MEETING REPORT

LOSSAN Corridor/Coast Rail Coordinating Council

January 7, 2004

By James Clifton

On January 7 a joint meeting of the LOSSAN Corridor and the Coast Rail Coordinating Council was held at the MTA Building in Los Angeles. There were many guests present from interested groups, cities, Amtrak, UP, and two representatives from RailPAC, myself and Bruce Jenkins.

I had to smirk when one committee member noted that over the years it seemed that they batted their heads against the wall for each tiny achievement. But, over the years these tiny achievements accumulated to provide far better service and greatly increased ridership. It sounds just like Russ Jackson in the last Western Rail Passenger Review (November-December, p. 3.) To show these achievements and their proposals a "roadshow" slide show and commentary was created to be shown to interested parties, and it was shown to this meeting.

Increased ridership is very important to the groups, and these increases were stressed. It was noted that, for the first time, the Surfliners carried more than 2 million passengers, while almost all areas showed an increase in double digits during the last year. This increased ridership created demands, not only for additional service, but for more flexible ticketing. The Rail 2 Rail program is already in existence, and some of the increase was attributed to it. Created by Caltrans, Amtrak and MTA, it allows passengers to ride any train between the points on the ticket. There is also a greater demand for passes and multi-ride tickets.

Money, always a problem, had a detailed discussion, but it was hard to estimate anything, since both state and federal funds are in flux. The Governor's proposed budget would not be out for a couple of days (See President's Commentary/February), and still must pass through the hands of the legislature, while in Washington the House has created TEA-LU, which along with other items are waiting Senate passage in the so-called "Highway Bill."

Which brings us to the main topic, a second train to San Luis Obispo. The need is there, not only because of increased ridership, but because the only morning train is the COAST STARLIGHT. It is often sold out a week or two in advance, so that a last-minute transfer, a would-be train rider, doesn't even bother to check but jumps in his car. It is proposed that this second Pacific Surfliner train would eventually be extended to San Francisco. It is not possible to do that now, due to studies being made by the UP on service from San Francisco to Salinas, and San Francisco to Burbank. These studies will show what is necessary to increase service. With this in mind, the schedule will be based roughly on the schedule of the COAST DAYLIGHT, proposed in 2000. It would run a couple of hours before the Starlight, allowing transfer to the Starlight from local stops. (7:20 AM departure from San Francisco's 4th & King station, arriving in Los Angeles at 7:00 PM; 7:50 AM departure from Los Angeles, arriving in San Francisco at 7:20 PM)

The new proposal would have a PACIFIC SURFLINER extended to San Luis Obispo, with a bus connection to San Francisco. They hope to start the train using the additional revenue created by the increased ridership on the current Surfliner trains, thus avoiding the need for increased subsidy (the additional Capitol trains added last fall were financed this way). The main problem for this new train extension is equipment, which is in short supply. But, if they start the train with low level equipment (probably Horizon cars) there should be no problem. They originally wanted to start this new service at the April/May timetable change, but are now looking to mid-summer.

The entire meeting seemed to be based on the premise that "there's good news - and bad news." But fortunately the good news seemed to outweigh the bad, so that spirits were kept high. The member from Salinas bemoaned the fact that he was criticized for his agency's spending $9 million on the UP right of way to Gilroy. He called it a "very good price." He just wished he could show how many cars would be removed from the highways, and how much money would thus be saved.


RailPAC Contacts Publications Issues Meeting Reports 2004 Reports 2004-11 Monterey 2004-11 San Joaquin 2004-09 Coast Rail 2004-09-15 Capitol 2004-09 San Joaquin 2004-08 Coast Rail 2004-07 San Joaquin 2004-06 TAMC 2004-04-26 Coast Rail 2004-04-21 Capitol 2004-04-13 LOSSAN 2004-04-13 CAHSRA 2004-03-23 Fresno Station 2004-03-12 San Joaquin 2004-02-18 Capitol 2004-02-02 Monterey 2004-01-09 San Joaquin 2004-01-07 LOSSAN Membership Links	MEETING REPORT LOSSAN Corridor/Coast Rail Coordinating Council January 7, 2004 By James Clifton On January 7 a joint meeting of the LOSSAN Corridor and the Coast Rail Coordinating Council was held at the MTA Building in Los Angeles. There were many guests present from interested groups, cities, Amtrak, UP, and two representatives from RailPAC, myself and Bruce Jenkins. I had to smirk when one committee member noted that over the years it seemed that they batted their heads against the wall for each tiny achievement. But, over the years these tiny achievements accumulated to provide far better service and greatly increased ridership. It sounds just like Russ Jackson in the last Western Rail Passenger Review (November-December, p. 3.) To show these achievements and their proposals a "roadshow" slide show and commentary was created to be shown to interested parties, and it was shown to this meeting. Increased ridership is very important to the groups, and these increases were stressed. It was noted that, for the first time, the Surfliners carried more than 2 million passengers, while almost all areas showed an increase in double digits during the last year. This increased ridership created demands, not only for additional service, but for more flexible ticketing. The Rail 2 Rail program is already in existence, and some of the increase was attributed to it. Created by Caltrans, Amtrak and MTA, it allows passengers to ride any train between the points on the ticket. There is also a greater demand for passes and multi-ride tickets. Money, always a problem, had a detailed discussion, but it was hard to estimate anything, since both state and federal funds are in flux. The Governor's proposed budget would not be out for a couple of days (See President's Commentary/February), and still must pass through the hands of the legislature, while in Washington the House has created TEA-LU, which along with other items are waiting Senate passage in the so-called "Highway Bill." Which brings us to the main topic, a second train to San Luis Obispo. The need is there, not only because of increased ridership, but because the only morning train is the COAST STARLIGHT. It is often sold out a week or two in advance, so that a last-minute transfer, a would-be train rider, doesn't even bother to check but jumps in his car. It is proposed that this second Pacific Surfliner train would eventually be extended to San Francisco. It is not possible to do that now, due to studies being made by the UP on service from San Francisco to Salinas, and San Francisco to Burbank. These studies will show what is necessary to increase service. With this in mind, the schedule will be based roughly on the schedule of the COAST DAYLIGHT, proposed in 2000. It would run a couple of hours before the Starlight, allowing transfer to the Starlight from local stops. (7:20 AM departure from San Francisco's 4th & King station, arriving in Los Angeles at 7:00 PM; 7:50 AM departure from Los Angeles, arriving in San Francisco at 7:20 PM) The new proposal would have a PACIFIC SURFLINER extended to San Luis Obispo, with a bus connection to San Francisco. They hope to start the train using the additional revenue created by the increased ridership on the current Surfliner trains, thus avoiding the need for increased subsidy (the additional Capitol trains added last fall were financed this way). The main problem for this new train extension is equipment, which is in short supply. But, if they start the train with low level equipment (probably Horizon cars) there should be no problem. They originally wanted to start this new service at the April/May timetable change, but are now looking to mid-summer. The entire meeting seemed to be based on the premise that "there's good news - and bad news." But fortunately the good news seemed to outweigh the bad, so that spirits were kept high. The member from Salinas bemoaned the fact that he was criticized for his agency's spending $9 million on the UP right of way to Gilroy. He called it a "very good price." He just wished he could show how many cars would be removed from the highways, and how much money would thus be saved.
	Photos and copy on this site are the property of RailPAC. Reproduction of anything on this site requires the permission of RailPAC. Copyright © 2007, Citizens For Rail California, Inc.