Metrolink responds to public suggestions: turnstyles, food/alcohol trains, staff layoffs, and advertising billboards

Yesterday, I posted about Metrolink's Orange County service cuts. I found this gem buried in Metrolink's January 8, 2010 Agenda attachments with suggestions from the public, including:

• turnstyles (LOL!),
• breakfast bars on the train,
• selling newspapers,
• staff layoffs,
• advertising on the train, and
• deferring capital projects.

This ought to be easy (though long!), entertaining reading on your Android device and gives you some insight into Metrolink's situation (apologies for the bad OCR):

 

Public Suggestions on Fare Policy Changes to Address Budget Reductions

Consistent with ''price elasticity" economic theory, fares should be lowered to increase

net revenue through increased sales volume.

Unfortunately, also consistent with economic theory, in public transit the revenues

generated by an increase in demand will be unlikely to offset the reduction to fares

needed to generate the revenue. "Fare elasticity", the response in ridership to changes

in fares, has been the subject of numerous studies, both nationally and internationally.

In an analysis of the existing body of research on this subject the Transportation

Research Board stated in 2004:

'The paramount finding of this review of fare and pricing changes is that nearly

all the observed values of fare elasticity fall in the range between zero and 1.aor,

in economic terms, that rider response to fare changes is inelastic. This has two

important implications for fare policy planning:

• An increase in transit fare levels should be expected to result in some

ridership loss, but will provide increased fare revenues. Therefore, if a

transit system wants to increase total fare revenues, it should increase

fare levels.

• A reduction in transit fare levels will nearly always generate more

ridership, but will also result in lowered fare revenues. Therefore, if a

transit system reduces fare levels to increase ridership, success can be

reasonably assured, but at a cost of revenue reduction."

In a study for the Transportation Research Board in 1997, Charles River Associates

found that "transit demand is often observed to be more sensitive to changes in the

price ofprivate vehicle travel than it is to transit fare changes per se."

 

Decrease fares and you probably will see an increase in passengers and an increase in

revenues. It works for Macy's, why not Metrolink?

As described above, suggesting that public transit agencies should take a lesson from

private businesses that hold a sale when demand is weakening is an incorrect analogy.

Private sector retail businesses are earning a profit on essentially every item they sell.

A sale for them only resets the profit margin on certain items to generate more traffic

and potentially more sales on the discounted and regularly priced impulse items.

Metrolink items (tickets and passes) already include discounts relative to each other and

riders purchase the item that best suits their frequency of riding the trains. However,

whereas private businesses discount prices to grow profit through greater volume and

impulse buying, public transit pricing does not have a built in profit but provides a

subsidized public service (a ride) to its customers. While commuter rail riders have

relatively high discretion to drive or ride compared to other public transit riders, they only

buy the ticket they need and there is no opportunity for Metrolink to profit from related

impulse purchases. Hence, Metrolink ridership is tied more to employment rates and

gas prices than to fare prices.

In addition, fares from Metrolink customers are expected to cover only 43% of what it

costs to provide the service. In addition to fare revenues, more than 46% of the cost is

provided by public subsidies provided through the Metrolink member agencies. The

balance of the costs is provided from fees charged to the freight railroads and Amtrak

for access to our member-owned routes and from other minor revenue sources such as

advertising.

In addition, Metrolink's member agencies are coping with reduced operating revenues

as a result of significantly reduced local sales taxes and the loss of State Transit

Assistance that is limiting their ability to increase subsidies.

Metrolink's most recent experience with a surge in demand came in Summer/Fall of

2008 when gas prices peaked at over $4.00 per gallon and unemployment levels were

still relatively low. To address short term overcrowding, Metrolink leased some extra

equipment and lengthened several existing overcrowded trains. But fare revenues were

not sufficient to cover the costs of significantly expanding service. To significantly

expand service in response to demand created by cutting fares, Metrolink's Member

Agencies would have to increase their subsidy. And, since all Metrolink lines (except the

Antelope Valley Line) are proportionally subsidized by more than one member agency,

Metrolink service subsidies are limited by the subsidy capacity of the member agency

with the least available subsidy capacity.

Metrolink's fees charged to the freight railroads are consistent with the fees Metrolink

pays to use the private railroad routes. Re-negotiating agreements with the freight

railroads would be unlikely to provide any net revenue since the private railroads would

likely raise their rates to compensate any increase in Metrolink rate hikes. In addition,

current freight volumes on member-owned Metrolink routes are significantly lower than

anticipated due to the current economic climate.

 

Cut service; don't raise fares

Metrolink Board Policy is to minimally raise fares on a regular schedule in order to keep

pace with increased operating costs. Although Metrolink staff recommended that the

Board raise fares 4.5% this past July, the board in recognition of the effects of the

current economic conditions on our riders, approved a 3% increase effective in August

2009. The Board continues to consider a combination of cuts in unproductive services,

administrative cuts, alternative fare policies, and other measures to keep future acrossthe-

board fare increases as low as possible.

 

This fare increase should be done on an as-needed basis and decrease when possible;

evaluate the fare structure yearly for the next three years. If the economy and ridership

stabilizes, it would provide the opportunity to decrease fares.

The Board of Directors has evaluated the need for fare increases and member agency

subsidy changes in each of the past four years as an element of the annual budget

development process. For the first time in Metrolink history, the current economic

climate has forced the agency to consider a second fare increase, additional subsidies

and service reductions within the budget year.

 

Seek a change in the federal laws so that riders can deduct the cost of their ticket on

their income tax return. Current laws work only for a small number of riders who work

for large companies or agencies that have a large number of riders.

 

Current federal tax policy addresses public transit fares for employees in the context of

a limited pre-tax benefit rather than as an income tax credit. Such a major change in

IRS regulations and tax policy would not be achievable in time to impact the significant

budgetary challenges being faced in the current Metrolink budget year.

 

Establish an annual pass that would not be subject to mid-year fare increase.

Metrolink staff previously explored sale of an annual pass and encountered two

significant barriers: price and technology. Very few of our riders or employers in the

Corporate Partner program were interested in a single annual payment due to its price

and uncertainties in the job market. Current ticket vending machine technology does

not provide the ability to track or administer partial payments (e.g.: a monthly payment

on an annual pass).

 

Sell tickets onboard the trains rather than issuing citations.

Metrolink trains with six or fewer cars only use one conductor. More conductors or fare

inspectors would be needed to sell tickets. Adding a second conductor or fare collector

on each train would incur costs greater than the total projected sales revenue.

Since Metrolink conductors have a responsibility (assuming there are no other operating

issues) to inspect about 25% of the riders and since there is low fare evasion, onboard

ticket sales have never been determined to be cost-effective. Onboard ticket sales

present several challenges. Most transit agencies are moving away from cash for

security reasons. Metrolink conductors and law enforcement technicians would need to

be equipped with a credit or debit card reader with the capability to issue a valid paper

ticket, send the transaction wirelessly to the central data system, electronically validate

1O-trip tickets, and communicate transactions with the Metrolink fare collection database

and the L. A. County Sheriff's transit fare violation database. If a conductor is not only'

inspecting but also selling tickets using a hand-held device, that means they get through

the trains even slower and fewer tickets are inspected. In addition, with less than 100%

inspection, it would be expected that riders would wait to purchase their ticket from the

conductor or not purchase one at all which would increase the evasion rates over

current levels.

 

Charge a nominal fee for strollers. luggage. bikes. etc. aboard the train.

Metrolink conductors and law enforcement personnel are used for safety and random

fare enforcement. Under the terms of their contract, they are not allowed to sell tickets

or collect fees on Metrolink trains. That means baggage fees would have to be added

as an option on all tickets and citations would have to be issued for failure to pay the

fees. Metrolink would need to establish the proper infraction under which failure to pay

for baggage fees could be cited. Such a policy would not be easy or cost-effective to

enforce since Metrolink currently doesn't receive any revenue from citations.

 

Promote incentives for new riders.

Metrolink has very aggressive trial ride marketing programs directed to new residents

and to new employees of Corporate Partners in which prospective riders are offered 4

free trips to become familiar with the system. In addition, the new Friends and Family 4Pack

ticket promotion is aimed at attracting weekend riders.

 

Increase fares only for daily riders.

If fare increases were limited to only one-way and round-trip ticket purchasers, these

fares would have to increase 60% in February 2010 to offset the current budget year

fare revenue shortfall. Because the current public review process has limited

consideration of potential system-wide average fare increases to 6%, a new public

notice and review process would have to be undertaken. Undertaking such a process

would delay the fare increase and further increase the rate since there would be fewer

months in the current budget year in which to collect the needed fare revenue.

 

Make potential riders aware of the various employer and tax incentives available

Metrolink has a very aggressive corporate partner program. With more than 185

partners that purchase tickets and passes from Metrolink and provide the fare media to

their employees, approximately 22% of Metrolink fare revenue is generated from this

distribution channel. The program administrators receive regular updates on Metrolink

promotions including any tax incentive changes from Metrolink staff via emails and

regular newsletters. Staff also actively participates in rideshare programs, commuter

fairs and works closely with companies that administer employee benefit programs to

ensure they include Metrolink fare products in their outreach programs.

 

Charge government workers for their pass / require uniformed law enforcement

personnel to start paying the fare.

Government workers do not receive free passes from Metrolink but their employer may

be purchasing a full-priced ticket or pass from Metrolink and providing it to their

employee at a discount or free. Since its inception, Metrolink has allowed uniformed

law enforcement officers to ride without paying a fare as a cost-effective deterrent to

crime and to assist Metrolink train crews when needed. There have been numerous

instances when their services have been called upon.

 

How much revenue could be generated bv eliminating the 25% weekend discount?

Elimination of the fare discount for FY 10/11 would be expected to generate $0.6 million

in additional revenue and would reduce weekend ridership 11 %.

 

Hire ticket checkers on every train and make up your proposed increase bv writing $350

citations to the numerous non-fare paving passengers who ride dailv.

Metrolink continuously monitors fare evasion through conductor and Sheriff reporting.

Unlike traditional public transit lines, commuter lines, particularly with the high

percentage of monthly passes, generally have low fare evasion rates. Metrolink's

evasion rate is under 1%, which totals less than $700,000 per year in lost revenue. To

implement 100% inspection, the added personnel cost would be approximately $8 to

$10 million per year. Although it may seem that riders are rarely inspected, special

enforcement campaigns are used to check all tickets where an unusual increase in fare

evasion is discovered. Metrolink does not receive any revenue from citations. Even if it

did, the cost of hiring more fare inspection staff would exceed any possible revenues

received from citations.

 

A gated system needs to be installed so that only ticketed passengers can enter the

train.

Metrolink stations are not designed for fare gates. It would cost significantly more to

construct, maintain and operate a gated system at Metrolink's 55 stations than the

agency currently loses to fare evasion. In 2008, a transportation consultant estimated

gating the Metrolink stations would cost approximately $38 million.

 

Renegotiate your contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to use

Deputies for fare inspection rather than baggage inspections. Keep the police dogs for

counter-terrorism.

Because L. A. Metro and Metrolink both contract with the L. A. County Sheriffs

Department for transit safety, security and fare inspection, the Department's canine

teams work together throughout the Metrolink and Metro systems during random

baggage searches, suspicious package incidents and Visual Intermodal Prevention and

Response (VIPR) drills. The furry members of the Sheriffs security team provide a

highly visible security deterrent to individuals who may be carrying weapons, explosives

or other dangerous items on board Metrolink or Metro passenger cars or into stations.

Random baggage inspections provide another highly visible anti-terrorism enforcement

and public awareness strategy.

Regular random fare inspections are accomplished by conductors, as one of their

regular duties, and by law enforcement technicians, who are non-sworn Sheriff

Department personnel. When unusual fare evasion rates are detected, directed

enforcement campaigns are undertaken to ensure 100% inspection;

 

Why doesn't Metrolink check tickets on the station platforms like Metro does?

Metrolink stations are designed to have open access, without gates, and passengers

have multiple paths to their chosen car on a train. The most effective fare enforcement

takes place on the trains where the conductor and Sheriffs can check many passengers

in a short time. Historically on peak-period trains our fare evasion rate, even when we

do a directed enforcement campaign in which we check every single passenger on the

train, is 1% or less during peak periods.

 

With respect to fare evasion, are there any sYstems out there that provide a much more

robust collection that use evolving technology and is not labor intensive?

The most promising technology other than fare gates is electronic ticketing using smart

phones' and electronic validation while boarding the train. The technology allows the

customer to purchase their fare media on-line and uses a hand held reader to confirm

that an electronic ticket has been purchased, to automatically validate/cancel the ticket,

and to wirelessly transmit the data to the centralized fare collection system data system.

Early trials using credit cards and agency-issued smart cards are being contemplated or

just getting underway; the industry expects it will take 5 years to fully develop the

software, hardware and for phones/bank cards to be enabled for wireless fare payments

and validation.

 

 

Other Public Suggestions for Budget Reductions

Reduce administrative costs in the operating budget.

Administrative changes to the budget have been implemented totaling $5.162 million to

partially address the projected reduction in agency fare revenues. The administrative

reductions include:

Reduce Overtime funding in the agency MOW program - $1.000 M

Reduce other MOW expenses - $0.162M

Manage Contract under-runs on the 2 largest service contracts - $0.925M

Defer support costs due to delayed delivery of New Equipment - $1.400M

Shift operating costs to capital budget - $0.500M

Defer unfilled vacancies, increase staff contribution to medical insurance, reduce

Time Off With Pay accruals over four pay periods per employee before June 30,

2010 - $0.661M

Defer L. A. County Sheriff Department Law Enforcement Technicians - $0.272M

Reduce miscellaneous administrative costs - $0.241M

Eliminate December Monthly Pass Discount - $0.625M

 

The Board should also consider salary cuts and layoffs.

As a result of changes to the current budget, Metrolink staff is paying a higher

proportion of their health care benefit costs and will not accrue sick time / vacation time

(which are consolidated as a single benefit for Metrolink employees known as Time-Off-

With-Pay) for four pay periods before June 30, 2010. Elimination of service also will

result in reductions in the number of Metrolink train crews needed.

 

The use of the currently contracted operator needs to be evaluated. not a fare increase.

Metrolink is negotiating a new operating contract in which Amtrak would provide

engineers and conductors beginning July 1, 2010. The transition process has added

more than $1 million in costs to the current year operating budget. The new contract will

also increase next year's budget.

 

Sell newspapers. breakfast bars. etc. on Metrolink trains. add a lounge car.

Metrolink, Amtrak and other train operators have evaluated food service and other onboard

services and product sales and have determined that the projected revenues are

not sufficient to break even, let alone make a profit. The staff necessary to provide the

on-board services or sell refreshments is captive on the trains, there are typically only

one or two peak direction runs with sufficient productivity, and the logistics to supply the

goods are very costly for a relatively small market of single transaction daily commuters.

Metrolink believes these services are better suited for stations which can attract a wider

market from the local community. And since Metrolink does not own the stations it

serves, no additional Metrolink revenue would be anticipated from station services. In

addition on-board services or refreshment sales would have to comply with the

requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which would effectively

require items to be sold and delivered to any ADA-eligible passenger at their seat.

Amtrak has been allowed to continue selling food and beverage from their

concessionaire cars due to exemptions from ADA requirements on their existing

equipment.

While we have not analyzed the issue uniquely for Metrolink, we are aware that many

other commuter agencies have eliminated their lounge cars due to insufficient revenue

and insurance concerns.

 

For each of Metrolink's member agency, are there existing fund balances that have not

been expended that are available for operations?

Because Metrolink member agencies allocate operating subsidies and capital subsidies

as distinct subsets of the Metrolink budget and fund the two categories from different

sources of federal and state grants and from their local revenues, Metrolink does not

have the ability to independently re-assign capital grants and subsidies to operating

needs. The Joint Powers Authority (JPA) bylaws do not provide Metrolink the authority

to comingle the funds of the member agencies. Under the terms of the JPA, each

member agency is responsible for approving their particular agency's contribution.

Some member agencies in past fiscal years have left "surpluses" on account for

specified operating needs or capital projects. Some agencies require Metrolink to return

the funds.

As of December 2009, the estimated preliminary uncommitted prior year surplus is:

 

L. A. METRO: $4,254.680

aCTA: $814,020

RCTC: $1,093,260

SANBAG: $2,540,390

VCTC: $745,340

Systemwide Total: $9,447,690

 

Since the California Transit Association just won a lawsuit against the State of CA and

many of the member agencies might be in a better position during the next fiscal year to

contribute additional funds, the service cuts and fare increase should be deferred in the

short run.

There is no clear indication of the pace or outcome of future negotiations or legal steps

that could ultimately lead to reimbursement of the transit agencies for the transit

revenues that the state diverted. Recent press reports indicate that the Governor is

considering for inclusion in the FY 10-11 State budget, a strategy to replace the current

gas tax on motor fuels with an excise tax. If adopted, transit would lose a significant

source of ongoing State subsidy. Each member agency would determine how any funds

returned by the state or eliminated would be addressed within their respective county. In

addition, dramatic reductions in local sales tax revenues continue to challenge the

member agencies to find additional subsidy for Metrolink and the other transit operators

they subsidize.

 

Why don't the member agencies that honor Metrolink fare media for transfers reduce,

suspend or eliminate the $7.8 million in transit transfer reimbursements they require

Metrolink to pay?

Metrolink historically reimbursed transit operators for honoring Metrolink fare media with

no additional co-payment for a transfer onto local bus and rail services. Elimination of

transfers would force riders to purchase fare media for each distinct service they use.

Nearly 40% of Metrolink riders benefit from the current transfer policy. For this reason,

Metrolink does not recommend elimination of the transfers.

Transfers to member-agency owned transit systems cost Metrolink approximately $5.5

million annually. However, it also should be noted that the member agencies provide the

subsidy beyond fare revenues needed to pay Metrolink's general operating costs

(including the transit transfers) and the member agencies treat the transit

reimbursements as unrestricted cash revenue.

 

Metrolink should explore advertising on the exterior and interior of trains

In FY 2005/06, staff undertook a comprehensive evaluation of Metrolink's revenue

advertising potential. The first step included research of the transit advertising industry

and interviews with Metrolink's member agencies that administered revenue advertising

programs to review their policies, practices and profits. Further research included

investigation of existing commuter rail properties' participation in revenue advertising,

followed by an industry roundtable in August 2005 including leading national vendors.

The SCRRA Board adopted policies related to generating revenue from exterior train

wrap advertising and interior card placement ad space at its October 14, 2005 meeting.

Using the policies and information gathered from the industry roundtable to identify the

most marketable elements of Metrolink service, staff issued a Request for Proposal

(RFP) on November 15, 2005 to the major outdoor advertisers in the region, some of

which currently advertise on member agency equipment and property.

Staff was disappointed that there were no bids received from the solicitation. In follow

up conversations with the potential vendors, there were several reasons that Metrolink

received no bids. Because Metrolink tracks are typically not visible from freeways and

major streets or highways, vendors were not able to secure a viable ad client based on

the limited number of impressions (the basis for establishing rates) that could be

generated from occupants of cars viewing passing trains as the cars were stopped at

grade crossings. In addition the potential vendors noted that there were relatively few

passengers at each station. Vendors also noted concerns about the logistics of

installing the advertising on the trains that are continuously moving around Metrolink's

Southern California service area; the uncertainty and lack of industry information about

the advertising market potential for commuter rail venues, the initial high production cost

of commuter train wraps which can exceed $100,000+ per train, and the guaranteed

revenue sharing in Metrolink's adopted policy that limited the sales universe to large,

national advertisers. Based on these potential advertiser concerns, none of the firms

were able to get commitments of interest necessary to submit responsive proposals.

The limited number of interior card spaces and the relatively small number of

impressions (a relatively small number of repeat train customers only) were also not

deemed viable for the proposers.

Although the current economic conditions have reduced the advertising budgets for

most large, national corporations, one alternative for generating interior card space

advertising that was suggested was having Metrolink partner with OCTA or Metro on

their interior card program which might generate limited revenue. However, due to the

limited potential revenue and since the primary interior card space is currently used for

Metrolink safety and security messages for customers, staff has not pursued the

advertising opportunity further.

 

Don't serve food at board meetings.

Since board members and the public must travel long distances to attend agency board

meetings in Downtown Los Angeles, coffee and pastries are available. Simple lunches

have also been made available occasionally when board members have needed to

work through the lunch period to complete Board Meeting agenda items.

 

Keep investing in infrastructure both for safety and efficiency. Improved crossing

guards, signals, etc. all make sense to prevent accidents and allow the trains to proceed

with confidence at higher speeds. I read as well that you are building an Inland Empire

maintenance facility because many of your train sets are in those locations overnight. I

also think that should proceed. Building infrastructure right now is a value due to low

demand in the economy.

Our first priority for funding is for safety and efficiency projects including Positive Train

Control, Sealed Corridor improvements at Grade Crossings and along the rail rights-ofway,

and safety retrofits on the rolling stock. The Maintenance Facility in the Inland

Empire is substantially complete and will be used for final assembly of up to 117 rail

cars currently being built by ROTEM in South Korea. Use of this new facility for final

assembly will reduce the production costs and accelerate the delivery of the cars.

 

Instead of printing the monthly Metrolink Matters, post it on the Metrolink website or

email it to subscribers.

Metrolink Matters is the only regular printed publication the agency uses to

communicate with passengers and is currently available on the agency website.

Research shows that it is the most important source of Metrolink information for over

40% of riders. In addition, 45% of Metrolink riders state that they take the publication

home and share it with others. While ceasing the printing of the publication would

reduce some costs, even a completely electronic version would still need to be written

and require graphic design. Passengers have confirmed that the printed publication has

value and is read by many every month.

 

Defer capital Droiects. Current train cabins are fine. Invest in not having collisions with

programs such as Positive Train Control and cancel as many orders as your contract for

the crash energy management cars will allow. Redirect that capital funding into the

operating budget.

The only capital projects that could be considered for deferral to support the Operating

Budget are those not currently under contract and those that are funded with local

dollars. The federal and state sources we use are not eligible for operating expenses.

The rail car procurement has local funding, but all has been obligated in the contract

with ROTEM and there would be no savings in canceling the contract at this point.

There are only two capital projects funded with local dollars. They are in Los Angeles

County and approximately $2.5 million in local LACMTA funds has not yet obligated and

could be moved to the Operating Budget. However, these funds would need to be

replaced in 2010-11 as the local funds are matching future state funding and the

projects are in design and will begin construction in 2010-11.

 

Don't build the Tunnel underpass at Rancho Cucamonga - this will save $4 million + and

an underpass is not needed since there is great visibility and the great majority of trains

arrive on the south track.

The pedestrian underpass at Rancho Cucamonga is part of the ongoing safety

improvements on the Metrolink system. We do use both tracks at the station and it is

not uncommon for both tracks to be occupied at the same time making the need for an

underpass critical. The contract has been awarded and the project is expected to be

completed in August 2010.

 

Explore sharing maintenance. procurement. contract administration and other overhead

expenses with Amtrak and Coaster

Although Metrolink, Amtrak and Coaster are separate agencies, they share dispatching

functions, track and signals maintenance on joint publicly-owned routes and at facilities

where appropriate (e.g.: shared stations and Stuart Mesa maintenance facility in

Oceanside). Amtrak vends its tickets out of Metrolink's ticket vending machines and the

Rail 2 Rail program is an award winning example of fare and service coordination.

Since Metrolink commuter service is mainly to and from L. A. Union Station, Coaster

commuter service is focused on Downtown San Diego, and Amtrak provides statesubsidized

inter-city service between San Luis Obispo and San Diego, the agencies that

provide public subsidy of the services are continuing to evaluate longer term

organizational and service models that recognize the key service distinctions between

the three operators and examine economies of scale and effective joint services. This is

a multi-year analysis which will shortly be initiated.

 

Seek AQMD funding.

AQMD funding is only available for capital projects that reduce emissions. Metrolink

has applied for and received funding for numerous strategies that reduce emissions

from our locomotives.

 

 

Attachment B

Responses to Public Suggestions

to Avoid Service Changes to Reduce Budget (January 8,2010 Board meeting)

What are the considerations used to recommend the current service cuts?

In response to the current fiscal emergency, Metrolink is for the first time considering

service reductions on several routes. Although the elimination of unproductive service

can improve system efficiency and reduce operating expenses, service reductions have

the potential to result in significantly larger ridership losses than fare increases.

Ridership responses to service changes are also more difficult to accurately project than

fare changes since responses to service changes are influenced by various factors

beyond economic models, such as route and service characteristics, trip length and the

availability of alternative public transportation travel options.

Many of the fiscal-emergency-related recommendations for the current budget year are

focused on obtaining cost reductions in the operating budget by eliminating a train crew

or eliminating trains with low ridership and revenue that are not needed to get the train

in position to make a peak period, peak direction run..

Seasonal suspensions of service on weekend Orange County Line and Inland Empire

Orange County Line trains are recommended during the winter and spring 2010 in

response to low ridership. In addition, Orange County Line service suspension will

facilitate major CO':lstruction on the Orange County Line that is being undertaken in

anticipation of the Metrolink Service Expansion Program in Orange County in fall 2010

as well as producing short-term savings.

 

Raise fares. don't cut service

The suggestion arises from the belief that fare increases cause less harm to ridership

than service cuts due to the fact that, for Metrolink riders, service accessibility is more

important to attract riders than price is in dissuading ridership. The two alternatives for

achieving a balanced budget are not mutually exclusive. Although Metrolink has

historically raised fares on a regular annual schedule, with the most recent increase

effective August 1, 2009, Metrolink has never considered system-wide service cuts.

However, due to the current fiscal emergency, service reductions focused on low

productivity service are important considerations in a comprehensive cost-containment

process.

To save significant operating costs, service reductions need to result in the elimination

of a train crew that operates several trips each day on more than one line. Hence, most

of the trains considered for elimination or seasonal suspension are characterized by: 1.

ridership below· 100 per train; 2. generate relatively little fare revenue; and, 3. could

result in the elimination of a train crew (a locomotive engineer and a conductor).

Metrolink included responses to suggestions on fare changes to balance the budget in

Item 14, Attachment B of the December 11, 2009 Board of Directors Agenda. Further

responses regarding fare-related suggestions are contained in Attachment A of this

January 8,2010 agenda item.

 

Cancel all midday trains operating between 10a.m. - 3p.m.

Cancelling all mid-day trains would not result in significant savings since these trains

are typically operated by the same crews that are needed for peak period trains. The

trains identified for discontinuance are the exceptions to this statement. Since the

operating crew expense, which is the largest expense, is not eliminated for most midday

trains, evaluation of continued operation considers the incremental fare revenue

minus the incremental costs for fuel and mileage expenses. In addition, many riders

choose to ride the train when they have the option to use a mid-day train for

emergencies, medical appointments or when they have to modify their regular peakhour

schedule.

 

Don't cut service to Cal State University Northridge / Keep one mid-morning train

Ventura County Line train (either 112 or 114) running from the Valley to LA Union

station.

The ridership on these two mid-morning trains is very low (an average of 30 to 70 daily

passengers in November 2009 on train 112 and 114 respectively). It would require an

additional train crew at a large expense to continue even one round-trip. Alternative

mid-morning service is available at Chatsworth or Van Nuys stations on Amtrak train

774. However, these trains do not stop at the Northridge station.

 

If service cuts are going to be part of the solution, Metrolink should retain two midday

trains on the Ventura County line (trains 109 and 116) and cut the rest of the off-peak

service.

The ridership on these two trains averaged 67 and 78 passengers in November 2009 on

train 109 and 116 respectively. Subject to other changes that could affect above

crew/equipment cycles, this proposal is feasible as follows:

1. Train 116 operates 20 minutes later than currently and departs Moorpark at 2:50

pm. using Train 904's current timeslot between Burbank and L. A. Union Station.

2. Bob Hope Airport trains 907 and 904 are discontinued with Train 904 being

replaced by the rescheduled Train 116.

3. Train 109 operates 15 minutes later than currently and departs Los Angeles

Union Station at 1:25 pm.

 

Cancel. at the most. one train in each direction on key lines.

The trains identified for elimination are those with low ridership. Unfortunately, they are

not evenly distributed across lines.

 

Eliminate all Sunday and Saturday service trains or reduce them bv 50%.

The trains eliminated are those that have low ridership. Complete elimination of service

on Saturday or Sunday would have an effect on those passengers that do not own a

car, are unable to drive, have no parallel inter-county transit service available for their

trip or are otherwise dependent on Metrolink train service. However, since most

weekend riders are not regular commuters, Metrolink incurs higher operating costs per

rider on weekends than on weekdays. In example, Metrolink provides more fare

inspection and security, the ticket vending machines are more heavily used with more

cash transactions than on weekdays, equipment experiences more vandalism and

weekend rates are 25% lower than weekday rates. Despite the higher costs most of

Metrolink's member agencies have supported seven-day service on most lines to

provide opportunities for all of their residents to use the public service and to offer the

opportunity for potential weekday riders to try the train on the weekend. In addition,

surveys show that the weekend riders are more likely than weekday riders to not own a

car or to be unable to drive.

 

Add an Antelope Valley Line train at 4:50 p.m. cancel trains 213 and 215 train and

adjust the schedule of other p.m. Antelope Valley Line trains to accommodate ridership

demand.

Metrolink understands there is a gap in service on the Antelope Valley Line between

4:10 pm and 5:00 pm. The currenttrain schedule reflects our limited ability to evenly

schedule trains on this line due to the largely single track nature of the line (which

constrains where trains can pass each other), the current number of train sets we have

to run, and available operating subsidy.

 

Eliminate all official holiday service.

Although the cost of operating this service is relatively low, Metrolink staff believes this

is a possible cost saving measure that merits further consideration in the upcoming

fiscal year. After February 1, 2010, only. one remaining holiday, President's Day,

remains to be operated. Metrolink does not currently operate service on Memorial Day.

 

Explore the concept of run through trains at LAUS for the "cross town" market?

Approximately 63% of all Metrolink riders end their Metrolink trip at L. A. Union Station.

Virtually all of these riders transfer to Metro Rail, a bus or walk to their final destination.

Just 5% of Metrolink riders connect to another Metrolink train at L.A. Union Station.

Hence, Metrolink-to-Metrolink transfers are not a primary market.

 

Reschedule trains to better connect with Coaster in Oceanside and buses in Lancaster

destined for Kern County.

Because most peak Metrolink trains are heading to Los Angeles and Coaster trains are

heading to Downtown San Diego there are few opportunities for either Metrolink or

Coaster reverse direction trains to provide a convenient connection to the other

operator's peak direction train at the Oceanside station. However, Metrolink does try to

schedule a reverse direction train to connect with a peak direction Coaster train when

such a connection does not adversely affect Metrolink's peak direction trains. In

addition, Amtrak provides regular service in both directions between Los Angeles and

San Diego and the long stretches of single~track territory in San Diego County make it

difficult to assure reliable transfers.

Improved bus connections outside the Metrolink service area and outside Metrolink's

member-agency counties are the responsibilities of the connecting bus operators and

the transportation or economic development funding agencies that serve these markets.

 

Build up the reverse commute market to increase ridership and fare revenues.

Metrolink does operate some reverse commute service that is principally available to

allow early peak-direction trains to return to their origin station to make another peak

direction trip. The reverse direction trip is significantly slower that the peak direction trip

since Metrolink operates over long distances of single track territory and the reverse

trains must hold in a siding to allow peak direction Metrolink, Amtrak and freight trains to

pass. At the same time, freeway commutes in reverse direction parallel to Metrolink

routes tend to be less congested than travel in the peak direction; thus, these trips

provide less of an incentive for commuters to switch to Metrolink. In addition,

connecting bus service at reverse commute destinations is also less available to allow

convenient and attractive transfers for Metrolink riders that need the final connection to

complete their commute trip.

 

Add trains in cooperation with Amtrak on weekends to serve regional attractions and

beaches in busy summer months.

Metrolink has operated weekend service on the Orange County Line and Inland Empire

Orange County Line for several years. With the exception of the summer beach trains,

this service consistently attracts few riders. In addition, Amtrak provides frequent

weekend service between San Luis Obispo and San Diego on weekends. The service

change proposed is to suspend weekend service on the Orange County Line and Inland

Empire Orange County line but have it resume for the Summer 2010 season.

 

Has Metrolink evaluated savings per train?

Because significant savings rely on eliminating a crew (locomotive engineer and

conductor), the savings analysis has evaluated costs and revenue grouped by trains

operated by each train crew. Operating costs are principally driven by the number of

train crews needed to operate the service as well as extra board crews needed to fill in

when regular crews are being trained, or on vacation/sick leave. Eliminating a single

trip in a crew's daily schedule would not necessarily generate significant savings since

the crews are paid for a whole day's work regardless of whether they are operating a

train or are resting in a hotel between trips.

 

Has Metrolink looked at coordination of operations as a corridor. together with Amtrak.

Coaster and other operators in Southern California?

The Los Angeles-San Diego-Sal Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) Board

and LOSSAN agencies are looking at ways of better integrating all three services: the

Coaster service, the Amtrak service, and Metrolink service. To address the many

institutional, organizational and financial issues, the LOSSAN board is in the process or

obtaining funding from its member agencies to perform the analyses and hire a project

manager. Although it is very important for the analysis to result in longer term benefits

for the corridor, the studies are not specifically related to proposed short term service

cuts.

 

Since the new Amtrak contract is going to cost $3.5 million more than your current

operations contract. has Metrolink considered hiring staff and running your own trains?

Yes. Most recently in this calendar year there was a study of different models of

providing train and engine crews beginning in July 2010. In January 2009, in

anticipation of the end of the base period of the current contract with Connex, the

Metrolink Board of Directors directed staff to examine all available options for train and

engine crews. Those included exercising an option in the Connex contract, seeking

another contractor or bringing the crews in-house. In May 2009, Connex informed

SCRRA that it would not agree to exercise of an option, and would cease providing train

and engine crews to SCRRA after June 2010. At the June 26, 2009 Board meeting,

Metrolink staff reviewed the remaining alternatives and recommended bringing the

crews in-house. The Board approved a two-track strategy in which staff was directed to

continue the preliminary work necessary to bring staff in-house while Amtrak was

requested to submit its proposal. At their August 28, 2009 meeting, the Board of

Directors found that it was in the interest of SCRRA at this time to contract for train and

engine crews from Amtrak and authorized staff to negotiate a sole source contract with

Amtrak on a parallel path with in-sourcing activities. At the October 23,2009 meeting,

the Board authorized the execution of a memorandum of understanding covering terms

of a Metrolink-Amtrak Service Agreement. The Board also authorized staff to issue a

limited notice to proceed that would allow mobilization efforts to begin in order for

Amtrak to begin to operate the trains July 1, 2010. Finally, the board directed staff to

conclude negotiations on a final agreement under which Amtrak would provide train and

engine crews for a period of up to four years, with two three-year options.