having county Sheriff Department bus fleets provide bus bridge service; 2. If contracts are established, terms under which Metrolink may call upon the service; 3. Feasibility of executing contracts with the county Sheriff Departments in 90 days; 4. Other methods for Metrolink to secure bus bridge support. For several years, the Authority has maintained agreements (MOUs) with various public transit agencies and private bus companies to use as supplemental transportation in the event of emergencies and planned or unplanned service disruptions. Support has ranged from moving passengers from one platform to another at the same station when elevators were out of service, to replacing train service between several stations when a trespasser incident occurred. On several occasions, the Authority was unable to provide adequate alternative transportation due to limitations of the existing providers. Supplemental service is more limited during peak travel time due to unavailability of bus and/or wheelchair accessible equipment, unavailability of drivers due to shortage of staff or service hour One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor Los Angeles, CA

68 Report on Alternative Bus Bridge Providers for More Reliable Connections for Passengers Motion Page 2 limitations, and reservation of services for other events. Responding agencies have also denied service to Metrolink passengers by restricting their buses from traveling beyond their service areas. Additionally, there have been occasions where bus companies demonstrated, through denial of supplemental service, that their passengers have priority over Metrolink riders. We do not agree with this approach. Metrolink riders often transfer to municipal transit services as part of their regular commute. Currently, the Authority has Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) in place with 10 public transit agencies: 1. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) 2. Omnitrans 3. Foothill Transit 4. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 5. Simi Valley Transit 6. Gold Coast Transit 7. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) 8. City of Santa Clarita Transit 9. Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) and 10. North County Transit District (NCTD) Additionally, there are MOUs with five private companies, four buses, and one taxi provider: 1. Inland Empire Stages 2. H&L Charter 3. MV Transit 4. Transit Systems Unlimited and 5. Administrative Services Co-op (Yellow Cab Taxi) When bus bridge support is needed, agencies or companies closest to the affected station(s) are contacted first. If insufficient support is found, the search is expanded to providers outside of the immediate area. Analysis of Bus Bridge Support In an effort to understand support patterns, staff began tracking response to bus bridge requests in July In the seven-month period of July 2015 to January 2016, there were a total of 58 incidents necessitating unplanned bus bridge support, seven of which were due to elevator outages. There were a total of 117 calls for support: 42 (36%) of those requests saw arrival to passengers in an hour or less; 29 (25%) saw arrival to passengers more than an hour after initial call; and the remaining 46 requests (39%) were declined or unavailable. See Attachment A Bus Bridge Response Summary (by County) and Attachment B Incident Locations with Bus Bridge Statistics. While this model provides ample support for some incidents, overall it is inadequate for the level of service the Authority wishes to provide. We have experienced times where passengers have had extensive wait times for bus support; some exceeding 3 hours. These delays were 58

69 Report on Alternative Bus Bridge Providers for More Reliable Connections for Passengers Motion Page 3 a result of several issues: local operators failing to respond, delays in response from operators who were contacted for support, lack of equipment, lack of drivers, and drivers unfamiliar with the area and getting lost in transit. In addition to extensive wait times, passengers have also been stranded when responding buses refused to provide support outside of their service areas. While agency program managers indicate service will be provided anywhere needed, bus operation managers will not permit buses outside of the operator s service area unless request for the support is made from and to executive level staff. Weaknesses in the existing MOUs have been identified, which are reflected in the poor response our passengers have experienced. For example, nowhere in any of the agreements does it say service must be provided, nor do they define service area restrictions. Metrolink passengers are not positioned as a priority, however we will continue to work with the county commissions to help remind them that Metrolink riders are also theirs. In reference to item 4 of the motion, staff is in process of reviewing the existing agreements and will be seeking to amend the bus bridge MOUs. These revisions will be strengthened in an effort to clarify expectations and improve reliability, including language to (1) identify minimum service obligation (i.e. at least one bus, if called) and (2) secure obligation for responding buses to service any station(s) within the Metrolink service area. In addition to revising language in the agreements, staff will investigate alternative pricing structures, specifically with the private companies. For example, retainers to have equipment and drivers on standby, or increased rates as an incentive for quicker response. Sheriff s Transportation Option Per items 1 through 3 of the motion, staff contacted the Los Angeles Sheriff Department (LASD) to determine the feasibility of using their Court Services Transportation (CST) Bureau buses in the event of a train incident. The following information provides the background on the Sheriff s existing transportation program. Background on CST CST is the largest provider of prisoner transportation in the United States with headquarters adjacent to Men s Central Jail. A north county satellite facility is located at the Pitchess Detention Center. A significant component of CST is the Statewide Detail, which transports more prisoners throughout the State of California than any other Sheriff s Department. The average daily number of inmates transported by CST to and from court, and between custody facilities, is approximately 4,500 per day. CST also provides court ordered transport to medical facilities, hemodialysis centers, and funerals. Additional specialized transport is provided for grand juries, juries, high-security inmates, celebrity inmates, wheelchair-bound inmates and departmental events. CST provides inmate transport under contract to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Probation Department, Santa Monica Police Department and Huntington Park Police Department. They serve 35 criminal courts throughout Los Angeles County, 20 LASD stations, eight LASD custody units, and 10 LASD stations. CST also transports inmates to and from correctional facilities within California which includes 34 adult prisons, 13 community 59

70 Report on Alternative Bus Bridge Providers for More Reliable Connections for Passengers Motion Page 4 correctional facilities, and two juvenile facilities. Prisoner transport services are also provided on a contractual basis to 57 of the 58 counties throughout California. Figure 1. Interior photos of CST Buses Figure 2. Exterior Photo of CST Bus CST deputies complete an intensive training program and possess Class B licenses to be qualified to maneuvering 40-foot buses weighing 44,000 pounds in and out of court lockups and custody facilities. CST crews operate their buses through an interlacing system of crowded freeways and surface streets while ever mindful of public safety and inmate security. 60

71 Report on Alternative Bus Bridge Providers for More Reliable Connections for Passengers Motion Page 5 Additional CST Bureau and Bus Information Estimated or actual annual budget $58,243,531 How many buses are in your fleet? 78 What is the current usage of the fleet (%)? 100% Weekday and weekend coverage How is the bus operated? Who operates it? Risk, Insurance? ADA Compliance? How many operators? 78 on weekdays and three buses on Saturday and Sunday in service. By Two Deputy Sheriffs CST Bureau Self-Insured by Department Buses are not ADA compliant 191 total (not on any given shift) Transportation configuration? Refer to photos on page 4 Are there any current MOUs in place addressing this type of service? Who funds this operation (Sheriffs Internal Budget)? What is the seating capacity? No Sheriff s Department 46 in various seating arrangements (Cages and Compartments) Prior to moving forward with any contractual agreement with the Sheriff s department as the motion requested, staff included the background and photos for the Board to consider when assessing the feasibility of this transportation partnership. Additional Alternative Transportation Solutions Staff is seeking alternatives with other companies for more robust bus bridge options. For example, as part of a separate initiative, staff is exploring the potential for partnerships with alternative transportation providers, including school bus companies, taxi companies and rideshare or transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Lyft and Uber. While the focus has been on cross-promotion of first-mile/last-mile connectivity through the mobile ticketing platform the implementation of these partnerships is dependent upon the schedule for the mobile ticketing project. However such partnerships will be explored as a means of providing alternative service during disruptions to train service. Staff is committed to expending all options to provide riders with the level of service they expect. 61

72 Report on Alternative Bus Bridge Providers for More Reliable Connections for Passengers Motion Page 6 In an effort to obtain a wider range of information on methods and providers, staff also contacted transportation partner Amtrak, who advised that in addition to managing Thruway service 1, certain dedicated staff also coordinate alternative transportation in instances of service disruptions. Like the Authority, their staff experiences challenges obtaining last-minute coverage. The procedure Amtrak follows is similar to that of the Authority, whereby preestablished vendors with existing purchase orders (POs) are contacted in the event of a disruption. Amtrak readily shared information on their preferred vendors and commented that the costs for these services can range from $4,000 for a few hours to $70,000 for a weekend. Lastly, staff revealed that they opted to establish relationships with various vendors across the coverage area at negotiated prices instead of utilizing a bus broker. While brokers can serve as a liaison to the least expensive bus service possible, price is not a guarantee, yet a broker s fee will always be included in addition to the cost of bus service. Budget Impact There is no budgetary impact as a result of this report. Prepared By: Rachel Chaires, Manager Customer Engagement Robert Turnauckas Chief Marketing and Communications Officer Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer 1 From Amtrak s website: To extend the reach of Amtrak service to communities without rail service and offer a wider selection of destinations, Amtrak established Thruway service with guaranteed connections to Amtrak trains. Dedicated buses carry Amtrak passengers only; coordinated buses operate on individual carrier schedules but create easy access to the Amtrak network. 62

73 Attachment A Incident Date Incident Location (Nearest Station) AVTA City of Santa Clarita Transit Foothill Transit Public Agencies Gold Coast Transit LACMTA North County Transit District OCTA Omnitrans Riverside Transit Agency Simi Valley Transit Private Carriers H&L Charter Inland Empire Stages MV transit Transit Systems Unlimited County 7/7/2015 Santa Clarita Los Angeles 8/15/2015 Lancaster Los Angeles 8/17/2015 Newhall Los Angeles 8/31/2015 Santa Clarita Los Angeles 9/12/2015 Lancaster Los Angeles 10/2/2015 Commerce Los Angeles 10/10/2015 El Monte Los Angeles 10/13/2015 Los Angeles Los Angeles 10/16/2015 Industry Los Angeles 10/19/2015 Santa Clarita Los Angeles 10/26/2015 Burbank Los Angeles 11/10/2015 Sylmar Los Angeles 11/11/2015 Via Princessa Los Angeles 11/17/2015 Glendale Los Angeles 12/5/2015 Covina Los Angeles 12/8/2015 Vincent Grade/Acton Los Angeles 12/9/2015 Newhall Los Angeles 12/30/2015 Palmdale Los Angeles 1/5/2016 Newhall Los Angeles 1/5/2016 Northridge Los Angeles 7/18/2015 San Clemente Pier Orange 10/27/2015 Fullerton Orange 10/30/2015 Fullerton Orange 11/3/2015 Santa Ana Orange 63

74 Attachment A 11/10/2015 Fullerton Orange 11/21/2015 Orange Orange 11/21/2015 Tustin Orange 11/24/2015 Fullerton Orange 11/24/2015 Fullerton Orange 11/24/2015 Fullerton Orange 11/27/2015 Laguna Niguel Orange 11/29/2015 Fullerton Orange 11/30/2015 Orange Orange 12/11/2015 Tustin Orange 12/14/2015 Laguna Niguel Orange 12/23/2015 Buena Park Orange 1/11/2016 Fullerton Orange 1/12/2016 Fullerton Orange 1/22/2016 Fullerton Orange 7/5/2015 La Sierra Riverside 8/4/2015 Pedley Riverside 9/25/2015 Riverside Riverside 10/13/2015 Riverside Riverside 11/11/2015 Riverside Riverside 11/11/2015 West Corona Riverside 11/21/2015 Riverside Riverside 11/23/2015 Riverside Riverside 12/12/2015 West Corona Riverside 1/7/2016 La Sierra Riverside 1/18/2016 Riverside Riverside 1/22/2016 North Main Corona Riverside 7/28/2015 San Bernardino San Bernardino 10/7/2015 San Bernardino San Bernardino 10/9/2015 Fontana San Bernardino 12/11/2015 San Bernardino San Bernardino 12/23/2015 Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 12/30/2015 San Bernardino San Bernardino 1/12/2016 Upland San Bernardino 64

75 Attachment A 8/14/2015 Oxnard Ventura 10/25/2015 Moorpark Ventura 12/17/2015 Simi Valley Ventura 1/8/2016 Moorpark Ventura Key: RED: No Response YELLOW: Response time over 1 hour GREEN: Response time within 1 hour WHITE: No Request Made 65

76 Incident Locations and Bus Bridge Response Statistics Attachment B Ventura County 4 Incidents 1. MTA 1/1 requests 2. TSU 1/1 requests 3. Gold Coast 1/4 requests 4. Simi Valley 0/2 requests Los Angeles County 20 Incidents 1. MTA 11/12 requests 2. TSU- 5/9 requests 3. AVTA 3/7 requests 4. Gold Coast 1/1 requests 5. OCTA 1/1 requests 6. Omnitrans 1/1 requests 7. Santa Clarita- 1/10 requests 8. RTA 0/1 requests 9. H&L Charter - 0/2 requests 10. IE Stages - 0/2 requests 11. Foothill 0/3 requests San Bernardino County 7 Incidents 1. Omnitrans 4/4 requests 2. IE Stages - 2/4 requests 3. OCTA 1/1 requests 4. RTA 1/3 requests 5. Foothill 0/1 requests 6. H&L Charter 0/1 requests 7. MTA 0/1 requests Riverside County 12 Incidents 1. RTA 8/10 requests 2. Omni 4/5 requests 3. OCTA 2/2 requests 4. IE Stages 2/3 requests Orange County 19 Incidents 1. OCTA 19/19 requests 2. IE Stages - 0/1 requests 3. RTA 0/1 requests 66

77 Attachment C 67

78 68

79 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 16 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy Report on San Bernardino Metrolink Train Quality of Service Motion Issue In response to the motion introduced at the January 15, 2016 Board meeting, staff is providing an update on efforts to improve the San Bernardino Line schedule. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background On October 5, 2015, a schedule change was implemented to improve operational reliability and increase ridership. The schedule change succeeded in increasing ridership, but also resulted in some negative impacts. While ridership increased throughout the service day, especially midday, the decreased peak hour headways reduced service levels and caused crowding on a few trains. Operational adjustments to mitigate the crowding concerns led to reduced reliability. In response to concerns around these issues, staff looked into potential mitigations and implemented an elongated 8-car train set to relieve crowding. However, given the complexity of the operating constraints on the line, more significant changes to the schedule required additional time. The San Bernardino Line is both the line with the highest ridership (11,000 riders each weekday) and one of the lines with the most acute infrastructure limitations. Most of the line is single track, severely limiting the frequency by which trains can travel in both directions. In response to the motion, this report explains the constraints affecting the San Bernardino Line operation and describes the Authority s plan to address rider concerns while preserving as much of the ridership increase as possible. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

80 Report on San Bernardino Metrolink Train Quality of Service Motion Page 2 Constraints on the San Bernardino Line Single Track Railroad Less than one-third of the San Gabriel Subdivision the tracks on which the San Bernardino Line travels is double-tracked. Furthermore, less than 15% of the track west of El Monte station is double-tracked. Peak headways greater than 30 minutes require opposing trains to meet the peak trains in the short Jordan-Fremont siding in the middle of the I-10 Freeway. The distribution of double-track across the line is neither even nor optimal; trains cannot proceed at top speed in both directions and expect to find double-track in the places needed to pass other trains. Further, when a train arrives late at a section of double-track to meet another train, it delays the other train. These delays cascade down the schedule and compound as the day progresses. Growth in Stop and Travel Times Delays happen on even the best railroads. A conductor, for instance, may need to hold a door open longer to prevent a child from being separated from his parents. Schedules include recovery time strategic extra minutes placed at key points along the line to ensure that trains can recover from such incidents. Over the last decade, much of the original recovery time built into the San Bernardino Line schedule has been consumed by a steady increase in the length of time it takes a train to traverse the route. Long-term growth in ridership has increased the length of time a train needs to keep its doors open at station stops. Planned at 30 seconds, it now often takes upwards of a minute. Passengers needing assistance to board, such as those using wheelchairs, may require additional time. The number of passengers needing such assistance continues to grow. Other factors have also contributed to the growth in travel times. Newer cars, due to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) specifications, are heavier and weigh down aging engines. Positive Train Control (PTC), which more strictly and conservatively governs speed than prior methods, has had a small effect on run times. Individually these impacts are small, but they can add up. When combined with a single-track railroad, the effect of longer, normal run times can be multiplied. For instance, if a stretch of single-track could previously support 20-minute headways (roughly 10 minutes for each direction), then a minute increase to the travel time might increase the maximum headway to 22 minutes. Train Set Capacity The seating capacity of Metrolink passenger rail cars vary, but it is generally in the vicinity of 130 seats per car. Most station platforms can accommodate trains of up to 6 cars in length. Train lengths greater than six cars may not fit onto all platforms or on short sidings 70

81 Report on San Bernardino Metrolink Train Quality of Service Motion Page 3 (sections of double track) used by trains to pass each other. Longer trains tend to run slower and have difficulty stopping at the exact proper position at stations ( spotting ). Construction Impacts in San Bernardino Construction at the San Bernardino Station has had, and will continue to have, a number of additional, temporary impacts. Soon only one platform track at the station will be able to support trains with six or more passenger cars. This track runs through the primary construction site. We anticipate that construction activities will be disruptive whenever it is in use. This construction may necessitate temporarily truncating our service and using a more westerly station as a temporary terminal until the construction is complete. A set of tracks that were previously used to stage trains for morning service have been decommissioned, requiring all trains originating out of the station to back into the station, load passengers, and then depart. All trains entering or leaving the station now pass through a narrow one-track throat at the station entrance whether they are coming to or from the San Bernardino Line, the Inland Empire-Orange County Line, or the Eastern Maintenance Facility (EMF). In addition, trains departing the station heading west on the San Bernardino Line currently need to travel at reduced speed due to signal and PTC-related issues. Authority staff is currently working with SANBAG to develop an operations strategy to mitigate the impacts to our riders. Once we agree on a solution, we will conduct extensive outreach efforts. Goals for Improving the San Bernardino Line Schedule Given these constraints, our goals for improving the San Bernardino Line Schedule include: Address on-time performance issues. Avoid overcrowding. Increase frequencies during the peak commute to provide passengers more options. Schedule the first eastbound train to arrive into San Bernardino before 8:00 AM. Account for anticipated operational impacts from the San Bernardino Depot construction. Retain, insofar as it is possible, the improved midday service regularity introduced in October Schedule Change Process Normally, the time to plan and implement a quality schedule change takes at least five months. This includes identifying service goals, developing and refining technical 71

82 Report on San Bernardino Metrolink Train Quality of Service Motion Page 4 alternatives, investigating impacts (to service reliability, passenger loads, equipment cycles, crew shifts, and connections), securing approval from other railroads, communicating changes to passengers and partnering cities and agencies, and printing new timetables. Shortened timelines increase the risk of not completing steps in the process with sufficient quality control such as how passenger loads were not adequately considered prior to the October changes. San Bernardino Line Changes under Further Consideration for April 2016 Staff is refining a schedule change that is planned to be effective in April It seeks to address rider concerns about peak headways, crowding, and on-time performance, while maintaining most of the off-peak service improvements (and thus ridership increases) gained in October. On February 17, 2016, a survey was implemented seeking passenger input to better understand their travel needs and preferences. The results of the survey have helped to inform the consideration of potential schedule changes. Elements of the schedule includes being considered for April 2016 include: Approximately 20-minute peak headways in the peak direction/hour. This is achieved by converting the express into a local and by moving an off-peak train into the peak hour. In addition, counter-commute trains that meet peak trains have had time added to their schedule to allow them to reliably meet the peak trains in double-track territory. Increased end-to-end travel times to account for long-term trends (longer station stops, etc.). Retention of most of the regular midday service patterns introduced in October. A morning train that arrives in San Bernardino before 8:00 AM. Five passenger cars on all trains on the San Bernardino line. Given the constraints, these changes come with trade-offs. The conversion of the express train to a local train that serves all stops will disappoint those riders who experienced its slightly faster travel times. This is expected to be balanced by the number of riders whose station will now be served by those trains. Separately, passengers who take the off-peak trains that are to be moved will have less frequent service. Hourly service will effectively begin an hour earlier than it does today. The conversion of the express train is not forecasted to have a measurable impact on ridership. However, moving the off-peak train may partially undo the ridership increases earned in October. 72

83 Report on San Bernardino Metrolink Train Quality of Service Motion Page 5 Additional Alternatives Considered A number of alternatives were considered but dismissed from consideration, including: Keep existing schedule; convert express trains into local trains Demand for the new local trains particularly the 5:30 PM from Los Angeles was forecast to be very high and to create a crowding situation worse than that seen in October. This would also not address issues regarding on-time performance and additional construction impacts in San Bernardino. Return to the pre-october 5, 2015 schedule change The pre-october 5 schedule change was not compatible with the San Bernardino station construction impacts. This would also not have addressed issues regarding on-time performance. Furthermore, all ridership gains achieved in October would have been undone. Keep existing schedule and move an off-peak train into the peak hour This was workable in the morning without too much complication. However, the evening schedule required significant rework similar to that now planned. Also, this alternative did not address issues regarding on-time performance and additional construction impacts in San Bernardino. Variant of schedule under development with an early or late-peak express train This was forecast to negatively impact ridership and possibly create a modest crowding risk on adjacent trains. This may be reevaluated after the construction limitations on train length are no longer a factor Variant of schedule under development but without moving an off-peak train into the peak This was forecast to create an overcrowding situation on the remaining peak trains. This variant may be worth revisiting once construction limits on consist lengths are removed. Timing of Changes The improvements to the San Bernardino Line schedule are planned to go into effect on Monday, April 4, Given the significant concerns raised to the October 5, 2015 schedule change and out of a desire to retain as much of the ridership gains it delivered as possible, staff felt it prudent to spend the time necessary to carefully consider schedule changes. A number of quick fixes were explored but rejected due to their significant downsides (see above). 73

84 Report on San Bernardino Metrolink Train Quality of Service Motion Page 6 Communication/Outreach An April 4, 2016 schedule change will allow time for effective customer outreach to inform passengers about these changes and allow them time to prepare. Given the impacts to the passengers of the express trains and the moved trains, it is imperative that sufficient time be allowed for thorough communications to passengers. The Authority will notify its customers, bus companies, transit partners and local cities of the proposed changes. We will also conduct a communications and social media strategy to bring awareness. Budget Impact There is no budgetary impact as a result of this report. Prepared by: Rory Vaughn, Manager, Research and Planning Roderick Diaz, Director, Planning and Development Kimberly Yu Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Planning and Project Delivery) Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer Attachment A San Bernardino Metrolink Train Quality of Serivce Motion introduced January 15,

85 Attachment A 75

86 Attachment A 76

87 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 17 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Issue With six months of ridership and revenue results since the launch of the Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program that began on July 1, 2015, this report provides an update on the program. This six-month evaluation includes a more refined analysis of ridership response that accounts for shifts of existing riders between ticket types, travel patterns, and demographic characteristics. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background On April 10, 2015 the Board approved the Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program with revenue shortfall funding provided by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in an amount up to $2.5 million during FY The purpose of this pilot program was to test how ridership on the Antelope Valley Line responded to a reduction in overall fares, and a reduction in fares for short distance trips (station-to-station). The pilot program consisted of the following two promotional fare programs that were valid only for trips with both origin and destination stations on the Antelope Valley Line, which includes the section that overlaps with the Ventura County Line (Los Angeles Union Station to Burbank-Downtown): 25% Fare Reduction: This fare reduction applies to all fare types with the exception of the Weekend Day Pass. Additional Student, Military, and Senior/Disabled fare discounts apply. $2 Station-to-Next Station Fare Promotion: The $2 Station-to-Station fare applied to One-way Tickets only. The $2 Station-to-Station Fare is based on the number of stations traveled, e.g., one station = $2, two stations = $4, etc. No other discounts apply. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

88 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 2 On October 9, 2015 the Board approved an extension of the 25% fare reduction through the end of June 2016 contingent upon continued funding through Metro. The Board also approved the implementation of a system-wide $3 station-to-next-station fare ($6 for two stations, including roundtrips) that replaced the $2 station-to-next-station fare effective January 1, Key Findings The Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program has generated valuable data on customer responses to fare reductions. Ridership and revenue performance have been better than anticipated and are also consistent with industry experience that fare reductions will increase ridership but not by enough to compensate for revenue losses. Some of the key findings since launch of the pilot include: Discussion The fare pilot has resulted in a 14% increase in ridership at a 12% loss in revenue when compared to last year. All of the ridership increases occurred on weekdays. Student and youth riders have been most responsive, while senior and disabled riders were least likely to take advantage of the fare reduction. Short distance trips to adjacent stations increased by 30% year-over-year. This evaluation of the Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot provides a detailed analysis of ridership response. The analysis is based on ticket sales data which are deemed superior to manual counts for assessing ridership response to changes in fares. Special efforts were made to better understand the complex shifts of existing customers between different fare types (see Attachment A. for the technical report). It is important to note that there was a significant decline in Weekend Day Pass sales that was determined to reflect some riders switching to other discounted fare media. This necessitated restating some of the numbers presented earlier (tables detailing these adjustments are provided in the appendix). Since Weekend Day Passes are system-wide passes that cannot be tied to individual station pairs, staff utilized information from its most recent Onboard Survey to develop more accurate estimates of Weekend Day Pass usage. The fare reduction program was implemented on July 1, 2015 and resulted in fares on the Antelope Valley Line being reduced by an average of 25%. Since July 2015, ridership on that line has increased by 93,146 (or 14%) in response to this fare reduction, while revenue has declined by $637,847 (or 12%) when compared to the same six-month period in Results to date: Average fare reduction: - 25% Ridership change (6 months): +14% Revenue change (6 months): - 12% 78

89 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 3 The above numbers reflect the program performance for the first six months of the pilot. After strong ridership growth following the implementation of the fare reduction in July 2015, customer response has plateaued at a level far exceeding prior projections. Ridership response has grown year-over-year from 7% in July, 9% in August, 13% in September, to 20% in October, before stabilizing around 19% in the last three months of the pilot (Figure 1). Likewise, revenue losses shrank from 19% in July, 16% in August, and 13% in September, to just 7% in October, before stabilizing around 8% during the last three months of the pilot. In summary, given the recent stabilization in trends, the pilot appears to have demonstrated a 19% increase in ridership and an 8% reduction in fare revenue for the second quarter. Figure 1. Change in Ridership and Revenue Ridership by Weekday/Weekend The increase in ridership on the Antelope Valley Line was entirely driven by an increase in weekday riders: total weekday ridership increased by 17.3% year-over-year, whereas weekend ridership declined by 4.3%. The increase in weekday ridership was due in part to the larger discount for weekday fares. This is because prices for Weekend Day Passes already reflect a steep discount and were not subject to further discounting through the pilot program. Furthermore, weekend ridership had been trending downward for some time on both the Antelope Valley and the San Bernardino lines, which both share similar ridership demographics. Yet, the pilot may have limited declines in weekend ridership on the Antelope Valley Line. The net effect is a total ridership increase of 13.9% since the same period in 2014 (Table 1). Fare revenue decreased by 12.2%, reflecting a decrease of 12.1% on weekdays and 12.7% on weekends (Table 2). 79

90 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 4 Table 1. Ridership for Antelope Valley Line Fare Pilot (July - December) Includes Weekend Passes Month Change % Weekday 565, ,293 97, % Weekend 106, ,791-4, % Total 671, ,084 93, % Table 2. Revenue for Antelope Valley Line Fare Pilot (July - December) Includes Weekend Passes Month Change % Weekday $ 4,529,373 $ 3,979,697 $ (549,676) -12.1% Weekend $ 695,863 $ 607,692 $ (88,170) -12.7% Total $ 5,225,236 $ 4,587,389 $ (637,847) -12.2% Ridership by Station Pairs Ridership has increased along the entire Antelope Valley Line corridor. The largest nominal increases in ridership were observed for trips to LA Union Station, specifically from Sylmar, Palmdale, and Lancaster. Sylmar also topped the list of station pairs with the highest percent increase in ridership: trips between Sylmar and Newhall increased by 63% and trips between Sylmar and Palmdale increased by 59% (Table 3). The large ridership increase between Sylmar and Newhall can be attributed to the $2 station fare. With a distance of 8.1 miles between the two stations the $2 station fare represents a 68% fare reduction from the regular fare of $6.25. Sylmar also benefitted from multiple marketing campaigns as part of the Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot and the I-5 North Commuter benefit program which is likely reflected in the ridership increase for this station. Table 3. Station Pairs with Largest Ridership Increase (July - December 2015 vs. July December 2014) Station Pair (To/From) Change % Change Newhall & Sylmar 4,815 63% Palmdale & Sylmar 8,296 59% Palmdale & L.A. Union Station 10,232 21% Sylmar & L.A. Union Station 11,587 20% Newhall & L.A. Union Station 7,044 20% Santa Clarita & L.A. Union Station 6,917 19% Lancaster & L.A. Union Station 9,389 18% Via Princessa & L.A. Union Station 6,217 10% 80

91 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 5 Short Distance Ridership A major focus of the Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot is to incentivize ridership by reducing the cost of short distance trips on Metrolink. Ticket sales data demonstrates that this effort has been successful. The average price (including all ticket types) for one-station trips was reduced by 37% and ridership increased by 13,680 trips, or by 30% (Table 4). Two-station trips increased at a rate of 12%, which is less than the rate of growth for most longer trips. Table 4. Ridership Change by Number of Stations Traveled (excluding Weekend Passes) Station Count Ridership Change % Change in Ridership % Change in Average Fare 1 13,680 30% -37% 2 9,158 12% -24% 3 5,984 18% -26% 4 16,232 18% -25% 5 17,560 22% -24% 6 12,910 19% -25% 7 7,394 10% -26% 8 2,686 13% -25% 9 11,306 22% -24% 10 9,389 18% -24% Since the start of the pilot one-station trips have increased by 13,680 trips, or by 30%, which is a faster rate of increase than that for longer trips. Station pairs with the highest utilization in station fares include Newhall Sylmar, and Glendale Los Angeles Union Station. Not all sales of station fares were from new riders. Some of the increase reflects existing riders who shifted from monthly passes to the more discounted station fare tickets. Still, total ticket sales reveal a net increase in short distance trips. Figure 2 illustrates the strong growth in short distance trips between adjacent stations following the start of the pilot. There was no distance segment with an increase in both ridership and fare revenue. 81

92 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 6 Figure 2. Short Distance Trips (Trips between adjacent stations) Overall, one- and two station trips increased their share of trips from 20% to 21%. Further analysis reveals that station fare usage is highest during the peak, whereby am and pm peak ridership are more balanced than for overall ridership which is highest during the am peak period (6am-9am). Station fare usage is also higher during the midday which reflects usage by non-commuters. (Figure 3). Figure 3. Ridership by Time of Day 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 4% 11% 25% Ridership based on Time of Ticket Purchase 36% 15% 15% 11% 9% 29% 22% 11% Station Fare All fares in AM 6AM 6AM 9AM 9AM 12PM 12PM 3PM 3PM 6PM 6PM 9PM 9PM 00AM 10% 2% 1% 82

93 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 7 Ridership by Demographic Groups Students were most responsive to the fare reductions. Their share of ridership on the line increased to 14%, up from 12% in Sale of student monthly and seven day passes increased 27%, more than for other rider groups. The largest increase in ridership was observed for student one-way and roundtrip tickets which increased by 41%, almost one third of which reflects station fares. Prices for these tickets decreased by an average of 33%. Students on the Antelope Valley Line are predominantly female and minority. Most students are minority, with 36% identifying themselves as Latino and another 26% as African American. More than half of all students reported household incomes of less than $30,000 which explains their strong response to the fare reduction. Commuters were less responsive to the fare reductions: monthly and seven day pass sales increased by 9%, but the actual ridership increase may be higher since some commuters have shifted to the more discounted station fares. 85% of commuters on the Antelope Valley Line have a household income of more than $50, % are 45 years of age or older. Senior and Disabled ridership increased by 10%, mostly driven by an increase in monthly passes. Although seniors and disabled riders are both in the same fare category, they represent two very different populations (Table 5). Seniors, who represent 54% of this group, are more representative of regular Metrolink commuters: they are more than twice as likely to use Metrolink to commute to work. 61% of seniors are employed compared to 37% of disabled riders. Disabled riders are lower income with 61% reporting household incomes of less than $20,000, compared to just 20% of seniors. 27% of seniors have household incomes of more than $100,000. Table 5. Senior and Disabled Ridership Demographics Senior Disabled Employed 61% 37% Commute to work 55% 25% HH income < $20,000 19% 61% HH income >$100,000 27% 2% Car available 77% 28% Minority 62% 76% Methodology Ridership estimates in this report are based on an analysis of ticket sales data for the Antelope Valley Line which suggest a 14% increase in ridership. In contrast, analysis of manual ridership counts by conductors show a ridership increase of just 1% for the same period of time. The section below is intended to provide some background and possible explanations for this discrepancy. 83

94 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 8 Ridership estimates based on ticket sales are deemed superior to manual counts for assessing ridership response to changes in fares. Each ticket type is associated with an average trip multiplier to estimate the number of trips taken. The resulting ridership estimates are directly tied to ticket sales but do not include ridership by free and unticketed riders, such as Access riders, Personal Care Attendants (PCA), Amtrak ticket holders, trial riders, children under age 6, uniformed officers, and fare evaders. There are several possible explanations why manual counts show a smaller increase in ridership than estimates derived from ticket sales: Most likely reasons: 1. Conductor counts prior to the pilot program may have been inflated. Manual ridership counts are inherently prone to error. They do however provide reliable trend information as long as there is no change in methodology. Such a change in methodology occurred with the launch of the Assistant Conductor program in December It is assumed that the accuracy of the manual counts has improved with the addition of the assistant conductors. The fact that the manual counts show a smaller increase in ridership than the ticket sales may suggest that earlier ridership counts from before the launch of the Assistant Conductor program were inflated. 2. Short distance trips may have been undercounted by conductors. Given the difficulty of accurate manual counts at each station it is likely that conductor counts have not captured the increase in short-distance trips. 3. Fare evaders may have stopped riding. It is likely that many fare evaders stopped riding after fare enforcement was stepped up with the Assistant Conductor program. This would explain a decrease in manual ridership counts. Less likely reasons: 4. Fare evaders may have started buying tickets. The launch of the Assistant Conductor program has led to a decrease in fare evasion and may have resulted in an increase in ticket sales. However, ticket sales data provides no evidence for a marked increase in ticket sales following the Assistant Conductor program suggesting that fare evaders stopped riding rather than paying a fare. 5. Fewer riders transfer between the Antelope Valley Line and other lines. There has been a decline in transfer trips since Since transfers from other lines are not subject to the fare reduction pilot they are not included in this analysis. They are however captured in the conductor counts and would explain a reduced ridership count for

95 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 9 6. Riders may have taken fewer trips per pass in 2015 than in Ticket sales are converted to ridership estimates using ticket type multipliers. Multipliers are held constant in each year and do not account for possible changes in usage rates. Although average usage rates have been found to remain stable over time, it is possible that the pilot program may have resulted in a slight change in usage rates. However, there is insufficient data to determine this and the impact would be limited. 7. There may be fewer Access riders and their PCAs. A decline in trips by Access riders and PCAs would be reflected in the manual ridership counts but not in the ticket-based ridership imputation. However, no such decline has been reported by the conductors. Conclusion and Next Steps: Sales data from the fare pilot shows that ridership has been very responsive to the reduced fares. Ridership growth was stronger than expected but not sufficient to result in an increase in fare revenue. This outcome is consistent with experience both nationally and internationally. The cost of the pilot, which is funded through Metro for a cost of up to $2.5 million, is expected to stay well within budget. It is anticipated that the actual program cost will be $1.4 million, reflecting an expected revenue loss of $1.1 million through June 30, 2016 and associated marketing expenses of $0.3 million. The pilot has also demonstrated the value of ticket sales data for detailed analysis of ridership response. Given the ambiguity of the manual ridership counts, staff will increasingly be utilizing ticket sales data for ridership analysis. The pilot has generated valuable data on how customers respond to fare reductions that will help identify further fare policy opportunities. Staff will continue monitoring program performance during the next six months and report back to the Board. Budget Impact There is no immediate budget impact as a result of this update. Prepared by: Roderick Diaz, Director, Planning and Development Henning Eichler, Planning Manager (Planning & System Performance Analysis) Kimberly Yu Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Planning and Project Delivery) 85

96 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 10 Appendix Ridership for Antelope Valley Line Fare Pilot (through December 31, 2015) Excludes Weekend Passes Month Change % July 101, ,450 7, % Aug 100, ,703 12, % Sep 99, ,909 16, % Oct 99, ,617 24, % Nov 97, ,710 23, % Dec 94, ,168 21, % Sum 593, , , % Ridership for Antelope Valley Line Fare Pilot (through December 31, 2015) Weekend Passes Only Month Change % July 12,166 11, % Aug 16,298 13,681-2, % Sep 12,431 10,218-2, % Oct 12,820 11,246-1, % Nov 14,927 10,484-4, % Dec 10,038 8,229-1, % Sum 78,680 65,527-13, % Ridership for Antelope Valley Line Fare Pilot (through December 31, 2015) Includes Weekend Passes Month Change % July 113, ,118 7, % Aug 117, ,384 10, % Sep 111, ,127 14, % Oct 112, ,863 22, % Nov 112, ,194 18, % Dec 104, ,397 19, % Sum 671, ,084 93, % 86

97 Antelope Valley Line Fare Reduction Pilot Program Update Page 11 Revenue for Antelope Valley Line Fare Pilot (through December 31, 2015) Excludes Weekend Passes Month Change % July $ 836,756 $ 671,741 $ (165,015) -19.7% Aug $ 823,489 $ 692,871 $ (130,618) -15.9% Sep $ 804,385 $ 699,239 $ (105,146) -13.1% Oct $ 804,661 $ 748,072 $ (56,588) -7.0% Nov $ 787,074 $ 734,175 $ (52,899) -6.7% Dec $ 775,472 $ 713,656 $ (61,816) -8.0% Sum $ 4,831,836 $ 4,259,755 $ (572,081) -11.8% Revenue for Antelope Valley Line Fare Pilot (through December. 31, 2015) Weekend Passes Only Month Change % July $ 60,832 $ 58,342 $ (165,015) -19.7% Aug $ 81,490 $ 68,403 $ (130,618) -15.9% Sep $ 62,156 $ 51,092 $ (11,064) -17.8% Oct $ 64,100 $ 56,230 $ (7,870) -12.3% Nov $ 74,634 $ 52,421 $ (22,213) -29.8% Dec $ 50,188 $ 41,147 $ (9,042) -18.0% Sum $ 393,400 $ 327,635 $ (65,765) -16.7% Revenue for Antelope Valley Line Fare Pilot (through December 31, 2015) Includes Weekend Passes Month Change % July $ 897,588 $ 730,083 $ (167,505) -18.7% Aug $ 904,979 $ 761,274 $ (143,705) -15.9% Sep $ 866,541 $ 750,331 $ (116,210) -13.4% Oct $ 868,761 $ 804,302 $ (64,458) -7.4% Nov $ 861,707 $ 786,596 $ (75,111) -8.7% Dec $ 825,660 $ 754,803 $ (70,858) -8.6% Sum $ 5,225,236 $ 4,587,389 $ (637,847) -12.2% 87

98 Attachment A Metrolink Fare Study Phase II Tech Memo for Task 1. Six-Month Evaluation of the AV Line Pilot PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Henning Eichler, Metrolink Mark Chang and Brian Mitchell, CH2M DATE: January 15, 2016 (draft 2) Metrolink started two new fare reduction pilot programs for riders on the Antelope Valley (AV) Line on July 1, 2015: 25% Fare Discount: The 25% fare discount pilot program was designed to increase ridership on the AV Line. The discount applies to all fare types on the AV Line (One-Way Ticket, Round Trip Ticket, 7- Day Pass, and Monthly Pass), except the Weekend Day Pass and Station to Station Fares. Fares are discounted for all rider categories (Regular Adult, Senior/Disabled/Medicare, Student/Youth, and Military). $2 Station to Station (S2S) Fares: The S2S fare pilot program was introduced to encourage local travel in communities along the AV Line. S2S fares apply to One-Way Ticket fares between stations on the AV Line. S2S fares do not apply to Round-Trip Tickets, 7-Day Passes, Monthly Passes, or Weekend Passes. Additional rider category discounts do not apply to S2S fares. S2S fares are based on the number of stations traveled; e.g., one station = $2.00, two stations = $4.00, etc. For each station pair on the AV Line, One-Way Ticket fares are set at the lower of the applicable S2S fare and the corresponding standard fare (including the 25% fare discount). Which fare is lower varies by station pair as well as by rider category. Due to the nature of Metrolink s existing mileage-based fee structure, consisting of a fixed access fee plus a per mile traveled fee, S2S fares on the AV Line (for regular adult riders) are lower for all adjacent station pairs (ten pairs), all two-station trip pairs (nine pairs), four three-station trip pairs, and one four-station trip fare, as noted below: o o o o Adjacent Stations ($2 fare): LA Union Station Glendale, Glendale Downtown Burbank, Downtown Burbank Sun Valley, Sun Valley Sylmar/San Fernando, Sylmar/San Fernando Newhall, Newhall Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Via Princessa, Via Princessa Vincent Grade/ Acton, Vincent Grade/Acton Palmdale, Palmdale Lancaster Two-Station Trip ($4 fare): LA Union Station Downtown Burbank, Glendale Sun Valley, Downtown Burbank Sylmar/San Fernando, Sun Valley Newhall, Sylmar/San Fernando Santa Clarita, Newhall Via Princessa, Santa Clarita Vincent Grade/Acton, Via Princessa Palmdale, Vincent Grade/Acton Lancaster Three-Station Trip ($6 fare): Sun Valley Santa Clarita, Newhall Vincent Grade/Acton, Santa Clarita Palmdale, Via Princessa Lancaster Four-Station Trip ($8 fare): Santa Clarita Lancaster (If the S2S fare pilot program were to be in effect separate from the 25% fare discount, the number of station pairs for which S2S fares would provide fare discounts would be higher.) The S2S fare pilot program ended on December 31, 2015 when it transitioned into the systemwide $3 station fare program. The 25% fare discount pilot program will continue until June 30, PAGE 1 88

99 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT Ridership and fare revenue responses to the AV Line fare pilot programs appear to have stabilized since October. The following tasks were conducted: a) Re-estimate fare elasticities for the AV Line using ridership and fare revenue data for the threemonth period from October to December 2015, as well as the six-month period from July to December This updates work previously conducted, which estimated AV Line fare elasticities for the period from July to October b) Estimate the change in ridership and revenue that is due to the 25% fare reduction versus the S2S fares. Account for shifts between fare media. Findings from this work are provided on the following pages. Section A of this memo provides results from the fare elasticity estimation. Section B provides the estimated allocation of impacts between the 25% fare reduction versus the S2S fares. Section A. Fare Elasticity Estimation A.1: Objective CH2M HILL was requested to calculate price elasticities to measure the effects of fare changes on ridership, using the Antelope Valley Line ridership and fare revenue data provided by Metrolink from July 2014 through December A price elasticity is a measure of how responsive demand is to a change in a product s price. In this study, fare elasticities measure the responsiveness of ridership to a change in fare prices. Fare Elasticity = % Change in Ridership % Change in Price A.2: Methodology Multiple regression analysis was used to calculate elasticities. Regression equations were arranged to predict ridership levels as a function of the implied fare (revenue / implied ridership). Elasticities were calculated using the coefficients from the regression results, with ridership as the dependent variables (in separate regressions) and the implied fares as the independent variable. Previous Phase I analysis was performed by CH2M based on the change in fares and ridership from July- October 2014 to July-October 2015 (four-month comparison). This Phase II analysis estimates elasticities based on the change in fares and ridership from July-December 2014 to July-December 2015 (six-month comparison), and from October-December 2014 to October-December 2015 (three-month comparison). Elasticities were calculated for the Antelope Valley Line for each of the following: Fare elasticity for the entire line Fare elasticity by ticket type Fare elasticity by rider group Fare elasticity by number of stations traveled (station count) The regression analysis and elasticity calculations were done using the statistical software R. This software is very versatile and is used by economists, data scientists, and many academic researchers. For this analysis, R was used to summarize the AVL dataset, filter the relevant data, run the regressions, compute the elasticities, and post-test the results. PAGE 2 89

100 A.3: Data PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT The data used for the elasticity calculations were directly provided by Metrolink. The primary data set used was the Copy of AV Line Detail Report July-Dec 2015 Include Week-End Pass excel file. This dataset included daily transactions for all station-pairs on the Antelope Valley Line. In addition to implied ridership and revenue, the dataset also included the following transaction information: sales terminal id number, origin station, destination station, ticket purchase date, ticket type, count of stations traveled, ticket validity date, rider type, payment method, and number of tickets purchased. The dataset provided all of the necessary data required for calculating the elasticity types described in the previous section. Minimal pre-processing was needed for the data. In order to allow for a direct comparison of pre and post fare change, the data was restricted to July-December for 2014 and The data file also contained information for the Saturday and Sunday weekend day passes. The 25% discount did not extend to these ticket types; however, there were concerns that pass migration may have occurred from the weekend passes to other fare products. The analysis estimated elasticities for the full range of fare products and for a restricted dataset which excluded weekend passes. Based on information from SCRRA that 53% of ridership from weekend passes sold at AVL stations occurred with both an origin and a destination on the AVL line, the ridership and revenue for weekend passes provided in the dataset were adjusted downward using a factor of Traditional regression coefficients estimate the absolute impact of a change in an independent variable on a dependent variable. For example, the traditional regression coefficients for a ridership and fare regression would show the change in the absolute number of riders given a one dollar increase in fare price. In order to estimate elasticities, the data was transformed. In keeping with regression best practices, the natural logarithm transformation was applied to the ridership and revenue variables. This transformation converts the regression coefficients into the final elasticities. A.4: Post Testing and Validation In order to ensure the validity of the elasticities estimated, post processing was performed on the ticket type elasticities. This involved computing T-statistics for each of the elasticity values. T-statistics compute the degree of confidence that the estimated value is correct. As an industry standard, a T- statistic of an absolute magnitude of two or greater (e.g. 2 or -2) implies an elasticity value is statistically significant and that we are 95% confident in the elasticity value. T-statistics with an absolute magnitude less than two imply that we are not confident in the elasticity value. This method was used in place of comparing R-squared values from the separate regressions. R-squared values show how well an overall regression model describes the patterns in the data, while T-statistics describe the degree of confidence in the elasticity values. A.5: Fare Elasticity Results A.5.1 Line Elasticities The analysis first estimated elasticities for the dataset not including weekend day passes. The elasticities used the highest level of data aggregation. This was done to get a baseline for the overall price responsiveness for Antelope Valley Line riders. Previous academic studies have found that commuter rail fare elasticities vary from -.30 to The results of the elasticity regressions are listed in Exhibit 1. Both of the elasticities were within the acceptable range and were statistically significant. The elasticity for the six month period was This implies that a one percent decrease in fares would lead to a 0.57 percent increase in ridership. The elasticity for the October to December period of Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-Elasticities 24 August 2015, PAGE 3 90

101 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT was higher than that for the full study period. This seemed interesting given that ridership appeared to stabilize during this period. These results are influenced by the underlying seasonal pattern in ridership. Ridership dropped during the October to December periods in both 2014 and By restricting the data to the October to December period, the fare elasticities are being more heavily influenced by this seasonal pattern. The underlying regression model calculates the elasticities based on the month to month percentage change in ridership as opposed to the year to year change. The regression model is not inherently removing the cyclical ridership pattern, despite including data from the same period in two years. The elasticities calculated display the overall change in ridership during the October to December. This is problematic because there was a significant cyclical pattern from October to December in both years. Limiting the regression to October to December may cause the elasticities to be overinflated due to the underlying cyclical ridership pattern. Using a larger study length helps to balance out the impact of the month to month changes in ridership. Therefore, the July to December elasticity is more representative of the long-term price response for the Antelope Valley Line. Exhibit 1: Elasticities Without Weekend Day Pass Data Elasticity Oct-Dec Jul-Dec Elasticity T-Stat * -8.28* * Implies the elasticity is statistically significant. Weekend day pass ridership declined during the study period. The analysis attempted to find a direct cause for the decline in weekend day pass ridership. However, this proved to be difficult. The simultaneous fare policy changes prevented the analysis from conclusively determining what percentage of the increase in weekend ridership was the result of pass migration and what percentage came from new riders entering the system. The elasticities were recalculated using the full range of pass products, including the weekend day pass. The results of the recalculated elasticities are listed in Exhibit 2. Incorporating the weekend day pass data caused the elasticities to drop from to for the October to December period and from to for the July to December period. Given the likely presence of pass migration it is recommended the line based elasticities calculated with the weekend pass data should be used. The elasticities calculated without the weekend pass data are likely overinflated as the migrating customers are incorrectly categorized as new riders. Exhibit 2: Elasticities With Weekend Day Pass Data Elasticity Oct-Dec Jul-Dec Elasticity T-Stat -6.41* -6.44* * Implies the elasticity is statistically significant. A.5.2 Ticket Type Elasticities The analysis next calculated elasticities for the fare products offered on the Antelope Valley Line. These elasticities represent the ridership responses for the two simultaneous fare changes. Implementing the 25% discount and the S2S program at the same time changed the relative prices between the individual fare types. This in turn caused many riders to migrate to different pass products. This pass migration gets incorporated into the individual elasticity values as the change in ridership includes new riders and migrating riders. The model was not able to calculate fare elasticities for the weekend day passes. By definition, a fare elasticity measures the percent change in ridership given a percentage change in fare. The fare for weekend day passes did not change during the study period. Therefore, the model could not estimate the percentage change in ridership given a zero percent change in fare level. The analysis considered PAGE 4 91

102 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT estimating a cross-price elasticity which would measure the percentage change in weekend day pass ridership based on a proportional change of the fare price for the other pass types. It was ultimately decided not to include a cross-price elasticity in the analysis as this type of elasticity would be problematic to implement in the FARES Model. In order to minimize the impact of pass migration on the elasticity results the ticket type data was aggregated into three categories. The categories included: 7-Day Pass, MONTHLY_PASS, and Single_Day fare products. The Single_Day category was comprised of: ONE_WAY_PEAK, ONE_WAY_OFFPEAK, ROUND_TRIP_PEAK, ROUND_TRIP_OFFPEAK, and One-way S2S tickets., and the two weekend day passes. The elasticity results are listed in Exhibit 3. The single day pass elasticity for the October to December period was The elasticities for the July to December period displayed a similar trend. The aggregate single day pass elasticity was -0.60, the single day and 7-Day pass elasticities were much higher than the overall AVL elasticities (-0.68 and respectively). While this aggregation did help account for pass migration between similar products, it may have not fully accounted for migration across pass types. This may explain the relatively large elasticities calculated for the 7-day pass. Exhibit 3: Elasticities by Aggregated Ticket Group Elasticities by Ticket Type Oct-Dec Jul-Dec Ticket Type Elasticity T-Stat Elasticity T-Stat 7-Day Pass * * MONTHLY_PASS * * Single_Day Overall * * * Implies the elasticity is statistically significant. A.5.3 Rider Group Elasticities The results of the rider group elasticity calculations, without weekend pass data, are shown in Exhibit 4. All of the elasticities calculated were statistically significant. With the exception of the adult rider group, the T-statistics were larger for the July to December period. Overall, the elasticities calculated for both periods were very close to or outside of the upper bound of the acceptable range of to The elasticities for the adult and senior/disabled groups are closer to elasticities observed for other similar agencies, and respectively. The very large elasticities for the student and youth rider groups may be caused by shifts from Adult fares to student and youth fares that received larger discounts starting in July The vast majority of ridership on the AVL is comprised by the adult, senior/disabled, and student groups. Youth and military ridership combined comprise less than one percent of total ridership. Therefore, a relatively small increase in ridership for these groups is interpreted as a larger proportional increase in ridership compared to other rider groups. This may also have caused the model to estimate larger elasticities for the youth and military groups. Exhibit 4: Elasticities by Rider Group Without Weekend Day Pass Data Elasticities By Rider Group October to December July to December Rider Type Elasticity T-Stat Elasticity T-Stat ADULT * * MILITARY * * SR/DIS * * STUDENT * * YOUTH * * * Implies the elasticity is statistically significant. PAGE 5 92

103 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT All weekend passes used on the Antelope Valley Line were coded in the dataset as the adult rider group. As a result, only the adult rider group elasticities had different coefficients compared to the initial rider group elasticities. The results of the updated regression are shown in Exhibit 5. The adult group elasticities were lower for both the October to December and July to December periods, at and respectively. Exhibit 5: Elasticities by Rider Group With Weekend Day Pass Data Elasticities By Rider Group October to December July to December Rider Type Elasticity T-Stat Elasticity T-Stat ADULT * * MILITARY * * SR/DIS * * STUDENT * * YOUTH * * * Implies the elasticity is statistically significant. Given the considerable number of rider group based elasticities which are beyond the acceptable range, it is not recommended to use the rider group based fare elasticities. While the model produced reasonable elasticities for the Adult and Senior/Disabled Groups, the set of elasticities is not believed to be as appropriate for estimating ridership changes for all riders for a given line relative to station count elasticities. A.5.4 Station Count Elasticities Elasticities were calculated by the number of stations traveled per rider trip. The calculated elasticities are listed in Exhibit 6, without weekend day pass data. The elasticities for both periods were within the acceptable range of to and were statistically significant. In general, the elasticities for the October to December period were higher than those for the July to December period, to and to respectively. Unlike the estimation of the rider group and ticket type elasticities, this method is not affected by pass migration or rider group migration. The station count elasticities would only be impacted by riders changing trip lengths in correspondence to fare changes. Given the nature of Metrolink s service, this seems unlikely for the majority of riders. PAGE 6 93

104 PAGE 7 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT Exhibit 6: Elasticities by Station Count Without Weekend Day Pass Data Elasticities by Station Count October to December July to December Station % Change, Average % Change, % Change, Average Count Elasticity T-Stat Fare Ridership Elasticity T-Stat Fare % Change, Ridership * -38.3% 40.9% * -37.4% 30.5% * -23.4% 16.6% * -23.8% 12.1% * -25.0% 21.5% * -25.5% 18.5% * -24.4% 21.8% * -24.5% 17.5% * -24.3% 24.8% * -24.2% 22.5% * -24.5% 25.9% * -24.5% 18.9% * -25.7% 14.9% * -25.7% 9.5% * -25.2% 22.4% * -25.0% 13.5% * -24.3% 29.8% * -24.3% 21.9% * -23.7% 27.3% * -24.1% 18.2% * Implies the elasticity is statistically significant. Unlike other fare products provided by Metrolink, the weekend day passes are not linked to station pairs. As a result, all weekend day passes are coded as Station Count = 0. This prevented the model from being able to calculate elasticities for the weekend day passes. By definition, a fare elasticity measures the percent change in ridership given a percentage change in fare. The fare for weekend day passes did not change during the study period. Therefore, the model could not estimate the percentage change in ridership given a zero percent change in fare level. In order to account for potential pass migration from the weekend day passes, the analysis applied an adjustment factor to the station count elasticities, as shown in Exhibit 7. The station count elasticities were adjusted by the proportional difference between the line elasticities calculated with and without weekend day pass data. The October to December line elasticity calculated with the weekend day passes was 8.84% lower than the elasticity calculated without the weekend day passes. The July to December elasticity calculated with weekend day pass data was 10.93% lower than the elasticity calculated without weekend day pass data. The specific station count elasticities were therefore adjusted downward by 8.84% and 10.93% respectively to account for the weekend day pass. Exhibit 7: Adjusted Elasticities by Station Count to Incorporate Weekend Day Pass Data Elasticities by Station Count October to December July to December Station Count Elasticity T-Stat Elasticity T-Stat * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Implies the elasticity is statistically significant. 94

105 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT A.6: Recommended Elasticities The final set of recommended fare elasticities for fare modeling purposes is listed in Exhibit 8. It is CH2M s experience to utilize more conservative fare elasticity values (relatively lower elasticities) when estimating ridership and revenue changes, so as to not over-predict the ridership response to fare changes. The recommended elasticities are the station count calculated using the July to December period, adjusted to incorporate the impact of migration from the weekend day passes. The station count elasticities were all values within the mid to lower bound of the acceptable range, and were statistically significant. The July to December time period better controlled for the seasonal ridership patterns than the October to December period. It was also determined that there was reasonable evidence that pass migration was overinflating the elasticities calculated without the weekend day pass data. This set represents the most defensible and conservative set of fare elasticities estimated using the provided data. Exhibit 8: Final Recommended Elasticities Elasticities by Station Count Station Count July to December Elasticity PAGE 8 95

106 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT Section B. Ridership and Revenue Changes B.1: Background Analysis The AV Line ridership and fare revenue data from July to December 2015 were split into two groups: Group 1: Station pairs for which both the 25% fare discount and the S2S fares provided fare reductions for regular adult riders. These are the 24 pairs noted on page 1 of this memo (ten adjacent station pairs, nine two-station pairs, four three-station pairs, and one four-station pair). Group 2: Station pairs for which only the 25% fare discount provided fare reductions for regular adult riders. These are the remaining AV Line station pairs, excluding the 24 pairs noted on page 1 of this memo. Breaking the data into these two subsets allows for impacts from the S2S fare pilot program to be isolated out, separate from the 25% fare discount. For simplicity, this evaluation includes only data for regular adult riders, which is the majority of Metrolink ridership (because the list of station pairs for which the S2S fares provide additional fare discounts is different for each rider category). The Weekend Day Pass is also excluded, because such ridership is not tracked to individual station pairs. Regular adult riders comprised 73.7% of non-weekend Day Pass ridership on the AV Line from July to December 2014, and 72.7% of non-weekend Day Pass ridership on the AV Line from July to December Exhibit 9 provides the change in AV Line adult ridership by ticket type from July-December 2014 to July- December 2015, separately for the Group 1 station pairs and the Group 2 station pairs. For the Group 1 station pairs, the decline in Monthly Pass ridership of -2.6% and the increase in One-Way Ticket ridership of 98.9% provides evidence for a shift in ridership from the Monthly Pass to Station-to-Station fares. Exhibit 9: Table, AV Line Adult Ridership by Ticket Type (change, Jul-Dec 2014 to Jul-Dec 2015) Group 1: Station Pairs Impacted by Both the 25% Fare Discount and S2S Fares Group 2: Station Pairs Impacted by the 25% Fare Discount Only Jul-Dec Jul-Dec Jul-Dec Jul-Dec % Change % Change One-Way Ticket 19,453 38, % 89, , % Round Trip Ticket 6,596 8, % 33,028 41, % 7-Day Pass 6,736 9, % 36,544 44, % Monthly Pass 70,176 68, % 175, , % Total 102, , % 334, , % Main findings from Exhibit 9 are as follows: For Group 1 station pairs, one-way ticket ridership nearly doubled. Round trip ticket and 7-day pass ridership increased significantly, while monthly pass ridership declined (due to a ridership shift to other fare types). The total ridership increase was +21.8%. For Group 2 station pairs, one-way ticket ridership increased by +17.3%, a much smaller percentage than for Group 1. Round trip ticket, 7-day pass, and monthly pass ridership increased, with monthly pass ridership showing the smallest percentage increase. The total ridership increase was +14.7%. PAGE 9 96

107 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT Exhibit 10 shows the change in adult average fares per trip for one-way ticket riders relative to riders using other fare types, depending on whether the S2S fare program provided additional discounts: Exhibit 10: Adult Average Fares per Trip by Ticket Type (change, Jul-Dec 2014 to Jul-Dec 2015) Jul-Dec 2014 Jul-Dec 2015 Change in Percentage of Riders In Category Average Fare per Trip Percentage of Riders In Category Average Fare per Trip Average Fare per Trip One-Station Trips One-Way Ticket 20.9% $ % $ % Other Fare Types 79.1% $ % $ % All Riders 100.0% $ % $ % Two-Station Trips One-Way Ticket 14.3% $ % $ % Other Fare Types 85.7% $ % $ % All Riders 100.0% $ % $ % Three-Station Trips with S2S Fares* One-Way Ticket 48.9% $ % $ % Other Fare Types 51.1% $ % $ % All Riders 100.0% $ % $ % Four-Station Trips with S2S Fares* One-Way Ticket 37.2% $ % $ % Other Fare Types 62.8% $ % $ % All Riders 100.0% $ % $ % Other AV Line Trips One-Way Ticket 26.7% $ % $ % Other Fare Types 73.3% $ % $ % All Riders 100.0% $ % $ % Total, AV Line One-Way Ticket 24.9% $ % $ % Other Fare Types 75.1% $ % $ % All Riders 100.0% $ % $ % * - Three-Station Trips with S2S Fares for One-Way Tickets include: Sun Valley Santa Clarita, Newhall Vincent Grade/Acton, Santa Clarita Palmdale, and Via Princessa Lancaster. Four-Station Trips with S2S Fares for One- Way Tickets include: Santa Clarita Lancaster. Exhibit 10 shows that the S2S fare discounts, and the percentage of riders who utilize the S2S fares, are highest for one-station trips. The fare discounts are less dramatic for two-station trips and three-station trips with S2S fares. For AV Line adult riders as a whole, one-way ticket riders experienced an average fare reduction of 31.6% compared to an average fare reduction of 21.6% for riders using other fare types (the average fare reduction for other riders is less than 25% due to differences in ridership changes between different station pairs within that category). The share of one-way ticket ridership for the AV Line overall increased from 24.9% to 28.2%. As a whole, from July to December 2015, AV Line riders who used other fare types still paid lower fares per trip on average ($6.03 per trip) than those who used one-way tickets ($7.62 per trip). PAGE 10 97

108 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT Exhibit 11 shows the estimated change in ridership by ticket type on the AV Line, including estimated new ridership and ridership shifts between fare types. Exhibit 11: Change in Ridership by Ticket Type, AV Line (a) Ridership, Jul-Dec 2014 (b) Ridership, Jul-Dec 2015 (c) Estimated New Ridership (d) Estimated Shifted Ridership (b-a) or (c+d) Net Ridership Change Ticket Type 7-Day Pass 53,936 68,112 +9,114 +5, ,176 Monthly Pass 284, , ,050-26, ,824 One Way Ticket 184, , , , ,713 Round Trip Ticket 70,892 93, , , ,586 Weekend Day Pass 78,680 65,527-7,103-6,050-13,153 Overall 671, , , ,146 Exhibit 11 is estimated based on the following methodology: About 54% of the weekend day pass ridership change is assumed to be lost ridership. The 54% factor is based on the ratio of the year 2014 to year 2015 ridership change for the weekend day pass when comparing Jan-Jun to Jul-Dec (the ridership change that took place from Jan-Jun would be non-fare related). The remaining 46% of the weekend pass ridership change is assumed to be ridership that shifted to other fare types. The estimated new ridership for other fare types is assumed to be proportional to year 2014 baseline ridership shares by fare type, of a magnitude sufficient to result in the overall net sixmonth ridership change of 93,146. The estimated shifted ridership is the difference between the net ridership change and the estimated new ridership for each fare type. Based on these assumptions, a ridership shift took place from the monthly pass & weekend pass to the one way ticket, round trip ticket, & 7-day pass. However, with respect to new ridership, the assumption is the monthly pass is still the most commonly selected fare type. A more specific data request pertains to the number of monthly pass riders who shifted to the 7-day pass and to S2S tickets. This was estimated based on the following methodology: Shifted weekend day pass ridership is assumed to shift to one-way tickets and round-trip tickets, rather than the 7-day pass. About 19.4% of the shift to one-way tickets goes to S2S tickets (19.4% is the percentage of Jul-Dec 2015 one-way ticket ridership that are from S2S tickets). Shifted monthly pass ridership is assumed to make up the remainder of the shift. Based on this methodology, the six-month shift in ridership from the monthly pass to the 7-day pass was about 5,062 (an average of about 844 trips per month). The six-month shift in ridership from the monthly pass to S2S tickets was about 2,506 (an average of about 418 trips per month). PAGE 11 98

109 B.2: Weekend Analysis PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT As noted previously, the evaluation provided in Section B.1 did not include the Weekend Day Pass. The Weekend Day Pass presents a challenge from a data perspective because such ridership is not associated with particular station pairs (only the origin station from which the fare was purchased is noted). Based on survey data, about 53% of ridership from Weekend Day Passes sold at AV Line stations had both an origin and destination on the AV Line. From Jul-Dec 2014 to Jul-Dec 2015, AV Line Weekend Day Pass ridership declined from 78,680 to 65,527 (-16.7%). Exhibit 12 shows the change in adult ridership specifically on weekends, from July-December 2014 to July-December 2015, based on the transaction date (as opposed to the start validity date). Exhibit 12: AV Line Adult WEEKEND Ridership by Ticket Type (change, Jul-Dec 2014 to Jul-Dec 2015) Ridership, Jul-Dec 2014 Ridership, Jul-Dec 2015 % Change, Ridership Average Fare per Trip, Jul-Dec 2014 Average Fare per Trip, Jul-Dec 2015 % Change, Average Fare One-Way Ticket 9,497 12, % $10.66 $ % Round Trip Ticket 1,832 2, % $9.73 $ % 7-Day Pass 3,408 5, % $9.25 $ % Monthly Pass 12,992 15, % $7.49 $ % Weekend Day Pass 78,672 65, % $5.00 $ % Total 106, , % $6.54 $ % Exhibit 12 shows that AV Line weekend ridership decreased by 4.3%. The growth in ridership for other fare types partially offset the ridership loss from the Weekend Day Pass. B.3: Estimated Allocation of Ridership Impacts Between the Fare Programs In comparing the fares for one-way tickets for Group 1 station pairs from Jul-Dec 2015 to Jul-Dec 2014, the average fare per trip went down by 52.1% for adult riders or 47.3% for riders as a whole. If the S2S program was not in place, the average fare per trip would have gone down by about 25% due to the 25% fare reduction program. An assumption is made that the S2S fare program accounts for half of the ridership growth for Group 1 station pairs, as the S2S program accounted for about half of the fare reduction for one-way tickets. This is shown in the row for ID 2; the hypothetical ridership change shown is half of the actual ridership change from ID 1. As such, the incremental impact of the S2S fare versus the 25% fare reduction can be estimated by calculating the difference between the actual Group 1 ridership impact and the hypothetical Group 1 ridership impact without the S2S fare (ID 3), as shown in Exhibit 13: PAGE 12 99

110 PHASE II TASK 1. SIX-MONTH EVALUATION OF THE AV LINE PILOT Exhibit 13: Estimated AV Line Ridership and Fare Revenue Change Due to 25% Fare Reduction versus Station to Station Fares (from Jul-Dec 2014 to Jul-Dec 2015) ID Jul-Dec 2014 Jul-Dec 2015 Change, # Change, % Regular Adult Riders 1 Actual 102, , , % 2 Hypothetical, without Group 1 S2S 102, , , % Ridership Difference (ID 1 ID 2; 3 Impact of S2S +11, % Program) 4 Group 2 Ridership Actual 334, , , % 5 Total, Group 1 + Group 2 Actual 437, , , % 6 Station to Station Fare Impact (ID 3) +11, % Fare Reduction Impact (ID 5 ID 3) +60,272 Extrapolate to Include All Riders 8 Station to Station Fare Impact +14, % Fare Reduction Impact +78,518 Total Ridership Impact 671, , , % Based on regular adult ridership, the S2S fare program accounted for an estimated +11,229 in six-month ridership growth (ID 6 in Exhibit 13), as compared to +60,272 for the 25% fare reduction (ID 7). Of the total adult ridership change of +71,501 observed from Jul-Dec 2014 to Jul-Dec 2015, the S2S fare program accounted for an estimated 15.7% of the ridership change compared to 84.3% for the 25% fare reduction. Assuming those same percentages of 15.7% (S2S) and 84.3% (25% fare reduction) hold for all riders, IDs 8 and 9 in Exhibit 13 show the extrapolated impacts for total ridership. The S2S fare program is estimated to account for +14,628 (15.7%) of the total ridership change observed, while the 25% fare reduction is estimated to account for +78,518 (84.3%) of the total ridership change. In total, the two fare programs together increased ridership by +93,146 (increase of 13.9%) during the six-month period, based on the assumption that the ridership change observed was solely the result of the fare changes as opposed to any external factors. It is assumed that the same percentages of 15.7% and 84.3% apply to the fare revenue impact observed during the six-month comparison from Jul-Dec 2014 to Jul-Dec As such, the S2S fare program is estimated to account for -$100,172 (15.7%) of the total fare revenue change observed, while the 25% fare reduction is estimated to account for -$537,674 (84.3%) of the total fare revenue change. In total, the two fare programs together decreased fare revenue by -$637,846 (decrease of 12.2%) during the six-month period, again based on the assumption that the revenue change observed was solely the result of the fare changes as opposed to any external factors. Going forward, Metrolink s AV Line ridership and fare revenue data for the timeframe from Jan-Jun 2016 should be helpful in confirming the findings from this evaluation, since the 25% fare reduction program will be in effect while the S2S fare program will not. PAGE

111 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 19, 2016 MEETING DATE: February 26, 2016 ITEM 18 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy 10-Year Strategic Plan and Five-Year Short Range Transit Plan Final Draft Feedback Update Issue Staff is providing an update on the comments received by the member agencies on the 10- Year Strategic Plan and Five-Year Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) following a workshop held on December 18, Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background The Board along with the five member agency Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Chief Financial Officers (CFOs), and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members were invited to the December 18, 2015 workshop to review and finalize the final draft Strategic Plan and Short Range Transit Plan which was presented at the December 11, 2015 Board meeting. The minutes of the Board workshop and feedback received were approved at the January 15, 2016 Board meeting. Since the workshop, the Authority has been working with the member agencies to address comments to the 10-Year Strategic Plan and 5-Year SRTP. As of February 9, 2016, staff received formal comments from San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). Staff anticipates receiving formal comments from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in the near future. No additional comments are expected to be received from Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The comments received are included in Attachment A. Staff will address these comments into the final Strategic Plan and SRTP documents. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

112 10-Year Strategic Plan and Five-Year Short Range Transit Plan Final Draft Feedback Update Page 2 Next Steps Staff will work on revisions to the documents and bring the final 10-Year Strategic Plan/Five- Year Short Range Transit Plan to the Board in March 2016 for anticipated adoption. Upon adoption and in concert with Member Agencies, items from the Plan and SRTP will be incorporated into future budget processes and work programming. Additionally, engagement with staff will focus on the development of the Authority s goals and objectives that relate to the guiding principles of the Plan. Budget Impact There is no budgetary impact as a result of this report. Prepared by: Ron Mathieu, Sr. Public Project Specialist Roderick Diaz, Director, Planning and Development Kimberly Yu Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Planning and Project Delivery) Gary Lettengarver Chief Operating Officer 102

113 Attachment A 103

114 104

115 Attachment A 105

116 106