Senate Budget And Fiscal Review Subcommittee No 5 Corrections Public Safety Judiciary Labor And Transportation

Okay, we are now coming to order here in the Senate Subcommittee on Lausanne Rail Corridor Resiliency Informational Hearing. Good afternoon. I want to 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, this subcommittee held its first hearing to underscore the importance of the Los Angeles 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 performance of the low sand 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 back to us here at the legislature. But we also cannot lose sight of the urgency, 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 Losan 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 findings they should have our attention. All three 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 agencies responsible for Losan 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 corridor-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 Los Angeles 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 should not be an excuse for us or for our inaction, because passengers don't experience low sand 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 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. It demands our action, and it demands that we make sure the agencies responsible for Lausanne have the authority, the resources, the coordination, and the accountability to deliver. So with that, I will introduce our first panelists to come up. We have CalSTUD Deputy Secretary Anthony Cerna, 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.

Yes, well, thank you. Thank you.

It's okay. I think it is working, and I don't want to hear any feedback. Senator Blackford, it's really nice to see you again. Thank you. And to the others for inviting me here to 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 Startup Committee when we laid the tracks on the catenary right 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 Los Angeles Rail Corridor. I really applaud the work that you all have done because, as has been stated, the Los Angeles Rail 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 have been away from the Lausanne system 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 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 wayfinding or signage at the stations along the corridor So I found 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 varies significantly at each of the 41 stations along the Los Angeles 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 inner-city 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 fair venue 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 wayfinding tiles, signage and arrows, and even multicolor 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 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-CRSI 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.

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 Blakespeare's leadership on this issue and to Calista 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 incredible coastline 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 and Mobility Program, which I direct. The program stems from a visionary, decades-long partnership with Caltrans that has streamlined and improved permitting of projects, expanded 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, though that is really only scratching the surface of the problem statewide. Still our partnership has resulted in some legacy projects, too, which 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 100 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 did this infrastructure become reliably secure. 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 or regular tides contribute new sediment that offsets that loss. This stabilizes the beach and slows erosion over time. With hard armoring, the ocean pulls the sand out to sea and neither the ties nor the bluffs can replenish it so the beach disappears. Armoring combined with sea level rise poses a real threat to our beaches. For instance, a 2017 USGS study found that Southern California could lose two-thirds of its beaches by the end of the century. 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 visitorship serves as an essential economic driver for those communities in the region. I offer this to give perspective on what drives us at the Commission in all these conversations 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 LoSOM 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 corridor open and safe, at least as best it can be, considering its increasingly perilous position. And we continue to think that sand replenishment is the best short option to protect the rail and preserve beach space while we plan for a longer solution You know it clear however that the emergency process could be improved and in this regard we appreciate the SB 1098 report recommendations that CalSTO and the Commission develop an MOU to evaluate options to streamline rail projects and identify corridor-wide playbook and standardized communication protocols. We're ready to jump in on these efforts, and we have developed similar tools in the passed with Caltrans, including various emergency repair guidelines, best designed 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, to 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 budgeting. We also hope that this MOU, our working group, becomes a framework for ongoing collaboration here. In this regard, we note that Recommendation 1 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. So on that point, we did also want to emphasize in our comments on this report that public engagement is a critical 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 that Subpart A of the 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 of 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 of nonstop emergency repairs, while also reducing negative impacts to the public, our 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 as another day of costly emergency repairs, loss of beach space, and rising risks 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.

Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I think the challenge that we all face, I think, collectively, was really trying to coalesce around a set of recommendations that was consensus-driven. And I think we definitely touched on various areas were, I think, difficult conversations to have. And I think that was an important step forward, even if we couldn't coalesce around a kind of formal recommendation that went to that length of formalizing specific forums, et cetera. I think our vision here is to really use the set of recommendations in the 1098 report in future and use future working group meetings to really start working towards an implementation plan. I think there's a lot of, I think, areas of investigation in the report. And so really using the quarterly meetings to, as a group, as a collective, prioritize what we think are the ones that are going to move the needle and which ones do we think are most valuable to start working towards in the short term. And so I think our vision here is to really use the ongoing coordination 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 we can measurably improve and really start moving towards implementation.

Yeah, absolutely. I think a couple of areas here you touched on including the fleet management plan I think we are getting close with our Caltrans partners in the Division of Rail to release kind of the final fleet strategy which outlines the short midterm and long term kind of vision of what fleet we need to run the adequate level of service specifically as you noted for our inner city service down in Southern California I think the vision here 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 go out and potentially procure a fleet that serves across all of the operators, as one example. And so I think 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, I think it was in either late 2025 or 2024 that the Secretary had committed to lead that. And so that is definitely top of mind. And we are aware that that is a specific condition placed on the emergency work happening in San Clemente by the Coastal Commission. I think the report has to be due by 2034, which is really this long-term realignment kind of study. And so we are working through kind of 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 conversations with them to figure out how to literally transfer resources to CalST so that we can procure the required support to be able to continue leading on that. And so I think that is definitely top of mind, and we fully intend to continue with that commitment. And as it relates to the funding question, I think that's something certainly top of mind for everybody. I referenced the augmented funding for inner city service two years ago that's set to expire after 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 extending that augmented funding so that we can continue, we can maintain the level of service that has just come online quite recently that is a pre-pandemic inner city service across our three operators.

just some of the really serious planning problems with that? Yeah, I appreciate the question. I I think from our perspective, you know, California has kind of explicit climate goals. And I think this is really a decision to look towards what are the technologies that, you know, in areas where overhead catenary is not maybe feasible or feasible in the short term, looking to ways that we can still meet and help meet our climate goals with some of these decisions. I think this is a, as it relates specifically to the hydrogen procurement, the FLIRT procurement, is really with an eye towards understanding the technology and if it is suitable for a larger procurement as we are ready to make a larger fleet procurement of the state-owned fleet. And so just wanted to emphasize as well that the hydrogen, the floor trains being procured are also being procured as hydrogen battery hybrid. And so with the concept being that if the corridor decides that overhead catenary or electrification of the corridor is the preferred approach at a decision point in the future, but there are still gaps in the system, you know, maybe through Camp Pendleton, having 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 emission. In Northern California, the TIRCP program funded a pilot program on Caltrain, which is looking at a similar model, which is a battery electric hybrid where trains can run on wire between San Jose and San Francisco and be able to run as a zero emission service south of San Jose down to Gilroy using the battery propulsion. And so I think these are all areas that we think 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 implementing this technology and these vehicles once we have them in our possession.

Yeah, absolutely. So the funding was originally appropriated as $5.1 billion 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 $2 billion in the first year of funding, $2 billion in the second year of funding. And then it went $2.11 and then with some out-year funding tied to greenhouse gas reduction funds. The first two years of funding, the first $3 billion of funding from the program, is about 85% or 90% dispersed. I have to double the numbers but the vast majority I would say is out the door The third year of funding which is a billion dollars statewide which was appropriated to be available in fiscal year 2526 so officially last fiscal year we have not started dispersing that because we are still evaluating or we had collected all of the long-term financial plans, 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 begin distributing the funding expeditiously, but we 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 30th. So it would have been the last day of fiscal year 2526. And so it wouldn't have been really feasible necessarily to get out a vast majority of the money in the fiscal year that it was appropriated and we understand kind of that awkwardness and timing. But I just want to be clear that we are very committed to getting the funding out expeditiously. This is funding that is very flexible and we understand the importance of it to our local partners.

I think my overarching impression would be that it's very fragmented as a response, and there's nobody sort of driving an agenda. So usually when most of our successful resiliency projects, we've had an ATAC, a technical advisory committee, where everybody is there going through. And 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 shifting to the long-term planning that's really needed here. You know, we've set permit conditions, but there needs to be more urgency and more, you know, sort of direct ownership and responsibility. I think you used the word at the beginning, responsibility of this issue and the need to address it straight on. And, you know, we mentioned the need for the San Clemente long-term study, and, you know, a CTA did release one, but it's a short-term thing looking at up to 30 years, and it relies on shoreline armoring. And we need to be looking towards the longer-term, you know, full resiliency for this corridor for the long time. So those are the things that stand out to me. It's still very fragmented, and hopefully we could form a better relationship with CalSTA and maybe start driving some of that stuff together towards a really good solution.

Yeah, thank you for the question. And I think that really gets at the crux of the mandate in SB 1098. And I think it's something that we are, like I said, going to continue working towards as we continue these quarterly meetings. I think we've established the forum, and I think being able to leverage the ability to have those difficult conversations and to really ask the questions of, is this working? How can we improve this? I think I'm also asking the questions of what's working, how can we keep what's working well, right? And so, again, I think 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 local partners that, you know, in some cases own the infrastructure, in other cases have to negotiate access rights with our freight partners, et cetera. So, yeah, I think certainly the state has and will continue playing that leadership role, but it's also within the context of all of the local priorities and needs of our local partners as well.

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 Losan Rail Corridor Agency. Clearly, there's a complexity of management issues there. I'm not certain that I'm the most qualified 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 going to 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 15 minutes extra, and then they can't find their way to the right platform or the train ends up being delayed, we're going to have a lot of very disappointed customers. And so 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,

No, you're good.

Well, thank you, Senator Blakespear. Again, good afternoon. My name is Darren Kettle, and thank you for the opportunity to once again testify before 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 550 miles of rail service. More than 100 of those miles are part of the Losan corridor, stretching from Moorpark 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 hundred or so miles are three different transportation agencies, the Ventura County Transportation Commission, the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the Orange County Transportation Authority. We are the third largest commuter railroad in the nation, providing somewhere on the order of five to six million 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 was put into the SB 1098 paper, and it identifies important opportunities to strengthen passenger rail through better coordination, stronger regional planning, improved service integration along the Los Angeles Corridor. 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 a sustainable and equitable future for transit in California. The report recognizes that the three operators of the regional and 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 million operating deficit for fiscal year 26 As we grapple with this deficit, the Metrolink Board of Directors has delayed adoption of our FY27 operating budget. Unless additional funding is identified, within the next two months we will be forced to reduce the average number of trains operated system-wide somewhere over 30 percent or more compared to FY26. 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 2028 Olympic Games, 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 and intercity 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 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 performance measures. This may also be an opportunity to identify funding to support 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 Los Angeles 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 rail 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.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Blakespear. Thank you very much. My name is Jason Jewell. I'm the Managing Director of the Los Angeles Rail Corner 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 corridor partners, pre-pandemic Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service levels have been fully restored. The 11th round trip between LA and Los Angeles, basically Los Angeles and San Diego, excuse me, was restored in late March of 25. Shortly thereafter, the 12th round trip was restored in mid-June of 25. And finally, the 13th 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 Inner City Rail Program for fiscal years 2025 through 2027 to restore Inner City Rail service levels and grow back ridership. In addition, a significant milestone of the Los Angeles Agency is its first-ever federal grant award of over $27 million, 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 going to 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, SBCAG 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 26, ridership finished at about 96% of pre-pandemic or fiscal year 2019 levels, right at about 2.65 million riders. and overall 31% higher than total fiscal year 25 ridership. Now, when we're looking at just the most recent period between January and June of 2026, we reached over 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 broke revenue records in both of those months. Now, regarding fiscal year 26 revenues compared to fiscal year 25, we're also up approximately 31%. 31% total fiscal year 26 revenue is also at its highest revenue to date that we have on record at 88.6 million. 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 fare box recovery. That continues to improve, and we reach its strongest levels in recent years, exceeding state performance standards. After finishing fiscal year 25 at roughly 58%, the Pacific Surf Liner increased to 63% in fiscal year 26. That trend has accelerated over the final four months of the fiscal year at approximately 70 Fairbox 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 inner city 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 really stems from 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 27. 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 million of federal funds if we were unable to run the 11th, 12th, and 13th 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 surf liner 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 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 success and critical to our 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 JPAs, and quarter stakeholders to develop a written fleet and asset plan that aligns equipment needs with 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 include it 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 corridor-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 corridor work windows in an efficient and cost 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 Los Angeles Agency supports the recommendations, including 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.

Thank you, Chair Blakespeare. As always, I want to say thank you to the work that the committee does. It's good to have the subcommittee on LOSAND, 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 information, NCTD owns a major portion of the Los Angeles 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 ridership growth over the years, including the past year where ridership increased nearly 14.2 percent over fiscal year 25. 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 Metrolink's Commuter Rail. 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. SB1098 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 at the Losan Working Group meetings, including encouraging state grant programs to fund state of good repair needs and 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 SB125 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 & Invest. Even more difficult is working to understand how such changes in Cap & Invest 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 billion 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 costs, and push timelines. One recommendation that we have continued to offer is the bifurcation of city transit versus inner-city passenger and 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 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 and happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Well, I'll jump in, Madam Chair. So, I mean, the challenge that happens, and I'm going to speak to the SCRA region, it's what I know. As I mentioned during my remarks, we have three different owners of this corridor of the hundred and something odd miles that we serve as a railroad 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 90s 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.

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

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I recognize 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 Losan Rail Corridor Agency. And so 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 fares, These are things that should be coordinated through the Losan agency and driven as part of the vision. So 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 more of a strong focus. I'd like to ask a question about Oceanside. So it's for both Mr. Kettle and Mr. 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, 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 the success of having trains that are filled, if the Pacific surf liner is completely filled and the tickets are sold out, people can't get on a train at Oceanside and then head north. And so the report identified a commitment to improve coordinated service through the existing forums. But there currently no connection north of Oceanside due to Metrolink service suspension and then of course the Amtrak tickets are now selling out So I concerned that without the MOU that you have the authority to enter into and some focus on this area that that coordination in that part of the state will continue to be an afterthought. So do you have planned to address this? What is your response to that?

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 increased our number of trains to a number that 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 going to have to have a conversation about because of the funding challenges. We're going to be going back to the future. We are going to be putting together, we will be running fewer trains. Unless a budget fix happens, we will be running fewer trains than we did during the pandemic. And it will 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 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 an AM train from the LA region to Oceanside to connect 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 that's where we'll be. So 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 reimagined program. Unfortunately, its future is in jeopardy.

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 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 want to be managing our services. So could each of you talk about that?

Okay.

That's just pulling away from service. That could be additional fuel costs 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 an environmental reducer of greenhouse gases 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 going to bring in the hydrogen 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 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 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% 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 it trains down or 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 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 busmen. We had 30 buses sitting in our lot for almost two and a half months because they had an issue at 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 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 emission was intended to be. Do you regret raising your hand and saying give us all 40? Not really, because 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 going to 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 it's just another stop along the way for us. And so I don't regret raising my hand to do that because at the time 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 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 we know there's already one that's in California that's being tested. when there's fuel it runs but you know that's that's been an issue for us 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 this subcommittee when I was first elected four years ago. 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. 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 improved service which will benefit transit users and ultimately result in more sustainable resilient and transformed rail corridor So with that we going to go to public comment So I want to 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 Blackspear. Do you have a time set? There's a huge line out the door, so go ahead.

Senator Blackspear remembers Mark Voksevich 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

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 would 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.