Senate Transportation Subcommittee on LOSSAN Rail Corridor Resiliency

Hello and good morning, everybody. This is the Senate Transportation Subcommittee on LOSSAN Rail Corridor resiliency. It's an informational hearing. If you are a Member of this Subcommittee, I encourage you to come down and come sit with me here so we can hear the presentations. It is May 16 at 9:30, so I am going to call this meeting to order. So the Senate continues to welcome the public and is provided access to both in person and teleconference participation for public comment.

For individuals wishing to provide public comment via the teleconference service, the participant toll free number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 621-7161. You may find this information online at Senate CA gov. For today's hearing, we will be taking public comment at the end of today's Subcommittee hearing. So we will be hearing all of the panels and presentations on the agenda first before taking any public commentary. So before I give my opening remarks, we're going to wait a few minutes to see if other Members come.

So we will just have a brief pause here's. Okay? So in the interest of timeliness, we would like to get started because we would like to also end on time. So I'm going to go ahead and give some opening remarks here. So this is the first convening of the Senate Transportation Subcommittee on LOSSAN rail corridor resiliency. First, I'd like to thank Senate President Pro Tem Atkins and Senate Transportation Committee Chair Lena Gonzalez for supporting the creation of this Subcommittee.

And I'd also like to thank my colleagues, senators Limon, Nguyen hello, welcome. Newman and Umberg, who are on this Subcommittee today is significant and is unprecedented that we are here. It's unprecedented because, as I understand it, this may be the first Subcommittee under Senate Transportation Committee, or at least the first one since 1989. And it's also unprecedented because the LOSSAN Rail Corridor has never been in more jeopardy.

We've all agreed to form this Subcommittee because the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, which we'll learn more about today, is a significant regional, interregional, state, national, and international asset. But in the southern portion of the corridor, the train is not running or running very infrequently. It hasn't run but for two weeks out of the last six months because the tracks are not resilient. Welcome. This isn't due to any human error, but due to Mother Nature.

So we've reached a point where we need to make decisions about what the future of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor should look like, and we need to do this fast. Our local agencies are here with us today to orient us all to the corridor as a whole and to walk us through the work that they have done to maintain safety and stabilize the tracks while we are pursuing long term solutions. I'm grateful for their efforts and for their recognition that you can't win against Mother Nature.

It's a losing battle, and that's why we're here, to adapt while working together to ensure that our rail corridor continues to be operational for generations. The Subcommittee affords us a unique opportunity to effectuate some real, tangible solutions on this corridor. So the goals are one to uplift the profile of the corridor as a whole, to talk about it as a whole and work on it as a whole.

To work with the Administration and the federal government to work towards having that rail corridor be reliable, convenient, resilient, safe, frequent. And to not have operations be interrupted by hillslides, bluff, failures, erosion, sea level rise and more. And we also need to identify strategies so that our partner agencies who are working to make the corridor resilient are not competing with one another for funding. So we need to work together to prioritize what's important and work for funding for the entire corridor.

And third, we need to demonstrate leadership collectively and look at other models around the nation and the world to see what has been achieved and what is achievable. We don't want to let hard work discourage us. So over the time that this Subcommittee operates, we will be making a compelling argument about why this corridor deserves what the Northeast corridor has been able to achieve, and that is Northeast United States.

So the other part of this nation where there is a lot of focus on the resiliency of the rail corridor, we will demonstrate that the state must take a more proactive role and work with our federal partners to make this a national priority. Legislatively, I look forward to having robust policy discussions about how we can make this LOSSAN corridor resilient for generations. So this is the second busiest rail corridor in the nation.

It's important to remember that, and there's no reason why we cannot get there. So with that, I'd like to offer my colleagues any opportunity to make a few remarks before we jump in. Would you like to? Go ahead.

Thank you. Madam Chair. First, I actually want to thank you for putting this committee together. And you're right, it is about time for us to look at this quarter and to figure out what that will be in the future. And so I really appreciate the first committee hearing today is about where we have been, where we were, and then looking forward to future hearings where we ought to be.

What I would like to though, is because I do represent the city of San Clemente and the coast in Orange County is that I want to make sure that we are also mindful of past studies that has been done by federal, state, county and locally, and also to be mindful of making sure that we get the input of the local, whether that be the county side or the city and its residents. We need to balance this. This is very important to us overall in Southern California.

This rail needs to happen, but it also needs to be where we can work within all the entities and making sure that it moves forwards. And so again, I appreciate for having me part of the committee and thank you for your passion and attention to this important matter.

Senator Newman.

Well said by Senator Nguyen. Let me join her in thanking you for putting this together. But I also want to thank the folks who made the time to come up today. Mr Johnson. Mr Kettle. Good to see you. To Senator Nguyen's point, this is a big deal and has lots of implications for lots of different systems and all of the communities kind of up and down the line.

So this important conversation to your opening remarks, I know we're just getting started with it but looking forward to being a part of that work as we move forward. So thank you.

Thank you. Well, so before we invite our guests to come forward and speak, we have a quick five minute about video that actually focuses on the voices of people who actually use the corridor. So we want to make sure to ground this and these are real people who are not able to take the train right now. So we're going to go ahead and play that video and then we'll move forward with the committee.

Hi. I'm Sima. I live in Orange County and work in San Diego.

My name is Leif Kenzad and I live in San Diego.

My name is Emily Carrion and I live in Oceanside.

Hi. My name is Vaughan Hartuni and I live in San Diego.

Hi. My name is Brennan Doyle. I'm in downtown San Diego.

My name is Anisha and I live in Riverside.

Hello. My name is Zach DeFazio Farrell, and I live in San Diego.

I want a resilient rail corridor because trains and public transport in General are the most sustainable and economical option for me as an international student at UC Riverside.

I want a resilient rail corridor because the future is transit.

I want a resilient rail corridor because it's essential for residents and visitors in our region. It's a sustainable and safe way to travel and it relieves traffic on our freeways.

I want a resilient rail corridor because I'm a huge public transit advocate. I love trains. I would ride trains all day, anytime, if I have the option to take them without having to rely on my car. And it's great for environment. It reduces congestion on the roadways and I can relax, read a book, listen to a podcast or even work on the train if I wanted to.

The track closures prevented me from and continue to prevent me from visiting my family in LA.

The track closures prevented me from using a sustainable and less stressful option for commuting. With the tracks closed, I have to drive the 45 miles to work each way when I'm commuting by train. It's much more eco friendly and I can relax or even do work.

The track closures have prevented me in the past of getting up California when I needed to. I've tried to go to LA and everything was shut down because of landslide and this is something that really can't happen. I missed a pretty important event because of it and I need to be able to rely on transit. If we want transit to work, we've got to be able to rely on it.

So the track closures have prevented me from going to LA more frequently. When the train hasn't been open, we've had to drive up there and get stuck in a lot of traffic.

The track closures prevented me from taking the train for my commute between San Diego and Orange County. Now I have to drive 1 hour and 15 minutes each way and pay for the parking. I was also really looking forward to taking my family on a train ride between LA and San Diego a couple of months back, which I was not able to do.

My vision for the rail corridor would be to have robust and reliable infrastructure as well as train services which are more frequent and easy for everyone to access and pay for.

My vision for the rail corridor is to have a connection that goes on a regular basis once an hour, twice every hour, to be able to spend some time in LA. To visit friends that we have in LA. And maybe even get to Lax by rail.

My vision for the rail corridor is a long term, safe alternative to the car. It needs to be quick, it needs to be on time, and it needs to be reliable. I need to be able to get on that and get up to LA when I need to and even further. This should be a common mode of transportation for people, regardless of socioeconomic background. And right now it's not.

My vision for the rail corridor is one that allows me to get to LA just as fast and as flexibly as driving there.

My vision for the rail corridor is fast, frequent and convenient service. I would love to see more service between San Diego County where I live, and Orange County where I work. My hope is that the Subcommittee can take quick action to make sure that rail service remains accessible to visitors and residents in the short term. And I also hope that they can find a long term solution to make sure that rail service is available and convenient for years to come. And my hope is that the Subcommittee can get together and figure this out.

My hope is that the Subcommittee can come together and write transit laws for the future. Let's put something in place that actually makes people want to take transit. I'm such an advocate for urbanism and mobility, and right now we fall short in those two categories greatly compared to other places in this country.

We need to take a massive step if we want to make people not have to rely on their cars, not have to sit in traffic and not have to rely on if there's an accident that day. We need real rail transit.

My hope is that the Subcommittee can add more tracks throughout the Losan corridor and place those tracks on stable grounds to last for generations.

My hope is that the Subcommittee can prioritize the Losan corridor.

Senators, thank you for working to prioritize the Low Sand corridor.

Senators, thank you for prioritizing Low sand.

Senators, thank you for working to prioritize the LOSSAN corridor. The time is now.

Senators, thank you for addressing the deficiencies of the Low Sand corridor. It's a vital link and I hope we can help get California back on track.

Well, great that's people who use and want to use more the corridor and I really want to thank them for their testimonials and the quick work turning around those videos. So I'm going to say a thank you to Emily Sayima Leaf, Vahan, Brennan Anisha and Zach for the testimonials. And now we are going to move on to Jason Jewell So, managing Director of LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency. I'm going to hand it over to him for his presentation. So, welcome and thank you for coming to Sacramento to speak to us today.

Okay, let me get set up here. I'm going to drive this PowerPoint presentation. And good morning, Chair Blakespear and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jason Jewell. I'm the managing Director of the Los Angeles San Diego San Luis Obispo, otherwise known as LOSSAN a rail quarter agency. And thank you very much for this opportunity to speak before you this morning on the importance of the LOSSAN Corridor.

I'm going to provide a presentation that gives you some history of the corridor as well as the importance of the corridor, as I mentioned, also wanted to talk about the LOSSAN agency and its history, its role, and some of its priorities. So jumping right into the first slide here, I wanted to provide a brief history of the corridor and our inner city rail service to show you really where we started and where we are today.

The rail line has its origins dated back all the way to 1887. And one of the first official lists of stations on the California Southern and Central railroads shows that the California Southern actually divided operationally into two divisions the San Diego Division, covering the territory between National City and Colton, and the San Bernardino Division, covering the route between the Cajon Pass and Barstow.

In 1938, the Santa Fe Railroad began the San Diego service, as I'll mention, in a few minutes, which ultimately became the Pacific Surfliner Service as we know it today. And that service. The San Diegan started between Los Angeles and San Diego with two round trips. In 1941, those round trips actually doubled to four round trips per day, and Amtrak took over the operations of that service in 1971. And by 1976, that service expanded to six daily round trips.

With help from funding from the state of California, the service continued to grow and expand, and in 1988, it actually extended to Santa Barbara with one round trip. And in 1995, that round trip was extended to San Luis Obispo, covering the entirety of the LOSSAN Quarter as we know it today, which is 351 miles long between San Luis Obispo and San Diego, going through six different counties. It's important to note that commuter rail service began in 1990 between Los Angeles and Orange County.

And between 1992 and 1995, southern California agencies began to purchase segments of the LOSSAN rail corridor from both Southern Pacific and Santa Fe railroads. The coaster commuter service in San Diego began in 1995, and in 2000, the inner city rail service was renamed the Pacific Surf Liner to better reflect a beautiful coastal route.

And so what started as two round trips between San Diego and Los Angeles in 1938 grew to 13 daily round trips in 2018, with five of those round trips extending beyond Los Angeles to the Santa Barbara and Golita area, and two of those five round trips extending all the way up to San Luis Obispo. And as I mentioned, the Los Anro quarter is 351 miles long.

It hosts three passenger rail operators, that is, Amtrak, as well as Metrolink commuter railroad service, as well as coaster commuter service down in San Diego. It has two freight operators. Those being the Union Pacific Railroad and also the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, otherwise known as BNSF. And those privately owned rail companies own about 55% of the track or right of way.

The Corridor itself has seven right of way owners, which you will see on an upcoming slide, and obviously, two of those that I just mentioned are freight owned or privately owned. And as was mentioned previously, the Quarter hosts the busiest state supported Amtrak service in the United States, which is the Pacific Surfliner Service. Moving on to the next slide, I wanted to give you some background on the LOSSAN Agency itself.

The LOSSAN Agency was established in 1989 as a joint powers authority by local transportation agencies along the Corridor. And the intent of establishing the LOSSAN agency was really to foster cooperation among the various agencies along the Corridor and to coordinate and advocate for inner city passenger rail service. The agency initially had five Members, and in 2002, an additional four Members were added. With these additions, every region along the Corridor was represented by a planning or a transportation agency.

And then the Inner City Passenger Rail Act of 2012, otherwise known as Senate Bill 1225, was signed into law in 2012 and it really enabled the regional governance of the state funded Pacific Surfliner. And it expanded the authority of the Losan Agency through an amendment of the existing Joint Powers Agreement.

And the LOSSAN Agency assumed full management responsibility of the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Service in 2015, following the execution of an interagency transfer agreement, otherwise known as the Ita, between the State of California and the LOSSAN Agency. And this provided the LOSSAN agency the management over the day to day operations of the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner inner city passenger rail service.

These management duties had previously been handled by the State of California, the Department of Rail and Mass Transportation, and SB 1225 was passed really in an effort to put more control of the inner city rail services in the hands of a local agency so that the needs of the service could be addressed efficiently and with more locally focused oversight of the corridor.

And one of the agency's main role is to coordinate with its Member agencies and all of its stakeholders to improve the overall inner city passenger rail service and improvements along the Corridor. So I wanted to provide you a little bit more detailed information about SB 1225. And actually in the audience here today is Darryl Johnson, the CEO of Orange County Transportation Authority, and he was actually there on the ground floor during the creation of SB 1225.

And I'm sure he'll be able to answer any specific questions you may have about it. But as I mentioned before, the goal of SB 1225, excuse me, was really to make services more efficient and more responsive to the needs of the region by keeping the management of the service local, and with more focused oversight on things such as schedules, customer service, on time, performance, marketing to our local destination spots in our cities. And all of this in coordination with our Member agencies and stakeholders.

Under the LOSSAN Agency management, the average annual ridership grew by about 8% in the short years between 2015 and 2019. We saw a lot of positive changes that we're able to implement, which includes service increased, and we also provided amenities such as the business class was added as an additional service. The Pacific Surfliner has always been a real premium service for inner city passenger rail. We offer a cafe car with a full menu of food and drinks.

That cafe car menu was completely revamped by the agency, with a focus on quality products that are both locally sourced and support local businesses. Along the corridor, we offer free WiFi for customers, electrical outlets, comfortable seating, and really, as a result, by our food and beverage actual menu changes that we did. The food and beverage sales nearly doubled between 2015 and 2019, and during some summer months, we averaged over $1 million in cafe car sales per month.

One of our other major milestones under local agency management is the fairbox recovery jumped from 67% in 2014 to nearly 80% pre pandemic. Some of the other intended goals of transferring the local management over to the LOSSAN Agency was also to have a unified Southern California voice in Sacramento and Washington, and also to coordinate intercity rail services under the guidance of the California State Rail plan as well as the High Speed rail plan.

And it also was intended to produce some cost reductions for the state in the overall Administration of the interagency rail service or the inner city rail service. Excuse me. So, moving on to the next slide, I wanted to show you the nine Member agencies that comprise the LOSSAN agency. And as you can see here, there's the list of the nine member agencies.

We do have four ex officio Members, which include Amtrak, Caltrans, the California High Speed Rail Authority, as well as the Southern California Association of Governments and Equitable. Representation was given considerable thought when the makeup of our board and committees were established. The Corridor was divided into geographical districts and quorum on.

Any decision making by our board must include representatives from each of those regions and in our coordination role for the Corridor, we want to ensure that every region and every community that is impacted by our decisions has a seat at the table and a voice in what we do. So after SB 1225 was signed into law, the agency to provide that local management of the agency was determined through a competitive procurement process.

The Orange County Transportation Authority was chosen as the managing agency and an agreement was entered into between the LOSSAN Agency and OCTA back in 2013. The LOSSAN agency provides all administrative services, or OCTA I should say, provides all administrative services for the Los, an agency currently with 18 full time positions dedicated to LOSSAN.

In addition to staffing, Octa provides a full host of administrative services, including human resources, risk management, contracting, Clerk of the board, and really was a way to be a cost effective model rather than the agency having to hire or procure for these services on their own. A similar successful model was in place at the time with capital quarter JPA in the Bay Area, which continues to have its administrative services provided by BART and a third JPA in California.

The San Joaquin JPA in Central California has its administrative services provided by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. I wanted to mention that the Low San agency is fully funded by the State of California. Funding is provided by the state public transportation account, the PTA account, which is primarily derived from sales on diesel, taxes from fuels, and the state funds cover Amtrak and operating expenses. Our LOSSAN agency staff, which includes all of our administrative services and marketing of the Pacific Surf Liner.

To give you an idea of our budget for fiscal year 23, our net Amtrak operating expenses budget was roughly 47 million and our administrative and marketing components of our budget totaled about 8.8 million. Moving on to the next slide here I wanted to show a map of the Corridor and really as it relates to the Amtrak inner city passenger rail service. And so what you'll see here is you'll see a map of the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Service and all of the stations that it serves.

It serves 29 Pacific Surfliner stations all the way from San Luis Obispo. Down to San Diego. And the one thing I wanted to highlight on this map is that there are seven different right of way or track owners along the corridor and those are all color coded. In the key there that you'll see, some of the owners are public transportation agencies, while the two privately owned track owners, as I mentioned previously, are Union Pacific and BNSF.

Now in an upcoming slide, we'll show you kind of the overlay of services with Metrolink commuter service, coaster commuter service, as well as Amtrak long distance services. But as you can see on this inner city rail focused map, we essentially stop at every major recreational and commercial hub in Southern California. There is access off the corridor to international and regional airports and really we hit a lot of destination spots and travel spots for the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner.

Traveling is part of our bread and butter and part of the majority of our customers that use the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service is really to travel throughout the Corridor to the many destinations that are offered along the Corridor. Also wanted to highlight again as I mentioned previously the six different counties that our corridor goes through and the offshoots to the east there of Lancaster, San Bernardino, Riverside and Paris, as mentioned by the key there, those are actually Metrolink commuter service lines that connect to the Corridor.

Okay, so diving into a map that really overlays all of the services along the corridor, this is a very busy map, but I wanted to highlight all of the services that are currently running on the Corridor. Even though I mentioned before there's 29 Pacific Surfliner stations, there are also twelve commuter only stations. And when you see the map here, you will also notice that there's a lot of Metrolink service running on the corridor as well.

There are also connections to Amtrak long distance routes both from the north up through San Luis Obispo and off to the east, where we have connections to the Southwest Chief and also the Amtrak Sunset Limited. And those provide connections across the country, one being to Chicago and the other one being through New Orleans. So again, just wanted to highlight all of the activity that's happening along our 350 1 mile corridor here. And again, you can see the offshoots of the Metrolink services to the east that do provide connections to the main LOSSAN Corridor.

You. So now that you have seen kind of the overlay of services as well as the right of way or track owners along the Corridor, I wanted to dive into some information, really highlighting some of the facts and figures along the Corridor. And for federal fiscal year 2018 and 19, which of course was pre Pandemic, there was more than 8 million passengers utilizing the LOSSAN Corridor.

Over 5 million of those were Coaster and Metrolink commuter services customers combined, and about 2.8 million of those were Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Service customers. There were 26 Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains per day at that time. That equates to 13 round trips. There was 137 commuter trains per day and 70 plus freight trains per day. And what is important to note also is the national importance of the LOSSAN Corridor, especially as it relates to the US.

Department of Defense, which has identified a large portion of the corridor as part of the strategic rail corridor network, otherwise known as Stracneck for its key role in providing access to the port of San Diego. The Marine Corps. Base in Camp Pendleton and Miramar, as well as the North Island Naval Air Station, which is a major port for the United States Pacific Fleet.

The northern end of the Corridor is also considered a connector line under Strachneck for its ability to connect northern and Southern California via rail and its access to Vandenberg Space Force Base. One element that we are exceptionally proud of is the positive impact that the Pacific Surfliner inner city passenger rail service has on our environment. The EPA gives the savings for each mile a person travels on inner city rail versus in a gasoline powered automobile.

And on average, passengers taking the Pacific Surfliner instead of driving saved approximately 178,000,000 pounds of CO2 from being emitted into our environment. And you can see what that's equivalent to with the bullet points below there, equivalent to over 9 million gallons of gas and enough energy to power over 15,000 homes for a year. And this does go a long way in supporting our strategic goal of supporting environmental resiliency.

In addition to the quarter being a key to our national defense, it also is a key to our national economy. It is really the only direct access to the Port of San Diego. And on the Corridor, freight operates about 70 plus freight trains a day that carry over $1 billion in goods every year. The Los Angeles Corridor also produces tens of thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly, for individuals working in both passenger and freight operations.

And it is a lifeline for many hardworking people across the state. So I wanted to dive a little bit deeper into our kind of pre COVID and post COVID recovery. And here we see a graphical representation of our ridership, our train miles, and our passenger per train mile. Now, while raw ridership numbers do tell a story, to a certain extent, we can definitely see when the pandemic hit, that the passengers per train mile gives a much more nuanced view of our ridership recovery.

Passengers per train mile is essentially an efficiency marker for us. It's how many people we are carrying versus how much service we are running. And we see pre COVID that this metric kind of following passengers and train miles are pretty much at the same level. But as our ridership recovery began and as we look towards in the October, November 22, as well as the summer of 2022, passengers per train mal actually met or exceeded pre-pandemic levels during some of those summer months.

Now currently, as I mentioned previously, we historically had provided 13 round trips on the Pacific Surfliner. Today we are running ten round trips between San Diego and Los Angeles. Four of these round trips are extending north of Los Angeles to the Santa Barbara Golita region. And two of those four round trips are extending up to San Luis Obispo. There are currently about 65 metrolink train trips operating on the segment of the LOSSAN Corridor and 30 coaster train trips currently operating along the Corridor. And as I mentioned previously, there are also the Amtrak long distance connections as well that are utilizing our corridor as touch points.

I'm sorry, could you just explain this graph a little bit more? I'm having a hard time understanding what the story it's telling. Sure.

Yeah. So the blue bars is our passenger trips. The red line is train miles. So that's just the number of miles our train is traveling. And then of course, the yellow is our passengers per train mile. And so what it's really showing here, especially in the summer months of 22, is that our passengers per train mile, we're having more passengers running less train miles. So we're running less trains, less train miles.

But we still had pretty much as much customers as we did pre pandemic with running less know. So what that essentially means know customers were taking the train, which is good news in some instances. We did see on our weekends, crowded conditions. People love to take the Pacific Surf Liner primarily a Thursday, Friday through Sunday to get those weekend kind of travel spots.

So that's something we definitely are cognizant of and do want to address as we move forward with our operations planning to not have overcrowded trains. But the good news there is what we see from the Yellow bar that even though we have less train miles operating and less service operating, we still see that demand, we still see the customers are taking the train.

And that's a good marker for us and good news for us, for us to be able to plan some of our future service increases. All right, so moving on to our next slide, I wanted to speak about some of the Losan agency priorities. Now, our Losan agency board adopted agency wide goals for the coming year. Last fall, and we are currently finalizing a strategic plan to incorporate those goals as well as longer term goals that will be set for our agency.

But I wanted to highlight some of the current LOSSAN Agency priorities, the first one being to champion environmental sustainability and resiliency. And currently we are leading a quarterwide technical working group made up of our Member agencies to really discuss challenges around coastal resiliency and to discuss efforts and plans that some of our regional Member agencies have regarding coastal erosion and resiliency.

So that is an ongoing effort and again a technical working group that we have established with not only our Losan staff, but with our Member agencies across the corridor. I also wanted to mention that we did closely work with Caltrans to submit an application to the Federal Quarter Identification and Development Program Grant, otherwise known as the Quarter ID Grant, which if accepted, is a big opportunity to leverage federal funds to assist in long term efforts on solutions for vulnerable areas along the corridor.

We are also looking at other potential federal opportunities such as the PROTECT Resilience grants and others. So we are looking for potential federal opportunities that we might be able to utilize in coordination with our Member agencies.

We also have a program of projects on the northern end of our corridor, which is primarily Union Pacific owned right of way to support infrastructure improvements, and part of these improvements include upgrading centralized traffic control, upgrading ties and tracks up, doing power sidings, and a replacement of 125 year old Narlon Bridge on Vandenberg.

The Union Pacific has completed most of the work, with some of the work remaining to be done, which includes a replacement of the Honda Bridge, which suffered some damage during our last winter storm events. In addition to this work, there are known areas of vulnerability along the northern end of our corridor that I will actually speak to in the next portion of our hearing. Consistent with state rail plans, we're also working on progressing layover facilities that will help support increase in future inner city rail services.

We're working on plans for a new layover facility in San Luis Obispo. Named the Central Coast Layover Facility. This will support future service increases by providing additional overnight storage and servicing capacity on the northern end of our corridor. And as part of this project, in December of 2022, the Low Sand Agency completed and approved its first ever environmental impact report. The next phase of this project is final design and then construction, and then the estimated completion of this project is 2026.

This is the first project of its kind that the Los An Agency has directly managed. However, once this facility is built, we do intend to have that facility be transferred over as an asset to the state so that it would be a state owned asset or property versus the Low Sand Agency owned asset. As part of planning for our future service capacity as well.

We're looking to the potential of building a new layover facility in San Diego, and we're currently looking at preferred sites for that facility. And again, this will help, potentially will help and increase overnight storage and servicing capacity on the southern end of our corridor. And then finally, we are working with Caltrans and the other two, California, JPAS and Amtrak, on ways to reduce costs in an effort to address anticipated inner city budget shortfalls.

And really what we're doing is we want to try to implement targeted service increases to meet the demands across the corridor. But we want to do that in a strategic way, in a cost effective way. We're looking at ways to increase revenue without raising fares. For instance, we are looking at models to do demand pricing to really increase ridership on some of our underutilized trains. And we're also investigating areas where we can increase advertising revenue as well as food and beverage sales.

So it goes without saying that while these priorities are important to plan for the future, it is equally as important to and imperative that we coordinate on solutions to ensure the longevity and the sustainability of the Corridor. And we look forward to doing that with you all as well as our Member agencies and our stakeholders. So thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning on the importance of the Los Angeles Corridor. And again, I look forward to working with you all.

Well, thank you so much. I do have a couple of questions, but I wanted to ask my colleagues first if they have questions they'd like to post. Okay. So I just wanted to make sure I really had an accurate understanding of the big picture when it comes to ridership. So on slide nine, it says that before the Pandemic, we had 8.15 million passengers. So in 2018-19 8.15 million.

And then as we move forward two slides to slide eleven, that's showing us just specific Surfliner, which is the Amtrak part, but then there are other parts. Right? And that graph on slide eleven seems to me to indicate maybe more efficiency if we have as many passengers but fewer trains. That seems like that might be a good thing unless there's overcrowding. But what is the biggest picture in terms of passengers pre and post-pandemic?

And I'm also concerned about the fact that the Pacific Surfliner, I mean, for the last six months, it's had to have a bus bridge, right, where people travel around the San Clemente area on a bus for an hour from Irvine to Oceanside. So that seems like that would affect passengers pretty dramatically. I mean, I know personally many people who've chosen not to do that trip on a train, they're choosing to. So could you just speak to those concerns, those questions?

Yes, Chair Blakesburg. Yeah, I can speak to kind of the numbers and the statistics related to the Amtrak inner city passenger rail service. We can definitely get any statistics that may be needed for both the Metrolink commuter services as well as the Coaster commuter services. Don't have those numbers at my fingertips at this moment. But what we have saw basically coming out of COVID we really were working on strategically looking at ways to increase service to meet demand in a strategic effort.

And what we had seen is our trends were kind of hovering around the 70 to 75 percentile as far as ridership compared to pre COVID levels. And that was before the rail closure. Currently, our ridership levels with the rail closure, and this is, again, Amtrak inner city passenger rail customers are hovering right at about the 40% to 50% level. So that kind of paints the picture, actually, about the big impact that these closures do have on our system.

Even with the bus bridges in place, we have seen a decrease in the customers taking the service, and again, kind of going from about 75% of pre COVID ridership down to about the 40% to 50% level. Some customers just, I think, don't like the idea of getting on the train to a bus to a train. And so that may be part of the decrease in ridership.

You know, some people just like the ease of being able to stay on the train from San Diego all the way up to Los Angeles. So with those statistics, I just wanted to emphasize kind of the impact that these closures do have on our ridership. So I hope that helps.

Yes. So it's 50% of pre Pandemic ridership because of the closures in the San Clemente area, and that is for the entire Low sand rail quarter, the 351 miles. You're not saying 50% just around that area. It's the whole right.

The total.

Okay. That's pretty significant.

It is, yes. And the majority of our riders do take the service between Los Angeles and San Diego. That's kind of the bread and butter of our service there is between those two spots.

And does Pacific Surfliner go the whole 351 miles?

Yes.

Okay. Yes.

Can I ask yes, of course. Just out of curiosity, weekends versus weekdays capacity?

Yeah, so the weekdays, like I mentioned, is our bread and butter. That is where we see the most of our ridership. Weekends are not traveled as heavily, especially with what we call our 500 series trains. Our 700 series trains that actually cover the length of the corridor from San Diego up to Santa Barbara, Galita. Those are our most heavily utilized trains. So the weekend ridership definitely is the majority of our ridership.

That's where we do see the people, like, you know, taking the train on a Thursday and Friday to go to destination locations, destination spots for the weekend and then come back home.

Is there any way we can tell what's the percentage of ridership for work related or leisure?

Yeah, we can definitely get those statistics for you. The majority, as I mentioned, of our ridership are leisure based travelers and not so much commuters. The commuter market was really being driven by metrolink and coaster services, and especially when the pandemic hit and even actually post pandemic, the commuter services did take a very detrimental hit because of their historical commuter based ridership, the Monday through Friday type ridership.

What we had seen out of the pandemic or post pandemic is because of the ability for folks to and their propensity to want to travel and want to get out and want to do stuff. After the pandemic, again, we saw an uptick in our weekend ridership, and that has been sustained.

We constantly do see crowded trains and just really big demand on the weekends, which again is a good thing, but we don't want them to get too crowded to where they're standy conditions and people have an uncomfortable ride.

Okay, last question. Since the video earlier, the five minute presentation when we first came here, most of those who spoke tend to be a lot younger. They probably look in their twenty s. Thirty s ish maybe 40. Is there a way we can tell the difference in terms of the weekend ridership versus weekday, what age group they are? The reason why I'm asking this is that we're looking at this for the future.

Who are we trying to attract, who we want to attract new to or more, and what currently is working for a certain group. So I think it'll be helpful just to know certain age gap, whether it's weekday, if it's weekday, maybe they're younger because they're work related weekend, maybe more parents, grandparents visiting their children, et cetera. So do you have that data currently?

We can circle back with our team to see if we do have some of that demographic data. We have done and conducted, and we continue to conduct onboard surveys of our customers. So if we don't have that data readily available, we can definitely consider that for an upcoming customer survey to try to capture some of that demographic data.

And just to answer your previous question about kind of the percentage of travelers and that kind of demographic ridership, we do have about 85% of our customer base is leisure travel, and we do see about a 30% uptick in travel on the weekends. So that kind of gives you an idea of the demographic there as well as kind of the uptick in customer demand that we typically see on an average weekend.

It's perfect. Thank you.

Your welcome.

Senator Newman?

Real quick question just to add to that. So you mentioned that pre pandemic, your fairbox recovery was, give or take 80%. What is it now?

Through the chair. So the numbers now are not very high. As of March of 2023, it's hovering in the high 30s. So we've kind of been averaging about 35% to 40%. And that's comparable to the state mandated fairbox recovery is 55, that's our goal is to be above 55. So we're looking for those opportunities once the track is reopened to kind of regain our ridership, regain our demand back.

So how much of that differential do you attribute to the changes in work culture, work from home?

We have not been as impacted by the work from home as commuter services have because again, we are primarily the majority of our customers are for leisure and travel purposes. What we find is folks can easily hop on the Pacific Surfliner train on a Thursday or Friday morning or afternoon and have access to Wi Fi service so they can finish up work on the train or take some phone calls from the train that are work related on their way to a travel destination for the weekend.

And so I think that really does set us apart from some of the commuter services for that ability. And we do find that people have been utilizing the trains on the weekends for those travel destination spots. So we have not been as impacted by the work from home and work changes as commuter rail service has.

So then to get from where you are in the mid thirty s to above 55%, leaving aside the track closure, what needs to happen, you're looking at a return of leisure travelers to the route.

Well, I think it's a combination of things. I think that once the track is reopened, I think we will see some of our ridership numbers return just from those customers that are just reluctant to take the bus bridges. I think that should boost us up considerably. I think before the track closures we were anywhere between 60% to 70% fairbox recovery. So we do expect once we do have that track completely open, that naturally customers will return, our fair box recovery ratio will bump up naturally.

I think over the long term, over the future is concerned. Again, as I mentioned, we are working with the state and the other two JPAS to really systematically look and strategically look at where to place new service or increase. We all three JPAS share a budget that comes from the inner city passenger rail budget, the PTA funds from the state.

And so we have to work together to make sure that if one of our agencies adds additional round trips, what that costs, what's it going to do for the overall, not only our quarter, but for the state overall, to make sure that those are cost effective decisions that are shared with the state and the other two JPAS? Because we are sharing the same pot of money.

Appreciate it. Last question. If the bulk of your business is going to come from leisure travelers, that probably has a different curve than business travel. So it probably gets flatter as you get toward the top. There's probably a top end, I think when you hit that max, what then? Right? Because let's say you get back to 80% fairbox recovery. More importantly, your capacity sort of issues or your overall capacity improves. What then? Because if part of this conversation is about taking cars off the roads, that's a different group than business travelers, obviously.

Yeah, I think your question kind of alludes to also kind of what does the future look like? And pre COVID, as I mentioned, we were at 13 round trips. We were looking at improvements along the quarter, as I mentioned, that would really allow us the capacity to expand service into the future. And those improvements that we're looking at doing, as I mentioned, are expanded layover facilities that would give us some extra capacity to lay over train sets both in San Diego and San Luis Obispo.

We're also looking at various projects along the corridor to make improvements, which include sightings, so extra sightings and other improvements, as I mentioned, with Union Pacific on the northern end of the corridor. So I really do think it's about strategizing and looking at what improvements are necessary throughout the corridor to be able to provide that additional capacity. In addition to that, it also has to do with the capacity for rail equipment.

So we do have current working groups with the state and the other two JPAS on long term plans for equipment so that we can address equipment needs as we move forward to the future as well.

So I do think it's going to be a balance between looking at some of the capital priorities along the corridor that are needed to address increased in future capacity and that balance with the needs of the resiliency and the coastal erosion concerns that are obviously affecting our corridor to figure out what are the priorities and how can some of those improvements that are needed maybe be bundled together, looked at as a whole, looked at holistically to determine how we prioritize those things that are needed throughout the entire corridor?

Appreciate it and thank you for being here today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Jewel. I think we will move forward with the next parts of the presentation. So we're supposed to end at 1130. So in the next hour we're going to hear about from the operators and about the operators. So we'll hear from SANDAG OCTA and then Mr. Jewell will come back and talk about the northern part as well of this line. So with that, let's move forward with SANDAG. Representatives can come forward for your presentation, please.

It's nice to see everybody here from SANDAG. I served as the chair of SANDAG for two years and so seeing some old friends here in the room today. Thank you for making the journey from San Diego County.

Good morning, chair Blakespeare and Subcommittee Members. My name is Ray Major. I'm the deputy CEO of the San Diego Association of Governments and I'm here to represent Hassan Akrada, who was not able to make it today. He fell ill this weekend. He's doing much better now. I'm also joined by Danny Veeh, SANDAG's rail planning program manager.

We're very thankful for the opportunity for SANDAG to testify before you and share with you an update on our work and projects along the San Diego County portion of the Low Sand Rail corridor. In partnership with NCTD, SANDAG is both a metropolitan planning organization and a council of governments. So we bring together local decision makers to develop solutions to regional issues, including improving equity, transportation, air quality, clean energy, economic development, goods movement, public health, public safety, housing, and more.

Today, we are here to talk about one of the most important initiatives that we are currently working on, the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. Due to natural erosion, we've been experiencing bluff collapses along the coast in this region for decades, and we've made continual investments to stabilize the ground as a temporary fix. As you pointed out, Chair Blakespeare, you can try to fight nature, but you cannot always win. In fact, you can never win.

Climate change has accelerated an erosion of the Del Mar Bluffs, and clearly the only viable option is to move the tracks inland to keep this corridor open, safe and efficient. Thanks to 300 million dollar investment from the state, secured by President Pro tem Tony Atkins, we're determined being the best alignment to move the tracks off of the Del Mar Bluffs. We'll also be able to begin the final design and right away phase of the relocation project.

But ultimately, we will need somewhere between three and $4 billion to complete the design and construction of this project. Realigning the tracks will make the corridor more resilient and efficient and support our local and national economies for decades to come. And with that, I will hand it over to Danny V for the rest of the presentation.

Senator Nguyen it's a quick question, Senator Blakespere will be right back. Go ahead.

How long is this corridor that you're talking about, what's the mileage?

We're 60 miles within the San Diego region. So 60 miles, 60 of the 351 of LOSSAN, which is to say.

That's the portion that will be needed to be realigned relocated.

Yeah. The questions of the cost that you.

For the realignment, that's for a total project length of about 5 miles.

5 miles? For how much?

Three to 4,000,000,00, 3 to 4 billion? Yes.

So I have to ask, why so expensive? I think everybody would have the same question.

Well, we're going to cover it. We have some slides but the answer is tunneling. We'll get to it.

Okay. And just to recap, Ray talked about SANDAG and SANDAG's role within the LOSSAN corridor. It's important that we work with our partners at NCTD who own and operate the corridor. And SANDAG's role is that we're responsible for planning, funding and construction of capital projects on the LOSSAN corridor within our region, San Diego County. And that's that southern 60 miles. So today we're going to talk about the LOSSAN Corridor's importance to the San Diego region.

We'll highlight the vulnerable coastal bluffs, talk about SANDAG's plans and commitments, and wrap up with our next steps. And I think it's really important to see the bluffs firsthand. And so we've had an opportunity to ride the train with several folks, and to see it with your own eyes is to really understand the corridor. And so we have a short video. Here.

That shows on board the train. And when you're looking out the window for this one and a half mile stretch along the Del Mar bluffs, you see just how close that edge of the cliffs are to 30 to 60ft, down to the ocean. The trains run right along the edge of the bluffs here. And this is a video from 2019 where an actual bluff failure was captured, showing what's happening there all the time. And keep in mind, the nation's second busiest rail corridor is running right on top of these bluffs.

Yeah, truly, truly shocking visuals there. So LOSSAN Corridor is important to the San Diego region. So here's sort of setting that context for San Diego. It's important because it's our only rail connection. There is no other rail connection to the San Diego region, to our military facilities in the port of San Diego. And if this corridor is shut down, there is no other way. These trains are just cut off and stuck. And ridership is very strong in San Diego.

One in seven of all of California inner city passengers either begin or end their trips in San Diego. And we have three of the top ten inner city ridership stations in the state. And we're all connected. LOSSAN is impacted by the bottlenecks that are in San Diego. We have single track bottlenecks that can cause delays and impact on time performance for trains operating all across Southern California.

And our schedules across the entire Southern California are dictated by these key bottlenecks in South Orange County and in San Diego. And recently, SANDAG completed an economic analysis of the LOSSAN Order within the San Diego County. And we projected what would happen if there was a prolonged interruption of rail service.

And the findings showed that if rail service was cut off, we'd see increased congestion on I-5 and I-15 corridors, job losses of 2000 to 3500 annually, GDP losses in the 200 to 400 million dollar range per year. And cumulatively, that could add up to billions of dollars in losses in GDP. And ultimately, some of our port tenants could permanently relocate their businesses to other ports that have more favorable transportation connections, permanently losing those jobs, potentially even out of state.

And Sandags made a commitment to LOSSAN. Our board of directors approved the 2021 SANDAG Regional Plan, and that included a fundamental investment in the LOSSAN Corridor, allocating $7.2 billion in improvements on the LOSSAN Corridor by 2050. And what that does is it really reimagines the rail corridor. We have this transit leap vision of rail service that's fast and convenient and safe.

And we can evolve the LOSSAN corridor from this more suburban focused commuter rail service to something that's a train coming every 15 minutes and providing travel times that are faster than a car. So we have plans to fully double track the quarter within San Diego County and taking speeds up to 110 miles an hour to have those competitive travel times that are faster than taking a car for all types of trips. Not just commute trips, but all types of trips.

And now let's focus on the vulnerable coastal bluffs that we saw in that first video. So within Del Mar, there's about one and a half miles of tracks that run right along this scenic section of the state. And the edge of the bluff is just a mere feet from the tracks in some places. And you can see the photo in the top with the retaining wall. You can see that waves have undermined the foundation of that old retaining wall.

And that ended up falling just last in 2021 and bringing a lot of the bluff with it. And that's that other picture there. And that ended up causing the tracks to be shut down. We had to do some emergency repairs before we can open it up. And we've worked with our partners at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography that have been measuring these bluffs.

And they've recorded in some places that the bluffs are retreating at an average of six inches per year, usually in those big chunks like you saw in the video. So what do we do to protect the tracks when they're there? So we've spent a lot of effort on bluff stabilizations. So we do things like drill piles down through the tracks to hold the tracks straight up in the air. We have these tie backs that basically hold the tracks laterally.

So we pin the corridor or pin the bluffs so they don't peel off. We've constructed sea walls, drainage improvements. We regrade the corridor to try and address, try and fight against these impacts of erosion on the bluffs to keep these tracks in operation. And we focused on the most vulnerable areas at first, but we've been doing it for a long time. So over the last 20 years, SANDAG and partners at NCTD have completed or are underway with our fifth phase of bluff stabilization.

And in total, we're spending over $100 million on Bluff Stabilization efforts to make sure that the tracks are safe to operate. And you can see here we're painting on some of the bluff impacts that have happened over the last 20 years, as well as some emergency repairs. And keep in mind that these are all temporary solutions. As Ray said, we're fighting against nature. So what are SANDAG's plans and our commitments for the Del Mar bluff area? Well, we are planning for a permanent solution.

Just last year, we completed an alternatives analysis that looked at potential realignments. So we've confirmed that we identified that there's two corridors that are two different alignments that confirm that a tunnel is the best option for Realignment. And this tunnel would go under Del Mar and across the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and move those tracks off the bluffs. And that leads us to the San Diego LOSSAN Rail realignment project.

So that $300 million that Ray mentioned from Senator Atkins has really allowed this project to move forward. We're now moving this project into the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance phase, and that would permanently realign the tracks away from those bluffs, as well as construct double track, adding that additional capacity through Del Mar and Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. So where are we on this realignment project? It's a big project constructing tunnels.

So, as I mentioned, we started that planning and alternative alignment analysis in 2020, and as well as kicked off our public outreach and wrapped that up. And now we're transitioning into the preliminary engineering environmental phase. And that state funding has made it instrumental for making this project closer to reality. And we'll be able to transition into the final design and right away phase by 2026 and ultimately into construction by 2028.

We'll be shovel ready by 2028, but we still need that three to $4 billion in order to get to construction. And if we find that money by 2028, we can open the project by 2035, permanently removing the tracks off the bluffs. But I also wanted to use this opportunity to highlight other vulnerabilities in San Diego along the LOSSAN corridor. Certainly the Del Mar bluffs get all the headlines, but we have several other areas where there are vulnerabilities.

We've got the Sereno de Miramar Hill, where there's bluff erosion and seismic concerns. And we're only as strong as our weakest link. We have bridges that are over 100 years old that are well beyond their useful lifespan. It really just need to be replaced and double tracked. And with the San Dieguito River Bridge that was built in 1916, we did work with NCTD to get $100 million from the TIRCP program. And we have a pending federal grant that hopefully will fully Fund the construction of this project.

And we can move that one from shovel ready to the construction phase. And so for our progress, for the 60 miles within San Diego County, we have about 45 miles of that corridor is double track, and we've got about 5.8 miles that are in that shovel ready category of those projects I just mentioned. And we have about 3.9 miles in the environmental phase. So that's the realignment project. And then another five and a half miles that are in the planning phase.

But we plan to fully get those going and constructed by 2035. But this chart illustrates the progress that we've made since 2009, and we've gone from 50% double track in about 2008 to 75% adding 15 miles. Basically, we've done all the low hanging fruit. And to complete those final 15 miles of double track, we need a major investment in funds that's expensive, because the tunnel is part of that. And everything that's left are these old bridges across these lagoons that are just expensive.

There's no low hanging fruit. Everything left to do is hard. And so wanted to wrap up with our next steps. So things that can help SANDAG and achieve these goals is to look at changing the competitive funding priorities so that we can be able to Fund projects that can prevent a prolonged closure. So prioritizing those projects that improve resiliency to the impacts of climate change, as well as prioritizing corridors that lack alternative railroads, rail routes. San Diego is our only link to this area.

And furthermore, SANDAG fully supports our corridor wide leadership and partnership, working with all of our partners here that are here and our other ones that are part of the LOSSAN Agency and with Sacramento and Washington, DC. To really bring national attention and funds to the corridor. And I think that concludes the presentation. I think we'll be happy to.

Well, thank you, Danny. And Ray. We really appreciate it. I don't know if my colleagues have any questions before we move to the Orange County Transportation Authority. Yes, Senator Nguyen.

So we have $300 million to get to the next step. What if we don't get that 3to 5 billion? If you don't get that 3 to 5 billion, the delays in that, would it increase the cost of it? What's the alternative?

Yeah, that's a good question. What we have now is a down payment, and we have enough money to move the project forward and get definition on what it is. We still have two alignments. We're going to be working over the next few years on really defining what that is. And it also allows us to have the opportunity to leverage those funds with federal funds. Now, we can't do it alone.

We see this as heavy federal investment, but we also need to find local funds and state funds to really bring this together. Ultimately, yeah, if we'll have a project that's shovel ready to go, if construction funds don't come where they are, then we're basically at the mercy and have to spend more money on Stabilizing the Bluffs to keep that going. We've already spent $100 million, so, yeah, it will be a challenge if we don't come up with that funding.

Thank you, Senator Newman.

Yeah. So, Mr. Veeh, you mentioned that 2035 is your projected completion date, assuming there is funding. Assuming these things. So what's the interim strategy? I mean, clearly we've had a conversation about rail travel, kind of capacity improvements, bringing people back, but that's a pretty long interval between here to there. So what's the workaround between here to there, if any? If I understand, you're going to just maintain the bluffs, right. At considerable sort of interim expense, which, as you mentioned, is not a long term solution.

I talked about Del Mar Bluff, stabilization five. So that's our fifth major capital project of Stabilizing the Bluffs. That's starting this year. And that will basically buy us time until we can get the permanent realignment. Now, there still could be incentives that require emergency repairs, and we could just continue to be throwing money at this just to keep the tracks running.

And you mentioned funding sources, right? And you didn't put a number. And I appreciate why I'm a double track kind of scenario, but it's a big number, right? You're not counting on General Fund monies, I assume. So. In additional federal funds, where else might you secure funding in part for.

I mean, obviously, right now it's a tremendous opportunity for federal funds. I mean, there's more money than there's ever been for rail coming out of Washington, DC. It's a prime I mean, obviously that's going to be our number one priority to try and get as much federal funds as possible. But we are also looking at other innovative financing and project delivery through either potential loans or some public private partnerships to explore the feasibility of constructing rail infrastructure with different sources. Basically, if we can build this sooner, it's going to save us money in the long run and have economic benefits in the near term.

So I assume there's an active effort to secure either IIja or IRA funds. Is that ongoing? If so, who's managing that, particularly in DC.

Yeah. So Jason kind of mentioned that there's a federal state partnership program that Caltrans has just recently submitted an application for. It includes the LOSSAN corridor in this project, at least from SANDAG. We feel that this is a great opportunity to be on that pipeline of capital projects as part of that program.

And did it put a number on that request?

I'm not much sure. I think it was a high level application, so I'm not exactly sure what was in.

Appreciate it. And so if that does not come together, it probably doesn't bode well for financing this longer term. Right? You're shaking your head. Okay, well, I think they'll just wait till it does come.

Right? Like you'll apply and then you'll apply again.

This particular corridor needs to be moved off of the bluff, and whether we can finish it by 2035 or not depends upon the funding. If we don't get the funding, then that just gets pushed out, but eventually it needs to move. So we're trying to do everything we can to do that as quickly as possible.

Quickly is obviously a relative term, but I appreciate that it's not a simple thing. Thanks.

This is a very complex project. There's no doubt about it.

I just want to piggyback on Senator Newman. So what is the current solution, why we wait to 2035 right now?

The current solution is that every time that we have a failure in the bluffs, then we find some emergency funds to stabilize those bluffs.

What are we looking at costs in terms of stabilizing the bluff for next 15 years, if not more?

I would imagine that depends upon how quickly it erodes and which parts of the track it hits. But these are 100 million dollar projects every time we have to do something with the stabilization and the storms we had last year caused additional erosion in those bluffs. And so we're fighting against time right now, and so we need to move it as quickly as possible.

2035 does seem a really long time away, but in terms of a capital project of this scale, it's actually an aggressive but attainable schedule. It's a seven year construction period, and we're on track to start construction in 2028.

Okay. Seeing no other questions, we really appreciate your time and expertise. Thank you for coming. And next we have Orange County Transportation Authority Darrell Johnson, the CEO is going to present and there are others in his team, possibly just you. Okay, great. It's not just you, it's you, right? At least right here.

Well, good morning, Chairman Blakesphere. And Members. Very happy to be here and apologize in advance. I'm having a little allergy trouble of some type, but I'll try not to let that interfere. I did want to just quickly introduce myself for two reasons. One is. I am the CEO of the Orange County Transportation Authority. But I wanted to share with the committee that in 1991 which was, I know 32 years ago I started working professionally in my career with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak.

And shortly thereafter I entered into a management, development and trainee program where I spent one year working through every aspect of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. So operations, finance, safety, government relations. I did that for one year and I end up spending the next twelve years with Amtrak and ultimately leaving in 2003 as a Director of Strategic Planning for the 13 western states.

The reason I share that with you is I have a long history in the Los An Quarter, including things like the Loma Santa Fe grade separation, the San Diego Depot purchases and leases and analysis double tracking projects that you've just heard from SANDAG as well as Mr. Jewel and was mentioned by Mr. Jewel earlier that in the late 2000s when you were on the board, Senator Nguyen OCTA, we did push and sponsor SB 1225 because we did think that there was a better future for Los Sand.

Although the state of California at Amtrak had done a lot of work to get it to where it was at, we thought we could see that better. So I wanted to share that with you as I talk about Orange County and the Low Sand Quarter, but wanted you to have that background. So a little just very quickly about OCTA, there's 58 counties in California, but there's only three that have a transportation structure like Orange County, Orange County, Los Angeles and Santa Clara.

And the reason I think that's important is, much like San Diego was just mentioned, we planned we Fund and build the Orange County transportation system. But what's important in the rail quarter is we're not an operator. We're not an operator in the quarter. We are a bus operator, we're a toll road operator, we're a light rail operator coming up, but we're not a heavy rail operator.

What I'm going to do today is highlight our role within the Los An Quarter and some of the efforts we've undertaken for protection of the quarter. So we do have several roles in the quarter. We do own more than 40 miles of rail, including the 7 miles of critical coastal track in South Orange County, which is really between Dana Point and San Clemente or the San Diego County line.

Much of this is beachside and most of it is approximately 200ft or less from the coastline, as shown by the photos in the slide. This is single track by design. About 80% of our corridor in Orange County is double track, and the 7 miles here are not. And those were decisions made by the OCTA board over the last two decades. But it really falls into three categories and I've just tried to provide a quick illustration on the slide. I don't want to use the word slide.

How about the presentation here where we have the coast and then the rail line is the first item or the first closest to the coast. And then we have areas where we have the coast, and then we have residences or homes, and then we have the rail line, then we have the highway, and then we have other areas where the highway is between the coast and the rail line. What we don't have for the most part is rail lines on tops of bluffs.

What we do have is rail line at the sea level and then bluffs on the inland side. Generally all in private property ownership. As you've heard before, tracks were installed in 1888 and until recent sand erosion on a private beach and bluff movement on privately owned slope, track stability has not been a concern. That's not to say we're not aware of risk in this area, but the stability of the actual track has not been a concern.

And I'll talk more about this later in my presentation, but the track movement recently did force some suspension twice in the past two years. Would also note that relocating the tracks has been previously studied, but not only found to be prohibitively, cost prohibitive. The numbers were about $2 billion in 2009. But also significant concerns about right of way impacts, public and private property ownership impacts, as well as environmental impacts.

So it was a combination of those items that really led to the decision to protect in place in addition to owning the track or the railroad right of way. As mentioned by Mr. Jewell earlier, OCTA is currently the managing agency of the Rail Corridor agency. We've worked very closely with our partner agencies to transfer administrative responsibility for state funded Amtrak service from Caltrans to this new locally governed joint powers authority. We firmly believe in our role as a Member.

That action has helped integrate rail services to better meet community and customer needs. And I think some of the ridership data, pre COVID ridership data shared by Mr. Jewell support that separately. We're also a Member of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. That is a joint powers authority. It's not a special district, it's not a transit district, but a joint powers authority which operates Metrolink Service in the five county region.

That Metrolink is made up of an eleven member board representing the transportation commissions in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. And we've made significant investment in that service as well. So a little bit about Octa's prior investment and planning in the corridor on the left.

Just a quick highlight that over the last two decades, OCTA has invested just over $2.1 billion in the LOSSAN Corridor, very focused on Amtrak service and Metrolink service in the North South Corridor, as you can see, about $1.3 billion in new capital investments. That's to get us to the double track the safety program, as well as $194,000,000 in rehabilitation, replacement of aging bridges, viaducts, drainage channels, and then operation subsidies.

And I'll just take a quick note specifically for Senators Newman and Umberg, your districts also include the east west rail line that OCTA is involved in. This does not include the nearly $1 billion we've invested in that quarter as well. So our total passenger rail investment over the last two decades in Orange County tops about $3 billion. So we have made significant investment. It's not by accident and it's been very focused on capacity, operations and safety.

I'm going to shift slightly to the Caltrans and LOSSAN program. Environmental Impact Report and environmental Impact Statement. This was a programmatic environmental document that was approved by the Federal Railroad Administration when they issued a record of decision for the report in 2007. This was prepared by Caltrans, but because of the state and federal partnership, the Federal Railroad Administration, or USDOT, did issue the record of decision.

This is important because it was the last action taken by the lead agencies on the environmental document that started in 2002. At the time, this was expected to be the first programmatic phase of a tiered environmental review process. And at that time, the Federal Railroad Administration, in cooperation with Caltrans, made initial and broad decisions on the proposed improvements, which included double track alternatives between Irvine and San Clemente and tunneling portions of I-5underneath I-5 in Orange County.

At that time, Caltrans had partnered with the California High Speed Rail Authority in examination of the Los Anquarter. As you know, the segment south of Anaheim was proposed to serve as a feeder to the statewide high speed rail system. And the objectives of the EIR and EIS at the time focused on increasing intercity rail capacity by double tracking to improve travel times and safety, not dissimilar to what SANDAG just spoke about in terms of capacity and time savings.

At that time, the double track portions ranged from about $1.1 billion to about $1.75 billion. Would note that's in 2003 dollars simple way, it's not quite perfect, but if you double that, you'd probably get a pretty good estimate of what that would cost today. And as I mentioned a moment ago, the environmental impacts and mitigations were viewed as not only significant, but very costly. I'll wrap up on that to say that that decision was made to protect in place.

And as I talk about the issues we're experiencing right now and have been experiencing, it has been very focused on that protection in place, although we do have ideas and thoughts about how to reengage and restudy in the future. In late 2019, we started a process which was completed in early 2021. We completed a study known as or called the Rail Defense Against Climate Change.

It was in partnership with Caltrans District Twelve, and the entire focus of that was to study how climate change affects the Orange County rail corridor. The study did primarily focus on the rail corridor between Irvine and the San Diego County line, but we also included the Orange County train stations to the north of that for very specific reasons. The goal of the study was very clearly to look at climate change stressors that could impact rail service on our operations and infrastructure.

And although we're talking a lot about sea level and we're talking a lot about coastal erosion, there are other climate stressors around fire, flood and earthquake, as well as coastal surge and sea level rise that could affect parts of the rail quarter, particularly as you leave the coastal area in Orange County as you come into Laguna de Gal, Mission Viejo, Irvine, It's in a low area. The railroad is depressed below housing and below the freeway as well.

That quarter identified adaptation strategies that had near term, midterm and long term focus, and the study identified mitigations that would be necessary at the southern end, those last 7 miles on the coast by 2040. That included a variety of alternative strategies to look at protecting the rail line in place. As I noted, there were also many other considerations made, including evaluating potential flooding risks in areas and how to better protect transit stops from extreme weather.

So I'm going to shift a little bit now to the current challenges that were referenced earlier. So the photos on the screen show how the coastline has changed in San Clemente. Newer oct recently conducted track stabilization work. So this would be the very southern end of San Clemente, oftentimes referred to as Cypress Shores or Cotton's Point. Eroding beaches and hillsides have clearly impacted the coastal public infrastructure between Dana Point and San Clemente. And when I mentioned that, it's not just the rail infrastructure.

There's been county park impacts, there's been beach erosion at public beaches, and there's been loss of access to beaches as well. There's been recent studies that have cited sand loss as well as rise in sea levels as the major factor in the beach and hillside erosion. And that's impacted a number of issues, including stormwater inlets, water lines, as well as electrical infrastructure. Those oftentimes go unnoticed because they get taken care of by the respective responsible entity.

But something as large as a rail line shutdown does not go unnoticed, and I think that's where we find ourselves today. There's a clear need to develop short, medium, and long term solutions to address the impacts. But a little bit about the photos in the top here. Top left, 1972. This is really the first photo where you see development on the hillsides in South Orange County.

This development was built on fill, meaning soil was brought in, crevices and cracks were filled, and housing was developed on top of that. Fast forward to 2013, which is just ten years ago. You can see essentially the same picture, different angle. That is the beach and the sand right at Cotton's Point and Cypress Shores is off to the left. Then you fast forward to 2017, still a significant amount of sand and beach. And then 2021, that has clearly changed.

It's been rapid and it's been significant in the short term. We do have a number of other studies that have been underway, including South Orange County Regional coastal Resiliency strategic plan. That's being done by the County of Orange, not OCTA. We do expect that to be finalized in mid 2023. That will look at other facilities that are not transportation related, but they're also in this coastal zone.

And then we know that the City of San Clemente is studying or completing a sea level rise vulnerability assessment as well. The city has also done a coastal resiliency plan. The City of Dana Point has completed a sea level rise vulnerability assessment. And as I mentioned earlier, the Federal Railroad Administration's record of decision did look at relocation from 2002 to 2009 as well. Thank.

And on the east side of the track is very large slope that has well documented and historical landslides that have been activated by development over the years, as well as significant sand erosion. In September of 2021, the railroad tracks showed signs of movement and metrolink worked to place approximately 18,000 tons of large boulders, which is called Rip Wrap, on the coastal side, to stabilize the tracks.

I would note at this point that any and all work in this area of this type requires close coordination with the Coastal Commission, and all of this work is done with their concurrence under a temporary permit. Passenger rail service safely resumed after about three weeks in the fall of 2021, and track monitoring continued after that time.

Approximately one year later, in September of 2022, Additional Slope Movement ranging from as much as one 10th of an inch to four tenths of an inch daily, was detected because of high tides, waves, and storm surge. Again, in coordination with the Coastal Commission, additional rip wrap was placed on the coastal side, but the slope movement of the private properties continued and the track movement continued at a significant rate.

Unfortunately, the rip wrap did not solve the issue, and we needed to continue prioritizing passenger safety before all else. So passenger train service once again halted on September 30 of 22. As I mentioned earlier, OCTA is not the operator, but because we do own the rail line through the area, the OCTA Board of Directors declared an emergency condition, authorized an emergency contract for a more substantial interim solution to stop the track movement as quickly as possible.

That work did drive anchors into the slope to the east of the track to prevent it from pushing the track further towards the coast. At the same time, we sought assistance and help from the California Transportation Commission. The California Transportation Commission did hold an emergency meeting to allocate $6 million to OCTA to complete the work, and OCTA contributed an additional $7 million. So the $13 million has been spent on this to date. Those efforts did require significant state, federal, and local collaboration.

I would note that permitting for this work is still not complete, and we could incur additional cost as we go forward. That work was successful and all regular passenger train service was able to restart on April 17. I will talk about the current closure in just a moment, but I'd like to be able to share a quick 1 minute video of the work in this area.

So on to the current track closure. I wanted to provide a quick update on the current track closure in San Clemente. Clemente that closure began on Thursday, April 27, after crews observed debris from the hillside above the tracks was falling near the tracks. The location of the falling debris is approximately 2 miles north of Octa's Track Stabilization project. The video I just showed and is completely and separately and unrelated to that effort.

Octa is currently working with the City of San Clemente Metrolink, as well as geotechnical experts to monitor their situation and determine the next steps for when this track can safely be opened. It is a rapidly changing set of issues, and at the time that we sent this PowerPoint to the committee staff on Friday, a decision had not yet been made on what to do.

But yesterday, the City of San Clemente did mobilize, and they are beginning to stabilize the property at the top of the slope, just a quick orientation. What you see in the bottom picture is Casa Romantica, which is owned by the City of San Clemente, and that's the hillside that is failing. The top picture you can see to the left or to the north.

The slope is sliding into a condo development or condominium development, which is putting that at risk, and the hillside is also sliding onto the tracks. The tracks are not moving. This is completely different than what I just discussed a moment ago, and there is no concern at this point around sea level rise or erosion in this area. This is entirely a city owned or a private property hillside that has given way and is causing the slope to fall into the railroad right of way.

So wrapping up. OCTA is looking at longer-term ways to ensure that passenger rail service through the quarter can safely continue without interruptions. We've developed a framework for working with local, state, and federal partners to further study, as well as understand the issues behind the coastal erosion and find short and long term solutions to keep rail traffic safely moving between San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties, as well as destinations further north. The framework includes a phased approach.

A phase one study, which is currently under procurement by OCTA, would look at short to medium term solutions that would keep the existing rail line operating safely. Study cost is about $2 million, and the goal is to identify a range of solutions that can be done in the short term. So much like your questions a moment ago to SANDAG, what do you do between now and the long term? And we need to make sure that we are protecting the rail line.

In the short term, there will be cost. With that, there will be work in that area, and what that cost is and what that work is will be determined by this study. A phase two study would look at longer term solutions, which may include analyzing, will include analyzing moving the rail line. It may include that as a recommendation. We'll see how the study goes.

Last month, we did receive $5 million for this long term study from the California State Transportation Agency through the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital program. We very much appreciate the support in the state and our efforts to develop those long term solutions and keep the trains running safely. Results from the feasibility study are expected to inform further project development efforts that would refine the scope, schedule, and cost estimates for recommended solutions.

In both of these studies, we expect and anticipate in fact, our Board of Directors has demanded that we have significant and extensive public outreach through a wide range of stakeholders, including community climate experts and others, that can help us look for a wide range of improvements for the corridor. In closing, the issue, I believe, we believe firmly, is not something that any one agency can handle on its own.

It's going to require continued involvement from both the state and federal government, not to mention the significant funding that would be necessary to do something like a rail line relocation or tunneling or even protecting in place both. Senators Feinstein as well as Representative Levin have submitted pending earmark requests this year to provide federal financial assistance toward the implementation of short and long term studies, and we're very happy about that.

In addition, many of the mitigation efforts and alternatives being discussed, such as relocation, include solutions that have never been done in California before. I want to pause on that for a moment as we talk about ideas and thoughts. I think it's important that we consider engaging other people, agencies and experts that may have done these before. Whether we call that a peer review or a knowledge exchange, California has not put a passenger rail tunnel anywhere in California.

In fact, there are very few in the United States overall. The most notable ones are the tunnels between New Jersey and New York, which are currently in a state of disrepair and are the subject of much investment from the federal government. I think it's important that we recognize what we don't know, and we look to those folks across the world and across the country that can help us think through these items.

More coordination is also going to be necessary between permitting agencies to address the emergency situations on the rail side of things for a more rapid response. A quick note California has a very good process in place for highway emergencies. Caltrans is able to quickly respond to issues on the highway side. They have Emergency Contracting Authority, and they have access to emergency funding.

However, there is no process in the state today for agencies like Octa, SANDAG, Metrolink, NCTD Coaster, whomever to respond quickly to emergencies on publicly owned rail facilities. Perhaps that's something that has been missed in the past and should be looked at in the future. But it became very clear to us over the fall of 2022 and the winter of 2023 that we do not have all the tools that are needed as we look forward to protecting these vital and critical assets. So with that, Chairwoman Blakespear, I will conclude and be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, well, thank you so much for the mean. I think one of the main points of this Subcommittee is to recognize that we have an urgent, urgent problem here.

So as we heard testimony at the beginning of this Subcommittee meeting talking about how passenger travel is down 50% from pre pandemic levels because of the closure in San Clemente, and not entirely because of, but because we explored how commuters versus leisure and who is it that's choosing not to go and why and not wanting to take an hour bus bridge?

And so when you look just at this photo and you see the ocean crashing over the tracks, it's just obvious that protect in Place is not going to work. And so I would really encourage us, and I encourage you specifically as the CEO of the owner of the rail line through here, to speak with a clear voice about the need for relocation. What I heard you say, and I wrote it down, is we are open to ideas and thoughts on reengaging about relocation.

I think we really need to say we need to relocate this unless there's a proposal that is saying we're going to put this into a tunnel, like right here in place, or we're going to put a big bubble over this so that it works. But the importance of this rail corridor for passengers, for freight, for military significance, for our nuclear waste, I mean, all of the different reasons that this 351 miles matters, we can't have this section be down basically perpetually.

And so in the last six months, it's only been operating for a period of two weeks. And we've had at least two hotspots in San Clemente that you just said are unrelated. So 2 miles away, we have the hillside sliding down onto it, and then we have this section here where the ocean is crashing over the tracks. And so the urgency of saying, what is our long term solution? And let's start seriously talking about that.

We know that none of this is going to be easy, none of it's going to be cheap. We know climate change is affecting us at all levels, but being able to marshal our forces to come together and to say we're going to have knowledge exchange, we're going to have peer review, we're going to have community engagement. But the goal is to keep the tracks operating. And clearly, where it is, it's not going to work unless there's any solution that involves it working there.

It just seems like we need to recognize that protecting place is no longer actually a viable solution. I would really encourage you, as the figurehead, the CEO of the owner of this section, to embrace that and to say, okay, let's marshal all these troops. Let's get together, let's figure out what we can do. You have partners here at the state level. We've talked about our federal partners. We have an unprecedented amount of federal infrastructure money for rail available. So this is the time for action.

And I think that's the point of this. And I hope that we're able to get there through these series of hearings to move into that next step quickly, because I would like to see what are the plans and ideas for the long term, and recognizing that there's a lot of short term that needs to happen too. But the long term is critical. So I don't know if you want to respond to any of that, but I really see this as urgent.

Chair Blakespear I hear you loud and clear. I do think, and maybe it's a hallmark of our organization, that we want to have facts drive decisions, and we are uncomfortable with claiming that relocation is the answer until it's looked at by all parties. And that's not to say we won't look at it seriously. We're also very familiar with the work that was done. And I know it's eleven years ago it was significant and it was real and it was difficult.

And we want to make sure that all parties are involved. Even if we made a decision tomorrow, we're 20 or 30 years out in terms of those actually getting done. So I think we need to do both things at the same time. But I think data and facts and community engagement have to drive the decision making process.

And I understand the focus, but I think that's something that our policy board is going to have to work with, with our community and with Members of the community, as well as experts throughout Caltrans. CalSTA, the Federal Airport Administration, and our partners. I think they're all critical, but that's why if we our board, I can't figure out how to operate this quickly. But that's why our board laid out a two part framework that's like, we have to do things in the short term, but we also know we have to look at things in the long term.

I'll go to my colleagues. Yes, Senator Limon.

Thank you. And I will add on to the chair's comments in that this morning's presentations have been focused heavily on Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego County, but I represent both Ventura and Santa Barbara County, which have similar problems. Not as bad as San Clemente, but five years ago, the 101 was closed for 13 days.

And so that rail was the only way to get in and out for your average person, unless you were going to drive north, cut across, go to the five and come back down. Right. And so I think of some of the challenges that we have. I look at the placement, and certainly I understand that in Ventura and Santa Barbara County. It looks the same, right? It's right along the coast. We know we have erosion issues, sea level rise issues in some places.

And so I think of the Chair's comments in response to what is the master plan along 350 miles? And I think that that's a piece. While San Clementes, I have people that won't do the Santa Barbara commute down in San Diego like they used to, because it stops. It makes no sense anymore. And I think of what we need to do to have a broader plan and not just address it piece by piece, county by county, and what that will take.

And also, I'm trying to understand what the conditions and this may not be for you, but it's just a statement more broadly, but what the conditions need to be for us to consider this 350 miles a priority and an emergency to have some kind of master plan. And again, you may not be the person. It's just your luck that you're the one that's in front of me right now.

But I heard the Chair's comment and also just wonder under what conditions would we say we need to address this corridor? And there are big issues. And here's phase one. Here's phase two. Here's phase three. I think relocation for a lot of folks would be difficult, but I also don't think that the other options so whether the other options are a tunnel or some other form are necessarily that viable either. So I'm not sure.

I know everything in this particular space, but certainly want to just raise this awareness. And thank you for presenting, because you happen to be the one in front of us, and now we're all kind of mentioning something as it relates to our district.

Thank you, Senator Nguyen.

I have some questions, though. Thank you for being here. As you mentioned earlier, I was on the Board of OCTA during my time at the Orange County Board of Supervisors. So in particular to SB 1225, the intent has always been discussed, but it was more to allow for local control of operation and improvement coordination with other services. So was there ever part of discussion to have LOSSAN undertake such a major capital projects like this through the Chair?

Senator, I think it's a great question. 1225, I'm very proud of that. I think it had Southern California come together and many, many different transportation agencies, and it was a unanimous support. And it really recognized the hard work that the state of California had done really dating back to 1976 to build passenger rail service in this quarter.

But I think if you look at the language of the Bill and you look at the administrative services agreement between the state or the agreements between the state and LOSSAN, it's really about operations, and it's really about how many trains local control, about decision making, around schedules, around service levels, around helping prioritize investment. But they're not, in my opinion, set up to be a large capital project-delivering entity, as Mr. Jewell mentioned earlier, through a contract, octa provides administrative support and managing agency service.

There's 18 full time equivalents. That's a lot of people, but it's not the type of staff that would look at large scale capital programs. I think there's still a very large state role. But as SANDAG said, and I mentioned, and I think the same applies for LA. County. A little bit different for north of Los Angeles is we are planning and funding and trying to do these major investments. We've put $3 billion in the quarter. San Diego has probably put some number.

My guess is slightly less than that. Those are big numbers, but we are now beyond that, and we have to do something different. I think the state has to help prioritize. The Federal Railroad Administration has to help prioritize. But I think LOSSAN can be that impetus. But I don't know if they're the .. on that. And it was not contemplated in 1225 to get to the root of your question.

And you mentioned the study done eleven years ago. The state has looked at the federal entities have looked at it, the potential relocation of this track. What has prevented all these studies from moving forward?

Senator, I think it's important. I will never say that we studied it once before, so we know the answer. I think things do change. You sat on our board and we studied Interstate 405 multiple times. And you know how many might not always agree, but I think it's important that you can relook at things and reanalyze things. But I also would say if it was easy and there was consensus, it already would have been done.

There was not consensus in the seven years of 2002 to 2009 about where that rail line should be. There's technical challenges, there's monetary challenges. There's environmental challenges. I know you know, because you're from Orange County. There's been significant discussions over the last 25 years about a new toll road through that area as well. If that was easy, that would have been done as well. And that has not moved forward.

So I think it's important to acknowledge that it is difficult, but it's not to say we can't reexamine it in a real manner because things have changed. We have things that are changing rapidly, as by evidenced in the slides where you have 200ft of beach four years ago and you have none today. And that had not been that way in the past.

I just have a couple more. So Assemblywoman Lori Davies and I, we both represent San Clemente. And so she actually asked me to ask a question to you as well, just to kind of so that we can understand in terms of San Clemente part is that the need to protect the rail infrastructure wrap. But given now how shallow depth of the beach is the rip wrap and armoring adding to the extreme beach erosion.

First question, and then second is that should we be looking at sand to help protect the beach and then as well as the rail infrastructure as well, if it's for temporary. If not, obviously we don't know if that would be the permanent solution.

Senator Nguyen, I think it's a great question. Two thoughts on that. One is working with the Coastal Commission, they have approved this emergency permit with the rock or the rip wrap. There is some concern, of course, that it is accelerating or causing additional BT erosion. I'll leave that to the experts in that area. With that said, our permit is temporary for this.

And as part of the permit, we do have an obligation and a requirement to participate and contribute to some type of Sand Replenishment Fund, details yet to be worked out. We're not opposed to sand replenishment by any means. What we have said is we need to be part of the larger conversation. We shouldn't be the only responsible party because there are other things that have occurred in this area.

We had a short term issue that needed to be protected in place and we went through the proper permitting. We're happy to have the sand conversation. I think you've seen in the media, I know it's your district, that after many years there is some sand replenishment that's going to start in San Clemente. Of course, it's further north from this area, but I think that sets the stage for longer term.

And again, the study I have up on the stage, phase one, we expect that that will be discussed in there. And what's the role of rip wrap versus sand and the entities that can participate? I think one of the challenges here is we have viewed this in recent years as a transportation problem. This is broader than a transportation problem. We need all of our partners throughout the state, all of the resource agencies that do things other than transportation. Transportation tends to have a lot of investment they can make, but we shouldn't be the only party at the table looking for the long term solutions.

And I completely agree with, you know, I appreciate that you sent your staff to my office the first time we convened a meeting of all the cities within Orange County and to talk about sand erosion, talking about sand replenishment. And one of the things that I got out of that is that we can keep on doing the sand replenishment. It just keeps on moving south further. So the more we do in the northern end of Orange County, the further it starts moving downward.

And so the other question she wanted, and something actually very similar to what I asked earlier with the sandbag is why we all agree that there needs to be some future permanent look, whether it's relocation, whatever it is, the study. But for the short term right now, what are we going to do on this rail in San Clemente? One is to protect the rail, the track, and then also obviously the beach as well.

As we look at long term solution, because as you mentioned now, we're looking at 20 years from now potentially that long term solution to conclude. So what are we doing today? Obviously the rail right now shut down is not because of OCTA, it's what's happening above it. So what else are we going to be able to do to make sure that the rail does continue for those who uses it and also to protect the beach as well going forward?

Senator, when I think there's no question that OCTA from the board level down wants to keep the rail line open. Shutting it down was not taken lightly, but it was in the best interest of passenger safety. We do understand the decision making process that the city of San Clemente had to go through over the last ten days. And the risk with that, we would have loved to have seen maybe a bit more sense of urgency as it related to the rail line.

I think that is coming where we needed to be at this point. There are discussions each and every day about how we can participate in helping this issue out, whether it's sandbanking, whether it's other things that we can do in that area. At the same time, I mentioned earlier that the slide that we protected is protecting private property. That was public investment to protect private property from sliding and harming the rail line. And we need to be focused on that.

We do think there are options within the city. If you know that area well, the 7 miles, you can see this has happened in the past and there are protections in place. It appears to be happening more frequently. These two are unrelated, whether it's coincidence or massive amounts of rain or whatever the case may be. It's unfortunate that it's happened in the same amount of time, but I think they're not related.

But we are very focused and we have clear direction from our board to be part of the solution and engage fully. One thing I could if Senator Limon, you asked how we can prioritize, and I know you weren't able to be at the very beginning. I'll just offer a quick opinion. We have a 350 miles corridor that is very, very complex, multiple owners, and I would encourage the committee to think very clearly about investment protection and strategy and priority around ownership.

If the rail line is publicly owned, we should be thinking about that differently than if the rail line is privately owned. Think of us private or public owned rail lines like San Diego, like Orange County, like parts of Los Angeles County, more like the highway system where we have clear opportunities for investment protection. And I think it's important that we don't always talk about money, but we talk about process. We do not have a good process in place to react quickly.

When things happen that exists on the highway side, it needs to exist on the passenger rail, publicly owned passenger rail side. It does exist on the private rail side. It's very clear we have a gap in our ability to respond and that doesn't cost anything. But improving the process to allow us to do things better and faster is really, really important. I would encourage a committee to think about that.

Would you be able to be repairing this in San Clemente faster if you did have that director's order or some?

There's no question the work in Cypress Shores in September would have been able to have been done faster. Decisions would have been made quicker. And I think if we had something similar to the highway side, we probably would have been able to deal with some of the permitting issues quicker as well. The coastal zone is always going to be difficult. We respect that, we understand that. But I think there's processes in place that could make us react quicker and make decisions quicker, and the same thing could probably apply with the current issue that's underway.

Thank you. I also want to make sure we get to the northern part of this rail line. I don't know if you need to leave, Senator Limon, but your section is coming up that you represent, so do you want to ask one last question Senator Nguyen.

Just a comment. And I think that's where the challenge we face with the coastal side. And that's where my medium that I convene is that while we all respect the coastal commission, it's very difficult in an emergency for a public agency to deal with the mean. These are areas that are owned by the public agency, maintained by the public agency, but in an emergency, we have to pause and ask for permission.

And I think one of the suggestion, I think, and I like it, is that we have to look at ways to figuring out these permitting process because we up here want this we're getting calls saying we want the rail to move and we're yelling at you guys or the agency who owns it? And you're like, well, I really don't know what to tell you. We're waiting for these guys or these guys or these departments and this department to give us the okay.

And I think that's where one of the process I would love to look at that. And if there's potential legislation or ideas, I think this is why the chairs put this committee together, is this is time for us to look at this in a bigger picture and let's move forward versus trying to handicap ourselves continuously. Thank you.

Agree. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. We're going to invite Mr. Jewell back up here to present on Santa Barbara Golita area.

Okay, thank you. Chair Blakesphear, Members of the Subcommittee. Jason Jewell, the managing Director of the LOSSAN Rail Coordinator Agency. Thank you for having me again to give you a brief presentation on the LOSSAN north end of our corridor to really present to you some of the more vulnerable areas that we know about both in the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County region. So I know we're limited on time here, so I will try to make this presentation brief.

But I really wanted to present a picture of some of the issue areas that we know about and point out where those areas, you know, moving them to the intro slide. Here again, we know that coastal resiliency challenges exist on the northern end of the corridor. This particular portion of the corridor is Union Pacific Railroad owned, and that portion of the corridor is otherwise known as the Santa Barbara subdivision. And it basically extends from Moorpark up through San Luis Obispo.

The Union Pacific Railroad is currently working on stabilization, both short term repairs, but longer term solutions will definitely need to be addressed. And this is the map that shows you the areas that we know about in both Santa Barbara as well as Ventura County. So there's four areas in the Santa Barbara region that include Honda Bluff, hollister Ranch, El Capitan, Ortega Hills, and one area in Ventura called Rincon. So we'll dive into each of those areas separately on the upcoming slides here.

So moving right into these areas, the first one being the Honda Bluff area in Santa Barbara County. I did want to mention that our LOSSAN staff just recently went on a high rail tour with Union Pacific in these areas to get firsthand knowledge of the updated information of what's going on in these areas as well as to really get a bird's aye view and get some pictures of these areas as well. So in this particular area, you'll see the actual track in the right picture.

Top corner, there's a faint red arrow line that's actually pointing to the track that's on top of that bluff there. So you can definitely see how large that bluff and that slope is there. The picture on the left with those white posts sticking up. Those white posts are inclinometers, which are actually put into the soil to measure movement of the land there. And then the two pictures down below are actually standing on top of the bluff looking down.

The issue in this area is shoreline erosion and failure of the slopes. Union Pacific is recommending long term solutions of relocation of the track inland up to about 150 to 200ft inland. They are the right of way owners of this property. However, to do this, they are anticipating some needs of more than likely getting permits from Vandenberg Space Force Base, United States Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the Coastal Commission.

And again, right now, they currently have installed these inclinometers to just measure the movement there, make sure that nothing is dramatically moving that would impede the safe operation of rail service. Moving on to the next location. This is Hollister Ranch, which is also in Santa Barbara County. And here you can see the close proximity of the track to the bluff and slope here. Union Pacific is letting us know about significant bluff erosion within about 8ft of the rail in some areas and failure of historic seawall.

Short term repairs include putting in a soldier pile wall. Their proposed long term solutions include extending the soldier pile wall and installing tiebacks under the tracks, as well as replacing drainage pipes and repairing sea walls as necessary. Coordination will need to be had with the United States Army Corps of Engineers as well as their regional water quality control board and the Coastal Commission. Moving on to the next location. This is the El Capitan bluff, again in Santa Barbara County, and here they have some eroding slopes.

There's degradation under the wooden soldier pile wall. The short term repairs include filling the void with Rip Wrap, which of course is a large rock. Longer term solutions include replacing the wood wall with a concrete soldier pyre wall and also installing tie back anchors. They're also looking to fill the hole with rock, or what they call gabion mattress, which is a flexible mesh wire to defend against erosion and scoring.

The next location is Ortega Hill, again in Santa Barbara County, where there is slope erosion and there's existing failing storm drains. There's also slope erosion underneath the bridge there. You can see in the top left picture there's a little hole underneath that bridge. And then the bottom left picture is the other side underneath that bridge where it shows the storm drain there. And you can tell from the picture on the top right, that's actually a view of being on top of the bluff there looking down.

And then there's a picture of the soldier wall there on the right side of the track, or the inside portion of the track to help stabilize part of the hillside erosion as well. Union Pacific is working on removal of the blockage under the bridge area, and they're recommending replacement of the metal pipes with proper walls and anchors, and also adding a drilled pier, as well as soil netting on the bluff face, and also to fill the void under the bridge with a concrete floor.

And finally the Rincon location in Ventura County. You can see the top picture. You can see the wooden posts on the right side of the track there. And then the bottom picture actually is those wooden posts with the wire bars there. Kind of give you a perspective of when you're standing on the track looking downwards on the slope there, you can get a kind of perspective of what's going on there as far as the erosion goes.

And there's significant areas of hill erosion here, both basically above the track. And what happens is the tracks get covered in sand and debris and runoff from the hillside there. Here they basically clear the track bed to remove debris. When that does happen and long term they're looking at recommending replacement of basically the storm drain water pipes, looking at putting in some rock bed, as well as what they call revetment to shore up the bottom of the slope.

And so those very quickly, I went through those locations. And really, again, just to give you an overall idea of the vulnerable areas that we know about, both in the Santa Barbara and Ventura County areas, the Low San agency is working with and coordinating with Union Pacific to get a rough order of magnitude for what these longer term solutions that they're recommending may cost.

I think that funding discussion will need to happen in the future as to what level of investment should be the responsibility of the state versus Union Pacific.

But I hope this gives you kind of a General idea and understanding of the known vulnerabilities up in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties and really, again, kind of echoes the vulnerable areas along the corridor and echoes the need of all of us to be able to work together to identify longer term solutions to address the resiliency and the sustainability of the entire corridor. So thank you very much. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Senator Limon.

Thank you. And thank you for that update. And I think we see similarities as we're talking from county to county, certainly in terms of some of the issues. And I appreciate that you've shared the issues, but you also gave us the proposed solutions. And so as we're talking about this, what do you anticipate for the northern portion of LOSSAN that the costs would be to address? Some of certainly each one of them is very different. Well, I imagine is different in terms of a cost because I heard different solutions. So what would be the northern portion cost?

Yes, certainly, we are, as I mentioned, actively working with and coordinating with Union Pacific to really get a rough order of magnitude of what all of these longer term repair solutions would cost. So right now we don't have a number from Union Pacific, but our staff is currently estimated in kind of a rough order of magnitude of about 100 million.

But again, we do want to be able to get those numbers from Union Pacific and get more of a detailed scope of work for each of these locations, as well as all the geotechnical information and analysis that comes with that. So I think there is definitely more coordination and more work to do on our behalf along with Union Pacific to really get a better understanding of what those total costs may be.

And then one of the comments that was made was just the difference between publicly owned, not publicly owned and the facility or not to be able to make some of the repairs and changes. And I don't know. You're not a Union Pacific representative. You're LOSSAN.

So I'm just curious if there are some things that could be said about that and to enhance our understanding as opposed to a judgment on which is better or not, but just enhance our understanding of those differences and if we see some of those differences in the northern portion versus other parts of LOSSAN.

Sure. Well, as I mentioned, I do think that there needs to be further discussion both with on behalf of the LOSSAN agency with the state as well as with Union Pacific as to the level of investment that the state needs to and should be willing to invest. It's important to note that on this territory that's, again, as I mentioned, the Santa Barbara subdivision that's basically Moorpark north, our understanding is that there's very little freight that runs on that rail line.

We are the primary user, that is, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Service is the primary user of that particular subdivision. So I think that does need to be considered as part of those discussions moving forward as to, because of that, what level of investment should the state be presenting and willing to do on that portion of the corridor versus what level is a fair investment from the actual ownership of the track owner being Union Pacific? So again, I think those discussions need to happen. So they have.

And I think that as I mentioned previously in my prior presentation, LOSSAN Agency is currently working with Union Pacific on a host of improvement programs along that portion of the corridor that the state has made investments in. We have been awarded transit and inner city capital rail program grants, TRCP grants to help Fund those improvements.

And so that has been discussed in the past and continues to be a discussion as to the level of investment that the state is willing to make in order to preserve that portion of the corridor and to sustain that portion of the corridor so that we're able to continue to use it in the think it's again.

I think we do have some work to do with Union Pacific as far as getting the exact estimated cost that all of these longer term solutions will be, along with all the information that comes along with that. And I think once we have that information, we'd be able to sit down with our stakeholders and have those discussions as to how do we move forward.

Thank you.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it. One last question, just we don't know when San Clemente will reopen, right? Do we have a time on that?

So our understanding is that, as Darrell mentioned, that the contracting and the work has been mobilized to begin the information, as of last, I believe, Friday that we received from the city is that they expect the work to take about two weeks. But that was their estimate that they provided. Barring any unforeseen circumstances or anything that they find or happens during that work. So we are hopeful that it will be within two weeks.

Okay, great. Well, thank you very much. We need to take public comment now, and I understand we have some. So I'm going to go ahead and take in person public comments before teleconference comments. Do we have anybody in the room who would like to make an in person comment? Seeing none, we will move to the public testimony that would be over the phone. So moderator do we have any over the phone comments?

We sure do. And if you'd like to make a statement, please press one followed by the zero at this time. First we'll go to line number 14.

And just once, given the time, we need to limit public comment to 1 minute, so we will time you here. So please limit your public comment to 1 minute.

And again here's, line 14.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Your line is open.

Okay. Do you hear me? Okay. My name is Camila Rang. I'm calling from Del Mar, California, where we are the people and the California Coastal Commission, a major environmental and safety conflict with NCTD. The train runs on the fragile bluff at many spots only a few feet from the steep edge with 100 foot fall down to the beach. And here, entity wants to drill 1500 holes into the ground to install a fence. And naturally, we who live on the bluff are screaming no.

You will undermine the bluff even more. And also the Coastal Commission screaming no. And therefore, entity has filed a petition to get the permission to disregard the California Coastal Commission and our state environmental protection laws. The only way to get and they are very much against relocating the train to inland and they filed a petition with SDB to get the permission to disregard the California Coastal Commission. So I'm begging you to have your first priority.

Thank you for your comments, ma'am. It's been 1 minute, so thank you for your comments. Moderator next caller, please.

And our next line is line number 17. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Laura Schaefer. Thank you for this very important setting up this very important Subcommittee. I applaud Senator Blakespear's comments that we should not be pursuing a protect in place strategy.

Unfortunately, NCTD has embraced that strategy and in fact, they are fighting the State of California and have indicated in their pleadings in the Surface Transportation Board action suing the Coastal Commission of the City of Del Mar that they want to keep the trains on the tracks for another for 50 years or in perpetuity.

So I'm concerned about the partnership with the NCTD and I'm hoping that this Subcommittee can take a close look at that and their position, which is entrenched to not move the trains off the track, off the bluff, off the fragile Del Mar bluffs. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

And next we'll go to line number 15. Please go ahead.

Good morning. It's time to recognize the rogue behaviors of NCTD North County Transit District. They are attempting to thwart and override the local laws through a preemption lawsuit filed with the Surface Transportation Board in Washington against the Coastal Commission and the city of Del Mar. At the same time, NCTD is taking funds from California, but pushing to override our laws and free themselves from Coastal Commission oversight.

This is wrong, and I advocate that NCTD be dissolved and its responsibilities be transferred to Sandbag who are working with the Coastal Commission. If we allow NCTD to continue, it is a strong likelihood they will discard the important work that this subcommittee's authority has as well. Thank you for hearing the public on this matter. Greatly appreciate the Subcommittee.

And next we'll go to line number 18. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Mark Booksovich. Calling from Streets for All. Thank you to Senator Blakespear for hosting this Subcommittee meeting. I just wanted to chime in and talk about the opportunity that we have before us and specifically in the frame of project delivery reform in the United States. Heavy rail is costing us about a $1.1 billion per mile versus something like Spain comparable, where it's about $300 per mile of heavy rail.

And it's because of failures of our project delivery that I think we have an opportunity here with the LOSSAN Corridor, to attempt to resolve and attempt to pilot certain ideas like special purpose delivery vehicles, like was done for the gold mine in LA.

In 1998, bringing in multiple stakeholders, itemization of costs, setting technical scoring criteria, permitting reform that wouldn't have a local city or a sewer district stop a $303,000,000,000 project and investment in our society for weeks and weeks on ends, costing millions of the taxpayer limiting bespoke design, but also in terms of tunneling the electrification side and specifically sequel reform of electrification. So that the tunnel. Thank you for your comments, as long and as deep. Thank you, Senator Blakespear.

Thank you very much.

And next we go to line number 19. Please go ahead.

Hello, good morning, Chair Blakespear and Subcommittee Members. My name is Brian Yanity. I'm vice President south of the Rail Passenger Association of California, or RailPAC. I live in Fullerton, two blocks from the LOSSAN Corridor and two blocks from our train station. I just want to agree that given the vulnerabilities of the existing lines of San Clemente, it's critically important that we resume engineering and design studies.

Environmental studies of San Clemente bypass along or underneath I five in the Caltran zone right away should be seriously studied in the phase two study that Mr. Johnson of OCTA just mentioned for which state funding was provided. We really should be looking from the north of San Juan Capistrano to Sant Anna. That's 14 miles length. So we can have a fast double track railway for all of Orange County. We should not be intimidated by the cost, as although we should involve international best practices.

I was just mentioned, around the world, they can do tunnels much cheaper and shorter timeline than US. Agency has been able to do in recent years. But if this is 100 year last century

Thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

And next we'll go to line number 16. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Laura DeMarco, and I wanted to thank your committee for demonstrating the urgency of getting this rail realignment, specifically off Del Mar's crumbling bluffs. And I wanted to thank SANDAG for obtaining the $100 million necessary for the Bluff Stabilization Project. The problem is the $3 million fencing project that NCTD has approved drills 1400 holes that creates 1400 new sources of water intrusion.

And as Casa Romantica's slide demonstrated, the danger is not just on the ocean side with the crumbling bluffs from the water erosion and the pounding waves, but the upper bluff as well. That's what happened in Casa Romantica. And it's no coincidence that there was a fence that started that slide.

If you looked at the pictures from the Orange County fellow, you would see that there was a wrought iron fence that was drilled into that hillside about 30ft from where the bluff started sliding and dropped all that debris onto the tracks. We have the same thing going on with NCTD's plan. Please do not let NCTD drill those.

Thank you for your comments, ma'am. We appreciate it.

And there are currently no further lines in queue.

Okay, thank you, moderator, for the help. We appreciate the public comments today, so thank you to the people who commented. If you would like to make a comment in writing, you may do that at the Senate Transportation Committee website. And your suggestions and comments are important and we would like to include them in the official record. So I really appreciate the presenters for being here today. I want to say thank you so much for traveling to Sacramento and focusing your attention on this.

We will be having more committee hearings, and I hope you continue to participate. I also want to thank my staffer, Jack, for helping put together this Subcommittee, and we look forward to building a resilient rail corridor. So with that, we are adjourned.