Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Alternate Melissa Hernandez, City of Dublin Alternate Diane Burgis, Contra Costa County Alternate Josh Pedrozo, Merced County Alternate Mikey Hothi, City of Lodi Alternate Tom Wheeler, Madera County Alternate Rey León, City of Huron Alternate Eddie Valero, Tulare County Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Stanislaus County Councilmember Patrick Hume, Chair, City of Elk Grove Supervisor David Haubert, Alameda County Councilmember David Hudson, City of San Ramon Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Vice-Chair, Merced County Supervisor Kathy Miller, San Joaquin County Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Supervisor Brett Frazier, Vice-Chair, Madera County Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County TELECONFERENCE BOARD MEETING September 24, 2021 – 9:00 AM Call-In Information: +1 (646) 749-3335 Conference Access Code: 770-521-469 GoToMeeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/770521469 SPECIAL NOTICE Coronavirus COVID-19 In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members will be attending this meeting via teleconference or videoconference. Members of the public may observe the meeting by dialing +1 (646) 749-3335 with access code: 770-521-469 or log-in using a computer, tablet or smartphone at GoToMeeting.com using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/770521469 Please note that all members of the public will be placed on mute until such times allow for public comments to be made. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function, or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at [email protected], in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period. Public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per comment, and no more than 240 words. This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty- four hours prior to the time of the meeting. All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the offices of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission located at 949 E. Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda and meeting materials are also available on the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Website: http://www.sjjpa.com/Home.
Transcript
Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Alternate Melissa Hernandez, City of Dublin Alternate Diane Burgis, Contra Costa County Alternate Josh Pedrozo, Merced County Alternate Mikey Hothi, City of Lodi
Alternate Tom Wheeler, Madera County Alternate Rey León, City of Huron Alternate Eddie Valero, Tulare County
Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Stanislaus County Councilmember Patrick Hume, Chair, City of Elk Grove Supervisor David Haubert, Alameda County Councilmember David Hudson, City of San Ramon Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Vice-Chair, Merced County Supervisor Kathy Miller, San Joaquin County Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Supervisor Brett Frazier, Vice-Chair, Madera County Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County
In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members will be attending this meeting via teleconference or videoconference. Members of the public may observe the meeting by dialing +1 (646) 749-3335 with access code: 770-521-469 or log-in using a computer, tablet or smartphone at GoToMeeting.com using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/770521469
Please note that all members of the public will be placed on mute until such times allow for public comments to be made. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function, or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at [email protected], in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period. Public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per comment, and no more than 240 words.
This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting.
All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the offices of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission located at 949 E. Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda and meeting materials are also available on the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Website: http://www.sjjpa.com/Home.
3. Recognition of Senator Allen, the Author of SB 742 INFORMATION (Dan Leavitt)
5. 6.
7.
Federal Legislative Update (Sean Winkler) Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Chair to Execute the FY 2022 San Joaquin Intercity Passenger Rail Service Operating Agreement with Amtrak Based upon Final Negotiations and Approval by Counsel and Authorizing the Chair to Execute Any Necessary Amendments to the Agreement (Stacey Mortensen) Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving the Final South of Merced Integration Study Report for Central Valley Network Integration Improvements and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (Dan Leavitt)
INFORMATION
ACTION
ACTION
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8
Approve Minutes of July 23, 2021 Board Meeting Approve Minutes of August 20, 2021 Special Board Meeting Next Board Meeting Location SJJPA Operating Expense Report Washington Update Administrative Items Statewide Rail Coalition Federal Advocacy Efforts with Tai Ginsberg San Joaquins Service Update
ACTION ACTION
INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION
INFORMATION
4.
Public Comments Persons wishing to address the Authority on any item of interest to the public regarding SJJPA and the San Joaquin Rail Service shall state their names and addresses and make their presentation. The Authority cannot take action on matters not on the agenda unless the action is authorized by Section 54954.2 of the Government Code. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/770521469 and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at: [email protected], in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period. Public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per comment and no more than 240 words.
1. 2.
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call Consent Calendar
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) for the Implementation of the South of Merced Integration Study Recommendations and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (Dan Leavitt) Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (SJV RPC) to Develop Joint or Consistent Policy Positions, and Advocate for San Joaquin Valley Transportation and Air Quality Improvements and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (Dan Leavitt) Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Modify the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network Operations and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (Paul Herman) Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Allow Passengers to Purchase Bus-Only Tickets for Bus Stop Pairs to/from Santa Monica, Excluding the Westwood – Santa Monica Bus Stop Pair Which is Well Served by Local/Regional Transit and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (Dan Leavitt) Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for Project Development Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $1,433,924 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (David Ripperda) Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute Any and All Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, and/or Fund Transfer Agreements for State Funded Transportation Projects and Any and All Documents Related to the Mini-High Platform Project
ACTION
ACTION
ACTION
ACTION
ACTION
ACTION
3 of 176
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
(David Ripperda)
SB 742 Implementation Update (Dan Leavitt)
San Joaquins Service Restoration of the 6th Roundtrip (Trains 702 and 703 – Sacramento- Bakersfield) (Paul Herman)
Battle of the Bay Recap (Freddy Rodriguez)
Executive Director’s Report
Board Member Comments
Adjournment The next regular meeting is scheduled for: November 19, 2021 – 9:00 am
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
4 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
Item 2.1 ACTION
Minutes of SJJPA July 23, 2021 Board Meeting
The regular meeting of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) was held at 9:00 am on July 23, 2021 in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members attended this meeting via teleconference or videoconference.
1 Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call
Chair Pat Hume called the meeting to order at 9:00 am and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Board Members Absent: Quintero, Vice Chair Espinoza
2 Consent Calendar 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Approve Minutes from May 21, 2021 Board Meeting Next Board Meeting Location SJJPA Operating Expense Report Washington Update Administrative Items
ACTION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION
M/S/C (Hudson/Chiesa) to approve Items 2.1-2.5. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on July 23, 2021, by the following vote to wit:
Doug Kerr commented on the need for printable timetables to remain available for passengers.
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving the Following Consultants to be on the Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant Lists Related to the Valley Rail Program Capital Project Delivery for a Period From July 23, 2021 Through June 30, 2026, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects:
Rankings A. ProjectDevelopment B. Right of Way
C. Construction Management
D. RailEngineering
Services
1. TranSystems Corporation
Paragon Partners Ltd.
TRC Engineers, Inc.
Pennino Management Group
2. AECOM Technical Solutions, Inc.
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.
WSP USA Inc.
3. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
Beacon Integrated Professional Resources, Inc., dba Hamner, Jewell & Associates
Kleinfelder Construction Services, Inc.
4.
SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc.
Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.
5. O'Dell Engineering NV5, Inc.
David Ripperda gave a presentation on this item. There were no comments.
M/S/C (Frazier/Hudson) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving the Following Consultants to be on the Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant Lists Related to the Valley Rail Program Capital Project Delivery for a Period From July
ACTION
6 of 176
5
23, 2021 Through June 30, 2026, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects:
Rankings A. ProjectDevelopment B. Right of Way
C. Construction Management
D. RailEngineering
Services
1. TranSystems Corporation
Paragon Partners Ltd.
TRC Engineers, Inc.
Pennino Management Group
2. AECOM Technical Solutions, Inc.
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.
WSP USA Inc.
3. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
Beacon Integrated Professional Resources, Inc., dba Hamner, Jewell & Associates
Kleinfelder Construction Services, Inc.
4.
SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc.
Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.
5. O'Dell Engineering NV5, Inc.
Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on July 23, 2021 by the following vote to wit:
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Project Support Agreements for the San Joaquins’ Merced Station Parking Lot Project with the Following Firms: 1.) O’Dell Engineering - Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), Not-to-Exceed $371,320
M/S/C (Valero/Miller) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Project Support Agreements for the San Joaquins’ Merced Station Parking Lot Project with the Following Firms:
1.) O’Dell Engineering - Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), Not-to-Exceed $371,320
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. for Rail Engineering Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $408,773 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project
David Ripperda gave a presentation on this item.
Member Hudson inquired about the surroundings of the existing and future stations.
Mr. Ripperda explained that the existing station is located in a rural, residential area and that there is no commercial development nearby and that it is not an ideal service location for the San Joaquins. The new location is located to the South along Avenue 12 and will initially be a San Joaquins station and in the future a proposed High-Speed Rail station. The new location is in an industrial area and in an area with planned development.
Vice Chair Frazier commented on growth in South-East Madera and in North Fresno.
Member Hudson commented on the station being well planned.
M/S/C (Frazier/Valero) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. for Rail Engineering Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed
ACTION
8 of 176
7
8
$408,773 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on July 23, 2021 by the following vote to wit:
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for the Design and Construction of the Video Surveillance System (VSS) Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project
Rene Gutierrez gave a presentation on this item.
There were no comments.
M/S/C (Haubert/Hudson) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for the Design and Construction of the Video Surveillance System (VSS) Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on July 23, 2021 by the following vote to wit:
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Amendment 02 to the Agreement with Jeffrey Scott Agency for Advertising and Creative Services with an Amendment Not-To-Exceed Amount of $571,970 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project
David Lipari gave a presentation on this item.
There were no comments on this item.
ACTION
ACTION
9 of 176
9
M/S/C (Miller/Verboon) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Amendment 02 to the Agreement with Jeffrey Scott Agency for Advertising and Creative Services with an Amendment Not-To-Exceed Amount of $571,970 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on July 23, 2021 by the following vote to wit:
Chair Hume inquired about the Route 2 West LA connections and re-routing from Westchester to Santa Monica.
Mr. Herman explained that most passengers did not utilize the Westchester stop and that there was not a great connection to LAX and that the main connection point for those traveling to LAX is LA Union Station.
Member Haubert thanked Mr. Herman for his presentation and inquired about cost to serve for each route and if there is a matrix available that includes this data.
Mr. Herman explained that there is a table provided in the board briefing materials that outlines route by route each operations cost and revenue generation. Mr. Herman further explained that there is a formula that the State uses to calculate what costs are recovered.
Member Haubert inquired about cost sensitivity analysis and focus groups to ask what people like or dislike about the service and how we can get more riders.
Mr. Herman explained that there have been several surveys completed and that there is some hesitancy from some to ride a bus on a route that is hours long and that the agency is proud to provide the service to those who need to ride the service.
Member Haubert suggested the installation of movie screens for passenger viewing.
INFORMATION
10 of 176
Mr. Lipari explained that staff has done extensive onboard survey work to find out what the impediments are and that price does not seem to factor into the equation, and that it is the scheduling. Mr. Lipari further explained that in order to better the passenger experience, staff has suggested offering snack boxes to all of the Thruway Bus passengers.
Member Haubert inquired about the usability of all of the systems, the available technology, and training on how to navigate the various systems.
Mr. Lipari explained that on the Amtrak website, you can punch in your origin and destination, and the system will generate one ticket that includes all of the segments that are in your trip. Mr. Lipari further explained that many of the San Joaquins customers prefer to speak with someone, whether in person or over the phone, to talk about how their adventure will occur.
Alternate Valero inquired about connections with organizations such as universities to encourage students to take the train or partnering with baseball leagues.
Mr. Lipari explained that the agency does have an extensive program to reach out to colleges and universities and are constantly working with transportation departments and other university campuses. Mr. Lipari further explained that there are a couple of targeted products that are directly for students, such as the California everyday discount that is a 15 percent off pass for students as well as a six-ticket book for students.
Alternate Valero commented on campaigns and suggested billboards with students explaining why they ride the San Joaquins.
Mr. Lipari explained that staff works with universities in delivering student directed geo focusing messages to students. The agency will be starting a pilot program, or student ambassador program, on campus.
Member Hudson commented that we should avoid installing screens on the back of headrests. Member Hudson inquired about service being funded by LA County and suggested surveying the tech industry before discontinuing some of the bus routes.
Mr. Herman explained that route 34 ran with the two Sacramento trains and did not connect to all trains and did not perform well.
Member Hudson suggested surveying again due to all of the change in the last two years.
Ms. Mortensen suggested that staff bring back to the board a discussion on the combined efforts of the San Joaquins and ACE, how each service and connecting bus partnerships work, and how we can evolve them in the future. Member Chiesa expressed the importance of the conversation and the power of the SJJPA board to make changes fairly quickly when something
11 of 176
10
is overperforming and underperforming. Member Chiesa further commented on the large footprint that the San Joaquins and Thruway Bus service have in the state of California and that the agency is always looking for process improvement.
Mike Barnbaum expressed his support of the staff presentation and suggested changes to various routes.
Angie Dow, Executive Director of Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), commented on communication to riders, recommended working with transportation providers to discuss transportation options with communities, and suggested that SJJPA contact the Green Line call center located in Tulare County to ensure that they are familiar with services. Angie further commented on the coordination between rail and public transportation.
Vice Chair Frazier explained that the Madera Station relocation will help to improve travel to local hospitals.
Doug Kerr commented on the importance of bus service in Leggett.
Chair Hume commented on trip planner algorithm, interagency fare reciprocation, and the use of technology and QR codes.
Alternate Valero commented on revolutionizing transportation in Tulare County and collaborating with neighboring counties to find new and effective routes.
Member Hudson commented on bus service in Leggett and Humboldt, changes in the real estate market, and people moving from the Bay Area.
South of Merced Integration Study Draft Report and Draft MOU
Dan Leavitt gave a presentation on this item.
Bob Neath with Kern County Regional Transit thanked Mr. Leavitt for his presentation and expressed agency support of the study and MOU.
Angie Dow commented on the opportunity for increased KART service, streamlining fares, and improving connectivity between communities.
Member Hudson commented on Thruway Bus Service and inquired about the cost to run a pilot program.
Mr. Leavitt explained that the agency is not expecting the state to fund the entire service and that funding includes local and regional funds. Mr. Leavitt explained that the cost to run the bus loop has not been determined and depends on how many buses will run. Mr. Leavitt further
INFORMATION
12 of 176
11
12
13
14
15
explained that we are working toward zero emission vehicles and that state-of-the-art equipment will be used.
Member Verboon thanked Mr. Leavitt for his involvement and commented on the elimination of the Corcoran station and the new bus loop being studied that would include the city of Tulare.
San Joaquins Service Update
David Lipari gave a presentation on this item.
Member Hudson commented on the return of commercial.
Chair Hume commented on the ridership growth.
Michael Barnbaum commented on the reintroduction of trains 714 and 717 and inquired about the reintroduction of a 6th roundtrip to Sacramento.
Mr. Lipari responded that the 6th roundtrip might be reintroduced in the fall.
Station LOVE Program Update – Emeryville Station
Carmen Setness gave a presentation on this item.
Chair Hume expressed his hope for rain in order to test the station gutter repairs.
Executive Director’s Report
Ms. Mortensen thanked the board members and public for their active participation in the meeting. Ms. Mortensen reported on September Rail Safety Month, messaging, and a federal advocacy program update to be presented at the September meeting.
Board Member Comments
There were no board member comments.
Adjournment Chair Hume adjourned the meeting at 10:56 am.
The next regular meeting is scheduled on: September 24, 2021 – 9:00 am
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
INFORMATION
13 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
Item 2.2 ACTION
Minutes of SJJPA August 20, 2021 Special Board Meeting
The special meeting of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) was held at 9:00 am on August 20, 2021 in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members attended this meeting via teleconference or videoconference.
1 Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call
2
3
Chair Pat Hume called the meeting to order at 9:00 am and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Increasing the Not-to-Exceed Amount in Resolution #20/21-23 to $800,000 for Rail Liability Insurance Coverage, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Necessary Documents
Ms. Stacey Mortensen and Marc Crane gave a presentation on this item.
There were no comments.
M/S/C (Hudson/Frazier) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Increasing the Not-to-Exceed Amount in Resolution #20/21-23 to $800,000 for Rail Liability Insurance Coverage, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Necessary Documents.
Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on August 20, 2021 by the following vote to wit:
Chair Hume commented on the number of insurers and business reasons that they choose not to offer coverage.
Adjournment Chair Hume adjourned the meeting at 9:24 am.
The next regular meeting is scheduled on: September 24, 2021 – 9:00 am
15 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.3 INFORMATION
Next Board Meeting Location
Background:
The next SJJPA Board Meeting will be held on Friday, November 19, 2021, with the exact location to be determined based on availability. The meeting time will be coordinated with the San Joaquins schedule and in accordance with Federal, State, and local ordinances related to COVID-19.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation:
Advise on the next Board Meeting location.
16 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.4 INFORMATION
SJJPA Operating Expense Report
Please see the attached San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Operating Expense Report for the following period:
• Fiscal Year Start 2020/21 (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021)
• Fiscal Year Start 2021/22 (July 2021)
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation:
This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
San Joaquin Joint Powers AuthorityOperating Expense Report
July 20218% of Budget Year Elapsed
Administrative Expenses
Administrative Expenses Subtotal
Marketing Expenses SubtotalContract Expense
Contract Expense Subtotal
19 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.5 INFORMATION Washington Update Please see attached Washington Update Report provided for the month of September 2021. Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation:
This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
20 of 176
Tai Ginsberg & Associates, LLC
200 Massachusetts Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001
T 202 415 9703
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006
T 202 452 7900 TO: San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA)
FROM: TG&A Staff SUBJECT: Monthly Progress Report for SEPTEMBER 2021 DATE: September 15, 2021
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION/EXECUTIVE BRANCH
September 9, 2021. President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order to “require COVID-19 vaccination for all Federal employees, subject to such exceptions as required by law.” President Biden also issued an Executive Order ensuring adequate COVID safety protocols for Federal contractors. Specifically, agencies must ensure that to the extent allowed by law, contracts and contract-like instruments incorporate a clause that “shall specify that the contractor or subcontractor shall, for the duration of the contract, comply with all guidance for contractor or subcontractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force”, i.e. federal employees in the executive branch and government contractors must be vaccinated against Covid-19. The two E.O.s are said to cover approximately 100 million workers. In conjunction with the two E.O.s, President Biden is implementing a six-pronged national strategy to combat COVID-19 entitled, “Path Out of the Pandemic - President Biden's COVID-19 Action Plan.” The plan includes six steps:
1. Vaccinating the Unvaccinated 4. Increasing Testing & Require Masking
2. Further Protecting the Vaccinated 5. Protecting Our Economic Recovery
3. Keeping Schools Safely Open 6. Improving Care for those with COVID-19
The plan also requires that all employers with 100 or more employees will require that their workers be vaccinated or undergo at least weekly Covid-19 testing. Additionally, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced that it will increase the range of civil penalties that may be imposed on individuals who violate the federal mask mandate at airports, on commercial aircraft, and in various modes of surface transportation, including passenger railroads, intercity bus services, and other public transportation. The federal mask mandate for transportation, which was implemented by TSA on February 2, 2021, will remain in effect until January 18, 2022. The new range of penalties will be $500-$1000 for first offenders and $1000-$3000 for second offenders.
September 7, 2021. On behalf of the Administration, Acting Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young announced in a memo that President Biden is seeking up to $30 billion in emergency funding to be included in a short-term Continuing Resolution (CR), until a final FY 2022 spending bill can be negotiated/enacted. The request includes funding for natural disaster recovery ($24 billion) and Afghan resettlement efforts ($6.4 billion). Full details of the Administration’s request can be found here.
BIDEN 2021 TRANSPORTATION-RELATED NOMINATIONS/CONFIRMATIONS Since the August 2021 report there have been no changes in status to transportation-related nominees. A full 2021 listing of “Nominations” is available from TG&A upon request.
APPROPRIATIONS/BUDGET September 8, 2021. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) following up on a previous letter concerning the debt limit and to inform the Speaker of the Department’s ability to continue to finance the government in the absence of Congressional action to address the debt limit. Secretary Yellen noted in the letter that, “Our estimates of the period of time that extraordinary measures will last have been refined in recent weeks” and; furthermore, that “based on our best and most recent information, the most likely outcome is that cash and extraordinary measures will be exhausted during the month of October.”
Transportation-Related Appropriations Narrative/Status Table for FY 2022 The US House passed a package of seven consolidated FY 2022 appropriations bills on July 29 by a vote of 219 to 208 (HR 4502) consisting of: [1.) Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, 2.) Agriculture, Rural Development, 3.) Energy and Water Development (Bill URL before floor action), 4.) Services and General Government, 5.) Interior, Environment, 6.) Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 7.) Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2022 (Bill URL before floor action.] See House Appropriations Press Release here. Notwithstanding the fact that the Senate has released only three of its FY 2022 bills, it is being reported that the earmarks secured in the House appropriation bill will likely remain in a final spending package. See appropriations paragraph on the following page for more status detail.
House (9 of 12)
Senate (0 of 12)
(0 of 12)
(0 of 12)
(0 of 12)
Appropriations Status Table Link
Bills Passed:
Bills Vetoed:
Both Chambers Passed:
Bills Enacted:
OVERALL FY 2022 APPROPRIATION BILL SUMMARY
Transportation-HUD House Senate House Senate House Senate Conference Rpt. House Senate
HR 4502 HR 4550
(voice vote)
7/12/2021
HR 4550
(33-24)
7/16/2021
HR 4502
(219-208)
7/29/2021
H Rpt. 117-99
Notes:
House Transportation/HUD Appropriations - 7/12/2021 Subcommittee Press Release
House Transportation/HUD Appropriations - 7/16/2021 Full Committee Approval
House Passes Seven-Bill FY 2022 Appropriations (HR 4502) Press Release
Presidential
Approval
US Department of Transportation Appropriation Status Table FY 2022
Resolution of House-Senate DifferencesSubcommittee Approval Full Committee Approval Initial Passage
SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS/BUSINESS
Status of Selected Looming September 30, 2021 Congressional Deadlines The beginning of FY 2022 begins on October 1, 2021, and Congress has yet to address a number of issues pressing up against the impending September 30, deadline.
FY 2022 Appropriations – none of the 12 annual appropriations bills have been enacted. While the House
has passed 9 of 12 appropriation bills, the Senate has not passed any FY 2022 appropriations bills. In fact, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has intimated that any action on appropriations in the Senate from Republican members may be delayed beyond the beginning of the new fiscal year without a larger deal on government spending. This is significant due to the razor-thin Democratic majority in the Senate and wherein Republican support is sought. Therefore, a continuing resolution (CR - a CR temporarily funds the government at its current level in the absence of full appropriations bills) to allow lawmakers more time to complete work on appropriation bills is likely (“inevitable” according to House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-KY)) to be considered to avoid a government “shutdown.” In a “shutdown,” federal agencies discontinue all non-essential discretionary functions until new funding legislation is passed and signed into law. Essential services continue to function, as do mandatory spending programs. A short-term CR is likely to run into early or mid-December with the goal of passing all of the full-year appropriation bills (or an Omnibus appropriation bill) before the end of the calendar year.
Raising the Debt Limit – The Department of Treasury is currently using emergency accounting mechanisms
to conserve cash until the debt limit (the total amount of money that the US government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations) is raised. [The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 suspended the statutory debt limit through July 31, 2021. The outstanding debt subject to the statutory limit is currently $28.5 trillion.] Failing to increase the debt limit would cause the government to default on its legal obligations. On August 10, nearly all Republican Senators (46 of 50) signed a letter pledging not to vote to increase the debit limit because Democrats, without any Republican participation, passed a $1.9 trillion “Covid relief” bill in March and because the Democrats passed a $3.5 trillion Budget Resolution without any Republican input. Moreover, on August 30, House Member Kevin Hern (R-OK) led 106 Republican House members to sign to on a letter affirming not to participate in any attempt from the Democrats to raise the debt ceiling.
$3.5 Trillion Build Back Better (Healthcare/Education/Climate) Package – Senate Majority
Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) set September 15, as the deadline for various committees to complete assembling their legislative policy recommendations for budget reconciliation (per instructions released on August 9, 2021) to enact President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. Meanwhile, the House began, via various committee actions, assembling their respective portions of the $3.5 trillion package consistent with the Budget Resolution. The House Committees are to assemble their policy recommendations before the end of September, possibly by the week of September 20. [Note: The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a Full Committee Markup on September 14 to consider legislative proposals to comply with the reconciliation directive. The Committee print has a provision (Sec. 110008) which makes available $6 billion in earmarks for Local Transportation Priorities.] Once the various committees have completed their work, both the Senate and House Budget Committees will combine the legislation and prepare a bill for floor consideration. [Recall that the Senate and House have both passed the same versions of S. Con. Res. 14, (Budget Resolution) - the Senate on August 11, and the House on August 24, 2021. Passage of the Budget Resolution unlocked the reconciliation process which will be used in the Senate for passage of the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation measure by a simple majority, wherein there are 50 Democratic members plus the Vice President in the case of a tie. Also of note is that the budget resolution did not include a mechanism to address the debt limit.] Progressive Democrats and Moderate Democrats are still somewhat divided on top line funding of $3.5 trillion and/or how to pay for the bill via taxes vs. deficit spending. In fact, in a Wall Street Journal opinion article centrist Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) noted that “Congress should hit a strategic pause on the budget reconciliation legislation.” Senator Manchin states his concerns of rising inflation, the nation’s growing debt and the “inevitability” of future crises.”
Surface Transportation Reauthorization – The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) expires on September 30, 2021 (last extended by the Continuing Appropriations Act 2021). Consequently, on August 10, 2021, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) by a vote of 69-30 with bipartisan support. The IIJA is pegged at nearly $1 trillion ($550 billion in additional funding above baseline reauthorization funding levels) for federal infrastructure investment to reauthorize surface transportation programs plus other modes of transportation and new infrastructure investment such as for airports, water, power, energy, environmental remediation and broadband for FYs 2022-2026. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has pledged to bring to the floor the infrastructure bill by September 27 – to appease centrist Democrats. While the House passed their $759 billion INVEST in America Act on July 1, the bipartisan Senate bill is slated to be used as the base for a compromise bill. September 15, 2021. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held an Executive Session to consider several presidential nominations including Victoria Marie Baecher Wassmer, to be Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Transportation, Amitabha Bose to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration and Meera Joshi to be Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Committee link here.
September 14, 2021. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will hold a Full Committee Markup to consider Legislative proposals to comply with the reconciliation directive included in section 2002 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2022, S. Con. Res. 14. Committee Link. Find the Committee Print here and the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute here. September 13, 2021. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Full Committee Markup of the Build Back Better Act. The Eno Transportation Weekly reports that the draft legislation includes at least $26 billion for electric vehicles and their charging infrastructure.” Committee Link here and draft legislation can be found here. September 9-14, 2021. The House Committee on Ways and Means held a series (4 separate markups) of markups of the Build Back Better Act and to consider legislative proposals under the budget reconciliation instructions. Committee Link and here. Find Committee Print Consisting of Subtitles F, G, H, and J: Budget Reconciliation Legislative Recommendations Relating to Infrastructure Financing, Green Energy, Social Safety Net, and Prescription Drugs here. September 2, 2021. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform held a hearing to consider the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2022. In part, the Committee addressed funding ($5 billion) to electrify the General Services Administration (GSA) and ($2.4 billion) to electrify the United States Postal Service vehicle fleets. Half of the USPS funding would go toward purchasing electric vehicles and the other half would go toward boosting the support infrastructure for them. USPS would also see $10 million for “capital project investments” that would boost the mailing agency’s infrastructure. Committee Link. SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL “TRANSPORTATION-RELATED” BILLS – SEPTEMBER
SENATE BILLS No Relevant Items.
HOUSE BILLS
HR 5156 Y. Clarke (D-N.Y.) “Smart Technologies for Accessible & Resilient Transportation Act’’ aka ‘‘START Act.” Promotes the deployment of innovative technologies by providing assistance to local governments considering transportation solutions that improve access, equity/data security while reducing traffic congestion, costs/carbon emissions. Introduced 9/3/21.
HR 5204 Press Release
D. Beyer (D-Va.) “Safe Travel Act.” Requires proof of vaccination or a negative covid test within 72 hours of travel for domestic airline and Amtrak trips. The legislation would also require all affiliated airport or Amtrak employees to be vaccinated or be subject to weekly covid testing. Introduced 9/9/21.
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY (NOFOs) / GRANT AWARDS
See Addendum A. - Calendar Year NOFO/AWARDS SCORECARD – at end of report.
September 3, 2021. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) making available $1 million under the FY 2021-Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Education and Enforcement Program. The program provides program funding for Operation Lifesaver, using funds designed and provided under the approved budget for the FRA's Office of Safety for fiscal year 2021. Only Operation Lifesaver is permitted to apply for funds. The closing date for applications is September 10, 2021. August 27, 2021. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity [Published NOFO Version 31 Aug 2021] making available nearly $362 million through its Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant Program. CRISI funds projects that reduce congestion, improve short-line and regional railroad infrastructure, relocate rail lines, enhance multi-modal connections and facilitate service integration between rail and other modes such as at ports or intermodal facilities. See examples of FY 2020 awards here.
FRA will be holding a webinar about FRA’s FY 2021 CRISI NOFO on September 21, 2021, and interested entities and applicants should visit the FRA Rail Program Delivery Webinar Series: Grants & Loans webpage for information. Applications for funding under this NOFO are due no later than 5:00 p.m. ET, November 29, 2021. Certain funding amounts are set aside for the following purposes: • Rural set-aside — Not less than $93.7 million, or 25%, will be made available for rural projects;
• Intercity passenger rail development — Not less than $75 million will be made available for eligible projects that support the development of new intercity passenger rail service routes, including alignments for existing routes; and
• Capital improvements for trespass prevention — Not less than $25 million will be made available for capital projects and engineering solutions targeting rail trespassing.
The NOFO also incorporates Non-CRISI funding to provide grants to help implement FRA’s National Strategy to Prevent Trespassing:
• Railroad Trespassing Enforcement — $2,034,296 will be made available for grants to fund applicable law enforcement wages to undertake trespass enforcement activities; and
• Railroad Trespassing Suicide Prevention — $207,000 will be made available for grants to fund targeted outreach campaigns to reduce the number of railroad-related suicides that involve trespassing.
OTHER TRANSPORTATION-RELATED FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES September 8, 2021. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is seeking comments on issues regarding First-Mile/Last Mile (FMLM) service, particularly on whether additional metrics to measure such service might have utility that exceeds any associated burden. FMLM service refers to the movement of railcars between a local railroad serving yard and a shipper or receiver facility. Interested persons may file comments by October 18, 2021. If any comments are filed, replies will be due by November 16, 2021. September 1, 2021. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Notice of Safety Advisory to make the rail industry, including railroads and railroad employees, aware of a recently identified interface design issue relating to how Positive Train Control (PTC) systems in use throughout the United States interface with locomotive and cab car braking systems. The recently identified interface design issue allows a train crewmember to circumvent a PTC enforcement by manually cutting out the pilot valve/brake stand, commonly known as the cut-out valve, prior to the PTC system initiating the brakes. The interface design issue poses a significant safety risk by allowing a PTC system to be disabled and unable to initiate the brakes to prevent a train-to-train collision, over-speed derailment, incursion into an established work zones, or the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. OTHER REPORTS/NOTICES/NEWS ARTICLES September 7, 2021. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report entitled, “Furloughs Likely If Surface Transportation Appropriations and Authorizations Lapse on September 30.” At midnight September 30, 2021, the law authorizing federal surface transportation programs, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), as extended, as well as the annual transportation appropriations provided in the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021, and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-159), are set to expire. How the two expirations would affect surface transportation programs depends on whether a program or activity is funded through the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) or with appropriated budget authority from the Treasury’s general fund. If the authorizations are not extended or replaced, all HTF-funded personnel not needed to fulfill excepted activities under the ADA (such as life, safety, and the protection of property), or funded with appropriations, would be furloughed. Approximately 3,500 to 4,000 employees in the five Department of Transportation (DOT) surface transportation agencies discussed below would be affected. Under a lapse of annual appropriations, all appropriations-funded non-excepted programs and activities in the Department of Transportation would likely shut down. Roughly 900 to 1,000 non-excepted surface transportation program employees would likely be furloughed.
September 2, 2021. Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report entitled, “GOVERNANCE: BETTER PLANNING AND COORDINATION COULD HELP THE COMPANY ACHIEVE ITS AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE FOR ADA COMPLIANCE.” Amtrak’s OIG objective for the report was to assess the effectiveness of the company’s efforts to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The report found that the company has clearer lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) program, and that its reorganization, based on our prior recommendations, has helped it bring 36 more stations into compliance since October 2017 through April 2021. The company cannot, however, reasonably expect to execute its aggressive plan to achieve compliance at the remaining 312 stations over the next six years until it develops the requisite planning to achieve its timeline. September 2, 2021. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report entitled, “Canadian Railroads Competing to Acquire Major U.S. Freight Line.” Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) and Kansas City Southern (KCS), two of the seven Class I companies that handle long-distance U.S. rail traffic, announced a merger agreement in March. In April, another Class I carrier, Canadian National (CN), submitted what it termed a “superior proposal” to acquire KCS, which was accepted in May. On August 31, all five STB commissioners voted to deny CN’s request to create a “voting trust” to hold shares of KCS, an arrangement that would have allowed CN to acquire shares while the merger is still pending before the Board. Either deal, if approved by shareholders and federal regulators, would be the largest consolidation of major railroads in several decades, and would create the first railroad network to serve Canada, the United States, and Mexico under a single corporate owner. August 31, 2021. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) released a survey indicating that numerous short- and long-term economic and quality-of-life benefits are poised to flow from the $1.2 trillion “Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act” (IIJA) passed by the Senate on August 10, 2021. The survey polled state DOTs from across the country asking how the proposed policy/funding outlined in the IIJA would help them improve the safety, efficiency, and productivity of their transportation systems. August 27, 2021. Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report entitled, “GOVERNANCE: Observations on the Company’s Lost and Found Program.” The report focused on identifying the internal control weaknesses that allowed a potential identity theft crime to occur in Chicago and to assess the company’s processes for overseeing and safeguarding items at selected stations. The OIG found that Amtrak has taken steps to strengthen its Lost and Found program to include addressing issues that contributed to an employee theft of 13 state and government customer identification cards and 21 social security cards from the Chicago Union Station Lost and Found program in October 2020. Additionally, the OIG found that the company is securing sensitive and high-value items at the stations we reviewed, and, in 2018, automated inventory controls through its use of the third-party software system, Chargerback. August 27, 2021. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) held a National Transit Renewal Summit to summarize the "best of the best" strategies shared by transit agencies, industry partners and advocacy organizations. The Summit culminated a series of events to promote tools to safely improve ridership on transit systems while continuing to protect riders and workers across the nation. More than 3,000 transit professionals and stakeholders joined FTA’s national conversation held throughout July and August. The FTA also issued a report entitled, “America's Open and Transit's Open.” The report is a culmination of what FTA heard during three listening sessions held in July and August 2021. Transit agencies nationwide — large and small, urban and rural — may consider adapting these practices to renew ridership on their systems. August 18, 2021. The Electrification Coalition and Atlas Public Policy released a report Federal Fleet Electrification Assessment revealing that 97 percent of buses and light-duty vehicles in the federal fleet could be replaced by electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030 at a cost savings to taxpayers. Up to 40 percent could be cost-effectively replaced as soon as 2025. Electrification of non-USPS federal fleet vehicles could yield vehicle lifetime savings of as much as $1.18 billion, while USPS electrification could yield as much as $4.3 billion in savings.
UPCOMING DEADLINES/EVENTS Note: Given the recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, many upcoming events have/are being cancelled or conducted “virtually” to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Jan-Dec 2021 FY 2021 Transit Training Schedule September 13-15 60th Annual Workshop on Transportation Law; September 21 FY 2021 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant
Program Notice of Funding Opportunity Webinar October 4-7 AASHTO Executive Institute (AEI) in Washington D.C. October 3-6 APTAtech (transit emerging technologies) and other Events found here; October 20-21 Next-Gen Train Control 2021; October 26-29 AASHTO Annual Meeting – San Diego, CA; November 7-10 APTA’s Transform Conference & Expo. November 18-19 Railtrends 2021 (New York);
SCUTTLEBUTT/ICYMI September 10, 2021. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recently published Framework for Assessing the Business Case ROI for Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Investments, 1st Edition. The new rail guide seeks to assist cities, metropolitan agencies, state departments of transportation, and Federal agencies by providing a common methodology, utilizing best practice methods, to measure public benefits and assess return on investment for proposed high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects. The publication can be found here. September 9, 2021. At the North American Rail Shippers Association (NARS) convention at Chicago, Martin Oberman, chair of the Surface Transportation Board (STB), charged U.S. railroads with reducing service, raising freight rates, shifting more truckloads onto highways, contributing to global warming while deriving $191 billion in dividends and stock buybacks since 2010 – according to an article. September 7, 2021. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is urging Transit Agencies to continue emphasizing the importance of vaccinations for their workers and communities as vaccination rates increase. According to the Mayo Clinic and the CDC, in the past two months, more Americans have begun getting vaccinated against COVID-19. Hesitancy toward the vaccine has also plummeted, according to a recent Ipsos poll. Only 14 percent of Americans now say that they are absolutely not likely to get vaccinated. FTA is calling on transit leaders to share this information with employees, and to do all you can to encourage vaccination among your workforces. Some agencies have provided paid time off to receive the vaccine, cash awards, or gift cards to motivate employees to get vaccinated. September 7, 2021. The Surface Transportation Board announced that is has made its annual determination of revenue adequacy for the Nation’s Class I freight railroads for 2020.
The Board found that five Class I railroads (BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Soo Line Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad Company) are revenue adequate for the year 2020. A railroad is considered to be revenue adequate if it achieves a rate of return on net investment equal to at least the current cost of capital for the railroad industry for 2020, which the Board determined to be 7.89%. Congress directed the Board to conduct such revenue adequacy determinations on an annual basis. The Board’s finding today is that these five Class I railroads achieved a rate of return on net investment equal to or greater than the agency’s calculation of the cost of capital for the railroad industry. The Board’s decision in Railroad Revenue Adequacy—2020 Determination, Docket No. EP 552 (Sub-No. 25), may be viewed and downloaded here. September 7, 2021. The Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) has opened registration for safety training courses for transit personnel. These courses support FTA grantees subject to the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (PTSCTP) regulation with initial training and refresher training requirements. Open enrollment for courses began on September 1, 2021 and the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 TSI Training Schedule is available now on the FTA website. New this fiscal year, all rail PTSCTP courses will be delivered virtually.
August 31, 2021. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued a unanimous Decision denying the proposed April 20, 2021 merger between Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS). The STB found that the proposed merger, “does not meet the standards under the current merger regulations and therefore denies the applicants’ motion for authorization to establish and use the proposed voting trust.” The STB explained that the “Applicants have failed to establish that their use of a voting trust would have public benefits, and the Board finds that using a voting trust, in the context of the impending control application, would give rise to potential public interest harms relating to both competition and divestiture.” The STB ruled that, “Accordingly, [the] applicants’ motion to approve the use of a voting trust will be denied. Industry observers expect that Canadian Pacific will re-engage negotiations with KCS seeking a merger at their offer of stock and cash transaction representing a value of approximately $31 billion and $300 per share ($25 per share over their original office price of $275 per share and $25 billion in value). In fact, KCS confirmed on September 1, that it received an unsolicited proposal from Canadian Pacific reaffirming its interest in acquiring KCS. On September 4, KCS announced that its Board determined that the CP proposal could reasonably be expected to lead to a “company superior proposal” and to engage in discussions and negotiations. CP believe has placed a September 12 deadline on the offer. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Peter DeFazio issued a statement noting that “I applaud the STB for their work to closely scrutinize impacts in shipping markets, workers’ rights, and the impact to intercity passenger rail. I’m glad that the STB followed my call because Wall Street shouldn’t be allowed to call the shots when it comes to railroad consolidation that would hurt the U.S. economy and American workers.” KCS has rescheduled a special meeting of stockholders to vote on the CN merger agreement and other proposals (CP) until September 24, 2021.
August 30, 2021. A coalition of transportation industry partners sent letters to Congressional Leaders and US DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg “urge[ing] you to provide at least $10 billion of additional public transit investment in the reconciliation bill, the Build Back Better Act, pursuant to S. Con. Res. 14. We also urge you to provide significant, dedicated high-speed rail funding in the bill. Together, these bold investments in public transportation in the Build Back Better Act will enable us to tackle climate change, advance equity, and meet the growing and evolving mobility demands of our communities.”
August 26, 2021. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) held a briefing for state departments of transportation on August 26 regarding its contingency plans for an impending Highway Trust Fund cash flow shortfall due to a continuous and structural cash flow deficit since 2008. The Highway Account of the HTF is projected to run out of money around early November if FHWA does not implement cash management procedures outlined in the guidance. Meanwhile, the HTF’s Mass Transit Account is not currently facing an imminent funding shortfall.
Operation Lifesaver - Rail Transit Safety Education Grants NOFO 7/1/2021 NOFO URL 220,000 7/31/2021 TBD TBD TBD Grant amounts are capped at $20,000
Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program Grants for Research NOFO 8/4/2021 NOFO URL 240,000 9/17/2021 TBD TBD TBD Up to four new grant agreements.
FY 2021 Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives (STSFA) Grants program NOFO 8/31/2021 NOFO URL 18,310,894 11/1/2021 TBD TBD TBD
FRA
FY 2021 Supplemental for the NEC Cooperative Agreement to Amtrak NOFO 2/11/2021 NOFO URL 1,209,483,050 2/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD Consolidated Approp. Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-
260)
SELECTED TRANSPORTATION NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES (NOFOs) &/OR AWARDS
(SCORECARD for CY 2021)9/13/2021
30 of 176
TYPE NOFO NOFO $s APPLICATION NOFO $
NOFO TITLE (NOFO / AWARD) ISSUANCE DATE NOFO URL MADE AVAILABLE DEADLINE AWARDS AWARDS URL AWARDED - DATE COMMENTS
FY 2021 Supp. for the National Network Cooperative Agreement to Amtrak NOFO 2/11/2021 NOFO URL 1,380,241,050 2/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD Consolidated Approp. Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-
260)
FY 2021 Supp.for the NEC Cooperative Agreement to Amtrak NOFO 2/9/2021 NOFO URL 969,388,160 4/23/2021 TBD TBD TBD American Rescue Plan Act, 2021
FY 2021 Supp. for the National Network Cooperative Agreement to Amtrak NOFO 2/9/2021 NOFO URL 728,611,840 4/23/2021 TBD TBD TBD American Rescue Plan Act, 2021
FY 2020/2021 Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning NOFO 4/21/2021 NOFO URL 10,052,572 6/21/2021 TBD TBD TBD US DOT Announcement
Elk Grove may be on road to rail service in plan linking Stockton to Sacramento airport https://www.sacbee.com/community/elk-grove/article253532434.html
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation:
This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
CTC Approves 11 Rail-Related Infrastructure Projects Written by Marybeth Luczak, Executive Editor
Among CTC’s recently approved rail-related projects is a new San Diego Maintenance and Layover Facility for the maintenance, support and storage for Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trainsets.
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has allocated more than $1.4 billion for state projects to improve transportation infrastructure. Of that total, $67.78 million is for 11 rail-related efforts.
California’s Senate Bill (SB) 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, accounts for more than half of this investment or $884 million. Download the complete project list below.
Among the CTC-approved rail-related projects are:
• Hanlon Lead Railroad bridge replacement, Oakland, Alameda County, $11.7 million.
• Light rail vehicle acquisition, Sacramento Regional Transit District, $23.6 million. Eight new low-floor LRVs will be purchased for Gold Line service, replacing older vehicles that have exceeded their 25-year useful life. The new LRVs will feature improved accessibility with wider aisles, built-in storage for luggage, and space for bicycles.
• El Monte Station grade crossing safety improvements, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, $2.29 million. The project covers preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for grade crossing safety improvements to be implemented at Tyler Avenue and Cogswell Road in Los Angeles. The project is one component of the SCORE Program for Metrolink’s regional/commuter rail system that will enable 30-minute bi-directional service on the San Bernardino Line.
The CTC has provided funding for pedestrian safety improvements on San Diego Trolley’s UC San Diego Blue Line. Pictured: The first Siemens Mobility S700 LRV on the 11-mile Mid-Coast Extension of the Blue Line, which is slated to begin service in November.
• Signal optimization, BNSF junction control point, Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, $5 million. The North County Transit District (NCTD) will construct three new control points and related trackwork, wayside signaling, switches, and Positive Train Control (PTC) upgrades at the south entrance of the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego County. The work will improve safety, overall on-time performance for NCTD and rail partners on the LOSSAN corridor, and service capacity.
• San Diego Maintenance and Layover Facility, Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, $748,000. This project will design and construct a dedicated maintenance, support and storage location for Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trainsets at the southern end of the LOSSAN rail corridor. Included is 1.25 miles of new track to accommodate five trainsets.
• Valley rail trackwork and stations, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission/San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, $14.46 million. The project covers PS&E (plans, specifications and estimates) for trackwork and station improvements at Lodi, Sacramento Midtown (excluding off-side bicycle improvements), Natomas, a layover facility at Natomas, and Union Pacific siding and curve realignment trackwork at various locations along the Sacramento Subdivision (excluding Del Paso and Phillips sidings).
• San Diego Trolley Blue Line corridor transit enhancements, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, $600,000. The project includes the design of pedestrian safety enhancements on Kettner Boulevard, adjacent to Santa Fe Depot, at America Plaza.
The CTC has provided funding for the East Basin Rail Gateway expansion at the Port of Long Beach.
• Goose Lake Railway track rehabilitation, California Department of Transportation, $433,000. This project will replace 1.25 miles of curve worn rail on the Pit River Canyon in Modoc County near Alturas, Calif.
• Sacramento Valley Railroad capacity expansion, California Department of Transportation, $664,000. This project will construct two additional tracks, 1,311 feet in length, at McClellan Park, where there are currently seven tracks.
• Santa Cruz County-Pajaro River Bridge rehabilitation, California Department of Transportation, $285,000. The 575.5-foot, 23-span structure on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line will be rehabilitated to extend service life and accommodate increased freight capacity.
• East Basin Rail Gateway expansion at the Port of Long Beach (POLB), City of Long Beach, $8 million. The expansion project is located at the Fourth Track at Ocean, along a POLB-owned rail corridor that serves the East Basin, which comprises the easterly marine terminals at Middle Harbor, Pier G and Pier J.
“California continues to make significant investments in fixing our roads, highways, bridges and transit systems,” Caltrans Director Toks Omishakin said. “SB 1 is critical to making these repairs and upgrades, while also supporting thousands of jobs that are essential for our economy.”
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation:
This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
37 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.6.2 INFORMATION
Administrative Items
Media Story:
ELK GROVE NEWS
Elk Grove may be on road to rail service in plan linking Stockton to Sacramento airport
BY DARRELL SMITH
UPDATED AUGUST 17, 2021 05:56 PM
Passengers sparsely occupy an Amtrak Capitol Corridor train Friday, Aug. 7, 2020, with stops in Davis and Sacramento. Conductors wear masks and passengers are also told to do so, and train and station signs list COVID-19 prevention measures.
BY XAVIER MASCAREÑAS
A Laguna Boulevard train station could be in Elk Grove’s future, the city one link in a chain of proposed Sacramento-area sites extending rail service north from Stockton into the Capital and Sacramento International Airport.
The Stockton-based San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission has plans to connect its passenger rail service from Stockton to Sacramento, with the proposed Elk Grove station a part of its Valley Rail Sacramento Extension Project. The project and proposed Elk Grove site have a 2023 target date.
Other potential sites along the Sacramento extension include sites near Sacramento City College, midtown Sacramento, north Sacramento and in Natomas, with a shuttle connection from the Natomas site to Sacramento International Airport.
Elk Grove residents will hear the details at a virtual community open house 5:30 p.m. Aug. 26. Register online at bit.ly/ElkGroveStation.
Rail commission officials will take what they hear to inform the project’s design and environmental analysis.SIGN UP
The proposed station north of the intersection of Dwight Road and Laguna Boulevard in west Elk Grove is in the design and review phase, say San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission officials. The agencies are partnering on the project to expand Amtrak San Joaquins and Altamont Corridor Express, or ACE, service north into the Sacramento region.
The station would be along the existing Union Pacific Railroad track that stretches from Stockton north to Marysville.
The station would be unattended, but have a new platform, parking lot and landscaping. Benches, lighting, security cameras and emergency call boxes are part of the design plan as well as ticketing machines and bicycle storage facilities.
Crews also will replace old Union Pacific track with 3,900 feet of new track. Another 10,000 feet of siding track also are proposed from just
south of Elk Grove Boulevard near Franklin Boulevard to just south of Big Horn Boulevard at Laguna Creek.
Elk Grove has long envisioned commuter rail service that would take advantage of Amtrak’s existing San Joaquins line, with officials and transportation advocates here seeing a station as an option long overdue.
The city had studied plans for a station since at least 2008. Early plans for an Old Town Elk Grove site off Elk Grove Boulevard failed to materialize.
By 2014, the city had drawn up a master plan and shopped for federal transportation grants to build a station just south of Sheldon Road, a site bounded to the west by Union Pacific rail and Elk Grove-Florin Road to the east and straddling Whitehouse Creek. That project included park-and-ride lots, bus connections and rail, but never came to pass.
The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is familiar to local rail passengers to the Bay Area and into the San Joaquin Valley whether they know it or not. The agency manages the busy Amtrak San Joaquins route with its round-trip service from Sacramento to Oakland and south to Bakersfield as well as a large network of bus routes in Northern California and western Nevada.
Its ACE train service carries commuters from Stockton and the San Joaquin Valley into San Jose and Silicon Valley.
40 of 176
Passengers wait for the train to Roseville from the Capitol Corridor in 2014. JOSÉ LUIS VILLEGAS SACRAMENTO BEE FILE
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.7 INFORMATION Statewide Rail Coalition Federal Advocacy Efforts with Tai Ginsberg Background: Over the past several years, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) and Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) agencies have been working together through SJJPA’s federal advocacy group on issues affecting the Intercity Rail Program. At the end of last fiscal year, the parties agreed the three agencies should develop a joint scope of work reflecting the needs of a statewide coalition and contract a separate effort through SJJPA’s agreement with Tai Ginsberg and Associates (TGA). Given the current federal climate of transformative efforts and programs related to transportation and the strong relationships needed with the freight railroads, the continuity with TGA is critical over the next 6-9 months. The agencies are working on a Coalition name that can be used on an ongoing basis to promote the issues central to the state’s Intercity Rail Program goals. Status reports on the Coalition efforts will be presented to the board at upcoming board meetings. Fiscal Impact: Total costs for the Coalition agreement with TGA are $120,000 and were identified in the 22/21 Business Plan and funded by the State. Each Party is contributing $40,000. The Executive Director signed this amendment to the TGA agreement on July 1, 2021. Recommendation: This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
42 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.8 INFORMATION
San Joaquins Service Update San Joaquins Ridership and Revenue
Though the San Joaquins had been steadily recovering in ridership and revenue at the end of FY20, the implementation of increased travel restrictions and proactive instruction from health experts for Californians to not travel for the holidays resulted in the San Joaquins ridership and revenue taking a negative turn from recovery in the months of November and December. With COVID-19 cases slowly subsiding and health authority restrictions loosening, January - July returned ridership and revenue to a positive recovery trend. Toward the end of July and beginning of August, the San Joaquins experienced a slight dip in ridership due to the ‘Delta Variant’. The table below shows San Joaquins’ ridership and revenue for FY21 compared to FY19. Comparing the current fiscal year to FY19 is more appropriate to determine actual ridership and recovery trends, since FY20 numbers were severely impacted by the pandemic.
San Joaquins Ridership and Revenue (Year Over Year FY21 vs. FY19)
Month Ridership Ticket Revenue
FY21 FY19 % change FY21 FY19 % change
Oct 30,639 84,802 -64% $950,444 $2,480,787 -62% Nov 28,796 101,070 -72% $1,016,156 $3,253,885 -69% Dec 23,363 93,180 -75% $837,133 $2,949,028 -72% Jan 22,401 76,154 -71% $708,912 $2,312,775 -69% Feb 23,656 70,735 -67% $766,333 $2,072,049 -63% Mar 32,429 91,820 -65% $987,390 $2,658,760 -63% Apr 36,464 95,631 -62% $1,174,510 $2,712,873 -57% May 41,533 95,569 -56% $1,351,489 $2,788,542 -51% June 46,490 93,739 -50% $1,492,376 $2,737,033 -45% Jul 54,310 96,240 -43% $1,759,025 $2,893,422 -39% Aug 47,654 89,863 -47% $1,517,341 $2,635,214 -42%
Total 387,735 988,803 -61% $12,561,110 $29,494,368 -57%
43 of 176
The San Joaquins month over month FY21 ridership trend has been positive. As California continues to recover from the pandemic, the San Joaquins have shown a relatively durable ridership with the ability to return riders relatively quickly.
When compared the other California Routes, the San Joaquins is performing well. Ridership has recovered to 50% pre-pandemic levels. The San Joaquins are second the Pacific Surfliner in ridership quantity, but the San Joaquins have led throughout the pandemic in ridership recovery.
FY21 San Joaquins Ridership Trend(Months Against FY19)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
Western Routes Ridership OCT 2020 - AUG 2021
Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquins
44 of 176
On-Time Performance (OTP):
San Joaquins On-Time Performance (OTP) for FY21 Q1 (Oct – Aug) held steady in the low to high 80s and has significantly improved in performance over the previous year. The reduced service levels and reduced freight levels are contributing to a significant increase in performance. For the recent months, the year of year comparison is less favorable due to significantly low freight volumes at the beginning of the pandemic.
San Joaquins End Point On-Time Performance (OTP) is a measure that reflects the performance of trains arriving to the end terminus station with the allowance of a 15-minute
-100.0
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
+20.0
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST
Western Routes Ridership by % Year of Year OCT 2020 - JUN 2021(FY21 vs FY19)
Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquins
65% 69%78% 82%
76%84%
89%95%
87% 83%91%
82% 83% 82%94% 91%
80%87% 85% 82% 78%
87%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
End Point OTP Performance(Oct - Aug FY20 vsv FY21)
FY20 FY21
45 of 176
recovery period. Looking at the three California Routes, the San Joaquins End-Point OTP is comparable to the other services.
This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
46 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 3 INFORMATION Recognition of Senator Allen, the Author of SB 742 Background: Senate Bill 742 (SB 742) was introduced by Senator Allen on February 22, 2019. SB 742 was passed by the Legislature in September 2019 and signed by the Governor on October 8, 2019. A purpose of SB 742 was to remove portions of Section 14035.55 of the CA Government Code which require state supported Amtrak Thruway bus passengers to have a rail trip as part of their ticket. Section 14035.55(c) as amended enables the Joint Power Authorities (San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor, and LOSSAN) to pick up and drop off passengers on their Amtrak intercity thruway bus routes without requiring them to have a train ticket as part of their trip. Section 14035.55 as amended will increase revenues for the state at virtually no additional cost, will provide improved access to priority and underserved communities, and will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and air pollution emissions by diverting trips that would have previously been taken by an automobile. This change will also provide better utilization of current infrastructure and reduce congestion on some of the nation’s most congested freeways. SJJPA had planned to recognize Senator Allen’s efforts with SB 742 at the May 2020 SJJPA Board Meeting. However, this item was postponed since the COVID-19 pandemic hit California and the implementation of SB 742 needed to be delayed as a result of the capacity restrictions and service reductions of the San Joaquins that were needed during most of the pandemic. As part of the September 24, 2021 SJJPA Board Meeting, staff are presenting its progress on enabling bus-only ticketing on San Joaquins Thruway bus routes, its plans to work with Amtrak to initiate bus-only ticketing for routes that have been approved by the SJJPA for bus-only ticketing, and its plans to re-initiate implementation of SB 742 provisions on other San Joaquins Thruway bus routes. This is an information item to recognize and show appreciation to the Author of SB 742 for his efforts to enable bus only ticketing on the San Joaquins Thruway Bus services. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact. Recommendation: There is no action requested. This is an information item.
47 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 5 INFORMATION
Federal Legislative Update
Background: The Board of Directors will be presented an overview of the agency’s Washington advocacy program and a forward-looking outlook on the remainder of the 117th Congress.
The presentation will include: • An overview of the agency’s Washington team.• An overview of the agency’s recent advocacy successes including:
o Two testimony appearances before the House of Representative’s Committeeon Transportation & Infrastructure in 2018 and 2019.
o The 2020 USDOT $20 million BUILD grant award for the Stockton DiamondGrade Separation Project.
o Surface transportation reauthorization policy provisions.• An update on the agency’s legislative activities to date, discretionary grant
applications, coalition building, and recent Congressional actions.• An update on the Congressional infrastructure bill, yearly spending packages,
discretionary grants, and where things stand heading into 2022.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation:
This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
48 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 6 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Chair to Execute the FY 2022 San Joaquin Intercity Passenger Rail Service Operating Agreement with Amtrak Based upon Final Negotiations and Approval by Counsel and Authorizing the Chair to Execute Any Necessary Amendments to the Agreement Background Since 2016, Operating Agreements have typically been negotiated with Amtrak on an annual basis, with this last Agreement negotiated for a two-year period. In September of 2019, the Board approved the Federal Fiscal Year 2020 San Joaquin Intercity Passenger Rail Service Operating Agreement with Amtrak. As part of the operating agreement, Appendix D identified an advance payment schedule by which the SJJPA would remit twelve equal advance payments for operations, for a total amount of $51,374,352. At the September 25, 2020, meeting the SJJPA Board approved the first amendment to the FY2020 Agreement that amended the Agreement in a few key areas is the most efficient way to address the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on the FY2021 Operating Agreement. Those areas include the Continuation Clause which continued the agreement from September 30, 2020, to March 31, 2021. On March 26, 2021, the SJJPA Board approved the extension of the agreement through September 30, 2021 based on the pandemic effects as well negotiations that were still on-going. Negotiations with Amtrak for the 2021-2022 Agreement have been underway since Summer 2020. All three of the Intercity Rail agencies continued negotiations with Amtrak well beyond the renewal date of September 30, 2019. These discussions have been centered on the agencies seeking to receive more real-time data, accountability for lack of performance and more certainty on cost drivers and cost control. While not all of these goals were achieved to the level the rail agencies desired, Amtrak did make some concessions on better availability of data and financial penalties for non-performance. All three rail agencies are taking their respective Operating Agreements to their board for consideration and approval. The Agreement is based upon accrual forecasted costs as submitted by Amtrak, as well as the advance payment schedule which outlines the monthly costs associated with the service. The annual cost estimate for the San Joaquin service ($87,436,664 and the required FY 21/22 State/SJJPA contribution ($61,552,057) are based on the operation of 6 daily roundtrips for the beginning of the fiscal year, with the goal of full-service restoration by the end of the fiscal year. The adopted State Budget Allocation for the San Joaquin service contains sufficient funding to cover the costs identified in the Agreement. Any service reductions will be addressed at a later date, when all cost and revenue implications are better understood.
49 of 176
There are some items that are still being negotiated: • Surface Transportation Board Issue Escalation Policy and Concurrence • Systems Safety Plan • Venture Car Maintenance Agreement
Fiscal Impact: State funding for the San Joaquins Operating Agreements was approved in the FY 21/22 Annual Business Plan award letter from CalSTA. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Chair to Execute the FY 2022 San Joaquin Intercity Passenger Rail Service Operating Agreement with Amtrak Based upon Final Negotiations and Approval by Counsel and Authorizing the Chair to Execute Any Necessary Amendments to the Agreement.
50 of 176
SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22 -
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE FY 2022 SAN JOAQUIN INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH AMTRAK
BASED UPON FINAL NEGOTIATIONS AND APPROVAL BY COUNSEL AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO THE
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Intercity Passenger Rail Act of 2012 provides for the creation of a San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) which, if certain requirements are met, will manage the San Joaquin Intercity Rail Service; and
WHEREAS, ten (10) Member Agencies have approved a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement to form the SJJPA and have appointed Board Members and Alternates; and WHEREAS, in order to continue the management responsibilities of the San Joaquin
intercity passenger rail service, the Authority must approve and sign an Operating Agreement with Amtrak; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Amtrak have been negotiating in good faith, and are in
the final stages of agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby authorizes the Chair to Execute the FY 2022 San Joaquin Intercity Passenger Rail Service Operating Agreement with Amtrak Based upon Final Negotiations and Approval by Counsel and Authorizing the Chair to Execute Any Necessary Amendments to the Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the SJJPA on this 24th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
_______________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair
51 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 7 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving the Final South of Merced Integration Study Report for Central Valley Network Integration Improvements and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project CalSTA included $1 million in Network Integration planning funds as part of the April 2018 “Valley Rail” Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) award in April 2018. The intention of this additional funding was to ensure collaboration, eliminate duplicate investments, and ultimately create a seamless travel experience across rail and public transit in California. It is also intended to address network integration opportunities, including development of improved connections to other rail and transit services and consideration of network integration improvements throughout the Central Valley, as well as enhancements to disadvantaged communities/priority populations. The Network Integration planning work is being done in partnership/coordination with CalSTA, and Caltrans. All scopes of work are approved by Caltrans before work is initiated by the Network Integration consulting team. Staff meet with Caltrans/CalSTA regularly to review progress and determine additional areas of focus. The “South of Merced Integration Study” is a key part of the Network Integration planning effort. This study effort focuses on network integration in Kings, Tulare, and Kern counites after the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Interim Service begins operations between Merced and Bakersfield. This study is particularly important since San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) expects to truncate the San Joaquins service at Merced once HSR Interim Service begins operations, thereby eliminating passenger rail service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco (which will not have HSR stations). Work on this study was initiated in early 2020, but the completion of the effort was slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic. There are three key components to the South of Merced Integration Study:
1. Explore options to provide Bus Connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service.
2. Review and assist in the integration and implementation of the Cross Valley Rail Project.
3. Assess possible complementary regional uses for existing BNSF Slots South of Merced.
To carry out this study effort, SJJPA staff coordinated with Tulare County Association of Governments (SJJPA Member Agency for Tulare County) and Kings County Association of Governments (SJJPA Member Agency for Kings County), as well as Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA), Kern Council of Governments, Kern Transit, and the cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco.
52 of 176
At the July 23, 2021, SJJPA Board meeting, staff provided a summary of the Draft South of Merced Integration Study Report focusing on the key conclusions of this effort. The Draft South of Merced Integration Study Report (which includes a brief Executive Summary) was included in the Board Packet for the July 23, 2021, SJJPA Board Meeting. Tulare County Association of Governments, Kings County Association of Governments, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, Kern Transit, Caltrans, CalSTA, and CHSRA had reviewed an earlier version of the draft report and their comments and suggested edits were incorporated into the Draft South of Merced Integration Study Report that was included in the July 23, 2021, Board Packet and posted to the SJJPA website in advance of the July 23, 2021, SJJPA Board Meeting. SJJPA staff is not aware of any additional comments or suggested edits regarding the Draft South of Merced Integration Study Report after the July 23, 2021, Board Meeting. Staff is suggesting very minor revisions to the draft report that are shown in track-changes for the Final South of Merced Integration Study Report. Please see the attached Final South of Merced Integration Study Report for approval. If approved, the track-changes will be accepted, and a clean version put on the SJJPA website. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact at this time. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving the Final South of Merced Integration Study Report for Central Valley Network Integration Improvements and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
53 of 176
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission On-Call Network Integration Services
Task Order 11: South of Merced Integration Study
Final South of Merced Integration Study Report
September 2021
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
54 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iv
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. vi
Objective 1: Bus Connectivity ...................................................................................................... vi Objective 2: Cross Valley Rail Project ........................................................................................ xii Objective 3: BNSF Slots ............................................................................................................. xiii
2.1 Changes to San Joaquins Service ........................................................................................ 2 2.2 Pre-Pandemic Travel Patterns .............................................................................................. 2
3 OBJECTIVE 1: BUS CONNECTIVITY .................................................................................... 5
3.1 Kings and Tulare Counties ................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Kern County ........................................................................................................................ 20
4 OBJECTIVE 2: CROSS VALLEY RAIL PROJECT .............................................................. 27
4.1 Background and History of Corridor ................................................................................... 27 4.2 Cross Valley Corridor Plan Phases .................................................................................... 27 4.3 Key Findings Related to Rail from the 2018 CVC Plan ...................................................... 29 4.4 2018 CVC Plan Cost Estimates .......................................................................................... 34 4.5 Compatibility of Cross Valley Rail with Future Kings/Tulare HSR Station .......................... 35 4.6 Implementation Recommendations .................................................................................... 39
5.1 Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Considered ........................................ 42 5.2 Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service Considered .................................................... 44 5.3 Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 47
Appendix A – Connecting Bus Service Cost Assumptions and Estimates Appendix B – Outreach Meetings Appendix C – Commuter Rail Service Cost Assumptions and Estimates
55 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 iii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Existing San Joaquins System .................................................................................... vii Figure 2: Truncated San Joaquins Service, HSR Interim Service, and Cross Valley Rail
(Future) ................................................................................................................................ viii Figure 3: Future Bus Connectivity (after implementation of HSR Interim Service) ...................... ix Figure 4: Existing San Joaquins Service ...................................................................................... 3 Figure 5: Truncated San Joaquins Service, HSR Interim Service, and Cross Valley Corridor
Rail (Future) ........................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 6: Future Bus Connectivity (after implementation of HSR Interim Service) ....................... 6 Figure 7: Existing Regional Bus Service in Kings and Tulare Counties ........................................ 7 Figure 8: Proposed Phase 1 Bus Services from the 2018 Cross Valley Corridor Plan ................. 9 Figure 9: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service ................................. 14 Figure 10: SJJPA-Managed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus
Service ................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 11: Recommended Connecting Bus Services in Kings and Tulare Counties .................. 19 Figure 12: Kern Transit Routes Serving Kern County ................................................................. 21 Figure 13: Proposed Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service Route ......................... 22 Figure 14: 2018 CVC Plan Phase 2 Bus and Rail Service Map ................................................. 28 Figure 15: 2018 CVC Plan Phase 3 Bus and Rail Service Map ................................................. 29 Figure 16: Railroad Subdivisions Map and CVC Track Map ....................................................... 30 Figure 17: Benefits of DMU Transit Systems .............................................................................. 33 Figure 18: Capital Metro DMU System in Austin, Texas ............................................................. 33 Figure 19: Sprinter DMU System in Oceanside, California ......................................................... 34 Figure 20: Location of the Future Kings/Tulare HSR Station ...................................................... 36 Figure 21: Cross Section of HSR Tracks on Viaduct at the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and
CVC ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 22: View of Columns for Future HSR Track Viaduct at Kings/Tulare HSR Station and
CVC ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 23: Plan View of Cross Valley Corridor Crossing Under HSR Viaduct ............................ 38 Figure 24: Concept of Potential Layout of Connection between Cross Valley Rail and
Kings/Tulare HSR Station .................................................................................................... 38 Figure 25: Kings/Tulare HSR Station Delivery Schedule ............................................................ 39 Figure 26: Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Considered ............................... 42 Figure 27: Wasco-Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service Considered............................................ 45
56 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 iv
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Cross Valley Corridor Bus Service and Route Characteristics ..................................... 10 Table 2: Northbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Kings/Tulare HSR Station) ................ 11 Table 3: Southbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Kings/Tulare HSR Station)................ 11 Table 4: Connecting Bus Service Level Scenarios ..................................................................... 12 Table 5: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Hanford ......................... 13 Table 6: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and Route
Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 14 Table 7: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and Route
Characteristics With Tulare Loop Extension ........................................................................ 15 Table 8: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Corcoran ....................... 16 Table 9: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service and Route
Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 18 Table 10: Wasco-Bakersfield Connecting Bus Service Route Characteristics ........................... 23 Table 11: Northbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Bakersfield HSR Station) ................. 23 Table 12: Southbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Bakersfield HSR Station) ................ 24 Table 13: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Wasco .......................................... 25 Table 14: Costs for DMU Rail Phases of CVC from 2018 CVC Plan .......................................... 35 Table 15: Potential Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Characteristics............ 43 Table 16: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Corcoran ....................................... 43 Table 17: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Hanford ....................... 44 Table 18: Estimated Capital Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service ....... 44 Table 19: Estimated O&M Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service .......... 44 Table 20: Potential Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Characteristics .................................... 45 Table 21: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Wasco .......................................... 46 Table 22: Estimated Capital Cost for Wasco-Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service ..................... 46 Table 23: Estimated O&M Cost for Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service ........................ 46
57 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 v
ACRONYMS BNSF BNSF Railway
CAHSR California High-Speed Rail
CHSRA California High-Speed Rail Authority
COG Council of Governments
CVRC JPA Cross Valley Rail Corridor Joint Powers Authority
DMU Diesel Multiple Unit
ETO Early Train Operator
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FY Fiscal Year
HSR High-Speed Rail
KART Kings Area Rural Transit
KCAPTA Kings County Area Public Transit Agency
KCAG Kings County Association of Governments
LRT Light Rail Transit
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NAS Naval Air Station
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PTC Positive Train Control
SJJPA San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
SJVR San Joaquin Valley Railroad
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
TCaT Tulare County Area Transit
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
ZEMU Zero-Emission Multiple Unit
58 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With the proposed implementation of the California High-Speed Rail Merced to Bakersfield Interim Service (HSR Interim Service) and proposed changes to the San Joaquins Intercity Passenger Rail Service (San Joaquins), the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) has been working with state and local agencies to explore opportunities to re-envision public transit connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley.
The South of Merced Integration Study (Study) is focused on three objectives:
Objective 1: Bus Connectivity Explore options to provide bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service.
SJJPA expects to truncate the San Joaquins service at Merced once the HSR Interim Service begins operations (Figure 1 and Figure 2), thereby eliminating rail service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco, which will not have HSR stations. To address this loss of rail service, SJJPA reviewed two models for providing bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to the HSR Interim Service in cooperation with local and regional agencies in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties. The two models include:
• SJJPA-Managed Connecting Bus Service (SJJPA would contract with private bus operators to provide connecting bus services)
• Partnership Connecting Bus Service (SJJPA would partner with local agencies to provide integrated connecting bus services)
Explore options to provide Bus Connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and
Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service
Review and assist in the integration and
implementation of the Cross Valley Rail Project
Assess possible complementary regional
uses for existing BNSF Slots
59 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 vii
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 1: Existing San Joaquins System
60 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 viii
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 2: Truncated San Joaquins Service, HSR Interim Service, and Cross Valley Rail (Future)
61 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 ix
This Study assessed bus connectivity in two regions:
• Kings and Tulare Counties, where Hanford and Corcoran are located • Kern County, where Wasco is located
Connecting bus services for each region are discussed below and shown on Figure 3.
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 3: Future Bus Connectivity (after implementation of HSR Interim Service)
62 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 x
Kings and Tulare Counties The communities of Hanford and Corcoran have been served by the San Joaquins rail service for many years. Additionally, the San Joaquins provided Thruway Bus connections between Visalia and Hanford (Amtrak station) and the Central Coast by contracting with Orange Belt Stages using state funding. Twice daily round trips were run between Central Coast and Visalia via Hanford in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.
Phase 1 of the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2018 Cross Valley Corridor Plan (2018 CVC Plan) includes providing more coordinated bus service along the Cross Valley Corridor (Huron to Porterville via Hanford and Visalia). It included consolidating transit agencies and helping them run more efficiently to serve the three counties of Kings, Tulare, and Fresno. This network includes Huron, Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, Porterville, Dinuba, Woodlake, and Tulare.
Based on conversations with local partner agencies, it was determined that a partnership for connecting bus service within the Cross Valley Corridor would be beneficial. Rather than SJJPA providing a separate service, which would duplicate and compete with existing regional bus service for riders and funding, forming a partnership would not only provide connectivity to the station, but would also improve local and regional transit.
In addition to the bus service envisioned in the 2018 CVC Plan, bus connectivity from both Corcoran and the Central Coast to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station were assessed. Based on review and conversations with local partner agencies, it was determined that a partnership for bus service connecting Corcoran, Hanford, and Visalia to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station is preferred. As with the Cross Valley Corridor, rather than SJJPA providing a service that would duplicate and compete with local/regional bus service for both riders and funding, the agencies agreed partnering together and developing an integrated network was most beneficial.
For both connecting bus services within the Cross Valley Corridor and from Corcoran, partnering and pooling resources would not only provide connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station, but would also improve local and regional transit serving additional Kings/Tulare communities, including connectivity and frequency for local (non-HSR) trips between Kings and Tulare Counties.
In terms of service to and from the Central Coast the partners concluded that this service would not fit into the local bus service model due to the length of the bus route and associated equipment/amenity requirements and that this service should be managed separately by SJJPA. In the short-term, the partner agencies would like to work toward enhancing bus service between Visalia and Hanford to improve connectivity to the existing San Joaquins service until the HSR Interim Service begins operations.
TCAG, Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG), Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, and SJJPA recommend partnering with the local bus agencies to provide the connectivity and integration for their respective jurisdictions. The partners’ recommendations for Kings and Tulare Counties are below.
63 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 xi
OBJECTIVE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KINGS AND TULARE COUNTIES
Execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to contain two components—bus and Cross Valley Rail— with TCAG, KCAG, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency to jointly provide bus connectivity. The MOU will state each agency’s responsibilities and will describe the 2018 CVC Plan and SJJPA’s efforts for network integration with future California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR).
Continue to provide direct connections to downtown Hanford and downtown Corcoran to intercity passenger rail service, by working to secure state funds to enable timed local/regional operated bus connections from Corcoran and Hanford to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while increasing local/regional operated bus connectivity between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and Visalia.
Partner with the following existing local/regional transit operators to operate connecting bus services within Kings and Tulare Counties: KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency. SJJPA intends to support a larger, more frequent, and coordinated local/regional operated bus service that will coincide with the opening of HSR Interim Service. This partnership to enhance bus service will be key toward the implementation of Phase 1 of the 2018 CVC Plan.
For connecting bus service between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and the Central Coast service, operate as an SJJPA-managed service.
In the short-term, work with KCAPTA and Visalia Transit to enhance bus service between Visalia and Hanford to improve connectivity to the existing San Joaquins service until the HSR Interim Service begins operations.
Kern County The community of Wasco has been served by the San Joaquins rail service for many years. No Thruway Bus connections have been provided from Wasco. With the loss of the San Joaquins service to the Wasco Station, SJJPA has been coordinating with the City of Wasco, Kern Council of Governments (COG), and Kern Transit on bus connectivity between Wasco and the Bakersfield HSR Station. As with the Kings and Tulare County partners, Kern County partner agencies concluded that running two separate bus systems in the Wasco-Bakersfield corridor is not desirable. Rather, leveraging existing Kern Transit bus service would not only avoid competing bus services, but would also provide an opportunity to integrate with existing service to McFarland and Delano. Therefore, it was determined that a partnership model for this bus connection is beneficial.
Through this coordination, SJJPA and Kern Transit are working toward the development of an MOU. SJJPA will also continue coordination with Kern Transit to find opportunities for near-term partnerships, including a bus connection between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley.
The partners’ recommendations for Kern County are below.
64 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 xii
OBJECTIVE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KERN COUNTY
Execute an MOU with Kern Transit to jointly provide bus connectivity. The MOU would state each agency’s responsibilities and SJJPA’s efforts for network integration with future HSR Interim Service.
Continue to provide a direct connection from Wasco to intercity passenger rail service by working to secure state funds to enable timed local/regional operated bus connections from Wasco to the Bakersfield HSR Station.
Through this coordination, work to find opportunities for near-term partnerships, including a bus connection between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley.
Objective 2: Cross Valley Rail Project Review and assist in the integration and implementation of the Cross Valley Rail Project.
The Cross Valley Rail Project would establish passenger rail service along the 75-mile existing rail corridor between Huron and Porterville in Kings and Tulare Counties that could connect downtown Hanford, downtown Visalia, and other Kings/Tulare cities to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) currently owns the right-of-way and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) operates on most of the corridor except for a 1-mile portion of the UPRR mainline near Goshen. Existing track conditions are not suitable for passenger rail operations.
TCAG completed the CVC Plan in March 2018. Cross Valley Rail is supported in Tulare County and Kings County General Plans and is included in the 2018 State Rail Plan.
TCAG, KCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, and SJJPA in partnership recommend the following related to the rail component studied in the CVC Plan.
OBJECTIVE 2: RECOMMENDATIONS
Execute an MOU to commit to work in partnership with TCAG and KCAG to plan, secure funding, and implement Cross Valley Rail.
In the MOU, identify the following steps for the implementation of Cross Valley Rail:
• Phase 1 will secure environmental clearance and right-of-way protection, conduct site selection, negotiate with freight railroads, and begin transit stations in communities without existing transit centers.
• Phase 2 will implement passenger rail service between Lemoore and Visalia (with stations at Hanford and Kings/Tulare HSR Station).
• Phase 3 will extend passenger rail service to Huron and Porterville with additional intermediate stations at NAS Lemoore, Farmersville, Exeter, and Lindsey.
In the MOU, identify SJJPA as a potential operating agency for Cross Valley Rail.
65 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 xiii
Acknowledge that additional and more detailed agreements will be needed and that parties would agree to work together toward achieving common agreed upon goals.
Objective 3: BNSF Slots Assess possible complementary regional uses for existing BNSF slots.
SJJPA considered the use of existing and potentially freed up rail slots on the BNSF Railway (BNSF) corridor. The concepts included investigation of the feasibility for local or regional rail service that could operate once CAHSR is in service and the San Joaquins service is no longer operating south of Merced. SJJPA coordinated with TCAG, KCAG, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, Kern Transit, and Kern COG for consideration of this objective. SJJPA in partnership with the local entities determined that implementation of regional commuter rail service using BNSF slots was not recommended to be pursued in the foreseeable future and that the focus should be on bus connections to HSR Interim Service and the implementation of Cross Valley Rail.
This conclusion was based on the following:
• High capital and operating and maintenance costs • Competing with HSR markets and services • Lack of regional support
OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDATIONS
Use of the BNSF slots for regional commuter rail service does not appear to be feasible in the foreseeable future. Therefore, do not further study commuter rail at this time.
66 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 1
1 INTRODUCTION With the proposed implementation of the California High-Speed Rail Merced to Bakersfield Interim Service (HSR Interim Service) and proposed changes to the San Joaquins Intercity Passenger Rail Service (San Joaquins), the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) has been working with state and local agencies to explore opportunities to re-envision public transit connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley.
This South of Merced Integration Study (Study) is focused on three objectives:
Explore options to provide Bus Connectivity from Corcoran, Hanford, and
Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service
Review and assist in the integration and
implementation of theCross Valley Rail Project
Assess possible complementary regional
uses for existing BNSF Slots
67 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 2
2 BACKGROUND SJJPA is the Managing Agency for the San Joaquins, which provides service between Oakland/Sacramento and Bakersfield, as shown on Figure 4. SJJPA has been closely coordinating with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and the California State Transportation Agency on the HSR Interim Service, which will implement high-speed rail service between Merced and Bakersfield. The HSR Interim Service is scheduled to be operational by 2029, and SJJPA is expected to be the operating agency.
2.1 Changes to San Joaquins Service As shown on Figure 5, the HSR Interim Service will replace the existing San Joaquins service between Merced and Bakersfield. Merced will be the new southern terminus for the San Joaquins and will serve as a transfer point between the new HSR Interim Service and the truncated San Joaquins service. The implementation of the HSR Interim Service will remove passenger rail service for the Cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco, which have been served by the San Joaquins for many years.
While Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco will no longer have direct access to passenger rail service, SJJPA is investigating how best to provide these communities with a high-quality and convenient connections to the new HSR Interim Service. To explore ways to continue to serve this demand as well a future demand from the initiation of the HSR Interim Service, this report evaluates strategies to provide connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to the HSR Interim Service.
2.2 Pre-Pandemic Travel Patterns To understand the existing demand and travel patterns of the San Joaquins in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties, San Joaquins ridership data for the Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco San Joaquins Stations were documented and analyzed, along with the ridership between key origin-destination pairs.
According to the SJJPA 2021 Business Plan, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, 182,143 passengers boarded or alighted at the Hanford San Joaquins Station (Hanford Station). In FY 2018, the most popular destinations for people utilizing the Hanford Station was Fresno (62,695 riders in FY 2018), followed by Sacramento (12,054 riders), Corcoran (9,862 riders), and Los Angeles Union Station (9,311 riders). With a population of just over 50,000 in the City Hanford (located in Kings County), there is a relatively high transit activity at the Hanford Station, which indicates that in addition to Hanford residents, the residents of the nearby communities such as Tulare and Visalia in Tulare County also utilize the Hanford Station. Additionally, commuters have historically ridden the San Joaquins for commuting between Hanford and Fresno.
There were 26,993 passengers in FY 2019 that boarded or alighted at the Corcoran San Joaquins Station (Corcoran Station), with the most popular destination being Hanford Station (9,862 riders in FY 2018) indicating a somewhat significant level of intercity travel demand within Kings County. The Wasco San Joaquins Stations (Wasco Station) had 39,411 boardings and alightings in FY 2019.
68 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 3
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 4: Existing San Joaquins Service
69 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 4
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 5: Truncated San Joaquins Service, HSR Interim Service, and Cross Valley Corridor Rail (Future)
70 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 5
3 OBJECTIVE 1: BUS CONNECTIVITY Explore options to provide bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service
SJJPA expects to truncate the San Joaquins at Merced once the HSR Interim Service begins operations (Figure 4 and Figure 5), thereby eliminating rail service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco, which will not have HSR stations. To address this loss of rail service, SJJPA reviewed two models for providing bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to the HSR Interim Service in cooperation with local and regional agencies in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties.1
The two models are described below:
• SJJPA-Managed Connecting Bus Service. The first model, in which SJJPA would contract for bus services with bus operating companies, would be similar to how Amtrak currently contracts for bus services as part of the SJJPA-Amtrak Master Operating Agreement for Thruway Bus services. The primary purpose of this type of connecting bus service would be to provide connectivity to and from future HSR stations. A secondary purpose could be to provide general bus service along the routes for passengers traveling between bus stops (and not using the service to connect to HSR stations). This type of bus service would not be coordinated with existing bus services and would be entirely managed and funded by SJJPA. As discussed in Appendix A, the operational costs of this model are high.
• Partnership Connecting Bus Service. For the second model, SJJPA would partner with local agencies to leverage existing regional bus systems to provide connecting bus service to HSR stations while enhancing the existing service. In this model, SJJPA would establish agreements with local agencies to have local bus operators increase service levels to allow for timed connections with HSR stations, in which buses would meet HSR trains on a pulsed schedule at levels desired by SJJPA. SJJPA would provide a commensurate amount of funding support to match desired service levels. This model has the added benefit of enhancing bus service for all users since increased service levels to existing bus services would benefit the system as whole. This model can also provide costs savings since it would be leveraging existing bus operation resources and can lead to more efficient use of bus resources. However, cost estimates for this model are not provided in this Study, as cost/service levels would need to be assessed and negotiated with the local bus providers. The cost to the state (through SJJPA) would be included as part of future, more detailed agreements developed between SJJPA and partner agencies. The outreach process conducted in relationship to the consideration of partnerships is discussed in Appendix B.
1 It should be noted that the other cities with San Joaquins stations between (and including) Merced and Bakersfield (Merced, Madera, Fresno, and Bakersfield) will have HSR stations and will have considerably improved connectivity and accessibility once HSR Interim Service begins, and that Tulare County and parts of Kings County will also have improved connectivity and accessibility with the new Kings/Tulare HSR Station which will reduce access times to Tulare County.
71 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 6
Figure 6 shows the connecting bus services envisioned with the commencement of HSR Interim Service. Of the four connecting bus services envisioned, three are recommended to be partnership based, while one would be managed by SJJPA. Each connecting bus service is described below in detail along with analysis as to why a given model was selected.
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 6: Future Bus Connectivity (after implementation of HSR Interim Service)
72 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 7
3.1 Kings and Tulare Counties The communities of Hanford and Corcoran in Kings County have been served by the San Joaquins rail service for many years. Additionally, a Thruway Bus service is provided between Visalia in Tulare County and Hanford as well as the Central Coast. This service was previously provided by Orange Belt Stages, a bus operating company that is no longer in business. Currently, Amtrak is providing this Thruway Bus service by contracting a private bus operator separate from the SJJPA-Amtrak Master Agreement. One daily round trip currently runs between Visalia and Central Coast via Hanford.
3.1.1 Existing Bus Services Several public agencies provide local and regional bus service in Kings and Tulare Counties. They include Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT). Figure 7 shows the regional bus service routes that connect the various communities of the two counties. Local routes within each community are not shown.
Source: 2018 CVC Plan / Annotation of Map by AECOM shows KART Route 13 (Hanford-Corcoran-Corcoran State Prison)
Figure 7: Existing Regional Bus Service in Kings and Tulare Counties
73 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 8
Two Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) routes (provided by KCAPTA) operate in the corridors being considered for connecting bus service in this Study and include the following:
• KART’s Route 13 bus service runs between Hanford and Corcoran (and on to Corcoran State Prison), with two rounds trip each weekday.
• KART’s Route 15 bus service runs between Hanford and Visalia, with three round trips each weekday.
3.1.2 Recommended Bus Connectivity Based on conversations with local partner agencies, it was determined that a partnership model for two connecting bus service is beneficial compared to implementing a separate SJJPA-managed service. These two services would run within the following corridors:
• The Cross Valley Corridor (roughly defined by an existing freight rail corridor that runs between Huron to the west and Porterville to the southeast via Hanford and Visalia)
• Between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and Corcoran via Hanford
However, for a third corridor running from Kings/Tulare HSR Station to the Central Coast, the partners concluded that a connecting bus service should be managed by SJJPA.
All three connecting bus services are described below, along with the rationales for why the partners preferred the partnership model or the SJJPA-managed model.
3.1.2.1 Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service (Partnership) Phase 1 of the Tulare County Association of Governments’ (TCAG) 2018 Cross Valley Corridor Plan (2018 CVC Plan) envisioned a network of enhanced bus services to the communities of Huron, Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, Porterville, Dinuba, Woodlake, and Tulare (Figure 8). The spine of this system of coordinated bus services would be along the Cross Valley Corridor and would be implemented prior to passenger rail, which is also envisioned by the 2018 CVC Plan for the corridor. Additionally, the 2018 CVC Plan included a recommendation to consolidate transit agencies to increase bus operational efficiency in the three counties of Kings, Tulare, and Fresno.
74 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 9
Source: 2018 CVC Plan
Figure 8: Proposed Phase 1 Bus Services from the 2018 Cross Valley Corridor Plan Route Characteristics and Service Planning Connecting bus service within the Cross Valley Corridor, referred to in this Study as the “Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service,” was proposed in the 2018 CVC Plan. It is relevant to this Study because it includes service to Hanford and Visalia, which is currently serviced by a Thruway Bus. The Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service would serve 10 bus stops (which would be converted to rail stations in future phases) and provide both eastbound and westbound service. The partnership to augment this service would apply to the segment between Hanford and Visalia via the Kings–Tulare HSR Station. Several of the proposed bus stops would provide connections to local transit services, while the Kings/Tulare HSR bus stop would provide a direct connection to the HSR Interim Service. As shown in Table 1, the full route would be approximately 90 miles in length and have an estimated end-to-end travel time of 2 hours and 14 minutes.
75 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 10
Table 1: Cross Valley Corridor Bus Service and Route Characteristics
Stop Distance (miles)
Estimated Travel Time (minutes)
City/Town Population (2019, ACS) Connections
1 Huron Lassen Avenue 0 0 7,281 —
2 NAS Lemoore Naval Air Station 15 15 Located in a
County Area —
3 Lemoore Lemoore Depot – East Street
24 29 26,725 KART
4 Hanford Transit Center* 33 44 56,910 KART
5 Kings/Tulare HSR Lacey Boulevard at Ponderosa Road
36 53 Located in a County Area CAHSR
6 Visalia Visalia Transit Center 56 78 134,605 TCaT, KART,
Visalia Transit 7 Farmersville
Farmersville Boulevard and Visalia Road
63 91 10,703 Visalia Transit
8 Exeter East Palm Street and North E Street
67 99 10,485 Visalia Transit
9 Lindsay City Hall/Library – Mirage Avenue
76 114 13,463 TCaT
10 Porterville Porterville Transit Center 87 131 59,599 TCaT
Source: AECOM 2021 (Table based on route from 2018 CVC Plan) Note: Rows in gray indicate the segment of the corridor that would be considered for state funding support. *Assumes future location of Hanford Transit Center at 7th Street and Harris Street.
Based on the current and past Thruway Bus services connected to the San Joaquins between Hanford and Visalia, SJJPA would work with the partners to obtain state funding support for increased bus service between these two cities, as well as to incorporate a new bus stop at the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station. The length of this segment of the bus route would be approximately 28 miles.
According to the schedule created by the Early Train Operator (ETO) for the HSR Interim Service, HSR trains would run on an hourly pulse schedule. A total of 18 trains in each direction per day would serve the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, or 36 trains total per day (Table 2 and Table 3).
76 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 11
Table 2: Northbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Kings/Tulare HSR Station)
Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority 2020 Business Plan (report done by the Early Train Operator)
Table 3: Southbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Kings/Tulare HSR Station)
Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority 2020 Business Plan (report done by the Early Train Operator)
The HSR Interim Service schedule coordinates the northbound and southbound trains so that they arrive/depart at times very close to each other. For example, the northbound train from Kings/Tulare HSR Station would depart at 6:53 a.m., while the southbound trains from the same station would depart at 6:58 a.m. Cross Valley Corridor buses coming from the west and coming
77 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 12
from the east could arrive a few minutes before 6:53 a.m., so passengers from either bus could connect to either the northbound or southbound HSR trains within a few minutes of their arrival. The HSR Interim Service schedule carries this pattern for all the daily 18 round trips. Given this, this Study has assumed an average 10-minute transfer time for the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service
SJJPA and the partners would need to determine how many of these couplets of HSR trains should be connected with Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service buses. Table 4 shows three service scenarios with differing levels of connecting bus service – light, moderate, and robust.
Table 4: Connecting Bus Service Level Scenarios
Light Moderate Robust
4 round trips per day 8 round trips per day 12 round trips per day
Peak service only Approximately every 120 minutes (or every 2 hours)
Approximately every 60 minutes (or every hour), though some day hours would be skipped
Connects from/to select HSR trains in peak periods only. Similar to the current service level of comparable local bus services.
Connects from/to about half of HSR trains. Similar to the current service level of Amtrak San Joaquins.
Coordinated 60-minute pulse schedule during peak periods plus significant off-peak service with HSR trains.
Source: AECOM 2021
Travel times were also compared from downtown Hanford to other cities in the San Joaquin Valley to assess improvements or deterioration of intercity travel times from downtown Hanford2 when San Joaquins is no longer available and the HSR Interim Service combined with connecting bus service is implemented (Table 5). Travel times would significantly improve from downtown Hanford to Merced and Bakersfield, while a slight improvement would be realized to Fresno (currently the biggest market for Hanford on the San Joaquins). Travel times between Hanford and Corcoran would take approximately 6 minutes longer than current San Joaquins service. Travel times from Hanford to Wasco would significantly deteriorate, but demand between these two cities is small as indicated by pre-pandemic San Joaquins ridership. According to origin-destination date provided by Amtrak, only 806 trips were taken during FY 2017 between the two cities on the San Joaquins, which is just over two trips per day.
2 It should be noted that the Hanford Station serves passengers throughout Kings and Tulare counties. This study only focused on the impacts of trips from downtown Hanford. For many potential riders (like those coming from Tulare County) the HSR trip times would be considerably better since even the access to the future Kings/Tulare HSR station would be less than getting to the existing downtown Hanford Station.
78 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 13
Table 5: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Hanford
Source: AECOM 2021 *10 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. ** 20 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.
Benefits Based on conversations with local partner agencies, it was determined that a partnership for connecting bus service within the Cross Valley Corridor would be beneficial. Rather than SJJPA providing a separate service, which would duplicate and compete with existing regional bus service for riders and funding, forming a partnership would not only provide connectivity to the station, but would also improve local and regional transit.
Benefits of pursuing a partnership for the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service include:
• The 2018 CVC Plan already provides a vision for a bus network, including a route that would connect Hanford, Kings/Tulare HSR, and Visalia. A partnership would jump start implementation of Phase 1 of the 2018 CVC Plan.
• Leveraging the resources of existing bus systems, in this case KCAPTA and potentially Visalia Transit, avoids adding another bus operating entity, which would just compete for riders and funding.
• Utilizing existing bus operating agencies to provide service can lead to increasing efficiencies and reducing lower overall costs.
• By pooling resources, increased frequencies can be provided, improving connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while also benefiting all riders (including those not making an HSR trip that are traveling within and between Kings and Tulare Counties) with more convenient service.
• A partnership would bring state resources to support the service in an area where public transportation dollars are limited.
3.1.2.2 Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service (Partnership) In addition to connecting the City of Hanford to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station, connecting Corcoran to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station is important since direct rail service will no longer serve the city with the loss of the San Joaquins station. Therefore, SJJPA and the local partners are recommending a second partnership for connecting bus service that would link Corcoran to both downtown Hanford and to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. While this bus service is not envisioned in the 2018 CVC Plan, it would integrate seamlessly with it, as the proposed line would also connect directly with the Cross Valley Rail Connecting Bus Service (Figure 9).
79 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 14
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 9: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service Route Characteristics and Service Planning The Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service would serve three stops, connecting Corcoran and Hanford to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station as shown on Figure 9. Both the proposed Corcoran and Hanford bus stops would provide connections to local transit services, while the Kings/Tulare HSR stop would provide a direct connection to the HSR Interim Service. As shown in Table 6, the full route would be 23 miles in length and have an estimated end-to-end travel time of 36 minutes.
Table 6: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and Route Characteristics
Stop Distance (miles)
Estimated Travel Time
(minutes)
City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections
1 Corcoran Corcoran Station 0 0 21,676 Corcoran Area Transit
2 Hanford Transit Center* 20 27 56,910 KART, Cross Valley
Corridor 3 Kings/Tulare HSR
Lacey Boulevard at Ponderosa Road
23 36 Located in a County Area CAHSR, KART
Source: AECOM 2021 Note: This entire service would be considered for state funding support. **Assumes future location of Hanford Transit Center at 7th Street and Harris Street.
80 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 15
The City of Tulare is not currently served by the San Joaquins or a Thruway Bus service. With a population over 64,000 within the city limits, there is a strong potential travel market between Tulare and the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. To provide Tulare with a direct connection to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, a potential extension for the proposed Corcoran-Hanford Bus Service was identified during conversations with KCAG, KCAPTA, and Visalia Transit. The potential extension would create a “bus loop” route that would serve the City of Tulare while providing increased regional connectivity between the Cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Tulare. The proposed bus loop route would offer bus service in both directions: one bus running in the clockwise direction and the other running in the counterclockwise direction. As shown in Table 7, the full route would be 62 miles in length and have an estimated end-to-end travel time of 1 hour and 24 minutes.
Table 7: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and Route Characteristics With Tulare Loop Extension
Stop Distance (miles)
Estimated Travel Time (minutes)
City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections
Loop continues from/to Tulare 1 Corcoran
Corcoran Station 0 0 21,676 Corcoran Area Transit
2 Hanford Transit Center* 20 27 56,910 KART, Cross Valley
Corridor 3 Kings/Tulare HSR
Lacey Boulevard at Ponderosa
23 36 Located in a County Area CAHSR, KART
4 Tulare Tulare Transit Center
43 58 64,475 TCaT, TIME Tulare Transit, Visalia Transit
1 Corcoran Corcoran Station 62 84 21,676 Corcoran Area Transit
Loop continues from/to Hanford Source: AECOM 2021 Note: Rows in gray indicated the segment of the corridor that would be considered for state funding support. *Assumes future location of Hanford Transit Center at 7th Street and Harris Street.
As with the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service, connecting bus service to/from Corcoran would also connect to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. Therefore, coordinating timed connections with the pulse-scheduled HSR trains would need to have buses arriving at the Kings/Tulare HSR Station a few minutes before the northbound and southbound HSR trains (which would depart at :53 and :58 of every other hour, respectively, for all 18 HSR round trips). See Table 2 and Table 3 for the HSR Interim Service schedule. Given this schedule, this Study has assumed an average 10-minute transfer time for the Kings/Tulare HSR-Hanford-Corcoran Connecting Bus Service. As was the case with the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service, SJJPA and the partners would need to determine how many of these couplets of HSR trains would need to meet with connecting bus service.
81 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 16
Travel times were compared from downtown Corcoran to other cities in the San Joaquin Valley to assess improvements or deterioration of intercity travel times when San Joaquins is no longer available and the HSR Interim Service combined with connecting bus service is implemented (Table 8). Travel times would significantly improve from Corcoran to Merced, while staying about the same to Bakersfield. Travel times from Fresno would slightly increase but not significantly. Travel times from Corcoran to Hanford would take approximately 9 minutes longer than current San Joaquins service. Travel times from Corcoran to Wasco would significantly increase. However, demand between these two cities is small as indicated by pre-pandemic San Joaquins ridership. FY 2017 San Joaquins ridership data indicate very low demand for trips between Corcoran and Wasco to justify providing new bus service between these cities. In FY 2017, only 113 trips occurred between Corcoran and Wasco on the San Joaquins, which is less than one trip per day.
Table 8: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Corcoran
Source: AECOM 2021 * 10 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. ** 20 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.
The only destination that would see a substantial increase in travel time from both Corcoran and Hanford is Wasco. The travel time between Corcoran and Wasco is anticipated to increase by 1 hour and 35 minutes, while the travel time between Hanford and Wasco is anticipated to increase by 48 minutes.
Based on this analysis, the proposed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Bus Service would either maintain or improve the travel times to the destinations that people most frequently travel to and from Corcoran and Hanford.
Benefits Benefits of pursuing a partnership for the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service include:
• Would augment existing bus service provided in the corridor by KART (Route 13), and extend the service from Hanford to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station.
• Leveraging the resources of an existing bus system, in this case KART, avoids adding another bus operating entity and competition for riders and funding.
82 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 17
• Utilizing existing bus operating agencies to provide service can lead to increasing efficiencies and reducing overall costs.
• By pooling resources, increased frequencies can be provided, improving connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while also benefiting all riders (including those not making an HSR trip that are traveling within and between Kings and Tulare Counties) with more convenient service.
• A partnership will bring state resources to support the service in an area where public transportation dollars are limited.
3.1.2.3 Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service (SJJPA-Managed)
The Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service would provide a similar service to the Thruway Bus service currently operating between Visalia and the Central Coast, though the eastern terminus would be at the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, since the partnership related to the Cross Valley Corridor service would provide service to Visalia. The Kings/Tulare HSR– Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service could include nine stops, connecting the Kings/Tulare HSR Station to Hanford, Lemoore, and Kettleman City in Kings County, and five other cities along the Central Coast (Figure 10 and Table 10).
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 10: SJJPA-Managed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service
Route Characteristics and Service Planning Due to the length of the bus route (156 miles) and end-to-end travel times of well over 3 hours, buses along this route (Table 9) would need to include onboard equipment and amenities not normally provided in local and regional buses, including seating for long distance travel and a
83 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 18
bathroom. Given this, KCAPTA would need to develop an entirely new type of bus fleet, which would diminish the cost savings of a partnership. Additionally, KCAPTA is not ready organizationally manage another fleet type, which would require re-tooling their maintenance facility, etc. Given these factors, SJJPA and KCAPTA concluded that maintaining this SJJPA-managed connecting bus service would make the most sense.
Table 9: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service and Route Characteristics
6 Atascadero Transit Center 104 144 30,037 SLO RTA
7 San Luis Obispo Amtrak Station 122 174 47,160 Amtrak, SLO RTA, SLO
Transit 8 Grover Beach
Amtrak Station 137 189 13,538 Amtrak, SoCo Transit
9 Santa Maria IHOP – Cypress Street and Nicholson Avenue
156 214 105,483 SLO RTA, SMAT
Source: AECOM 2021 Note: This entire service would be considered for state funding support. *Assumes future location of Hanford Transit Center at 7th Street and Harris Street.
Benefits Continuing to provide connecting bus service to Kings and Tulare Counties and the Central Coast with the commencement of the HSR Interim Service will be desirable for maintaining a public transportation link between the HSR Interim Service in the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast. Additionally, with the recent change in state law, there is an opportunity to provide service to bus-only travelers between the two regions.
84 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 19
3.1.3 Near-Term Connecting Bus Service Enhancements In addition to the recommended connecting bus services that correspond with the commencement of HSR Interim Service around 2029, SJJPA and stakeholders in Kings and Tulare Counties have expressed an interest in working together to improve connectivity to the San Joaquins stations in the interim period. Specifically, improving connectivity between the San Joaquins at Hanford Station and Visalia is a near-term goal expressed by SJJPA and all the partners in Kings and Tulare Counties. Therefore, consideration is currently being given to augmenting KART and/or Visalia Transit service between Hanford Station and Visalia, with state funding assistance in the near-term.
3.1.4 Implementation Recommendations TCAG, Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG), KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, and SJJPA recommend partnering with the local bus agencies to provide the connectivity and integration for their respective jurisdictions. The partners’ recommendations for Kings and Tulare Counties are below.
Source: AECOM
Figure 11: Recommended Connecting Bus Services in Kings and Tulare Counties
OBJECTIVE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KINGS AND TULARE COUNTIES
Execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to contain two components—bus and Cross Valley Rail— with TCAG, KCAG, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency to jointly provide bus connectivity. The MOU will state each
85 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 20
agency’s responsibilities and will describe the 2018 CVC Plan and SJJPA’s efforts for network integration with future California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR).
Continue to provide direct connections to downtown Hanford and downtown Corcoran to intercity passenger rail service, by working to secure state funds to enable timed local/regional operated bus connections from Corcoran and Hanford to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while increasing local/regional operated bus connectivity between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and Visalia.
Partner with the following existing local/regional transit operators to operate connecting bus services within Kings and Tulare Counties: KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency. SJJPA intends to support a larger, more frequent, and coordinated local/regional operated bus service that will coincide with the opening of HSR Interim Service. This partnership to enhance bus service will be key toward the implementation of Phase 1 of the 2018 CVC Plan.
For connecting bus service between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and the Central Coast service, operate as an SJJPA-managed service.
In the short-term, work with KCAPTA and Visalia Transit to enhance bus service between Visalia and Hanford to improve connectivity to the existing San Joaquins service until the HSR Interim Service begins operations.
3.2 Kern County One connecting bus service is being studied for Kern County. The Wasco-Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service would connect Wasco and Shafter to the Bakersfield HSR Station as shown on Figure 10.
3.2.1 Existing Bus Services One public agency – Kern Transit – currently provides regional bus service within Kern County. Two Kern Transit routes serve Wasco and include Route 110, which provides service between Bakersfield and Delano, and Route 115, which provides service between Bakersfield and Lost Hills. Figure 12 shows these two routes. Kern Transit has several other routes serving Kern County, but they are not shown since they do not serve Wasco.
86 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 21
Source: Kern Transit
Figure 12: Kern Transit Routes Serving Kern County
3.2.2 Recommended Bus Connectivity Based on conversations with Kern Transit, the City of Wasco, and Kern Council of Governments (COG), there is an interest in providing bus connectivity from Wasco to the future Bakersfield HSR Station. SJJPA and Kern Transit are also considering a partnership in which Kern Transit’s existing service to Wasco could be augmented and adjusted to provide a connecting bus service from Wasco to the Bakersfield HSR Station. An additional route was explored as part of this Study that would run service from Wasco to Bakersfield HSR Station via Rosedale, California State University Bakersfield and downtown Bakersfield, but based on conversations with Kern Transit, a more direct route similar to existing service was preferred. The potential connecting bus service that be a partnership is described in the following section.
87 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 22
3.2.2.1 Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service (Partnership) The Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service would serve three stops, connecting the Bakersfield HSR Station to Wasco and Shafter (Figure 13). There would also be the possibility of leveraging state support to Wasco to facilitate better service to Delano and McFarland to the north of Wasco.
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 13: Proposed Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service Route Route Characteristics and Service Planning Both the proposed Wasco and Shafter bus stops will provide connections to local transit services, while the Bakersfield HSR stop would provide a direct connection to the HSR Interim Service. As shown in Table 10, the full route would be 25 miles in length and have an estimated end-to-end travel time of 40 minutes.
88 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 23
Table 10: Wasco-Bakersfield Connecting Bus Service Route Characteristics
Stop Distance (miles)
Estimated Travel Time
(minutes)
City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections
1 Wasco City Hall – 8th Street 0 0 27,976 Kern Transit
2 Shafter City Hall – Pacific Avenue
8 12 20,058 Kern Transit
3 Bakersfield HSR F Street and Golden State Avenue
25 40 383,579 CAHSR, Kern Transit, GET Bus
Source: AECOM 2021 Note: This entire service would be considered for state funding support.
According to the schedule created by the ETO for the HSR Interim Service, HSR trains would run on an hourly pulse schedule, for a total of 18 trains in each direction serving the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, or 36 trains total (Table 11 and Table 12).
Table 11: Northbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Bakersfield HSR Station)
Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority 2020 Business Plan (report done by the Early Train Operator)
89 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 24
Table 12: Southbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Bakersfield HSR Station)
Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority 2020 Business Plan (report done by the Early Train Operator)
The HSR Interim Service schedule coordinates the northbound and southbound trains serving the Bakersfield HSR Station, so they arrive/depart at times fairly close to each other. For example, the northbound train from Bakersfield HSR Station would depart at 7:19 a.m., while the southbound trains would arrive at 7:30 a.m. Connecting buses to/from Wasco could arrive a few minutes before 7:19 a.m., so riders could transfer to catch a northbound HSR train. The same bus could then wait for the arriving HSR train at 7:30 a.m. to pick up passengers after they disembark the HSR train. This pattern could repeat throughout the day as the HSR Interim Service would be on a pulse-schedule at hourly intervals. This is a simpler operational pattern than the connection to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station since the Bakersfield HSR Station is a terminal station, whereas the former is mid-line station with service coming and going from two directions. This would make bus connections less complex to coordinate.
SJJPA and Kern Transit would need to determine how many of these couplets of HSR trains to meet with connecting bus service. Table 4 shows three possible service scenarios with differing levels of connecting bus service – light, moderate, and robust.
Travel times were compared from downtown Wasco to other cities in the San Joaquin Valley to assess improvements or deterioration of intercity travel times when San Joaquins is no longer available and the HSR Interim Service combined with connecting bus service is implemented (Table 13). Overall, there is a deterioration of intercity travel times from Wasco with San Joaquin Valley (except travel father north to Fresno and Merced is comparable given the longer time riders would be on HSR trains). This is due to the location of Wasco being north of the Bakersfield HSR Station, so to go north travelers would need to first go south and then north. A potential solution to this was explored, which would run a bus service north from Wasco all the
90 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 25
way to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. However, given the long travel times, small population served, limited demand that would be generated by Wasco, and high operating costs, this was not pursued as part of this Study as it would not be cost effective.
When considering travel to Los Angeles, travel times would only be about 15 minutes longer from Wasco over current service that includes the San Joaquins. Also, the bus service would include the benefit of serving the community of Shafter.
Table 13: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Wasco
Source: AECOM 2021 * 10 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. ** 20 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.
Benefits As with the Kings and Tulare County partners, it was concluded that running two separate bus systems in the Wasco-Bakersfield corridor is not desirable. Rather, leveraging existing Kern Transit bus service would not only avoid competing bus services, but would also provide an opportunity to integrate with existing service to McFarland and Delano. Therefore, it was determined that a partnership model for this bus connection is beneficial. Benefits of pursuing a partnership for the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Station Connecting Bus Service include:
• Would augment existing bus service provided in the corridor by Kern Transit Routes 110 and 115, while providing service directly to the Bakersfield HSR Station.
• Leveraging the resources of an existing bus system, in this case Kern Transit, avoids adding another bus operating entity and competition for riders and funding.
• Utilizing existing bus operating agencies to provide service can lead to increasing efficiencies and reducing lower overall costs.
• By pooling resources, increased frequencies can be provided, improving connectivity to the future Bakersfield HSR Station, while also benefiting all riders including those not making an HSR trip that are traveling within and between Kings and Tulare Counties) with more convenient service. This improved service could potentially benefit riders from Delano and McFarland to the north of Wasco given existing Wasco service also serves these cities.
• A partnership will bring state resources to support the service in an area where public transportation dollars are limited.
91 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 26
3.2.3 Near-Term Connecting Bus Service Enhancements Interim bus route improvements to Wasco are currently not under consideration given the San Joaquins is still serving Wasco. However, SJJPA and Kern Transit are discussing the possibility of partnering on near-term improvements to bus service to the Antelope Valley, which could improve connectivity from the San Joaquins to that region. The connection to this service would take place at the existing San Joaquins Bakersfield Station.
3.2.4 Implementation Recommendations SJJPA and Kern Transit recommend partnering on a Wasco-Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service. Below are specific recommendations for implementing connecting bus service in Kern County.
OBJECTIVE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KERN COUNTY
Execute an MOU with Kern Transit to jointly provide bus connectivity. The MOU would state each agency’s responsibilities and SJJPA’s efforts for network integration with future HSR Interim Service.
Continue to provide a direct connection from Wasco to intercity passenger rail service by working to secure state funds to enable timed local/regional operated bus connections from Wasco to the Bakersfield HSR Station.
Through this coordination, work to find opportunities for near-term partnerships, including a bus connection between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley.
92 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 27
4 OBJECTIVE 2: CROSS VALLEY RAIL PROJECT Review and assist in the integration and implementation of the Cross Valley Rail project.
4.1 Background and History of Corridor The Cross Valley Corridor is a 75-mile existing freight rail corridor between Huron and Porterville in Kings and Tulare Counties that is active in some segments and abandoned in others. The Southern Pacific Railroad constructed the railroad in the late 1800s. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) currently owns the right-of-way and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) operates on most of the corridor except for a 1-mile portion of the UPRR mainline near Goshen. Existing track conditions are not suitable for passenger rail operations.
In 2000, the City of Lemoore worked with the Cities of Huron and Visalia to form the Cross Valley Rail Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CVRC JPA) with the purpose of upgrading 45 miles of track from the City of Huron, through Lemoore and Hanford, to the Visalia industrial park. The CVRC JPA raised $14.2 million from government and private sources to resurface the rail corridor in 2002–2003 to accommodate heavier freight traffic and keep the line in operation in preparation for a passenger rail service.
In 2004 KCAG released the Cross Valley Rail Corridor Passenger Rail Study and in March 2018 TCAG published the CVC Plan, which evaluates connecting downtown Hanford, downtown Visalia, the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, and other cities.
According to the CVC Plan, the tracks between Lindsay and Porterville were abandoned in 2008 and removed in 2012, but the City of Porterville recently acquired the right-of-way with assistance from TCAG with the purpose of preserving the right-of-way for future rail service.
4.2 Cross Valley Corridor Plan Phases The 2018 CVC Plan recommended a three-phase implementation plan:
• Phase 1 would implement bus service between the cities on the Cross Valley Corridor (as described in Section 3).
• Phase 2 would implement passenger rail service from Lemoore to Visalia. • Phase 3 would extend passenger rail service from Lemoore to Huron and from Visalia to
Porterville.
Phase 2 of the implementation plan would have four stations located at Lemoore, Hanford, the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, and Visalia. As shown on Figure 14, the remaining communities along the CVC, including Huron, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, and Porterville, would continue to be served by bus service. Lemoore and Visalia would serve as transfer points between the bus service and the passenger rail service.
93 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 28
Source: 2018 CVC Plan
Figure 14: 2018 CVC Plan Phase 2 Bus and Rail Service Map Phase 3 would implement passenger rail service on the entire CVC from Huron to Porterville. As shown on Figure 15, the ultimate configuration of a CVC rail service would serve 10 stations: Huron, NAS Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, Visalia, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, and Porterville. Once the full build-out of a CVC rail corridor is operational, the CVC bus service would be replaced by the passenger rail service.
Cross Valley Rail is supported in Tulare County and Kings County General Plans and was included in the 2018 California State Rail Plan as part of the 2040 Vision to connect local communities to HSR.
94 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 29
Source: 2018 CVC Plan
Figure 15: 2018 CVC Plan Phase 3 Bus and Rail Service Map
4.3 Key Findings Related to Rail from the 2018 CVC Plan Key findings from the 2018 CVC Plan related to rail are summarized in the following sections.
4.3.1 Right-of-Way Ownership and San Joaquin Valley Railroad As previously described, the CVC is currently a freight railroad corridor that is active in certain segments and abandoned in others. The majority of the corridor is single track freight railway owned by UPRR, as shown on Figure 16. The active portion of the railway is built and maintained to handle low-speed freight rail traffic.
95 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 30
Source: 2018 CVC Plan
Figure 16: Railroad Subdivisions Map and CVC Track Map According to the 2018 CVC Plan, SJVR is a Class III railroad owned by Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. that has trackage rights over the UPRR main line to operate several segments throughout Kern, Tulare, and Fresno Counties. The SJVR-operated segments connect the local shippers to the greater rail system through interchanges with BNSF and UPRR mainlines, which generally run parallel between Fresno and Bakersfield. The trackage rights allow SJVR to move its own equipment on the UPRR track to each of its segments. Any freight traffic from SJVR’s branch lines must be interchanged to UPRR to move on that line. Traffic includes lumber and forest products, consumer products, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, packaged foods, canned foods, frozen meats, poultry, cheese, carbonated beverages, and petroleum/chemical products.
96 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 31
4.3.2 Suitability for Passenger Rail According to the 2018 CVC Plan, the existing freight rail line right-of-way is already in place and could serve as a backbone for a future CVC rail system. Overall, the right-of-way, which ranges from 50 to 200 feet in width, would be ideally suited for passenger rail mixed with freight use due to the following corridor conditions:
• Long, straight geometry • Large turning radii • Virtually zero gradients • Very few major geographic obstacles • Existing grade separations from major roadway crossings
In addition, the alignment generally connects downtown areas of the cities along the CVC, since the cities were founded by the railroad with the exception of the older City of Visalia.
4.3.3 Improvements Identified for Implementation of Passenger Rail The following summarizes improvements identified in the 2018 CVC Plan potentially needed to allow the implementation of passenger rail:
• Condition of the Railroad: The track and structures (including bridges, culverts, and crossings) are aging and not suitable for passenger rail operations. The rails, ties, plates, embankments, switches, signaling, etc., would not meet United States Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), or Federal Transit Administration regulations for passenger rail service. Many bridges, such as the Kings River bridge, may need to be replaced or upgraded.
• Shared Track: A small length of track (approximately 500 feet) on the main UPRR line is shared by both the CVC and the main UPRR line, which may present an obstacle (UPRR approvals or operational limitations) and could necessitate improvements to allow for passenger rail service.
• Right-of-Way: Additional land acquisitions may be required for passing lanes, pocket tracks, maintenance facilities, operations centers, etc.
• Positive Train Control: To upgrade to passenger service, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 would require a Positive Train Control (PTC) system (49 CFR Part 236, Subpart I). PTC is a safety system designed to monitor and control trains and eliminate collisions within its system by using GPS and computerized tracking systems. It monitors the speed and positions of all trains and implements accident avoidance countermeasures if it detects an accident is imminent. The system will first warn the train operator, then take control of the train and bring it to a controlled stop.
• Maintenance and Storage Facility: A maintenance and storage facility would be required, and there are available sites along the CVC.
• Stations: Station infrastructure would be required. Potential station locations are shown on Figure 7. The cities of Lemoore, Hanford, Visalia, Tulare, Porterville, and Dinuba have public transportation systems that could serve a CVC station.
97 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 32
4.3.4 2018 CVC Plan Recommended Rail Vehicle Technology The 2018 CVC Plan recommended diesel multiple unit (DMU) trainsets for further analysis, concluding that DMU trainsets have the highest potential to provide efficient and flexible transit service compared with the other mode alternatives. These same benefits could be realized by a zero-emission multiple unit (ZEMU) system. Subsequent to the completion of the 2018 CVC Plan, the state has adopted a policy of transitioning to an entire statewide fleet of zero emission vehicles by 2035 (Fleet Management Plan). It is likely that by the time that CVC Rail trainsets are ready to be procured in the future, that ZEMU trainsets will be the standard for these types of services in California. When CVC Rail is ready for procurement, it may not make sense to purchase DMU equipment that would need to be replaced by 2035. DMU or ZEMU trainsets have moderate costs compared to the other technologies examined in the 2018 CVC Plan. The other technologies evaluated include bus rapid transit, light rail transit (LRT), heavy rail, commuter rail, streetcar, Maglev, and a people mover system. Figure 17 lists the benefits of DMU or ZEMU systems as outlined in the 2018 CVC Plan.
DMU and ZEMU based rail systems are run by self-propelling railcars that can operate in LRT corridors, in dense urban areas, and in freight corridors as long as the vehicles are compliant with FRA crash and operational safety policies. The typical configuration of DMU vehicles in the United States is that of a diesel engine generating electric power for the vehicle’s traction motors (so-called diesel-electric multiple units). However, other propulsion systems have been under development, such as hydrogen fuel cells and natural gas-powered engines, which would be used in place of diesel engines to generate electric power for the vehicle’s traction motors in the absence of electric wires.
ZEMU vehicles are similar to LRT vehicles as they both can use an overhead catenary system. ZEMU systems can utilize batter power or hydrogen fuel cell and achieve FRA crash and operation safety policies. ZEMUs have higher vehicle costs than DMU trainsets; however, they have operational benefits (in terms of operational cost, acceleration, etc.) as the system grows in size and scale and meet the states goals for zero emission vehicles.
98 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 33
Source: 2018 CVC Plan (Note: These benefits would also apply to ZEMU trainsets)
Figure 17: Benefits of DMU Transit Systems
Source: 2018 CVC Plan
Figure 18: Capital Metro DMU System in Austin, Texas
99 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 34
Source: 2018 CVC Plan
Figure 19: Sprinter DMU System in Oceanside, California
4.4 2018 CVC Plan Cost Estimates The 2018 CVC Plan estimates both capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for each phase of the implementation plan assuming DMU operations. The 2018 CVC Plan estimated that the annual cost-per-mile for Phases 2 and 3 would be $515,000. This cost includes operator wages, fuel, and vehicle maintenance. Costs were based on operating costs for Denton County Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit Corporation, and North County Transit District. The schedule assumed operations would be seven days a week, from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with 30-minute peak headways and 60-minute off-peak headways. For Phase 2 operations 9 vehicles were assumed and for Phase 3 operations 26 vehicles were assumed.
Capital and operating cost estimates for Phase 2 and Phase 3 are shown in Table 14.
100 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 35
Table 14: Costs for DMU Rail Phases of CVC from 2018 CVC Plan Capital Costs
Phase 3 DMU Rail Huron to Porterville (2018 dollars assumed)
$179 to 252 M $20 M per year
Total $350 to $489 M $36 M per year Source: 2018 CVC Plan
4.5 Compatibility of Cross Valley Rail with Future Kings/Tulare HSR Station
In addition to providing rail service between the communities in central San Joaquin Valley, a CVC rail service would provide a convenient connection to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. The 2018 CVC Plan discussed this connection, but a station concept was not provided as was provided for the other proposed rail stations along the CVC. The following is an update on the status of the design of the Kings/Tulare Station. In addition, the compatibility of the current design direction of the Kings/Tulare Station with transfers to a future CVC rail station is examined.
The location of the Kings/Tulare HSR Station is approximately one-half mile east and north of SR 43 and SR 198, respectively (Figure 20).
101 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 36
Source: CHSRA Note: During subsequent design work by CHSRA, the station platform has been moved slightly south of the location shown above.
Figure 20: Location of the Future Kings/Tulare HSR Station According to CHSRA officials, all track and civil design work is complete. The HSR tracks will be elevated on a viaduct structure in the vicinity of the Kings/Tulare Station. Therefore, the HSR track structure will be above the CVC tracks, which will remain at-grade (Figure 21 and Figure 22). The columns for the viaduct structure are complete except for the columns immediately adjacent to the CVC.
102 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 37
Source: CHSRA
Figure 21: Cross Section of HSR Tracks on Viaduct at the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and CVC
Source: CHSRA
Figure 22: View of Columns for Future HSR Track Viaduct at Kings/Tulare HSR Station and CVC
CHSRA provided a plan view graphic that indicates that a 100-foot wide right-of-way for the CVC would be accommodated between the columns flanking the CVC (Figure 23). While it is anticipated a single track and single side platform would be sufficient for operations, the right-of-way could accommodate expanded station facilities (i.e., a second track and second side platform if necessary).
103 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 38
Source: CHSRA
Figure 23: Plan View of Cross Valley Corridor Crossing Under HSR Viaduct Given the configuration previously described, a station for the CVC rail service could be placed directly under the HSR viaduct. In discussions with CHSRA staff, an initial assessment was made that a platform on the south side of the CVC corridor could be constructed to provide direct access (i.e., no tracks to traverse) to a pathway under the HSR viaduct between the supporting columns and the HSR station. Figure 24 illustrates this concept. The HSR station structure is anticipated to be approximately 300 feet south from where the Cross Valley Rail tracks would cross under the HSR viaduct.
Source: CHSRA (Base Map) / AECOM (Annotations)
Figure 24: Concept of Potential Layout of Connection between Cross Valley Rail and Kings/Tulare HSR Station
104 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 39
Over the last several years, CHSRA has been conducting an outreach process with stakeholders from the region regarding connectivity to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. As part of this process, the 2018 CVC Plan was completed. Following the release of the 2018 CVC Plan, there have been ongoing project updates and follow-up outreach. According to CHSRA, the next step in this process is outreach related to the pre-design of the station, with stakeholder meetings about every 8 weeks.
The following topics will be covered at meetings in 2021:
• Regional Transit Access – June • Regional Patterns & Roadway Network – August • Hanford and Visalia Plans & Other Local Multimodal Access – October • Summary Meeting – December
The overall project schedule provided by CHSRA is shown in Figure 25.
Source: CHSRA 2020
Figure 25: Kings/Tulare HSR Station Delivery Schedule
4.6 Implementation Recommendations Implementation of Cross Valley Rail service will require coordination among a range of local stakeholders in addition to the local and state government.
A critical factor in project development is the ability to obtain funding. While the 2018 CVC Plan identifies potential phases for implementation, it does not contain detailed cost estimates and funding. Ridership for this initial segment would need to be estimated and evaluated for competitiveness for funding.
The following recommendations for the Cross Valley Rail service were developed in coordination with TCAG, KCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency.
OBJECTIVE 2: RECOMMENDATIONS
Execute an MOU to commit to work in partnership with TCAG and KCAG to plan, secure funding, and implement Cross Valley Rail.
In the MOU, identify the following steps for the implementation of Cross Valley Rail:
105 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 40
• Phase 1 will secure environmental clearance and right-of-way protection, conduct site selection, negotiate with freight railroads, and begin transit stations in communities without existing transit centers.
• Phase 2 will implement passenger rail service between Lemoore and Visalia (with stations at Hanford and Kings/Tulare HSR Station).
• Phase 3 will extend passenger rail service to Huron and Porterville with additional intermediate stations at NAS Lemoore, Farmersville, Exeter, and Lindsey.
In the MOU, identify SJJPA as a potential operating agency for Cross Valley Rail.
Acknowledge that additional and more detailed agreements will be needed and that parties would agree to work together toward achieving common agreed upon goals.
106 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 41
5 OBJECTIVE 3: BNSF SLOTS Assess possible complementary regional uses for existing BNSF slots.
This Study included the investigation of the potential use of existing and potentially available passenger rail slots along the BNSF Corridor for regional commuter rail services once the San Joaquins no longer operates between Merced and Bakersfield (after HSR Interim Service begins operations). The specific commuter rail services that were considered are described in the following sections and include a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran service and Wasco–Bakersfield service. A commuter rail service between Merced and Fresno was not considered, as Merced, Madera and Fresno will have stations along the HSR system, and therefore, the biggest markets for a commuter rail service between Merced and Fresno would be competing directly with the much faster HSR system.
After consultation with TCAG, KCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, Kern Transit, and Kern COG, it was concluded that commuter rail services should not be pursued for the foreseeable future for the following reasons:
• Capital and operating and maintenance costs. Capital costs range from $78 to $174 million and operating costs range from $5.9 to $8.4 million per year depending on the route See Appendix B for more details on the cost estimates. Capital costs are high compared to implementing connecting bus services. These costs would be borne by the local/regional communities, which have very limited budget capacity.
• Competing with HSR markets and services. Commuter rail service between Fresno, Hanford, and Corcoran would create a parallel rail system to HSR, which would significantly reduce the ridership potential of the commuter rail service, as HSR Interim Service will also run during commute times between Fresno and Kings/Tulare HSR Station near Hanford. Since travel on HSR trains will be much faster than travel on commuter rail trains, many commuters from Kings and Tulare Counties that park and ride would see improved travel times over that of commuter rail. For those accessing HSR via connecting bus services, there would be an increase in total travel time to Fresno from Hanford of about 4 minutes and from Corcoran of about 15 minutes (Table 16 and 17) over commuter rail. Given the similar travel times from Hanford, and the low population of Corcoran, this parallel commuter rail system is not seen as a good investment.
Commuter rail service between Wasco and Bakersfield would not compete directly with HSR (since there would not be an HSR station near Wasco). However, travel times were compared between commuter rail and a connecting bus service from Wasco to Bakersfield. While travel on a connecting bus would be about 10 minutes longer (Table 21), it was concluded that such a large investment in commuter rail would not be worth the investment at this time.
• Lack of regional support. For the reasons above, the stakeholders in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties have not expressed support for further consideration of commuter rail services on the BNSF. Implementation of Cross Valley Rail and bus connectivity are higher priorities for time and resources.
107 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 42
5.1 Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Considered As shown on Figure 26, SJJPA evaluated a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service that would provide service to Corcoran, Hanford, and Fresno. All three stations would use the existing San Joaquins stations. As a result, no direct connection to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station would be provided as both the Fresno and Kings/Tulare HSR Stations are not adjacent to any existing San Joaquins stations. All three stations would have connections to local transit services.
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 26: Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Considered
108 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 43
The full route would be 47 miles long and the end-to-end travel time is estimated at 48 minutes (Table 15).
Table 15: Potential Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Characteristics
Station Distance (miles)
Estimated Travel Time (minutes)
City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections
1 Fresno Amtrak Station
0 0 530,093 Kern Transit
2 Hanford Amtrak Station
30 32 56,910 KART, Cross Valley Corridor
3 Corcoran Amtrak Station
47 48 21,676 Corcoran Area Transit
Source: AECOM 2021
The travel times for the potential Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service were compared to the travel times of the existing San Joaquins service and the estimated travel times of the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Bus Service.
As shown in Table 16, the travel times from Corcoran via commuter rail to key destinations are comparable with slight variations to existing San Joaquins service and the proposed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service. However, since the commuter rail does not directly connect to the CAHSR system, the destinations that passengers could reach by direct access to HSR service are limited compared to the proposed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service.
Table 16: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Corcoran
Source: AECOM 2021 *10-minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. **20-minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.
As shown in Table 17, the travel times from Hanford to key destinations using the commuter rail line are comparable to existing San Joaquins service and the proposed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service. However, since the commuter rail would not directly connect to the CAHSR system, the destinations that passengers could reach using the service are limited compared to the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service.
109 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 44
Table 17: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Hanford
Source: AECOM 2021 * 10-minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. **20-minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.
For the purpose of this Study, it was assumed that trains would run two northbound trains on weekday mornings and two southbound trains on weekday evenings. Table 18 and Table 19 summarize estimated capital and O&M costs, respectively. See Appendix C for more details on the cost estimates.
Table 18: Estimated Capital Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service
Improvement Capital Cost Estimates (FY 2020)
Stations $3 M – $6 M
Rolling Stock $25 M – $70 M
Maintenance Facility $50 M
Total Capital Cost $78 M – $126 M Source: AECOM 2021
Table 19: Estimated O&M Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service
O&M Cost Estimates Lower-bound Estimate
(FY 2020) Upper-bound Estimate
(FY 2020)
Agency Cost Items $ 1.5 M $ 2.5 M
Cost-per-mile Items $ 3.2 M $ 3.2 M
Other Unit Cost Items $ 2.6 M $ 2.7 M
Total Annual O&M Cost $ 7.3 M $ 8.4 M Source: AECOM 2021
5.2 Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service Considered As shown on Figure 27, SJJPA evaluated a Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service that would provide service to Wasco, Shafter, Rosedale, and Bakersfield. The route would stop at the existing Wasco and Bakersfield San Joaquins Station, while adding to new stations in Shafter and Rosedale. The route would not connect directly to HSR Interim Service.
110 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 45
Source: AECOM 2021
Figure 27: Wasco-Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service Considered The full route would be 27 miles long and the end-to-end travel time is estimated at 30 minutes (Table 20).
The travel times for the potential Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service were compared to the estimated travel times of the existing San Joaquins service and the proposed Wasco-
111 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 46
Bakersfield HSR Bus Service. As shown in Table 21, the travel times from Wasco to key destinations using the commuter rail line are comparable to the existing San Joaquins service and the Wasco-Bakersfield HSR Bus Service. However, since the commuter rail does not directly connect to the Bakersfield HSR Station, the destinations that passengers could reach using the service are greatly limited compared to the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Bus Service.
Table 21: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Wasco
Source: AECOM 2021 * 10 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. ** 20 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.
For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that trains would run two northbound trains on weekday mornings and two southbound on weekday evenings. Table 22 and Table 23 summarize estimated capital and O&M costs, respectively. See Appendix C for more details on the cost estimates.
Table 22: Estimated Capital Cost for Wasco-Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service
Capital Cost Estimates (FY 2020)
Stations $42 M – $54 M
Rolling Stock $25 M – $70 M
Maintenance Facility $50 M
Total Capital Cost $117 M – $174 M Source: AECOM 2021
Table 23: Estimated O&M Cost for Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service
O&M Cost Estimates Lower-bound Estimate
(FY 2020) Upper-bound Estimate
(FY 2020)
Agency Cost Items $ 1.5 M $ 2.5 M
Cost-per-mile Items $ 1.8 M $ 1.8 M
Other Unit Cost Items $ 2.6 M $ 2.7 M
Total Annual O&M Cost $ 5.9 M $ 7.0 M Source: AECOM 2021
112 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study September 2021 47
5.3 Recommendation Below is the recommendation related to the possible utilization of passenger rail slots along the BNSF Corridor between Merced and Bakersfield for regional commuter rail.
OBJECTIVE 3 – RECOMMENDATIONS
Use of the BNSF slots for regional commuter rail service does not appear to be feasible in the foreseeable future. Therefore, do not further study commuter rail at this time.
113 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A September 2021 1
APPENDIX A – CONNECTING BUS SERVICE COST ASSUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATES This appendix documents assumptions used in developing rough-order-of-magnitude operations and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates and capital cost estimates for three connecting bus services, which include the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service, the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service and the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service. For the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service, both capital and O&M cost estimates were taken directly from the 2018 CVC Plan.
For the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service, the estimated O&M costs are based on the SJJPA-managed approach for connecting bus service (described in Section 3 of this Study), even though SJJPA and partnering agencies are now pursuing a partnership model to run such service. The reason for this is that these cost estimates were conducted early in the planning process to gain an understanding of the O&M costs if SJJPA were to run as separate bus services. This cost information helped inform the SJJPA that O&M costs should one key factor in considering forming partnerships for implementing connecting bus services. Furthermore, there are no O&M cost estimates provided in this Study for the partnerships being pursued currently, as those will be negotiated between SJJPA and the partner bus operating agencies. Capital costs are based on bus stop improvements to enhance the user experience.
For the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service, the estimated O&M costs are based on the SJJPA-managed approach. Given the high-cost of this approach, SJJPA is exploring other approaches to reduce O&M costs. One approach being considered would be to form an agreement with a private bus operator that would reduce or eliminate upfront costs to the SJJPA and instead incentivize the operator by allowing them to keep more of the revenues generated. No capital cost estimates are provided as this service is assumed to use the existing bus stops as is currently use by the Thruway Bus service operated by Amtrak.
114 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A September 2021 2
Operation & Maintenance Cost Assumptions Eighteen (18) daily HSR round trips are planned to operate as part of the HSR Interim Service. Connecting bus services could be provided to meet some or most HSR trains, depending on anticipated demand and and cost. Given this, three service level scenarios were established with cost estimates provided for each. Table 1 shows the service level options that were used to calculate three different operational costs.
Table 1: Bus Service Level Scenarios
Light Moderate Robust
4 round trips per day 8 round trips per day 12 round trips per day
Peak service only Approximately every 120 minutes (or every 2 hours)
Approximately every 60 minutes (or every hour), though some day hours would be skipped
Connects from/to select HSR trains in peak periods only. Similar to the current service level of comparable local bus services.
Connects from/to about half of HSR trains. Similar to the current service level of Amtrak San Joaquins.
Coordinated 60-minute pulse schedule during peak periods plus significant off-peak service with HSR trains.
Source: AECOM 2021
As with the planned HSR Interim Service, connecting bus services are assumed to be operational everyday throughout the year, including weekends and holidays with the same service levels every day of the week.
To account for the differences in O&M costs between routes with different service characteristics, the O&M cost assumptions are based on pre-pandemic Thruway Bus O&M costs with a similar route length and that serve a similar market.1 An existing per-mile cost from established routes and a base rate was established $4.56 (based on FY 17), which was escalated to FY 2020 to $5.06 (inflation was assumed at 3.5% per year). Then a nominal 5% cost multiplier was added to the cost estimates to account for the fact the average route of Thruway Buses is somewhat longer on average than the routes under evaluation, which would lead to a higher percentage of dwell time at the end of the routes than the Thruway Buses.Based on these assumptions, the cost-per-mile is estimated to be $5.31 for the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service. The O&M costs are derived by multiplying the per-mile estimated cost by the route miles and the number of trips (either 4, 8, or 12, depending on what service-level scenario is applied).
There are two exceptions to the $5.31 per mile rate. First is the Tulare Loop Extension (a variation of the Kings-Tulare–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service Since the Tulare
1 The O&M Costs are based on Thruway Bus routes between Bakersfield-Santa Barbara and Visalia-Santa Maria. Source: SJPPA Board Meeting Packet (May 2020), Item “Analysis for San Joaquins Thruway Bus Routes Recommendations for Change”. Note: Revenue data (annual revenue dollar and annual service mile) was used and the farebox recovery rate to estimate (i.e. back-calculate) the annual O&M cost of each Thruway Bus route.
115 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A September 2021 3
Loop Extension is closer to the average Thruway Bus route length (62 miles) than the other proposed routes, it is estimated the cost-per-mile for this variation is slightly lower at $4.96.2 Additionally, the Kings-Tulare–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service is an even longer route (156 miles), with an estimated the cost-per-mile of $4.733 per mile.
Capital Cost Assumptions The primary capital costs to implement the bus service would be related to bus stop improvements. As mentioned above, bus stop improvement were only assessed for the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service (including the Tulare Loop) and the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service. Most of the proposed bus stops would be located at existing transit centers that already have passenger amenities. However, some of the proposed stand-alone bus stops would need further upgrades, such as shelters and benches, to provide a consistent experience and feel to all bus stops.
As shown in Table 2, capital cost assumptions for the shelters, benches, and signs were developed. The assumed unit costs are based on prevailing market prices for each physical component. All unit costs include the cost of materials, labor, and administration. The cost estimate for a shelter includes the cost for pavement upgrades that would be required to install the shelter. The cost estimate for signage includes the design costs.
Table 2: Capital Unit Cost Assumptions 4
Bus Stop Amenity Unit Cost Shelter $36,000 Bench $4,000 Signage $2,500
Source: AECOM 2021
For stops located at an existing transit center that already has a bench and a shelter, it is assumed that the only capital investment the stop would need would be signage. For bus stops that do not have a bench and/or shelter, the capital costs account for adding the additional amenities.
It is assumed that buses and bus maintenance facilities would be provided by the bus service providers; therefore, bus maintenance facilities are excluded from the capital cost estimates. All capital costs for proposed bus stops located at future HSR stations are assumed to be covered as part of the HSR station construction budget. Therefore, no capital costs are identified at HSR stations.
2 The per mile rate of $4.96 was arrived at by adjusting the base rate down to $4.26 per mile. Then the adjusted base rate was escalating to $4.73 (from FY 17 to FY 20). Then the 5% multiplier was added, for an assumed per mile cost of $4.96. 3 The per mile rate of $4.73 was arrived at by adjusting the base rate down to $4.26 per mile. Then the adjusted base rate was escalated to $4.73 (from FY 17 to FY 20). Note, the 5% multiplier not applied to this route given its length is more typical of Amtrak Thruway route costs. 4 Shelter Cost: https://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BusReport_Spreads.pdf (page 12) describes a shelter cost to be between $2,000 and $15,000, and we inflated the highest figure to account for higher labor and admin cost, additional contingency and adjust for inflation, to come up with a conservative high-level estimate of $36,000 per shelter. Bench Cost: https://www.occoutdoors.com/benches/bus-stop-benches/ Material cost around $1,000 per bench. Inflated to account for additional installation labor and admin cost. Signage Cost: rough estimate with additional labor and admin cost inflation added. Material cost should be approximately $200 per sign.
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A September 2021 4
Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service – Bus Stop Assumptions The Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service was assumed to have three bus stops, with the potential to add a fourth at the Tulare Transit Center by creating a loop serivce. Bus stops would be located at either an existing transit stop or a planned HSR station, which will allow the system to leverage existing infrastructure. Table 3 summarizes existing bus stop conditions and potential upgrades needed to implement the bus service.
Table 3: Kings/ Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Serivce – Bus Stop Improvements
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A September 2021 5
Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service – Bus Stop Assumptions The Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service was assumed to have three bus stops. Each bus stop is assumed to be located at either an existing transit stop or a planned HSR station, which would allow the system to leverage existing infrastructure. Table 4 summarizes the existing bus stop conditions and potential upgrades needed to implement the bus service.
Table 4: Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Serivce – Bus Stop Improvements
3 Bakersfield HSR F Street and Golden State Avenue
Stop constructed with HSR station
N/A N/A N/A
Source: AECOM 2021
.
118 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A September 2021 6
Summary of Costs Based on the assumptions describd above, Tables 5 summarizes the estimated capital costs and O&M costs for Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran, Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast, and Wasco–Bakersfield Connecting Bus Services.
Table 5: Summary of Capital and O&M Cost Estimations (2020 dollars)
As mentioned above, the cost estimates for the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service were taken directly from the 2018 CVC Plan, and are summarized below in Table 6.
Table 6: CVC Bus Service Costs from 2018 CVC Plan5
Proposed Route Estimated Capital Costs Annual Operating Cost Cross Valley Corridor Bus Service
$8.4 to $12 million $5 million
Source: AECOM 2021
5 Service assumptions from the 2018 CVC Plan include every day service running from 6 am to 11pm, with 30 minute headways at peak and 60 minute headways off-peak.
119 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix C September 2021 1
APPENDIX B – OUTREACH MEETINGS During the course of South of Merced Integration Study, SJJPA conducted numerous outreach meetings with elected officials and local agencies in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties to provide updates and get input on planning concepts and to explore opportunities to partner on implementation of connecting bus and rail services. In addition, meetings were conducted with state agencies and regional advisory entities.
Outreach Meetings with Kings and Tulare Counties Entities Several meetings were conducted in Kings and Tulare Counties with elected officials and government agencies, which included Supervisors Doug Verboon and Amy Shuklian, Kings County Association of Governments, (KCAG), Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), Kings Area Rural Transit (KART), Visalia Transit and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA).
Table 1: Outreach Meetings Conducted by SJJPA with Kings and Tulare Counties Entities
Entities Date KART 6/25/20 KART 7/15/20 Supervisor Verboon and KCAG 7/16/20 Supervisor Shuklian and TCAG 7/20/20 KART 7/21/20 KCAG, KART and Visalia Transit 8/6/20 KART and Visalia Transit 8/28/20 TCAG 9/19/20 TCAG 4/14/21 KART and Visalia Transit 5/5/21 TCAG (Policy Board) and TCRTA 5/17/21 KCAG, TCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, and TCRTA 5/19/21 KCAG Policy Board 5/26/21 City of Corcoran 6/9/21 City of Hanford 6/15/21
120 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix C September 2021 2
Outreach Meetings with Kern County Entities Several meetings were conducted in Kern County with government agencies, which included Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG), the City of Wasco, and Kern Transit.
Table 2: Outreach Meetings Conducted by SJJPA with Kern County Entities
Entities Date City of Wasco 6/24/20 Kern COG 7/9/20 City of Wasco and Kern COG 7/15/20 City of Wasco and Kern COG 8/6/20 City of Wasco and Kern COG 9/30/20 Kern Transit 5/5/21
Outreach Meetings State Agencies and Regional Advisory Entities Several meetings were conducted with state agencies and regional advisory entities, which included the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail and Mass Transportation (Caltrans – DRMT), the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), Central Valley Rail Working Group and San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee.
Table 3: Outreach Meetings Conducted by SJJPA with State Agencies and Regional Advisory Entities
Entities Date Central Valley Rail Working Group 9/18/20 CalSTA 6/8/21 Caltrans – DRMT 6/14/21 California High-Speed Rail Authority 6/15/21 San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee 6/29/21 Central Valley Rail Working Group 7/9/21
121 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix C September 2021 1
APPENDIX C – COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE COST ASSUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATES This appendix documents assumptions used in developing rough-order-of-magnitude capital costs and operations and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for two possible commuter rail services considered. These are a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service and a Wasco–Bakersfield Commute Rail Service.
Capital Cost Assumptions and Estimates The commuter rail services considered, if implemented, would use a combination of existing San Joaquins stations and new in-fill rail stations along the BNSF corridor. Construction of new rail stations associated with each commuter rail service is estimated to cost between $20 million and $25 million per station6 and would consist of a new station siding track and one side platform. The re-use of existing San Joaquins stations (i.e. stations that would be used by future commuter rail service) would require them to be rebranded and reconfigured for commuter rail service. The rebranding and reconfiguration are estimated to cost between $1 million and $2 million per station.7 In addition, if any track improvements are needed within corridor to accommodate commuter rail service, the overall capital cost could significantly increase. Any track improvement costs are not included in the cost estimates included in this Study.
New rolling stock would be needed to implement commuter rail service. It is estimated that the cost of procuring a trainset that consist of one locomotive and six passenger cars would be between $25 million and $35 million.8 A new maintenance facility would also need to be constructed for each of the potential commuter rail services since they would not be connected. It is estimated that a new maintenance facility with capacity to accommodate and service one to two trainsets would cost approximately $50 million.9
Based on these assumptions, the capital cost estimates for both a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service and a Wasco–Bakersfield Commute Rail Service are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1: Estimated Capital Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service
Improvement Capital Cost Estimates (FY 2020)
Stations $3 M – $6 M
Rolling Stock $25 M – $70 M
Maintenance Facility $50 M
Total Capital Cost $78 M – $126 M Source: AECOM 2021
6 Rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates for new stations are based on cost estimates previously developed by AECOM for new Altamont Corridor Express and San Joaquins Station stations. The range is given to accommodate variations in station design. 7 Rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates for the rebranding of existing stations are very high-level and represent a broad range of elements that could be considered, such as new types of canopies, signage, shelters, number of benches, etc. 8 A range of cost estimates for trainsets were estimated based on different rolling stock types and the fact that a variety of features can be requested as part of an order for rolling stock. Also, prices can vary if an order is combined with a larger order. 9 Maintenance facility costs estimates are based on previous estimates done by AECOM for maintenance facilities related to ACE and San Joaquins rail systems.
122 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix C September 2021 2
Table 2: Estimated Capital Cost for Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service
Improvement Capital Cost Estimates (FY 2020)
Stations $42 M – $54 M
Rolling Stock $25 M – $70 M
Maintenance Facility $50 M
Total Capital Cost $117 M – $174 M Source: AECOM 2021
Operations and Maintenance Cost Assumptions The commuter rail O&M cost estimates include three cost categories:
• Agency cost items • Cost-per-mile items • Other unit cost items
Agency cost items and other unit cost items represent the cost of operating a rail agency. The cost-per-mile Items category represents the cost of actual rail operations, such as fuels, maintenance, passenger services, and dispatching. These costs are based on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) 2020 ACE operating budget.
An additional multiplier was added to the commuter rail O&M cost estimates to account for the overhead costs of establishing and operating a new agency. Since overhead costs can vary depending on a multitude of factors, a low-end and high-end multiplier for the cost estimates was identified. For the Agency Cost Items and Other Unit Cost Items categories, the low-end multiplier was 0.3 while the high-end multiplier was 0.5.
The cost-per-mile items cost estimates assume two daily round trips on weekdays for each proposed service. For the Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service, this means two trains would run from Corcoran to Fresno during the morning peak, and two trains would run from Fresno to Corcoran during the evening peak. For the Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service, this means two trains would run from Wasco to Bakersfield during the morning peak, and two trains would run from Bakersfield to Wasco during the evening peak.
The other unit cost items for contract services include maintenance and improvement cost for stations and the agency office, operating leases, insurance and management fees, and cost for Federal Rail Administration (FRA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) drug testing program.
Based on these assumptions, the operations and maintenance cost estimates for both a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service and a Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.
123 of 176
Final South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix C September 2021 3
Table 1: Estimated O&M Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service
O&M Cost Estimates Lower-bound Estimate (FY 2020)
Upper-bound Estimate (FY 2020)
Agency Cost Items $ 1.5 M $ 2.5 M
Cost-per-mile Items $ 3.2 M $ 3.2 M
Other Unit Cost Items $ 2.6 M $ 2.7 M
Total Annual O&M Cost $ 7.3 M $ 8.4 M Source: AECOM 2021
Table 23: Estimated O&M Cost for Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service
O&M Cost Estimates Lower-bound Est. (FY 2020) Upper-bound Est. (FY 2020)
Agency Cost Items $ 1.5 M $ 2.5 M
Cost-per-mile Items $ 1.8 M $ 1.8 M
Other Unit Cost Items $ 2.6 M $ 2.7 M
Total Annual O&M Cost $ 5.9 M $ 7.0 M Source: AECOM 2021
124 of 176
SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVING THE FINAL SOUTH OF MERCED INTEGRATION STUDY REPORT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY NETWORK
INTEGRATION IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, CalSTA included $1 million in Network Integration planning funds as
part of the April 2018 “Valley Rail” Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) award in April 2018. It is intended to address network integration opportunities, including development of improved connections to other rail and transit services and consideration of network integration improvements throughout the Central Valley, as well as enhancements to disadvantaged communities/priority populations; and
WHEREAS, the “South of Merced Integration Study” is a key part of the Network
Integration planning effort focusing on network integration in Kings, Tulare, and Kern counites after the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Interim Service begins operations between Merced and Bakersfield; and
WHEREAS, the three key components to the South of Merced Integration Study were to explore options to provide bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service, review and assist in the integration and implementation of the Cross Valley Rail Project, and to assess possible complementary regional uses for existing BNSF slots South of Merced; and
WHEREAS, SJJPA staff is not aware of any additional comments or suggested edits regarding the Draft South of Merced Integration Study Report that was included in the July 23, 2021 Board briefing materials; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Approves the Final South of Merced Integration Study Report for Central Valley Network Integration Improvements and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 24th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
125 of 176
_____________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair
126 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 8 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) for the Implementation of the South of Merced Integration Study Recommendations and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project The “South of Merced Integration Study” is a key part of the SJJPA/SJRRC Network Integration planning effort. This study effort focused on network integration in Kings, Tulare, and Kern counites after the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Interim Service begins operations between Merced and Bakersfield. This study is particularly important since SJJPA expects to truncate the San Joaquins service at Merced once HSR Interim Service begins operations, thereby eliminating passenger rail service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco (which will not have HSR stations). To carry out the South of Merced Integration Study effort, SJJPA staff coordinated with Tulare County Association of Governments (SJJPA Member Agency for Tulare County) and Kings County Association of Governments (SJJPA Member Agency for Kings County), as well as Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA), Kern Council of Governments, Kern Transit, and the cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco. Based upon the findings and recommendations of the Draft South of Merced Study Report, Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) requested that SJJPA develop a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the SJJPA and Kings/Tulare agencies in order to help facilitate the implementation of the recommendations of the South of Merced Integration Study. A draft Kings/Tulare MOU was included in the July 23, 2021 Board Packet that had been reviewed by TCAG, KCAG, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and TCRTA in advance of the Board Packet being sent to the Board and posted on the SJJPA website. After additional communications with the agencies named in the Kings/Tulare MOU, staff is recommending no edits to the draft MOU. Staff is unaware of additional comments or suggested edits from the public or other agencies. Please see the attached draft MOU for Board approval. If approved, a clean version will be signed by the SJJPA Chair and sent to the other agencies named in the MOU for their approval and signature. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact from approving the MOU. Any commitment to coordinate with partnerships will be brought before the board if over the Executive Director’s threshold.
127 of 176
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) for the Implementation of the South of Merced Integration Study Recommendations and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
128 of 176
Page 1 of 6
1535797-1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE
TULARE COUNTY ASSOICATION OF GOVERNMENTS, TULARE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSIT AGENCY, KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, KINGS
COUNTY AREA PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCY, VISALIA TRANSIT AND
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
TO ESTABLISH THE PROCESS AND ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR INTEGRATING THE CROSS-VALLEY CORRIDOR PLAN, THE SAN JOAQUINS, AND
CONNECTIVITY TO THE STATE’S FUTURE HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into by and between the Tulare County Association of Governments, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, Kings County Association of Governments, Kings County Area Public Transit Agency, Visalia Transit, and San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (referred to herein collectively as the “Participants”) to facilitate coordination in establishing the roles and responsibilities for integrating the Cross-Valley Corridor Plan, the San Joaquins Thruway bus services, and connectivity to the future State High-Speed Rail Service.
PERTINENT ENTITIES
Tulare County Association of Governments (Referred to in this MOU as “TCAG”): the agency responsible for metropolitan transportation planning for the Tulare County region, including planning for and addressing the mobility needs of the County’s growing population. Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (Referred to in this MOU as “TCRTA”): the agency responsible for providing public transit service to the County of Tulare and cities of Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, and Woodlake. Kings County Association of Governments (Referred to in this MOU as “KCAG”): the agency responsible for metropolitan transportation planning for the Kings County region, including planning for and addressing the mobility needs of the County’s growing population. Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (Referred to in this MOU as “KCAPTA”): the agency responsible for providing public transit service to the cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, Lemoore, and the unincorporated communities of Armona, Grangeville, Hardwick, Kettleman City, Laton, and Stratford. The City of Visalia (Referred to in this MOU as “COV”): the agency responsible for the governance, planning, implementation, operation and maintenance of the Visalia Transit service. San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (Referred to in this MOU as “SJJPA”): the agency responsible for the governance, operation and maintenance of the San Joaquins intercity passenger rail service.
129 of 176
Page 2 of 6
1535797-1
GENERAL BACKGROUND
In 2016, TCAG initiated the Cross Valley Plan (”Plan”) to study the connectivity and mobility improvements in the Central Valley. Its aim was to increase transit service efficiency, enable communities and cities within the Cross Valley Corridor (“Corridor”) to promote development that supports transit usage, encourage revitalization and economic development, and facilitate growth in support of the California High-Speed Rail (“HSR”) investment.
The Corridor would follow the existing freight rail corridor (“San Joaquin Valley Railroad tracks”) from Huron to Porterville, which also roughly parallels much of State Routes 198 and 65 located in central California. The Corridor would include the proposed Kings/Tulare Regional High-Speed Rail Station and would benefit the region by potentially linking the communities to each other. These cities and communities include Huron, Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, Goshen, Visalia, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, and Porterville. Unincorporated communities of Armona and Strathmore may also be served by transit stops. There is also a desire to provide easy transit connections to the Cities of Tulare, Dinuba, and Woodlake by utilizing their existing downtown transit centers.
This project enabled TCAG to evaluate a range of new public transit service alternatives that would be able to accommodate future population and economic growth, while being compatible with existing land uses and future development opportunities. By planning for a Corridor transit system well in advance, right-of-way and land needs can be identified and protected now, avoiding costly acquisitions or eminent domain processes later. In 2018, the Final Plan was adopted by TCAG.
The Plan focuses on the development of two components 1) a passenger rail system (“Cross Valley Rail Service”) on a 75-mile segment of the San Joaquin Valley Railroad tracks running between Huron and Porterville with multiple stations along its route, and 2) integrate passenger bus service (“Bus Service”) in the Corridor with the Cross Valley Rail Service and the planned Kings/Tulare Regional HSR station.
The San Joaquins Amtrak passenger rail service runs north and south through the San Joaquin Valley between Bakersfield, Sacramento, and Oakland (“San Joaquins System”) with multiple stations located therein between, together with a thruway bus system throughout the San Joaquins System. Two (2) of the San Joaquins stations are located within the Corridor: downtown Hanford and downtown Corcoran with thruway bus service between Visalia, the Hanford Amtrak station, and the Central Coast. SJJPA expects to truncate the San Joaquins at Merced once the Merced-Bakersfield HSR Interim Service is in service, making Merced its southern terminus and connecting the San Joaquins at Merced to HSR. SJJPA desires to continue to provide connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR station to Hanford, Corcoran, and Visalia, and other Kings/Tulare communities traditionally served by San Joaquins Thruway buses.
The Participants have discussed the potential advantages working together to implement integrated, enhanced local/regional bus service in the Corridor that provides connectivity to the
130 of 176
Page 3 of 6
1535797-1
future Kings/Tulare HSR Station and development and ultimately the operation of the Cross Valley passenger rail service along the San Joaquins System. In addition, the Participants have discussed the possibility of retaining the SJJPA to serve as the operator of the Cross Valley Rail Service. In order to begin the planning process to accomplish these objectives, the Participants desire to enter into this MOU for the purposes of memorializing the understanding of the Participants and establish a framework to negotiate agreements establishing their roles and responsibilities for the successful implementation of the objects contained in this MOU.
RECITALS
A. Whereas, in 2018 TCAG adopted the Plan to develop a rail system and bus service within
the Corridor; and B. Whereas, the implementation of coordinated bus service within the Corridor will connect to
the planned Cross Valley Rail System, and the State’s future HSR System; and C. Whereas, the implementation of the Cross Valley Rail System will provide regional service
over 75 miles of track, connection of multiple communities within the Corridor between Huron and Porterville; and
D. Whereas, the cities of Hanford, and Corcoran have been served by the San Joaquins stations for many years and should be provided good connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station; and
E. Whereas, the residents within and visiting the Corridor will benefit from the development and implementation of the Plan and additional bus connectivity by providing a coordinated and integrated transit system providing riders with transit options within and outside the Corridor; and
F. Whereas, the Participants desire to work together to develop and implement the objectives in the Plan;
G. Whereas, the Participants are interested and desire to pursue a coordinated implementation strategy to provide improved transit service, connecting the communities within the Corridor with each other, the Cross Valley Rail System, HSR and the San Joaquins; and
H. Whereas, the Participants desire to memorialize in this non-binding MOU their shared understanding for the development of the Plan; and
I. Whereas, the Participants intend to utilize this MOU as the next step in implementing the Plan and expect that this process will be collaborative and iterative; and
J. Whereas, the Participants desire to memorialize in this non-binding MOU their shared commitment to negotiate agreements establishing the roles and responsibilities for the Participants regarding the implementation of the Plan as it develops.
131 of 176
Page 4 of 6
1535797-1
K. Whereas, the Participants are interested in potentially retaining the SJJPA as the Operating Agency of the Rail System due to its experience in its operations of the San Joaquins as well as its managing agency, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, development and operation of the ACE commuter rail service between San Joaquin, Alameda and Santa Clara counties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTICIPANTS SHARE THE FOLLOWING UNDERSTANDING:
Bus System:
• Further develop coordinated bus service along the Corridor, and helping them run more efficiently to serve three counties (Kings, Tulare, and Fresno). This network includes Huron, NAS Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, Porterville, Dinuba, Woodlake, and Tulare.
• To continue to provide direct connection to downtown Hanford and downtown Corcoran to intercity passenger rail service once HSR Interim Service begins, SJJPA proposes to request state funds to enable timed bus connections from Corcoran and Hanford to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while also increasing bus connectivity between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and Visalia.
• SJJPA intends to partner with the following existing local/regional transit operators: KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency regarding feeder bus service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Visalia. SJJPA intends to request state funds to contribute to a larger, more frequent, and coordinated bus service that will coincide with the opening of Merced-Bakersfield HSR Interim Service. This partnership to enhance bus service will be key towards the implementation of Phase 1 of 2018 TCAG Cross-Valley Corridor Plan.
• SJJPA intends to work with KCAPTA and Visalia Transit to request state funding as part of the San Joaquins Thruway bus network to enhance local/regional bus service between Visalia and Hanford to improve connectivity to the existing San Joaquins service until the Merced-Bakersfield HSR Interim Service begins operations.
• Additional more detailed agreements will be needed. Parties agree to work together towards achieving common agreed upon goals.
Cross Valley Rail System:
• The Cross-Valley Rail System is a 75-mile existing rail corridor between Huron and Porterville in Kings and Tulare Counties which would connect downtown Hanford, downtown Visalia, and other Kings/Tulare cities to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station. The existing freight rail corridor is active is some segments and abandoned in others.
132 of 176
Page 5 of 6
1535797-1
The majority of the corridor is currently owned and operated by the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVRR) and existing track conditions are not suitable for passenger rail operations.
• KCAG completed a Cross Valley Passenger Rail feasibility study back in 1997 and again in 2015.
• TCAG completed the “Cross Valley Corridor Plan” in March 2018.
• Cross Valley Passenger Rail is supported in the General Plans of Tulare County and Kings County and is included in the 2018 State Rail Plan.
• SJJPA would work in partnership with TCAG and KCAG to plan, secure funding, and implement Cross-Valley Rail.
o Phase 1 is to secure environmental clearance and right-of-way protection, negotiate with freight railroads, conduct site selection and begin transit stations in communities without existing transit centers.
o Phase 2 is to implement passenger rail service between Lemoore and Visalia (with stations at Hanford and Kings/Tulare HSR Station).
o Phase 3 is to extend passenger rail service to Huron and Porterville with additional intermediate stations at NAS Lemoore, Farmersville, Exeter, and Lindsey.
• SJJPA may be identified as the Operating Agency for Cross Valley Rail.
• Additional more detailed agreements will be needed. Parties agree to work together towards achieving common agreed upon goals.
OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS The respective contact points for communication and information exchange, as well as any notice required to be submitted under this MOU are:
a. This MOU is a non-binding, voluntary initiative and does not create any legally binding rights, limitations or obligations upon the Participants. This MOU does not purport to include all provisions relative to the structure or terms of the proposed transaction or definitive documents. Rather, the Participants agree that any binding commitments in future will be memorialized in agreements as they are negotiated. Each party shall bear its own costs related to this effort unless otherwise agreed to in writing.
b. Should the Participants reach an impasse in the collaborative effort anticipated by this MOU, the contact points (identified above) will make an expeditious and good faith effort at working together to resolve the impasse. Should that effort be unsuccessful, the Participants agree to elevate the outstanding issues to their respective governing body who will then make an expeditious and good faith effort at working together to resolve the impasse.
c. This MOU is not intended to amend or impact in any way other existing written agreements or MOUs that Participants may have entered pertaining to SJJPA, ACE or the Valley Link project, in general.
d. This MOU is effective from the date of its last signature and shall remain in effect until another MOU or agreement is executed between the Participants, or one Participant withdraws from the MOU, whichever is earlier.
e. The Participants may, at any time, withdraw from this MOU by providing a written notice to the other Participant.
f. This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile, pdf., or electronic/computer-image signatures will be treated as originals.
(Signature Lines to be inserted)
134 of 176
SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(MOU) WITH TULARE COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (TCAG) AND KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (KCAG) FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOUTH OF MERCED INTEGRATION STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, SJJPA staff coordinated the South of Merced Integration Study effort with Tulare County Association of Governments (SJJPA Member Agency for Tulare County) and Kings County Association of Governments (SJJPA Member Agency for Kings County), as well as Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA), Kern Council of Governments, Kern Transit, and the cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco; and
WHEREAS, based upon the findings and recommendations of the Draft South of
Merced Study Report, Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) requested that SJJPA develop a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the SJJPA and Kings/Tulare agencies in order to help facilitate the implementation of the recommendations of the South of Merced Integration Study; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Approves a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) for the Implementation of the South of Merced Integration Study Recommendations and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 24th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY _____________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair
135 of 176
136 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 9 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (SJV RPC) to Develop Joint or Consistent Policy Positions, and Advocate for San Joaquin Valley Transportation and Air Quality Improvements and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project Background: The San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (SJV RPC) is currently comprised of the eight San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies (San Joaquin Council of Governments, Stanislaus Council of Governments, Merced County Association of Governments, Madera County Transportation Committee, Fresno Council of Governments, Kings County Association of Governments, Tulare County Association of Governments, and Kern Council of Governments), and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District). The SJV RPC is a formal cooperative relationship between the San Joaquin Valley RPAs, and the District to work closely together, develop joint or consistent policy positions, and advocate for San Joaquin Valley transportation and air quality improvements. The Valley RPAs and District agree that it is in their interest to work closely together and develop joint or consistent policy positions whenever possible when dealing with state and federal air quality and transportation agencies. The SJV RPC was a sponsoring agency of AB 1779 (the enabling legislation of the SJJPA) and has been very supportive of passenger rail in the San Joaquin Valley and SJJPA initiatives to improve passenger rail. The attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would add the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) as a member of the SJV RPC thereby increasing the membership of the Policy Council to ten agencies. SJJPA will take the lead role in the SJV RPC towards establishing and maintaining viable and efficient modes of passenger rail travel for the San Joaquin Valley. SJJPA would take the lead in coordinating with regional transportation and air quality planning efforts, securing federal and state funding for rail improvements, coordination with the High-Speed Rail Authority, and other related planning and implementation activities in consultation with the Valley RPA’s and the District. SJJPA has been informally acting in this role since its inception in 2013. Please see the attached SJV RPC MOU. The SJV RPC adopted an earlier version of this MOU at their June 25, 2021, meeting. If approved by SJJPA, the version of the MOU will be brought back to the SJV RPC for approval with an effective date of July 1, 2021. Fiscal Impact: There is no direct fiscal impact with the adoption of this MOU. However, SJJPA staff will be expected to participate in SJV RPC activities, and SJJPA will also be expected to contribute $12,000 this Fiscal Year to contribute to the funding of SJV RPC advocacy efforts.
137 of 176
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (SJV RPC) to Develop Joint or Consistent Policy Positions, and Advocate for San Joaquin Valley Transportation and Air Quality Improvements and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
138 of 176
1 | P a g e
AMENDED AND RESTATED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGIONAL POLICY COUNCIL
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”), which shall be effective
June 25, 2021, by and between the Council of Fresno County Governments, the Kern Council of Governments, the Kings County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation Commission, the Merced County Association of Governments, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Tulare County Association of Governments, collectively the “San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies” or “Valley RPAs”, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (“District”), and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (“SJJPA”), herein referred to collectively as the “San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council” or “Policy Council”, hereby enter into this Memorandum of Understanding.
Recitals
A. The San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on September 21, 1992, to create the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Policy Council which MOU was superseded and replaced by a Memorandum of Understanding dated September 21, 2006 (“2006 MOU”).
B. The 2006 MOU was superseded and replaced by a Memorandum of Understanding dated
September 9, 2009 (“2009 MOU”) and the 2009 MOU added the District as a member of the Policy Council.
C. The Policy Council now desires to add SJJPA as a member of the Policy Council.
Agreement NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree to voluntarily cooperate and coordinate as
follows:
Section 1. Replace and Supersedes. This Memorandum of Understanding supersedes and replaces that certain Memorandum of Understanding dated September 9, 2009, by and between the above listed eight valley regional planning agencies and the District. Section 2. New Member and Coordinated Role. This Memorandum of Understanding hereby adds the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority as a member of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Policy Council thereby increasing the membership of the Policy Council to ten agencies. SJJPA will take the lead in establishing and maintaining viable and efficient modes of passenger rail travel for the San Joaquin Valley including coordination with regional transportation and air quality planning efforts, securing federal and state funding for rail improvements, coordination with the High-Speed Rail Authority, and other related planning and implementation activities in consultation with the Valley RPA’s and the District.
139 of 176
2 | P a g e
Section 3. Cooperative Relationship. The formal cooperative relationship between the San Joaquin Valley RPAs, District and SJJPA is continued to ensure the effectiveness of regional transportation plans, to comply with the requirements of state and federal law, to contribute toward the attainment of federal and state ambient air quality standards, and passenger rail planning. Section 4. Air Quality Strategies and Planning.
4.1. The District has the lead for air quality planning, but effective air quality strategies require the cooperation and joint actions of the Valley RPAs, SJJPA, other local, regional, state and federal government agencies, and the people of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Toward that end, the Valley RPAs and SJJPA agree to participate in regularly scheduled conference calls with local, state and federal agencies including the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to ensure good communication is maintained on issues important to the San Joaquin Valley.
4.2. The parties involved will comply with the Federal Clean Air Act and related regulations and guidance requiring that transportation-related State Implementation Plan (SIP) development decisions be made through interagency consultation. The parties agree to use the latest planning assumptions and emissions factors, conduct regional emissions analyses, and coordinate on the development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. The Valley RPAs will work toward keeping the Transportation Conformity Rule current with federal requirements and guidance, as appropriate. The District will also assist the Valley RPAs in obtaining appropriate and timely technical assistance from the ARB.
4.3. The Valley RPAs and SJJPA agree that it is in their interest to work closely together and develop joint or consistent policy positions whenever possible when dealing with state and federal air quality and transportation agencies. Each party has the responsibility to notify the other in a timely manner of anticipated or known policy issues with state and federal agencies, and to coordinate their response in an effort to present a unified position.
4.4. The Valley RPAs will take the lead in compliance with Section 108(f)(l) of the Federal Clean Air Act in developing the transportation control measure (hereinafter “TCM”) component of air quality plans (State Implementation Plans or SIPs). The Valley RPAs and SJJPA will consult with their member jurisdictions to facilitate consensus on implementing measures to address transportation related sources of air pollution. The Valley RPAs and SJJPA have limited legal authority to implement emission reduction measures directly, but will seek commitments from member jurisdictions, as appropriate, for inclusion in air quality plans. The Valley RPAs will submit an analysis and recommendation concerning which TCMs are reasonably available control measures for formal consideration by the District.
4.5. The Valley RPAs will take the lead in establishing and maintaining transportation conformity in the Valley as required by Section 176 (c) of the federal Clean Air Act, [42U.S.C. 7506(c)] and U.S Environmental Protection Agency (40 CPR parts 51 and 93). The Valley RPAs
140 of 176
3 | P a g e
will work to ensure that regulatory requirements are met and federal funding and approval are given to highway and transit projects that are consistent with and conform to the air quality goals established by the SIP. Conforming transportation plans, programs, and projects will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
4.6. The Valley RPAs will coordinate with the District in updating the status of implementing local agency transportation control measures described in adopted air quality plans (State Implementation Plans or SIPs).
4.7. The Valley RPAs and District will work together in addressing state and federal initiatives such as greenhouse gas emission reductions as well as future air quality regulations. The parties recognize the importance and the expertise necessary to develop comprehensive local and regional approaches. The parties involved agree to dedicate staff resources as needed to cooperatively address state and federal requirements, while still meeting individual core mission elements such as protecting public health and delivering safe and efficient transportation projects.
4.8. The Valley RPAs will determine the allocation of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to projects in a manner consistent with federal law and through locally developed project selection criteria. The Valley RPAs will consult with the District on project selection. Section 5. Regional Transportation Planning. 5.1. The Valley RPAs and SJJPA will continue the coordination to develop Valley wide initiatives such as goods movement planning, Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) implementation and other regional activities to provide more efficient and effective transportation systems and land use patterns through the integration of transportation, housing, economic development and environmental protection elements and to ensure continuity of air quality planning approaches throughout the Valley.
5.2. The Valley RPAs and SJJPA agree to discuss key issues related to air quality and delivery of transportation projects. If staff level coordination is not adequate to achieve a unified position, either party has the option of bringing issues to senior management attention.
Section 6. Coordination of Legislative Efforts. The Policy Council agrees it is in its best interest to work on the coordination of legislative action at the state and federal level. These efforts will be directed at maximizing funding for the San Joaquin Valley. To implement these efforts, the Policy Council will collectively act as an advocacy coalition and focus its efforts on areas guided by the Policy Council.
Section 7. Resolution of Disputes. In order to reduce and resolve conflicts that may arise between the Valley RPAs, District or SJJPA in a timely manner, each party agrees to establish an issues resolution coordination procedure within its own organization. Each party will designate a policy- level staff person as the point of contact or “Issues Coordinator”. When either party believes a conflict exists or is emerging, it is their responsibility to alert the other party through its Issues
141 of 176
4 | P a g e
Coordinator. Each party will choose its own manner of communicating internally, but communications between the parties will be coordinated through the Issues Coordinators. If staff level coordination is not adequate to achieve a common position, either party has the option of bringing issues to senior management attention. Section 8. Severability. If any portion of this MOU or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or if it is found in contravention of any Federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations the remaining provisions of this MOU or the application thereof shall not be invalidated thereby and shall remain in full force and effect to the extent that the provisions of this MOU are severable. Section 9. Amendment. This MOU may be modified, amended, changed, added to, or subtracted from by the mutual consent of the parties hereto if such amendment or change is in written form and executed with the same formalities as this MOU and attached to the original MOU to maintain continuity.
Section 10. Counterparts and Electronic Signatures.
10.1. This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
10.2. Each party agrees that this MOU and any other documents to be delivered in connection herewith may be electronically signed, and that any electronic signatures appearing on this MOU or such other documents are the same as handwritten signatures for the purposes of validity, enforceability, and admissibility.
***Signatures contained on next page***
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
142 of 176
5 | P a g e
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be executed by their respective officers to be effective on the date first written above.
Council of Fresno County Governments By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
San Joaquin Council of Governments By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
Kern Council of Governments By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
Stanislaus Council of Governments By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
Kings County Association of Governments By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
Tulare County Association of Governments By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
Madera County Transportation Commission By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
143 of 176
6 | P a g e
Merced County Association of Governments By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Its Executive Director
144 of 176
SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY TO ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGIONAL POLICY COUNCIL (SJV
RPC) TO DEVELOP JOINT OR CONSISTENT POLICY POSITIONS, AND ADVOCATE FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (SJV RPC) is
currently comprised of eight San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs); and
WHEREAS, SJV RPC is a formal cooperative relationship between the San Joaquin Valley RPAs, and the District to work closely together, develop joint or consistent policy positions, and advocate for San Joaquin Valley transportation and air quality improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would add the San
Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) as a member of the SJV RPC; and WHEREAS, with adoption of the MOU, SJJPA would take the lead in coordinating
with regional transportation and air quality planning efforts, securing federal and state funding for rail improvements, coordination with the High-Speed Rail Authority, and other related planning and implementation activities in consultation with the Valley RPA’s and the District; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Adopts a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (SJV RPC) to Develop Joint or Consistent Policy Positions, and Advocate for San Joaquin Valley Transportation and Air Quality Improvements and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
145 of 176
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 24th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY _____________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair
146 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 10 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Modify the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network Operations and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project Background: The San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network is one of the nation’s largest intercity thruway bus networks. It has grown over decades starting initially with connections between the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, to today with over a dozen routes serving over one hundred communities from Arcata in the North and San Diego in the South. During the expansion of this network, certain routes of have lost their ridership growth due to a variety of reasons, including shifting housing patterns, and new competing transportation modes. With the COVID-19 pandemic, those routes that were struggling to stay viable pre-pandemic became even less so during stay-at-home orders and business closures. SJJPA staff has evaluated the operational costs, ridership, and revenue generation of the Thruway Bus Network and put together a list of recommendations for Board action to maintain the viability of the overall Thruway Bus Network by reducing operational costs on underperforming routes while maintaining services in strong ridership corridors and markets. Since the July 2021 SJJPA Board Meeting, staff has received feedback on plans to modify the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network from key stakeholders, members of the public, and regional and local agencies. Staff received comments during the July 2021 Board Meeting (see meeting minutes for July 2021 Board Meeting in the Board Packet), as well as comments from staff at Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transit. Based on these comments received, staff have modified some of the language and recommendations for this Board action. Recommendations for Board Action:
• Route 1A (Bakersfield – Los Angeles – San Diego): Maintain current levels of service and expand with additional trains as they are returned to service. No changes to the route. • Route 1B (Bakersfield – Los Angeles – Long Beach – San Pedro): Currently, this route does not make stops beyond Los Angeles Union Station. Staff recommends continuing to only serve up to LA Union Station (563.5 riders/day FY17) for the foreseeable future. Work with local transit partners is ongoing to help passengers with utilizing LA Metro system for connections to Long Beach (15.9 riders/day FY17) and San Pedro (2.2 riders/day FY17). • Route 1C (Bakersfield – Van Nuys – West LA): Pre-COVID, this route served communities in the San Fernando Valley and West Los Angeles. Today, the route is serving LA Union Station. In early 2020, staff brought before the Board plans to truncate Route 1C to serve Santa Monica and discontinue service to low ridership stops of Westchester (1.74 riders/day average FY17), El Segundo (2.11 riders/day average FY17), and Torrance (2.53 riders/day average FY17). Coming out of the
147 of 176
pandemic, staff will restart those plans to bring back Route 1C to West LA with the service ending in Santa Monica. • Route 3 (Stockton – Sacramento – Chico – Redding): No changes to service recommended at this time. As part of previously discussed planning efforts, SJJPA staff is working in partnership with Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) to bring new bus services between Redding and Sacramento along the I-5 corridor. Once this service is in operation, the current Route 3 service will be truncated to Chico. • Route 6 (Stockton – Dublin/Pleasanton – Fremont – San Jose): Pre-COVID, Route 6 ran 4 daily round trips, this was reduced to 2 daily round trips during the pandemic. Staff is recommending maintaining Route 6 on 2 daily round trips for the foreseeable future. In the 2020 SJJPA Business Plan, funding was approved for a new route that would serve the San Jose region with a connection from Merced via Los Banos and Gilroy. In 2022, staff will begin steps to bring this new route into service that will provide faster connections for San Jose passengers. • Route 7 (Martinez – Santa Rosa – Arcata): In response to the pandemic, SJJPA initiated plans to truncate Route 7 to no longer to serve McKinleyville (1.29 riders/day FY17) as well as removing the stops of Rio Dell-Scotia (1.11 riders/day FY17), and Leggett (0.26 riders/day FY17) in order to bring this route into operating rules for thruway bus drivers trip times and to reduce costs. With the return of in-class education anticipated for the upcoming fall semester, staff has added an additional stop in Arcata at Humboldt State University. • Route 9 (Bakersfield – Las Vegas): This route is currently in an interline service agreement between the bus vendor and Amtrak. This agreement has allowed for the route to continue in operation during the pandemic, and for the operations costs to be shifted to the bus vendor in exchange for a portion of bus revenue generated from the route. Staff recommends we continue this interline service agreement to save costs for the JPA and the State. • Route 10 (Bakersfield – Santa Barbara): This route is currently in an interline service agreement between the bus vendor and Amtrak. This agreement has allowed for the route to continue in operation during the pandemic and for the operations costs to be shifted to the bus vendor in exchange for a portion of bus revenue generated from the route. Staff recommends we continue this interline service agreement to save costs for the JPA and the State. • Route 12 (Bakersfield – Palmdale – Victorville): Before the pandemic, Route 12 was identified as a route that did not meet financial viability of cost recovery compared to its operational costs. Cost to operate this route pre-COVID was $820,263, while total state revenue this route contributed was $537,886 in FY18 (See Attachment FY2018 Results by Thruway Route). This annual loss $315,381 has meant that Route 12 was suspended during the pandemic and coming out of the pandemic staff is recommending that the suspension of the service remain for the foreseeable future. As future developments take place for potential rail projects in the Route 12 region, SJJPA could reinitiate service in this corridor, but at this time it is recommended that the Route 12 service not be brought back into operations. As part of SJJPA’s South of Merced Study, staff is recommending having discussions with Kern Transit to see if there is a
148 of 176
partnership opportunity for bus connections between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley.
• Route 15 (Merced – Mariposa – Yosemite Valley): This route is managed and operated by the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and connects with San Joaquins rail service at the Merced Station. SJJPA staff works with YARTS staff to improve connections at Merced Station as schedule changes occur between the two services. Staff will continue to monitor changes made to the YARTS network and enhance connectivity between the two services. No recommended changes at this time. • Route 18 (Visalia – Hanford – San Luis Obispo – Santa Maria): This route is currently in an interline service agreement between the bus vendor and Amtrak. This agreement has allowed for the route to continue in operation during the pandemic, and for the operations costs to be shifted to the bus vendor in exchange for a portion of bus revenue generated from the route. Recently, the vendor has made Amtrak and SJJPA staff aware of the potential for the vendor to cease operations of the route as the revenue generated from the route has not covered the operational costs. Staff is recommending maintaining service on Route 18, the JPA will provide a revenue guarantee to the vendor to make sure the vendor’s costs are covered by a combination of bus revenue and JPA operational funds. Staff is also recommending initiating a partnership with Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) and Visalia Transit to fund increased connectivity between Hanford and Visalia. Further details on this partnership are outlined in the South of Merced Study Draft Report which is included in this board packet. • Route 19 (Bakersfield – Pasadena – Riverside – San Bernardino): Pre-COVID, Route 19 operated a split route schedule that served two extensions beyond the core route between Bakersfield and San Bernardino. Those extensions to the Palm Springs area and Hemet area contributed minor amounts of ridership and revenue to the overall route’s performance and added considerable operational costs. Staff is recommending truncating this route to have all buses end in San Bernardino for the foreseeable future. For passengers looking to connect beyond San Bernardino, local and regional transit connections can be utilized to complete those trips. • Route 34 (Stockton – Oakland – San Francisco): This route is currently suspended due the suspension of the Sacramento-bound San Joaquins trains that these route buses were connected to. In looking at the viability of this route before the pandemic, the route was under performing and staff is recommending continued suspension of this service when the Sacramento-bound trains return to service (See Attachment FY2018 Results by Thruway Route).
• Route 40 (Merced – Los Banos – Gilroy – San Jose): Prior to the pandemic, the Board approved plans to begin service of a new thruway bus route between Merced and San Jose along State Route 152 and State Route 101 through the communities Los Banos and Gilroy. This route will enhance travel times for passengers traveling to and from the South Bay Area to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Staff is recommending initiating this service in 2022.
• Route 99 (Emeryville – San Francisco): No changes to service recommended at this time.
149 of 176
Fiscal Impact: The staff recommendations, if approved, would reduce the overall annual cost of the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network. San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Annual Business Plan FY21/22 Operations Budget would see reduced operational costs in FY 21/22 for Amtrak Operations. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Modify the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network Operations and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
150 of 176
151 of 176
SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE SAN JOAQUINS THRUWAY BUS
NETWORK OPERATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, during the expansion of the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network, certain routes lost their ridership growth due to a variety of reasons; and WHEREAS, staff has evaluated the operational costs, ridership, and revenue generation of the Thruway Bus Network and put together a list of recommendations for Board action; and WHEREAS, Board approved modifications to the Thruway Bus Network operations will maintain the viability of the overall Thruway Bus Network by reducing operational costs on underperforming routes while maintaining services in strong ridership corridors and markets; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVLED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Modifies the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network Operations and Authorizes the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the SJJPA on this 24th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY ____________________________ __________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair
152 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 11 ACTION
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Allow Passengers to Purchase Bus-Only Tickets for Bus Stop Pairs to/from Santa Monica, Excluding the Westwood – Santa Monica Bus Stop Pair Which is Well Served by Local/Regional Transit and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project
Background:
Senate Bill 742 (SB 742) was introduced by Senator Allen on February 22, 2019. SB 742 was passed by the Legislature in September 2019 and signed by the Governor on October 8, 2019. A purpose of SB 742 was to remove portions of Section 14035.55 of the CA Government Code which require state supported Amtrak Thruway bus passengers to have a rail trip as part of their ticket.
Section 14035.55(c) as amended enables the Joint Power Authorities (San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor, and LOSSAN) to pick up and drop off passengers on their Amtrak intercity thruway bus routes without requiring them to have a train ticket as part of their trip. Section 14035.55 as amended will increase revenues for the state at virtually no additional cost, will provide improved access to priority and underserved communities, and will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and air pollution emissions by diverting trips that would have previously been taken by an automobile. This change will also provide better utilization of current infrastructure and reduce congestion on some of the nation’s most congested freeways.
As discussed at the November 22, 2019 SJJPA Board Meeting, the implementation of SB 742 will need to be phased in over time. It is not practicable to offer bus-only tickets on all Thruway bus routes at the same time. SJJPA took action at the January 24, 2020 and March 27, 2020 Board Meetings to approve bus-only ticketing on a number of Thruway Bus routes. Approval for additional routes was halted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the capacity restrictions which were enforced during much of the pandemic. Staff is now planning to have Amtrak begin to offer bus-only ticketing on routes that were approved in early 2020. Approval for additional regular routes will be sought at subsequent SJJPA Board Meetings until all of the regular routes are able to offer bus-only tickets.
At the March 27, 2020 Board Meeting, SJJPA took action to initiate the implementation of SB 742 on Route 1c (Bakersfield – Van Nuys – West Los Angeles - Torrance). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, SJJPA initiated service reductions and changes to a number of routes, including Route 1c. An action taken on May 29, 2020 by SJJPA stipulated that the new terminus of Route 1c would be in Santa Monica. The SJJPA is expected to approve making Santa Monica the terminus location for Route 1c for the
153 of 176
foreseeable future at the September 24, 2021 Board Meeting. Additional action is needed by SJJPA to enable bus-only tickets for bus pairs to/from Santa Monica. See Figures 1 & 2 which show Route 1c prior to the pandemic and the current Route 1c (with the Santa Monica terminus).
Figure 1: Route 1c Prior to the Pandemic
Figure 2: Current Route 1c
Route 1c: Bakersfield – Van Nuys – Santa Monica:
The Bakersfield – Van Nuys – Santa Monica route has stops at: Bakersfield, Santa Clarita/Newhall, Hollywood Burbank Airport, Van Nuys, Westwood, and Santa Monica
154 of 176
(see Figure 2). Route 1c has four daily round trips (see Attachment 1). Based on staff research, it appears that none of the existing bus stop pairs for Route 1c to/from Santa Monica are served by other private bus operators. Attachment 2 documents the Route 1c research to/from Santa Monica and communications with private and public transit providers.
LA Metro offers frequent/low-cost passenger rail service, and Big Blue Bus offers frequent/low-cost bus service between Westwood and Santa Monica. Staff proposes not to offer bus-only tickets between Westwood and Santa Monica since this is a relatively short-distance market and this Route 1c bus stop pair is better served by LA Metro and Big Blue Bus.
The proposed fare grid for Route 1c bus tickets to/from Santa Monica is shown on Table 1. A minimum fare of $5 is proposed. Fares are shown for only the bus stop pairs being proposed for selling bus tickets.
Table 1: Proposed Fare Grid for Route 1c Bus Pairs to/from Santa Monica
Santa Monica
Rounded
Bakersfield
$ 19.00 Santa Clarita-
Newhall $ 7.75
Burbank (Hollywood
Airport)
$ 5.00
Van Nuys $ 5.00
Westwood-UCLA
-----------
Santa Monica
------------
Consultation and Coordination:
For Route 1c bus pairs to/from Santa Monica, there are no direct privately operated bus services. Nevertheless, staff made a good faith effort to coordinate with Greyhound and FlixBus (see Attachment 2). Only the Westwood – Santa Monica bus stop pair has direct public transportation (provided by both LA Metro and Big Blue Bus). Communications with LA Metro and Big Blue Bus are also included in Attachment 2.
155 of 176
Staff requests the SJJPA Board take action to move forward with directing Amtrak to begin offering tickets to passengers for the Route 1c bus pairs to/from Santa Monica with the exception of the Westwood – Santa Monica bus stop pair which is well served by local/regional transit.
Fiscal Impact: Enabling bus tickets to be sold will result in increased Thruway bus ridership and additional revenue for the San Joaquins service. Recommendation:
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to Allow Passengers to Purchase Bus-Only Tickets for Bus Stop Pairs to/from Santa Monica, Excluding the Westwood – Santa Monica Bus Stop Pair Which is Well Served by Local/Regional Transit and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
156 of 176
ATTACHMENT 1:
Schedule for Route 1c (Effective October 18, 2021)
Route 1c: ROUTE 1C - NORTHBOUND Train/Bus Number 5915 5917 5919 5903 Santa Monica Pier - Metro E/Colorado 8:05 AM 9:55 AM 11:55 AM 1:45 PM
Westwood-UCLA 8:35 AM 10:25 AM 12:25 PM 2:15 PM
Van Nuys 9:10 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 2:50 PM
Burbank Airport 9:30 AM 11:20 AM 1:20 PM 3:10 PM
Santa Clarita/Newhall-Metrolink 9:55 AM 11:45 AM 1:45 PM 3:35 PM
Documentation of Bakersfield – Van Nuys – Santa Monica (Route 1c) Research and SJJPA Efforts to Communicate and Coordinate with Private and Public Motor Carrier Services regarding bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica:
Route 12 Research:
An internet search was done for the bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica on Route 1c using Google. In addition, searches were done directly on the Greyhound and Flixbus websites for the bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica. It was concluded that Big Blue Bus and LA Metro have frequent/low cost direct service for the Westwood – Santa Monica bus stop pair.
Bakersfield-Van Nuys-Santa Monica (Route 1c) – Details regarding other services for the bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica:
• Bakersfield – Santa Monica: no direct Greyhound service; no direct Flixbus service; no local or regional transit
• Santa Clarita-Newhall – Santa Monica: no direct Greyhound service; no direct Flixbus service; no direct local or regional transit
• Hollywood Burbank Airport – Santa Monica: no direct Greyhound service; no direct Flixbus service; no direct local or regional transit
• Van Nuys – Santa Monica: no direct Greyhound service; no direct Flixbus service; no direct local or regional transit
• Westwood – Santa Monica: no direct Greyhound service; no direct Flixbus service; frequent local/regional transit using Big Blue Bus and LA Metro, low cost
Private Carriers Communications:
Greyhound:
Greyhound representatives were very active in working with Senator Allen’s office, Assembly Transportation Committee staff, and SJJPA staff in the development of amendments to SB 742. In coordinating the implementation of SB 742, SJJPA staff have been working with Gregory Cohen and Mark Watts who are representing Greyhound on this issue.
• On September 7, 2021 an e-mail was sent to Gregory Cohen and Mark Watts letting Greyhound know about the update on SB 742 Implementation to be presented at the September 24, 2021 Board Meeting, and the action Item to enable bus only ticketing on Route 1c for bus stop pairs
158 of 176
to/from Santa Monica (with the exception of Westwood -Santa Monica bus stop pair which is well service by local/regional transit).
Flixbus:
• On September 7, 2021 an e-mail was sent to Joe Eyen letting Flixbus know about the update on SB 742 Implementation to be presented at the September 24, 2021 Board Meeting, and the action Item to enable bus only ticketing on Route 1c for bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica (with the exception of Westwood -Santa Monica bus stop pair which is well service by local/regional transit).
Local and Regional Public Transit Operators Communications:
LA Metro:
• On September 7, 2021 an e-mail was sent to Will Ridder with LA Metro letting LA Metro know about the update on SB 742 Implementation to be presented at the September 24, 2021 Board Meeting, and the action Item to enable bus only ticketing on Route 1c for bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica (with the exception of Westwood -Santa Monica bus stop pair which is well service by local/regional transit).
• On September 7, 2021 Will Ridder responded that he had received the e-mail from SJJPA and would get back to SJJPA if LA Metro had any comments or concerns in advance of September 17 (posting of Board Packet for Sept 24 Board Meeting)
Big Blue Bus
• On September 7, 2021 an e-mail was sent to Edward King with Big Blue Bus letting Big Blue Bus know about the update on SB 742 Implementation to be presented at the September 24, 2021 Board Meeting, and the action Item to enable bus only ticketing on Route 1c for bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica (with the exception of Westwood -Santa Monica bus stop pair which is well service by local/regional transit).
• On September 7, 2021 Edward King responded that he had received the e-mail from SJJPA and would get back to SJJPA if Big Blue Bus had any comments or concerns in advance of September 17 (posting of Board Packet for Sept 24 Board Meeting).
159 of 176
SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PASSENGERS TO PURCHASE BUS-ONLY TICKETS FOR BUS STOP PAIRS TO/FROM SANTA MONICA, EXCLUDING THE WESTWOOD – SANTA MONICA BUS STOP PAIR WHICH IS WELL SERVED BY LOCAL/REGIONAL TRANSIT AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) is responsible for the administration of the San Joaquins intercity passenger rail service and its extensive Thruway Bus Network; and WHEREAS, the SJJPA Staff has and will continue to conduct efforts to improve the operational and ridership performance of the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 742 (Allen) passed by the Legislature in September 2019 and signed by the Governor on October 8, 2019 removes portions of Section 14035.55 (Section 14035.55) of the CA Government Code which required state supported Amtrak Thruway bus passengers to have a rail trip as part of their ticket; and
WHEREAS, Section 14035.55(c) enables the Joint Power Authorities (San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor, and LOSSAN) to pick up and drop off passengers on their Amtrak intercity thruway bus routes without requiring them to have a train ticket as part of their trip; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of SB 742 provisions will increase revenues for the state at virtually no additional cost, will provide improved access to priority and underserved communities, and will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and air pollution emissions by diverting trips that would have previously been taken by an automobile; and
WHEREAS, staff is proposing to continue the implementation of SB 742 with
bus-stop pairs to/from Santa Monica which have minimal conflicts with other existing private and public intercity bus services. Approval for bus-only ticketing for additional routes will be sought at future SJJPA Board Meetings; and
WHEREAS, based on review of other services in the Route 1c corridor and
coordination with potentially impacted private motor carriers and local and regional public transit agencies the following existing bus stop pair will not be open for bus-only tickets without future action by the SJJPA: Westwood – Santa Monica; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVLED that the Governing Board of the San
Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby authorizes to Allow Passengers to Purchase Bus-Only Tickets for Bus Stop Pairs to/from Santa Monica, Excluding the Westwood – Santa Monica Bus Stop Pair Which is Well Served by Local/Regional Transit and Authorizing the Executive Director Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
.
160 of 176
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the SJJPA on this 24th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY ____________________________ __________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair
161 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 12 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for Project Development Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $1,433,924 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project
Background: The Madera Station Relocation is outside of the Valley Rail shared service segment between Stockton and Natomas and falls under the responsibility of the San Joaquin Authority. Phase 1 consists of elements related to relocating the existing station from Madera Acres to a new location in the vicinity of Avenue 12. Phase 1 would build out a station platform that is approximately 600 feet. A new station siding track would be built that would tie-in to the existing BNSF mainline. A new access road would be constructed to provide access to the station facilities and would run adjacent to the California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) Project right-of-way. Procurement Approach: In early 2021 Staff identified seven (7) Valley Rail Program projects as requiring Project Development Services: • Midtown Sacramento Station • Natomas/Sacramento Airport Station and Layover Track • Lodi Station • Ripon Station Building and Offsite Improvements • Madera Station Relocation • Merced Amtrak Station Parking Improvements • Merced ACE Station • Merced ACE Layover & Maintenance Facility.
Madera Station Relocation Project Area Map
162 of 176
The Rail Commission, on behalf of the Authority, issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/Request for Proposals (RFP) for multiple projects included in the Valley Rail Program. Project Development Services for Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) are required for the Madera Station Relocation Project. Four (4) of these projects, Midtown Station, Natomas/Sacramento Airport Station, and the Lodi Station were approved by the SJRRC Station/Facilities Development Committee in August 2021, while the Ripon Station Building and Offsite Improvements were approved by the Rail Commission Board in September 2021. In response to the RFQ/RFP, four (4) proposals for PS&E for the Madera Station Relocation were received by the deadline of June 17, 2021. The proposals received were reviewed for completeness and responsiveness by the Procurement and Contracts Department. All proposals received were deemed responsive and were evaluated by a panel consisting of representatives from the Authority and the City of Merced. The final scores determined AECOM Technical Services, Inc. as the most responsive, responsible firm for this Project. Authority staff negotiated a contract scope and fee with AECOM to fit the available Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) budget for the PS&E phase, which will allow completion of the track design to a 30% level and the civil design to a 60% level. Additional TIRCP funding will be allocated in the future to advance the design to a 100% level through a future board action to amend AECOM’s contract. The estimated contract commencement dates are September 24, 2021, with an end date of June 30, 2026. There are no option years. Procurement and Contracts Staff reviewed and confirmed the price of the agreements to be fair and reasonable. Fiscal Impact: This project is funded by 2018 TIRCP funds. Funding for the project is identified in the Capital Budget within the SJJPA – Station and Transportation Projects line item. The Authority has previously encumbered $1,458,773 for this project for the Project Approval & Environmental Document phase ($1,000,000), Right of Way Services ($50,000), and Rail Engineering Services ($408,773). This action will commit an additional $1,433,924, leaving an available fund balance of $23,759,302 for this project.
Funding
Type Type Project Budget Previous Encumbrances
Total for this Contract
Available For Future Phases for Entire Project
2018 TIRCP State $26,652,000 $1,458,773 $1,433,925 $23,759,302
Total $26,652,000 $1,458,773 $1,433,925 $23,759,302
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for Project Development Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $1,433,924 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
163 of 176
SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR THE MADERA
STATION RELOCATION PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,433,924 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL
DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Rail Commission secured funding from multiple sources including Senate Bill (SB) 1, SB 132, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), Federal, and local funds for the Valley Rail Program; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2018, the Rail Commission was authorized to act on behalf of the Authority in the development of the Valley Rail Program joint train layover and station locations between the Cities of Stockton and Natomas using TIRCP funds; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/Request for Proposals (RFP) was
released in Spring 2021 for multiple projects included in the Valley Rail Program. Project Development Services for Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) are required for the Madera Station Relocation Project; and
WHEREAS, staff deemed the firm of AECOM Technical Services, Inc. as the most
responsive for the Madera Station Relocation Project and came to agreement on the terms and price for the required PS&E Services; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Approves an Agreement with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for Project Development Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $1,433,924 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 24th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
164 of 176
_____________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair
165 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 13 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute Any and All Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, and/or Fund Transfer Agreements for State Funded Transportation Projects and Any and All Documents Related to the Mini-High Platform Project Background: The State administers numerous funding programs that provide critical funding for transportation projects throughout the San Joaquins Corridor, with many of the programs administered by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC). One such example is the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), which is a program of projects funded through the biennial State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The purpose of the ITIP is to improve interregional mobility for people and goods across the State of California on highway and passenger rail corridors of strategic importance. A current project using these funds is the design and construction of the mini-high level platforms necessary to provide level boarding for the new high-floor Siemens Venture cars for the San Joaquins service. The project includes improvements at seventeen (17) station locations. These locations are:
1. Oakland Jack London Station (OKJ) 2. Emeryville Station (EMY) 3. Richmond Station (RIC) 4. Martinez Station (MTZ) 5. Antioch-Pittsburg Station (ACA) 6. Stockton San Joaquin Street (SKN) 7. Stockton – Cabral Station (SKT) 8. Lodi (LOD) 9. Modesto (MOD)
As part of the process for receiving funds from certain programs, such as the ITIP, the Authority is required to execute agreements with the administering agency. In this case, the Authority must enter into a contract with Caltrans to receive $1,800,000 of ITIP funding to construct the first phase of this project. Any and all contracts or agreements expending funds will be submitted to the Board for approval. For this project, Authority staff anticipate entering into agreements with BNSF and Amtrak to construct the mini-high platforms. BNSF would construct the locations at Antioch-Pittsburg, Stockton San Joaquin Street, Modesto, Turlock-Denair, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco, while Amtrak would construct the improvements at Oakland Jack London Station, Emeryville, Richmond, Martinez, Stockton Cabral Station, Lodi, and Bakersfield. These agreements are anticipated to come to the Authority Board for action at the November 19, 2021 meeting.
166 of 176
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute Any and All Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, and/or Fund Transfer Agreements for State Funded Transportation Projects and Any and All Documents Related to the Mini-High Platform Project.
167 of 176
SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL MASTER AGREEMENTS, PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS, FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS, AND/OR FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENTS FOR STATE FUNDED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE MINI-HIGH
PLATFORM PROJECT
WHEREAS, the State administers numerous funding programs that provide critical funding for transportation projects throughout the San Joaquins Corridor; and
WHEREAS, one example is the Interregional Transportation Improvement
Program (ITIP), which is a program of projects funded through the biennial State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and
WHEREAS, a current project using these funds is the design and construction of the min-high level platforms at eighteen (18) locations for the San Joaquins service; and
WHEREAS, as part of the process for receiving funds from certain programs, such
as the ITIP, the Authority is required to execute agreements with the administering agency; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute Any and All Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, and/or Fund Transfer Agreements for State Funded Transportation Projects and Any and All Documents Related to the Mini-High Platform Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 24th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY _____________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair
168 of 176
169 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 14 INFORMATION SB 742 Implementation Update Background: Senate Bill 742 (SB 742) was passed by the Legislature in September 2019 and signed by the Governor on October 8, 2019. A purpose of SB 742 was to remove portions of Section 14035.55 of the CA Government Code which require state supported Amtrak Thruway bus passengers to have a rail trip as part of their ticket. Section 14035.55(c) as amended enables the Joint Power Authorities (San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor, and LOSSAN) to pick up and drop off passengers on their Amtrak intercity thruway bus routes without requiring them to have a train ticket as part of their trip. Section 14035.55 as amended will increase revenues for the state at virtually no additional cost, provide improved access to priority and underserved communities, and reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and air pollution emissions by diverting trips that would have previously been taken by an automobile. This change will also provide better utilization of current infrastructure and reduce congestion on some of the nation’s most congested freeways. The provisions of SB 742 became effective on January 1, 2020. At the January 22, 2020 SJJPA Board Meeting, SJJPA took action to open selected bus stop pairs for bus-only ticketing on Route 10 (Bakersfield – Santa Barbara) and Route 12 (Bakersfield – Victorville). At the March 26, 2020 SJJPA Board Meeting, SJJPA took action to open selected bus stop pairs for bus-only ticketing on Route 1c (Bakersfield – Van Nuys – West Los Angeles – Torrance), Route 19 (Bakersfield – Pasadena - San Bernardino – Indio – Hemet), and Route 40 (Merced – Los Banos – Merced). However, after the COVID-19 pandemic hit California, the deployment of bus-only ticketing and the further implementation of SB 742 needed to be delayed as a result of the capacity restrictions and service reductions for the San Joaquins Thruway bus routes. With capacity constraints no longer in place on San Joaquins Thruway buses and service being restored to near pre-pandemic levels, SJJPA staff plans to re-initiate the implementation of SB 742 for San Joaquins Thruway bus routes. SB 742 Implementation Update by Route
• Route 1A (Bakersfield – Los Angeles – San Diego): Bus-only ticketing is not currently available on Route 1A. Coordination will be needed with Greyhound, Flixbus, and public operators along the route in advance of bringing an action item to the SJJPA Board.
• Route 1B (Bakersfield – Los Angeles – Long Beach – San Pedro): This route was truncated at Los Angeles Union Station during the pandemic. Staff is recommending to continue the truncation of this this route for the foreseeable future. Bus only ticketing is not currently available on this route and would be done through action on Route 1A.
170 of 176
• Route 1C (Bakersfield – Van Nuys – West LA): Bus-only ticketing for selected bus stop pairs was approved at the March 26, 2020 SJJPA Board Meeting for this route. Subsequent to that approval, Route 1C has been changed eliminating several stops and a new terminus stop at Santa Monica was added. SJJPA approval is needed for bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica. Staff has coordinated with public/private operators in advance of the September 24, 2021 request for Board approval for bus only ticketing to for bus stop pairs to/from Santa Monica.
• Route 3 (Stockton – Sacramento – Chico – Redding): Bus-only ticketing is not currently on available on Route 3. SJJPA staff is working in partnership with Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) to bring new bus services between Redding and Sacramento along the I-5 corridor (that would include bus-only ticketing throughout this new route). Once this service is in operation, the current Route 3 service will be truncated to Chico. SJJPA has been working with Butte CAG to study the possibility of Butte CAG providing bus service for San Joaquins passengers between Chico and Sacramento/Stockton that would include bus-only ticketing.
• Route 6 (Stockton – Dublin/Pleasanton – Fremont – San Jose): Bus-only ticketing is not currently available on Route 6. Coordination will be needed with Greyhound, Flixbus, and public operators along the route in advance of bringing an action item to the SJJPA Board. Staff will see if a partnership can be developed with San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) to operate this route in the future.
• Route 7 (Martinez – Santa Rosa – Arcata): Bus-only ticketing is not currently available on Route 7. Coordination will be needed with Greyhound, and public operators along the route in advance of bringing an action item to the SJJPA Board.
• Route 9 (Bakersfield – Las Vegas): This route is currently in a revenue sharing
interline service agreement between a private bus vendor and Amtrak. Bus only ticketing is available on Route 9 for all bus stop pairs through the interline agreement.
• Route 10 (Bakersfield – Santa Barbara): Bus only ticketing for selected bus stop pairs was approved for this route at the January 2020 SJJPA Board Meeting. However, this route is now in a revenue sharing interline service agreement between the bus vendor and Amtrak, with the operations costs shifted to the bus vendor in exchange for a portion of bus revenue generated from the route. Bus only ticketing is available on Route 10 through the interline agreement for all bus stop pairs.
• Route 12 (Bakersfield – Palmdale – Victorville): Bus only ticketing was approved at the January 2020 SJJPA Board meeting, however this route has been suspended. Staff expects to have discussions with Kern Transit to see if there is a partnership opportunity for bus connections between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley. A partnership with Kern Transit would include bus-only ticketing by Kern Transit.
• Route 15 (Merced – Yosemite): This route is operated by the public local/regional provider Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTs). Bus only ticketing is available on this route through YARTs.
• Route 18 (Visalia – Hanford – San Luis Obispo – Santa Maria): This route is currently in a revenue sharing interline service agreement between a private intercity
171 of 176
bus carrier and Amtrak. Bus only ticketing is available through the interline agreement. The future partnership with KCAPTA & Visalia Transit for additional service between Visalia and Hanford will also allow for bus only ticketing on that publicly operated service.
• Route 19 (Bakersfield – Pasadena – Riverside – San Bernardino): Pre-COVID, Route 19 operated a split route schedule that served two extensions beyond the core route between Bakersfield and San Bernardino. Staff is recommending continued truncation of this route to have all buses end in San Bernardino. SJJPA approved bus only ticketing on Route 19 at the March 26, 2020 SJJPA Board Meeting.
• Route 34 (Stockton – Oakland – San Francisco): This route is currently suspended, and staff is recommending the continued suspension of this route when the Sacramento-bound trains return to service.
• Route 40 (Merced – Los Banos – San Jose): SJJPA took action to approve bus only ticketing on selected bus stop pairs at the March 26, 2020 SJJPA Board Meeting. This route was to be deployed in 2020 but has been delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Route 40 is expected to be deployed in FY 21-22 with bus-only ticketing.
• Route 99 (Emeryville – San Francisco): No changes to service recommended at this time. Emeryville to SF market is served by AC Transit. This route is not well suited for bus only tickets since the route is very short and already served by frequent/low-cost public transportation. To summarize:
• Bus-only ticketing is currently available or approved on the following San Joaquins Thruway bus routes: 1C, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 40
• Thruway bus routes that are suspended: 12 & 34 • Thruway bus route not suitable for bus-only ticketing: 99 • Thruway bus routes that require coordination with public/private operators and SJJPA
Board action to enable bus-only ticketing: 1A, 1B, 3, 6, and 7 Staff will be conducting research and coordinating with public/private operators in the corridors for routes 1A, 1B, 3, 6, and 7 to enable staff to bring action items to the Board at subsequent SJJPA Board Meetings to enable bus-only ticketing to be initiated on these routes. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact from this item. SB 742 implementation increases the overall revenue from the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network. Recommendation: This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
172 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 15 INFORMATION San Joaquins Service Restoration of the 6th Roundtrip (Trains 702 and 703 – Sacramento - Bakersfield) Background: On March 27, 2020, the Authority ratified a resolution regarding the San Joaquins Emergency Temporary Service Reduction Plan due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which authorized and directed the Executive Director to execute any and all documents in regard to this emergency service reduction. This emergency service reduction decreased the amount of rail service from 7 roundtrips between Bakersfield and Oakland/Sacramento to 4 roundtrips between Bakersfield and Oakland with connecting thruway bus transfers to Sacramento. On June 28, 2021 SJJPA brought back into service the 5th roundtrip between Bakersfield and Oakland. SJJPA Staff, in coordination and collaboration with the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transit, have begun the process to restore an additional roundtrip between Bakersfield and Sacramento with a target implementation date of Monday, October 18, 2021. Staff are proposing to reintroduce Trains 702 and 703 back to service (see attachment with proposed schedule). With the addition of the 6th roundtrip, several additional thruway bus frequencies will be brought back to supplement the rail service. For Route 1 (Bakersfield-Los Angeles), 3 additional buses will be brought back into service. For Route 19 (Bakersfield-San Bernardino), 1 additional bus will be brought back into service. The 6th roundtrip will be able to be added back into service without additional equipment needs as this roundtrip will be utilizing equipment that is currently in operations with a modified equipment utilization plan. This allows the 6th roundtrip to be brought back into service at a lower operational cost than if additional equipment was needed. Fiscal Impact: The budget authority for additional rail and bus service was included in the 2021 Final SJJPA Business Plan. The approval of the business plan will allow for the outlined reintroduction of the 6th roundtrip to have the necessary funding to be implemented. Recommendation: This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
173 of 176
San Joaquins 6th Roundtrip Schedule (Restoration of Trains 702 and 703, Sacramento-Bakersfield, on October 18th, 2021)
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 16 INFORMATION
Battle of the Bay Recap
Background:
“Battle of the Bay” is a Major League Baseball series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland Athletics. Staff began marketing in June for the weekend series that took place on August 21st – 22nd. With approval from Amtrak operations, the San Joaquins were allowed to extend their usual final stop from Jack London Square to the Oakland Coliseum. Staff targeted this event to passengers and fan groups along the San Joaquins Corridor. Staff will provide a recap presentation of the “Battle of the Bay”. Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation:
This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
175 of 176
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of September 24, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 17 INFORMATION Executive Director’s Report Executive Director, Ms. Stacey Mortensen will provide the Executive Director’s Report.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation:
This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
