Coast Rail Coordinating Council

Meeting Report and commentary

Amtrak Office, Oakland

April 27, 2005

Reported by Russ Jackson

---

Coast Daylight, Torlakson Bill, U.P. Cooperation, Greyhound, Amtrak Funding

1. The CRCC is the driving force to getting the "Coast Daylight" train (now Surfliner 798/799) extended from its current terminus at San Luis Obispo to the Caltrain station in San Francisco, so the meetings always have a focus on the progress or lack thereof for that project. On March 4 the Council wrote Caltrans requesting that it and Amtrak "begin discussions with the Union Pacific to secure an additional train slot for the Coast Daylight train, which is planned for 2006/07 in the Department's State Rail Plan." On April 15 Caltrans Division of Rail Acting Chief, Bill Bronte, answered saying "Although we continue to strongly support initiation of Coast Daylight service, we do not believe that now is the best time to enter into negotiations for an operating slot." He went on to say that the the "railroad's current difficulties may not be permanent, but publicly funded studies of expanded service from Sacramento to Reno and from Sacramento to Redding have been terminated because the UP will not participate in them. Further," Bronte said, "they have stated that they will not validate the results of the Coast route modeling" (for which the Council paid $40,000 to the UP! -Ed.). So, the question remains what happens next, and that appears to be up to the UP being ready to deal with additional service, a condition that exists throughout their system not just in California. With no UP approval, no agreement on needed capital expenditures, no funding provided by the state, and no equipment, the extension date for the train north of SLO is unknown. Other agenda items included a discussion of SB 1024 (Torlakson) which calls for the sale of $7.688 billion in bonds for capital improvements, including transportation facilities, etc. The CRCC will ask the cities in the state to support an amendment to add $70 million for improvements between Moorpark and San Jose. This bond issue is in the formative stage at this time.
2. The current train 789/799 is doing quite well despite several handicaps, mostly due to the January-February rain damage to the Coast Line. On time performance dropped drastically during that period, and even though it was covered by a bus bridge (unlike the Coast Starlight which was just "canceled" south of Oakland by Amtrak with NO alternative transportation provided, ridership dipped. March ridership for markets north of Los Angeles increased considerably once the train schedules resumed. However, there are still some slow orders on the Coast Line due to the UP completing its damage repair but mostly because of UP's switch-over to the new CAD dispatching system which was inaugurated at the same time as the damages. Another problem has been the short turnaround time for the train in SLO. Any delays enroute north have shoved the departure time from SLO later and later on many days. Caltrans is closely looking at this issue and is considering alternative departure/arrival times. An earlier departure from Los Angeles, favored by the cities in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, runs afoul of the Metrolink schedules, while the southbound schedule could put it right into the southbound Coast Starlight's running schedule on this route.
3. While it seems a no-brainer to rail advocates, the idea of Amtrak Thruway buses filling the transportation needs of cities abandoned by Greyhound in March has some severe roadblocks. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments has passed a landmark resolution calling for support for Amtrak motorcoach access at unserved intercity bus locations. That has brought down the wrath of the private bus operators in the state. Current state law, passed at the behest of Greyhound a few years ago, requires any Amtrak bus passenger to have a train ticket in addition to a bus ticket. While some passengers have (legally) figured out that, for instance, if they want a ticket from Bakersfield to Los Angeles all they have to do is buy a train ticket from the next station above Bakersfield, Wasco, and they can legally ride the bus. However, the bus companies have been "shopping" Amtrak ticketing and found that some bus tickets have been sold with no train ticket and Caltrans and Amtrak are therefore looking into the software to prevent this condition. Needless to say, the Wasco sales will not be invalidated thereby, but that obviously cannot be formally advertised. The CRCC discussed the Greyhound abandonment situation at length, as the SLOCOG resolution also calls for having an amendment to Assembly Bill 765 (Salinas) which is active in the current legislature. AB 765 "would exclude two local (Coastal) motor carriers from undesirable restrictions on their ability to serve passengers within their service area." SLOCOG's amendment asks for adding the provision allowing the state-supported buses to carry bus-only (or "mixed mode") passengers when no other service is available. However, CRCC members were told that no legislators, including AB 765's author, want to take on this fight with the bus companies now. But, when cooler heads prevail the issue may be resurrected. (Writer's Comment: Score 1 for bus companies, 0 for affected riders.)
4. The CRCC heard at length about Amtrak's current budgeting situation from Liz O'Donoghue from Amtrak Planning, who hosted the meeting. She reviewed the basics of the 06 budget request submitted by the Amtrak board for $1.820 billion, "the amount necessary to operate the existing system and continue our state-of-good-repair capital program" as described by President David Gunn in his letter to the employees on April 25. It calls for: adequate funding; a federal capital grant program for state investment (80%-20% matching funds); the responsibility of the federal government for bring the Northeast Corridor up to a state of good repair; having Amtrak remain a "vertically integrated company," not splitting the NEC operations and capital; retain five business areas: state corridors, long distance trains, NEC operations, infrastructure and ancillary businesses; and, set performance targets for continuance of the long-distance trains. There are other controversial provisions, mainly in labor negotiations which could eliminate the Assistant Conductor position, convert the company's employees from Railroad Retirement to Social Security, etc., which will be loudly opposed by employee unions and safety-minded rail advocates, and it calls for the Government to assume the company's debt, $3.8 billion, which would free up $300 million in annual funding. Liz O'Donoghue said she is "cautiously optimistic" about passage of much of Amtrak's request, which highlights "competition," in that it would also give up Amtrak's access rights for states that contract with other operators. When asked about the host railroads' position on that, she stated that they can deny access to any operator they do not approve of. The CRCC is one of many local agencies in the state that have expressed support for Assembly Joint Resolution 18 (Jones/Leslie) calling for full Amtrak funding that is working its way through the CA legislature. RailPAC members have likewise been urged to write their legislators regarding this resolution (copies can be obtained from the Executive Director, Richard Silver).