Senate Transportation Subcommittee on LOSSAN Rail Corridor Resiliency

We're working on our tough technical difficulties. It does seem like the echo might be gone.

Okay. We are now coming to order here in the Senate Subcommittee on LOSSAN Rail Corridor Resiliency Informational Hearing. Good afternoon.

I wanna welcome the public and your participation. For today's hearing, we will hear from panelists first, and then we will take public comment. So I'll just make a few opening remarks before our panelists start. So I'll start by reflecting on why this hearing matters. So in 2023, the subcommittee held its first hearing to underscore the importance of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor and the seriousness of the challenges that are facing it.

In 2024, I introduced SB 1098 because we knew that the California State Transportation Agency or CalSTA and its secretary needed clear authority and accountability to provide the guidance, recommendations, and coordination necessary to ensure the necessary to ensure the performance of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor.

SB 1098 clarified that responsibility for planning related to service frequencies, equipment and fleet management, infrastructure projects, and coastal resiliency. We also knew that lasting change would require a unified vision for the corridor.

One that brings together the many agencies and local stakeholders who are all responsible for delivering service. And that's why the 1098 working group was established to recommend to the legislature how best to align roles, responsibilities, and oversight.

The report was due in February, and it was unfortunately delayed, but it is now before us today. I do want to acknowledge that I appreciate the work that went into it and the very compressed timeline that was used to get it both back to us here at the legislature. But we also cannot lose sight of the urgency the the need for urgent action. Conditions along the corridor have not stood still while we have been doing our planning.

It was not long ago that months long track closures suspended service along one of the busiest rail corridors in the country, and coastal challenges continue to affect service today.

Just last Friday, we learned that regional rail services through South Orange County would be suspended this week because of high tides. While suspending service may reduce the risk of delays and cancellations, we should not accept cutting service as an adequate proactive response. We need a serious and sustained effort to accelerate the planning and delivery of projects if we are serious about improving service and reliability and countering and being realistic about climate change.

We continue to see delayed and canceled train service created by equipment and infrastructure deficiencies. Operators have reduced service on the premise that reductions are temporary only to see those schedules become the regular operating model.

And we are planning for equipment, capital projects, and service levels on an annual, quarterly, and sometimes weekly basis. While we are repeatedly forced to determine what we can afford and what level of service we can sustain, we have to also ask whether funding and equipment are the only causes of our uncertainty or whether the need for reform is much more systemic.

And that's why the legislature approved SB 1098 so we could work on that because we're not trying to create just another report. The idea was to force us to confront difficult questions about how we manage, fund, protect, and operate the LOSSAN Corridor. So the working group has now submitted its recommendations, and the question today is not whether the work is done.

The question is whether these recommendations are enough for the urgency of this moment and whether they will actually produce a corridor that performs at the level that Californians expect and deserve. The report acknowledges that the corridor lacks a comprehensive management plan that integrates infrastructure, equipment, facilities, and service across its many partners.

It also acknowledges the fiscal pressures facing the operating agencies. And those agencies and those findings should have our attention. All the passenger rail operators face fiscal pressures at the same time that critical infrastructure remains at risk.

The infrastructure needs investment, and the operators need stability, and the public needs improved and reliable service. And funding alone will not solve these challenges.

We also need to address how decisions are made, who has authority to act, and how the agency was responsible for LOSSAN are held accountable for results. So as we consider these recommendations today, I want us to ask some very practical questions. If we establish a quarter wide plan to manage equipment, infrastructure, and facilities to better plan for the future, when will that be completed and who is accountable for it? And what happens if the responsible agencies cannot agree with each other?

If we establish cooperative agreements among CalSTA, the Coastal Commission, operators, and infrastructure owners, will those agreements actually shorten our project timelines and provide us greater certainty for needed coastal resiliency projects?

If we develop an emergency and service response playbook, who is setting the standard for that? Who is responsible for implementing? And how will we know the system works before the next emergency occurs? And across all of the recommendations, who has the authority to make decisions and then the responsibility to deliver the results? The LOSSAN Corridor and its management are complex, and no one denies that, and we repeat that at every hearing.

The corridor involves multiple counties, multiple operators, freight railroads, infrastructure owners, joint powers authorities, both state and local agencies. But that complexity is really should not be an excuse for us, But that complexity is really should not be an excuse for us or for our inaction because passengers don't experience LOSSAN as a collection of agencies.

They experience a train. They experience a train that comes on time, that is late, that doesn't come, that doesn't run when they need it to. They get to their destination on time or they don't.

They either have confidence that the train will operate when the schedule says it will or they don't. That is what must be at the center of everything we discussed today. The recommendations before us must be measurable, deliverable, and accountable for producing results for riders. More capital projects must be delivered on time and on budget. More trains must operate coordinated services that better serve the region.

And we must build confidence that passenger rail is a reliable transportation choice. Today is an important milestone in the work that be, was begun through SB 1098, but just because the report is out, the work is far, far from over. The urgency of this moment demands more than another plan. The far from over. The urgency of this moment demands more than another plan.

It demands our action, and it demands that we make sure the agencies responsible for LOSSAN have the authority, the resources, the coordination, and the accountability to deliver. So with that, I will introduce our first panelist to come up. We have CalSTA Deputy Secretary Anthony Serna, Coastal Commission Director Peter Allen, and Mineta Institute, Chair Donna DeMartino. And I invite you all to come up and to begin when you are ready.

Good afternoon. Can you all hear me okay? Yes. Okay. Great.

I just have a quick opening statement, and then I'll jump into the presentation here. So, Chair Blakespear, wanna thank you for the opportunity to appear today. As you mentioned, my name is Anthony Serna, and I serve as Deputy Secretary for Rail and Transit at the California State Transportation Agency. I wanna begin by thanking you for your sustained attention to passenger rail in California and to the attention paid to the LOSSAN in particular.

As you're aware, Los Angeles runs 351 miles between San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo.

It carries the Pacific Surfliner services, Metrolink services, and Coaster services. It also moves significant freight, supports the national defense as a designated corridor on the strategic rail network. It is one of the busiest passenger rail corridors in the country. When any part of this corridor is impacted, the effects are felt across the region and across the state. The challenges in the corridor are well understood.

Surfliner is one of the as I mentioned, one of three passenger rail services in the corridor, along with, North County Transit, San Diego railroads, Coastal services, and Metrolink. Fundamental shifts in how people work and travel, since the pandemic have placed real challenges on the rail and transit industry as a whole, and we're seeing this industry wide, not just in California.

There are real vulnerabilities as well due to extreme weather events along the most vulnerable section of the corridors coastal routes, which help require which will require an all hands on deck approach. However, I would argue that we've seen, real signs of progress. Two years ago, CalSTA and CalTrans requested and the legislature approved a fund augmentation to help restore inner city services in the state to pre pandemic levels.

With the Surfliner service in particular, that restoration of pre pandemic service was achieved earlier this year, and we're seeing that the investment is starting to pay off. Surfliner, which is already the second busiest Inner City service in the country, is now also the fastest growing Inner City service in the country. We're seeing ridership increases of 39% year over year, as of the most recent data, from our Amtrak partners.

If trends hold, we're seeing the service on pace for one of its stronger ridership strongest ridership, years in its history. And so it is within this context, and I'm here to discuss the efforts underway responsive to the requirements under SB 1098.

SB 1098 required the formation of this working group to investigate key policy areas to support and improve the coordination performance in management of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, and it also required the working group to deliver to the legislature a set of consensus driven recommendations.

That effort produced a shared record of the quarter's challenges and a set of recommendations to strengthen how we plan and operate it, which we'll be discussing more detail, in just a moment here.

I want to be clear that, these recommendations are a foundation towards, bolder action. It's by no means a, as you alluded to, Senator, a finished product that the work is not done here. Prior to meeting this year, a previous iteration of this working group met in 2024.

The requirements under SB 1098 made clear that this work is to remain ongoing, and it is our intent to continue quarterly meetings to continue the process of implementing the recommendations outlined in the report and to grapple with some of the very important questions that you post. The quarter's challenges are real, but we believe they are solvable, and the state intends to be a steady partner in solving them.

I appreciate the continued partnership on this work, and I look forward to continuing this critically important work together. And with that, we'll go through a the summary of the recommendations as outlined in the report delivered to the legislature on August 6. So we can go to the next slide, please.

Thank you so much. So per legislation, the working group's mandate was to deliver this report to investigate four key areas including service coordination. Service coordination, management and operations, state changes to any state laws, rules, and funding, as well as federal coordination, specifically through the through the funding mechanisms as well as the quarter identification program.

Again, to reiterate the intent of the legislation was to ensure the performance of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor and we took seriously that mandate.

Also wanted to indicate along with the positive trends in ridership that we're seeing recently, the robust capital program that is ongoing in the corridor with over $3,000,000,000 of active projects occurring now to that really point to the ability to maintain the resiliency of the quarter as well as to expand service.

All of this served as the context for this effort. And so, for the first area here on service coordination, the key recommendations to improve maintenance, reduce track closures, address vulnerabilities, and enhance on time performance included the development of a written fleet and asset management plan that aligns equipment, facilities, and infrastructure needs with funding.

Also, required the coordination of the development of a memorandum of understanding between the Corridor, CalSTA, and the California Coastal Commission to develop a shared understanding to understand the path forward for some of these projects that occur in the coastal zone to be able to move forward and have a common understanding between all of the partners in the corridor.

Also, recommended to the development of a corridor wide playbook that defines roles, decision thresholds, and timelines for agencies when critical bluff instability is detected. This is really looking at some of the big challenges from 2022 and 2024 when we saw the significant closures through the the South Orange County, part of the quarter.

Next oh, I have it here. And then quickly here, recommended the the development of a Vision Zero framework for rail. So understanding that there are preventable tragedies in terms of strikes with vehicles and trespassers, and so really looking at mitigating those to the extent possible and this included the development of a unified safety data set.

As it relates to management and operations, really encourage here the recommendation is encourage operators to align schedule changes during the same periods where feasible, require regular updates and revisions to the LOSSAN optimization study on a fixed cadence. This was a study last updated earlier in the 2020's here to really look at what are the key projects necessary to run a level of service that works across the corridor.

And then in coordination with the Corridor and CalSTA and the Division of Rail, identify primary host railroad liaisons to negotiate and come to agreements with our host railroad partners, so that those conversations and negotiations aren't happening in a silo.

Onto the next policy area, which was a a consideration of any changes to state law rules or funding, consider making permanent CEQA streamlining judicial review for certain transportation related projects introduced with SB 149.

Request CalTrans to issue stronger guidance how intercity rail is considered in regional transportation plans as well as modeling. And finally, on this one, consistent with the Transit Transformation Task Force, review opportunities to modernize the Transportation Development Act by removing the farebox recovery penalty and permanently develop new metrics and performance measures.

And finally, as it relates to federal funding to federal coordination here, to the extent possible oops, sorry.

One more. I'll see here.

A line so the recommendations here were to really leverage the the LOSSAN Corridor participation in the quarter ID program as a as the foundation for federal legislative advocacy for for the group. I think there was an understanding here that, a lot of the priorities were kind of happening on an ad hoc or being communicated to to our federal partners on an ad hoc basis.

And so really speaking with with one voice, as it relates to to our federal advocacy.

And then, last one I'll highlight here is this the interagency coordination structure, which is to create a standing touch point, between the Corridor and Caltrans, as the Corridor ID program, continues to mature and develop, which sets up the foundation for significant future federal funding opportunities.

And with that, I will happy to take questions at the conclusion of my fellow presenters up here. Thank you.

Yes. Well, thank you.

You're welcome to begin when ready.

Thank you.

It's okay. I think it is working and I don't see any feedback. Senator Blakespear, it's really nice to see you again. Thank you. And to the others, you know for inviting me here to, you know, participate in this really important work.

I am the Chair of the Board of Trustees in the Mineta Transportation Institute, which is housed at San Jose State University, where we offer a variety of Transportation Certificate Programs and a Master of Science Degree in Transportation Management. I received my Master's degree there and I have been an instructor in the program for many years, currently teaching a required course for the graduate program called Transportation Regulations and Policy.

I also teach at the University of the Pacific a class called Transportation Legislation Regulations and Policy. Sounds really boring. I try to make it interesting but it's really necessary.

In addition, I've served as a Manager at Sacramento Regional Transit. As a matter of fact, I was part of the light rail start up committee when we laid the tracks on Catenary right outside the outside the building here. I've also been the CEO at San Joaquin Regional Transit District and I've served as the Managing Director of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor.

I really applaud the work that you all have done because as has been stated, the Los Angeles Corridor is a critical and important asset of our state and it deserves the attention this working group has invested. This is again, a complex corridor and for a variety of reasons and it will be important that the work of the group continue with assigned deliverables and due dates to ensure that these ideas move to actions.

I know that I've been away from the LOSSAN Corridor for several years and I also know that the three transit systems represented here for the next panel all have very competent and capable leaders and I am confident that they are the right people to help move these ideas forward. There are two items that I would like to respectfully suggest deserve more consideration from this group.

And you know, I've read through the final report and I believe that these would both fit under policy area, A to address strategies to increase rail service coordination and reduce disruptions or delays. They may seem insignificant. I hope they don't seem insignificant to you because I think they're critically important for what you're talking about as far as taking care of our customers, our passengers.

So, the first I want to address is way finding or signage at the stations along the corridor. So, I found this in this excerpt in a 2019 document submitted in response to a call for projects. Unfortunately, the statement is still largely true today. It said, the condition and effectiveness of wayfinding signage currently vary significantly at each of the 41 stations along the LOSSAN Rail Corridor.

In many places, signage at joint stations served by more than one passenger rail operator is not consistent, unclear, outdated, faded, or even duplicated.

This results in passenger confusion and creates an additional barrier to entry for prospective intercity rail passengers. I would add now that this also has the potential to be a significant problem for the many, many people who will be counting on using our services during the upcoming Olympics.

As potential passengers arrive at these stations, they need to not only navigate the various fare vending machines and methods, they must also navigate through the stations to find the correct boarding areas for the trains they need to catch.

In some locations, they might need to walk south and go over a bridge, while in others, they might need to walk north and go under a tunnel. And of course, there are many other examples as well.

If passengers do not give themselves really plenty of time, they could miss critical departures. Real time digital signage is wonderful, but in addition, in my travels overseas, I've seen many times that using simple way finding tiles, signage and arrows, and even multi color lines in the walkways can be quite effective as well, even for those who might not understand the language.

And so, I suggest we consider leveraging some of the funding and efforts being put into Olympic readiness activities to create a consistent, long term solution of wayfinding in our stations. My other recommendation is a bit sensitive, so I apologize in advance, but it is tied to person under the train incidents, usually referred to as passenger strikes.

Now, I did read what was put in the report, but in zero, you know, zero incidents is really a good goal, but in my experience, I mean we're not there and I have seen that these very unfortunate incidents of trespasser strikes can shut down all of the train service on multiple tracks along a corridor, sometimes leaving passengers stranded on the trains or at stations for hours and many times causing them to miss their essential connections to get home.

Over a 351 mile rail corridor, this can have some serious ripple effects. I believe that if the railroads and the transit police can amplify their efforts to educate and work with local law enforcement and the Coroner's Offices along the Service Corridors, they can help clear or cordon off the incidents more expeditiously and help keep the trains moving.

This will have an economic and congestion benefit, but certainly also make a huge difference for our passengers.

On a related note, we at the Mineta Institute are partnering with UC San Diego on an FRA CRISI research project titled Development of a Commuter Passenger Railroad Trespassing Mitigation Toolbox. That's a mouthful.

The goal is to evaluate and to address trespassing strikes on the railroad. Hopefully, that report will produce some effective recommendations and solutions. I know I've probably used up all my time, so I will stop here and thank you for the invitation again to participate in this event.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Great. Thank you. Now we have Coastal Commission Director Allen.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to join the panel today to speak about the Coastal Commission's participation in the SB 1098 working group and its final report. We'd like to express our appreciation for Senator Blakespear's leadership on this issue and to CalSTA for its openness to commission input throughout the process. I note that we also provided written comments on the report in June of this year on the draft report.

As you probably know, the commission implements the California Coastal Act, a landmark law created by the people of California through voter initiative to protect California's incredible coastline through its including its coastal ecosystems, public access, natural beaches and shoreline.

As part of ensuring public access to the coast, the Coastal Commission takes seriously the need to ensure safe and reliable transportation along that coast. So much so that we have a distinct program, the Transportation Access Mobility Program, which I direct.

The program stems from visionary decades long partnership with CalTrans that has streamlined and improved permitting of projects, expand the public access and multimodal transportation and protected our coastal habitats. Much of our work these days is focused on transportation resiliency and the difficult questions about how we keep our transportation networks open and safe as we adapt to rising seas and increased storm events.

Indeed, we currently have over 20 major sea level rise adaptation priority projects that we're working on with state and local partners. So that is really only scratching the surface of the problem statewide. Still, our partnership has resulted in some legacy projects to what you see here.

On the left is the Devil's Slide Tunnel in San Mateo County and on the right is the Gleason Beach Project in Sonoma County.

At both these locations, we work closely with CalTrans and local governments to adapt hazardous bluff locations securing the highway for a planned one hundred years, while also having benefits to coastal habitats, beaches and access.

In each case, Caltrans had spent many tens of millions over decades on revetments, walls and emergency repairs. All while erosion only increased because of accelerating beach loss. Only with the long term adaptation to this infrastructure become reliably secure. And although these are highways that bring up these examples to illustrate the value of long term collaborative adaptation planning for transportation infrastructure and what is possible with a shared commitment to work together.

To follow-up briefly with some more background, this slide demonstrates what is known as coastal squeeze.

A natural beach is able to better sustain itself because as bluffs and dunes erode, they contribute new material to the beach below. And even as winter waves erode, beaches regular tides contribute new sediment that offsets that loss. This stabilizes the beach and slows erosion over time.

But with hard arming, the ocean pulls the sand out to sea and neither the tides nor the bluffs can replenish so the beach disappears. Armoring combined with sea level rise poses a real threat to our beaches.

For instance, 2017 USGS study found that Southern California could lose two thirds of its beaches by the end of the century. Now the benefits to the public, the region, and the state of maintaining accessible beaches are enormous. On top of the immense recreation benefits provided by beaches to residents, beach fitters visitorship serves as an essential economic driver for those communities in the region.

I offer this perspective, I offer this to give perspective on what drives us at the commission in all these conversation about how to manage coastal erosion that threatens transportation networks. The question is not just how are we going to address the episodic emergencies and better do that, but it's also about how are we going to plan for long term durable solutions that will keep these vital networks open and operating for the next 100 years, while also preserving our shoreline.

That said, the commission has been actively working with our LOSSAN partners in support of emergency actions to present the railway. And you can see here, a number of these emergency actions that we have approved since we were last before the subcommittee in 2024. We continue to collaborate with various partners to keep this rail quarter open and safe at least as best it can be considering its increasingly perilous position.

And we continue to think the sand replenishment is the best short term option to protect the rail and preserve each space while we plan for a longer term solution. It's clear however that the emergency process could be improved and in this regard we appreciate that SB 1098 reports recommendations that CalSTA and the commission develop an MOU to evaluate options to streamline rail projects and standardized communication protocols.

We're ready to jump in on these efforts and we have developed similar tools in the past with CalTrans including various emergency repair guidelines, best design practices and agreed upon communication protocols.

To be clear though, any such agreement should not function simply as a pathway to streamline more armoring of the rail network, rather it is a way to collaborate and have better consistency around the emergency process ensure adequate noticing, to ensure that the appropriate amount of rock is being placed with the least impacts to beaches and to anticipate the defined mitigation needs that will be needed and ensure that the mitigation is included in project budget.

We also hope that this MOU, our working group becomes a framework for ongoing collaboration here. In this regard, we note that recommendation one and policy area B talks about ending this working group and relying on the rail leadership group for future collaboration. We do hope that we can continue our mutual collaboration with the Coastal Commission and other key public stakeholders involved.

Part of developing recommendations that can be implemented successfully with public support. And we appreciate that this hearing is another such opportunity and we continue to hope that public engagement can be expanded in the future. As a last comment on the report, we did request that the report recommend accelerating work on long term solutions for this corridor.

While a final report does not include that, we urge this committee to emphasize that need and we appreciate the subpart A of the sub SB 1098 does call out such solutions.

The magnitude of the risk to the corridor from coastal erosion is quickly escalating. As we've seen at places like Leeson Beach, which I showed at the beginning, the maintenance emergency repair costs quickly escalate as well, ultimately exceeding the cost of a long term adaptation project. Long term solutions save the state money over time compared to the ongoing cost and nonstop emergency repairs, while also reducing negative impacts to the public or uses of beaches and shorelines.

And it's clear right now that sections of this corridor need immediate relocation. Every day we delay long term adaptation here is another day of costly emergency repairs, loss of beach space and risking a rising risk to the rail corridor.

The commission looks forward to working closely with our other partners to complete this work, and we appreciate and hope that the SB 1098 report is a step forward in this direction. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the relative brevity of the of of your all three of your, presentations. But I do have some questions I wanna follow-up on. So, I'll start with the deputy secretary.

So I think what I'd like to say is that the October report identified gaps in management conflict resolution and planning for the Los Angeles Corridor. At the same time, the working group recommended using existing forums to advance action items in the report. And I'm skeptical that informal coordination and good intentions can deliver the improved results. So we're not trying to continue doing things exactly as we're doing them and hope things get better.

So can you elaborate on what you think the future is and to to have improved results?

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I I think the challenge with that that we all face, I think, collectively was really trying to coalesce around, a set of recommendations that was consensus driven, consensus driven. And I think, you know, we we definitely touched on, very, areas that were, I think, difficult conversations to have, and I think that was an important step forward even if we couldn't coalesce around a a kind of formal recommendation that went to to that length of, you know, of formalizing, you know, specific forums, etcetera.

I think our vision here is to really use the the the set of recommendations in the October report in future and and use future working group meetings to really start working towards an implementation plan. I think there's there's a lot of, I think, areas of investigation in the report.

And and so really using the the quarterly meetings to, as a group, as a collective, prioritize what are what we think are the ones that are gonna move the needle and which ones do we think are most valuable to start working towards in the short term. And so I I think our our vision here is to really use that the the ongoing coordination to to really come up with an implementation plan and start moving the needle.

As you alluded to, Senator, we don't want this to be a report that sits on the shelf.

We want this to be something that has that we can measurably improve and and really start moving towards implementation.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I just wanna emphasize this a little bit more because SB 1098 did clarify in statute that the CalSTA secretary has the authority to coordinate stakeholders to ensure corridor performance. But we're continuing to see these gaps in funding and operating and planning and even, you know, as was referred to by the Mineta Institute Chair, De Martino, about having it, like, a strike plan, basically.

What is the plan for dealing with strikes so that they do not shut down the corridor for double digit hours, you know, ten plus hours, for it it seems like some of the pro the things that are proactively needed, for example, where is the state's inner city rail fleet management plan?

And where is the long term plan for San Clemente, which we know that is a really a hotspot area that is not I don't see us doing active planning for that area and it's such a critical part beginning of the studies that are needed to determine, are we going to move this corridor and go through a tunnel more to the east?

Or are we going to protect in place and put a bubble around this and leave it standing in the ocean and have that be like, what are we really doing with San Clemente? It's the state has to lead that. And I know there's always the finger pointing of, well, maybe locals should lead that.

But if locals aren't leading that because of all the political reasons that, and parochial driven interests that do not look out for the corridor as a whole, the state needs to look out for the corridor as a whole.

So I I I always appreciate that friction between local and state, but I I don't feel that the state is also not coming up with a multi year funding plan. So for inner city rail services, you talked about the good statistics showing inner city rail is growing. Passenger trips are growing, which is great. But what is the multiyear funding plan for this?

So I I I'm very concerned that we are not taking the opportunities that are being presented to us or that we have been the legislature has presented to CalSTA through October to be more active.

And so so, you know, can you respond to that? Those are like Yeah. A series of examples of things where we don't have the plan and and we don't have the implementation, but we really need it.

Yeah. Absolutely. I I think, you know, a couple of of areas here you touched on, including the the fleet management plan. I think we we are getting close with our Caltrans partners in the division of rail to to to release kind of the the the final fleet strategy, which outlines the short, midterm, and long term kind of vision of what fleet we need to run the the adequate level of service, specifically, as you noted, for our inner city service down in Southern California.

I I think the vision here would to would be to get to a place where we can overlay a common set of fleet necessities across all of the operators, so that we can, you know, go out and potentially procure a fleet that serves across all of the operators as one example.

And so I think that's where that work is ongoing and we hope to see the fruits of that labor soon. As it relates to the San Clemente study, I think or the long term relocation study, Aye, you know, I I think it was in either late twenty twenty five or 2024 that the secretary had committed to to lead that.

And so that that is definitely top of mind and and we are, you know, aware that that is a specific condition placed on the the the emergency work happening in San Clemente by the Coastal Commission. I I think the report has to be due by 2034, which is, you know, really this this long term realignment kinda study. And so we we are working through kind of the the the mechanisms of how we can lead that.

OCTA, for example, has identified specific resources from our federal partners from a TIRCP grant, and so we are actively in we're in conversations with them to to to to figure out how to literally transfer resources to to CalSTA, so that we can procure the the the required support to be able to continue leading on that. And so I I think that is definitely top of mind and and we fully intend to to continue with that commitment.

And as it relates to the to the funding question, I think that's something certainly top of mind for for everybody. I I referenced the augmented funding for inner city service two years ago that's set to expire after the exit the current fiscal year, and there are, significant risks associated with, that funding lapsing.

I think we are, internally, we are, working towards, the development of a, extending that augmented funding, so that we can continue we can maintain the the the level of service that has just come online quite recently that is of pre pandemic intercity service across our three operators.

Okay. I appreciate that. I mean, I also I wanna just you when you're talking about the equipment, I think it's just important not to miss the opportunity to say that the zero emission equipment approached seems it seems highly speculative and also not really almost half baked. Like, I I just I have I don't I am not able to see the focus on hydrogen and and some of the really specific things about interoperability, scalability, where the fueling is happening, where is it coming from.

And so there's basically not a comprehensive operating plan, but our op the operators are supposed to be acquiring this equipment.

And and, I mean, the feedback from the operators is not that that that this is thought through or working. And I'm very concerned about us charging headlong into that, especially when we have so many financial needs. Is that really what we should be doing?

And and there are you know, I I have recently heard other suggestions that there are parts of the low sand quarter that could have overhead catenary and other parts that would, you know, you would need to get through the sections that don't have it. But it doesn't the whole quarter doesn't have to be the exact same.

We we could have a a series of different approaches to it. But But the hydrogen focus right now, which maybe it's going to be there, but it's not hydrogen is not actualized quite yet. But we're but Caltrans and CalSTA seem to really be focusing in this way. So can you address that just some of the the really serious planning problems with that?

Yeah. I appreciate that the question. I think from our perspective, you know, California has kind of explicit climate goals, and and I think this is really a a a decision to to to look towards what are the technologies that, you know, in in areas where overhead catenary is not maybe feasible or feasible in in the short term, looking to to ways that we can still meet help meet our climate goals, with some of these decisions.

I think, this is a for as it relates specifically to to the hydrogen, procurement, that the FLIRT, procurement, is really at with an eye towards understanding the the technology and if it is suitable for a larger procurement as we are ready to to make a larger fleet procurement of the state owned fleet. And and so just wanted to to emphasize as well that the the hydrogen the the floor trains are being procured are also being procured as hydrogen battery hybrid.

And so with the concept being that if if it if if we if the corridor decides that overhead catenary or electrification of the corridor is the preferred approach at at a decision point in the future, but there are still gaps in the system, you know, maybe through Camp Pendleton, Having this this concept of being able to run on and off wire, I think, is what you alluded to, Senator. Being able to run on and off wire, to be able to, have that transition to zero mission.

In in Northern California, the TIRCP program funded, a pilot program on Caltrain, which is looking at a similar model, which is a a battery electric hybrid where trains can run on wire between San San Jose and San Francisco and be able to run on a as a zero emission service South Of San Jose down to Gilroy, using the battery battery propulsion.

And so, I I think these are all, areas, that that we think are are worth investigating, and, definitely, understand the concern, and, I think, there's still a lot of work to be done, as it relates to to implementing this technology in this these, these, vehicles once we, have them, in our position.

Okay. And then the my last, point I'd like to make is about the SB 125 funding. So, CalSTA has been delayed in distributing that money, and it's already previously been appropriated. And this creates real uncertainty for operators because they're looking to leverage funding for operating and CalSTA planning for timely distribution of the funding?

Yeah. Absolutely. So the the funding was originally appropriated as 5,100,000,000 across the state to be dispersed on a formulaic basis across a number of budget actions. The funding was, I think, delayed in some ways from the original intent, which was you know, 2,000,000,000 in in the first year of funding, 2,000,000,000 in the second year of funding, and then it went two one one, and then with some out year funding, tie tag greenhouse gas reduction funds.

The first two years of funding, the first 3,000,000,000 of of funding from the program the program is about 85 or 90% dispersed.

I have to to double check the numbers, but the the the vast majority, I would say, is out the door. The third year of funding, which is the a billion dollar statewide, which was appropriated to be available in fiscal year twenty five, twenty six, so so officially last fiscal year. We have not started dispersing that because we are still evaluating or we we we had collected all of the long term financial plans, which were required submissions by the regions.

And which were required submissions by the regions, and we are still evaluating those, the ones that we have received. And so, it is certainly our intent to to begin distributing the funding expeditiously, but we just just need a bit more time in terms of actually vetting and reviewing the long term financial plans, which were due to us with the deadline of June 30.

So it would have been the last day of of fiscal 2526. And so, there there it wouldn't wouldn't have been really feasible necessarily to to get out a vast majority of the money in in the fiscal year that it was appropriate and and and we understand kind of that that awkwardness and timing, but, just want wanna be clear that we we are very committed to getting the the funding out expeditiously.

This is something that, this is funding that is, very, flexible, and and we understand the importance of it to our, our, partners on, our local partners.

Okay. Thank you. And now I'll just, I'd like to ask a question of the of Director Allen, Coastal Commission Director. So I appreciate that you started with a photo of these of the beautiful iconic road because I think the hope is that we would have a relationship with rail that was as positive, and we were able to get rail back up and running as quickly.

And I know some maybe sometimes people who live around, Big Sur or Sur or some other places don't feel it's as quick as they wanted.

But I think we we do notice that, that Caltrans freeways get built really quickly back when they need to be built. So I I wanted to hear what you thought about our collective response to the Los Angeles Corridor. I mean, what what is your observation from working on our highway system and as the Coastal Commission and working on our rail system? What is

overarching impression would be that it's it's very fragmented, as a response and, there's nobody sort of driving, an agenda. So, is nobody sort of driving an agenda. So usually when most of our successful resiliency projects, we've had a attack, a technical advisory committee where everybody is there going through and we base our we start with the science and the sea level rise analysis and all that and we work towards consensus on an answer and somebody in that room is sort of driving it, right?

They're the person that's organizing it and setting deadlines and moving things forward. And I haven't seen that.

And I haven't seen I don't think we've seen a commitment to the shifting to the long term planning that's really needed here. We've set permit conditions, but there's needs to be more urgency and more sort of direct ownership and responsibility. I think you used the word in the beginning responsibility of this issue and the need to address it straight on.

We mentioned the need for the San Clemente long term study and CTA did release one, but it's a short term thing looking at up to thirty years and it relies on shoreline armoring. And we need to be looking towards the longer term full resiliency for this corridor for the long time.

So what those are the things that stand out to me is still very fragmented and hopefully we could form a better relationship with Telstra and maybe start driving some of that stuff together towards a really good solution.

Yes. Thank you for that answer. I mean, I think that that really crystallizes what my impression is too. And I'll just I just want to repeat that I think the only place really where leadership's gonna come, it's not the entire quarter is not gonna be driven by one of the managing agencies. It's only in a particular geographic area.

So there are two clear places. One is CalSTA because I think who's probably driving those conversations is Caltrans in those meetings because Caltrans has a mission to get that highway back working. So CalSTA is either driving it or the Losan Agency is driving it because the Losan agency was designed to be over Losan Agency was designed to be overseeing and coordinating all of the different partners, owners, operators along that corridor.

But I do wanna point out that the Losan Agency just extended its managing agency contract without an impartial and objective review of what is best for corridor performance. So it, you know, it it it's been reapproved in the same agency in the same structure, but there was not an objective review of performance, and we are not seeing ownership of driving change along that corridor.

So, you know, I'm a legislator and a legislative oversight body able to ask questions, able to be a convener, able to, in the worst of circumstances, hold back money. Right? But but, ultimately, in order to drive the change, we do need to see it from either Losan Agency or CalSTA. Unless any of the three of you have a different idea about who would be driving that. So do anybody have any different thoughts about who that would be?

No. Okay. So, I mean, so I would I'll I'll just, you know, ask again if this, deputy secretary, if this is something you what is your reflection on that as we're having this conversation in public but being, you know, being really asked to reflect on whether that conversation is being driven effectively by CalSTA or the Losan agency or where it should be driven if not those two.

Yeah. Thank thank you for the question. And I think that's that really gets at the the crux of of of the mandate in SB 1098. And I think, you know, it's it's something that we are going like I said, going to continue working towards as we continue these these quarterly these quarterly meetings. I think we've established the forum and I think the being able to to leverage, the the ability to have those difficult conversations and to really, ask the questions of, is this working?

How how can we, improve this? I think, I'm also asking the questions of what's working? How can we keep what's working working well. Right? And so, again, I think to to your to your point, I think the state absolutely has a leadership role in the corridor, but it's also within the context of all of our our local partners, that, you know, in some some cases own, the infrastructure.

In other cases, have to, negotiate access rights with our our freight partners, etcetera. So, I yeah. I I think, certainly, the the state has and will continue playing, that that leadership role, but it's also within the context of, all of the the the local, priorities and and and needs of our local partners as well.

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

And then now I'd like to just turn to our Moneta Institute Chair for your two points, which I think were really important to, your two points were about way finding and signage And train strikes and making sure that the corridor is operating is managing the the the carnage and the tragedy of the of a death that happens on the tracks, but also recognizing that there are tens of thousands of people who are trying to get home or get to work and that we need our transportation network to work.

And this is the same thing that the highway patrol deals with on the freeways.

Right? There's there we're able to, to manage competing priorities, in different transportation networks. So I think shining a light on the fact that that's not effectively being managed really is a recognition of not centering the passenger. I think both of those things and the way finding and signage, I think, was a really good example too of like, for example, if MetroLink is not traveling to South Orange County anymore, is there a way to communicate to MetroLink passengers, hey. Your other options are x, whatever they are.

If it is, Amtrak or if there are no other options or if there's a bus, I mean, is there and and the signage having effective signage that allows you to go where you need to go. I always if I'm going to a transit station in California, I always leave more time than I would, for example, at an airport because I know that I'm almost certainly gonna have to ask somebody where to go.

I might walk the wrong way and then I have to turn around and walk the other way and might need to confirm multiple times with multiple strangers. Is this the right platform? Am I on the right side?

And so that kind of uncertainty, you know, you don't do that at an airport because the signage is effective and it's, you know, highly managed. And and even when you travel abroad and there are many different people standing around in, vests that show you that they're ambassadors and they're gonna help you and you can go up to them. You know, we have many stations that don't have that at all.

So so I wanted to ask you the question of, do you feel when you read the October report that that the recommendations that rely on, informal and voluntary actions as we have been relying on for each individual station being able to determine what's open when and what signage is available. Is that delivering the results we need?

And, and what do you think are are the levels of reform that we need to see a different a different result in those ways?

Thank you for the question. I don't think that we're delivering what we need to our customers and our passengers along the corridor at all. I think it will be really important and I think just leaving it up to voluntary actions is not going to be enough. I agreed with your statement that someone has to be in charge whether it's CalSTA, the low sand rail corridor agency. Clearly, there's a complexity of management issues there.

I'm not certain that I'm the most, qualified to adjust, you know, to speak to that, but it just makes sense. I mean, we have a lot of people coming for the Olympics. They may not be speaking the language. They're gonna be paying a lot of money, expensive tickets to get to what they believe will be a once in a lifetime event.

And if they get to a station even giving themselves fifteen minutes extra, and then they can't find their way to the right platform and then they or the train ends up being delayed, we're going to have a lot of very disappointed customers.

And so, I think I think developing an action plan for the corridor and I know it's been talked about. I mean, clearly from 2019, we've been talking about it. We need to develop clear signage at the station so that customers along the way can find where they need to go.

And I hear people I've heard so many people say, I tried to train, I couldn't figure it out, I missed my connection, I paid for my ticket, I couldn't find the ticket, the machine was broken, or I took a ride, it was a beautiful trip until we got stuck. And then we were on the train for hours, and they give us free food, but and at least the Surfliner has some food options available.

But But I can never do that again because I can't rely on that. So, I think, I mean, the report shows a lot of good intentions, but there's a lot of action that still needs to be done. And I that's what I mentioned. I think we need to have an action plan with date, you know, due dates and deliverables.

Yeah. Yeah. I think that's right. We need an action plan with due dates and deliverables. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I I appreciate our first panel. Thank you to the three of you. So thank you again to Mineta Institute for your participation and your frank discussion on the SB 1098 report recommendations. And we will move on to our second panel.

Thank you. So I'll welcome our second panel and I'll introduce them as they make their way up to the table. We have Darren Kettle, chief executive officer at Metrolink, Sean Donahue, chief executive officer at North County Transit San Diego Rail or NCTD, and Jason Jewell, managing director of the Losand Rail Corridor Agency. Welcome to the three of you. We appreciate your time and your testimony.

Thank you for coming to Sacramento. And we will begin with Mister Kettle when you are ready.

Thank you for coming to Sacramento. And we will begin with Mister Kettle when you are ready.

I think there are no PowerPoints with any of the three of you, so we don't have the tech the

We don't have to worry about that.

We don't have to worry about that. Yeah. But if that's wrong, let me know.

Nope. You're good. K. Well, thank you, Senator Blake Spear. Again, Good afternoon.

My name is Darren Kettle, and thank you for the opportunity to, once again, testify before your, the Los Angeles Subcommittee. I'm the CEO of Metrolink. It's, Southern California's Regional Rail Authority, formed in 1992. We operate the Metrolink system. Metrolink serves six counties, six Southern California counties, as far South as North San Diego, as far North as Palmdale, Lancaster, and into Ventura, my home county.

We operate on, nearly five fifty miles of, rail service. More than a 100 of those miles are part of the Los Angeles Corridor, stretching from Moore Park to, the Orange County County line. We are the railroad of record, for that segment. We are, though, however, not the owner. The owner of that same 100 or so miles are three different transportation agencies, the Ventura County Transportation Commission, the the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the Orange County Transportation Authority.

We are the third largest commuter railroad, in the in the nation, providing somewhere on the order of five to 6,000,000 passenger trips each year. And we connect people to jobs, housing, schools, and the broader Southern California economy. First, I'd like to thank, our partners at CalSTA for the thoughtful work, that has was put into the SB 101098 paper and it identifies important opportunities to strengthen passenger rail through better coordination, stronger regional planning, improve service integration along the low Sand quarter.

We support those goals. But I'd also like to emphasize what I believe is, the foundational issue before us today.

Successful implementation of most of the recommendations in this report whether improving coordination among operators, exploring alternative governance models, reducing delays or strengthening regional planning depends on robust and sustainable operating funding for regional and commuter rail in California. A transformational vision for transit is only possible with a parallel commitment to real and sustained funding. Without new funding, agencies like Metrolink will remain trapped in a cycle of managing scarcity rather than building sustainable and equitable future for transit in California.

The report recognizes that the three operators of the regional inner city rail service over the Los Angeles Corridor are confronted with recurring operating deficits that could force significant service reductions. Metrolink alone is facing a projected $35,000,000 operating deficit for fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven.

As we grapple with this deficit, the Metrolink Board of Directors has delayed adoption of our FY 2027 operating budget. Unless additional funding is identified in, within the next two months, we will be forced to reduce the average number of trains operated system wide somewhere in over 30% or more compared to FY '26. This will mean fewer opportunities for Californians to choose rail instead of sitting in traffic. And the timing for the service cuts couldn't be worse.

As Southern California prepares to welcome the world for the twenty twenty eight Olympic games of Olympic and Paralympic games, we are having serious conversations about service reductions.

But beyond the games, California must be able to count on robustly funded regional inner city rail service to reduce highway congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions, support housing and economic development, and provide affordable transportation. Several members of this subcommittee have joined on a letter to support and urging the governor to add funding to to provide support for operating support to Metrolink to avert service cuts.

My sincere appreciation to you, madam Chair, for your support in, communicating that message to the governor and to your colleagues in the legislature. The report makes many important recommendations. I'd like to highlight a few that deserve particular attention.

We support modernizing the Transportation Development Act through utilization of new metrics and for performance measures. This may also be an opportunity to identify funding to support regional rail system regional rail, operating, going forward if that were to be tackled in updating and modernizing the Transportation Development Act. We also support a review of state funding programs to expand opportunities to support state of good repair projects in addition to new capital projects. Safety must also remain a shared priority.

We support incorporating a vision zero framework for rail safety along the Losan Corridor.

At Metrolink, the safety of our passengers and our teams comes first, valued above timetable adherence if needed to avoid potential incidents. Finally, the SB 1098 report recommends greater coordination amongst passenger rail operators, and that's something that Metrolink strongly supports because we've already seen how well it can work.

On shared corridors, rail passengers should be able to board the train most convenient to their busy lives, and Metrolink has often advocated for greater openness of code share, fare acceptance, and trip planning across the regional intercity service operating on the Los Angeles Corridor. Our goal is simple. From a customer's perspective, passenger rails should feel like one connected network, not a collection of separate agencies.

In closing, Madam Chair, thank you again to CalSTA for this important report and to this committee for your strong support of passenger rail and implementing the recommendations of the report. Thank you. And when the time comes, I'm happy to answer questions. Happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Mr. Jewell, go ahead.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Blake Spear. Thank you very much. My name is Jason Jewell, the Managing Director of Los Airel Corridor Agency. And thanks for the opportunity for me to participate and be here today.

Before speaking to the SB 1098 consensus driven recommendations, I did want to take a few minutes to highlight some of the major efforts we have been working on, on the Los Angeles Corridor Agency with a focus on prioritization of service restoration and expansion of the Pacific Surfliner service. So I'm pleased to say that in close coordination with Amtrak, Caltrans, our state JPA partners, as well as our quarter partners, Pre pandemic, Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service levels have been fully restored.

The eleventh round trip between LA and Los Angeles basically Los Angeles and San Diego, excuse me, was restored in late March of 'twenty five. Shortly thereafter, the twelfth round trip was restored in mid June of 'twenty five. And finally, the thirteenth round trip in late January of this year, marking a significant milestone in return to pre pandemic service levels.

Now this was achievable largely due to our three year budget augmentation that was spoken about earlier, which was approved by the state legislature, which covers funding for the intercity rail program for fiscal years 2025 through 2027 to restore intercity rail service levels and grow back ridership.

In addition, a significant milestone of the Los Angeles agency is first ever federal grant award of over $27,000,000 as part of the Federal Railroad Administration's or FRA's restoration and enhancement grant program under the IIJA program to support service restoration over six years, which the state has committed to providing the matching funds for. So this is gonna provide some really critical funding to ensure that our service restoration continues for some time.

In addition to service restoration in May of this year in coordination with two of our member agencies, SB CAG and VCTC. We also launched an expanded service pilot that added a six round trip from Los Angeles to Goleta, which also extends to San Luis Obispo as a third round trip.

So since that service restoration and expansion of the Pacific Surfliner service, the Pacific Surfliner has returned to and is exceeding pre pandemic ridership levels. For fiscal year twenty six, ridership finished at about 96% of pre pandemic or fiscal year twenty nineteen levels, right about 2,650,000 riders, and overall 31% higher than total fiscal year twenty five ridership.

Now, when we're looking at just the most recent period of between January and June 2026, we reached over a 106% of pre pandemic ridership, demonstrating that demand for the service has been fully recovered and it continues to grow. Average ridership since January is over 51% higher than the same period last year. And in June, we experienced the highest ridership on record for the month of June at just under 280,000 riders and preliminary ridership for July looks to break a record of over 318,000 riders.

Both of those months also marked a significant milestone because we both we broke revenue records in both of those months. Now regarding fiscal year twenty twenty six revenues compared to fiscal year twenty twenty five, we're also up approximately 31%.

Total fiscal year twenty twenty six revenue is also at its highest revenue to date that we have on record at $88,600,000 And when looking at the January through June, again, 2026 time period, compared to pre pandemic time period, passenger revenue increased over 16%, demonstrating that revenue growth is outpacing ridership growth and reflecting continued strength in customer demand. Now the last metric I want to touch upon is farebox recovery. That continues to improve and we reach its strongest levels in recent years, exceeding state performance standards.

After finishing fiscal year twenty twenty five at roughly 58%, the Pacific Surfliner increased to 63% in fiscal year twenty twenty six. That trend has accelerated over the final four months of the fiscal year at approximately 70% farebox recovery and July has reached 74%. So again, demonstrating continued progress towards stronger financial goals. And I do want to mention, I know that the structural deficit has been talked about, especially as it relates to intercity rail.

And I do want to make the point that the structural deficit does not stem from performance issues.

The performance that I just spoke about is very strong. Although it's very recent, it proves that the service restoration and expansion is working and that riders have come back and demand is up. I do want to mention that the funding issue that we talk about as a structural issue is really stems for what was talked about in the first panel that the three year budget augmentation that was approved by the state legislature is set to expire at the end of fiscal year twenty twenty seven.

And it's set to go back basically revert to 2015 levels unless additional legislative budget action is taken. Of course, this type of funding reversal would have significant impacts to the entire inner city rail program and really have significant impacts on our service.

And for Pacific Surfliner in particular, it would mean reduction of service and most likely forfeiture of the $27,000,000 of federal funds if we are unable to run the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth round trip, which was the commitment we made for that funding. I do want to mention that collectively, California's three inner city passenger rail services generate the equivalent of about 54% of the Northeast Corridor ridership and represents about 33% of the nation's entire inner city state supported network.

The Surfliner continues to be the second busiest, inner city rail service and the busiest Amtrak state supported route in the nation in terms of ridership. So while I mentioned, you know, all of these demand indicators and performance, is currently very strong. We still need to continue focused efforts on developing reliable inner city rail service, while meeting customer expectations.

So some of the SB 1098 recommendations that are critical to our continued ability to not only improve, but grow the service, include some of the topics that have been discussed so far during this hearing, which includes working together with our stakeholders, and the first one being with Caltrans, the two other facilities, infrastructure and funding.

Now funding, as you mentioned earlier, Senator, is going to be key to be tied to this asset plan, including this entire plan needs to tie back to and included as part of the state rail plan.

So this plan is going to be key and I think be able to offer not only a path forward on future fleet and asset planning, but be able to provide kind of that global outlook for the entire corridor and really be able to help recognize opportunities for shared rail facilities infrastructure, equipment across operators and also look for opportunities to drive efficiencies in that fleet and infrastructure space.

Another key recommendation that the working group came together on and was also talked about during this meeting is to implement measures to reduce trespasser incidents. Now this includes developing a framework for the corridor to eliminate passenger and vehicle strikes through data driven prioritization and developing targeted safety improvements and coordinated interagency actions.

I think it's going to be important that we look at this on a quarter wide perspective and look at opportunities to either do a study or similar efforts to be able to see how together we can really move the needle in driving down these types of incidents throughout the corridor.

Another one of the SB 1098 recommendations that, we think is very important is continued coordination with our rail partners on efforts and opportunities to consolidate quarter wide work windows in an efficient and cost effective manner with really a goal to minimize impacts to customers across the corridor. And finally, supporting our rail owner stakeholders in resiliency efforts to streamline and deliver resiliency projects that maintain safe and reliable rail operations, of course, is going to be key as we move forward.

So overall, the Losan Agency supports the recommendations included in the report and looks forward to working on next steps and continued participation in the stakeholder engagement and especially working with the working group in future meetings. I think it's going to be key, as was talked about earlier, that the working group really define roles and responsibilities and also develop a true action plan for these particular efforts on how we can move these efforts forward.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Donahue?

Thank you, Chair Blakespear. As always, I wanna say thank you to the work that the committee does. It's good to have the subcommittee on low sand, not just specific to SB 1098, but all the work that we're trying to do throughout the corridor. I'm proud to be here today to represent the amazing employees and our board of directors for North County Transit San Diego Railroad.

As in as information, NCTD owns a major portion of the Low Sand Corridor in San Diego County and is responsible for maintenance, dispatching, and safety oversight for the entire San Diego and Escondido subdivisions.

NCTD also operates the Coaster Commuter Rail, a critical passenger service that connects Downtown San Diego to suburban coastal cities located in North San Diego County. The coaster has seen consistent riders ridership growth over the years, including the past year where ridership increased nearly 14.2% over fiscal year twenty five. Weekend ridership on the coaster continues to be a shining example of what agencies can achieve when they consistently reevaluate their services and shift from traditional models. Our weekday ridership also continues to increase as well.

We link that ridership growth to our commitment to customer service as well as continued demand for convenient travel options to regional events and activities.

The coaster is a vital component of the transportation network in Southern California, connecting to local services in San Diego like NCTD's Sprinter Hybrid Rail and MTS Trolley, as well as regional services like Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and Metrolinx commuter rail. NCTD NCTD is thankful for our partnerships in the corridor whom we collaborate with frequently to ensure effective management of rail services in the entire corridor.

Together, we identify opportunities for improved connections, integration of services, and cross promotion in an effort to provide the best possible experience for our riders. Passenger rail is among the state's most effective tools to reach our collective environmental goals and improve transportation options for both riders and non riders. SB 1098 endeavored to codify some of our agency's collaborative processes.

NCTD staff was hopeful at the onset to participate in the SB 1098 working group as an opportunity to share candid feedback and to help address the long term success of this critical rail corridor. As a passenger rail operator and a host railroad and a railroad of record, NCTD has a vested interest in the success of the Los Angeles Corridor.

In general, NCTD is supportive of the consensus recommendations listed in SB 1098 despite the fact that they do not have long term solutions both in funding opportunities as well as strategic framework for building long term and strong rail policies. The report includes many of the recommendations that NCTD made the load at the Loewe Sand Working Group meetings, including encouraging state grant program state grant programs to fund state of good repair needs and modern modernization of the Transportation Development Act.

We also support recommendations to coordinate with the Coastal Commission to enhance the delivery of rail projects in the coastal zone.

This includes streamline of CEQA reviews for passenger rail projects in a way that maintains environmental protection while ensuring that Coastal Commission is committed to successful project completion. NCTD believes, however, that the report's recommendations related to policy area c changes to funding fall far short. The report does not reflect the critical need for continued and sustainable state investment to maintain existing passenger rail operations and deliver major capital projects.

As noted by the report, three passenger rail operators in the corridor all face challenges either immediately or in the near future. Just last month, the San Diego Association of Governments approved a transit fare increase for the San Diego region for the first time since 2009, after more than a year of extensive public outreach and planning.

In addition, NCTD continues to implement strategic service adjustments to enhance efficiency and transfer funding away from capital projects to support our current operating needs. To supplement this, our team aggressively pursues discretionary funding for capital projects from all levels of government. NCTD is also partnering with SANDAG and the state to shift s b $125 to support our operations as that funding was originally intended for to potentially delay service impacts while seeking long term funding solutions.

Transit agencies across the state continue to fall further on short notice when there are changes to critical funding sources such as Cap and Invest. Even more difficult is working to understand how such changes in Cap and Invest continue to sponsor other programs that have continually been scaled back, continue to sponsor other programs that have continually been scaled back, severely over budget, and obsolete.

Yet this project has a budget placeholder of approximately 1,000,000,000 per year and all federal funding revoked. Issues related to adjacent projects such as Los Angeles to Las Vegas are delayed due to loan securement issues, rising cost, and push time lines. One recommendation that we have continued to offer is the bifurcation of city transit versus intercity passenger and compute commuter rail so that they have dedicated resources at the state level in addition to their own funding mechanisms.

And I definitely appreciate the commentS By the deputy secretary, sort of noting that earlier in his comments. We will continue to work with CalSTA and others and and other involved stakeholders to implement the recommendations of SB 1098 to forward passenger and freight rail operations in the Los Angeles Corridor.

Again, appreciate the opportunity to be here and speak and appreciate the work that the subcommittee is doing on the Los Angeles Corridor. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay. Thank you. I think I'd like to start with what we were discussing in the first panel, which the last part of that panel was basically focusing on who is driving the conversation around the improvements. I mean, as two operators and an owner and the Los Angeles agency overseeing it, and I don't know, Mister Jewell, if you were able to hear the that first panel. But were you here?

Okay. Because it was pointed out by me and agreed to by the panel that the agencies that could do that leadership work are CalSTA or the Los Angeles Agency. But at the moment, the report observes that the corridor lacks a decision making body that can resolve conflict and provide strategic direction. And also that sometimes there is a lack of a unifying vision and that we are not pursuing changes that would improve the entire corridor in favor of more parochial interests at times.

And so I wanted to just have the three of you respond to that about how you see the structure creating a different result because and I'd like to get beyond.

We I recognize and advocate for all of you all the time for more money, but there really it really is not just about money on this corridor. And so I really would like to have your problem solving, thinking about what is it structurally that we need to do to create a different result.

And I am really leaning on CalSTA to provide more leadership because I do feel as if that's the state agency that really should be driving the conversation in the same way Caltrans and is getting the freeway back open when it's closed, and making sure that there are adequate numbers of CHP agents and that they're coordinating with the Coastal Commission and recognizing that that's a a critical artery for our transportation network.

But, you know, you the because of the proximity that you have to the issues daily, I'd really like to have your response to that, to to that that question about, you know, how is it that where is that leadership gonna come from or what is the structure gonna look like that's different or how are we gonna end up with a different result? So and I I well, any of the three of you can start.

Well, I'll I'll I'll jump in, madam Chair. So, I mean, the the challenge that happens, and I'm gonna speak to the the SCRA region. It's what I know. As I mentioned during my remarks, we have three different owners of this corridor of the 100 and something odd miles that we serve as a railroader record. So we have a bifurcated responsibility that comes with the nature of our structure.

And those three owners that started back in, the early nineties when state bond dollars were used to purchase, the corridor from the various freight railroads. We have a responsibility as a railroad of record to make sure that we can continue operating trains, whether they be our trains, surf liner trains, or freight trains, when when the when emergencies arise or issues come up, and that's our responsibility. The owners have a responsibility, the exposure and the liability that goes with ownership.

So we have a bifurcated responsibility under our structure. It's not ideal.

It's not perfect. It just happens to be where we find ourselves. And, alternatives to that, thinking out loud and, of course, at the risk of upsetting my three member agencies that are the owners, full state ownership of that entire corridor, come in and purchase it from the three counties. That would put all the responsibility back on the state to ensure that that corridor was being maintained at a level that, and and and then the railroad of record, would continue to operate on it.

That would take on that exposure, that liability, that risk that comes with ownership of that corridor.

Like I said, spitballing, but that would be one idea that at least would be able to be addressed in, in this SCRA territory.

Yeah. I would I would support those comments in in the sense that we're probably in a little bit of a unique position that we own all of the railroad pretty much down to the BNSF yard in San Diego. We are and I think the service that's on our line, at least to the Orange County border, shows that in the sense that, our MPO has, worked with us very closely to make sure that there are projects to stabilize that corridor.

We rarely have events that, shut the line down. We had a earthquake about a year and a half ago that we shut down for three and a half hours while we send out our engineers to check it, and we were back up and running in in very little time.

I think when you think about those types of things, there's a political segmentation to that as well where we're able to manage what we manage in San Diego County. I think the LA region and and is able to sort of manage their portion of it. When you have these sort of divides, it does create a little bit of an issue when you're trying to get funding.

It was, you know and I appreciate the work that Losan's putting in, but it's a surprise to me that an agency that has been, around for over a decade just got its first federal grant. And and that's disappointing from the sense that maybe as a region, we didn't do everything we could to manage that or, they didn't have access to the right resources.

And to me, somebody who's operating the corridor, and this is where I would take a little bit off of CalSTA's lap is, I think they're doing a good job of managing, you know, what the playbook should look like. But the playbook is is steeped in, individual political issues that occur either in San Diego County or in Orange County or in the Greater LA region.

And so, to try to manage that along that, you know, significant size corridor can be difficult at times and I think, you know, we need to focus on having, either one agency or someone that is a rail operator that has that experience to be able to take over what the decision making matrix will be for that entire corridor so that we can work with the partners and then feed that to Cal State to help us find the funding for that.

If if we don't, we're all sort of managing our own agenda in terms of when we go to DC to find federal funding from the FRA. We're only speaking on behalf of the San Diego region.

We do, obviously, put in good word for the LA region and for, you know, Orange County. That's not always effective in the sense that there's only so much money to go around, and and we have enough to do with Del Mar Bluffs 5 and what probably will be Del Mar Bluffs 6 and all the things we're trying to do there.

I think when you sort of have all of these moving pieces and and an agency that's not directly tied to, sort of the the the operation of the rail, it creates a little bit of a complication because we want to try to share those resources with each other and we just, are somewhat ineffective at doing that at times.

I think just by the nature of our own, you know, the fact that he's got three owners of his railroad and and I don't really have to deal with that. And Jason's kinda got his own stuff he's gotta deal with.

So trying to find a way to sort of bring those together where the agencies are driving the bus to try to make improvements in the quarter, I think would be helpful.

Thank you. Thank you for your candor. Mr. Jewell, would you like to respond?

Yes. Thank you. Yes. And I agree. I mean, it does make a complex and unique, obviously, territory and in quarter when you've got multiple owners, right?

And several of those being freight owners who have, let's be honest, different interests. I have a couple of thoughts and one relates back to the SB 1098 recommendations and really the role of the Los Angeles agency going back to 12/25.

The Los Angeles agency is responsible for the oversight and management of the inner city Amtrak Pacific Surfrinder service, but also coordinating with stakeholders across the corridor to improve the service and reliability and anything and everything across the corridor that we can look at with our stakeholders to make improvements on. As you mentioned, we are not the managers of the quarter. We do not have management authority over Metrolink.

We don't have management authority over NCTD. We don't have management authority over the host railroads, of course.

I think there are some opportunities, especially with the framework that we have to leverage and this was called out in the SB 1098 report as it relates to some of these coordination opportunities, especially as it relates to the rail leadership group and other groups across the corridor to really work with the working group to define roles and responsibilities and really determine what are the right agencies and partners within that leadership group that can make decisions and drive results.

I think there's an opportunity there to make sure that we have the right leadership there and the right mix of stakeholders to actually drive results. So I think that's one opportunity.

The other opportunity as as talked about is, you know, we are, you know, three different operators. We are really two different modes. We run an inner city rail model. And the two gentlemen beside me run a regional, rail model. They're they're two different models, you know, completely different funding mechanisms.

So right there, I think, you know, there there's, needs to be recognized that there there are different models with different funding mechanisms. And potentially, that could be looked at as to how do we look at opportunities to fund rail differently in the future, looking at all these different funding mechanisms and funding pots. I think the other opportunity, I think, starts with the state rail plan.

I think there's some opportunities around, stakeholder engagement and an increased level of stakeholder engagement with all of our stakeholders and member agencies across the corridor to really provide input into that state rail plan and help guide and drive that state rail plan. I think that state rail plan also, as I mentioned before, there's some opportunities around driving fleet planning, infrastructure planning, and funding planning as part of that plan.

And I think we, as the stakeholder, corridor member agencies and stakeholder together need to be able to have a forum to have that interaction with the state to be able to drive that plan. So I think there's a lot of opportunity there. So those are some of my thoughts, and, thank you very much.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, it I recognize the the limitations, but it's also just important to remember that you do represent the broadest coalition of stakeholders along the corridor, the agency, the Low Sand Rail Corridor Agency. And so they're it's not just the Pacific Surfliner. I mean, some of these questions about how do we prioritize having Wayfair, wayfinding and signage or interoperability of of fares.

You know, these are things that should be coordinated through the Los Angeles Agency, and driven as part of the vision. So, so, you know, I acting in the best interest of the passenger experience and making sure that things are prioritized around that, needs to continue to be a strong focus or a more of a strong focus. I'd like to ask a question about Oceanside. So it's for both Mister Kettle and miss and Mister Donaghy.

So your two agencies offer this unique transfer connection at Oceanside, but this really, I mean, in all honesty, has been seen as an afterthought, and it's it's a very Oceanside is a very large community, and it's a large community on the North Side Of San Diego and then, of course, on the South Side Of Camp Pendleton.

And it could be a resource that would could grow ridership with both of your trains going there. And the reality of of the success of having trains that are filled, if the Pacific Surfliner is completely filled and the tickets are sold out, people can't get on a train at Oceanside and then head north. And so I you know, the report identified a commitment to improve coordinated service through the existing forums, but there's currently no connection North Of Oceanside due to Metrolink service suspension.

And then, of course, the Amtrak tickets, are now selling out. So, I'm concerned that without the MOU that you have the authority to enter into and some focus on this area that that that coordination in that part of the state will continue to be an afterthought.

So can you do you have plan to address this? Do you what what are your what is your response to that?

Yeah. I think it it, is definitely something that we would want to coordinate. I think we're already having that conversation in relation to the Olympics. You know, we're part of the mega event, task force group, through our national association. So we work with Stephanie Wiggins at LA Metro and, several of the other agencies that are in the LA region for the Olympics.

In fact, serve competition, which will be happening in Orange County, and we have, hotels that are already sold out for that event through there. So our goal is to try to figure out a way to manage that before we get there so that it's a it's a norm for a public transit. I will say for us, the complexity of that is is how we're funded on Coaster is very specifically outlined, through our MPO.

And so for us to be able to to move north would require, a dedicated funding source either from the state or from another agency, either in Orange County or, in the LA region at large. We do have, some equipment needs where we would have to fix some of our equipment, install items on some of our equipment so that we can travel along, that northern portion of the corridor.

You know, I I I do, see that benefit in the sense that, you know, I lived right next to the transit center in Oceanside for years. And, you know, I I saw that I myself rode Metrolink frequently when I wanted to go to LA. I wasn't gonna drive up there. So there's definitely a need there for it. I think part of the perspective that we're dealing with right now is a little bit of the funding issue.

I think if we had if we were able to solve how to manage inner city rail funding away from some of the other agencies that are sort of helping fund us on a daily operational basis, we would be able to better manage that. You know, for us specifically, you know, our ours is through Transnet funding specific to San Diego County. So, you know, the our corridor is our corridor, and we've expanded service in our corridor on the weekends and on weekdays.

How we sort of manage that collectively between us, I think, you know, we've talked about that a lot and and we definitely see that as an area of interest. You know, I think the piece that's gonna become an issue is who who does that long term.

I don't wanna start a pilot project. I mean, I'm I'm notorious for saying things like pilot projects are never pilot projects because if a pilot project is liked and then it's not funded, you lose so much credibility by killing a pilot project. And so if we start the service, we want it to be something that's long term and sustainable at least for a decade or more, and that's gonna require some dedicated funding to do that.

But I definitely see the need for that in the corridor and to sort of restore really what we had in the schedules in terms of continuity because it was easy to get from either Amtrak or Coaster on the Metrolink when we did that, and and maybe have some cross runs in the county if if we had special events that required it.

The you know, we started I've testified before this committee that a couple of years ago, we started a program called Metrolink Reimagined. It was an optimized schedule that was increased our number of trains to a number that had had never been done before with a focus on this regional passenger rail model that was creating trains throughout the day, not always about not sticking with the peak, which had been our history.

With what we're wrestling now with the service reductions that we're gonna have to have a conversation about because of the funding challenges, we're gonna be going back to the future. We are gonna be putting together. We will be running fewer trains.

Unless a budget fix happens, we'll be running future fewer trains than we did during the pandemic, and it'll all be about the peak. And so the connections will be if we're even able to run and originate trains in Oceanside as we do today, but because of the funding challenges have to look at where we might find find savings.

We will be running a peak that is going from Oceanside to Los Angeles, and you will not have the connection that we've talked about simply because we're not able to operate those non peak trains that allow for that connection that would be a AM train from the LA region to Oceanside to connect to a to a coaster because we simply don't have the resources to do it.

We will be doing the peak trip, which is the Oceanside to LA segment, And and that's where it will be. So that that is a that is a real struggle for us as we look to how we would have that connection.

I think it makes sense. And I think that there was promise, out of the, Metrolink reimagine program. Unfortunately, it's, it it it its future is in jeopardy.

Yeah. I would say that's an issue for us as well on Coaster because our additional Transnet funding ceases to exist in 2029. So it's quite possible that all of the the great work we did to increase service on the weekends and add in some midday runs and late runs for, you know, we run dedicated runs for concerts at, PECO and San Diego Padres games.

And those could all be, washed out if we're not able to find local funding source through Transnet, to continue that service past 2029.

Yeah. I know. The funding, threats are very real, and they're imminent. They're actually already upon Metrolink, and they're imminent. I'd like to ask about the, the zero emission the corridor plan for zero emission equipment and just basically reliability fleet reliability because it did seem like what happened with MetroLink was there was a fleet reliability problem that caused a service reduction that then became permanent.

And so, you know, that's obviously not the way we wanna be managing the our services. So could each of you talk about that?

I'll I'll I'll certainly start. So the, Metrolink is the proud owner of 40 Progress Rail, f one twenty five locomotives. They're the only 40 ever built. And so we liken it to if you go back to speaking of Back to the Future, we bought 40 DeLoreans. And and we're dealing with the challenges of 40 DeLoreans.

And we've had some real real mechanical challenges. And those persist. We have a couple of of parts on those locomotives that have been completely unreliable. So when we did in late March, reduce service because of the mechanical issue, we were starting to make some headway, and then the budget realities became very, very clear.

So rather than bring back some service because we had gotten our mechanical house in order a bit, knowing that we would likely be having to reduce service to some level rather than give our customers whiplash on back and forth service levels.

We made the decision to say, let's see where we're gonna be with a budget before we make any determination. So we do we do have that. Those 40 locomotives are tier four locomotives. The oldest ones right now are eight years old, so still brand new purchased with federal dollars in many cases. So we have to get a a a useful life out of that equipment.

And we are gonna be challenged by those, by those tier four locomotives, for as long as they are in our fleet. NCTD operates another tier four locomotive. They're they are anywhere from two to three times more expensive to maintain and operate, as compared to tier two locomotives.

So we're actually wrestling with some questions about do we overhaul tier two locomotives we have because they're far more reliable and not as costly to maintain rather than replace 15 locomotives with tier fours that have proven to not be reliable and, are expensive to, to maintain.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah. I think I would echo those same comments. I think for us, you know, we really jumped in feet first on hydrogen buses, and we're working very closely with the state on hydrogen trains. I don't wanna take anything away from the work that the state has done. I think the vision was there.

I think the problem is the infrastructure. You know, with the mandates that are out there for zero emission, and I think all of us up here want to see a continued push to zero emission. The problem with that is is it continually adds to our budget and is taking away money that could otherwise be used for service.

To to give you an example, our our fuel budget went up this year almost a million and $0.5 because we're not at the price point we were told we would be at on hydrogen just in our bus fleet. And we also have some electricity some electric cost increases for our electric buses.

We were very, very excited about the the thought of getting into a hydrogen, rail vehicle. In fact, we had, sort of, lobbied the state instead of giving one out to all of the agencies to let us have them all. And our thought process behind that was was let us work out the bugs.

If the state is invested in making sure that there is a viable fuel source in hydrogen at strategic locations within the state, and we can readily have access to that, then at a at a reasonable price point, then we wanna be the first agency to work out the bugs on all of the equipment and put them into service.

So the plan was for us to manage some of Los Angeles Amtrak purchases in the in the hydrogen and then also on our Sprinter Sprinter line, we wanted to put hydrogens out there as well.

I think what we've seen is is this year alone in our budget and we showed our board, we've got somewhere between 8 and $10,000,000 worth of just regulatory items that we have to pay for. That's just pulling away from service. That could be additional fuel cost due to zero emission. That could be issues we're having with, carb. That could be all kinds of different wastewater management, all of that.

The cost of that is just becoming increasingly difficult on agencies and pulling away from the service that we provide. And as a CEO, I'm in a weird spot where I have to sit here and say, I'm not really too interested in the environmental portion of it when I'm taking service away from customers who need it. And public transit by default is a is a is an an environmental, you know, reducer of greenhouse gases and and and pollution.

So that's tough for me to say as a person who wants to see these green initiatives move forward, but the cost of them are just becoming a little bit too much for the agencies to sort of bear. And I don't put that on the state.

I think the state has been working hard to try to find viable solutions for that. But when you get five or six years down the road and you've got a really good plan built, but you don't have the infrastructure for the fuel or the partnerships you need from, you know, the companies who are gonna bring in the hydrogen and then and said they were going to invest in the state of California that they have not.

And that's a problem when we're already five years in and we're talking about bringing these vehicles into service and what's the timeline for that? Is it '28? Is it '29?

I love the idea of fleet continuity. I think, you know, Darren touched on it, and I and I I'm a big fan of that. The more that our agencies can share equipment or have like equipment, it solves a lot of our parts problems down line. You know, we have the Siemens Charger locomotives that are tier four. Yes, we've had some issues with them, but they're 75%, you know, more efficient in terms of environmental than the tier twos that we had.

But they also come with 75% more problems. So when we look at those things, that's just burdens on the agency that are not really they're 100% reflected in the service that we provide the customer when the train's down, when we can't get parts or when we have to do those things. And so I think the template that was built was built out of the spirit of doing the right thing.

I think how we manage that in our current setting where we're having issues getting fuel providers, where we're having issues getting parts, you know, post pandemic from, our locomotive providers and and some of our other folks are a little bit tough as we try to push into, zero emission because we need to have additional fleet to be able to do that.

And, like, our spare ratio has to be larger so that we can continue to maintain the service that's on the rail or, in our case, for bus.

We had 30 buses sitting in our lot for almost two and a half months because they had an issue with our provider and we couldn't get low pressure hydrogen. So we had 30 buses that were purchased on a federal grant that sat in our lot for two and a half months and and moved a grand total of zero feet. And so we had to keep our old diesel buses in the fleet. We had to keep our old CNG buses in the fleet.

And our maintenance team does a great job of keeping those on the road, but I just feel like we're not progressing to the next stage of what the zero mission was intended to be. Do you regret raising your hand and

saying give us all 40? Not really because I I had I liked what the state was doing. I think the only regret comes in that, I think, partners that were supposed to work with the state to be able to ensure that we had fuel sort of fell short. And now you have Stadler who's looking to know when we're gonna start building vehicles for the state, and us who's trying to figure out what infrastructure we may need over the next couple years.

And our deadline really is we're already on a buy America waiver for our Sprinter vehicles.

You know, we're operating hybrid rail in that space. The real goal for us is for that to be an FRA compliant line. We want FRA compliant vehicles on that, so it operates just like our coaster does. So we have continuity of service between Escondido along that subdivision straight down to San Diego along the San Diego sub. Like, long term, that's our goal is that it all operates on one continuous loop so that we don't have to do this, like, transfer point at Oceanside.

Right? Like, you this is just another stop along the way for us. And and so I I don't regret raising my hand to do that because at the time, I I thought we were making some pretty significant progress, and I thought the state was doing a good job of putting a plan together, and and they did. Really, where we fell short was, we don't have the right fuel providers, and we're not sure what that outlook looks like in the future.

We do have some questions about what that vehicle looks like and how it will operate, and and we know there's already one that's in California that's being tested.

It when there's fuel, it it runs. But, you know, that's that's been an issue for us.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Joel?

Yeah. I wanted to mention as specifically as it relates to the Flirt and the hydrogen equipment, which I think was the crux of your question. We had just actually participated in what is called the Flirt Executive Steering Committee and this is one of the first meetings that was put together and coordinated by Caltrans, to really bring together stakeholders to work on the planning and implementation of the next generation zero emission FLIRT equipment. And those stakeholders include Losan, NCTD, Amdocs, Stoller, BNSF, Caltrans and Deutsche Bahn.

And as you mentioned, Senator, I think there is a significant amount of planning work and and funding work in order to tie a funding plan to this effort.

And there's a lot of that planning that still needs to be done to ensure that this acceptance of this equipment and potential implementation of this equipment on the Loosan Corridor will be successful. So I wanted to mention that.

I also wanted to tie this back to the SB 1098 recommendations that do mention some opportunities around leveraging purchasing power and leveraging opportunities to explore joint procurements both on equipment and parts and those types of things and that Caltrans would be the primary vehicle to actually have this working group and coordination on this potential effort. So I think there there is an opportunity there.

But I'm gonna go back to, some of the points I made before regarding regarding the importance of the fleet plan and a plan for infrastructure facilities and funding tied to that.

We currently run and operate using a mix of both state owned equipment as well as Amtrak owned leased cars. And so far, that has been successful for us. We, as you know, use bilevel equipment. We have been in active coordination over several years with our JPA partners in in Caltrans on an equipment deployment plan, that involves once the venture car equipment that is gonna be used up in Northern California is fully accepted, that will deploy additionally bilevel equipment to both Capital Corridor and the Surfliner fleet.

So that will provide us more flexibility, more ability to provide, special services, elongate some of our consents and provide also extra protection units, which will be important.

But I mentioned this because the bilevel equipment, is getting older. The plan that we have with the state is to modernize and refurbish that bilevel equipment to basically last another fifteen years or so so that then the state can plan for the next procurement of equipment that can potentially be used for inner city rail. And again, probably looking at opportunities to say, what are some of those opportunities around that particular next generation equipment or future equipment that could also be used for other rail operators.

So I think there's some opportunity there. But the current plan is to modernize and refurbish the bilevel equipment to last a little bit longer to get us through another procurement.

Again, it's going to be important that the plan and the funding attached to that refurbishment and modernization is identified and put into place. And that we have the sustained and consistent funding to be able to fully refurbish that equipment to make ensure that we have the equipment available to sustain and grow our service. So that's going to be key. That's going to be important.

Currently, with the equipment we currently have, we are going to be limited in the amount of service that we can provide over the near term.

However, again, once that full deployment is implemented that we are working on with our JPA partners and Caltrans, we will have additional cars to be able to have some flexibility within our within our current fleet.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, I appreciate the commentary and perspectives today. Thank you again for coming to Sacramento for this.

I'll just, conclude with some remarks, which is that we knew that this work would be difficult when we formed the subcommittee when I was first elected four years ago. We we do face strong headwinds. It's important to recognize that. There is a strong tendency to maintain the status quo, but that doesn't mean that change isn't needed or worth pursuing.

So today, we heard from state agencies, academic, and local partners that there are clear needs and gaps in our management planning and operations of the Los Angeles Rail Corridor.

We also discussed opportunities to improve the corridor, and I encourage all responsible stakeholders to advance these recommendations with the urgency that they demand. The legislature passengers and the public will be watching to ensure that action is taken. I remain concerned that the solutions prioritize incremental change and that we are silent on topics that need to be addressed. I will continue to work on this topic.

I'll continue to hold responsible agencies accountable to respond where needed, to pursue stronger reforms next legislative session, and to fight for more funding for our transit agencies.

Our work here is just beginning. I look forward to seeing progress and improve service, which will benefit transit users and ultimately result in more sustainable, resilient, and transformed rail corridor. So with that, we're gonna go to public comment. So I wanna thank the second panel, for your time, and we invite you to line up with the microphone if you would like to make a comment. Hello, Mark.

Welcome.

Senator Blacksphere. Do you have a time time set? There's there's a huge line out the door, so go ahead.

I got a two minute comment prepared. So, Triple X Spirit members, Mark Focovich on behalf of Streets for All in partnership with, California's for Electric Rail and RailPAC, but I'm not speaking for them, but, echoing similar comments and concerns. Appreciate the work that went into the SB 1098 process, but the final report does not adequately confront the structural problems that have brought the Los Angeles Corridor to this point. The most glaring omission is governance. SB 1098 was supposed to examine alternative management and operating structures, yet

after decades of fragmented responsibility, Yet, after decades of fragmented responsibility, overlapping agencies and decisions requiring consensus among actors with conflicting priorities, the report largely recommends better coordination within the same structure. And while better coordination is important, that's not enough. The coordination needs a single infrastructure manager capable of making investments based on the needs of the entire network rather than county boundaries.

And it needs a governing body made up of people whose primary responsibility is delivering a successful railroad, not people who have other elected duties and this is one of many responsibilities. The second major omission is funding.

Regional rail cannot provide reliable service when operating funding depends on annual discretionary decisions by multiple local agencies and capital projects should not have to spend years assembling patchworks of competitive grants. California should move towards predictable, multiyear investment frameworks that fully fund project development, provide stronger state oversight, and allow agencies to plan several years ahead. And lastly and the most importantly, the state really needs to lead. We cannot continue requiring consensus amongst local actors when the inability to reach consensus is itself one of the corridors' problems.

And we think we should And we should think much bigger about what Los Angeles ultimately becomes as well.

The Pacific Surfrider should be planned as an integral part of California's future high speed rail network just as we are approaching that with the High Desert Corridor. That means electrification, additional track capacity, level boarding, through running, and other improvements necessary to make rail genuinely faster and more reliable than driving. And we should use institutional capacity built already in California, such as the High Speed Rail Authority for NEPA, planning, design, project development, and public private financing to accelerate that transformation.

The corridor does not need another decade of coordination meetings, although coordination is good. It needs structural reform, sustained investment, and state leadership.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I really appreciate you delivering them. Anybody else in the room want to give comments? Okay. Well, thank you for staying to listen to the entire hearing.

If you were not able to comment and you'd like to submit your comment online, you may do so by writing to the subcommittee. Your comments are important to us, and we want to include them in the official hearing record. So thank you to everyone for joining us today. We've concluded the agenda, and the subcommittee is now adjourned.