METRO: RICHARD KATZ (VICE-CHAIR) 1 1 (4 votes) MICHAEL ANTONOVICH 1 1 ARA NAJARIAN 1 DON KNABE 1 1 JAIME DE LA VEGA 1 BEATRICE PROO BOB BARTLETT

Transcription

1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY M I N U T E S O F T H E S C R R A B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S M E E T I N G A N D B U D G E T W O R K S H O P J A N U A R Y 2 2, ITEM 5 BOARD MEMBERS/ALTERNATES PRESENT: VOTES VCTC: KEITH MILLHOUSE (CHAIR) 1 (1 vote) BRIAN HUMPHREY 1 METRO: RICHARD KATZ (VICE-CHAIR) 1 1 (4 votes) MICHAEL ANTONOVICH 1 1 ARA NAJARIAN 1 DON KNABE 1 1 JAIME DE LA VEGA 1 BEATRICE PROO BOB BARTLETT SANBAG: PAUL EATON 1 (2 votes) PATRICK MORRIS 1 DIANE WILLIAMS OCTA: ART BROWN 2 (2 votes) RCTC: DARYL BUSCH 2 (2 votes) EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: SCAG: PAUL GLAAB 1 STAFF PRESENT: ERIC HALEY, Chief Executive Officer STEVE WYLIE, Assistant Executive Officer, Finance & Administration GRAY CRARY, Assistant Executive Officer, Operating Services HELEN PARKER, SCRRA Counsel CARRIE BATES, Executive Assistant Meeting minutes are presented in a format that corresponds with the Board Meeting Agenda, which is incorporated by reference with these minutes. SCRRA Board Agendas are available online at under the Board Agenda link, or from the Board Secretary at Directors Humphrey, Antonovich, De la Vega, Katz and Knabe joined the meeting during discussion of Item 4. Director Glaab joined the meeting during discussion of Item 17 and Director Antonovich left during Item 17, and Director Bartlett assumed his vote on the remainder of the agenda items. HOA S. Flower Street, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA

2 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 2 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority Board of Directors was called to order at 10:02 a.m. at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) offices, located at 818 W. Seventh St., 12 th Floor San Bernardino Conference Room, Los Angeles, California. Chairman Millhouse presided over the meeting. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Director Brown led the assembly on the pledge of allegiance. 3. Public Comment None. REGULAR CALENDAR LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 4. Legislative Updates SCRRA s federal lobbyist, Mr. David Turch, provided an update on strategies for federal funding through annual appropriations and surface transportation reauthorization. Mr. Turch stated that $50 million will be kept on the agenda for rail safety, noting rail safety is a grant process that is competitive nationally and other railroads will also try to obtain these funds. Mr. Turch commented that he is attempting to place Metrolink as the highest priority in rail safety, noting that when Metrolink develops Positive Train Control (PTC) in the Los Angeles basin every railroad in America can duplicate this process; so this priority is a fair, equitable, and good way to invest tax dollars. Metrolink s needed funds for PTC will need to come from multiple sources. He noted that Chairman Millhouse went to Washington, D.C. last year seeking funding for PTC and, as a result, he was able to meet with Chairman Oberstar and Senator Barbara Boxer who continues to fight for federal funding for PTC, commenting these types of meetings are effective... He further noted that last month, the Senate approved an appropriations bill that included nearly $500,000, sought by Senator Boxer, for Metrolink to begin installing PTC technology, and added that Chairman Oberstar has always tried to support legislation for rail safety. Mr. Turch will be meeting with Congressman Gary Miller. Director Najarian asked if this is the right timing to seek federal legislation that permits or mandates the use of cameras, and Mr. Turch replied that the timing is not only appropriate but advantageous, noting that he will be recommending it, although it is a hard sell to the Unions. Mr. Turch will talk to Senator Boxer and Chairman Oberstar about cameras, although politically it may be a challenge. Director Morris concurred with Mr. Turch, noting this needs to be done and suggested that Chairman Millhouse return to Washington, D.C. with Mr. Turch and make the issue known. Mr. Turch also discussed support for seating a California representative on the Amtrak Board of Directors.

3 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Mark Watts, SCRRA s state advocate, gave an update and presentation on the state funding landscape, current budget proposals that impact transportation and funding strategies for Metrolink. Mr. Watts stated that there is an ongoing budget calamity in Sacramento, and relayed that the Governor is proposing a budget gas tax swap for the FY to eliminate the fuel sales tax revenues, estimated at $2.8 billion. This revenue loss would be partially offset with 10.8 cents per gallon gas tax increase, which would generate about $1.9 billion to be used for the following: $629 million for state highways; $629 million for local roads; $603 million for debt service on transportation bonds. The Governor s proposal would use an additional $400 million in transportation funds to pay other General Fund debtservice costs. Mr. Watts discussed the impact of this proposal, highlighting that there would be a net reduction in transportation revenues of about $1 billion in , which represents a tax cut for California motorists equivalent to about 5 cents per gallon. He also noted that no new state funding would be provided for public transit and rail in the budget year, which under the current law would be approximately $1.6 billion. The Governor s proposal introduces dedicated funding source to pay the transportation debt service in addition to funding from the General Fund. Mr. Watts also reviewed the interaction of sales tax on fuels and how revenue is distributed. He noted that the Governor s proposal cuts $2.8 million from transportation, and backfills $1.9 billion for STIP, roads and General Fund debt service, and an additional $936 million in budget headroom for future debt service. Mr. Watts outlined the implications of the budget proposals for member agencies, which have a significant impact by the loss of PTA and STA funding. He also reviewed some conceptual strategies for dedicated transit funding replacements, such as vehicle registration fees, a new statutory authority for increasing Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding as a local option and a potential new state tax to fit within the net tax cut. Director Morris stated that it would help to have diagnostics pertaining to the Governor s budget for our transportation needs. Mr. Watts stated there is confusion and much wondering about the benefits and risks of the Governor s proposal, noting that a proposal is being drafted now in Sacramento that will look at other ways to fund transit. He explained the bill will look at a possible fee on gas, and would ask the Governor to supplement funds for transit. Director Katz asked Mr. Watts if they have reviewed the proposed ballot initiatives of the local governments and transit, as it relates to Article 19 and recent budget proposals, noting that he does not believe the initiative as written protects transit operations. Mr. Watts explained that under current law the initiative proponents are correct in stating that transit operations funds are protected as written; however, under the Governor s fuel sales tax and excise tax swap proposal, there is no provision that would protect transit operations funding as transit is not an eligible

4 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 4 expense under Article 19. Mr. Watts noted that this poses another significant challenge, as there isn t a way to protect against eliminating a tax which funds transit. There was no staff recommendation or written report. The Board received and filed this report. Chairman Millhouse announced the Agenda would be reordered to proceed with Item 17 Board member comments. 17. Board Member Comments Chairman Millhouse reported on the outcome of the National Transportation Safety Board s (NTSB) hearing, which took place yesterday, January 21, He noted that it was difficult for those affected by the accident in Chatsworth in September 2008, to relive the event, and that was at the front of our thoughts. The Chairman summarized the hearing and stated that the NTSB determined that the accident was caused by the failure of the Connex engineer to observe and appropriately respond to the warning signals and the red light preceding the accident because he was engaged in text messaging a violation of Metrolink policies and the railroad General Code of Operating Rules. There were 43 text messages on the engineer s cell phone record to a young kid who he was supposed to meet later that day. He noted the engineer had been counseled by Connex supervisors against cell phone use two times previously, but no action was taken against him. Metrolink was unaware of this conduct and never received notification from Connex of the misconduct. The NTSB characterized the Connex engineer s actions, which directly led to 25 fatalities and numerous injuries, as egregious and his efforts to evade safety and operating rules that revealed a disturbing pattern of willful misbehavior. Chairman Millhouse further summarized that the NTSB's investigation also determined that allegations against Metrolink s signal system, dispatch system, equipment, training and experience, track conditions, alcohol or illegal drug use of crewmembers, weather, crew fatigue, the engineer s medical conditions or treatment and operation of the Union Pacific train did not play a role in the accident and were not to blame. All the physical evidence found that the signal was red and there were no abnormalities with the signal system. The witnesses who claimed the light was green were not confirmed as credible witnesses. He noted there is a history of eye witness testimony being inconsistent with physical evidence, and this is not a new finding. For various reasons, they thought they saw a green signal. It was also noted that there were no radio anomalies up to the point of impact; therefore the allegations that signals were called but not recorded because of dead zones could not have occurred according to the test results. Additionally, it was noted that fatigue did not play a role, and signage was appropriate and the NTSB also pointed that the Metrolink delayed-in-block rule is more restrictive than Emergency Order 20. The NTSB Chairwoman noted that the engineer is obligated to track the signal the entire time he is operating the train, not just at the station, however, he was preoccupied with texting messages.

5 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 5 The Chairman summarized that the NTSB investigation, which took 16 months, had two recommendations: (1) Recommended that the FRA require the implementation of video and audio recording systems in the control cabs of all train locomotives nationwide. Chairman Millhouse noted he was pleased that the NTSB affirmed the merit and wisdom this Agency took in installing the inward facing cameras. (2) Emphasized that PTC must be operational and installed. The NTSB stated that had a fully implemented Positive Train Control (PTC) system been available and in place, it would have intervened and the collision would not have occurred. Chairman Millhouse concluded that Metrolink will continue to work towards implementation of PTC by 2012, much earlier than the federal mandate of 2015, despite some challenges which include funding, installation of equipment and a very complex operating environment. He noted it is crucial that the elected officials at the State and Federal levels recognize the importance of this system to Southern California and the country and step up with tangible funds. Chairman Millhouse further noted that next month Metrolink will be introducing the most technologically advanced cars in the nation with the Crash Energy Management features and unique to the commuter rail industry. He thanked staff for enduring criticism through the difficult period that followed the Chatsworth accident, and acknowledged their efforts and time committed. Director Katz also thanked staff for their efforts while the investigation was ongoing. He stated that it is worth noting that Metrolink took several actions to improve safety and spent a considerable amount of funds much earlier than the NTSB hearings started, including the establishment of a Safety Peer Review Panel within 60 days of the collision. He noted that the NTSB plays a critical role and, although he understands the investigation must be thorough, it would have been helpful if the NTSB would have completed their investigation one year ago, as their recommendation requiring the implementation of inward facing cameras would have had a tremendous impact. He also highlighted that it is clear from the NTSB findings that this was the action of individuals that knowingly violated laws and rules and the lack of oversight by Connex management, and not a class of engineers and conductors. He further noted that the negotiating team for the Amtrak contract made certain provisions that were included in the contract language relating to safety, such as more safety inspections, more testing requirements, the clear authority for Metrolink staff to go into the cab, and Metrolink s ability to keep a particular engineer off the Metrolink system if Metrolink is made aware of unacceptable actions. He added that Metrolink is committed to implementing PTC by the year 2012, and is pleased to see the NTSB validated the work that Metrolink has done.

6 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 6 Director Morris commented that "today s news will be tomorrow s fish wrap", noting that it is important for the Chairman to return to Washington, D.C. to drive home the issues of inward facing cameras and PTC, which are underfunded. Mr. Eric Haley, Chief Executive Officer, also commented on the findings, noting that we are building a redundant system of safety measures, which as previously noted, was initiated several years before the Chatsworth collision, such as the Crash Energy Management components in the new rail cars. Planning, implementation and staff restructuring based on the direction of the Safety Peer Review Panel also took place, and Metrolink continues to be the leader in the nation in the implementation of the CEM and the inward facing cameras. He thanked staff for all their efforts, noting that he takes pride in the fact that we have responded well to a horrific tragedy. He specifically acknowledged Ms. Angie Starr, Mr. Francisco Oaxaca and their colleagues for their intense efforts in preparing for the NTSB hearing. Vice-Chairman Katz commented that it is ironic there is no media in the audience today to cover the discussion on the outcome of the NTSB hearing. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Millhouse stated that all matters on the Consent Calendar would be approved in one motion unless a Board member or member of the public requested separate action on a specific item. Upon a motion made by Director Eaton, seconded by Director Bartlett, the Board approved the Consent Calendar (Items 5 through 13, as revised). There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Approval of Minutes January 8, 2010 Board meeting ACTION: The Board approved the minutes of the January 8, 2010 Board meeting. 6. Approval of Annual Investment Policy Update ACTION: The Board: 1. Approved the annual update to the SCRRA investment policy; 2. Reaffirmed the delegation of investing authority of Treasurer to the Controller. 7. Quarterly Investment Report Quarter Ended December 31, 2009 Section VII of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority s Annual Investment Policy requires that the Treasurer make a quarterly investment report to the Board of Directors, and Section 53646(b) and (k) of the California Government Code encourages local agencies to file this report. This report covered the second quarter ended December 31, There was no staff recommendation. The Board received and filed this report. 8. Audit Activity Status Report This report presented status of activities for previous and current audits. Also reported were audits scheduled in the near term. There was no staff recommendation. The Board received and filed this report.

7 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 7 9. Quarterly Update on Liability Claims/Suits Quarter Ended December 31, 2009 This report is provided to the Board on a quarterly basis to update them on resolved and pending third-party operating liability and construction claims. There was no staff recommendation. The Board received and filed this report. 10. Delegate Authority to the Chief Executive Officer for the Purpose of Obtaining Financial Assistance Provided by the California Emergency Management Agency ACTION: The Board approved Resolution to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute for and on behalf of the SCRRA, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance provided by the State of California Emergency Management Agency. 11. Crisis Communications and Media Relations Professional Consultant Services - Approval of Revised Evaluation Criteria ACTION: The Board approved the proposed revised evaluation criteria, detailed in the staff report, specifying a weighting of eighty percent (80%) for technical qualifications and twenty percent (20%) for cost, to retain a firm to provide crisis communication and media relations professional consultant services. 12. Revisions to Contract Administration and Procedures Manual (CA&P) CON-17, Protest Policy ACTION: The Board amended CA&P CON-17, Protest Policy to change the protest period required for specialized rail equipment such as the upcoming Positive Train Control solicitation to conform to the verbatim requirements of state law with respect to protest filing time limits as set out in California Public Utilities Code Section Contract No. C Pomona Station Platform Extension and Parking Lot Expansion Recommendation to Award L.A. Engineering, Inc. ACTION: The Board authorized the Chief Executive Officer to execute Contract No. C for Pomona Station Platform Extension and Parking Lot Expansion to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, L.A. Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $5,517,141.50, plus a fifteen percent contingency of $827,571.23, for a total amount not-to-exceed $6,344, This award is subject to resolution of any protest timely filed. REGULAR CALENDAR 14. FY Budget Workshop Mr. Haley commented that staff is asking the Board for guidance on several specific strategies to incrementally start to balance the FY budget (5%-10%) which must be submitted to the member agencies by April 30, 2010, and the Board s support to explore all options, noting that this is taking place during an extraordinary moment in our nation s economy, referencing Metro s challenge of $251 million relating to Proposition C, as well as the challenges that all of our member agencies face.

8 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Steve Wylie, Assistant Executive Officer, Finance and Administration, noted that staff just concluded amendments to the FY budget last week, and as indicated by Mr. Haley, there are unprecedented challenges facing public transportation agencies in California as ridership and revenues continue to decrease. However, he noted we cannot continue to sustain the projections of growth under the current economic situation and it is necessary to retrench in various ways. He referenced the Informational Booklet prepared by staff in preparation for this discussion (Attachment 1- A to these minutes), and presented a PowerPoint (Attachment 1-B) highlighting the goals of the options presented today. He noted that it is important to have an understanding of the structure and content of the Agency s budget, and staff will explore various options to close the anticipated budget gap, and will seek direction from the Board going forward as staff continues to prepare this budget. Mr. Wylie highlighted certain sections of the Informational Booklet Attachment 1A, including the FY budget status, as detailed in Attachment E of the booklet, noting that that the Operating FY10 budget is $167.5 million, the Capital budget is in excess of $434.3 million, and the Recollectable component is $4.6 million. He explained that the Capital budget is funded from grants, state, federal agencies, or from member agencies and operating revenues also come from freight operations. Mr. Wylie also discussed expenses, explained the formula and process for allocating costs, noting that insurance premiums had increased to $18 million, and reviewed the staffing structure, as detailed in the Informational Booklet. He explained that staff currently consists of 230 Board-authorized positions, with an additional 525 positions under labor contracts, noting that of these positions are working on PTC under the direction of the Director of Engineering and Construction. Mr. Wylie further reviewed contractual obligations relative to the operating budget, as detailed on Page 22 of the Informational Booklet Attachment 1A, noting that the four largest contracts (Operating Train Crews and Maintenance of Equipment, Track and Structures and Signal and Communications maintenance) constitute 45% of the total operating budget expenses for the upcoming fiscal year. He added that staff s preliminary estimate is a significantly increased member agency subsidy requirement estimated at $17.3 million, and staff is currently exploring all options to address this shortfall. Chairman Millhouse suggested there may be some merit to reconfiguring some of the routes and better utilization of crews, as well as the current structure at Los Angeles Union Station, which should be considered as a flow through rather than a stop, as there may be a potential pool of riders that may help increase ridership and revenues. Director Morris asked for clarification on the actual recommended reduction amount based on the projections, noting that there s a big difference between 5% and 10%.

9 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 9 Mr. Wylie responded that, rather than looking at a percentage, he would suggest that the Board focus on a number ($17 million), which is the projected shortfall as of today. Director Glaab stated that OCTA does budget projections for two years, and asked if SCRRA is only projecting for one year due to the extraordinary circumstances it currently faces. Mr. Wylie explained SCRRA does a two-year projection but only does detailed planning only for the following fiscal year. He referenced Attachment E in the Informational Booklet (Attachment 1-A), noting the two columns projecting the FY10-11 and FY11-12 budgets. This estimate projects that the most significant challenge of the next two years will be faced in FY Mr. Gray Crary, Assistant Executive Officer, Operating Services, presented a PowerPoint on Service Design (Attachment 1-C). He explained what s involved in service design, including service projections, the technical development of the schedule, operating requirements and costs, terminal capacity, connections with other transit operators and other Metrolink trains, noting that almost 50% of outlying tracks are single tracks which present a big constraint. Mr. Crary also explained the relationship between train departure time, ridership, and crew cycles, noting that each cycle has trains with high and low ridership. He explained the basic crew formula, as detailed in Attachment 1-C, as well as costeffective results detailing line savings and rest periods. He explained that reducing service is one of the tools in the bag to address the budget shortfall, however, it is important to understand that by reducing some low productive trains you may also be reducing some high productive trains, noting staff needs some clear direction from the Board as to their willingness to consider crew reductions (i.e. peak weekday service train reduction) in order to address the fiscal imbalance. Chairman Millhouse stated that Director Antonovich had previously raised a question on the ability to use the Antelope Valley Transit Authority buses laying over in Los Angeles for outlying areas to supplement service, which may allow us to use trains in much more needed areas. Mr. Haley noted that, per Director Antonovich s request, a meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday with Mr. Randy Floyd, Executive Director, Antelope Valley Transit Authority, to discuss this subject. Director Morris brought attention to the Weekday Schedule presented in the PowerPoint (Attachment 1-C, pg 5), and asked for clarification if the crew highlighted in Line 21, a midday run from Los Angeles to San Bernardino, was part time or is this a full-day schedule for this crew. Mr. Crary explained that they are physically only working part time, but due to the collective bargaining agreement, that crew is paid for an 8-hour day. This can be contrasted to a crew that has a much longer schedule with a pay structure that gives them full time for the first 8-hours, overtime for more than 8- hours, and are paid for off time, noting this is part of the collective bargaining agreement. He explained the first example is usually held by a low seniority position as it is a lesser-paying job, and the senior crews prefer the longer days.

10 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 10 Director Najarian inquired if Metrolink was foreseeing making adjustments to the service during this fiscal year during the Amtrak contract negotiations, noting that would have been an opportunity to build in some flexibility to eliminate routes that are nonproductive without bearing the burden of almost being forced to continue to operate; and asked if the Amtrak contract presents some advantages in this regard. Mr. Crary explained that Metrolink provides Amtrak with the service schedule that it wants them to provide, and this reflects the service reductions that the Board approved at the last meeting. Amtrak will then present their proposed schedule, and staff anticipates a major reduction on the extra board. There was further discussion in this regard, as well as on hours of service, direct cost negotiations, incentives and crew reductions vs. train reductions, which is where we maximize cost savings. Mr. Gray Crary presented a PowerPoint on Metrolink s Fleet Utilization plan, describing the current active fleet. He explained there are currently 154 cars are in service, consisting of three generations of Bombardier cars and 20 leased vehicles. However, as we start to receive the Rotem rail cars (totaling 117 cars 57 of which are cab cars), it is important to budget for the right number of personnel to maintain the fleet. He also discussed additional cars that may be needed for service expansion and projected ridership growth, which may bring the total fleet to be maintained to 194 cars. Director Morris inquired about the cars that were previously leased and options in regards to the terms of those leases, and Mr. Crary explained that the leased cars are not included in the active-fleet chart presented. He explained that there are different arrangements with the various agencies; the Sounder and ACE cars have been returned and are off the books; the Utah cars are not anticipated to be in the budget next fiscal year. However, the lease with New Jersey Transit is a 5-year lease and will continue to be in service next year. He reminded the Board that the Strategic Assessment projected that 289 cars would be needed by 2015, noting that if these projections are accurate, Metrolink will be short of cars in the next 5-7 years. Mr. Crary also briefly commented on current negotiations relating to a proposed lease for the use of the Eastern Maintenance Facility to assemble the first 39 Rotem cars, and possible funds that may be generated from this lease but also prevents the use of the EMF for its original intended purpose, which is to maintain the fleet. Mr. Steve Lantz, Director, Communications and Development, discussed the proposed modifications to the Rail2Rail Program with Amtrak, noting that Metrolink and member agency staffs have been negotiating an affordable solution with Caltrans and Amtrak to re-design the Rail 2 Rail program in response to Intercity Rail fiscal concerns expressed by the California Department of Finance, and overcrowding concerns on Pacific Surfliner trains expressed by Amtrak and Caltrans. He reminded the Board that under the current Rail2Rail program, if you are a Metrolink monthly pass holder you can ride either Metrolink or Amtrak trains on the Ventura and/or Orange County Lines; and currently, Metro, OCTA and VCTC are subsidizing this program. Mr. Lantz explained the two alternatives proposed by staff, as detailed in page 25 of the

11 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 11 Informational Booklet Attachment 1A: (1) eliminating the program this would eliminate the $1.29 million subsidy but riders would only have access to half the current number of trains, which may impact ridership and crowding onboard the remaining Metrolink trains; (2) introduce a premium monthly Metrolink Rail2Rail pass priced at 15% over a comparable Metrolink monthly pass, which would entitle riders to use Amtrak Rail2Rail trains.. Metrolink would reduce its subsidy to the same level as the original budget for FY ($1.29 million) and also would forward the incremental revenue from the 15% price premium to Amtrak each month. Staff estimates this approach would result in an average reimbursement to Amtrak of $5/rider compared with $3.41 current reimbursement. He further explained the member agencies had previously reviewed options considering $7-$9 per rider, but it was determined the member agencies could not support such an increase in Rail2Rail subsidies. Director Brown commented about the State making a statement that they couldn t buy rail cars because of the Rail2Rail program, noting that he attended an Intercity Rail meeting in Sacramento last month and it was clear that the reason why they could not buy rail cars was due to the State not selling the bonds. Mr. Lantz outlined the proposed modified transfer reimbursement policy, as detailed on page 25 of the Informational Booklet Attachment 1A, noting that currently Metrolink spends approximately $1.5 million on transfers. Under the first alternative, SCRRA would reimburse Metro based on half of Metro s base fare (62.5 cents per transfer) boarding rather than the current $1.10 average cash fare that was imposed by EZ Transit Pass participants in FY2008. This would represent a saving to SCRRA of approximately $2.16 million in FY Under a second alternative, SCRRA would suspend reimbursements to member agencies (Metro and OCTA), representing a savings to Metrolink of approximately $5.5 million in FY Mr. Wylie also discussed other sections of the Informational Booklet (Attachment 1-A) and PowerPoint (Attachment 1-B), including administrative budget reductions, vendor concessions, non-fare revenues (such as onboard advertising, station and right of way advertising and licensing, etc), and member agency support. He noted Mr. Lantz will be presenting fare adjustments and restructuring proposals as part of the next item, and he thanked the staff that contributed in preparing the budget workshop and fare restructuring materials. There was no staff recommendation. The Board received and filed this report. 15. Public Communications Outreach Plan for the Public Review Process in Advance of Consideration of Future Fiscal Year (FY10-11) Fare Adjustments and Fare Restructuring Proposals Mr. Lantz noted that the three-part public review process recommended is required to comply with state and federal law prior to Board consideration and possible future

12 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 12 action on proposed fare increases to be effective July 1, 2010 and possible restructuring of several fare media attributes and discount rates. He reviewed each recommended fare policy options, as noted below and detailed in the staff report. Fare restructuring options: 1. Increase 10 Trip ticket price to 5% below One-way Tickets (from $ 832, %) and reduce Ticket Validity period from 90 days to 45 days (optional: 30 days) 2. Reduce S/D discount on Passes and 10 trip tickets to 25% $ 768, Eliminate Weekend ticket discount $ 466, Eliminate the discount on Roundtrip Tickets to equal One-way $ 284,000 ticket rates. 5. Eliminate the 80-mile Cap on Long Distance Fares for One-way, $ 133,000 Roundtrip and 10-trip Tickets 6. Restructure Student Fares and reduce Discount to 10% from 25% $ 81, Introduce a promotional Off-Peak 2-Pack ($ TBD ) $ - 8. Implement new promotional 10% discount for Active Military $ - 9. Restructure Rail2Rail ($ TBD pending ongoing negotiations between Caltrans, Amtrak and affected Metrolink member agencies) 10. Implement new promotional Intra-County Tickets ($ TBD pending ongoing negotiations with member agencies) System-wide Average Fare Increase (if 6% were approved) $ 3,400,000 Maximum revenue increase if all changes were implemented $ 5,964,400 The Board engaged in a lengthy discussion about the options presented, requesting clarification on some of the proposals. Chairman Millhouse inquired about the necessary process to notice a public hearing, and Mr. Lantz noted that staff needs further direction from the Board as to which alternatives it wants to include in the public outreach. He explained, however, that although staff can wait a couple of weeks for the Board to make a decision, it cannot wait until March due to the complexity of the computer programming and the programming of the Ticket Vending Machines. Director Morris asked about staffing within Metrolink, and asked staff if Amtrak has services that are being duplicated or if SCRRA can eliminate certain positions in the case of redundancy. Mr. Crary stated that staff will bring a better explanation of each position within Metrolink and its responsibilities, as well as the contracted Amtrak staff; and clarified that currently there are no overlapping positions or scopes of work. Director Morris also inquired about PTC employees in the Engineering and Equipment Departments and on the PTC program. He noted that there is one provider of this technology, however we have a staff dedicated to generating standards, etc in- house and questioned whether we should consider sole-sourcing this effort to avoid

13 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 13 duplication and possibly reduce costs. Mr. Crary explained that there is one vendor of a critical component of PTC, but they do not do all the specialized functions required for PTC (dispatching, back office, operating rules, and training) and there are other elements that they do not provide, noting that BNSF and the UP railroads have significant staff dedicated to this specialized effort. Director Knabe asked if the PTC vendor provides training, and Mr. Crary explained this vendor would provide training on how to maintain the on-board equipment, however, they would not provide training to the engineer as to how to utilize the equipment to coincide with the operating rules. Mr. Wylie pointed out that the PTC staff is charged to the PTC project and this does not affect the Operating budget. Director Brown commented that early on the Board discussed having our own in-house safety personnel to oversee the contractors and perform additional safety tests, and Director Morris noted that at that time we were concerned about existing contractor management, and that now we are looking at a provider that seems to have a better reputation and perhaps staff should consider the option of having less staffing in that area. Chairman Millhouse noted there is a $17 million budget shortfall that needs to be addressed, noting this shortfall does not require only service cuts, but may also require a fare increase and restructuring of fares. In addition, staff is also considering reductions in expenses. Director Morris stated it is important to focus on the potential of a 6% fare increase due the large shortfall and it is important to emphasize this to the public, and Director Brown concurred. Mr. Haley reiterated the three big items for consideration by the Board, including the Rail2Rail program, the transfer reimbursement policy, and the 5%-10% service modifications, in addition to the fare restructuring and fare increase. Director Brown introduced a motion to entertain all options presented. Director Morris concurred seconding the motion. Mr. Lantz asked for clarification on the fare increase, as staff also presents a range rather than a single percentage increase. Director Morris agreed it was ok for staff to proceed with the 3%-6% range as a recommendation, however, he emphasized the importance of keying on the potential need to have a 6% increase. Director Bartlett asked if it s necessary to continue with the two sets of eyes practice now that the inward facing cameras are in operation. Chairman Millhouse explained that there has been a transition from having an engineer as a second set of eyes to having additional supervisorial staff in the cab with the cameras being in place. The second set of eyes has become more of a supervisorial role-personnel than an actual engineer that Metrolink is paying for; therefore we are not incurring extra costs by having additional staff in the cab who are not otherwise on the payroll. Mr. Crary clarified that the Agency is going through a transition period and most of the second set

14 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page 14 of eyes was done using extra-board employees, who are now going into the required Connext training that needs to take place before we transition completely to Amtrak. Chairman Millhouse noted that the second set of eyes issue causes anxiety for some decision makers in Washington, D.C. and he does not want to send the perception that this practice is being scaled back as a cost savings measure, because it is not, clarifying that there s required training and this is a transition period. Chairman Millhouse clarified the motion, introduced by Director Brown and seconded by Director Morris, to evaluate all the options that were presented by staff. Director Morris inquired about staffing again, noting that although he understands that is only 11% of the budget, all of the cities and counties have undergone an analysis of the staffing costs and suggested that staff consider doing the same here (i.e. analysis of health care plans, retirement, hiring freeze, etc). Mr. Haley asked for clarification, and Director Morris stated that his agency is taking a 10% reduction in staffing. Director Brown noted SCRRA staff has already taken many actions in this regard and Mr. Haley reviewed the reductions SCRRA staff has already taken in the current fiscal year, including no pay increases, 4-pay periods without accruing Time off With Pay (TOWP) days which equals a 4% reduction, and a 20% higher contribution to the cost of their health care program. Chairman Millhouse stated the employees have taken most of the brunt, and we did not do a fare increase, and he does not feel it is appropriate for the employees to cover everything when there are other areas that need to be adjusted. Vice-Chairman Katz stated that unless a position is safety-related and safety-critical, Metrolink should not be hiring. Mr. Haley stated staff will return to the Board with a package and a dollar target, not a reduction in staffing, as staff is already reduced to a minimum. Chairman Millhouse reiterated the motion by Director Brown and seconded by Director Morris. There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Wylie asked for clarification, asking if the Board wanted to consider all options presented, including the options discussed in the Budget Workshop (Item 14) and Chairman Millhouse concurred, noting the Board would like to see a presentation on all items that were proposed by staff today. Director Brown suggested that the Board should consider examining the Board s own stipend. ACTION: The Board unanimously approved staff s recommendations as noted below: A. A public communications outreach plan for the public review process related to proposed future actions on potential fare adjustments to be implemented no earlier than July 1, B. A public review process for the possible future restructuring of fare media attributes and discounts related to: trip ticket pricing and validity period

15 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page Round trip ticket discounts 3. Senior/Disabled discounts on 10-trip tickets and monthly passes 4. Student discounts on 10-trip and monthly pass and restructuring 5. Active-duty military one-way and roundtrip tickets 6. Weekend fare discounts 7. Intra-county fare discounts 8. Rail 2 Rail fare restructuring 9. Off-peak fare restructuring 10. Eliminating 80-mile cap on Long Distance fares C. A public review process prior to Board consideration of a system-wide average fare increase ranging from 3% to 6%. The Board will also consider the options presented by staff as part of the Budget Workshop (Item 14), including modifications to the Rail2Rail program, the transit reimbursement policy, and others as detailed in the informational materials. 16. Chief Executive Officer s Report Mr. Haley commended Senior Management and the Finance and Communications staff for working extended hours and diligently on preparing materials for the Board Budget Workshop and the NTSB hearing. Director Morris concurred, noting that the materials produced for this meeting reflects the high level of detail and effort that was dedicated to this effort, and thanked staff for preparing this high-quality workshop. Mr. Haley also reported that staff is moving forward in generating a Strategic Plan one of the recommendations by the Safety Peer Review Panel, noting the Agency has retained the services of Mr. Stan Oftelie, who has infinite knowledge in transportation and is known regionally as well as in Sacramento in both the private and public sector. Mr. Haley noted staff is moving forward in organizing a PTC summit, as previously requested by Chairman Millhouse. Staff will be meeting soon to discuss scenarios and timelines to host a forum of major stakeholders and elected officials and/or their representatives focused on PTC and communications. Mr. Haley announced that the Rotem rail cars are scheduled to depart Korea on January 23 rd on a US Flag carrier, with a stop in Malaysia, and due to arrive in Long Beach on February 17 th. He noted the first 39 cars will be assembled at Metrolink s Eastern Maintenance Facility (EMF) in Colton, and another 117 cars will also be assembled at EMF. CLOSED SESSION Counsel announced the Board would convene to Closed Session to discuss the items listed on the posted agenda.

16 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page Closed Session a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED and EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) and (b) of Government Code Section Anticipated and existing litigation arising out of the September 12, 2008 collision between a Metrolink train and a Union Pacific freight train on the Ventura County Line, near Chatsworth, CA, including but not limited to:fravola v. SCRRA, Veolia Transportation Inc., Connex Railroad LLC, MTA - PC043734; Magdaleno v. SCRRA, et al- PC043703; Jeremy Schneider v. SCRRA, a public entity also known as Metrolink, Connex Railroad LLC, Veolia Transportation, Inc.- BC405966; Carolyn Rambo v. SCRRA, a public entity also known as Metrolink, Connex Railroad LLC, Veolia Transportation, Inc. - BC405967; Albert Cox and Marianne Cox v. SCRRA dba Metrolink, Veolia Environment, SA, Veolia Transportation Services, Inc, a division of Veolia Environment, dba Connex, Connex Railroad LLC. - BC406161; Steven Lindell v. SCRRA, Veolia, Connex, and MTA - PC044349; Doug Smith v. SCRRA dba Metrolink - PC044535; Gracilda Tejero Tiu, Jay Tiu, Pomino D. Tejero, and Victoria R. Tejero v. SCRRA dba Metrolink, Veolia Transport Service Inc., Connex Railroad LLC, Estate of Robert M. Sanchez - BC407455; Kong Chao and Caryn Chao v. Veolia Transportation, Inc.; Connex Railroad, LLC; Estate of Robert M. Sanchez, deceased - BC400547; Michelle Baker, et al. v. SCRRA, MTA, Veolia, Connex, Mass, Herzog, Bombardier, UPRR - BC404544; Janice M. Kish, et al v. SCRRA, MTA, Veolia, Connex, Mass, Herzog, Bombardier, UPRR - BC404545; SCRRA v. Connex - CV b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION - Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section Litigation arising out of the January 26, 2005 derailment involving an automobile, two Metrolink trains and a Union Pacific work train in the City of Glendale, known as Glendale Metrolink Derailment Cases, which has been consolidated for liability purposes under the lead case of Tutino v. SCRRA, et al., Case No. BC , in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and related actions; Los Angeles County v. Southern California Regional Rail Authority dba Metrolink, Case No. BC c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section Anticipated litigation arising out of the January 12, 2010 collision between a Metrolink train and an automobile on the Antelope Valley Line, in the City of Los Angeles, CA d. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) vs. SCRRA and Veolia/Connex State: Case No. BC and Federal: CV The Board convened to Closed Session at 1:20 p.m. and reconvened in open session at 2:00 p.m. at which time Counsel indicated that the Brown Act did not require a report on the record for any of the items.

17 Minutes January 22, 2010 Transmittal Date: February 22, 2010 Meeting Date: February 26, 2010 Page ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Bates, Executive Assistant On behalf of Olga Yero, Board Secretary/Senior Executive Assistant

18 METRClLINI< SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY Board of Directors Budget Workshop Informational Material January S. Flower Street, Suite Los Angeles, CA

19 Introduction 2

20 Introduction serra The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) is a Joint Exercise ofpowers Authority (JPA) created by its Member Agencies to plan, design, build and operate the Metrolink commuter rail service in the Southern California region. Opening with three lines and 12 stations in October 1992, the SCRRA today operates service over 512 route miles on seven lines, serving 55 stations in six counties of Southern California: Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego. Member Agencies of the governing board, with their respective number of votes, include: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), four votes; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), two votes; Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), two votes; San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), two votes; and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), one vote. Ex-officio members ofthe SCRRA include the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Diego Association ofgovernments and the State ofcalifornia Department oftransportation (Caltrans). In addition to operating commuter rail service, the SCRRA dispatches and maintains in excess of60% ofthe territory over which it operates. As of February 2009, the SCRRA will dispatch 147 Metrolink weekday trains, 64 Metrolink operated weekend trains, up to 36 Amtrak intercity trains between Moorpark and San Diego, 22 NCTD operated Coaster trains, and between 70 and 80 freight trains. The SCRRA is also responsible for the maintenance of right-of-way owned by SCRRA member agencies that extends over 337 track-miles. SCRRA's Capital Program includes ongoing rehabilitation and renovation ofthis right-of-way, facilities, equipment, and rolling stock, as. well as expansion ofthe system through the acquisition and construction of new, system expanding assets. Budgetary Administrative Requirements Under the terms of the JPA, the Chief Executive Officer submits to the SCRRA Board ofdirectors no later than May 1st ofeach year a Preliminary Budget for the following fiscal year including separate components for administrative, operations, and capital costs, as well as the anticipated 3

21 Member Agency contributions ofthe funds necessary to carry out the purposes ofthe Authority. The PreliminaryBudget is subsequentlytransmitted to each Member Agency for individual consideration and approval. Decisions dealing with operating and capital allocations as well as approval ofeach member agency's share ofthe Authority's annual budget must be approved by each Member Agency. The Board must adopt a final budget no later than June 30 ofeach year. 4

22 Programmatic Structure 5

23 Programmatic Structure In order to most efficiently manage the ongoing operations and activities of the agency, the SCRRA has organized its structure to provide for a program based application ofresources. As illustrated on Attachment A, the primary programs ofthe agency are: General & Administrative Expenses The SCRRA accounts for those costs that serve to benefit the agency as a whole and cannot be directly attributed to any specific agency program, or benefits at least three of the agency's business modes, within the General and Administrative (G&A) Budget. Examples ofitems included in the G&A budget include the lease costs ofthe agency's administrative headquarters, general administrative items such as office supplies, postage and the lease ofoffice equipment, the labor costs of non-project, non-operational staffsuch as the Budget and Accounting Divisions within the Department offinance, certain financial services and the Internal Audit function, and the costs ofthe operating and maintaining the agency's Information Technology infrastructure. Operating Budget The two components of the Operating Budget - Operations and Maintenance-of-Way, have multiple functional sub-components of both expenses and revenues, which are provided to permit allocation to operating line segments and to member agencies. Train Operations - This portion of the Operating Budget includes expenses required to operate the Metrolink system including train operations, maintenance of equipment, fuel, security, utilities, transfer payments to other transit operators, revenue collection, payments to freight railroads for dispatching, station maintenance, passenger services, general and administrative expenses, professional services, and insurance. Maintenance-of-Way - This portion of the Operating Budget represents ordinary maintenance of the rights-of-way owned by serra member agencies, and includes routine inspection of track, signals, structures and 6

24 repairs as needed. Capital Budget The Capital Budget consists oftwo major components - the agency's Rehabilitation and Renovation and New Capital programs. Rehabilitation and Renovation - R&R projects are those that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus preserve and extend their useful life. Project recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal and manageable risk of failure. Railroad infrastructure deteriorates due to time, weather, and wear. At the minimum, a Rehabilitation and Renovation program is required to overcome this deterioration and maintain a steady state ofserviceability. New Capital- New Capital projects are that expand the infrastructure and include such items as sidings, double track, upgrade ofthe signal system, and new rolling stock. Recollectables (3 rd Party Activities} As the party responsible for the administration of member owned rights of way, and as an agency with specific railroad knowledge and expertise, the SCRRA also engages a number ofprojects on behalfofthird parties. Ranging in magnitude from the provision ofright-of-way (ROW) protection service for contractors working on or around the ROW, plan reviews and design services, up to and including the construction ofa passenger station on behalfofa city, or ancillary related infrastructure within the agency's operating area. For purposes ofthe budget, only those staffor agency resources utilized directly on 3 rd party projects are recognized. 7

25 Attachment A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY Programatic Structure General & Administrative I $12.5 million I 74.5% I Operating Budget I 20.4% I 5.1% I CaplW I: I I Includes: Train Operations Asset Expansion Fee For Service Activities Maintenance of Way FY 10 Authority: $167.5 million FY 10 Authority: $434.3 million Capital Asset MaintiRehab FY 10 Authority: $4.6 million Funded through Member Agency Operating Subsidies, Operating Revenues & Fares Funded through Direct Project Grants and Project Specific Member Agency contributions Funded through charges to third parties for work performed

26 Financial Structure 8

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52 SCRRA Board of Directors Budget Workshop January 22, 2010

53 Overall Themes Time to engage the Board and Member Agencies is now Recognize unprecedented challenges facing public transportation agencies in California As for Metrolink, growth in ridership and booming economy generated plans and investments that have come online just as fuel prices and the recession have hit a double whammy

54 Overall Themes Cannot sustain the previously projected levels of growth in this economy with the anticipated resources available Nevertheless, there are unavoidable costs associated with the maintenance and operation of Member Agency-owned railroad assets that exist regardless of economic circumstances No single strategy will enable SCRRA to propose a balanced budget for FY and beyond

55 Goals for Today Understand the State and Federal situation Gain an understanding of the structure and content of the SCRRA budget including the anticipated FY challenge Explore various options to close the gap Receive Board direction on acceptable options going forward Authorize the public participation process for potential fare and service options Commit to ongoing progress reports and additional dialog with Board and Member Agencies through April

56 Potential Gap-Closing Options: The Five Basic Tools Service levels Fare revenues Non-fare revenues Administrative budget reductions Member agency support

57 Service Levels To what extent are the Board and member agencies willing to consider suspension of services until economic circumstances improve? 5%, 10%, etc. Need to consider timing required to comply with the public participation/ceqa process Modifications to Rail-2-Rail program

58 Administrative Budget Reductions Fleet planning and maintenance options Placing a portion of the Bombardier fleet in standby status Vendor concessions Transit transfer reimbursement policy Ongoing SCRRA staffing options Targeted budget reductions sufficient to close the gap

59 Non-Fare Revenues On-board advertising Station and right of way advertising Station and right of way licensing Cell towers, etc. Collaborative approach Owner considerations No current projections available a longer term strategy (2 years)

60 Member Agency Support Unprecedented challenges facing transportation agencies results in uncertain levels of support Maintenance of existing levels? Current balances available

61 Fare Revenues Fare recovery goal: not less than 40% Total package of recommendations yields a potential savings/revenue increase of approximately $5 million Are there recommendations the Board does not wish to bring forward through the public participation process?

62 Fare Increase Process Prior to considering fare changes, SCRRA must conduct a public review process. The process needs to include any proposed changes in fare policy that result in increased fares and the range of system-wide average fare increases to be considered by the board. The Board must decide on the options to be included in the public review process by mid- February if changes are to be effective on July 1, 2010.

63 Fare Restructuring: Which options should be eliminated prior to the public review process? trip ticket pricing and validity period 2. Round trip ticket discounts 3. Senior/Disabled discounts on 10- trip tickets and monthly passes

64 Fare Restructuring: Which options should be eliminated prior to the public review process? (Cont.) 4. Student discounts on 10-trip and monthly pass and restructuring 5. Active-duty military one-way and roundtrip tickets 6. Eliminating 80-mile cap on Long Distance fares

65 Fare Restructuring: Which options should be eliminated prior to the public review process? (Cont.) 7. Weekend fare discounts 8. Intra-county fare discounts 9. Rail 2 Rail fare restructuring 10. Off-peak fare restructuring

66 What range of system-wide average fare increase should be publicly reviewed? Staff recommends that the public review include a systemwide average increase range of 3-6%. A 3-6% range would allow flexibility during the budget development process to balance fare increases, fare policy restructuring, service cuts and other actions. A fare increase could be implemented in two steps during the fiscal year to reduce the July 1, 2010 impact.

67 SCRRA Board of Directors Budget Presentation Service Design January 22, 2010

68 Service Design Overview Gain input from Public and Stakeholders. Technical development of schedule. Determine operating requirements and costs. Publish schedule and update communications processes. Inform Public and Stakeholders.

69 Technical Development of Schedules - Basic Initial Schedule Development: Enter desired schedule into computer model. Use model tools: time / distance graphs (Stringlines) to reconcile schedule with other existing schedules. Make adjustments: Compromise. Evaluate schedules for delays Especially on single track.

70 Stringline Example

71 Technical Development of Schedules Fine Tuning Terminal Capacity Los Angeles and Outlying Locations. Platform Availability and train lengths. Movements within the terminals. Check for connections: Other Metrolink Trains. Amtrak Trains. Coaster. Connecting Transit.

72 Development More Fine Tuning Operating Requirements Engineers / Conductors Comply with Hours of Service laws and union agreements. Equipment: Availability, number of cars, servicing, fuel. Security. Passenger Services support. Additional revenue and subsidy SCRRA cost sharing formula.

73 Development - Inform Public and Stakeholders. Service Reductions: CEQA compliance. Finalize schedules 60 days in advance Inform Public with Seat Drops, Conductor Announcements, Website, Twitter. Update Website, Call Center Voice Response Unit, Printed Timetables. Update tables in Digicon, Maximus. Inform connecting railroads and Transit Operators.

74 Development - Basic Crew Formula 1 Train Crew + 1 Set of Equipment can cover 4-6 trains / day. The same crew can cover one morning and one afternoon Peak train with a Split Shift. The same crew can also cover other trains: Reverse Peak or Off Peak.

75

76