Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05061997 - C123 • l Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS • �� �' Costa FROM: "HARVEY E. BRAGDON County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 6 , 1997 SUBJECT: Correspondence received from Supervisor Illa Collin (Sacramento Co. Board of Supervisors) , Chair, San Joaquin Rail Task Force re: Capitol Corridor Rail Service Business Plan SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Refer to the Transportation Committee correspondence received from Supervisor Illa Collin (Sacramento County Board of Supervisors) , Chair, San Joaquin Rail Task Force re : Capitol Corridor Rail Service Business Plan. FISCAL IMPACT No impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department has received correspondence from Supervisor Illa Collin (Sacramento County Board of Supervisors) , Chair of the San Joaquin Rail Task Force concerning the Capitol Corridor Rail Service Business Plan. The attached letter from Supervisor Illa Collin includes a request that counties along the San Joaquin Corridor (Bakersfield-Fresno-Stockton- Martinez-Oakland) consider adopting a resolution which is generally Critical of the Capitol Corridor Rail Service Business Plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x ? YES SIGNATURE AIL RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON May 6, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS _ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: P. Roche, CDD (335-1242) ATTESTED May 6, 1997 cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY t , Correspondence re : Capitol Corridor Business Plan 5/6/97 Page Two The Business Plan was prepared by BART for the recently formed Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board (CCJPB) . The CCJPB represents stakeholders in the eight counties of the Capitol Corridor (Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) and was recently formed under Senate Bill 457 to assume management of Capitol passenger rail service . The Business Plan describes how the CCJPB will takeover stewardship of the Capitol service from the State . The Transportation Committee should review and consider Supervisor Collin' s request to adopt a resolution on the Capitol Corridor Rail Service Business Plan. attachment (1) Sup. Illa Collin's Letter, dated March 19, 1997 HED/PR:j :\proch\rail\collin.bo ofT Sacramento County �,. The Community of Trees \j\. o ;}_ r_0 PIM 2 ,30 c � `\ 'T DEPT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LOIN SUPERVISOROR,, SSEECOND DISTRICT COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Lyla Ferris Hanson 700 H STREET,SUITE 2450•SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 Chief of Staff (916)440-5481 FAX(916)440-7593 March 19, 1997 James Kennedy 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, N. Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Kennedy: At the March 13, 1997 meeting, I was elected the new chair of the Steering Committee of Caltrans Rail Task Force, and Joe Hammond (Kings County) was elected vice-chair. One of the actions taken at the meeting concerned the draft business plan of the Capitol Corridor, and how it might affect service on the San Joaquins. The Committee passed a resolution (enclosed) which we hope all elected jurisdictions in the Corridor will consider adopting. If you have questions regarding the resolution, please call me. I do hope you'll work to bring it to the attention of your elected body. In addition, I was asked to convey our concerns with the business plan at a public workshop here in Sacramento on March 20, 1997, which I will do. I've also enclosed a copy of our 1997/98 meeting schedule to help with your advance planning. I'll call ahead of time to the"host jurisdiction" with information regarding the meeting, as well as coordinate with Caltrans. We try to arrange all of our meetings around the train schedules; so usually we need help with travel connections to the meeting site when we arrive at the host city. If you have questions, need an up-to-date roster, etc., please call. Our phone number is (916) 440-5481, and our fax number is (916) 440-7593. Sincerely, ILLA COLLIN, Supervisor Second District Enclosures (3) IC:Ik/97-062 ��� 26 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The San Joaquin Rail Corridor is a corridor of statewide significance, with terminals in the Los Angeles Basin and the San Francisco Bay Area, and WHEREAS, The San Joaquin Rail Corridor also performs a vital lifeline transportation function for the people of the San Joaquin Valley, and WHEREAS, The patronage of the San Joaquin trains is greater than that of the Capitol Corridor trains, operating about twice the daily train miles and with longer average passenger trip lengths, and providing access through the dedicated bus system to points throughout Northern, Central and Southern California, and WHEREAS, The draft 1997-1998-1999 Business Plan for the Capitol Corridor service prepared by BART for the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board calls for BART control of the San Joaquin Corridor's share of the state pool of cars and locomotives, and implies control of the San Joaquin's share of the marketing budget as well, and WHEREAS, BART does not and cannot represent the interests of a statewide service or of the people of the San Joaquin Corridor, and WHEREAS, Six daily round trips per day could be operated on the Capitol Corridor with only three sets of equipment if that Corridor's trains were scheduled to provide a full program of daily service rather than a largely commuter train function, and WHEREAS, Commuter trains are not a statewide responsibility, but rather the funding responsibility of municipalities and urban regions, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the members of the Steering Committee of Caltrans Rail Task Force do state their firm opposition to any suggestion that BART be permitted to exercise any degree of control, administrative or.otherwise, over the San Joaquin Corridor's share of the statewide rail passenger equipment pool, as proposed in the Capitol Corridor Business Plan or otherwise, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That while the members support cooperative efforts between the administrators of the two corridors, that those efforts must be reached through satisfactory mutually respectful negotiations, and cannot be declared unilaterally by representatives of one corridor alone, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the members of this Steering Committee request that their representatives in the Legislature exercise vigilance with respect to the negotiations between BART and the Business,Transportation and Housing Agency to ensure that no cars, locomotives, marketing budgets, administrative personnel, or any other resources properly allocable to the San Joaquin Corridor are assigned to the control of BART, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board, or any other entity which does not represent the interests of the San Joaquin Corridor, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That this resolution be transmitted to the legislative representatives of the people of the San Joaquin Corridor for their urgent attention, and to the members of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board for their consideration, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That this resolution be transmitted to the local elected bodies of the San Joaquin Corridor's cities and counties for their concurrence. Adopted by the Steering Committee of Caltrans' Rail Task Force Fresno, California March 13, 1997 COMMENTS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF CALTRANS' RAIL TASK FORCE Representing the Communities Served by the San Joaquin Rail Passenger Corridor to the CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD Regarding the Draft 1997/98 = 1998/99 Capitol Corridor Rail Service Business Plan Statement by Illa Collin Chair, Steering Committee of Caltrans' Rail Task Force and Member, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors March 20,1997 These comments on the Draft Capitol Corridor Rail Service Business Plan for Fiscal Year 1997/98 and Fiscal Year 1998-99 are presented on behalf of the Steering Committee of Caltrans' Rail Task Force. The Steering Committee is a body of 28 persons, elected officials, public servants and interested citizens, who represent 14 counties in Northern, Central and Southern California served by AMTRAK's San Joaquin trains. As a member of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, and of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Regional Transit District, I represent Sacramento County on the Steering Committee. At the Steering Committee's March 13th meeting, held in Fresno, I was elected Chair of the Committee for 1997, and it is in that capacity that I convey these comments and concerns of the Steering Committee to you. The Steering Committee was formed in 1987, and has been meeting about every two months in various San Joaquin Corridor cities for ten years. The Committee was formed in order to create a forum for the articulation by representatives of the San Joaquin Corridor communities of their concerns about and aspirations for their rail passenger service, and to review progress in meeting service improvement goals for the corridor. Like the Capitol Corridor trains, and most of the San Diegan trains, the San Joaquin trains owe their existence to the California State Rail Program, which began to develop intercity rail passenger service within the state in the 1970s. Today while many of us might have hoped for more from Caltrans management of the state rail corridors, it is important to keep in mind that before this program began there was only one daily San Joaquin --and that was threatened with abandonment, there were only three San Diegans where today there are eight, and there were no Capitol Corridor trains at all. There was no track, signal or station improvement program. California's rail passenger service, imperfect though it may be, is the envy of many other states. Most supporters of the San Joaquin service are also supporters of the Capitols, and of the other passenger rail corridors in the state. The San Joaquin trains share track and stations between Martinez and Oakland with the Capitols, and both services benefit from the dedicated feeder bus network which Caltrans has wisely developed to increase the reach of the passenger train system. Buses from the San Joaquins, for example, serve Capitol Corridor stations at Sacramento, Davis and San Jose, and connect the trains to Los Angeles Union Station and all of Southern California. Through ticketing is available between any two stations on either corridor. Because our two corridors are interdependent, and because so many of us have worked over so many years for the development of a statewide system of intercity trains, we recognize the importance of a coordinated approach to the provision of service in these two corridors. Both corridors have needs for equipment and resources, and both have concerns about the development of their service. Neither corridor can develop in a vacuum independent of the other. For that reason, we were pleased to welcome Mr. William Fleisher, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board's Managing Director, to our March 13 meeting in Fresno. Mr. Fleisher is widely known as a thoughtful and capable railroader, and BART has done itself credit by selecting him to represent the Board and its interests. San Joaquin County obtained and reproduced for the Steering Committee copies of the Capitol Corridor Draft Business Plan so that it could be discussed with Mr. Fleisher at the Fresno meeting. 1 We were dismayed, therefore, to find that the Capitol Corridor Draft Business Plan has been developed with relatively little regard for the concerns of the San Joaquin Corridor, and provides no time for the Steering Committee to express its views other than through these Public Workshops. Mr. Fleisher informed us on the 13th; at the first opportunity we had to review this document, that various budget actions based on the plan must be undertaken within a week or two. That fact alone shows what little weight is being given to coordination between the corridors. In light of this, the Steering Committee adopted a resolution expressing its concerns, which I am distributing to you. I will add that the resolution expresses in moderate language the sentiments voiced more forcefully in the Fresno meeting. A few details in the Draft Business Plan require mention. On page 1, sixth paragraph, and also on page 19, fifth paragraph, Section 8, the Draft Plan indicates that BART intends to assume administrative oversight not only of the fleet of cars and locomotives required to operate the Capitols, but also the cars and locomotives real ire ed to operate the San Joaauins. I think it is very important for the members of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board to understand that the people of the San Joaquin Valley do not feel that. BART represents them or their interests, and categorically reject any notion of BART control over the San Joaquin's share of the state rail program pool of cars and locomotives. This is viewed as a grab -theft really- of resources belonging to the San Joaquin service, apparently to enable BART to introduce additional commuter schedules into the Capitol Corridor service. That this is BART's intent is made clear on page 15 of the Plan, fourth paragraph, where it is indicated that the highest priority for additional service in the Capitol Corridor between Sacramento and Oakland is for an additional morning train between Trains 721 and 723, arriving at Emeryville at about 8:15 am. This means there would be three trains from Sacramento within a two and one-half hour period, four if you count the Coast Starlight, followed by no trains for more than five hours. In other words, BART proposes a classic commuter-train oriented schedule. It is, of course, up to the Joint Powers Board to decide how it wants to schedule its trains - within its own resources - but it is a matter of wonder why BART insists on providing this kind of duplication of the Capitol Corridor's weakest train, while ignoring other needs. However, the worst aspect of this proposal is that it requires an additional train set, whereas more round trips could be provided if the existing three train sets were more fully utilized. The Steering -Committee believes that maybe BART may be proposing to assume responsibility not only for the Capitol Corridor's equipment but for the San Joaquin's as well to operate the proposed new , commuter service. It would be a gross understatement to say that this does not go down well in the San Joaquin Valley. Another area of potential concern is the proposed installation of ticket vending machines, noted on page 10, second paragraph, and on page 19, third paragraph. As an adjunct to station agents at busy stations, or as a way to provide ticket sales capability at new stations which may not justify staff at first, ticket vending machines are an excellent idea. However, there is a concern that BART may be preparing to substitute the use of ticket vending machines for the Capitol Corridor's allocated share of the cost of staffing stations. The cost of staffing stations would then fall on the remaining trains - disproportionately on the San Joaquins, perhaps, and raise the cost of 2 operating the San Joaquin Corridor trains. I personally tried to raise this issue at the Fresno meeting. When I did, I was assured by a Caltrans employee that the"...4-5 or more selected stations...", which are not identified in the Draft Business Plan, would be small, new stations such as Colfax, Hercules, or the presently unstaffed Suisun-Fairfield. Mr. Fleisher did not comment on that point. But on re-reading this document, I find that the intent is actually to deploy these machines at busy stations - "highest volume stations" is what it says on page 10. We do not object to this, certainly, but we would seek guarantees that the cost of staffing high-volume stations would continue to be fairly apportioned among all trains and connecting buses. The Steering Committee would be adamantly opposed to any formula which allocates station agent costs at Sacramento or Martinez, for example, to the San Joaquins and AMTRAK long-distance trains, while exempting the Capitols on the grounds that a ticket vending machine has been installed. This could eventually lead to unstaffed stations at many locations, a highly undesirable situation, as I believe the members of the JPB would agree. Continued presence of AMTRAK in the Capitol Corridor is another concern. On Page 1 paragraph five, reference is made to possible selection of"another qualified operator." This corridor was intended to serve as an intercity service. It may be that a commuter service, characterized by peak-hour trains running over shorter distances, and carrying passengers on multiple-fare instruments, such as passes, primarily for work trips, is justified on parts of the Capitol Corridor, at local expense. Our understanding, however, is that longer-distance trains, such as those running the 180 or so miles from Colfax.to San Jose, are by federal law the responsibility of AMTRAK, unless AMTRAK agrees that another carrier may be used. If another operator were to be considered, is there a guarantee that any cost and service impacts on remaining AMTRAK operations, such as the San Joaquins or long-distance trains, would be taken into account? Would integrated ticketing be retained, for example? As with ticket vending machines, would the cost of AMTRAK station agents continue to be shared? This is not addressed in the Draft Business Plan. Marketing resources are also a concern. On page 22, point 6, and page 23, point 5, reference is made to achievement of"..cost-efficiencies in marketing both the Capitols and San Joaquin service." Obviously, no one is going to be opposed to more efficient ways of attaining any given marketing objective. However, as we have not been consulted in this matter, we are a bit concerned about what this really means. As BART seems to be willing to assert control over the San Joaquin trains' locomotives and cars without consultation with those affected, it is believable to us that BART may have similar ideas about the San Joaquins' share of the state rail program's marketing budget. As we are also concerned about ridership development on our trains, you will not be surprised to learn that this is a matter of concern to members of the Steering Committee. In closing, I wish to reiterate the great concern of the Steering Committee about the assertion of BART control over resources that should be allocated to the San Joaquin Corridor. Many of us have spent years fighting for our passenger train service. In some cases, passenger trains are even more important to us relatively than they are to the people of the Capitol Corridor. The Capitol Corridor's main cities, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose all have major airports with a comparatively rich choice of flights and travel options. That is not true for much of the San Joaquin Corridor, where the San Joaquin trains may represent the most reasonable - 3 perhaps the only reasonable travel option for many people. While we support cooperation and coordination between corridors, we are not willing to entrust our trains to an agency which does not represent us. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Business Plan. We appreciated Mr. Fleisher's willingness to meet with us in Fresno, and look forward to a more fruitful dialogue in the future. 4 SAN JOAQUIN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 1997 May 8, 1997 in Merced July 10, 1997 in Martinez September 11, 1997 in Sacramento November 13, 1997 in Hanford January 8, 1998 in Stockton March 12, 1998 in Fresno