Senate Transportation Subcommittee on LOSSAN Rail Corridor Resiliency

Subcommitee on Los End Rail Corridor resiliency will now come to order. Good afternoon, everybody. We're happy to see you there. Thank you for coming in the audience and watching on television. The Senate continues to welcome the public and has provided access to in person participation for public comment.

For today's hearing, we will be hearing all of the panels of witnesses on the agenda prior to taking any public comment. Once we have heard all the witnesses, we will have a public comment period for those who wish to comment on the topics on today's agenda.

So this Subcommitee hearing is our fifth hearing of the Subcommitee on Low sand rail corridor resiliency, and it's our first oversight hearing. The previous hearings have been informational hearings.

I'd first like to thank the panelists for coming up here to Sacramento and also the state agencies who are joining us this afternoon as we continue making progress toward a resilient and high performing rail corridor, it's important that we work collaboratively and speak honestly about the opportunities and challenges before us.

Over the last year and a half, the Subcommitee has discussed the urgent and emergency conditions along the 3501 mile coastal rail corridor that runs between San Luis Obispo and San Diego. Today, our focus will be on the passenger service and we'll hear from the state agencies responsible for rail safety planning and permitting.

Before we begin, it's important to remember that the best time is now for strategic, coordinated and bold action. We've already seen five track closures over three years, lasting many months at a time and totaling more than a year of closures. This has impacted service reliability for daily passengers. I look forward to hearing from the operating agencies.

I'd like to recognize and thank the agencies and the executives that are with us today for the progress that we've made so far. While we acknowledge this very important progress, the reality is that these important public transportation services could be and should be moving far more passengers.

If we're serious about meeting our region's congestion, air quality and equity goals, we must significantly and dramatically increase our ridership along this corridor. We'll also hear from our state agency partners with the important responsibility for rail safety planning and permitting.

I'd like to thank transportation Agency Secretary Oma Schachen, Natural Resources Secretary Crowfoot, and Public Utilities Commission Executive Director Peterson for their leadership. I'd also like to recognize the agency staff that we have here today and thank them for their public service. Through the Subcommitee, we're focusing the state response on collaborative action.

We'll need a bold and strategic response to ensure our natural resources are protected and our transportation corridor is high performing. We know this is complicated and challenging, and I don't mean to diminish that in any way. However, the truth is we must do better.

I want to thank my colleagues and Senators for being here today, and also thank you to the Members of the public who have taken the time to come today and who are watching online. I would like to ask my Subcommitee Members if anyone would like to make any comments before we begin. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the chair for her leadership on this issue and all the participants today. Thank you for continuing this conversation as we seek, I think, a plan and resources for shoring up the lows incorrider over the years to come. So, thank you.

Thank you. So our first panel is here at the table. Thank you for joining us there already. And I'm just going to introduce them so we all know who's sitting with us. First, we have Jason Jewellen, Losan Rail corridor Agency managing Director. Then Darren Kettles, Metrolink's CEO, and Shawn Donaghy, NCTD's CEO.

North County Transit District is what NCTD stands for. I want to thank you in advance for your testimony and for joining us today. And we will start with Jason Jewellen.

Okay, let me get these slides going. Can you see that there? We can. We can see it up here. There we go. Perfect. Okay. Thank you, chair Blakespear and Members of the Subcommitee, for inviting me to speak in front of you today alongside my colleagues Darren Kettle and Sean Donahy.

Again, my name is Jason Jewell, managing Director of the Los Angrill Corridor Agency. And as you know, we are a joint powers authority which manages and oversees the Amtrak Pacific Surflander service along the 350 miles long Low sand corridor.

So, moving on to the second slide, this slide highlights the uniqueness and complexity of the Los Angele corridor, which is comprised of seven right of way owners, both public and private. Roughly 55% of the corridor is owned, maintained and operated by private freight railroads of Union Pacific and BNSF.

This map also shows the 29 stations served by the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service. The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service, as you well may know, has historically been the busiest state supported service Amtrak route in the nation in terms of ridership and the second busiest intercity rail corridor behind the Northeast corridor.

Moving on to this slide, this really presents all of the services being provided along the corridor through the surfliner stops. Obviously, I just mentioned there's 29 of those, but there are actually 41 stations along the corridor, with those additional 12 being served only by commuter rail service.

There are also Amtrak long distance service routes that utilize the corridor. In total, there are currently 145 inner city or commuter train operating along the Lo sand rail corridor.

And as you are all familiar with with the national importance of the lose end corridor, the US Department of Defense has identified a large portion of the corridor as part of the strategic rail corridor network, otherwise known as Stracnec, for its key role in providing access to not only the port of San Diego, but the Marine Corps base is Camp Pendleton and Miramar, as well as the North Island Naval Air Station, which is a major port for the United States Navy fleet.

The northern end of the corridor is also considered a connector line under stracnet for its ability to connect northern and Southern California and its access to Vandenberg Space Force base. So, diving in to some of our operational information, I wanted to share some specific information about Pacific Surfliner ridership and specifically ridership recovery.

We are currently operating about 84% of pre Covid service levels and are averaging about 75% of pre Covid ridership. However, when you look at the ridership per train mile, which is the yellow line showed on this chart, we are running about 98% of pre Covid ridership running less miles.

However, the number of passengers per mile is just about the same of what it was pre Covid, which is a good indication that the demand is there. July preliminary numbers are showing just above 200,000 riders, which is the highest ridership we've seen since February of 2020. Our farebox recovery is at about 62%.

We have a mandated 55% recovery ratio and this is expected to increase through July. This next slide shows the boardings and alightings for federal fiscal year 24. So far, the stations at the top of the graph reflect the most popular stations along the line based on boardings and alightings.

These include La Union Station, of course, San Diego, which is actually the Santa Fe depot station, Santa Barbara, Old Town San Diego and Irvine. So this chart really gives an indication on the customer usage and really the popularity of these particular stations. So next, I wanted to dive a little deeper into some on time performance information.

Our on time performance goal of 90% end time on time performance, I'll refer to it as OTP, is set through an interagency transfer agreement between the Losan agency and the state. Endpoint, OTP represents the percentage of trains arriving to their final station within 15 minutes of their scheduled arrival time.

So since the reopening of the tracks at Mariposa Point in San Clemente back on March 25, we have been averaging about 83% on time performance. We do provide a quarterly report to our board of directors on on time performance and quarter trends, which are in our board agendas online.

However, we are working to synthesize this information and put it up on our website to be more readily available and accessible to the public. Moving on to the next slide, I wanted to get into some of the data around achieving our on time performance goals.

This chart shows delays by responsible party per 10,000 train miles, but I really wanted to highlight really the top five delay types that we see for Pacific surfliner, and those delay types include passenger train interference, signal delays, commuter train interference, passenger related delays, and slow orders. I wanted to touch upon a couple of these areas briefly.

I wanted to touch upon passenger train interference. This is really when another Amtrak train is out of its scheduled slot and creates a delay to another Pacific surfliner train.

This could be caused by a series of different issues related to mechanical delays, even passenger related delays, or anything else that could initially delay a surfline or train en route.

This is typically associated with cascading delays from another source, and given the wide range of root causes for this type of delay, there isn't a single approach really to addressing it.

Staff continues to work with our host railroads on dispatching priorities to minimize these types of delays, and we also work with our Amtrak mechanical team to identify root causes for mechanical issues to really try to limit issues that could create an initial delay. Some of the other delays that I wanted to quickly mention are signal delays.

Now, these are often caused by signal malfunctions, which sometimes could be a simple failure of a part, but most recently, which I think Darren may get into as part of his discussion, is vandalism, where there's actually thieves taking the copper communication wiring from the control boxes, which obviously causes significant disruptions.

Also, a lot of our signal delays have been tied to challenges being faced on the northern end of our corridor related to grade crossings. Now, this issue is where the trains are not consistently activating crossings with the appropriate amount of lead time.

This is known as a shunting issue and to maintain safety while operating, the railroads have implemented slow orders at these crossings to avoid the potential of a strike.

A long term solution has been identified to install an antenna on the trucks of both the locomotive and the cab control cars, which basically enhances the electrical signal between the rails that allow the circuit controlling the crossing to shunt more reliably. So we are excited about a test of this prototype.

Antenna is scheduled with Union Pacific on the Losang corridor for September, but until that possible fix is implemented, we will continue to see these types of delays up in the northern end of our corridor.

Moving on to slide eight now, I wanted to talk about another topic that causes delays and that is the unfortunate incident of trespasser strikes.

This slide shows the trends around trespasser strikes and vehicle strikes for Pacific surfliner since federal fiscal year 2018 to 19 a few key pieces of information I wanted to point out is that in federal fiscal year 2468% of strikes have been trespassers while 32% are vehicles.

95% of fatal strikes have been trespassers and 86% of trespasser strikes have not been at a crossing. So 95% of trespasser strikes have been fatal. And excuse me, 95% of the fatal strikes have been trespassers. Strikes are typically higher during winter months like we saw this past January.

I do want to mention that we also provide a quarterly report to our board on the system safety that does include details on trespasser strikes and we are looking to make this information also more readily available on our website.

In addition to the quarter trends information that I spoke about, we do recognize the impacts that these trespasser strikes have on our customers and our operations, and this isn't really a one size fits all solution.

We have recently coordinated with California Operation Lifesaver on Operation Safe Surf initiative, which is a multifaceted strategy for enhanced rail safety education and awareness. As part of this, we have recently completed rail safety advertisements displayed on Internet connected tvs and streaming platforms throughout areas on the corridor where incidents are most prevalent.

These areas include Solano Beach and Oceanside, LA to Fullerton, Oxnard and Camarillo, as well as Santa Barbara. We also have done geofence safety messaging distributed through cell phone advertising.

We are currently working on designing signage to be installed along high risk areas of the corridor, and then the final leg of the program is to engage with local resources along the corridor for opportunities that they may be able to help provide outreach to individuals that are living near the tracks to offer rail safety information and resources.

We're also currently looking to get PSA educational videos and information out to local government jurisdictions who have local broadcast channels really to get a broader reach out to our local regions.

And finally, we are looking at technological opportunities to pilot track intrusion and detection solutions, and we look forward to coordinating with NCTD Metrolink and up on these possible solutions.

I do want to mention one last item, and that is that we also have coordinated with Amtrak Police Department on emergency response training for trespasser incidents in which they have developed training classes as part of a statewide training for first responders and coroners on how to really deal with trespasser strikes and really rail emergencies.

And this training is planned to be rolled out this year. Okay, now I wanted to change gears a little bit and talk about our annual business plan process.

Under our interagency transfer agreement between the Losan agency and the state, the Losan agency is required to submit an annual business plan, I'm going to refer to it as our ABP to the California Transportation Secretary by April 1 of each year.

And our agreement with the state prescribes elements of the ABP, which is a two year planning, operations and budget document and serves really as the agency's plan for operating the Pacific surfline or inner city rail service.

It also includes a report on overall performance, a marketing plan, capital improvement projects along the corridor, and includes the agency's funding requests for Administration, operations and marketing.

This past year, we began incorporating the requirements of SB 677 into our ABP, which includes a discussion on the effects of climate change on the corridor, as well as it highlights capital projects planned along the corridor to increase resiliency and related funding opportunities identified for each project.

And the ABP process itself is really a six month process that starts with our agency developing key assumptions that are reviewed by our technical Advisory Committee and then adopted by the losend Agency board.

Once the initial draft of the ABP document is completed in the January timeframe, we request that the technical Advisory Committee, otherwise known as our TAC Members, to review and provide feedback on it, which then gets incorporated into revised draft.

We bring back to our TAC before presenting it to our board in the February timeframe for review and comment. Any comments from board Members is then incorporated into a final draft, which is also recirculated back through the TAC and board again before final approval in the March timeframe before it is finally submitted to Calsta by April 1.

The most recent ABP for fiscal year 2425 and 2526 includes assumptions to restore approximately 95% of pre Covid service levels for the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service in fiscal year 2425.

This includes restoring the 11th and 12th round trips between LA and San Diego and maintaining a fifth round trip between San Diego and Goleta, with two of those trips continuing to San Luis Obispo.

As we look towards fiscal year 2526 we are anticipating either the restoration of the 13th round trip, which is what we had pre Covid between San Diego and Los Angeles, or introducing a possible third round trip to San Luis Obispo, really dependent on our market analysis and feedback we receive from our technical Advisory Committee and approval from our board.

We are very grateful for the support of Caltrans, Calsta, the state Legislature, and the Governor for approving the 2024 budget, which includes an increase to the California inner city rail funding by 210, basically 211 million over three years to support the restoration of our services and future growth.

We are currently coordinating with Calista and Caltrans on refining forecasts and fleet planning that will support and maximize service restoration for all three California JPAs, all three corridors.

And finally, for the last slide, I mentioned the capital projects list that is included in our ABP. This slide shows the projects that are active in map form along the corridor. Active projects are those in some level of active planning, designing, construction are recently completed or closed out.

These projects are being implemented by various host railroads, Member agencies and stakeholders and really serves as a reminder of the amount of capital investment and work that is not only being coordinated along the corridor, but is also necessary to improve the corridor for the future, including addressing the long term resiliency of the corridor.

And I'm sure Kyle Gradinger from Caltrans, who's on the second panel today, will get into this during his discussion. But we are very excited about our corridor being accepted into the federal Corridor Identification and development program, otherwise known as corridor ID.

We believe this will solidify a roadmap for developing a pipeline of future inner city railroad related improvements and expansions along the corridor, as well as funding strategies to maximize the investments needed for the corridor. With that, that concludes my brief presentation, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you. For the Members who have recently arrived. We're going to hear from all the panelists and then ask questions, so we'll move on. Sean, are you. I'm not sure which of you is next.

Should you go ahead? Thank you. Thank you, chair members of the subcommitee and colleagues. Anytime we have the opportunity to come and speak here at the Capitol about things that really impact public transit, it's a great honor to do so and to be able to answer questions for anybody that they have of us.

My name is Sean Donaghy. I'm the Chief Executive Officer at the North County Transit District. Obviously, it's a pleasure to be here today. Our main topic of discussion is rail service along the Lo sand corridor. But first, I'd like to provide a brief overview of NCTD's overall transit system and how our services work together.

NCTD operates six modes across approximately 1020 sq mi of service area in north San Diego. County. NCTD's modes include coaster, commuter rail or sprinter hybrid rail, as well as fixed route and flexible bus service, paratransit and micro transit.

We are one of only seven agencies in the nation that operate hybrid rail service, and we are one of only three agencies in the nation that operate hybrid rail, heavy rail and bus service.

The district is unique in that we own a significant portion of the San Diego subdivision of the Los Ang corridor that is not very common in public transit. NCTD is the railroad of record and the rail common carrier for the San Diego subdivision as designated by the Federal Government, and these designations come with quite a few responsibilities.

NCTD is responsible for maintenance of the San Diego subdivision and must ensure that the line remains open for Amtrak Metrolinkous, Metrolink services, freight movement, and Stracnet. As mentioned before, in conjunction with the military as the owner, NCTD enters shared use agreements with each entity that uses our rail line.

We are also responsible for dispatching every train that enters the San Diego subdivision to ensure the safe movement of passengers and goods. NCTD works with Metrolink, Amtrak and BNSF, along with Losan on scheduling to optimize rail service and connectivity between our services.

Riders on any of NCTD's modes can connect to Metrolink and Amtrak Pacific Surfliner at our Oceanside Transit center, which serves as a hub for regional connectivity. From there, they can continue their journey through North Los Angeles to endless destinations on Amtrak. We're also working together to advance capital projects that strengthen our shared rail line.

NCTD and the San Diego Association of Governments recently submitted state and federal funding applications for the Eastbrook to Shell double track project. This project makes necessary improvements to the rail infrastructure north of the Oceanside Transit center to improve rail operations on the San Diego subdivision.

One of the main project components is replacing a 100 year old bridge over the San Luis Rey river and Oceanside. Replacement of this bridge is crucial to maintaining State of good repair on the line and reducing NCTD's continuing maintenance costs. The project is key to ensuring climate resiliency on the corridor as well as sea levels rise.

Rail bridges along Low sand corridor are more susceptible to washout. By replacing the existing bridge across the river with a concrete bridge, it mitigates these risks. The project will also construct an additional track which will eliminate major bottleneck and create 10 miles of continuous double track. The elimination of this bottleneck will increase service reliability throughout the corridor.

Single track bottlenecks can contribute to several train delays which may have cascading effects on other services. And with our partners here at the table, double tracking is also essential to allow NCTD, Metrolink and Losand to increase service frequencies in the future.

As previously discussed, NCTD and SandAg's funding applications for this project were supported by Losan, Amtrak, BNSF and Metrolink, each highlighting the benefits that the project will have to their services. We are also very appreciative of Senator Blakespeare's support as well. We're also advancing several other State of good repair projects.

Capacity enhancing and climate resiliency on the San Diego subdivision that are fully funded. Sandag began construction this year of the phase five of the Del Mar Bluffs project, which will stabilize the bluffs for 30 years. This project continues NCTD and SandAg's decades long effort to shore up the bluffs and maintain resiliency within the corridor.

And last year, the State of California awarded NCTD 100 million for the Sandoguido double track phase two project. This project will replace the Sandhiguito River Railway bridge and provide additional double tracking support for the line.

The project also adds new special event station at the Del Mar fairgrounds and makes it easier for to take the Amtrak Pacific surfliner and coaster to some of the region's most popular events.

Additionally, SANDAG received $103 million for the Bataquitos Lagoon double track project, which similarly replaces an aging rail bridge and adds additional double tracking along the line. Completion of projects like these along the corridor are critical to provide the best rail service possible for our riders.

We work together to prioritize the advancement of projects that present the most need. NCTD participates in the development of the state rail plan, which provides a strategy for near mid and long term investments needed to enhance statewide rail service.

NCTD also participates in corridor ID, the effort for the Lo sand corridor between the state and Federal Railroad Administration. The Losan optimization study in SanDAG's regional plan also lays out the framework for the prioritization of the San Diego region's projects.

This coordination is important to funding applications, but also to ensure effective investments are being made to attract new riders and adapt to changing ridership patterns. Ridership is continuing to recover, and we've made some changes to our service to better meet the needs of our customers. We've improved first and last mile connections along our rail corridor.

NCTD recently launched five new flex bus routes to expand connectivity from one of our key coaster stations to the San Diego region's largest employment center and major educational, retail and healthcare destinations. NCTD increased coaster frequencies in October of 2021 and has seen an increase in ridership year over year.

Weekend ridership on the coaster is actually higher than pre pandemic levels, and we're working to make paying for your ticket easier to ride. For those who aren't familiar with our system, as of about a month ago, riders can simply tap their credit card, phone or smartwatch to pay for their ticket.

NCTD also recognizes that security in our modes is a huge factor affecting our riders. NCTD's board of directors recently approved an 18% increase in our security budget, and we're very thankful for that. We're using those resources to expand our presence at transit centers and on our moves to make sure that our riders feel safe.

We're also implementing text based security alerts, enhancing close circuit TV video equipment, and improving lighting at all of our transit centers. NCTD continues to identify ways that we can enhance the rider experience and utilize existing resources effectively.

To do so, our fiscal 2025 budget includes funding for several priority projects, including wayfinding and navigating our transit centers, easier ticketing enhancements to make purchasing and validating tickets and passes more convenient, and a new pedestrian crossing at the Oceanside Transit center to improve connections between modes.

While NCTD's five year budget is balanced, funding in the out years is more challenging due to slowing sales tax revenues and formula funding projections. NCTD has worked hard to diversify our revenue sources to mitigate some of the impacts of changing fiscal environments.

We recently and have over the past few years launched a transit oriented development program and have engaged partners to redevelop six of our transit centers. So far, the district has structured these agreements as ground leases. NCTD maintains ownership of the land and our transit centers to develop so the developers pay us a lease fee.

Transit oriented development not only generates a stable source of revenue for the district, but also creates organic ridership. We continue to we continue to be excited about our expansion of our outreach and community partners through these developments and beyond.

While we maintain great relationships with jurisdictions in our service area, we are placing a significant focus on our increasing our presences within our community. One of the things that we've repeatedly said to some of the cities in our jurisdiction is we want to be more than a transit agency.

We want to be part of projects that may not necessarily be exactly transit focused. And we want to put energy to make sure that the cities in North County have the energy from our organization that they need to be able to Fund and support all projects that will improve quality of life.

Partnerships between NCTD and our communities and elected officials, as well as my colleagues here on the panel, are integral to the success of our shared transportation network.

And again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide an overview of NCTD, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have as we engage in discussion with our colleagues. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Mister Jewell, would you mind? I think on the on the very first page is our presentation that is going to be super complicated. I have a single slide. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind putting that up. I appreciate that. Thank you, Jason.

And thank you, Madam Chair and Members of this Committee, Subcommitee for the invitation to speak to you today. My name is Darren Kettle, Chief Executive Officer for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Sera, which operates Metrolink, is a joint powers authority consisting of the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.

When Metrolink launched our first train in 1992, we operated on three lines. Metrolink provides Southern California with a safe, efficient, dependable customer commuter rail service. We offer an outstanding customer experience. We reduce emissions and foster economic vitality by connecting jobs and housing in a traditionally car centric region.

Today, what you see on the screen before you is our system. We operate a 545 route, mile, eight line system serving six counties, making Metrolink the third largest regional passenger railroad in the United States. As you are aware, reducing vehicle Miles traveled is a major goal for California.

Metrolink is uniquely positioned to provide viable, alternative transportation to those traveling longer distances. We removed 4.1 million car trips in fiscal year 24 with an average trip length of 37 miles. This equates to a whopping 152 million fewer vehicle miles traveled in Southern California. Our Antelope Valley and Orange County lines run parallel to I five.

Our Riverside line runs parallel to Sr 60. The 91, Parris Valley and Inland Empire lines parallel the 91 corridor between Riverside County and Orange County. Our San Bernardino line operates alongside I 10 and 210, and the Ventura County line parallels the 101 and 118 freeways from Los Angeles to Ventura.

Not only do these passenger rail lines offer alternatives to driving, but they transport residents in more affordable housing markets to jobs and economic opportunities in the rest of the region. Just as Shawn mentioned, nationwide commuter railroad commuter rail riders have been slow to return to the workforce and Metrolink is no exception.

With pandemic related hybrid remote work schedules appearing permanent, we have to plan to rebuild our ridership. Instead of catering mainly to nine to five commuters traveling to job centers in Los Angeles and Orange County, we are taking a major step to transition our service model from a commuter rail orientation to that of a regional passenger rail model.

Under what we call Metrolink reimagined service, we will increase off peak train availability in the middle part of the day and into the evenings on weekdays. Our regional rail transition is similar to other efforts around the country and is based on projected unmet ridership demand.

When we surveyed our customers in 2022, respondents were quick to call out the limitations of a commuter cetric system. Respondents noted that Metrolink's existing hours of operation preclude them from taking the train to many leisure activities, including sporting events, concerts and day trips.

3 and 4 riders said they would be more likely to ride Metrolink if we increased midday service, and a significant 87% asked for more weekend trains. Beginning in October, we intend to expand service to meet this demand. Specifically, we intend to add 32 trains going from 142 to 174 trains daily.

We will spread service across the day and into the evening. The schedule will promote transfer opportunities through pulse or clock face scheduling across all lines, providing a better alternative to driving and better connectivity at La Union Station.

We would not have been able to do that were it not for the five Member agencies of the Sera system had they not approved an additional $7.2 million to our budget this year to allow us to approach this new model. Metrolink is also building ridership through fare alternatives much like our sister agencies.

One of the most exciting of these has been the launch of our student adventure pass. We launched it in October of 2023 and it was done with an initial grant from the from Caltrans out of the Low carbon transit operations program. Students can now ride the Metrolink system, all eight lines for free funded through that grant.

Over 1 million student tickets have been activated to date. Student ticket sales in May and June of this year more than doubled when compared to last year, and these students are often new riders. A recent poll showed that 34% of the students had never taken Metrolink prior to the implementation of our student adventure pass.

As I've shared with this Committee before, I can personally report as a frequent Ventura County line rider. As I live in Ventura County, I have spoken to students on board who express true gratitude in this program that opens both education opportunities and life experience to the next generation of public transit users.

We are also making service more convenient and frequent through expanded partnerships with our great partner in Losan, our codeshare program that allows Metrolink ticket holders to ride all Pacific surfliner trains between Union Station and Ventura. This program is designed to increase service levels for customers on the Ventura County line, where we run fewer Metrolink trains.

The launch of the codeshare program has proven highly successful. Ridership between Union Station and Ventura was up 96% in the last 12 months, increasing from about 30,000 to 60,000 riders.

Compare that to south of Union Station where our rail to rail program, which is also an effective tool, allows for travel on both systems, again Metrolink and Surfliner, but only for monthly passholders. Ridership has also increased, but at a smaller margin of about 45%. At the request of Santa Barbara and Ventura County transportation agencies.

We have provided a proposal to operate new commuter rail service as far north as Goleta in Santa Barbara county, the Ventura County Transportation Commission approved $3.8 million of SB 1 funding, and the Santa Barbara County Association of Government intends to use local transportation sales tax dollars to support the service expansion.

Concurrent with these efforts, we are also evaluating changes to simplify and reduce our complicated fare offerings. Recommendations will be published later this year with the goal of reducing customer confusion and supporting long term growth across our system.

Additionally, it is worth noting that Metrolink has held the line on ticket pricing, having not raised ticket prices prices since prior to the pandemic. While many other of our daily expenses have inflated since the pandemic, our fares have not, and I'm pleased to report that these initiatives are garnering results.

Metrolink ridership reached 6.3 million boardings in fiscal year 24, an increase of 22% over fiscal year 23, and on our best days, we average about 58% of pre pandemic ridership as compared to 2019.

Within the context of this encouraging growth story across our system, I'd like to address performance on the lo sand corridor, which is home to some of the busiest station pairs across our system. Out of the top 20 station pairs, five of them are on the Lo sand corridor.

Last year, the Union Station and Fullerton stations hosted nearly 148,000 ticket riders. Our busiest station pair system wide. To keep these positive numbers growing, we place major emphasis on time performance that was referenced by Mister Jewell a short time ago. We know that customers rely for us on high quality, dependable on time service.

One of the causes of delay is freight train interference. However, our coordination with the Burlington Northern, Santa Fe and up railroads has improved over the last two years as we have increased our dialogue with regular meetings to identify hotspots and work with operators to implement changes as needed to reduce disruptions and delays.

More recently, another leading cause, and this is just also addressed by Mister Jewell as he would reference my remarks for both passenger trains and freight trains, is vandalism on our single systems.

By vandalism, I mean the disturbing trend of copper wire theft when our signal houses are broken into, or cables that connect signals or grade crossings are cut. It creates a serious safety issue and requires us to operate at slow speeds.

Of course, this impacts our on time performance, and Mister Jewell also referenced the issue related to on time performance that comes about due to the very sad tragedy of pedestrian strikes. I will not go into any greater detail on that. It's a difficult issue for us as this whole system to have to address.

But we are trying to make attempts and not letting go of just the situation occurring. In addressing the challenge, Metrolink has secured a earmark from Congressman Brad Sherman and an additional federal grant to develop pioneering track intrusion detection system. It is our intent to use AI to connect with our existing positive train control technology.

Cameras will identify trespassers and, utilizing the PTC system inform train engineers to slow or stop trains. I will end my remarks by emphasizing while this is an exciting time in the Metrolink history, we have challenges or opportunities ahead.

Most importantly, Metrolink needs the state's help in identifying alternative dedicated revenue sources that commuter railroads can leverage for capital or operating expenses. SB 125 was a lifeline for transit operations.

We appreciate that the Legislature and the Governor continue to support transit through the very challenging FY 2425 state budget, but long term, a lack of dedicated funding is a major obstacle to our plans for service growth, new railroad track capacity, and the critically important State of good repair needs of all of our systems.

Additionally, our agency is seeking grant funding to replace older polluting locomotives with tier four, the cleanest burning diesel locomotives in the United States. In March 2021, the Metrolinka board approved our climate action plan in order to do our part to reduce air pollution.

We have replaced 40 older locomotives with tier four s out of a core fleet of 55, by far the state and probably the nation's largest tier four fleet for a passenger rail system.

But we need to replace 15 more, and if we can't expand our tier four fleet by 2030 or earlier, we risk being out of compliance with CArb's recently adopted in use locomotive regulation, and we may have to repurpose operations funding and cut service.

Though we have repeatedly tried to secure federal grants to replace our remaining fleet, our applications have not been successful thus far. We can sure use the help of lawmakers such as yourselves expressing support for our federal applications. Regional and state consensus goes a long way.

And then, finally, given where we are Tuesday after the Olympics, we are no less than four years away from 2028. The regional public transit system must be ready to accommodate the estimated 3 million expected attendees. Metrolink will serve as the regional backbone of public transit service, connecting people to venues throughout Southern California.

We saw firsthand just a little over two weeks ago the importance of readying public transit for the games. Unfortunately, France's regional rail lines were hit by coordinated attacks and vandalism, disrupting the opening ceremonies and other competitions.

The first couple days, we can improve transit's resilience against security threats, but we need federal and state support to ensure our system operates in an efficient, safe, and reliable manner during the games and beyond. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommitee, for having me today to discuss Metrolink service in the Los Angeles corridor and beyond.

And I will look forward to taking your questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, thank you very much to the three of you. I very much appreciate the information. I'll just ask a couple of preliminary questions and then turn it to my colleagues if they have any questions.

So the first one has to do with, really, the core of this Subcommittee's work, which is to have the rail corridor be more successful. And there are. There are a track issues and there are operational issues. So, basically, those two things are what create the success of this corridor.

And we know that in the State of California, the mode share for rail is 1%. So 1% is the number of people who take rail and carbs. Goals for the state are 14%.

So when we're talking about goal setting, the state sets the vision for things like frequencies of trains and I, seamless operability and various high level concepts, but they leave it up to the operators to figure out how to operationalize that.

And so the state rail plan, my question is, how are you operationalizing that to go from something like 1% to something like 14%? Because what I hear from the goal setting process is that we're not starting with a big goal and figuring out how to get there.

What we're doing is looking at where we are and saying, well, we'll get back to pre pandemic levels in five years, after the pandemic, or maybe next time, or. And we're looking at train frequencies, but we're not looking at ridership numbers.

And so saying we have this slowly improving market conditions that are showing us that we might be here by this time is really not the way to meet a goal. So my question is, in the big picture, you know, what are we doing to try to meet these much more ambitious goals?

Set the goal for the independent, for the agencies themselves, for the Los Ang corridor as a whole, and then to actually work toward that. So, if you could address that question, and I'll ask it to all three of you, I'd appreciate it.

Well, I'll go ahead and take the first stab at it. I think we have a variety of different factors out there. The Members of this panel hit on a number of different issues. I've actually, Madam Chair, tried to get away from a conversation of pre pandemic numbers.

I just think we need to talk about how we grow ridership in Southern California. And I look at our opportunity. I think rail systems meet every serious goal that this state has had as it relates to economic prosperity, vehicle miles traveled, equity, greenhouse gas reductions, and our systems provide that.

As I alluded to in my remarks, what we heard from people that may take the train is we need service that meets our needs. And currently we're nothing.

And we're trying to, with what we're talking about under Metrolink reimagined is that first phase, we put more trains out there that operate on schedules that are more intuitive, that people can use and take them to places they want to go. So I think that's a big, that's a first step.

We need to have capacity that our trains can operate on. We've shared with this Committee before our score program where we're trying to create more track capacity. And then I think it's going to be a, it's going to be incumbent on rail agencies across the board to have fair structures that work for people.

They know how to use them and we do those things.

I think there's going to be, and I will leave with this the next four years, and I've said this several different times, there is no better time for us to have lasting transformity, a true legacy in moving people into rail than a success in LA 28 and moving people for those games.

Because of the number of people that are going to have to take public transit, it is our time to shine and we have to put a service out there that does shine. And I think it will completely change the landscape of how Southern Californians look at being able to use public transit and specifically rail.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just build off of those comments. I would say that for us specifically, we did very much the same thing. We looked at our service that we had on the rail. We tried to find and we do the same thing. We really don't talk about pre pandemic, post pandemic.

What we're really trying to do is find out what the new normal is in terms of ridership, peak and non peak, and build service that exists around that for us.

Because we have so many users of the line, we're sort of tapped out on how we can move around some of our services without getting some of these other projects push forward on double tracking. So it provides a little bit of resiliency in the corridor for us to be able to add more services into really our schedule.

Mainly on the off peak side. We're seeing a huge improvement on weekend service. So there may be opportunities for us to be able to provide more there.

I think part of it is you're starting to see a lot more sprawl, especially into areas, I think between southern Los Angeles and sort of north, the actual northern end of San Diego County for us. So how do we sort of shore up service in between Anaheim and Oceanside Transit center?

For us, I think is a big piece of where we see some opportunities going into the future, how we manage those relationships. I think everybody sort of has competing interests in terms of the infrastructure that they need to make that happen. And so I think we've done a good job having the conversation.

It's just how do we get to a space where we're able to do those things with the infrastructure that we currently have and the infrastructure that we need? And I'm hoping that we can get to a space where that's not only a priority, but we're able to Fund it as well.

Yeah, I think the comments that I wanted to make on this particular topic involve the capital infrastructure as well as specifically the fleet and the resources for Amtrak Pacific surfliner.

And as you recall, that slide that I showed with the map of all the capital projects, and Sean had mentioned a lot of the capital investments that NCTD is leading, such as the double tracking.

I think it's going to be really key as we work together, especially in our regional stakeholder groups and our ongoing stakeholder meetings that we do on a regular basis, to really focus on the capital projects that are currently in the pipeline and focus on getting what is getting done, what needs to get done.

And the reason that I say that is because for Amtrak Pacific Surfliner in particular, you know, we do have plans under the umbrella of the state rail plan, expand beyond our pre Covid service levels and go up to 14 and 15 round trip capacity. But we need these capital projects done to do that.

So we need our central coast layover facility built on the northern end of the corridor. We need our Tagus siding done. Those types of siding projects, double tracking projects will really help us get the infrastructure that's needed to be able to work towards that long term capacity. And for us in particular, I mentioned the fleet.

We are currently working with Caltrans and the other two jpas on a regular basis for long term fleet planning. That's going to be particularly important for us as we look to get additional resources as far.

But we are strategically focused on how do we maximize those resources with what we have without putting too much service out there and then having a fiscal cliff at the end of three years.

So we need to also look at ways we can work towards how do we get those ongoing funding resources available, and not just for short periods of time, so we don't expand too quickly and then have to shut off service within three years.

So I think those resources are going to be particularly important as we look towards, you know, the next two to three years to make sure we have that ongoing funding capacity and resources available to us so that we can continue to plan for those longer term capacity increases. So I think that concludes my remarks on that.

Madam Chair, could I provide one quick follow up?

The other element, though, that we've just briefly touched on is the fact that we have other partners that aren't at this table, and it's the class one freight railroads, and we all have different agreements with those railroads that limit our ability to add, in some cases, trains absent new capacity.

So, just as one example, on our, the line that goes from Los Angeles to Fullerton, we have, we're what we call slot capped under our shared use agreement with BNSF, we can only place so many passenger trains on that location. So if we want to grow service, and I think we do, we are.

And it is critically important that BNSF continue to run freight trains. Arguably, moving freight the most efficiently is by rail. So we do. That's where some of these other conversations about capacity goes, is it's for us.

But it also, working with the freight railroads creates capacity both for their operations as well as ours, which allows us to grow our service. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that. And that's a good segue into my second question.

But I'll just conclude that first part with saying I would like to see more ambitious goals setting around ridership so that we're putting it out there where we want to go, and then also you would be able to provide to us what you need to get there.

So I feel like that's all part of the successful planning process. My second point is about transparency and building public trust. So it's really important, I think, that we speak honestly about what is happening in the corridor, including how much freight is being carried on this line.

And when and how, as well as the movement of flammable and hazardous materials. There was just an article in the Union Tribune about things that need to leave San Onofre and how they're traveling on rail safely. But the reality of tonnage carried passenger movements, scheduling, you know, this is not information that we can easily access.

We as legislators and my team, we have to file a public records request in order to get information that should be available to the public.

And I think when we're having these really hot spot problems, like in San Clemente or in Del Mar, and there's discussion of moving the rail line, there's a subgroup of people that says this rail line is not important.

And so if we're trying to say there's $1.0 billion worth of goods that's carried on this line, we need to be able to back that up with the data, and we need to be able to show people what is happening on this line that's really important.

We also frequently talk about being the second busiest rail line in the nation. You know, that kind of data, we just, in real time, we should be showing people what's happening. But we also just in General need to have a much more transparent data approach so that we can build confidence and show the value of this line.

And it's also, it would allow us to really see honestly where we can make improvements and where we need to be negotiating additional slots and these various things that go to the core of your operationalization of it, being able to operate it effectively.

So I'd like to know, you know, this is in some ways maybe more of a LOSSAN question, because LOSSAN oversees all of the agencies that operate on the corridor.

So maybe, Mister Jewell, you could answer this, but I really would like to know what is the plan to provide more transparent information, including from the freight, the freight companies that operate on the line?

Yeah, as I mentioned during my discussion, we as an agency are working towards, internally as a team, working towards providing more transparent data on our ridership, on time performance, quarter trends, system safety, and incident data to make it more readily available on our website.

Although these are all public documents that go through our board of directors and they're on our agendas, it's obviously hard for the public to dig around and try to find that information. So we do want to make that more readily available and have that information portrayed in a way that is understandable and succinct and easily accessible.

So we are working towards that. As regards to the freight information, that has always been information that I think the freights hold dear to them. They are privately held companies, so they do not have to provide a lot of that information that they feel is confidential.

And so that does oftentimes gets us into a space when we're talking about transparency, is how do we accurately be able to attain and provide that information? And we actually, through our operating agreement with Amtrak. Amtrak has agreements with the freight operators for access rights and pays the fees to those freight entities directly.

We were successful through our losing agency in getting a agreement with Union Pacific for capitalized maintenance and on time performance. Access.

Really kind of the first agreement of its kind to be done for our agency, which allows us to pay Union Pacific directly and work with them on really providing an on time performance initiative and as well as capitalized maintenance of the northern end of our corridor, that really allows us to keep the corridor on the northern end in a truly State of good repair.

As part of that agreement, you know, we have invested infrastructure improvements with Union Pacific that have been completed on the computer northern end of our corridor that really have helped increase aging infrastructure and have really helped us be able to achieve a little bit higher performance on that end of the corridor.

But again, as far as the data and information related to freight, that is kind of a continual discussion as far as what is confidential and what is able to be provided and public information. And that's something we'll continue to have discussions with them on to try to figure out the best way to deal with that.

Not sure if Sean or Darren have.

Some thoughts on that, if I could, Madam Chair. So the fact of the matter is, NCTD is a railroad of record. Metrolink is a railroad of record. And this is not anything on LOSSAN. LOSSAN operates on NCTD tracks. They operate on our tracks. They operate on Union Pacific tracks.

So where are the arrangements with those freight railroads? If we're going to have data, we're going to have data because we're the operating railroad that would have any of that information regarding some of the questions regarding transparency.

But I think there are a couple of critical elements of this, and transparency is, and I'm a huge believer in it.

I suspect, given the nature of this corridor, we may have national defense issues that might be of concern given what may be being hauled by train, as well as proprietary elements that the freight railroads may have that they would protect because of whatever it is they're hauling.

So Mister Jewell mentioned the fact they hold that data very close to the vest. I'm not anticipating this question, and Madam Chair, I haven't done the homework on how we handle that and working with maybe hazardous materials, those types of questions, which I think was part of your question.

Happy to get back to you with more information along those lines, but I think it is important to recognize that Lo sand the surfliner is an operating railroad on multiple, on multiple railroads of record. And we appreciate that partnership.

But when push comes to shove, it's the NCDD's or the scras of the world whose job it is to run those railroads, dispatch, operate, maintain, and so on. So not to speak for you, Sean, but I thought I might cover at least a little bit of it.

No, and I appreciate that question. I would definitely agree with what was said. I think for us, transparency is the key.

In fact, I think if we had our preference, there would be an open dashboard to the public to sort of show the differences of how many trips we ran a day on Amtrak, how many freight runs we did at night, how many coaster runs we did for NCTD, how many runs.

We probably couldn't say how many military runs. But I think that's all important information just sort of comes down to the agreements that we have with the carriers and what they are actually carrying and what their agreements are through some of those things.

I think transparency from a 50,000 foot level of this is how the line is operating from a day to day basis. There's probably information that could be coordinated and put out there pretty quickly.

From a business intelligence standpoint, I think when we start to get into the minutia a little bit, there may be some proprietary issues that we're not allowed to share or national security issues that we cannot share with the public.

Yeah. And I just look to Caltrans, as we have in depth levels of reporting on what is on our highways.

And, I mean, you know, there are, of course, privacy concerns and national security concerns, but it seems like we would still be able to aggregate the data and make it transparent in a way that we're not currently doing.

And I appreciate the point that this isn't like a Caltrans highway network, because there are these managing owners and operators that are not the state, basically. And Caltrans, of course, is the state, but you're independent. So. But there is this collaborative working arrangement, and we have the system we have on this rail corridor.

So making sure that we're able to have the information we need to both prove the value of the corridor and also make it more clear where the opportunities are for improvement. I just think that that is really in the public's best interest in every way. So. And I don't. We're just clearly not doing that right now.

So I do think that's very important. And then my third question is related to. And we have one Member here who's very interested in hydrogen. So I'll just preview that. That's where I'm going here. So it's how quickly are we moving to zero emission technology? So, you know, the.

I appreciate Metrolink leaning in so much to buying new locomotives that you need to beat a deadline. But basically what you're doing is investing in dirty technology that will be around till 2060 and not investing in hydrogen or in catenary or some of the other things.

And so, you know, catenary, which is overhead electrification of a rail line, we see that it just, you know, was announced open for a Caltrain. We also have it on high speed rail and on Brightline, and there's no discussion of it on the Low sand rail corridor that I've heard about.

But, you know, and I know there are disputes with freight and there are other places in the world where they do have both running on the same track, freight and catenary, and investing in diesel locomotives. Really, is that legacy equipment? And I am concerned about the fact that that is where we are leaning into.

And we have mandates we need to be moving to zero emission technology on our rail as well. So I want to ask broadly about what is the thought process around that. You see what is happening at all the rail in the rest of the state here.

So what are we thinking we're doing on this rail line when it comes to zero emission technology?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would say we're all in on zero emission. The biggest problem that I think we've had, and I've had conversations with this in previous jobs with the Department of Energy and Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation is there's very little coordination between those three departments about how to manage that energy expectation.

And I think I can speak from a California perspective that we sort of jumped all in on hydrogen. And the reality is there's very little hydrogen processing throughout the state. And we have one train that's in a test phase right now on the hydrogen front.

So for us to really make that leap by 2035 with sort of an unknown piece of equipment is difficult for us to financially sort of manage and get behind in real time. I don't think it's a situation where the agencies don't want to get behind that technology.

I think it's a matter of it significantly shifts the maintenance and operating cost of the facility. If it's a wholesale change from a diesel facility to a catenary or to a hydrogen, yes, the catenary is there. It does an excellent job.

There are just some spaces along the Low sand corridor where that is not feasible for us to run overhead catenary. We've looked at options such as sort of a hybrid electric, where there's battery storage, and then it runs independent on some portions of the line.

Long term, if we want to take service all the way to Anaheim or have some type of a sort of a back and forth between Metrolink and NCTD on increasing frequency along that portion of the corridor, that does create some challenges for us, especially through certain parts of Orange County.

I think, you know, from, the best example I can give you from the hydrogen perspective is we have hydrogen buses sitting in our lot right now that we've had for months that we can't put into service.

Because to have hydrogen trucked into our facility is about $70 a kilogram, and to get it in liquid form at a basis of somewhere between five and $7, depending on the day.

So we had to make the business decision that it wasn't worth the millions of dollars just to have hydrogen trucked in for the 15 to 20 buses we have on our lot. I think we're a little concerned about what that means long term, from a train perspective.

Fueling a hydrogen train is a lot different than fueling a diesel train. And it requires some very specialty mechanical work and things that would take several years for us to manage and put together from a facility perspective. You know, I say all that.

To say that, yes, it is difficult, but I think there's 100% agreement from the agencies that we want to move that direction. We just need the technology and the available fuel resources to catch up to us so that we can put that in front of our boards and make the decision to move into those types of equipment.

Thank you, Mister Cattle. And when I was talking about Metrolink adopting its climate action plan back in 2021, it includes an element of moving to zero emission. And of course, as Mister Donaghy was mentioning, we have exactly one hydrogen fuel cell locomotive piece of equipment in the United States right now, and it's in the metrolink service area.

It's not yet an operation, but it will be in the not too distant future. We don't have a timeline yet, so we see that as an opportunity, no doubt.

Metrolink has also been the recipient of, I believe it's about an $80 million grant from the South Coast Air Quality Management District through CARB to explore zero emission push pull locomotive technology. So like the locomotives we operate today, the fact of the matter is, is that right now the technology flat out doesn't exist.

So we're going to the industry and we're actually being fuelpath agnostic. Whether it's battery electric or whether it's hydrogen. About industry tell us what we can make work in our system. And so that is our plan we are still looking for. I mentioned the additional funding we need for the tier four as well.

I need probably double that, 80 million to fully explore two tender type vehicles that would follow a locomotive that would provide that zero emission technology, whether it's battery or hydrogen battery that we could do. So we're in that. We absolutely want to go that way.

I think the challenge of course, is that the manufacturing sector is simply not there. And even with the. The vehicle that we're going to be operating later this year or early next is going to be. It is a pilot. It's recognized as a pilot.

We've had one other hydrogen vehicle operate in the North America and it was not a success in Canada about a year ago and is now out of service. So we are all learning in this. But in the meantime, we have a railroad system to run to move passengers.

And we had very, very dirty, very dirty locomotives that were hauling those. And so I guess it maybe falls under the category of no good deed goes unpunished. We did everything we can to get to the cleanest burning locomotives that operate on renewable fuel. Not petroleum diesel, but renewable diesel.

Doing our part to try to meet all of the conditions in California. We think we've been pretty successful, but can we be better? Sure, but we need the technology to be there.

Okay.

Would you like to say anything, Mister Jewell? Sure. I'll make a few comments and I'm sure Cal Gradinger on the second panel will probably talk to this topic as well because the state is the lead in taking the lead on the future of our equipment for the rail fleet for Pacific Surfliner in the future.

The state owns our rail cars that we utilize for the surfliner and so we do coordinate with them. And like I mentioned on fleet planning, however, there is an agreement, I believe, between us and the JPAs and Caldrans for a very longer term fleet planning strategy in need.

Currently, the state is moving forward with zero emission technology, but is going to be utilizing. It's planned to be utilized on one of our northern JPA corridors to pilot that out.

And we have had discussions with them on the potential for piling one of those sets on our line, just depending on what portions of our corridor we might be able to utilize it in. However, there's also some currently capacity constraints with that type of equipment.

I think those particular pieces of equipment typically house between two to 300 seating capacity. Our needs are upwards in the 480 range and then also just designing the current equipment for the amenities that our customers are used to, including cafe cardinal, Wi Fi, those types of things.

Not to say that it can't be done, but we do have to explore all of those possibilities. So I just wanted to mention a couple of those points. And again, we do look forward to working with the state kind of on the long term strategic vision and plan for fleet planning moving into the future.

And again, I'm sure Kyle Gratinger will probably provide some comments on the next generation zero emission equipment plans for California.

Yes, thank you. I know it might be really, it's Caltrans that should answer the question about whether catenary is being evaluated or not, but I didn't hear a lot of answer on that part, but it sounds like not a lot. I'd like to turn to my colleagues. Do you have any questions? Yes, yes, go ahead.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing us together. And as you can see, we have to go in and out, in and out. So my colleagues running in, running out because of our schedules and so on. But I'd like to thank you for being here.

Mister Archeletta. Thank you.

Obviously, in my district, I have Orange County, La County, and so the others that were here have San Diego, County, Orange County, but I run into LA, so. And I'm going to kind of go back a little bit. But I'm impressed with the ridership they're out of right in the middle of my district, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs.

That ridership is up to 94,900. That's impressive. I was there just recently. As they're at the site, they're cutting some ribbons and expanding and doing some other things. So we're all looking forward to the Olympics down the road, down the track.

And I'm really impressed about your presentation on hydrogen, because you're well aware that we're all trying to find something that's going to clean our air and our environment and so on. And we're under the clock, we're under the calendar. 2028 is going to be here before we know it.

But I know you understand the problems, and I know that for my travels to Japan and I've seen their hydrogen trains a couple times that I've been there. So they're really ahead of us when it comes to their side of hydrogen and their transportation. But I think we're, I think we're on the radar.

We're coming in that direction and maybe a little late for some, too soon for others, but it's definitely on our radar. It's going to happen. I gave a speech today to a good number of educators, over 700 educators, and I have told them the future is hydrogen. It is coming.

You educators need to start preparing our young men and women for that technology. It's going to happen. And I think the hub and arches that you need to partner with to go ahead and grant some of the funding you're going to need for the future. Fuel cell battery transportation. Fuel cell batteries. It's got to happen.

But you're right. We've got to produce it. We've got to transport it. You've got to have it readily available to you. And if we're talking about a corridor that goes from San Diego to Los Angeles and beyond, well, then that's definitely the future.

But I'd like to thank you for what you're doing now, because coming before us says a lot just in itself. You're very well aware of what this Committee is all about. Public safety. I think that's number one. And our chair has expressed it it time and time again, public safety.

And then, of course, as we go into ridership, the importance of moving people that want to see the beautiful coastline in San Diego go to various parts, and now we're going to go ahead and go into Los Angeles with the Olympics. So we're talking millions of people. You're absolutely right. 3 million people. How do we move them?

How do we get them there? So it's going to be a job for all of us working together.

So I think this meeting that we're having today opens some doors for all of us to come together, because whether we're talking the central portion of the State of California, which our colleagues just walked in, that represents the way down in that beautiful area of San Diego.

We're right in the middle of the hub of Los Angeles, La County, that I do. But we're all going to have to work together. We have to find a way of getting people from point a to point b efficiently, safely, and so on.

So let me just finish up with my comments that all three of you seem to mention, and that is vandalism.

That you're going to have to, seems to me that you're going to have to beef up your security, because if an entire system is shut down because of the removal of copper lines and so on because of vandalism, think of the ridership that suffers.

So I think you need to, right now, right now, you have to take a good look at your investment when it comes to security and working with the municipalities, working with the Federal Government, working with the state. We need to take care of you so you can take care of us.

So I think you need to come up with a plan that will uplift your public safety when it comes to what is happening in your yards, what is happening because it's detrimental to the future of movement. So I think that's a priority. We talk about public safety, but let's talk about your operation that needs to be secured.

So I'm hoping you're having a tough look at that, and I'm looking forward to the next meeting we have, and you can come back and see what you've done in summer of 2024 versus next summer of 2025. And I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. And you'll be happy to know that the very next panel is talking about safety. Okay? So that will be right up your alley. Yes, Senator Niello, thank you.

A couple of comments.

First of all, the California Air Resources Board has come up in this discussion, which it does in every discussion we have with regard to mobile power plants, because they are able, they've been enabled by this Legislature to unilaterally develop requirements and also unilaterally develop any allowances for exceptions to those requirements without really any review by anything other than their board, none of whom are elected.

I've repeatedly spoken about this. I've met with ARB looking for flexibility that can provide for industry input, not just rail, but, I mean, we're talking about railroad and marine applications. And it is troubling to me anyway, that deadlines are arbitrary. You know, what's better about 2028 than it is than 2035 or whatever else?

I realize it's an issue of cleaner air, but it's still an arbitrary date, and there really isn't much input to that other than the Air Resources Board, which, as I said, has been authorized by this Legislature to operate pretty much unilaterally. So that's a concern. And obviously for you.

And I hear in the case of some diesel locomotives that you have that will no longer, under current rules, will no longer be able to be used beyond a particular date, and you can't replace them because you don't have the resources.

And so therefore, you have to take those offline, potentially without replacing them, considerably compromising your ridership and serviceability. And where else are those people going to go? They're probably going to be driving cars. And the objective is to reduce congestion and air pollution. And are those locomotives, even though they're dirtier than Arb says they should be.

What's the comparison between those emissions and the equivalent number of cars? I'm saying that as a car dealer, by the way, but it just seems illogical.

Now, they're probably going to provide an exception, I would think, if they're logical, once you get to that point, and you ain't got the money, but you're not going to know that until then. And so the unilateral ability of that I find troubling. The other point is we have a tremendous competition of resources for rail travel.

High speed rail. Now, I proposed a Bill which came directly out of a informational hearing to which a peer group suggested that since to complete high speed rail, which by the way, hasn't carried a passenger, you're carrying passengers. There is definitely a competition of funding here that to complete high speed rail will take somewhere around $100 billion.

And we have no idea where the money is coming from. And I proposed a Bill that, based upon a suggestion of a peer group at that hearing, that maybe we call a timeout and assess where we are and where we're going. And it was defeated, resoundingly defeated.

We don't want to talk about the competition of high speed rail. And I was just talking about the point brought up in that informational hearing. But all of the money that we put into high speed rail potentially could be added to regional rail demand. You're in Southern California. I represent the Sacramento and Placer County area.

So what you're doing is way far out of my district. But we have rail systems regionally around the state, and there are a lot of people from my area that commute to the Bay Area via rail, and they need resources too.

There are lots of rail systems around the state, and there's a tremendous competition of resources with a system that hasn't carried a passenger and probably will not for years to come. There's not a question in there, it's a comment. I'm troubled by both of those things.

Well, thank you for your comments to my colleagues, and we thank the three of you. So thank you, Mister Jewell, Mister Donaghy, and Mister Kettle. We will move on to our second panel. In our second panel, we have Roger Klugston, rail safety division for California Public Utilities Commission.

We have Kyle Gradinger, chief division of rail and mass transportation from Caltrans. And we also have Carl Schwing, Deputy Director of the California Coastal Commission. So welcome to the three of you and thank you very much in advance for your testimony. We will begin with Mister Klugsten when he is ready with his PowerPoint.

Good afternoon. I may need some assistance. I'm a 19th century individual that's been drug into the 21st century.

Well, we have people for that, so they will come forward and help you out right now. Thank you. My apologies. What does it say on your hat? I can barely read it. Does it say rail safety?

Rail safety. SRSD rail safety division.

Rail safety division.

Yes. Sorry, there's.

Good afternoon. I'm Roger Clugston. I'm the Director of the Rail Safety Division for the California Public Utilities Commission. I've been with the CPUC for 23 and a half years, but I started my railroad career 51 years ago in 1973 on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway.

I went to work, my profession is track construction and track maintenance. I came to the PUC as a railroad track inspector in 2001, and I worked my way up to Director. The second slide here. My rail safety division comprises of three branches. I have a rail crossing engineering branch which handles all of the at-grade crossings throughout the state.

We also do all of the grade separations for high-speed rail for the California high-speed rail project in Brightline West. And my rail transit safety branch has the oversight of the 15 rail transit entities in California, such as BART's, Sacramento Regional Transit, LA Metro, and even the Angels Flight Funicular in Los Angeles.

The third branch is the largest branch, which is the railroad operations and safety Branch. We have oversight of 9885 miles of mainline track. Now, you may see where there are route miles. Well, that route mile may have three main lines, so that makes it 3 miles. So there's a lot more tracks out there than you think.

That also is not just the class ones, such as Union Pacific, BNSF, and so on, but we also have 28 short line railroads operating in the State of California as well. The next slide, ROSB, the Railroad Operations Safety Branch.

We're responsible for state and federal oversight of all code of federal regulations applicable to freight and passenger railroad systems. All of my staff are certified in the various disciplines that you see on the slide here, tracks, operations, railcars, and equipment, which is usually just called equipment, signals, and hazardous materials.

We received our certification process in 1991 after the Kantera loop incident up in northern Sacramento here, back in 1991, each and every one of my field inspectors, and this is really a boots on the ground, nuts and bolts work that we do.

Our job is to go out and whatever the railroads are running, whatever equipment they have, whatever type of rail they're using, whatever type of cross ties they're using, whatever signaling systems they're using. Our job is to go out and inspect their inspectors.

We ride with their track inspectors, which, being a former track inspector I have experience with. We ride along with them, high rail with them. We walk tracks with them.

And our job is to observe and make sure that they demonstrate a competency level of their ability to identify and remediate defective conditions as they exist in the field. And that goes for each one of these specific disciplines.

For operations, staff will go out and they will observe locomotive engineers and conductors as they're operating trains, check to make sure that they have their proper certification.

We also observe them in rail yards doing switching operations, that they're getting on and off equipment safely, that they're complying with every aspect of the code of federal regulations required to perform those jobs. Railcars and locomotives, which is a real important part here, are equipment inspectors.

We go out to rail yards, especially rail yards, where you have a high concentration of cars coming in and leaving the state. We go in and where the railroad has been required to perform an inspection on a departing train.

We'll go behind their inspectors, and we'll see if they were actually providing a competent level of oversight on the train, performing air tests, making sure that the brake shoes are in place, any of the components of a railcar that are required to have a good, thorough inspection. We're making sure that they do that.

We visit the rip tracks or repair facilities and make sure that they're doing the jobs there. We also look for outlying areas. We follow the railroads along wherever they're operations may change. They may do car inspections at one location, and it changes to a different location down the road.

So we're going to follow along wherever they move their operation. The same goes for hazardous materials. It is the shipper's responsibility to package and to be able to put it into transportation revenue service, a hazmat commodity. Those shippers, we actually go into their facilities.

We inspect the processes that they go through procedures, make sure that they're providing all of the adequate paperwork for all of the hazmat being shipped. And if it's properly packed into shipped, then it goes into transportation. These are all things that the railroads are required to do.

We're following up behind them and work that we do to make sure that they are complying with all state and federal regulations applicable to freight and passenger service. This is our mission statement.

Basically, for us, it's a matter of trying to make sure that we protect the public from any unsafe acts, conditions, or situations on a railroad's property, anything that we run across. These are some of the safety concerns that we do have.

Things that you see in the news a lot, everything from homeless communities to vehicle queuing at grade crossings. There's a number of things that we do to try to address some of these risky events, perceived risks, and real risks. For example, I started the only state railroad bridge program in 2012. California has two railroad bridge inspectors.

I started a tunnel project where we're actually analyzing railroad tunnels, looking at approaches and looking at the integrity of the tunnels throughout from one end to the other. We have a special program regarding rail headwear loss, where the actual metal of the rail is actually reduced from wear and tear, and they have condemnable levels.

And we look at those to try to make sure that the railroad is actually watching them. There's a number of different initiatives like that that we utilize as special tools to try to make sure that the railroads are being compliant with all of the state and federal regulations, but also looking beyond the regulations, looking a little deeper into certain aspects of railroad safety that may not be focused on by the railroads themselves.

These are the positions that I currently have for this one branch. I have approximately 130 positions in the rail safety division. The majority of them, about 53 of these positions, are with the railroad operations and safety branch. The majority of my people are boots-on-the-ground people.

They're engineers and experienced inspectors that understand railroad operations, understands their specific discipline. They are experts in the field. However, these are just the actual positions. If you actually look at it, what I have with my leadership team, we have approximately 1,300 years of experience amongst all of us. So these are people that know this business.

These are people. These are people that have lived and breathed this for many years. I have one individual still working who is 78 years old, and he's one of the finest inspectors that I have.

These are good, dedicated men and women that spend a lot of time out in the field, and the majority of the time out in the field trying to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect the public.

These are our statewide field inspection days, just as based from January 2022 to July '24, which is when I ran the query. And basically, you can see we have approximately 9200 days, inspection days in the field over that period of time. That's for all of California.

And again, we have almost 10,000 miles of railroad, and we have all of the facilities where rail cars go into rail yards and so on. We have to inspect those once every 100 days. Those are legislative mandates.

Every mile of track annually in the State of Canada, which I'm sure you're aware of, this in particular is for the lowsen corridor. These are the inspection days that are specific to the LOSSAN.

But I wanted to say that 294 inspection days, while these numbers seem low compared to what we have, this is 350 miles of 9,885 miles. I guarantee you they're not. The inspections that we do in all of the outlying areas, whether rail yards or other, all of that work affects transportation over the LOSSAN quarter.

Anything that's going over it is going to be coming out of a rail yard, such as West Colton Yard, ICTF yard, maybe Roseville, lots of smaller yards, satellite yards all over the place, even coming up through San Ysidro from Mexico.

So all of the, all of these inspections that are outside of those areas actually have an effect on it. These numbers here, those 294, is what's actually physically taking place on the LOSSAN on that 351-mile stretch.

Also, too, I would say that it's not just the PUC, not just us, that are performing these inspections, but the Federal Railroad Administration has their own staff out there. We often work in concert with the FRA, we also work in concert with other entities, such as the California Coast Guard. And that brings me into the hazmat transportation.

The majority of the hazmat over the LOSSAN is LPG. We do have the dirty dirt coming out of San Onofre. This is all, you know, commodities that are inspected by my staff to make sure that they're properly packaged in the proper container, which is either a railcar, or they might be in barrels onboard a boxcar.

Whatever it is, whatever it is, we inspect to make sure that they're properly packaged safe and that the paperwork for all of them is up to date.

Every week we go out with the US Coast Guard down to the ports, port of Los Angeles and San Pedro, and other locations like San Diego, Oakland, and containers that are coming in off of ships.

If there's something bogus about them, if they're multi-placarded, maybe they're leaking, maybe there's something else going on with the car that is suspicious. We'll cut them open. We'll cut open the back. The seals on the back will open up.

We'll inspect it, make sure the shipping papers are correct, and then there's always a hazmat team that's on standby that can address any issues if we find them. Thousands and thousands of containers come in every day in the ports. So there's lots of hazmat that come in in other ways.

They've come in from the east, they'll come in from the north, through the state, down through Roseville, all the way down through the Stratton quarter of the valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Stratton Quarter of the coast. There's an inordinate amount of traffic that comes into California. For example, there's approximately 1.6 million railcars in North America.

Well, those can make three or four trips in and out of California a year easily, maybe even more. So we got basically millions of cars coming in and out of the state carrying all kinds of commodities. Now, we do follow along after unit trains such as crude oil trains.

I was fortunate enough to work on the Governor's working group on crude oil transportation some years back, and we made some great headway there. I started a crude oil recon team in 2014 so that we can actually monitor crude oil unit trains coming in and out of the state. But they don't all come in on unit trains.

They come in by other means on manifest trains, or what we used to call mixed freight trains.

So regardless, seven days a week, I have staff that are out, and we're going into rail yards, we're going into all these facilities, and we're doing inspections on all of these trains to ensure that they are compliant with all state and federal regulations.

We're looking at wheels, at sharp flanges, at side bearings, every aspect of it. Also, when it comes to they mentioned before about slow orders out there. While that's important, and I understand your concern regarding on-time performance and so on, while that's important, whenever the track is unsafe, then slow order is a requirement.

If it's a track that's good for 60 mph and they find a a degraded condition that requires the track to be reduced to a lower speed that it can safely transverse over, then that's what has to happen. That's what we do. We're the ones that are out there and we make sure that the railroad is doing this.

That's why we go with them.

On any given day, it's the railroad inspector itself, the one that works for the railroad company, that has to, on a daily basis, 24/7, be able to go out there and properly identify egregious conditions and effective conditions that require an immediate remedial action to be able to get that trained over it from point a to point b.

Mister Clugston, we appreciate all this, but could I ask you to wrap it up because each person is supposed to speak for 10 minutes.

Certainly. Thank you. I'm sorry. Long-winded in my old age. I apologize real quickly. On bridges, as I said, we started a bridge program, and this will just give you an idea of some of the bridges that are out there on these particular properties, for BNSF Metrolink, North County Transit and so on.

But this is the north and south part of the LOSSAN. We do incident investigations for derailments, all of these activities that we try to get our people out there in a timely manner to be able to collect evidence, take photographs, take measurements, do all of these things. We look at trespasser versus train incidents, trespasser versus vehicle.

We have quite a few of those, unfortunately, in the State of California, but that is part of our work, too. And of course, the intent is to try to make sure that whatever we do find out there, that we can help the railroad understand what they need to do to try to keep it from happening again.

And that's it. Thank you.

That's a terrible slide to end with the train coming off the tracks. Hopefully that's not on the LOSSAN corridor.

No, it wasn't. I took that myself some years back.

Okay, well, thank you, Mr. Clugston. We very much appreciate it, and we will move now to Mr. Greydinger. Yes. Maybe switching seats is a good plan.

Every mouse is different. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senator Archuleta. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. My name is Kyle Gradinger and I am the Division Chief for the Caltrans Division of Rail. The Caltrans Division of Rail has three primary responsibilities. The first is to lead statewide rail planning.

The second is that we oversee California's best in the nation state supported intercity passenger rail program. And third, we own, manage, and procure the state's passenger rail fleet, including leading the transition to zero emissions. We couldn't do this work without our key partners, many of whom you've heard from already.

And they include the California State Transportation Agency, the Intercity Passenger Rail Joint Powers Authorities, Amtrak, Host Freight Railroads, Commuter Railroads, the High-Speed Rail Authority, and then other regional agencies with rail activities and interests.

I'll start by just mentioning that Caltrans recognizes the climate resiliency is an urgent challenge for this corridor, and Caltrans is proactively leading corridor resiliency efforts and partnering with others through support and investment.

Previously, we worked with the California Transportation Commission to develop a process to request emergency funding for landslide mitigations, which has been unfortunately tapped into quite a few times since that process was put in place just a year or so ago.

We are also committed to guiding a concerted effort with local entities and partners in each of the corridors around the state to address and overcome the unique challenges to bring the state rail plan vision to fruition.

And finally, I just want to say I appreciate you, Senator Blakespear, and this Committee creating the Subcommitee and bringing this issue to the forefront. Transporting Californians and goods via rail advances Caltrans's core four priorities.

First of all rail is the safest mode of surface transportation, and shifting passenger and goods movement from highways to rail fundamentally improves safety for all Californians. In terms of equity, an interconnected rail and transit system that is affordable and accessible for all provides economic benefits and opportunities across the state.

In terms of climate action, the 2050 rail plan Vvision anticipates a shift of about 178 million daily passenger miles to clean and efficient trains by 2050. Mode shift is a vital strategy for achieving the ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals that were set out in the California Air Resources Board's scoping plan.

And finally, improvements in California's rail system are investments that will pay off. The economic benefit of building the rail plan vision will be nearly $1.75 for every dollar invested.

Caltrans leads statewide rail planning efforts in collaboration with our inner city commuter and freight rail partners, as well as other local agencies who own, fund, or plan to operate rail services, the state has established a blueprint for how we build the network for the future with the state rail plan.

The state rail plan establishes the long-term vision for an integrated, statewide network of rail and transit that will enable us to shift a significant portion of travel from highways to rail by 2050. The rail plan brings together local, regional, and statewide goals into one common, overarching vision.

So what are some of the key features of the state rail plan? Well, the first is, as I mentioned, an integrated statewide network with timed connections and pulse schedules, as Mr. Kettle talked about, which will make it easier for Californians to choose to move around by rail and transit.

Frequent service will increase mobility and make rail an option for all kinds of trips. The state rail plan envisions services that operate at regular intervals throughout the day, hourly, half-hourly, or better in some corridors. Such schedules make rail a viable option for all types of trips, not just peak-hour commutes or long-distance travel.

And I just want to applaud Mr. Kettle. I think that Metrolink reimagined is really a fantastic first step moving toward that common vision for the state rail plan. Additionally, the rail plan foresees a common trip planning and fare payment platform, which will provide real-time information, equitable fares, and simplicity for travelers.

And finally, the outcome of this approach will be to deliver a network that is cost effective not only to build, but also to operate.

Last year, we gained a powerful new tool to implement the state rail plan vision in the form of the Corridor Identification and Development program, the Federal Railroad Administration's process to develop a sustained, comprehensive passenger rail project pipeline.

This is much like the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment grant program, which establishes development milestones and then commits funding for subway, light rail, and bus rapid transit projects.

Each year, the Federal Administration, or the FRA, will submit to Congress a list of capital projects that have been approved through the Corridor ID program and that will form a pipeline of projects ready for sustained federal funding.

To quote the Federal Railroad Administration, the Corridor ID program is intended to become the primary means for directing federal financial support and technical assistance toward the development of intercity passenger rail services throughout the United States.

Partnering with our congressional delegation, the largest in the nation, the Corridor ID program will help us land significant federal investments in Californias rail system, further leveraging this state's historic investment in passenger rail to achieve our safety, equity, climate, and economic prosperity goals.

California has already made significant investments in passenger rail, and working together through the federal Corridor ID process will allow us to tap into 80 and 90% federal match programs for projects in all of our inner city corridors.

Just as we have led the state rail plan, Caltrans is leading Corridor ID programs in five key corridors across the state, those shown here in blue, and that includes, of course, the LOSSAN Corridor.

We intend to follow the federal process from here on out with the state rail plan as the state's vision to plan, fund, permit, and implement project pipelines in each corridor.

To achieve the state rail plan vision for all five corridors, we are currently wrapping up step one, shown on the slide here, where we are defining a scope, schedule, and budget for a service development plan or an SDP.

Step two is to develop an SDP for each of those corridors, and an SDP entails a multi-year planning effort to establish a service concept for a corridor. So a big vision and what that service is going to look like, and then derive the necessary capital projects to operate that service.

These plans can be developed alongside tiered, tier-one corridor-wide NEPA documents, and they range from five to $15 million to complete, depending on corridor complexity. And the Federal Government will provide 90% of the funding for the five corridors we have identified in step two.

Capital projects that are identified in step two of CIDP will advance into step three project development. Project development includes project level NEPA and preliminary engineering for projects in the corridor, and the Federal Government will provide 80% of the project development funding for step three projects.

This funding, in the conversations I've had and workshops I've participated in with the FRA, is available through an advanced appropriation under IJA, and so the money that I'm talking about for our five corridors through step three exists and is available at the FRA today.

And then finally after step three, capital projects will enter the pipeline for federal funding under the FRA's Fed State Partnership program, which was funded at a level of about $60 billion for non-Northeast corridor activities under IJA.

For the LOSSAN corridor, we have submitted review materials to the Federal Railroad Administration, and we are working actively with Losan Agency and our other local partners to finalize the scope, schedule, and budget for the LOSSAN Service Development plan, and that will take place over the remainder of 2024.

Once it's approved by the FRA, then we will enter step two and we will commence that work in early 2025, where in that effort we will need to grapple with the complexity of the corridor in terms of ownership, operations, and susceptibility to climate change.

So, in terms of the California inner city passenger rail program, Mr. Jewell talked about this earlier. I'll talk about it a little bit more from the state side. Caltrans administers California's inner city passenger rail program, which is funded by the Public Transportation Account.

The JPAs contract with Amtrak to operate the Pacific Surfliner, the San Joaquin's, and the Capital corridor services, and they also contract with Amtrak to operate and maintain the state owned fleet.

Each year, each of the JPAs submits a draft annual business plan to Caltrans for review, and the annual business plan describes how the JPAs plan to use state funding to operate, administer, and market passenger rail services. Those business plans also outline projects and service expansions and capital improvements within the corridor.

And then finally, the final step each year is when the Calista secretary signs the business plan approval letter for the each JPA, releasing the funding for the next fiscal year. In terms of fleet planning and zero-emission, Caltrans has a few key roles as well. We procure and own fleet for the intercity passenger rail program.

Caltrans leads fleet planning and coordination with our interstate passenger rail JPAs and the Division of Rail produces a fleet management plan, and we've produced a zero-emission strategy for interstate passenger rail, which supplements the state rail plan. Other Caltrans fleet responsibilities in coordination with our JPA partners include fleet deployment planning.

How are we going to use car number 8305 next week versus the long-term procurement plan? We also do state-of-good-repair efforts for the legacy fleet, and we manage current and future procurements as well as grant applications to fund projects.

To accomplish these responsibilities and ensure effective communication with our partners, Caltrans leads weekly fleet planning working groups with the JPAs, and fleet planning, of course, will be a critical component of the corridor ID program to ensure that future fleet meets our future needs. I want to talk for a moment about some of the innovation and leadership that we've been doing here in California and the Caltrans initiative specifically in terms of fleet.

We lead several industry-wide working groups and we serve as a center of excellence for innovation in passenger rail rolling stock technology. The Rail Fleet Consortium began in 2020 and brings together over 25 agencies across the US and Canada to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing on fleet-related topics.

The Zero Emission Working Group grew out of the Rail Fleet Consortium and focuses on zero-emission passenger rail transition efforts across North America.

We also lead the platform train interface Working Group, which was established to develop a plan for the future of level boarding in California, which is key to improving not only on-time performance because of short dwell times, but to ensure that the rail system is accessible to all. We've developed a zero-emission strategy as well.

Building off of the work done in the zero-emission working group, Caltrans published our inner city passenger rail zero-emission strategy in 2022. The strategy is a response to Executive Order N7920 and outlines a plan to transition the interstitial rail fleet from diesel to 100% zero emissions by 2035.

Guided by this strategy, Caltrans is procuring the first zero-emission train sets for longer-distance services, which will enter service in the northern Central Valley in 2029. We are also supporting Caltran's project to develop a hybrid battery overhead electric train, which will extend the benefits of Caltran zero emission service south of San Jose to Gilroy.

And through these investments in research and development, California is leading the rail industry to an even cleaner future. And finally, a few recent activities.

We have deployed 24 tier four charger locomotives since 2017 and as of 2023, our entire fleet has been converted to renewable diesel and we are currently in the process of procuring 49 Siemens venture railcars made here in Sacramento that will operate in the Central Valley.

Full deployment of the venture railcar fleet will allow us to move additional equipment to the Pacific Surfliner and Capitol corridor to accommodate ridership growth on those services, and we'll begin redeploying coaches to the Capital Corridor and Pacific Surfliner this year, and by next summer, the Pacific Surfliner fleet will increase from eight to 10 train concepts for Pacific Surfliner as well as an additional concept we've made available for emergencies and special events such as the 2028 Olympics, the Super Bowl, the World Cup, and Comic Con.

That concludes my remarks, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we have Mr. Schwingen.

Yeah. Great.

All right. Thank you. So good afternoon, chair and Subcommitee Members. I'm Carl Schwing. I'm the Deputy Director with the California Coastal Commission. I serve as the district Director overseeing the Commission's San Diego Coast District office and the Orange County portion of our Long Beach office.

Thank you for the opportunity to join this panel today and speak about the Coastal Commission's work in San Diego and Orange at your April hearing. Our Executive Director, Kate Hucklebridge, provided the Subcommitee with an overview of our agency's operations.

In the interest of time and getting into details, I'll just briefly recap that the Coastal Commission is charged with protecting and enhancing California's coast for present and future generations. The Commission implements the California Coastal act, which contains broad policies intended to guide planning and development along California's coastal zone, which you can see on the map in red.

The Coastal act contains policies for a wide array of topics, and a few of the examples are listed on the slide. Translating these broad policies into concrete projects is a process the Commission facilitates to ensure development proposals reflect. This slide portrays that process going from General to specific. It begins with the coastal policies that I mentioned.

These policies begin to be fleshed out in guidance documents, which the Commission produces on a variety of topics in coordination with our state and local partners.

Incidentally, the Commission is currently in the process of updating its sea level rise policy guidance to reflect California's latest sea level rise projections, which were published by the Ocean Protection Council earlier this year. The Commission's draft guidance is pictured here.

It's currently out for public comment, and you can find a link to the draft guidance and the materials for the hearing. The Commission and its partners draw from coastal act policies and state policy guidances to inform planning documents for specific coastal jurisdictions.

One of the Commission's key functions is to assist local governments in developing local coastal programs, or lcps. Lcps are the planning framework by which local governments in the coastal zone implement the Coastal act within their jurisdiction, and they contain specific land use policies and ordinances that guide coastal development in coastal jurisdictions with a certified LCP.

Consistent with the LCP, and the Commission acts as the permitting authority in uncertified areas as well as in certain state resource areas, such as state tidelands.

In the late 1990s, following several serious erosion events that threatened the tracks and required stabilization measures, NCTD launched a study of the rail corridor along the Delmar bluffs to look at vulnerabilities and identify appropriate responses.

Since that time, the Commission has issued a series of approvals to NCTD and SANDAG for various stabilization measures along this portion of the Los Ang corridor. The most recent of these, the Delmar Bluffs Stabilization project five, was authorized by the Commission in 2022.

This project included construction of bluff stabilization structures comprised of sea walls, caissons, and various improvements to drainage infrastructure. Sandag also designed the project to maintain and enhance coastal habitat and the public's access to the beach along the project area. The permit authorizes the armoring elements for a 30 year term, which is until 2052.

This finite terminal is with the recognition that SandAg is currently evaluating alternatives to relocate. This segment of the rail line inland and 30 years provides adequate time and a cushion to accommodate Sandag's current timeline for relocation planning and construction.

Sandag's commitment to rail relocation here was a pivotal decision initially to keep the tracks in place for a longer period of Sandag was considering larger walls and stabilization measures that would have had major impacts to coastal access and views along these bluffs and beaches.

The commitment to relocation by 2035 allowed for less grading of the bluffs and smaller seawalls that are designed to be removed once the rail line has been relocated.

The Commission's regulatory actions at Delmar Bluffs have while spurring concrete planning for future relocation, which the Commission sees as necessary for the long term function of the rail line as well as the public's continued access to this region of the coast shifting northward to San Clemente.

As this Committee is well aware, there are several emergency hotspots along the San Clemente segment of the corridor. Over the past year, the Commission has acted quickly to authorize emergency work necessary to keep the rail line functioning safely.

These emergency authorizations will require follow up permits, and those permits present an opportunity to implement more long term programmatic adaptation strategies. The Commission is currently working with OCTA to file CDP applications for the bluff and shoreline stabilization measures at Cypress Shores and Mariposa Point.

Once problems started in 2021, Commission and OCta staff began meeting regularly to coordinate our work on their resiliency plan and have increased the frequency of those meetings as work on that plan has ramped up.

That plan to protect the rail and nourish the beaches seaward of the rail includes looking for sand sources, assessing potential sand delivery methods, and preparing a comprehensive alternatives analysis to be submitted with the future CDP application, and we are expecting that application to arrive in the next couple of weeks.

It's also worth acknowledging that the City of San Clemente does not have a certified LCP, though they are working on developing one. While some Low sand projects along the San Clemente coast are squarely within the Commission's jurisdiction as they are located on state tidelands. If the city completed its positive news on that front in just a moment.

As far as near priorities at Del Mar as noted before, the Commission approved armoring sufficient to protect the tracks in Del Mar while relocation is being planned and implemented.

Some impacts to coastal access were anticipated in that plan, but Commission staff are continuing to work with Sandag and the city to fill in details that still need refinement, such as where and how to establish a safe track crossing.

At the same time, commissioned staff are meeting regularly with Sandag to provide technical and policy input as SanDAG evaluates alternative alignments for the track relocation. We're also coordinating with partners in San Quenti through the planning, though the planning needs are different.

Just last awarded $1.5 million planning grant to the city, and that grant will support multiple efforts critical to the Los Ang corridor. Specifically, the city intends to use grant funds to complete their local coastal program so that they can directly issue permits in the coastal zone.

The city also intends to use grant funds to identify sand sources to support the development of a regional scale, nature based beach restoration program involving comprehensive beach sand replenishment and sand retention projects. And finally, the city will use the grant funding to complete community scale sea level rise adaptation planning, which would be incorporated into the city's LCP.

Coordination between the city and Octa is needed here as much as possible so that these efforts provide.

At the same time, we're working with OCta to refine, as they refine their coastal rail resiliency plan to identify the most vulnerable parts of the track in San Clemente and to tailor the work proposed such that impacts to coastal resources are minimized.

As with Del Mar, the term of approval needed to support the tracks will be important, as that will inform the type and typically, the longer the tracks remain in place, the wider and taller the seawalls would need to be to protect them and the larger the measures need to mitigate impacts to public coastal access.

Earlier relocation of the tracks would help avoid impacts and reduce the amount of infrastructure needed in this hazardous area of the coast. Investing in beach nourishment and similar projects will also buffer the tracks from wave hazards and reduce the amount of hard armoring that is needed while simultaneously improving beach access, recreation and habitat.

So collectively, the points on that slide represent the priority actions the Commission staff believes are necessary to achieve in the near term to ensure the continued viability. While the work will be significant, we believe that many important planning efforts have been identified, scoped and started.

The Commission will continue working closely with our state and regional and local partners to complete that work. And together we can shape a future for the Los Ang corridor that demonstrates how to responsibly implement coastal management and transportation policy response to climate change. So thank you and I'm happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

Well, thank you very much. We appreciate the commentary from the three of you and we'll just ask a few questions. I wanted to start with a question about. It was a question that I posed to the previous panel, which I think probably you heard, but this is for you, Mister Gradinger. It's really about the goal setting.

If we have the state rail plan with high level goals, and we know we have 1% mode share on rail now in the state, and we're trying to get to 14%, how do you see, what do you see the state's role in setting those ridership goals?

And what are we doing to more aggressively set goals for the different agencies? Because it really does seem as if those types of goals should be set at the state level.

And I'll just look over onto the climate planning in General when we, you know, 19% per capita emissions reduction by 2020 levels, you know, this kind of thing, which is very specific. So I'm just curious about how you're conceiving of that and where you feel that that's going.

Okay, thank you for that question. I think one of the points that was made on the earlier panel that is really important is the average trip length of a trip on rail. I think it was something in the 30 odd mile range for a Metrolink passenger.

Passengers on inner city passenger rail, our average trip lengthen about 70 miles or so. So if we talk about trips as a percentage of all trips, we're at a very Low number. If we start to talk about miles traveled as a share of all total travel, we're in a better place.

But we're still nowhere near international norms or where we need to be to meet our climate goals. The rail plan is really ambitious in setting these long term visions.

We have a 25 or 30 year long term time frame, and I talked about that being the ability to shift 178 million passenger miles every day to the rail system. We are creating the California State rail plan based on models that we've seen elsewhere.

You look at places like Switzerland, where they already had strong rail ridership in the 1980s, but they took a lot of these features that were described earlier. Regular pulse schedules, promising the ability to have a train show up in every village of a population above x every half an hour, every 60 minutes or so.

And they set that long term vision and said, we can shift travel, but we have to have the investment plan to do that. So the vision was there. They matched it with the service plan. Where are the trains going to go and when are they going to go?

And when you know that and when you get consensus around that, you can begin to design the infrastructure projects and the rolling stock procurements and think about the operating support needed in order to deliver that service. It can't be done overnight.

There are things, you know, the October Metrolink service improvements are doing what they can with the existing resources, crews, train availability, track capacity.

But if you look out at a 30 year timeframe and you say, here's the vision, here's where we need to get, you can then work backwards to identify what we need to do in the five to 10 year timeframe.

And what are those stretch projects, what are the Trans Hudson tunnels or the mega projects that are going to come later on and begin to identify those?

So I think what we've done in the last rail plan 2018 is when we set that vision for where we want to be, what we need to do now, and we'll be releasing the next rail plan update in the next month or so, is we really need to get into the, how are we going to get there?

And I think the capital, I'm sorry, the corridor ID program is going to be very helpful. It's focused on the intercity side, but we're talking about a whole network of commuter, inner city and high speed rail.

But I think that so many miles of the commuter system in California are either operated on inner city corridors or have tight connections to inner city services. I think this gives us the ability with the feds to look at and be honest and ambitious about what are those capital projects to get us to growth?

Maybe we have to break it out into 5101520 year time periods, but we've got to start somewhere. And I think CIDb lets us tap into that. The Federal Government was not at the table after the stimulus and fy 10, fy 11 has kind of disappeared. They're back. We stepped up and invested a lot.

But if we can leverage that state investment with new 80% federal matches going forward that we need to get to where we need to go with the state rail plan.

Okay, great. And then could you just address the zero emission goals? And you mentioned several different investments, but they're not on this corridor.

So what is the thought on what should happen with catenary, or is there any analysis of even it being on portions of the Low sand corridor and maybe not all of it, and hydrogen in that. So what is the, the thought around that?

Yeah, so in the Caltrans intercity passenger rail zero emission strategy, we looked at all the potential technologies, and we did this report about three years ago. And even in the three years since then, a lot of the technologies have matured or faded away. But we looked at hydrogen fuel cell coupled with batteries.

So Toyota Prius with hydrogen instead of gas battery electric trains over at catenary. And we looked at all those options, and what we decided was that for the immediate needs for valley rail and some of the projects that we have, we thought that hydrogen is the best solution for those.

So we are going with a hydrogen fuel cell hybrid train similar to what SPCTA is about to roll out to improve service in the central valley between Sacramento and Merced and to provide a good connection to high speed rail when it arrives. But there are other places in the state where other technologies shine.

Calsta invested in, and Caltrans is supporting a Caltrain project to take one of their new electric trains and to basically create a battery car so they can charge that battery while they're under the wire between San Francisco and San Jose and then continue with clean battery propulsion all the way down to Gilroy.

There are limitations on batteries in terms of range and especially when you talk about the weight of a train, but that could be a very promising technology for Southern California for this corridor.

If high speed rail makes it to, I should say when high speed rail makes it to Southern California, there will have to be electrification between Burbank and Anaheim.

And that gives you a good 405060 miles stretch where we could have a train function on the same principle, charge up while under the wire, and then continue on, perhaps down to the marine basin in your district, where we might be able to get more wire and then get into San Diego.

So we're looking at opportunities like that. We did look at the cost of electrification and the feasibility of electrification. And while Brightline and high speed rail have to do it because of the speed of their trains and physics, they're also constructing catenary on a greenfield location.

Constructing catenary under traffic on someone else's railroad creates a lot of hurdles. It is, I've said it before, electrification is the gold standard, but there are a lot of obstacles, cost permitting ownership in the way.

And we did an analysis of the state supported intercity passenger rail corridors, San Joaquin capital corridor and surfliner, and the cost to electrify those corridors alone was $7 billion. And we are procuring the zero emission fleet that, you know, at $20 million per train would be able to operate on hydrogen fuel cells.

So that's some of the trade off thinking that we're looking at. And again, that's on Union Pacific and BNSF. So that complicates things as well.

Okay. Thank you. Senator Limon, I think, has a question you.

Thank you, and I appreciate the information. I'm going to maybe shift us just a little bit. We started out with safety, and I have to thank the chair because the chair has really together.

And one of the things that she's done is she organized a series of visits, and I got to do one of the visits last fall, I think it was last October.

And, you know, being grounded in seeing things with our own eyes, we also sometimes see things that we maybe didn't think of or, you know, that we hadn't been following.

And one of the things when I was in her district that I got to see Washington, a safety sign that was put up, it was related to suicide prevention. I saw it. It resonated in my district, and I took a picture of it.

And last October, I started a process to try to figure out how to get these up along our corridors. And it is August, almost, not quite a year, but it's almost a year since I started this process. And I'm sorry that Director Jewel is not here for this either. I have myself made phone calls.

My team has sent emails, and I've been struck with how difficult it has been to get a sign that we have up. And in the meantime, we have had two incidents.

One was a suicide, one is investigated as an incident where we have lost lives, and maybe two doesn't sound like a big number, but to the parents, the families, the schools, the school districts and community that have been impacted by the loss of lives on our rail, it is a lot.

And both of these incidents have been very public in the district. And I am looking to either first panel, second panel to help me figure out what does a Legislator need to do to be able to accomplish appropriate signage, safety signage, to be able to, you know, impact a district. And this isn't a ding.

This is a true question. Like, I don't know. I'm just curious, like, what this is an opportunity, you know, I know, you know, directory, we, you do a lot in safety, and some of it is a lot more on the, you know, you know, safety of the physical safety of the rail itself.

But, like, I'm trying to think of the human aspect here, but I team that's looking at this is having a years long process. What are we doing wrong and how do we affect some of this change along the corridor?

This to me seems like a minor thing because I mean, we've talked about much bigger projects, but I am looking for assistance and help and just feedback on how to we can better do this. And again, this is not, I say this, you know, this question is posed with utmost respect.

I don't do the jobs that you all do or that others do, but I actually just really don't know an answer and so I'm at a loss. So anyone can answer that or feedback. Prior panel, current panel.

This is the safety panel. So anyone sitting there who could help her?

Well, I appreciate what you're saying and I understand it. As a former revit employee, I've cleaned up after many suicides and many train versus vehicle accidents and things like that over the years. My staff currently what we do is we participate with operation Lifesaver to try to get the word out to people about staying away from tracks.

They do insofar as preventing suicides. We live in a state where we have to put up cyclone fences over the top of overpasses to keep people from jumping off into the path of an oncoming train.

So it's extremely hard to try to figure out what sort of signage is going to work to be able to get that point across to people. I've been trying to figure this out my entire life. I'm a third generation railroader.

I think too, some of the things that we, the innovative things that we can do insofar as trying to eliminate queuing on at grid crossings where people are complacent or where they've lost their situational awareness, is a project that I started trying to get done where we actually paint the dynamic envelope of an at grade crossing.

The dynamic envelope in a red aggregate paint that is reflective is outlined with a white line to be able to bring up situational awareness. So if they start to queue, they realize I'm not supposed to be here, I should not be in this location. However, those sorts of efforts, it's very difficult.

I've been trying for eight years to get this done and you run up across many obstacles, the roadway authority, the railroad, anybody else that's involved in it. I worked with Caltrans long and hard to try to get one done in Eskalon, but not to digress from the point.

Suicides and people have decided to take that course it's a very difficult thing. One of the things that we do also is that in our outreach through the PUC, we go and we visit municipalities and we talk about the along railroad rights and what can we do.

We have to remember that these are human beings and that we need to be able to, they have to have a place to go. You can't just move them and be done with it. So it is a very difficult question. There are organizations such as Operation Lifesaver that do really good work.

But again, I have been my entire life pretty much trying to figure out what the answer is to reducing, trespassing and people getting out and standing in front of trains to end their lives. And I don't know what the answer is.

Thank you, Mister Clugston. Maybe Mister Jewell could answer.

Yes, thank you, Senator Lamon, for the question.

And yeah, we are in the process currently of looking at a number of different sign designs, if yours, that you had submitted to our office is team and we'll make sure that we review the design that is, that has been submitted and is of preference.

The challenge that we faced is that we looked at sign designs from all along our corridor and especially from some of our host railroads that already provide signage at various locations throughout our corridor. And everyone has a little bit different message on the sign.

And so we were really trying to figure out the best design for both the safety messaging and possibly suicide prevention messaging.

We are not experts in that area, you know, so we were actually looking at figuring out ways that we could reach out to those experts and those resources that can provide some suggestions and what is the right message to put out there.

We've had internal discussions about, you know, if we put suicide on the sign, is that a trigger? You know, what does that, what does that potentially, what message does that potentially send?

So at this point we do, we are reviewing a number of sign designs, and it's some input, especially from experts, as to what is really the right design that we can put out there that will provide that consistent rail safety, as well as that mental health resource message.

And again, we'll be more than happy to circle back with your office if there is a preferred design that you have for consideration, and we can work with you on that.

Thank you. And can I follow up on that? What is the timeline? Because we don't have a design, saw a design and wanted to figure out how we could get a sign. And so we are not in the design place, but what's the timeline? I mean, and this is helpful. Like, it's a legitimate question.

I just don't know.

Yeah, you know, once we have a design that's. We do have to go through the approval process through our host railroads, depending on where we want to put it, especially considering that it's going to be on their property, we need to get their approval for that.

And again, if they're going to be placed outside of the right of way, maybe in another public area, you know, maybe we'll need to get some kind of county or city approval.

So I think if it's just a matter of getting those approvals through our host railroad, through Union Pacific territory, and others down our corridor, I think that particular process should move fairly quickly. Again, I think our.

Many of our host railroads down on the southern end of our corridor already have signage up in place, and we do have various signage in place on up territory. So it's just a matter of working with them and deciding where to best place this additional signage or new signage.

So I think that that process can move fairly quickly. We do have the ability to actually fabricate and make the signs in house, so that process is fairly quick as well. So, and again, we can work in tandem with Union Pacific to get the approvals that we need for the placements where we want them.

Great. This is helpful, and I appreciate the feedback. I think this shows partnership on how we can get some of these things done, whether they're really little or the bigger conversations about the Losun altogether. Thank you.

And just as a follow up on this particular point, I was the mayor of the City of Encinitas when we had a number of different.

They call them strikes, but, I mean, there are tragedies and suicides, and one of the things that was clear to me after speaking with the widow of somebody who had taken his life was that we needed to show that we were trying to help people.

And so we put up signs that had the 1800 type of suicide phone number, because part of it is that if you have nothing there, it doesn't indicate that you're taking that seriously.

And we know we have trains going at high speeds, and when people are, you know, really in that State of mind, you want to be able to have one last potential intervention. So I think, to me, the safety, the sign is not just trains are moving fast. Watch out.

But if you are contemplating suicide, consider calling this phone number something that has that message. So, to me, that seems like a really part of the messaging. Okay, great. Thank you. Senator Lebowen, do you have any other questions? Okay, I had one question. I just wanted to ask related to the Coastal Commission.

So I think in San Clemente, particularly, but in both in the Del Mar area and in San Clemente, there's a tension around armoring the bluff and doing sand replenishment or more natural solutions.

And so the question of basically a reliance on emergency permits can sometimes be perceived as circumventing a Coastal Commission process that would be looking at something in more depth and getting really to a nature based solution versus an armoring solution. So I just wanted to have some thoughts on that.

You know, requiring transit agency to do sand versus to do armoring, or, you know, how does that process, how is that being evaluated?

Thank you. So the emergency permit process, I think, is sort of inherently incomplete. It's focused on addressing the immediate need and the hazards that are immediate circumstance.

Now, our process includes a requirement for a follow up permit, and through that follow up permit, we do have to go back and look at all of the alternatives that would be feasible in that circumstance and address that through the permit process.

Ideally, though, we're getting to a point where I, we aren't having to rely on the emergency permit process, and we are able to use the full coastal development permit process, which does enable us to look at the full range of alternatives.

It does allow us to engage the public that wants so badly to be involved with these decisions and to consider all of the right options there. You know, in terms of sand versus hard armoring. That is the significant issue that we face with all of the rail areas in San Clemente.

We are, at this point, we are focused on, with OCTA, identifying a mitigation program that would include sand and beach replenishment. So that along with some limited armoring, where that's just absolutely necessary.

But having the sand and beach replenishment components as part of the project is important because that is how we preserve our coastal access along our beaches.

Okay. Well, we're a little bit over time, but I wanted to thank you very much for coming today and speaking about this. So I'd like to thank the three of you and then also the three of the panel before. This, of course, is a partnership. You know, the legislators have an oversight role, but we do the work.

And so it's really important that we do have a partnership between the Legislature and all of the agencies that are doing the work today, we heard directly from operating and state agencies on the operations and performance of the lo sand corridor.

And my message today is that we must continue to push for ambitious progress, and we must expect results statewide. Vehicle miles traveled are increasing. And the latest data confirms that we'll need public transportation and higher rail mode share to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

As this Subcommittee's work continues, we'll remain focused on accountability, performance, and ultimately achieving our shared resiliency and public transportation goals. I would like to ask if Senator Limone would like to share any closing remarks, and then after that we will go to public comment.

Please make sure. And say your name or organization.

I just want to say thank you to everyone who's participated. I continue to believe that this is the most, at least in the eight years I've been here that we've done on Low sand. So I really want to thank our chair and really the Committee on doing this. You know, these are really helpful conversations.

So appreciate the engagement from all folks.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. So now we will go to public comment. So if anybody would like to make a public comment, you may come up to the microphone here and stand in line.

Welcome, welcome. Good afternoon and thank you. Senator Blakespear, Members of the Committee, for your work on looking at this issue of the opportunity and the challenges faced by the Los Angeles Quarter. And I like to-

Steve Roberts. I'm the President of the Rail Passengers Association of California California, an all volunteer organization. I'd like to reemphasize what you said about the need for stepping up to aggressive action.

One of the things that concerns us is that over the last period of time that we've been dealing with this issue, none of the agencies evolved, have really stepped up and taken advantage of this opportunity to move forward.

Everybody seems to be waiting for the next study to be done rather than trying to get out in front of it.

For example, there are three high profile capacity projects in the corridor that would allow the reimagination of Metrolink and Surfliner operations and service package, that there's been little or no progress over the last few, the last several years. And it's just all we see are additional options, repackaging, value, engineering, everything, but we never see any forward progress.

And so in order to get the VMT reductions that you mentioned, we need to have somebody step up and take more aggressive of action on this. Thank you.

Mister Roberts, would you like to just share which three projects you were thinking.

Of when you say that Sierra siding south in San Clemente, which was midpoint in the corridor and which would allow additional Metrolink trains do it from Oceanside as an option, or additional surf liner frequencies to provide perhaps hourly service. The other one, of course, is La Union Station. Mister Kettle talked, gearing up for the Olympics.

Well, he could gear up a lot more if he had run through tracks at Los Angeles Union Station. But La Metro has not fulfilled that, despite years and years of studies.

And the final one is the double track between Chatsworth and Van Nuys, which will allow 30 minutes service through the San Fernando Valley, a high density population that always seems to be, you know, wants a lot of transit.

So those are three projects that would allow 30 minutes service between Chatsworth and Ludwigl on the south, additional surf line service or additional metroline service to ocean side, and even through running between coaster and Metrolink.

Thank you for your comments, Mister Roberts.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Convey. I'm a conductor for Amtrak out of Los Angeles for the last 17 years. I'm also the safety officer for the smart union, which represents the conductors working in Metrolink and Amtrak. And to miss Limon's point, I've been, unfortunately, 11 incidences with pedestrian strikes, and it's the conductors.

You show up first, and I have anything to get rid of these. It's hard, you know, and I think you were talking about all these issues, you know, environmental, your capacity, your growth.

You really do need a bold vision, and you guys need to think to look into an idea of a North East corridor style infrastructure, getting rid of grade separations, railroad crossings, fences along the right of way. So people, I think that's really where you need to go to do all the things that you were bringing up.

Your environmental issues, your overhead catenary. That's the way to go. And lastly, we have three state sponsored rail services. Two of them connect directly by rail, the capital corridor and the San Joaquin's.

The surfliner is off on its own, I would think, exploring how to get the surfliner to have a direct rail connection to the other two services.

Thank you, Mister convoy. That's all very useful. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, anybody else wanting to come make public comment? Okay, I don't see any. So thank you to the two of you who participated in public testimony today.

You may submit additional comments or suggestions in writing to the Subcommitee, and I thank those who have already done this. Your comments are important to us, and we want to include your comments in the record. So thank you again to everyone who participated. We have now concluded the agenda, and the Subcommitee is now adjourned.