SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Transcription

1 SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS M A Y 3 0,

2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD ROSTER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY County Member Alternate Los Angeles: Richard Katz (Chair) Jaime de la Vega Member, General Manager, 4 votes Metro Board of Directors City of Los Angeles Department City of Los Angeles of Transportation Mayor Appointee Michael Antonovich Supervisor, 5 th District County of Los Angeles Vice-Chair, Metro Board of Directors Don Knabe Supervisor, 4 th District County of Los Angeles Metro Board of Directors Ara Najarian Councilman City of Glendale Robert T. Bartlett Appointed by Metro Beatrice Proo Appointed by Metro Maureen Micheline Transportation Deputy Metro San Bernardino: Patrick Morris (Vice-Chair) Larry McCallon* Mayor Mayor 2 votes City of San Bernardino City of Highland President, SANBAG Board of Directors Paul Eaton Mayor City of Montclair Alan D. Wapner* Council Member City of Ontario Orange: Paul Glaab Michael Hennessey* Mayor Appointed by OCTA 2 votes City of Laguna Niguel Chair, OCTA Board of Directors Carolyn Cavecche Mayor City of Orange One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

3 SCRRA Board of Directors Roster Page 2 Riverside: Ron Roberts Greg Pettis* Council Member Council Member 2 votes City of Temecula Cathedral City Daryl Busch Mayor City of Perris Karen Spiegel* Council Member City of Corona Vice-Chair, RCTC Board of Directors Ventura: Keith Millhouse Brian Humphrey Councilmember Commission Member 1 vote City of Moorpark VCTC EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS Southern California Association of Governments: Michele Martinez Councilwoman City of Santa Ana San Diego Association of Governments: State of California/Caltrans: [CURRENTLY AWAITING APPOINTMENT] Contact: Linda Culp Principal Planner - Rail Michael Miles Director, Caltrans District 7 Alternate: [CURRENTLY AWAITING APPOINTMENT] *Alternates represent either member Revised

4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY SCRRA SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING WEDNESDAY, May 30, :00 a.m. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) BOARD ROOM ONE GATEWAY PLAZA, 3 RD FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a brief general description of items of business to be discussed or transacted. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Authority may take any action that it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. A person with a disability may contact the Board Secretary s office at (213) or via brozowskik@scrra.net at least 24-hours before the scheduled meeting to request receipt of an agenda in an alternative format or to request disability-related accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting. Late requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The agenda, staff reports and supporting documentation are available from the Board Secretary, located at One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and on the Metrolink website at under the Board Agenda link. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item appearing on the agenda may do so by completing a Speaker s Form and submitting it to the Board Secretary. Speakers will be recognized by the Chairman at the time the agenda item is to be considered. When addressing the Board, please state your name for the record. Please address the Board as a whole through the Chair. Please note comments to individual Board members or staff are not permitted when addressing the Board. A speaker s comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item not on the agenda, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board, will be taken under Item 7 (Public Comment), and will be subject to the same guidelines as noted above. 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

5 SCRRA Special Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 2 REGULAR CALENDAR 3. Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy At its meeting on April 27, 2012 the SCRRA Board directed staff to initiate a public outreach process to solicit feedback on a potential 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, or 9% systemwide average fare increase that would take effect on or after July 1, The public comment period was opened at the SCRRA Board meeting of April 27, 2012 and will be continued to the May 30, 2012 Board of Directors meeting. The board report provides the California Environmental Quality Act analysis, Title VI analysis, a summary of public comments received regarding a potential fare increase, new Title VI service delivery policy and a staff recommendation for a fare increase. Staff recommends the Board: 1. Conclude the public outreach process that opened at the April 27, 2012 meeting to solicit comments on the proposed fare increase and Title VI Service Delivery Policy*; and, following the conclusion of the public outreach process: 2. Approve a 7% system-wide average fare increase for all tickets types, except for the Weekend Pass, that would take effect on or after July 1, 2012 to offset an increase in operational expenses. 3. Approve the Title VI Fare Equity Analysis. 4. Waive the 2004 Fare Restructuring Policy cap that limits any station pair to have a maximum increase at 8% for any station pair. A fare increase of 7% will generate an estimated $4.5 million to cover operational expenses. Page 1 4. Chief Executive Officer s Report Agency Update 5. Chair s Comments 6. Board Members' Comments 7. Public Comment 8. ADJOURNMENT

6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 24, 2012 MEETING DATE: May 30, 2012 ITEM 3 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Chief Executive Officer Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Issue At its meeting on April 27, 2012 the SCRRA Board directed staff to initiate a public outreach process to solicit feedback on a potential 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, or 9% system-wide average fare increase that would take effect on or after July 1, The public comment period was opened at the SCRRA Board meeting of April 27, 2012 and will be continued to the May 30, 2012 Board of Directors meeting. This report provides the California Environmental Quality Act analysis, Title VI analysis, a summary of public comments received regarding a potential fare increase and the new Title VI service delivery policy and a staff recommendation for a fare increase. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board: 1. Conclude the public outreach process that opened at the April 27, 2012 meeting to solicit comments on the proposed fare increase and Title VI Service Delivery Policy*; and, following the conclusion of the public outreach process: 2. Approve a 7% system-wide average fare increase for all tickets types, except for the Weekend Pass, that would take effect on or after July 1, 2012 to offset an increase in operational expenses. 3. Approve the Title VI Fare Equity Analysis. 4. Waive the 2004 Fare Restructuring Policy cap that limits any station pair to have a maximum increase at 8% for any station pair. *The Title VI Service Delivery Policy will be brought to the Board for approval at a later date. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor Los Angeles, CA

7 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 2 Alternatives The Board may choose to conclude the public hearing and take no action regarding staff s recommendation on the fare increase and/or the Title VI Service Delivery Policy. Alternatively, the Board could choose to approve a fare increase of 5%, 6%, 8% or 9%. Background Last year, through the implementation of operational efficiencies and a 9% ridership growth, staff developed a budget that included a 14% increase in train miles, without requesting additional subsidy from member agencies or a fare increase. Despite staff s continued financial stewardship and efficient management practices, the proposed FY13 budget has a $13.0 million funding shortfall. Some of the costs impacting this year s budget are as follows: $4.2 million increase in major contractor costs including but not limited to the rise in Amtrak s contract to reflect their nationwide labor settlement and associated overhead increases, as well as an increase in administrative costs $4.0 million increase in fuel costs ($1.9 million from the higher cost and $2.1 million from an increase in train sets, longer train sets and heavier, safety-enhanced Guardian cars) $2.5 million in Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) costs reflected as part of new transparency and budget policy $1.3 million in transfer costs for Metrolink riders option to transfer onto other transportation providers systems, primarily the MTA System to provide seamless ridership for Metrolink passengers As discussed at the March 9, and April 13, 2012, Board meetings, diesel fuel costs have risen dramatically over the past three years. Average fuel prices per gallon for FY10 were $1.80, FY11 were $2.40, and FY12 are $3.40. The cost of diesel fuel used by Metrolink trains could increase to an average cost of $3.75 per gallon for the proposed FY13 budget. Every $.05 increase in the price of diesel fuel translates into an additional expense of approximately $350,000 annually. Additionally, the agency is purchasing more fuel due to the continued introduction of the heavier crash energy management Guardian cars to the Metrolink fleet and the increased number of cars on train sets to accommodate a 9% growth in ridership over the past year. SCRRA has sought to negotiate and execute contracts for FY in an effort to reduce the overall fuel costs. Staff developed a preliminary FY budget which was presented to the Board of Directors on April 13, The total operating and maintenance of way costs are estimated at $194.0 million, with offsetting revenues of $99.9 million. The resulting net subsidy is $94.1 million, which is a $13 million increase over the FY budget. 2

8 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 3 The current economic climate requires tough decisions by transportation leaders to fund operations at a level that will continue to meet the region s transportation needs. Many transportation providers across the country and in the Southern California region are faced with the same challenges, and have responded by raising fares up to 35%. Staff is recommending a system-wide average 7% increase to the base ticket price implemented on or after July 1, A 7% increase would generate an additional $4.5 million in revenue to cover Metrolink operating costs. Reference the chart below for other percent increases and the amount generated. This proposed fare increase is separate from the 2004 Board-adopted policy to restructure fares from a zone-based fee to mileage-based fares over a ten-year period. This phased restructuring did not generate additional revenues for Metrolink, but was implemented to ensure a fair and equitable fare policy. When combined with the proposed 5% to 9% increase, this could result in increases of up to 13.58% for less than 1% of Monthly Pass holders depending on their particular station pair. Consequently, this will require waving the 2004 restructuring policy that no set of station pairs will have a rate increase of more than 8% in a year. The Board has previously authorized an override to this policy in 2005, 2006, 2008 and Proposed FY Budget $ millions Fare Increase: Total amount generated Member agency breakdown LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC 5% $3.2 $1.7 $.7 $0.2 $0.5 $0.1 6% $3.9 $2.0 $.9 $0.3 $0.6 $0.1 7% $4.5 $2.3 $1.0 $0.3 $0.7 $0.1 8% $5.2 $2.6 $1.2 $0.4 $0.8 $0.2 9% $5.8 $3.0 $1.3 $0.4 $0.9 $0.2 CEQA : Environmental Review & Findings The proposed fare increase is exempt from CEQA by operation of the statutory exemption contained in Public Resources Code 21080(b)(8) which states in relevant part that CEQA does not apply to: (t)he establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of: 3

9 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 4 A. Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, B. Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, C. Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, D. Obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas As set forth in Attachment A, the proposed fare increase qualifies for an exemption under Public Resources Code (b) (8). The funding from this action will be devoted exclusively to permissible purposes; primarily the operation and maintenance of Metrolink service within existing service areas and it will not fund capital projects to expand the system. The proposed change in fares will increase revenue. Because of the on-going nature of the proposed changes, references to current budget documentation are for illustrative purposes only and do not limit Metrolink s ability to expend any projected revenue increases for other exemption-eligible purposes in this or later fiscal years. Title VI Analysis As a recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) financial assistance, Metrolink is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to carry out the U.S. Department of Transportation s Title VI regulations by evaluating fare changes at the planning and programming stages to determine whether those changes have a discriminatory impact on certain segments of the population. (Reference: Circular FTA C A). Metrolink expects operating expenses in FY to increase by 8.6% from a year ago. In order to meet these higher expenses Metrolink is proposing a general across-the-board general fare increase of 5%-9%. As part of the fare equity analysis, Metrolink conducted a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the fare increase and related fare policy changes in compliance with Title VI requirements. No disparate impact and no disproportionately high and adverse effects were found and no further analysis or mitigating strategies were determined to be necessary Reference Attachment B for the complete assessment of Title VI and Environmental Justice analysis. Public Comments A total of 342 comments from a total of 96 unique responders were received via ecomments, in addition, we received one (1) letter and 2 faxes as of Tuesday, May 22, Most commented on not having pay raises but having pay cuts and not being able to afford any increase. 4

10 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 5 Fare enforcement was a common theme. Responders believe this effort should be stepped up to bridge the budget gap before asking passengers to pay more for already high prices. Many considered fuel prices an excuse to increase fares. Several comments were raised around the expectation that a fare increase should be balanced with better and more service and/or added value. A few comments included the discontent with the elimination of the 10-trip ticket, concern about senior and disabled fare increases and latest service delays. Comments included requests to look at other measures to save costs. Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 5% (92-27% of all responses) 78 people opposed the fare increase at this level (85% of responders) Others support this level or are neutral This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely dependent on this service to be able to survive? the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top. If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout. It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times. The public is not responsible for lack of company management? we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit" DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do! If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refund my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours? Instead of increasing fares for paying passengers, why not do more to make sure that ALL passengers buy a ticket in the first place? I rarely see the Sheriff checking any more, maybe 3-4 times a month. If the conductor would check tickets on EVERY train to catch those who do not pay, fares could stay low for everyone who DOES pay. Although I ride various trains, I most frequently ride AV Line 208 and 217, and I ALWAYS buy a monthly pass or ticket! Support and Neutral Of the few (14) that supported this proposal, passengers prefer the lowest increase compared to the higher 9% option. I support the increase but Metrolink is getting ripped off by passengers who do not pay their fare along the San Bernardino line beginning at San Bernardino through Rancho Cucamonga. I saw 3 Sheriffs sit in their seats and didn't check any tickets until I overheard 5

11 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 6 them say they will begin in Fontana. I've seen like about 10 passengers in San Bernardino get on for free and I've seen 5 passengers get on at Rialto without paying the fare. Metrolink you will still lose money even if you raise the fare. I agree with the fare increase. I have a few comments you can do to increase your revenue. I have been a full time rider for the last 12 years and a part time rider for 3 years prior to that. One way to increase revenue is to have the conductors check tickets and passes more often. When they do check, make sure they look not only at the month? but the year. A few guys who ride the train cover up the year on the pass with their fingers showing only the month. They have been using the same July pass since Also, some passengers by a monthly pass from Covina to LUSD when they embark and disembark from Rancho Cucamonga. Their monthly pass cost is cut in half because of this. Of all the years I have been riding the trains I have only seen a few passengers get citied. Most of the time the passengers talk their way out. The conductors should have a zero tolerance. Either you have a ticket or you don't. The conductors do not realize what is said about them once the passengers have talked their way out of a ticket. The comments are not kind. Some folks say why buy a ticket, they do not check and if your caught we just talk our way out of it. If word goes out that the conductors have zero tolerance and the whole pass is checked (for month and YEAR and the stations) revenue will go up. Thanks. I remember when the increases were 3 percent each year. Although gas has increased in price, I am asking that you take into consideration the current economic situation of your riders. I work for the courts and we have not received an increase in salary or even cost of living raise in the last 3-4 years. Prices are rising and our pay is currently going nowhere. But if you have to increase, please do so at the lowest percentage possible. I thank you for your consideration in this matter. I am praying for a favorable outcome. That you would be led by God to do the right and equitable thing. God Bless! I hope that Metrolink will NOT gouge the Senior/Disabled folks like they did in the last fare adjustment. We are the group who can least afford it. We did not have a 6% raise? it was more like 25%. Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 6% (61 18% of all responses) 58 people opposed the fare increase at this level (95% of responders) Others support this level or are neutral I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing fuel prices. However? here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occurred. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were 6

12 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 7 discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times. I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip. At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time. Support and Neutral Of the few (3) that supported this proposal, passengers prefer the lowest increase compared to the higher 9% option. Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 7% (57 17% of all responses) 53 people opposed the fare increase at this level (93% of responders) Others support this level or are neutral I am against the fare increase of 7% due to the fact I can barely afford to pay the current monthly pass now. A 7% increase would cause me to stop riding everyday during the week. Support and Neutral Of the few (4) that supported this proposal, passengers prefer the lowest increase compared to the higher 9% option. Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 8% (55 16% of all responses) 53 people opposed the fare increase at this level (93% of responders) Others support this level or are neutral I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final destination. If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to lower the fares when fuel costs go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arranging transportation at both ends. Support and Neutral Of the few (5) that supported this proposal, passengers prefer the lowest increase compared to the higher 9% option. 7

13 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 8 Potential System-Wide Fare Increase for Metrolink Fares at 9% (55 23% of all responses) 73 people opposed the fare increase at this level (99% of responders) Need more income to offset fare increase. Police officers have to pay to ride. Bike riders need to pay extra for having a bike on the train. People that bring more that one large or two small carry on need to pay extra especially when they take up 3 or 4 seats. Disappointed with Metrolink on this proposal to increase fares that are already high. Any increase would force me and several other monthly pass holders to carpool. Metrolink should worry more about passengers with no passes that are riding for free on a daily basis. If daily or more frequent ticket checks would be preformed Metrolink would see this increase is not necessary. I have been a monthly pass holder for four years and I personally have seen an increase in passengers without any pass. Very rarely do we see any conductor or law enforcement agent checking passes. Metrolink should reconsider any fair increase and if any increase is approved many of us would be forced to commute in our own vehicles. My family and I are trying very hard to pull ourselves out of the financial devastation that has dogged us since Now the train tickets are going up again. I was fine with the monthly pass and 10 trip for months I didn't work at least 18 days. Then you jacked the price of the 10 trip up $15 and added that awful weekly pass that makes me pay for 7 days when I only work 4. The cost of the monthly pass has been steadily creeping up. I realize the fuel is outrageous? but I'm sure it doesn't justify a 9% increase (and according to your flyer it may be as much as 20%). Also mentioned is a nationwide labor settlement--i haven't have a raise in over 4 years. I hope Metrolink has explored cutting waste with endless consultants and high salaries at the top before making it even more difficult for us to go to work and earn a living. Support and Neutral 1 person was neutral This is the one you are going for so I will comment on this. I hope that a fare increase means better performance like being on time. Reference Attachment C for all public comments received regarding the fare increase as of May 24. A separate attachment will be provided to the Board that includes all additional comments up to May 29 at the Board meeting on May 30. Reference Attachment D for all public comments received regarding the Title VI Service Delivery Policy as of May 24. A separate attachment will be provided to the Board that includes all additional comments up to May 29 at the Board meeting on May 30. History of Fare Restructuring Program and Past Fare Increases In April 2004, the Board approved a 10-year restructuring program beginning July 1, 2005, which changed the fare structure from a zone system to a driving-mileage-based station- 8

14 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 9 to-station fare structure. The purpose of this restructuring was to provide a fair, consistent and equitable pricing policy in the future by using a driving mile equivalent system. Due to deep discounts enjoyed by some stations in the former 11-mile zone structure, it was decided that the adjustment was to be phased in over multiple years to arrive at a consistent station-to-station pricing structure after 10 adjustments so that certain station pairs would not receive steep increases at one time. The Metrolink fare structure is complex because a separate fare must be calculated for each station pair, for each category of rider, for each fare type, and for weekend or weekday fares. As a result, the data system includes more than 53,000 discrete fares which change annually. In addition, the system must support the special fare discount program fare tables. Station to station pair increases vary. While the restructuring provides for an equitable fare policy, it does not, produce additional revenue for Metrolink. As a result, in addition to fare restructuring, the Board in 2004 noted that additional system-wide fare increases may be needed in the future to meet operating cost increases. Therefore, the Board put in place a provision that when combining the restructuring fare increases with a system-wide increase, the impact on any station pair was to be limited to an 8% annual increase. Since the range of percentages is above 3.5%, the Board would need to wave the limit of an 8% annual fare increase for any particular station pair in order to ensure that the Metrolink services can continue to be delivered at the level of service the passengers have come to expect. When combining the proposed system-wide average fare increase with the phased restructuring fare increase the majority of station pairs will remain well below the 8% annual policy restriction. Past Fare Increases* 1992 No Increase 1993 No Increase 1994 No Increase 1995 No Increase 1996 No Increase 1997 No Increase % 1999 No Increase % 2001 No Increase % 2003 No Increase % % % % % % % 2011 No Increase *The increases from reflect system-wide average increases stemming from the Board s 2004 approved Fare Restructuring Policy. 9

15 Public Hearing on Potential Fare Increase for Fiscal Year (FY13) and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Transmittal Date: May 24, 2012 Meeting Date: May 30, 2012 Page 10 Past and Planned Fare Increases by US Commuter Railroads Metrolink is not the only commuter rail agency that is impacted by an increase in fuel prices. The chart below shows the various fare increases that other commuter rail agencies have implemented due to increases in expenses. Agency Region Last Fare Change Fare Change Proposed changes in the next 12 months MBTA Boston Jun-05 20% 35-45% Virginia Railway Washington DC Jan-10 6% 3% Express SEPTA Philadelphia Jul % 7% Long Island Railroad New York Dec-10 9% 8.5% NJT New Jersey May-10 25% n/a Front Runner Salt Lake City, May-11 12% - Base 4% - Base Fare UT Fare METRA Chicago, Ill. Jan-12 25% n/a Caltrain San Jose, CA Jul-11 9% Up to 9% Metro-North New York Dec-11 ~8.8% ~8.5% Public Outreach Materials Please reference Attachment E for the public outreach materials. Budget Impact A fare increase of 7% will generate an estimated $4.5 million to cover operational expenses. Prepared by: Mark Waier, Manager, Marketing and Sales Claudia Ziebell, Communications Manager Henning Eichler, Manager, Research and Planning Nancy Weiford, Chief Finance Officer Sherita Coffelt, Media and Public Relations Officer Olga Yero, Chief of Staff JOHN E. FENTON Chief Executive Officer 10

16 ATTACHMENT A

17 FINDINGS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: FARE INCREASE ACTIONS BEGINNING JULY 1, On April 27, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Board or SCRRA or Metrolink) scheduled and conducted a duly noticed public hearing following the implementation of a public communications outreach plan on budget development which included a potential fare increase. 2. Metrolink is the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes for these discretionary decisions which can result in potential increases in fares or in costs to its passengers. As lead agency, Metrolink must conduct a review under CEQA which begins with the determination of whether any exemption from CEQA applies to the proposed actions or "project" for CEQA purposes. Metrolink adopted and implemented a public communications outreach plan on April 27, 2012 to solicit public comments and suggestions on its budget development options for the budget for FY The public outreach and notice solicited input on proposed fare increases and related fare policy actions designed to increase revenue. Those proposals were documented for the record at the public hearing on April 27, If a project is determined to be exempt under CEQA, there is no requirement to conduct an Initial Study or to prepare either a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. A "statutory exemption" from CEQA is a legislative action exempting certain types of projects from CEQA. Since CEQA is a state statute, the state legislature is able to adopt legislative exemptions for any number of reasons that may or may not be related to environmental goals. In each instance of a statutory exemption, the state legislature has determined that the interest promoted by the exemption justified the removal of any requirement for further environmental review or documentation. 4. The applicable statutory exemption for fare modifications is found in the CEQA statute at California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (8) and in the companion section of the State CEQA Guidelines at Section The statutory exemption contained in Public Resources Code 21080(b) (8) states in relevant part that CEQA does not apply to the following "activities": (8) The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of: a) Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, b) Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, c) Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, d) Obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas, 11

18 FINDINGS OF THE SCRRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS PURSUANT TO CEQA: FARE INCREASE ACTIONS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012 Page 2 6. The State CEQA Guidelines in Section restates the relevant exempt purposes of California Public Utilities Code Section (b) (8) and also clarifies that the exemption does not apply to rate increases to fund capital projects to expand a system. 7. Both the CEQA statute and the State Guideline section require the lead agency to incorporate written findings in the record of any proceeding claiming this exemption setting forth with specificity the basis for the claim of the exemption. These findings are incorporated in the record to meet that requirement. 8. The SCRRA is a public agency and independent joint powers authority with member agencies which are the transportation commissions of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. SCRRA collects fare revenues on behalf of each member agency and those funds are applied towards the operating costs of Metrolink commuter train service. Revenues are collected by line segment in each member county and offset each agency s contribution towards the total funding necessary for the operation of train service. Unlike many other public transit agencies, SCRRA does not have any independent sources of revenue to fund transit operations such as a dedicated sales tax. 9. Due to the ongoing loss of local public agency revenues as a result of the recent economic downturn, the SCRRA member agencies cannot provide sufficient additional funds to subsidize the current level of service within the current service area. Additional funds are needed from other sources. 10. With farebox recovery estimated to be under 50% in FY , meaning fares cover less than 50% of the cost to provide a trip on Metrolink commuter train service, any additional revenues from the proposed fare increase will only serve to reduce the required member agency contributions of other funds to operate service at current levels and will be dedicated exclusively to offset operating expenses to maintain existing service or another of the eligible expenditures. 11. The estimated expenses required to operate the Metrolink commuter rail system in FY are currently estimated to be $194 million with operating revenues expected to total $99.9 million. The proposed 7% average system-wide change in fares and additional policy changes are expected to generate approximately $4.5 million in increased revenue during FY in order to maintain service within the existing service area as indicated in the record before the SCRRA on March 9, and April 13, 2012 board meetings, incorporated by reference into these findings as if set out herein. In combination with other measures to cut costs and increase revenue to achieve a balanced budget for FY , these fare increases, as they may be adopted or amended by the Board, will be limited to expenditures eligible for the statutory exemption. 12

19 FINDINGS OF THE SCRRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS PURSUANT TO CEQA: FARE INCREASE ACTIONS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012 Page There are a number of examples in the Metrolink budget of expenditures for operating expenses, and the purchase or lease of supplies, equipment or materials which collectively exceed in cost any anticipated revenues from the proposed fare changes. This demonstrates with specificity that the revenues can be limited to purposes which are within the eligible statutory exemption, primarily in the categories of operating expenses and purchase or lease of equipment or materials, although funds could be spent for the other eligible categories as well. 13. The project has been reviewed on the basis of the staff recommended actions and report and the relevant portions of Metrolink budget and fare restructuring documentation, which constitute the primary documents of the record herein. 14. The proposed increase in fares effective July 1, 2012 is for one or more of the four listed relevant permissible purposes listed in Public Resources Code (b) (8) (A) (D). 15. The funding from this action will be devoted exclusively to the operation and maintenance of Metrolink's service within existing service areas or another of the eligible expenditures, and will not fund capital projects to expand the system. 16. This restriction and allocation is consistent with SCRRA budgeting and expense policies and practices in place since the initiation of train service in 1992, and the staff can apply any additional revenues from this action to these CEQA exempt purposes and as part of the Board action has been directed to limit these revenues to these CEQA exempt eligible purposes. 17. The record in this matter includes, but is not limited to, the staff reports from this and other relevant meeting dates relating to SCRRA fares and budget matters including adoption of a public communications outreach plan for the public review process in advance of the public hearing, and SCRRA budget related and fare related documentation. Based upon substantial evidence in the record, the project herein meets the requirements of the statutory exemption from CEQA in California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and State CEQA Guidelines Section

20 ATTACHMENT B

21 Southern California Regional Railroad Authority TITLE VI and ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) ASSESSMENT Of the Proposed July 2012 Fare Policy Changes In Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Transit Administration Circular A, Chapter V, and the Environmental Justice Policy Guidance FTA C May 2012 SCRRA Planning and Research Department 1 14

22 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 2 Table of Figures EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE VI REGULATORY BACKGROUND METROLINK RIDERSHIP DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ANALYSIS APPROACH Data Sources Geographic Coverage FARE POLICY CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Definition of Title VI Disparate Impact and Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects Fare Product Usage by Title VI and EJ populations General System-Wide Fare Increase Impact Assessment Fare Rounding Impact Assessment Fare Restructuring Impact Assessment Discontinuation of Metrolink Ten-Trip Tickets Discontinued Acceptance of Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS OUTREACH PLAN Appendix A: Effect of Fare Rounding on a 5% Fare Increase Appendix B: Effect of Fare Restructuring Appendix C: Methodology SCRRA Planning and Research Department 2 15

23 Table of Figures Figure 1: Assessment of Fare Policy Changes... 4 Figure 2: Trip Purpose (weekday)... 6 Figure 3: Trip Purpose (weekend)... 6 Figure 4: Fare Product Usage (weekday)... 6 Figure 5: Fare Product Usage (weekend)... 6 Figure 6: Ethnicity (weekday riders)... 7 Figure 7: Ethnicity (weekend riders)... 7 Figure 8: Income (weekday riders)... 7 Figure 9: Income (weekend riders)... 7 Figure 10: Transit Dependency... 7 Figure 11: Data Sources... 8 Figure 12: Metrolink Service Area... 9 Figure 13: Fare Product Usage by Minority Status Figure 14: Fare Product Usage by Low Income Status Figure 15: Fare Product Usage by Environmental Justice (EJ) Status Figure 16: Sample Fares before and after a 7% Fare Increase Figure 17: Rounding Effects on Oneway Tickets at Different Rates of Fare Increase Figure 18: Minority Station Catchment Areas Figure 19: EJ Station Catchment Areas Figure 20: Fare Restructuring Impacts Figure 21: Impact of Discontinued Ten-Trip Ticket on Minorities Figure 22: Impact of Discontinued Ten-Trip Ticket on EJ Populations SCRRA Planning and Research Department 3 16

24 TITLE VI ASSESSMENT Of the Proposed July 2012 Fare Policy Changes 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) financial assistance Metrolink is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to carry out the U.S. Department of Transportation s Title VI regulations by evaluating fare changes at the planning and programming stages to determine whether those changes have a discriminatory impact. (Reference: Circular FTA C A). Metrolink expects operating expenses in Fiscal Year 2013 to increase by 8.6% from a year ago. In order to meet these higher expenses Metrolink is proposing a general across-the-board general fare increase of 5%-9%. As part of the fare equity analysis Metrolink conducted a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the fare increase and related fare policy changes in compliance with Title VI requirements. No disparate impact and no disproportionately high and adverse effects were found and no further analysis or mitigating strategies were determined to be necessary (Figure 1). Figure 1: Assessment of Fare Policy Changes Fare Policy Item Disparate Impact Disproportionately High and Adverse Effect Recommended Mitigation General System-Wide Fare Increase No No N/A N/A Rounding of Fares to nearest $0.25 No No N/A N/A Fare Restructuring No No N/A N/A Discontinue sale of Metrolink Ten-Trip Tickets No No N/A N/A Discontinue acceptance of Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets No No N/A N/A Action SCRRA Planning and Research Department 4 17

25 2. TITLE VI REGULATORY BACKGROUND Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) provides that: No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. The scope of Title VI was expanded by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L ) to include all of a recipient s and contractor s programs or activities whether federally assisted or not. The February 11, 1994, Executive Order on Environmental Justice added low income to minority and requires that disproportionately high and adverse impacts be identified and addressed. Environmental justice applies to all programs, policies, and activities of the transportation program and is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of Executive Order also requires public involvement and mandates that transportation agencies ensure there is no exclusion from participation, no denial of benefits, and no discrimination in the services which they provide. FTA requires all transit operators who receive federal funds to conduct assessments of Title VI to demonstrate nondiscrimination of services and facilities for minority and Environmental Justice communities. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 5 18

26 3. METROLINK RIDERSHIP DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE In Fiscal Year 2011 Metrolink carried million riders. Weekend riders accounted for five percent of all trips taken. The overwhelming majority of weekday trips are work- or school-related (88%), whereas three in four weekend trips (73%) are leisure trips. 21% of weekend trips are work-or school-related. Figure 2: Trip Purpose (weekday) Figure 3: Trip Purpose (weekend) Sixty-two percent of weekday riders use either a Monthly Pass (58%) or Seven Day Pass (4%). Oneway, Roundtrip, and Ten-Trip Tickets account for 32% of all weekday trips. The remaining weekday trips (6%) utilize a variety of free or third party fare products. The most popular fare product for weekend riders are Oneway and Roundtrip Tickets (42%) and the Weekend Pass (35%). Monthly and Seven Day Passes and Ten-Trip Tickets are used by 15% of weekend riders. Figure 4: Fare Product Usage (weekday) Figure 5: Fare Product Usage (weekend) SCRRA Planning and Research Department 6 19

27 Metrolink ridership is predominately minority: 59% of weekday riders (Figure 6) and 71% of weekend riders (Figure 7) identify themselves as member of a minority group. The percentage of minority ridership has increased over the past decade but seems to have stabilized now. Household income among Metrolink riders differs significantly for weekday and weekend riders: 71% of weekday riders and 37% of weekend riders reported household incomes of more than $50,000). This, in part, reflects the higher proportion of non-work trips during the weekend (Figure 9). Lower incomes are also reflected in the higher rate of transit dependency among weekend riders, many of whom are students and individuals unable to drive (Figure 10). Figure 6: Ethnicity (weekday riders) Figure 8: Income (weekday riders) Figure 7: Ethnicity (weekend riders) Figure 9: Income (weekend riders) Figure 10: Transit Dependency SCRRA Planning and Research Department 7 20

28 4. ANALYSIS APPROACH 4.1 Data Sources The fare equity analysis utilizes the following data sources: Figure 11: Data Sources Data Source Provider Collection Methodology Use American Community Survey (ACS) U.S. Census Bureau Sample of the general population Household income data 2010 U.S. Census SF 1 U.S. Census Bureau Census of the general population Ethnicity data Onboard Surveys (2008, 2010, 2011, 2012) Metrolink Scientific sample of Metrolink ridership Fare product usage, income, trip characteristics, and ethnicity data Station catchment areas Metrolink Origin-Destination data Travel shed and service area analysis Fare media sales Metrolink Sales transactions Station demand estimates SCRRA Planning and Research Department 8 21

29 4.2 Geographic Coverage This analysis covers the entire Metrolink service area which is defined by the travel shed of Metrolink riders (Figure 12). The service area consists of Metrolink line corridors in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Northern San Diego Counties. Census data is analyzed at the census tract level which has been aggregated to individual station catchment areas. Figure 12: Metrolink Service Area SCRRA Planning and Research Department 9 22

30 5. FARE POLICY CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Title VI guidelines require transit agencies to test for disparate impact and disproportionately high and adverse effects from changes in fare policy. The following sections provide detailed information on fare product usage by Title VI and EJ populations and an assessment of the effects of fare changes on these populations. There is also an assessment of the effects of fare policy changes on individual stations and the populations served. 5.1 Definition of Title VI Disparate Impact and Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects Disparate impact refers to facially neutral policies or practices that have the effect of disproportionately excluding or adversely affecting members of a group protected under Title VI. Pursuant to FTA Circular A, a disproportionately high and adverse effect is defined as an adverse effect that: (1) is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population. Metrolink follows the fare equity analysis methodology detailed in Methodology to test for impacts of fare policy changes on Title VI and EJ populations. 5.2 Fare Product Usage by Title VI and EJ populations Using the latest available onboard survey data from 2010 Metrolink has identified fare product usage by minority status. Usage rates had to be estimated for two fare products, the Seven Day Pass and the Weekend Pass, which were introduced only after the survey was conducted. Since the Seven Day Pass competes most directly with the Ten-Trip Ticket, both fare products are deemed comparable and the same distribution of minority status is assumed. The Weekend Pass is most comparable to Metrolink s Weekend Roundtrip Ticket and is assumed to have the same usage by minority status. Although all fare products are used predominately by minorities, a disproportionate minority usage was determined for Weekday Oneway and Roundtrip Tickets, and for the Weekend Oneway Ticket (Figure 13). SCRRA Planning and Research Department 10 23

31 Figure 13: Fare Product Usage by Minority Status Fare Media Minority Not Minority Total Monthly Pass 57% 43% 100% Seven Day Pass* 59% 41% 100% Ten Trip Ticket 59% 41% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WKD) 65% 35% 100% Oneway Ticket (WKD) 70% 30% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WND) 61% 39% 100% Oneway Ticket (WND) 77% 23% 100% Weekend Pass* 61% 39% 100% Other 67% 33% 100% Overall 59% 41% 100% * estimated 14.2% of households in the Metrolink service area are classified as low income. 1 Overall, 10% of Metrolink riders fall into that category. After a review of onboard survey data it was determined that minority usage is disproportionately high for Oneway and Roundtrip Tickets, as well as for the Weekend Pass (Figure 14). The Other category includes free fares, such as promotional tickets and Access Services passes. Figure 14: Fare Product Usage by Low Income Status Fare Media Low Income Not-Low- Inocme Total Monthly Pass 5% 95% 100% Seven Day Pass* 7% 93% 100% Ten Trip Ticket 7% 93% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WKD) 18% 82% 100% Oneway Ticket (WKD) 32% 68% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WND) 35% 65% 100% Oneway Ticket (WND) 49% 51% 100% Weekend Pass* 35% 65% 100% Other 43% 57% 100% Overall 10% 90% 100% * estimated 1 Less than $20,000 household income in SCRRA Planning and Research Department 11 24

32 Environmental Justice populations are defined as populations that are either minority or low income or both. 64% of Metrolink ridership falls into this category. The following fare products were found to be disproportionately used by EJ populations: Oneway Tickets (weekday and weekend), Roundtrip Tickets (weekend), Weekend Pass (Figure 15). Figure 15: Fare Product Usage by Environmental Justice (EJ) Status Fare Media EJ Not EJ Total Monthly Pass 61% 39% 100% Seven Day Pass* 62% 38% 100% Ten Trip Ticket 62% 38% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WKD) 70% 30% 100% Oneway Ticket (WKD) 77% 23% 100% Roundtrip Ticket (WND) 84% 16% 100% Oneway Ticket (WND) 69% 31% 100% Weekend Pass* 84% 16% 100% Other 81% 19% 100% Overall 64% 36% 100% * estimated 5.3 General System-Wide Fare Increase Impact Assessment Metrolink expects operating expenses in Fiscal Year 2013 to increase by 8.6% from a year ago. In order to meet these higher expenses Metrolink is proposing an across-the-board general fare increase of 5%-9% applied to all fare products with the exception of the Weekend Pass and special Group Fares. The exact rate of the fare increase is subject to a vote by the Board of Directors. Since Metrolink Ticket Vending Machines require tickets to be priced in increments of $0.25 all fares are rounded to the nearest $0.25. This has the effect that a given fare may be higher or lower than the average rate of a fare increase whereby larger than average increases are off-set by lower than average increases. For example, a 5% system-wide fare increase for an average trip of 39 miles results in fares increasing between 4.9% and 5.3% depending on fare product (Figure 16). These particular results are for illustration only and may not be typical for all stations. There are no disparate impacts or disproportionately high and adverse effects on Title VI protected populations as a result of the general system-wide fare increase. A separate analysis of the impact of rounding on fares is presented below. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 12 25

33 Figure 16: Sample Fares before and after a 5% Fare Increase Rancho Cucamonga - Cal State LA (39 miles) Average Price after 5% Fare Increase Fare Media before after % change Monthly Pass $ $ % Seven Day Pass $66.50 $ % Roundtrip Ticket (WKD) a, b $19.00 $ % Oneway Ticket (WKD) a, b $9.50 $ % Roundtrip Ticket (WND) a, b $19.00 $ % Oneway Ticket (WND) a $9.50 $ % Weekend Pass $10.00 $ % a. Title VI Fare Product; b. EJ Fare Product 5.4 Fare Rounding Impact Assessment Metrolink Ticket Vending Machines require all fares to be priced in $0.25 increments. Due to this limitation fares are rounded up or down to the nearest $0.25. This rounding has no effect on most fare products, but some lower priced fares may change by more or less than the system-wide average rate of fare increase. On average, however, rounding is more likely to result in a lower rate than would have been the case without rounding (Figure 17). There are no disparate impacts or disproportionately high and adverse effects on Title VI protected populations. Detailed tables showing the rounding effect for individual stations are provided in Appendix A: Effect of Fare Rounding on a 5% Fare Increase. Figure 17: Rounding Effects on Oneway Tickets at Different Rates of Fare Increase One-Way Tickets Rounded Unrounded Fare Increase: 5% 4.4% 4.4% Fare Increase: 6% 5.2% 5.3% Fare Increase: 7% 6.2% 6.1% Fare Increase: 8% 6.9% 7.0% Fare Increase: 9% 7.8% 7.8% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 13 26

34 5.5 Fare Restructuring Impact Assessment In addition to the across-the-board general fare increase Metrolink is continuing with the phased implementation of the Fare Restructuring Policy. This policy, adopted in 2004, transitions Metrolink s zone fare structure to a mileage-based fare structure which removes inequities in the pricing of trips. These inequities result in some short distance trips being priced higher than some longer distance trips. Although the general fare increase applies the same rate increase to all fare products it is possible that individual stations may experience different rates of fare increases due to the effects of the fare restructuring program. In order to test for disparate impacts of the fare restructuring on individual stations Metrolink has determined the minority status of Metrolink stations based on an analysis of census data for each station s catchment area. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census Metrolink s service area covers a population that is 66% minority. There are 21 minority stations as displayed in Figure 18. Figure 18: Minority Station Catchment Areas SCRRA Planning and Research Department 14 27

35 A similar analysis was conducted to identify Environmental Justice populations within our station catchment areas. Using the most current census data low income and minority Census Tracts were identified and aggregated by station catchment area (see Methodology). 39 Metrolink stations were identified as exceeding the threshold for qualifying as an EJ station catchment area (Figure 19). Figure 19: EJ Station Catchment Areas SCRRA Planning and Research Department 15 28

36 Based on the designation as minority or EJ stations it was determined that the fare restructuring has the effect of resulting in a larger average fare decrease for Minority Stations than for Non-Minority stations. The same is the case for EJ Stations (Figure 20). Metrolink has also analyzed the effects of the fare restructuring on individual stations and has determined that there are no disparate impacts or disproportionately high and adverse effects on Title VI protected populations. Detailed information on the effects of the fare restructuring is provided in Appendix B: Effect of Fare Restructuring. Figure 20: Fare Restructuring Impacts Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates Station Type 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% Minority Stations -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% Non-Minority Stations -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% EJ Stations -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% Non-EJ Stations -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.7% 5.6 Discontinuation of Metrolink Ten-Trip Tickets On May 14, 2012 Metrolink has eliminated the sale of the Ten-Trip Ticket, in conjunction with a May 2011 Board action. Metrolink will honor these tickets until they are all either used by the passenger or they reach the 45-day expiration date on June 28, whichever comes first. Metrolink customers will have other ticket options including Monthly Passes, Weekly Passes and Oneway and Round-Trip tickets. For Ten-Trip Ticket customers who make more than seven Oneway-trips per week (3.5 roundtrips) the Monthly Pass and the Seven Day Pass present lower cost options. Also, the Seven Day Pass is priced lower than a comparable Ten-Trip Ticket and thereby reduces the financial outlay required for advance purchases. However, for those Ten-Trip Ticket customers who make seven or fewer Oneway-trips per week (3.5 roundtrips) the best option are Oneway or Roundtrip Tickets which do not carry the 5% discount of the Ten-Trip Ticket. This loss of the 5% discount does not disproportionately impact Minority (Figure 21) or EJ Populations (Figure 22). No disparate impact and no disproportionately high and adverse effects exist and no further analysis or mitigating strategies are required. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 16 29

37 Figure 21: Impact of Discontinued Ten-Trip Ticket on Minorities Fare Media Minority Not Minority Total Ten Trip Ticket (all users) 59% 41% 100% Ten Trip Ticket (impacted users)* 52% 48% 100% System Average 59% 41% 100% * riders making seven or fewer Oneway trips per week Figure 22: Impact of Discontinued Ten-Trip Ticket on EJ Populations Fare Media EJ Not EJ Total Ten Trip Ticket (all users) 62% 38% 100% Ten Trip Ticket (impacted users)* 55% 45% 100% System Average 64% 36% 100% * riders making seven or fewer Oneway trips per week 5.7 Discontinued Acceptance of Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets Metrolink has been accepting Amtrak Monthly Passes and Ten-Trip Tickets as fare payment on Metrolink trains as part of the Rail-2-Rail agreement on the Ventura County and Orange County Lines only.. In order to stem widespread abuse of this policy and to be consist with the policy decision to discontinue Metrolink s Ten-Trip Ticket it is proposed that effective July 1 Metrolink will no longer accept Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets. Metrolink will continue to accept Amtrak Monthly Passes as fare payment. Users of Amtrak Ten-Trip Tickets have the option to purchase Amtrak Monthly Passes. They also have the option to purchase less expensive Metrolink fare products. For example: the price of an Amtrak Ten-Trip Ticket from Los Angeles Union Station to Irvine is $111, which compares to $9.75 for a Metrolink Oneway Ticket (or $97.50 for ten Oneway tickets) for an 11% saving over Amtrak prices. No disparate impact and no disproportionately high and adverse effects exist and no further analysis or mitigating strategies are required. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 17 30

38 6. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS OUTREACH PLAN A public communications outreach plan has been developed to solicit comment on the proposed fare increase as soon as July 1, This increase will allow Metrolink to offset operational cost increases caused by a rise in fuel prices and other critical operating areas. In addition to the 2004 Fare Restructuring Policy, that includes incremental adjustments over a 10 year period, Metrolink is considering a 5% to 9% system-wide average fare increase effective on July 1, The public notification process uses several different strategies to communicate the reasons for a potential fare increases and to solicit public comment. The public must be notified of each subsequent fare increase proposal and their comments must be presented to the Board prior to Board approval of the fare increase. Notification Process Public notification will be accomplished using printed materials, Metrolink publications, digital and social media and public notices and forums. Printed Materials Charts will be created showing how fares will change with the modified, proposed increase. Charts will also show all proposed fares for each station pair. Notices of the proposed fare changes will be sent to stakeholders. Notices will be distributed on trains providing information on public input opportunities. Appropriate advertisements will be placed in newspapers of general circulation to inform the public of the public hearing. Metrolink Publications Articles will be published in the following: Metrolink Matters Corporate Scoop Seat drop bulletins on all trains Digital and Social Media Information The Metrolink website will contain up-to-date information about the fare increase. Members of the public will be able to provide input through the website. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 18 31

39 The website will also have up-to-date information on the fare restructuring, downloadable files showing all new fares. A recorded message tells callers to (800) 371-LlNK how to provide input. Stakeholders will be notified by , through our website, (800) 371-LlNK and Metrolink publications. Notices and links will be posted via Twitter and Facebook. Public and Media Relations Facts about the fare adjustment being considered will be made available as background for articles in newspapers. These stories will serve as a forum for staff and the Board to expand on SCRRA rationale for the next fare increase. Media will be informed of the proposed fare increase and ways the public can make comments. Public Comment/Public Hearing The emphasis will be on soliciting public comment electronically. This has been the preferred method for the public to provide input to SCRRA. The special e-comment section of the website will be activated. One public hearing with an opportunity for the public to comment at a Board meeting will also be scheduled. Community Meetings SCRRA has held workshops in the past for the public to comment on fare adjustments but in recent years attendance has been extremely light or non-existent. Members of the public have shown a strong preference to provide comment through electronic means. Public comments via e-comments numbered in the hundreds in response to the last fare adjustment implemented in However, this is still an option should the Board elect to expand the outreach. Member Agencies and Station Cities Staff will reach out to the member agencies and station cities staff to expand the outreach via their communications networks. A report compiling the input from the public will be presented to the Board. A summary of the results is provided in Appendix C:. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 19 32

40 Appendix A: Effect of Fare Rounding on a 5% Fare Increase One-Way Ticket Monthly Pass Minority Stations Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded ANAHEIM 4.2% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% BALDWIN PARK 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% CAL STATE LA 4.4% 4.7% 5.0% 5.0% COMMERCE 4.9% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% DOWNTOWN POMONA` 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% EAST ONTARIO 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% EL MONTE 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% FONTANA 3.8% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% INDUSTRY 4.2% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% LA UNION STATION 4.4% 4.6% 5.0% 5.0% MONTCLAIR 4.1% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% MONTEBELLO / COMMERCE 4.8% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% NORWALK / SANTE FE SPRINGS 4.0% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% OXNARD 4.3% 4.4% 4.9% 4.9% PALMDALE 4.7% 4.8% 5.2% 5.2% PEDLEY 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% POMONA - NORTH 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% RIALTO 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% SUN VALLEY 4.5% 4.6% 4.8% 4.8% SYLMAR / SAN FERNANDO 5.1% 5.2% 5.5% 5.5% Grand Total 4.3% 4.4% 4.6% 4.6% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 20 33

41 One-Way Ticket Monthly Pass Non-Minority Stations Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded ANAHEIM CANYON 4.1% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% BUENA PARK 4.1% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% BURBANK 5.7% 5.6% 6.1% 6.1% BURBANK AIRPORT 5.9% 5.8% 6.4% 6.4% CAMARILLO 4.5% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% CHATSWORTH 5.0% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% CLAREMONT 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% COVINA 4.1% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% EAST VENTURA 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% FULLERTON 4.5% 5.0% 5.4% 5.4% GLENDALE 4.8% 4.9% 5.3% 5.3% IRVINE 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% LAGUNA NIGUEL / MISSION VIEJO 4.0% 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% LANCASTER 4.9% 5.1% 5.7% 5.7% MOORPARK 4.8% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% NEWHALL 4.5% 4.7% 4.9% 4.9% NORTH MAIN CORONA 4.6% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% NORTHRIDGE 4.6% 4.4% 4.6% 4.5% OCEANSIDE 4.7% 4.7% 5.2% 5.2% ORANGE 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% RANCHO CUCAMONGA 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA 4.1% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% SAN BERNARDINO 4.6% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% SAN CLEMENTE 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 4.0% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% SANTA ANA 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% SANTA CLARITA 5.0% 5.1% 5.4% 5.4% SIMI VALLEY 5.0% 5.1% 5.5% 5.5% TUSTIN 3.4% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% UPLAND 4.2% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% VAN NUYS 5.1% 5.0% 5.3% 5.3% VIA PRINCESSA 5.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.1% VINCENT GRADE / ACTON 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4.5% WEST CORONA 4.2% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% Grand Total 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 21 34

42 One-Way Ticket Monthly Pass EJ Stations Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded ANAHEIM 4.2% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% BALDWIN PARK 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% BUENA PARK 4.1% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% CAL STATE LA 4.4% 4.7% 5.0% 5.0% CLAREMONT 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% COMMERCE 4.9% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% COVINA 4.1% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% DOWNTOWN POMONA` 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% EAST ONTARIO 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% EL MONTE 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% FONTANA 3.8% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% FULLERTON 4.5% 5.0% 5.4% 5.4% INDUSTRY 4.2% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% LA UNION STATION 4.4% 4.6% 5.0% 5.0% LANCASTER 4.9% 5.1% 5.7% 5.7% MONTCLAIR 4.1% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% MONTEBELLO / COMMERCE 4.8% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% NORTH MAIN CORONA 4.6% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% NORTHRIDGE 4.6% 4.4% 4.6% 4.5% NORWALK / SANTE FE SPRINGS 4.0% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% ORANGE 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% OXNARD 4.3% 4.4% 4.9% 4.9% PALMDALE 4.7% 4.8% 5.2% 5.2% PEDLEY 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% POMONA - NORTH 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% RANCHO CUCAMONGA 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% RIALTO 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA 4.1% 4.5% 4.7% 4.7% SAN BERNARDINO 4.6% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% SANTA ANA 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% SUN VALLEY 4.5% 4.6% 4.8% 4.8% SYLMAR / SAN FERNANDO 5.1% 5.2% 5.5% 5.5% TUSTIN 3.4% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% UPLAND 4.2% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% VAN NUYS 5.1% 5.0% 5.3% 5.3% VIA PRINCESSA 5.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.1% VINCENT GRADE / ACTON 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4.5% WEST CORONA 4.2% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% Grand Total 4.3% 4.3% 4.5% 4.5% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 22 35

43 One-Way Ticket Monthly Pass Non-EJ Stations Rounded Unrounded Rounded Unrounded ANAHEIM CANYON 4.1% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% BURBANK 5.7% 5.6% 6.1% 6.1% BURBANK AIRPORT 5.9% 5.8% 6.4% 6.4% CAMARILLO 4.5% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% CHATSWORTH 5.0% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% EAST VENTURA 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% GLENDALE 4.8% 4.9% 5.3% 5.3% IRVINE 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% LAGUNA NIGUEL / MISSION VIEJO 4.0% 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% MOORPARK 4.8% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% NEWHALL 4.5% 4.7% 4.9% 4.9% OCEANSIDE 4.7% 4.7% 5.2% 5.2% SAN CLEMENTE 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 4.0% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% SANTA CLARITA 5.0% 5.1% 5.4% 5.4% SIMI VALLEY 5.0% 5.1% 5.5% 5.5% Grand Total 4.6% 4.6% 4.9% 4.9% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 23 36

44 Appendix B: Effect of Fare Restructuring Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates Minority Station 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% ANAHEIM -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.3% BALDWIN PARK -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% CAL STATE LA -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% COMMERCE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DOWNTOWN POMONA` -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% EAST ONTARIO -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% EL MONTE -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% FONTANA -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6% INDUSTRY -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% LA UNION STATION -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% MONTCLAIR -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% MONTEBELLO / COMMERCE 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% NORWALK / SANTE FE SPRINGS -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% OXNARD -0.4% -0.7% -1.0% -1.3% -1.6% PALMDALE 0.0% -0.2% -0.4% -0.5% -0.7% PEDLEY -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% POMONA - NORTH -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% RIALTO -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% SUN VALLEY -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% SYLMAR / SAN FERNANDO 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Grand Total -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 24 37

45 Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates Non-Minority Station 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% ANAHEIM CANYON -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% BUENA PARK -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% BURBANK 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% BURBANK AIRPORT 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% CAMARILLO -0.3% -0.5% -0.8% -1.0% -1.2% CHATSWORTH -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% CLAREMONT -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% COVINA -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% EAST VENTURA -0.3% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% -1.5% FULLERTON 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% GLENDALE 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% IRVINE -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% LAGUNA NIGUEL / MISSION VIEJO -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.7% LANCASTER 0.4% 0.1% -0.1% -0.3% -0.6% MOORPARK 0.0% -0.2% -0.3% -0.5% -0.6% NEWHALL -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% NORTH MAIN CORONA -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% NORTHRIDGE -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% OCEANSIDE -0.1% -0.4% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% ORANGE -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% RANCHO CUCAMONGA -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.5% RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA -0.4% -0.5% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% SAN BERNARDINO -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% SAN CLEMENTE -1.1% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.7% SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO -0.9% -1.0% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% SANTA ANA -1.8% -1.9% -1.9% -2.0% -2.1% SANTA CLARITA 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% SIMI VALLEY 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% TUSTIN -1.4% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6% -1.7% UPLAND -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% VAN NUYS 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% VIA PRINCESSA 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% VINCENT GRADE / ACTON -0.6% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% WEST CORONA -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% Grand Total -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 25 38

46 Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates EJ Station 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% ANAHEIM -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.3% BALDWIN PARK -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% BUENA PARK -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% CAL STATE LA -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% CLAREMONT -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% COMMERCE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% COVINA -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% DOWNTOWN POMONA` -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% EAST ONTARIO -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% EL MONTE -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% FONTANA -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6% FULLERTON 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% INDUSTRY -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% LA UNION STATION -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% LANCASTER 0.4% 0.1% -0.1% -0.3% -0.6% MONTCLAIR -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% MONTEBELLO / COMMERCE 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% NORTH MAIN CORONA -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% -0.7% NORTHRIDGE -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% NORWALK / SANTE FE SPRINGS -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% ORANGE -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.1% OXNARD -0.4% -0.7% -1.0% -1.3% -1.6% PALMDALE 0.0% -0.2% -0.4% -0.5% -0.7% PEDLEY -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% POMONA - NORTH -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% RANCHO CUCAMONGA -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.5% RIALTO -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA -0.4% -0.5% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% SAN BERNARDINO -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% SANTA ANA -1.8% -1.9% -1.9% -2.0% -2.1% SUN VALLEY -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% SYLMAR / SAN FERNANDO 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% TUSTIN -1.4% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6% -1.7% UPLAND -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% VAN NUYS 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% VIA PRINCESSA 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% VINCENT GRADE / ACTON -0.6% -0.8% -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% WEST CORONA -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% Grand Total -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 26 39

47 Effect of Fare Restructuring at different Fare Increase Rates Non-EJ Station 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% ANAHEIM CANYON -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% BUENA PARK 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% BURBANK 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% BURBANK AIRPORT -0.3% -0.5% -0.8% -1.0% -1.2% CAMARILLO -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% CHATSWORTH -0.3% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% -1.5% CLAREMONT 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% COVINA -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% -1.2% -1.2% EAST VENTURA -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.7% FULLERTON 0.0% -0.2% -0.3% -0.5% -0.6% GLENDALE -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% IRVINE -0.1% -0.4% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% LAGUNA NIGUEL / MISSION VIEJO -1.1% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.7% LANCASTER -0.9% -1.0% -1.2% -1.3% -1.4% MOORPARK 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% NEWHALL 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% Grand Total -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.7% SCRRA Planning and Research Department 27 40

48 Appendix C: Methodology Title VI and Environmental Justice Equity Analysis Methodology for Fare Changes 1. Introduction May 2012 In compliance with the mandates in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Environmental Justice (EJ) provisions in Presidential Executive Order 12898, Metrolink will conduct a fare equity analysis in regards to minority (Title VI protected classes) as well as EJ populations (persons who are either members of a protected minority or persons with incomes below 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level). The FTA Environmental Justice guidelines define low-income as household income that is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] poverty guidelines. The HHS poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for federal and other programs and vary by household size. In 2009 (the reference year for income information) the base level is $10,830 for a one-person household, increasing by $3,740 for each additional person. The average household size in the Metrolink service area is 3.05 (2012 Regional Transportation Plan, Southern California Association of Governments ). The corresponding poverty guideline for a family of three is $18,310. This analysis defines lowincome status using a $20,000 household income threshold to ensure consistency between U.S. Census figures and Metrolink ridership demographic data. This analysis will be conducted using the methodology described below for all fare changes or changes to fare media rules, fees or eligibility, or to the availability of fare media as required in Metrolink s Service Delivery Policy. 2. Determination of Minority or EJ Status The determination if the fare product or fare media being changed is disproportionately used by Title VI or EJ populations is accomplished through an examination of onboard survey data that identifies the minority status or income of passengers using Metrolink services by fare product. For each fare product or media being considered for change the percentage of minority or EJ users shall be identified. If reliable onboard survey data are not available the determination of minority or EJ status of individual stations census data shall be utilized. The results shall be presented in tabular form. A full equity analysis shall be conducted if there is a disproportionate use by Title VI or EJ populations. 1. Minority status of a fare product is determined if the percentage of Title VI users is at least 5 percentage points higher than the system-wide average of Title VI riders. 2. EJ status of a fare product is determined if the percentage of EJ users is at least 5 percentage points higher than the system-wide average of EJ users (either minority or low income). SCRRA Planning and Research Department 28 41

49 3. Minority status of individual stations is determined based on census data for each station catchment area. Stations will be considered as Minority Stations if the percentage of minorities within the station catchment area is greater than the average for all catchment areas. 4. EJ status of individual stations is determined if the percentage of minorities within the station catchment area is at least 5 percentage points greater than the average for all catchment areas, or if the percentage of minorities exceeds 50 percent, regardless of what the percentage of minority populations is in the comparison geographic unit. 5. Stations will also be considered as EJ Stations if the percentage of low income households within the station catchment area is at least 5 percentage points greater than the average for all catchment areas, or if the percentage of low income households exceeds 50 percent, regardless of what the percentage of minority populations is in the comparison geographic unit. 3. Determine Title VI Disparate Impacts or EJ Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects 3.1 Disparate Impacts on Title VI Populations Metrolink will determine if any of the proposals or alternatives would have the effect of disproportionately excluding or adversely affecting people based on race, color or national origin and thereby create a disparate impact. Alternatives may include other existing fares or new fare options. A disparate impact is deemed to exist: 1. if the cost of a specific fare product that has been determined to be disproportionately used by Title VI populations is increased at a rate more than 20 percent higher than those fare products not disproportionately used by Title VI populations (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25); or 2. if the cost of a specific fare product that has been determined to be disproportionately used by Non-Title VI populations is decreased at a rate more than 20 percent lower than those fare products disproportionately used by Title VI populations, it shall be considered to have disparate impact (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25); or 3. if fare policy restructuring results in an average rate of a fare increase that is higher for Minority stations than for Non-Minority stations for the same fare product (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25). Disparate impact will only be considered to exist if the difference between the minority and non-minority fare product is also greater than 5 percentage points. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 29 42

50 For other fare system changes such as, but not limited to, eliminating a fare or product, increasing a fee or changing the availability of a specific product an appropriate evaluation shall similarly determine if the proposed change or alternatives creates disparate impacts. 3.2 Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects on EJ Populations If the fare product(s) being changed are used disproportionately by minorities or low income groups, Metrolink will determine if any of the proposals or alternatives would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on these EJ populations. Alternatives may include other existing fares or new fare options. A disproportionately high and adverse effect is deemed to exist: 1. if the cost of a specific fare product that has been determined to be disproportionately used by EJ populations is increased at a rate more than 20 percent higher than those fare products not disproportionately used by EJ populations (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25); or 2. if the cost of a specific fare product that has been determined to be disproportionately used by Non-EJ populations is decreased at a rate more than 20 percent lower than those fare products disproportionately used by EJ populations, it shall be considered to have disparate impact (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25); or 3. if fare policy restructuring results in an average rate of a fare increase that is higher for EJ stations than for Non-EJ stations for the same fare product (unless caused by rounding to the nearest $0.25). 3.3 Results If there are no disparate impacts on Title VI populations, and no disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations, for the preferred fare alternative no further action is required. A final report shall be prepared and presented for consideration to the Board of Directors. A copy of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting where the Fare Equity Report was considered will be submitted to the FTA along with a copy of the report. If there are disparate impacts for Title VI populations the planning process must continue to the next step. If there are disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations but there are sufficient offsetting benefits or mitigations, the changes may be implemented. The proposed fare changes may also proceed if it is found that further mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations are not practicable. No further analysis or action is required for EJ populations. The conclusions regarding EJ populations will be integrated into the final report for Board consideration and minutes forwarded to the FTA. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 30 43

51 4. Title VI Disparate Impacts Analysis A final report will be prepared for the Board of Directors consideration. The report will identify which alternative fare change is recommended for implementation. The report will confirm that there are no alternatives that are less discriminatory and would still accomplish Metrolink s program objective. If the recommended alternative includes disparate impacts on Title VI protected populations the Metrolink Board of Directors will pass a motion confirming the change meets both of the following tests: 4.1 There is substantial legitimate justification for adopting the proposed fare change by meeting a goal that is integral to the mission of Metrolink; and 4.2 The alternatives would have a more severe adverse effect on Title VI protected populations than the preferred alternative A copy of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting where the test was approved by Board will be submitted to the FTA along with a copy of the report. SCRRA Planning and Research Department 31 44

52 May 30, 2012 Special Board Meeting ITEM 3 Attachment C Passenger Comments for July 1, 2012 on Proposed Fare Increase for FY As of May 22,

53 Attachment C ecomment Report Metrolink Notice of Public Hearing / Potential Fare Increase FY2013 Wednesday, May 30, 2012 Top Discussion Item Agenda Item Position % Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% Total Number of Comments: 97 Support None 5% 85% 9% Public Comments Summary Opinion Agenda Item Support None Total Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% Total 368 Public Comments Details Page 1 46

54 Agenda Item Support None Total Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5% Sandra Southers sjean84@yahoo.com San Bernardino Fontana CA Scott Barker scotty5678@aol.com San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA Dave Hodges dhodges@chapman.edu Orange County orange CA Ken Lund klund909@charter.net San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA I support the increase but Metrolink is getting ripped off by passengers who do not pay their fare along the San Bernardino line beginning at San Bernardino through Rancho Cucamonga. I saw 3 Sheriffs sit in their seats and didn't check any tickets until I overheard them say they will begin in Fontana. I've seen like about 10 passengers in San Bernardino get on for free and I've seen 5 passengers get on at Rialto without paying the fare. Metrolink you will still lose money even if you raise the fare. I support a slight increase, I understand expenses have escalated this past year & the riders will have to do thier part to keep things going You conveniently set up this comment section to get us to "say yes to the lesser evil." We DON'T want any fare increase, but this is better than any of the other options. For me (and probably many others) one helpfule option would be to lower the Senior age limit to 62 (from 65.) I agree with the fare increase. I have a few comments you can do to increase your revenue. I have been a full time rider for the last 12 years and a part time rider for 3 years prior to that. One way to increase revenue is to have the conductors check tickets and passes more often. When they do check, make sure they look not only at the month, but the year. A few guys who ride the train cover up the year on the pass with their fingers showing only the month. They have been using the same July pass since Also, some passengers by a monthly pass from Covina to LUSD when they embark and disembark from Rancho Cucamonga. Their monthly pass cost is cut in half becasue of this. Support 5/20/2012 Support 5/17/2012 Support 5/17/2012 Support 5/14/2012 Of all the years I have been riding the trains I have only seen a few passengers get citied. Most of the time the passengers talk their way out. The conductors should have a zero tolerance. Either you hav e a ticket or you don't. The conductors do not realize what is said about them once the passengers have taqlked their way out of a ticket. Thecomments are not kind. Some folks say why buy a ticket, they do not check and if your caught we jsut talk our way outof it. If word goes out that the conductors have zero tolerance and the whole pass is checked (for month and YEAR and the stations)revenue will go up. charlesduane romero charlesduaneromero9027 0@msn.com Inland Empire - Orange County perris CA Thanks. 3 May 2012: Thursday: I have a young friend who is mentally& phyically disabied. He saves alot of money by taking the metrolink train R/T from Fulterton, CA out to Riverside. Please keep a 5 % increase. If possible do not increase the handicapped all. Thank you very much. Charles Duane Romero. retired Disabied American, VFW, & USAFR Veteran. Support 5/3/2012 Page 2 47

55 Greg Wong Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA Dear Metrolink Board and Committee, I would like to first thank you for giving the public an excellent alternative to driving in LA's congested freeways. It really makes a difference in my life commuting between Santa Clarita and downtown LA. I would also like to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to voice our concerns especially if we cannot make it to a public hearing due to commute times or other personal reasons. None 5/23/2012 Currently, I would have to oppose any high fare increase (about 7+%) mainly for the reason that Metrolink does not have fare gates and relies entirely upon the traveling public to be on the "honor system". Many times I see people receiving citations for not having a ticket for reasons as ridiculous as "not knowing they had to pay". I've visited Taiwan, Taipei specifically, and they have a wonderful public mass transit system. One can load a card with money and use it on buses and trains. The MRT stations (similar to our Metrorail) all have fare gates and security personnel and cameras to monitor the gates. I'm sure there are people who jump the gates but in the many many times I have used the system, only once did I see someone board a bus when they are supposed to pay when boarding. Sometimes one must pay when stepping off the bus, it depends on the bus/route. I would really like to see Metro employ fare gates to force people to be honest. Let's face it, if the public didn't have to pay for something, knew the rules would not be enforced and could get away with it, how many people would pay for something like bus or train fare? I would imagine thousands if not millions of people across the country would take advantage of that business model. Metro is not a charity but a business. As such it needs to make money to survive. If the riding public is not forced to pay for something they need, won't. Plain and simple. I don't mind paying for a service I receive but I do mind sponsoring others to ride for free. Sure, people get tickets but I've also seen them get ripped up as soon as the officer is out of sight. That's right. Ripped up then the people laugh and joke. I don't know how many board members frequent the trains but it's the sad reality that people won't pay if they don't need to or if caught, they don't care. Alberto Martinez albertos. @gmail.co m Orange County Downey Ca I hope that something changes with Metro and Metrolink because I'd sure hate to drive to work everyday. I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine to Union Station. - Add a third train from Irvine to LA Union Station at/about 6PM. Right now we have a 4:19 From Irvine to Union Station and a 5:10 from Irvine to Union Station. None 5/22/2012 Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles Page 3 48

56 already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. JOAN MCCOY nightmare59@yahoo.com Antelope Valley LANCASTER CA James Takos 300Penguins@gmail.com Orange County Fullerton CA Justin Fischer justinfischer@gmail.com San Bernardino Los Angeles CA I only ride the metrolink occassionally. I am 73 years old an enjoy the trip to LA. Recently my daughter and I took the train for business in LA There was an elderly hispanic woman across from us who showed her access pass when tickets were checked. Coming back there was a young man sitting across from us who I would say was in his twenties who also had a access pass. The young man was telling a gentleman sitting by him how easy it was to get the pass and travel for free. He said he visited his family using the free pass. He incouraged the gentleman to go get one. This is one of the reasons the train is loosing money. Able bodied people having a free pass. While I am normally opposed to any fair increase, I believe you need to modify the ticketing machines so I can use two debit cards/credit cards to pay for my monthly pass. My employer only pays a portion of the fair and I pay the rest. I get the pass by mail, which sometimes is lte for the next month due to the date my employer provides the money. If I could use two debit cards, I would not need to mail in for my monthly pass. You could, through attrition or reassignment, then reduce the workers currently involved in the mail in process. I'm commenting on the cheapest option since this is about fares in general. I've been using Metrolink to commute from my home in LA to my weekday work in Rancho Cucamonga for two years - a "backwards" commute in the low-traffic direction. During this time I've paid about $270 per month for passes. However, I'm switching to a car pool next month - here's why. * Faster - backwards commuter trains are frequently required to stop and wait for the other side to pass. * Cheaper - I'll only be paying $160 for car pooling plus $84 for an EZpass, a total of $244. None 5/20/2012 None 5/18/2012 None 5/18/2012 I humbly suggest that Metrolink investigates creating a new "backwards commute" monthly pass. Currently these train cars are mostly empty, so there's a good chance that lowering specific fares would actually raise profits by increasing ridership. It's perfectly reasonable to give the majority of commuters preferential treatment in terms of which train waits and which train passes, but this makes it a far less appealing deal for those of us in the minority. If Metrolink ever adds a second track to the San Bernardino line or adopts a more balanced monthly pass system, please me and I would be happy to become your customer again. Page 4 49

57 Sincerely, Justin Fischer Sue Clemons Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA Jesus Escatiola Inland Empire - Orange County Colton CA PAULINE NGUYEN phuong.x.nguyen@lausd. net Riverside City Industry ca Devin Campbell dcampbell@tca-arch.com Orange County Rancho Santa Margarita CA I hope that Metrolink will NOT gouge the Senior/Disabled folks like they did in the last fare adjustment. We are the group who can least afford it. We did not have a 6% raise, it was more like 25%. I respectfully submit that another way of mitigating some of the proposed fare increases being considered might be to find a way to verify that all passengers boarding the trains have a valid ticket. I don't know whether or not Metrolink has statistics as to the number of non-paying passengers riding the system and how much potential income it is loosing as a result. On new fiscal year , I just work 35 hours/week. My budget can't affort for metro link fare anymore I don't know why metrolink can't reduce fare same like Foothill Transit is proposing a promotional fare reduction on the Silver Streak from $2.75 to $2.45 I don't support fare increase for Metrolink fare at any % I believe that any system wide increase in fares MUST be accompanied by a review of inservice trains and cars for mechanical soundness. I have experienced a drastic decrease in on time performance over the last few weeks and months. It has mostly been due to mechanical failures of my train/car or a different train/car that affects my on-time performance. Accountability and transparency must be a part of any fare increase. None 5/16/2012 None 5/14/2012 None 5/9/2012 None 5/7/2012 Chris Concepcion I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare Page 5 50

58 om San Bernardino increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible. 5/23/2012 Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more. Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers. Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution. nancy hensien nhensien@ochcs.com Inland Empire - Orange County temecula ca Karin Wakefield thewakester@yahoo.com Ventura County Reseda CA Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom to So YES i got raised last year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise evweryone else. Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. Thank you. 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 Jennifer Eckhart Why is it that when fuel prices decrease the fare stays the same, but when there is an Page 6 51

59 Antelope Valley QUAN TRUONG m 91 Corona CA salah alamoodi Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca salah alamoodi Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Esmeralda Valencia mail.com Riverside Downtowne Pomona Markus Quon Orange County Oceanside CA increase, it goes up? As per the notice on potential fare increases, this is also due to a nationwide labor settlement. Until we are able to address the long term fiscal problems with labor unions, this will be an ongoing issue and potentially lead to a shut down of Metrolink. The causes for these fiscal problems at Metrolink are not being addressed and riders are given the burden to close the funding gap. Please work on a more permanent solution to this ongoing problem as the fare is costly already. Yearly fare increases will not resolve this issue! Your reasons to increase the fare are not appropriate because your organization has not improved the public transportation. You encouraged people to use the public transportation and the problem is that people arrive late to their work, so what benefit for people to show up late to work? I am not willing to pay for a low quality service! I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare them before you adjust the rates. I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare them before you adjust the rates. I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final destination. I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times. 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 5/21/2012 I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip. Page 7 52

60 At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time. Carolyn Delgado Carolyn.V.Delgado@irs.go v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes nancirhodes@verizon.net Riverside rancho cucamonga ca nancy rhodes nancirhodes@verizon.net Riverside rancho cucamonga ca Justin Case JustinCase@netzero.com San Bernardino Covina ca I am truly not happy with a 5% increase, I do understand the cost of living keeps going up on everything but possibly a 3% increase will be better. I struggle now with paying the monthly pass & if the increase goes to high I won't be able to purchase the monthly pass to ride everyday & look into other means of transportation. Also in addition to my other comment, maybe there could be a check of fares/tickets and passes more often. I am sure that people that do not pay and ride for free is taken into consideration in the raising of fares. I don't think it is right that we should have to subsidize those that ride free. thanks I remember when the increases were 3 percent each year. Although gas has increased in price, I am asking that you take into consideration the current economic situation of your riders. I work for the courts and we have not received an increase in salary or even cost of living raise in the last 3-4 years. Prices are rising and our pay is currently going nowhere. But if you have to increase, please do so at the lowest percentage possible. I thank you for your consideration in this matter. I am praying for a favorable outcome. That you would be led by God to do the right and equitable thing. God Bless! This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top. 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in Page 8 53

61 every single rout. It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times. The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit" DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do! If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours? Ray Aller raller@usc.edu Orange County Oceanside CA This is very misleading. Recent policy changes have made it impossible for riders (those who ride 2-3 days each week) to purchase tickets with pre-tax dollars. 5/18/2012 This has resulted in the effective fare almost doubling. The real shame is that most of this increase in cost does NOT flow to Metrolink - rather, it goes to the Federal Government in income tax. We pointed out this problem in our comments a ye ar ago. Apparently management chose to ignore the concern. Eileen Haniuk mseileenflores@yahoo.co m Orange County I wouldn't mind paying even a significant fare increase - if the money was going to Metrolink. I have a realy problem with it going to the IRS. Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown Burbank. To increase the fare another 5% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same 5/18/2012 Page 9 54

62 and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons. Eileen Haniuk mseileenflores@yahoo.co m Orange County Alicia Garcia alicia.i.garcia@kp.org Inland Empire - Orange County Quail Valley CA V McDaniel cashmereheart@att.net Riverside Riverside ca Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown Burbank. To increase the fare another 5% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons. Enough of the increases - no improvement - no seats, cancellations, toilets are unbareable. Seniors have gotten 3 times an incrase from the last time they increased. A fare increase of ANY amount would effect riders in a negative way. It seems that your company would take a pulse of the economy and how it has effected us riders. Many of us working class people had to take cuts in pay and bonuses have been eliminated. Many companies no longer give cost of living increases and they tell us "just be lucky" to have a job. 5/18/2012 5/18/2012 5/18/2012 Health insurance premiums have increased, as well as the tuitions to keep our kids in college. Page 10 55

63 We are being squeezed from almost EVERY area. Please, please consider this a very bad time for fare increases. Can you look at other areas such as reducing the amount of cars on the train to save fuel. The bike car seems to be a waste. I never see anymore than 2-3 bikes at the most. Have you considered work furlough days and pay freezes for your staff to shave costs? Everyone is in the same boat and have to make sacrifices. Any fare increase would have a negative impact, but we could probably live with a 1-2% increase.please NOT a 5-10% increase. Most people moved to the IE to avoid the high costs associated with living in LA County. But, Metrolink continues to take more and more money from us and more frequently than ever before. Please consider a 1-2% increase if any at all. Susan Bird niteowlady@hotmail.com Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA Theresa Fagan theresa.fagan@libertymu tual.com Ventura County Simi Valley Ca Steven Grossman starbase105@yahoo.com Orange County Brea Ca Instead of increasing fares for paying passengers, why not do more to make sure that ALL passengers buy a ticket in the first place? I rarely see the Sheriff checking any more, maybe 3-4 times a month. If the conductor would check tickets on EVERY train to catch those who do not pay, fares could stay low for everyone who DOES pay. Although I ride various trains, I most frequently ride AV Line 208 and 217, and I ALWAYS buy a monthly pass or ticket! I have been riding Metrolink for 9 years. I, of coure, am opposed to the fare increase. With one kid in college and another starting college in two years, I hope to keep the cost of commuting to a minimum. One of the issues I have is that there does not seem to be any consequence for riding without a ticket. I am a monthly pass holder...i buy each month and carry my ticket every day. Tickets are rarely checked...and the few times they are checked, Ive seen people get off with a "warning". Where is the consequence?! I've seen a lot of people get "free rides" and I don't think it is fair. Those of us who legitimately ride with valid proof of fare are going to get penalized with a fare increase while there are some who take a chance of not getting caught. There needs to be a better system for checking tickets...make those who ride pay and maybe Metrolink won't have to increase fares as frequently! Whether the fare increase is 5% or more, my comment is that I ride the train three to four times a week, twice a day. In the last 30 days and more, I have not been asked for any fare payment. If you enforced people to show that they paid like Amtrack does each time, you would have more people paying and you would have more money coming in. The need for such an increase would not be as necessary. The way it is now, the honest fare paying people are subsidising those that don't pay. 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 Justin Rogers I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising Page 11 56

64 om Orange County Buena Park CA Jon Lyle Orange County Anaheim Ca Lisa Darling 91 Lake Elsinore CA Paula Hoffman Ventura County Camarillo ca Albric Ghokasian cgov.com Orange County Santa Ana CA Albric Ghokasian cgov.com fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered. It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very frustrating to me and others as your customers. Metrolink needs more effecitve Budget Analysis and Expense Reviews to prevent increases such as the one proposed passed down to riders this July Rising fuel costs is a given and should be budgeted and anticipated, it is an insult to use this as a means of explanation for a proposed increase in any year. We all deal with fuel price increases and ebbs and flows - when is the last time we saw a reduction in fares when there's relatively lower fuel costs - never. I would feel more supportive of increases if it were in line with current economic trends and payroll realities of your riders. I know that I did not receive a 5% increase in pay this year - let only 9%. If Metrolink employees compensation or any labor dispute resolution was not anticipated, let alone budgeted for in advance, should not be the responsiblity of Metrolink ridership to in essence be tasked with resolving through higher fares imposed. If I had some assurances that higher fares were being used towards a increased budget analysis team or expense review committee with benchmarked goals and timelines for resolution enforced - I might feel better about supporting fare increases. As a side note - no one, and I mean, NO ONE in the ridership community, that did not have any direct ties or connnections to Metrolink - would have or do to this day, support the decision made for NEW train cars and crash improvement technology which I'm inclined to believe is the thrust of the major expenses incurred that Metrolink is now playing catchup for over the past few years - if one unattentive conductor who chose texting over driving a train, hadn't been doing that - Metrolink wouldn't be in this deficit position or having these increase discussions at all. Not the the riderships problem to solve. Why should we have to pay for your lack of safety? I strongly urge you not to increase rates. Stop the newsletter and other costly things you don't need. KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging transportation at both ends. Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 Page 12 57

65 Orange County Santa Ana CA cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging transportation at both ends. mary smith 91 fullerton ca Yvette Robinson mutual.com San Bernardino Claremont CA Pam Pert al.com Orange County San Clemente ca David Wetzel Orange County Laguna Niguel CA Jeff Carlon Antelope Valley Pearblossom ca Mary Alexander Orange County Mission Viejo CA Lenora Mitchell 91 Riverside CA ANY INCREASE IN FARE WOULD NOW CAUSE ME TO RIDE THE BUS. YOUR CONSISTENT RISE IN FARES WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ANYONE RECEIVING A COST OF LIVING INCREASE IN WAGES IS OUTRAGEOUS DURING THESE TIMES OF HARDSHIP! I have used the 10 Trip Ticket for the last 4 years. This ticket is no longer available making my trip more expensive as of 5/16/12. I have calculated by trip is now 5% more expensive my eliminating the 10 day trip ticket. An additional increase would not be fair or reasonable. I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. This would increase my fare to a total of 10%. My biggest concern today is the elimination of the 10 trip tickets without informing the public or advanced notice. This IS a defacto rate increase. I do not know the laws or regulations surrounding fare increases, but it seems to me that a decision like this would be prohibited without notification or public hearing. I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon See comment under 9% This comment is directed toward all potential fare increases. While I understand that your increased costs will be passed along to the commuter, I would like to draw your attention to the details regarding the notice of your hearing. When I boarded my train in Downtown Riverside (91 Line) on May 10, each individual seat had your printed notice of the public hearing on potential fee increases. This notice was printed on glossy paper which is expensive and in colored ink which is also expensive. This extravagant waste of money certainly makes one wonder at how well Metrolink is managing finances by throwing away money on 5/17/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 5/15/2012 5/15/2012 5/14/2012 Page 13 58

66 unnecessary glossy paper notices printed in colored ink. I am opposed to your fee increases until you demonstrate better fiscal management. Efren Malagon efren.malagon@dss.ca.go v San Bernardino Fontana CA Joanne Choi jojo_wy0715@yahoo.com Riverside A 5-9% increase is difficult. Furthermore, the elimination of the 10 day trip ticket is going to really hurt me. I only ride the train three times a week. Now I will be forced to pay for a monthly pass. Metrolink wants the individuals who work Monday thru Friday to pay for services that are provided mid day and on weekends. You should eliminate weekend services. No written comment was submitted. 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 Sandy Ikeda sandyikeda@gmail.com Ventura County PORT HUENEME ca Carlos Garibay carlosmgaribay@gmail.co m Riverside Rowland Heights Ca Angela Perez g9409@lapd.lacity.org Ventura County Simi Valley CA SUKHMINDER SINGH singhsukhminder@yahoo. com Riverside Riverside CA danny Quezada piguosjunk1@hotmail.co m Ventura County Oxnard ca Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now. Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on the train if the fare increase is approved. With City of LA furloughs & pay cuts, I would not be able to afford to ride the Metrolink. I would have to find another means of transportation. Fare increase is unfair. Itis being raised every time and I am already paying $ every month and that increase will be added to that. As in case of Metro the system runs by getting funding from many other sources in addition to fare. Why Metrolink not funded by state, county and cities. Is it because rich people having cars (or auto industry lobby) don't care about common people with limited resources? Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 Page 14 59

67 Maggie Martinez Ventura County Chatsworth ca Matt Barrett m San Bernardino Upland CA Alicia Chavez San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA Robert Carlson Inland Empire - Orange County Lake Elsinore CA paul ruelas riskybizns@aol.com San Bernardino covina ca paul ruelas riskybizns@aol.com San Bernardino covina ca Casate Yuri aracelm@aol.com 91 Corona ca Rick Ehrlich rick451@linkline.com Ventura County Camarillo CA With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders. Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. My salary starting the month of July is going to be reduce 10%. I been ridding the train for 10 years and I been able to pay the increases but at this time it will be very bad for my economy. Please help us in this matter not increasing the fares So far in 2012 I have had my ticket checked twice and that was on back to back mornings in February, so why not better enforcement checking tickets instead of making the honest hard working people who buy there monthly passes front the bill for all those who ride free. I have actually heard people taking since there is basically no enforcement any more that there going to "roll the dice" and while I personally would never do that I would or will get back in the car with any additional increase in fares. Any fare increase would be a hardship. Increases have been imposed over the past few years. When will it end? Budget cuts within local companies coupled with furloughs and salary cuts have made the cost of living in So Cal very difficult. There has to be another solution for cost savings within your agency instead of putting the load on the backs of commuters. Any fare increase would be a hardship. Increases have been imposed over the past few years. When will it end? Budget cuts within local companies coupled with furloughs and salary cuts have made the cost of living in So Cal very difficult. There has to be another solution for cost savings within your agency instead of putting the load on the backs of commuters. I find it hard to believe that you cannot find cost efficiencies with in your organization to cover your the monetary shortfall. Going back to your customers, while it's the path of least resistance, should be your last resort, instead your management should challenge the unions and re think your business model so real time adjustments (both increase and decrease) due to fuel price fluctuations are be reflected in the price of the fare. Any other operational costs increases should be handle in the form of challenges to management to reducing costs. Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is /14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/13/2012 5/13/2012 5/11/2012 5/11/2012 Page 15 60

68 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now. I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like. I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages. Thank you, Rick Kirstin Largent PARALEGAL1369@HOTM AIL.COM Riverside Rowland Heights CA Ernesto Munilla topgude@hotmail.com Orange County I think it outrageous to increase my fares when the train has been running late on a regular basis for the past past months. You might feel its only late five minutes but the train being late cause me to miss my bus which means that i need to wait for the next bus which makes me even later. Any fare increase will be devastating because it it NOT CALLED for. There are other ways to make up for the mismanaged shortfall. 1. Stop the nonsensical Weekend service. It's not needed. This is not Amtrak. Metrolink was not formed to support family vacations on weekends. You can save millions in fuel costs, labor, track usage costs and maintenance. 5/11/2012 5/11/ Check tickets ON EVERY boarding just the way Amtrak does it. 3. For Amtrak ticket riders, make tickets work with current validators. 4. Stop all beach trains, tickets that are valid thru the whole weekend and all that junk. 5. Stop further orders of those stupid Korean uncomfortable cars that no one likes. Page 16 61

69 6. Reduce clerical and office staff. With most of the services being contracted, Metrolink should be able run it's operations with a staff of no more than 30 people. Thomas James tjames@tjames.net Orange County San Juan Capistrano CA Brenda Vasquez brendamai1@hotmail.co m Inland Empire - Orange County Sylmar CA Robert Theobald rtheobald@paragonprecision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Paula Schiffman paula.schiffman@csun.ed u Ventura County Los Angeles CA Travis Anderson my_scribe@hotmail.com Even a 5% increase will have a negative impact, since wages are not increasing comparibly. A 9% increase will put Metrolink above the cost of an Amtrak monthly pass, and there would be NO incentive for me to continue to ride Metrolink in that case. There is no mention of how the proposed increase will improve on-time performance or even the cleanliness of Metrolink trains, both of which are noticeably becoming worse. This would be painful, but possibly doable. No written comment was submitted. I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any fare hike at this time (5% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in other areas! I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant 5/10/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 Page 17 62

70 Antelope Valley Lancaster CA Elizabeth Lawlor Riverside Riverside CA Sonya Rivera Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA Blanchie Hollier 91 Moreno Valley ca Raed Elaraj 91 Corona M Walters walterspartyof4@sbcglob al.net Ventura County Simi Valley CA Beverly Kurz bkurz@socal.rr.com Antelope Valley CA efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem and not operating within its means. Whether or not average fares increase by any amount, without a 10-day pass, I will be less likely to commute by bike and Metrolink. Bicycle commuters need a flexible pass to allow for inclement weather. I have relied on the 10-ride pass to commute from Riverside to Industry, riding 2 miles from the station to Mt. San Antonio College. On rainy days and during Santa Ana conditions, I drive instead for safety (from swerving cars). Metrolink is not an option on those days because Foothill Transit does not schedule buses between the Industry station and Mt. SAC, timed for the trains. Starting soon, frequent but irregular riders like myself will have a disincentive to use Metrolink. Why would I pay for 7 (really, 5) days of commuting, or a whole month, in October through March if the weather might not cooperate that week or month? My best alternative would be to buy multiple advance round-trip tickets in a tedious series of transactions, and keep track of the separate tickets, with not even a slight discount for being a frequent rider. Please reinstate a flexible rail pass for bicycle commuters. No written comment was submitted. Hi my name is Blanchie and I just travel from Riverside to Norwalk five (5) day a week. I have been traveling on the metrolink 91 line since January I work in Los Angeles and my current employer does not supplement my fair in any way. My monthly fair is $285. I travel because it is cheaper than driving. If the fare increases I would really consider driving because I really want see any decrease in what I pay out of pocket presently. I enjoy the comfort as well as the decrease in stress as it relates to the traffic but that will soon change with an increase in fare. I Personally getting a 5% pay cut on July 1 as a result of City's budget deficit. Gas prices are going up and causing inflation. We can not take any increase in fares at this time. Please reconsider. I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness. Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also 5/9/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 Page 18 63

71 assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles. The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along. Dale O'Brien dalewob@yahoo.com Antelope Valley Sylmar CA Matthew Miller macmiller8@aol.com Riverside Upland Ca Regarding - Notice of Potential Fare Increases Please don't I have been commuting from the San Fernando Valley to downtown to work at the School District headquarters for the last 6 years My wages are literally 15% less then they were 6 years ago. If you account for inflation and how it seems every other Municipal and company are raising their rates, I make 20% to 25% less then 6 years ago. We have not even received any cost of living increases. When I started over 6 years ago I believe the monthly pass was $140, now it is $181, this is already a 30% increase. You should save money by ending the 10 day pass, which was abused. Also there are a lot of free loaders on the Lancaster line. Maybe on occasion you should have/request somebody to check the Lancaster/Palmdale stations at "Boarding time" instead of during travel time. Also, how about a 5% wage cut for all employees. Also we have hope that gas prices will come down. I am opposed to the annual fare increase that Metrolink forces onto their loyal passengers year after year. I have been a monthly pass holder for over 8 years. I understand that with increased fuel costs and improvements you have to make up cost someplace. What is not understandable is why Metrolink has not used advertising on their trains to supplement operations costs. You can put advertising graphics on the inside and outside of the trains that Movie industry, retail, and food industries would jump at. Enough with the arrogant thought process that Metrolink is trying to put a corporate atmosphere on their trains that the riders enjoy. Riders enjoy their daily commute to be enjoyable yet economical. If you took a pole on this topic riders would overwhelmingly vote in favor of lower fare versus advertising being on the train. Just my humble opinion. Thank you Matt Miller 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 Page 19 64

72 Chris Beacham Riverside David Stegenga San Bernardino Redlands CA Calvin Chang San Bernardino El Monte CA S S sestewart79@gmail.com Riverside eric watkins watkinsep@yahoo.com Orange County irvine ca Tinna Li liteenie@hotmail.com San Bernardino Dennis HunterDennisH dhunter6@gmail.com Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers. Any fare increase will hurt me because unlike in the "Real Word", Unlike Metrolink where you are guaranteeing the conductors and Engineers a 5% increase in pay every year, a pay increase at my job hasn't ococcured in 4 years. Also if Metrolink actually cchecked tickets you would increase your revenue. My tticket hasn't been looked at in over a month and a hhalf, and I ride 4 trains a day. Berdoo to LA and LA to Burbank. Metrolink shall check tickets more often to catch those passengers who did not pay. You shall set up gates to check tickets before allowing anyone even get to the platforms. You may be able to make up the $13 million gap if you enforce the tickets rules. instead, you are trying to increase the fare, this is just like to ask us to pay for those passengers who did not buy tickets. This is not fair. I oppose the fare increase. Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. i travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. Im already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted. I respectfuly oppose any potential fare increase for FY My opposition is basd on my dissatisfaction with the service on the Antelope Valley line. My morning train, #202, is unreliable in terms of arriving on time; it's late once or twice per month. The conductors, while friendly, don't enforce rules like "no feet on seats" and the "Quiet Car Guidelines". These rules are announced, but not enforced. Also, I've seen people smoking on the Union Station platform #3/4 without Metrolink staff paying the smoker any mind. The seats on both the older cars and the "Guardian Fleet" are woefully uncomfortable; I 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 Page 20 65

73 try to avoid the Guardian Fleet because it's the more uncomfortable of the two. In my opinion, the service on the Antelope Valley line is not worth the $ I pay per month. If there are any fare increases, regardless of percentage, I will cancel my monthly pass effective August Thank you for your consideration. Duane Neja mrmajestic@usa.com Orange County Fullerton CA wes hinson wes.hinson@att.net Antelope Valley Grace Ito gito1956@yahoo.com Monique Lopez outlawmom52@att.net Antelope Valley I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved. You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised! Before considering even the smallest fare increase you should devise a plan to ensure that EVERY rider on the train has a ticket! That would be the first place to start. The honor system just doesn't work. 5/7/2012 5/4/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 Page 21 66

74 Canyon Country CA Tammi Ba Ventura County Sherman Oaks CA D Lee amblewagon@yahoo.com San Bernardino Fontana ca Ann Genovese genoveseannmarie21@g mail.com Ventura County Northridge CA Randy Gonzales astroak@yahoo.com Antelope Valley Santa Clarita Ca Shane McCullough smmccullough@gmail.co m Orange County Orange CA bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip does them no good. Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late. I'll start driving...the last so called 5% ended up being 14%! First I want to say I love taking Metrolink. But...you would have more riders if you bring back the 10 trip. Also, have the Sheriffs check fares consistently - no fare - no ride. People still know they can ride for free and they do. If you made sure with turn-stiles like they are putting in for MTA or conductors who just check tickets your revenue woudl go up. And Ventura line does not run on Sat. & Sundays so the weekend trip ticket is of no use for us. Thank you - higher fares = less riders = more debt to you. The fare has been increasing every year because of maintenance and fuel cost and that's because for some reason someone thought a massive locomotive is needed to bus an X amount of people. To be honest, the Metrolink trains does nothing more than a Metro light rail can and has always kept fares low. They can travel almost the same amount of distance, with the exception of the Inland Empire Line, possibly. Why do we need this for? We have amtrak for great distances. I just think it's crazy and ridiculous to have such an oversized and overprice train and at the same time impacts the environment. Please pass this on to Metro, I'm sure they have a better idea. I have been commuting nearly 4 years between Orange and Downtown LA for work. During that time the fares have continued to increase while the quality of service and timeliness of schedules has decreased. I have been late for important events and experienced crowded rush hour trains all while being asked to pay more. I myself, like many riders, have not received cost of living increases and every dollar of additional dues is money away from my family. Please consider eliminating trains that do not have consistent ridership and allocate funds towards increasing routes during peak commuting times (i.e. 5:40-6:30 pm M-F). Your consideration is appreciated. 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 Janelle Bielak I don't agree with any of the fare increases. It just becomes more and more unaffordable to Page 22 67

75 m San Bernardino ride Metrolink. 5/2/2012 Julie Miller Shortyninr@msn.com Ventura County Oxnard Ca Abraham Lora hammylora@yahoo.com San Bernardino Ontario CA Honestly I could probably absorb it. I do begin to wonder in the 4 years of riding from Oxnard to Union Station I've seen fare increases, not exactly sure the total amount, that have added up. I have had no trains added giving me flexibility to my schedule. There comes a tipping point when the lack of trains to and from Oxnard and rising price of tickets makes me seek bus or van pool options! I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose ANY increases. 5/2/2012 5/2/2012 Agenda Item Support None Total Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 6% Chris Concepcion concepcion.chris@gmail.c om San Bernardino I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible. None 5/23/2012 Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more. Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers. Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings Page 23 68

76 to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution. Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride Alberto Martinez albertos. @gmail.co m Orange County Downey Ca I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine to Union Station. - Add a third train from Irvine to LA Union Station at/about 6PM. Right now we have a 4:19 From Irvine to Union Station and a 5:10 from Irvine to Union Station. None 5/22/2012 Alberto Martinez albertos. @gmail.co Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine None 5/22/2012 Page 24 69

77 m Orange County Downey Ca Dale O'Brien Antelope Valley Sylmar CA Chris Concepcion om San Bernardino to Union Station. Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. Regarding - Notice of Potential Fare Increases Please don't I have been commuting from the San Fernando Valley to downtown to work at the School District headquarters for the last 6 years My wages are literally 15% less then they were 6 years ago. If you account for inflation and how it seems every other Municipal and company are raising their rates, I make 20% to 25% less then 6 years ago. We have not even received any cost of living increases. When I started over 6 years ago I believe the monthly pass was $140, now it is $181, this is already a 30% increase. You should save money by ending the 10 day pass, which was abused. Also there are a lot of free loaders on the Lancaster line. Maybe on occasion you should have/request somebody to check the Lancaster/Palmdale stations at "Boarding time" instead of during travel time. Also, how about a 5% wage cut for all employees. Also we have hope that gas prices will come down. I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible. None 5/8/2012 5/23/2012 Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more. Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers. Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and Page 25 70

78 more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution. Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride nancy hensien nhensien@ochcs.com Inland Empire - Orange County temecula ca Karin Wakefield thewakester@yahoo.com Ventura County Reseda CA Jennifer Eckhart jleckhart@gmail.com You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom to So YES i got raised last year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise evweryone else. Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. Thank you. Will no longer continue to use the Metrolink if there is another fare increase. 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 Page 26 71

79 Antelope Valley QUAN TRUONG m 91 Corona CA salah alamoodi Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca salah alamoodi Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Alberto Martinez m Orange County Downey Ca Not acceptable! I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare them before you adjust the rates. I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare them before you adjust the rates. I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine to Union Station. - Add a third train from Irvine to LA Union Station at/about 6PM. Right now we have a 4:19 From Irvine to Union Station and a 5:10 from Irvine to Union Station. 5/23/2012 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 Esmeralda Valencia valencia_esmeralda@hot mail.com Riverside Downtowne Pomona Markus Quon markusq@gmail.com Orange County Oceanside CA Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final destination. I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times. 5/22/2012 5/21/2012 I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and Page 27 72

80 eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip. At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time. Sandra Southers sjean84@yahoo.com San Bernardino Fontana CA Carolyn Delgado Carolyn.V.Delgado@irs.go v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes nancirhodes@verizon.net Riverside rancho cucamonga ca Justin Case JustinCase@netzero.com San Bernardino Covina ca Raising the fare passengers will still ride for free. I've seen too many get on without paying. I am against the 6% increase, this would really cause a hardship and I would not abe able to ride everyday during the week. No written comment was submitted. This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top. 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout. It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an Page 28 73

81 optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times. The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit" DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do! If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours? Eileen Haniuk mseileenflores@yahoo.co m Orange County Alicia Garcia alicia.i.garcia@kp.org Inland Empire - Orange County Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown Burbank. To increase the fare another 6% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons. no more raises without improvements. 5/18/2012 5/18/2012 Page 29 74

82 Quail Valley CA V McDaniel cashmereheart@att.net Riverside Riverside ca Scott Barker scotty5678@aol.com San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA Justin Rogers justinrogers36@hotmail.c om Orange County Buena Park CA Jon Lyle lylejon@metro.net Orange County Anaheim Ca Dave Hodges dhodges@chapman.edu Orange County orange CA Dave Hodges dhodges@chapman.edu Orange County orange CA Paula Hoffman ampjiii@gmail.com Ventura County Camarillo ca Albric Ghokasian Albric.Ghokasian@rdmd.o cgov.com Orange County Santa Ana CA mary smith lnteaco1993@yahoo.com No written comment was submitted. I think that the 5% increase should be enough, at some point I think the riders may go to other means of transportation,that would be a shame since the train gets so many cars off the road I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered. It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very frustrating to me and others as your customers. If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. For this increase you are getting greedy, and I definitely oppose it. KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging transportation at both ends. ANY INCREASE IN FARE WOULD NOW CAUSE ME TO RIDE THE BUS INSTEAD OF THE TRAIN. 5/18/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 Page 30 75

83 91 fullerton ca Pam Pert al.com Orange County San Clemente ca David Wetzel Orange County Laguna Niguel CA Sue Clemons Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA Jeff Carlon Antelope Valley Pearblossom ca Mary Alexander Orange County Mission Viejo CA Efren Malagon v San Bernardino Fontana CA Joanne Choi Riverside I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. This would increase my fare to a total of 11%. My biggest concern today is the elimination of the 10 trip tickets without informing the public or advanced notice. This IS a defacto rate increase. I do not know the laws or regulations surrounding fare increases, but it seems to me that a decision like this would be prohibited without notification or public hearing. No written comment was submitted. I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon See comment under 9% No written comment was submitted. No written comment was submitted. 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 5/15/2012 5/15/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 Sandy Ikeda sandyikeda@gmail.com Ventura County Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less 5/14/2012 Page 31 76

84 PORT HUENEME ca convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now. Carlos Garibay carlosmgaribay@gmail.co m Riverside Rowland Heights Ca Angela Perez g9409@lapd.lacity.org Ventura County Simi Valley CA danny Quezada piguosjunk1@hotmail.co m Ventura County Oxnard ca Maggie Martinez maggietax@yahoo.com Ventura County Chatsworth ca Matt Barrett matt.b.barrett@gmail.co m San Bernardino Upland CA Casate Yuri aracelm@aol.com 91 Corona ca Rick Ehrlich rick451@linkline.com Ventura County Camarillo CA Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on the train if the fare increase is approved. Because of City of LA furloughs & pay decreases, I will not be able to afford to ride Metrolink if you increase the fare. I have been a rider for 8 years. Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders. Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. I find it hard to believe that you cannot find cost efficiencies with in your organization to cover your the monetary shortfall. Going back to your customers, while it's the path of least resistance, should be your last resort, instead your management should challenge the unions and re think your business model so real time adjustments (both increase and decrease) due to fuel price fluctuations are be reflected in the price of the fare. Any other operational costs increases should be handle in the form of challenges to management to reducing costs. Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/11/2012 5/11/2012 Page 32 77

85 of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now. I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like. I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages. Thank you, Rick Kirstin Largent PARALEGAL1369@HOTM AIL.COM Riverside Rowland Heights CA Brenda Vasquez brendamai1@hotmail.co m Inland Empire - Orange County Sylmar CA Robert Theobald rtheobald@paragonprecision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Paula Schiffman paula.schiffman@csun.ed I think it outrageous to increase my fares when the train has been running late on a regular basis for the past past months This increase would be an extreme hardship. You are going to be making train usage only feasible for the highly compensated person. No written comment was submitted. I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any fare hike at this time (6% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the 5/11/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 Page 33 78

86 u Ventura County Los Angeles CA Travis Anderson Antelope Valley Lancaster CA Elizabeth Lawlor Riverside Riverside CA Sonya Rivera Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA Raed Elaraj 91 Corona M Walters walterspartyof4@sbcglob al.net Ventura County Simi Valley CA Beverly Kurz bkurz@socal.rr.com Antelope Valley CA past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in other areas! I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem and not operating within its means. Whether or not average fares increase by any amount, without a 10-day pass, I will be less likely to commute by bike and Metrolink. Bicycle commuters need a flexible pass to allow for inclement weather. I have relied on the 10-ride pass to commute from Riverside to Industry, riding 2 miles from the station to Mt. San Antonio College. On rainy days and during Santa Ana conditions, I drive instead for safety (from swerving cars). Metrolink is not an option on those days because Foothill Transit does not schedule buses between the Industry station and Mt. SAC, timed for the trains. Starting soon, frequent but irregular riders like myself will have a disincentive to use Metrolink. Why would I pay for 7 (really, 5) days of commuting, or a whole month, in October through March if the weather might not cooperate that week or month? My best alternative would be to buy multiple advance round-trip tickets in a tedious series of transactions, and keep track of the separate tickets, with not even a slight discount for being a frequent rider. Please reinstate a flexible rail pass for bicycle commuters. No written comment was submitted. Personally getting a 5% pay cut on July 1 as a result of City's budget deficit. Gas prices are going up and causing inflation. We can not take any increase in fares at this time. Please reconsider. I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness. Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 Page 34 79

87 understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles. The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along. Chris Beacham chrisbeacham420@yahoo.com Riverside S S sestewart79@gmail.com Riverside eric watkins watkinsep@yahoo.com Orange County irvine ca Tinna Li liteenie@hotmail.com San Bernardino Duane Neja mrmajestic@usa.com I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers. Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. I travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. Im already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares. While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted. I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/7/2012 Page 35 80

88 Orange County Fullerton CA wes hinson Antelope Valley Grace Ito Tammi Ba Ventura County Sherman Oaks CA D Lee amblewagon@yahoo.com San Bernardino days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved. You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised! bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip does them no good. Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late. NO! the last 5% ended up being 14% 5/4/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 Page 36 81

89 Fontana ca Ann Genovese mail.com Ventura County Northridge CA Janelle Bielak m San Bernardino First I want to say I love taking Metrolink. But...you would have more riders if you bring back the 10 trip. Also, have the Sheriffs check fares consistently - no fare - no ride. People still know they can ride for free and they do. If you made sure with turn-stiles like they are putting in for MTA or conductors who just check tickets your revenue woudl go up. And Ventura line does not run on Sat. & Sundays so the weekend trip ticket is of no use for us. Thank you - higher fares = less riders = more debt to you. No written comment was submitted. 5/3/2012 5/2/2012 Abraham Lora hammylora@yahoo.com San Bernardino Ontario CA I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose ANY increases. 5/2/2012 Agenda Item Support None Total Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 7% Alberto Martinez albertos. @gmail.co m Orange County Downey Ca Matt Barrett matt.b.barrett@gmail.co m San Bernardino Upland CA Elizabeth Lawlor elawlor@mtsac.edu Riverside I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine to Union Station. Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. How could the counties served by Metrolink tie a gasoline tax increase to maintenance and improvement of Metrolink service? None 5/22/2012 None 5/14/2012 None 5/9/2012 Page 37 82

90 Riverside CA Chris Beacham Riverside Chris Concepcion om San Bernardino I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers. I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible. None 5/8/2012 5/23/2012 Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more. Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers. Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution. Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride Page 38 83

91 nancy hensien Inland Empire - Orange County temecula ca Karin Wakefield thewakester@yahoo.com Ventura County Reseda CA Jennifer Eckhart jleckhart@gmail.com Antelope Valley You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom to So YES i got raised last year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise evweryone else. Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. Thank you. Will no longer continue to use the Metrolink if there is another fare increase. 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 QUAN TRUONG qimprovement@ymail.co m 91 Corona CA salah alamoodi xmansalah@yahoo.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Alberto Martinez albertos. @gmail.co m Orange County Downey Ca Not acceptable! I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare them before you adjust the rates. I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine to Union Station. - Add a third train from Irvine to LA Union Station at/about 6PM. Right now we have a 4:19 From Irvine to Union Station and a 5:10 from Irvine to Union Station. 5/23/2012 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 Esmeralda Valencia valencia_esmeralda@hot mail.com Riverside Downtowne Pomona Markus Quon markusq@gmail.com Orange County Oceanside CA Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final destination. I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, 5/22/2012 5/21/2012 Page 39 84

92 monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times. I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip. At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time. Sandra Southers sjean84@yahoo.com San Bernardino Fontana CA Carolyn Delgado Carolyn.V.Delgado@irs.go v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes nancirhodes@verizon.net Riverside rancho cucamonga ca Justin Case JustinCase@netzero.com San Bernardino Covina ca No written comment was submitted. I am against the fare increase of 7% due to the fact I can barely afford to pay the current monthly pass now. A 7% increase would cause me to stop riding everyday during the week. No written comment was submitted. This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top. 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout. It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an Page 40 85

93 optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times. The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit" DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do! If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours? Eileen Haniuk mseileenflores@yahoo.co m Orange County V McDaniel cashmereheart@att.net Riverside Riverside ca Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown Burbank. To increase the fare another 7% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons. No written comment was submitted. 5/18/2012 5/18/2012 Page 41 86

94 Scott Barker San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA Justin Rogers om Orange County Buena Park CA Jon Lyle Orange County Anaheim Ca Dave Hodges Orange County orange CA Dave Hodges Orange County orange CA Paula Hoffman Ventura County Camarillo ca mary smith 91 fullerton ca Pam Pert al.com Orange County San Clemente ca David Wetzel Orange County Laguna Niguel CA I think that the 5% increase should be enough, at some point I think the riders may go to other means of transportation,that would be a shame since the train gets so many cars off the road I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered. It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very frustrating to me and others as your customers. If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. For this increase you are getting greedy, and I definitely oppose it. KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! ANY INCREASE IN FARE WOULD NOW CAUSE ME TO RIDE THE BUS WHICH IS ALREADY CHEAPER AND DROPS ME AT THE DOOR OF MY BUILDING! I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. This would increase my fare to a total of 12%. My biggest concern today is the elimination of the 10 trip tickets without informing the public or advanced notice. This IS a defacto rate increase. I do not know the laws or regulations surrounding fare increases, but it seems to me that a decision like this would be prohibited without notification or public hearing. 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 Jeff Carlon I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch Page 42 87

95 Antelope Valley Pearblossom ca Mary Alexander Orange County Mission Viejo CA Efren Malagon v San Bernardino Fontana CA Joanne Choi Riverside the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon See comment under 9% No written comment was submitted. No written comment was submitted. 5/15/2012 5/15/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 Sandy Ikeda sandyikeda@gmail.com Ventura County PORT HUENEME ca Carlos Garibay carlosmgaribay@gmail.co m Riverside Rowland Heights Ca Angela Perez g9409@lapd.lacity.org Ventura County Simi Valley CA danny Quezada piguosjunk1@hotmail.co m Ventura County Oxnard ca Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now. Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on the train if the fare increase is approved. Because of City of LA furloughs & pay decreases, I will not be able to afford the Metrolink if you increase the fare. I have been riding Metrolink for 8 yrs. Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 Page 43 88

96 danny Quezada m Ventura County Oxnard ca Maggie Martinez Ventura County Chatsworth ca Rick Ehrlich Ventura County Camarillo CA Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders. Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now. 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/11/2012 I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like. I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages. Thank you, Rick Rick Ehrlich rick451@linkline.com Ventura County Camarillo CA Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your 5/11/2012 Page 44 89

97 fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now. I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like. I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages. Thank you, Rick Kirstin Largent PARALEGAL1369@HOTM AIL.COM Riverside Rowland Heights CA Robert Theobald rtheobald@paragonprecision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Paula Schiffman paula.schiffman@csun.ed u Ventura County Los Angeles CA No written comment was submitted. No written comment was submitted. I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any fare hike at this time (7% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in 5/11/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 Page 45 90

98 other areas! Travis Anderson Antelope Valley Lancaster CA Travis Anderson Antelope Valley Lancaster CA Sonya Rivera Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA Raed Elaraj 91 Corona M Walters walterspartyof4@sbcglob al.net Ventura County Simi Valley CA Beverly Kurz bkurz@socal.rr.com Antelope Valley CA I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem and not operating within its means. I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem and not operating within its means. No written comment was submitted. Personally getting a 5% pay cut on July 1 as a result of City's budget deficit. Gas prices are going up and causing inflation. We can not take any increase in fares at this time. Please reconsider. I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness. Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles. 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually Page 46 91

99 have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along. Dale O'Brien dalewob@yahoo.com Antelope Valley Sylmar CA Chris Beacham chrisbeacham420@yahoo.com Riverside S S sestewart79@gmail.com Riverside eric watkins watkinsep@yahoo.com Orange County irvine ca Tinna Li liteenie@hotmail.com San Bernardino No written comment was submitted. I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers. Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. At this point, it starts to cost me about what it costs in gas to drive everyday, which defeats the purpose, so I'd probably stop riding the train altogether and go back to driving. I travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. I'm already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares. While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 Page 47 92

100 commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted. Duane Neja mrmajestic@usa.com Orange County Fullerton CA wes hinson wes.hinson@att.net Antelope Valley Grace Ito gito1956@yahoo.com Tammi Ba tammiannba@gmail.com Ventura County Sherman Oaks CA I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved. You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised! bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip does them no good. Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as 5/7/2012 5/4/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 Page 48 93

101 Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late. D Lee amblewagon@yahoo.com San Bernardino Fontana ca Ann Genovese genoveseannmarie21@g mail.com Ventura County Northridge CA Janelle Bielak Janelle_sue@hotmail.co m San Bernardino No! I'll start drive as it would be cheaper First I want to say I love taking Metrolink. But...you would have more riders if you bring back the 10 trip. Also, have the Sheriffs check fares consistently - no fare - no ride. People still know they can ride for free and they do. If you made sure with turn-stiles like they are putting in for MTA or conductors who just check tickets your revenue woudl go up. And Ventura line does not run on Sat. & Sundays so the weekend trip ticket is of no use for us. Thank you - higher fares = less riders = more debt to you. No written comment was submitted. 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/2/2012 Abraham Lora hammylora@yahoo.com San Bernardino Ontario CA I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose ANY increases. 5/2/2012 Agenda Item Support None Total Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 8% Alberto Martinez albertos. @gmail.co m I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine to Union Station. None 5/22/2012 Page 49 94

102 Orange County Downey Ca Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. Angela Perez g9409@lapd.lacity.org Ventura County Simi Valley CA Chris Concepcion concepcion.chris@gmail.c om San Bernardino I am a City of LA employee that has endured Furloughs & pay cuts, and I will not be able to afford an increase to the Metrolink fare. I would have to find another means of transportation after riding Metrolink for 8 yrs. I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible. None 5/14/2012 5/23/2012 Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur, many of which are negative. Yet, we are expected to pay more. Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from the $270 that I already pay per month is quite unbearable, especially when said increases are between 5-9%. That's quite outrageous and infeasible for my budget and the budget of us working class customers. Due to these economic times, it is necessary to get smarter before we seek one time savings to address rising costs. What efforts have been made to address some of the more structural problems faced by Metrolink? Public Private Partnerships? Sponsorships? Grants? Bidding for fuel sources? Cuts to rising personnel costs? It is my belief that all of these options and more must be ADEQUATELY reviewed prior to increasing costs to the consumer, especially during this economic time. A fare increase was proposed previously, yet after petitions and comment after comment, some way was found to save enough costs to avoid an increase. Why weren't those measures sought out prior to proposing a fare increase? It suggests to the customer that fare increases are the easy solution to a complex problem which not the proactive and logical solution. Additionally, since I've been riding the train, the December discount has been eliminated. Now, it appears the 10 trip ticket is proposed to be eliminated. So in December, when I'm forced to furlough and will be off a week on vacation and only need to ride Page 50 95

103 nancy hensien Inland Empire - Orange County temecula ca Karin Wakefield thewakester@yahoo.com Ventura County Reseda CA Jennifer Eckhart jleckhart@gmail.com Antelope Valley You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom to So YES i got raised last year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise evweryone else. Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. This is totally unlikely for me. Thank you. Will no longer continue to use the Metrolink if there is another fare increase. 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 QUAN TRUONG qimprovement@ymail.co m 91 Corona CA salah alamoodi xmansalah@yahoo.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca john brown john.brow@aol.com Riverside Ontario ca Esmeralda Valencia valencia_esmeralda@hot mail.com Riverside Downtowne Pomona Markus Quon markusq@gmail.com Orange County Oceanside CA The Board of Directors should review the information below and reconsider before you make the decision to increase the train fares!.has the snow and ice kept the trains delayed today? No it's Southern California, we don't have that kind of weather condition that would cause this kind of trouble. The problems are mainly the inefficient & unintelligent Metrolink managers, the unmotivated staffs, lazy dispatchers from the Red Signal Control Unit, and unqualified technical support team. If they can't make it to work because of low working moral most employers have to dock their pay or send them to the unemployment office..acknowledge that you have many of your staff who are having a hard time being punctual while operating the trains, or proving the best public transportation services..you have not lived up to your mission statements and goals. I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare them before you adjust the rates. you need to do a better job on wage contracts. I haven't had a raise in 6 years, my medical goes up every year my co pays go up every years. I haven't had a raise in years. Stop spending I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final destination. I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, 5/23/2012 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 5/21/2012 Page 51 96

104 monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times. I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip. At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time. Sandra Southers sjean84@yahoo.com San Bernardino Fontana CA Carolyn Delgado Carolyn.V.Delgado@irs.go v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes nancirhodes@verizon.net Riverside rancho cucamonga ca Justin Case JustinCase@netzero.com San Bernardino Covina ca No written comment was submitted. I am against the the fare increase of 8% because I can barely afford the rate I'm paying now. I would have to stop riding everyday if this increase goes up to much. No written comment was submitted. This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top. 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout. It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an Page 52 97

105 optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times. The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit" DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do! If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours? Justin Case JustinCase@netzero.com San Bernardino Covina ca This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top. 5/20/2012 If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout. It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times. The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit" DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do! If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you Page 53 98

106 going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours? Eileen Haniuk mseileenflores@yahoo.co m Orange County Alicia Garcia alicia.i.garcia@kp.org Inland Empire - Orange County Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown Burbank. To increase the fare another 8% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons. No improvements - no increases. Write the reasons for the increases in a language we can understand. 5/18/2012 5/18/2012 Page 54 99

107 Quail Valley CA V McDaniel cashmereheart@att.net Riverside Riverside ca Scott Barker scotty5678@aol.com San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA Justin Rogers justinrogers36@hotmail.c om Orange County Buena Park CA Jon Lyle lylejon@metro.net Orange County Anaheim Ca Dave Hodges dhodges@chapman.edu Orange County orange CA Dave Hodges dhodges@chapman.edu Orange County orange CA sam anthone samsanta2012@gmail.co m Ventura County Simivalley CA sam anthone samsanta2012@gmail.co m Ventura County Simivalley CA No written comment was submitted. I think that the 5% increase should be enough, at some point I think the riders may go to other means of transportation,that would be a shame since the train gets so many cars off the road I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered. It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very frustrating to me and others as your customers. If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. For this increase you are getting greedy, and I definitely oppose it. I oppose I highly the potential fare increase by any amount. Would be great if you can run the trains quicker than what they are now.the far increase can surely divert people to car pool/van pool. 5/18/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 Paula Hoffman KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Page

108 Ventura County Camarillo ca Yvette Robinson mutual.com San Bernardino Claremont CA Pam Pert al.com Orange County San Clemente ca Sue Clemons Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA Jeff Carlon Antelope Valley Pearblossom ca Mary Alexander Orange County Mission Viejo CA Efren Malagon v San Bernardino Fontana CA Joanne Choi Riverside I have used the 10 Trip Ticket for the last 4 years. This ticket is no longer available making my trip more expensive as of 5/16/12. I have calculated by trip is now 5% more expensive my eliminating the 10 day trip ticket. With a proposed 8% increase, my fare now increases by 13%. An additional increase would not be fair or reasonable. I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. This would increase my fare to a total of 13%. At this point, the fare starts to become unreasonaly high and I will have to start working from home more often. No written comment was submitted. I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon See comment under 9% No written comment was submitted. No written comment was submitted. 5/17/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 5/15/2012 5/15/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 Sandy Ikeda Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate Page

109 Ventura County PORT HUENEME ca Carlos Garibay m Riverside Rowland Heights Ca danny Quezada m Ventura County Oxnard ca danny Quezada m Ventura County Oxnard ca Maggie Martinez Ventura County Chatsworth ca Matt Barrett m San Bernardino Upland CA Casate Yuri 91 Corona ca Rick Ehrlich Ventura County Camarillo CA transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now. Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on the train if the fare increase is approved. Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders. Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. No written comment was submitted. Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/11/2012 5/11/2012 Page

110 of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now. I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like. I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages. Thank you, Rick Kirstin Largent PARALEGAL1369@HOTM AIL.COM Riverside Rowland Heights CA Robert Theobald rtheobald@paragonprecision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Paula Schiffman paula.schiffman@csun.ed u Ventura County Los Angeles CA No written comment was submitted. No written comment was submitted. I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any fare hike at this time (8% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in 5/11/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 Page

111 other areas! Travis Anderson Antelope Valley Lancaster CA Sonya Rivera Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA M Walters walterspartyof4@sbcglob al.net Ventura County Simi Valley CA Beverly Kurz bkurz@socal.rr.com Antelope Valley CA I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem and not operating within its means. No written comment was submitted. I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness. Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles. 5/9/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 Chris Beacham chrisbeacham420@yahoo.com Riverside The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along. I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are 5/8/2012 Page

112 free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers. S S sestewart79@gmail.com Riverside eric watkins watkinsep@yahoo.com Orange County irvine ca Tinna Li liteenie@hotmail.com San Bernardino Duane Neja mrmajestic@usa.com Orange County Fullerton CA wes hinson wes.hinson@att.net Antelope Valley Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. At this point, it starts to cost me about what it costs in gas to drive everyday, which defeats the purpose, so I'd probably stop riding the train altogether and go back to driving. i travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. I'm already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares. While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted. I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/7/2012 5/4/2012 Page

113 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved. Grace Ito gito1956@yahoo.com Tammi Ba tammiannba@gmail.com Ventura County Sherman Oaks CA D Lee amblewagon@yahoo.com San Bernardino Fontana ca Janelle Bielak Janelle_sue@hotmail.co m San Bernardino You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised! bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip does them no good. Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late. NO! I'll start driving again as it would be cheaper No written comment was submitted. 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/2/2012 Abraham Lora hammylora@yahoo.com San Bernardino Ontario CA I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose 5/2/2012 Page

114 ANY increases. Agenda Item Support None Total Potential system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 9% Bror Andringa Bror.andringa@lw.com Orange County Laguna beach Ca I support the fact that you have to raise the price to cover the cost however, what I don't support is taking away the convenience factor such as the ten trip card. For those riders that travel 2-3 times per week there is no viable option other than stand in line and buy these tickets. There are a lot of us out there as you should know. Support 5/17/2012 Brigs Y da177atrix@netzero.net Riverside City of Industry CA Paul Druce drucep@gmail.com Orange County Trabuco Canyon CA Phyllis Trabold yavapi@yahoo.com Ventura County Los Angeles CA Larry Green therustikfrog@msn.com San Bernardino Glendora CA In addition, improve the service when you raise the price by introducing wifi on the train. This doesn't cost much but will save a lot for many riders that are now using MiFi devices at $60 a month. I understand that PEAK OIL is looming upon us. Global oil supplies are peaking around the world, but demand from growing economies like China and India are biting larger pieces of the "oil pie" causing prices to increase worldwide. Suburbia and the spread out nature of Southern California will be tough to sustain, even with mass transit. I highly recommend Metrolink switches to electricity for much longer sustainability. In ten years, the price of oil could be dramatically higher as countries like China and India continue to thirst for more oil to keep their economies fed. Food for thought. While I do support the increase in fares by as much as 9%, a level which is easily afforded by riders based on average household incomes, Metrolink's supporting agencies should consider pressing for an increase in the gas tax throughout the Metrolink region to fund operational costs and infrastructure investment such as electrification, which would permit faster service (via increased acceleration) and lowered operational costs. This is the one you are going for so I will comment on this. I hope that a fare increase means better performance like being on time. I have been riding Metrolink to Cal-State/Union Station for over 10 years. I have seen increases over the years but not once have I considered taking another form of transportation, especially driving. Although I would prefer rates to stay where they are, I understand the need for the increase. And with the logistics involved in scheduling, I am impressed that the trains arrive on time as frequently as they do. Thank you for this invaluable service. Support 5/12/2012 Support 5/3/2012 None 5/22/2012 None 5/14/2012 Hank Fung I agree that public meetings are necessary in order to comply with title VI. I suggets that None Page

115 San Bernardino meetings be held at Union Station or the MTA building, and drop in tables with poster boards explaining the need for the change and comment stations be provided in the minority and EJ communities with pen and paper and tape recorders (to comply with ADA) in the comment station. This is important since some Title VI protected individuals do not have access to computers or the Internet at home, and must use limited time at the library to compose their comment. 5/7/2012 As far as the fare increase goes I would be very careful to evaluate unintended consequences of changes and domino effects on local transit operators. One example is the Glendale Beeline Express which is slammed with passengers between Glendale and Burbank trying to avoid the fare jump, or the crowds at Cal State LA boarding Metro Local buses to get downtown. Also rationalization of ticket prices such that ticket prices from previous stations down a line do not cost less than the current station (i.e. Via Princessa tickets costing less than Santa Clarita tickets). 9% fare increase is very high and Metrolink needs to show that it is doing everything to control costs. If a fare increase is imposed, there needs to be value added benefits to pass holders. Weekend privileges, Rail to Rail, and Flyaway are a start. Weekend systemwide privileges should be extended for 7 day pass holders as the incremental cost is negligible. I do not support or oppose a fare increase if it is necessary but Metrolink should not be surprised if ridership drops by double digits should this occur. Competing commuter bus prices (Foothill Transit, OCTA) are not increasing. The longer distance, intercounty trips are still competitive in cost with driving and other transit but shorter trips are less competitive with driving, and relatively fast transit options like Commuter Express buses, Metro Orange Line to Chatsworth, and vanpooling are available. Chris Concepcion concepcion.chris@gmail.c om San Bernardino Orange County residents have access to the Orange County premium day pass, which is sometimes cheaper than the weekly or monthly pass for certain longer station pairs. For some of the outer counties where there is capacity (San Bernardino and Riverside), the CTCs should consider these passes to help sell unused capacity on the outer ends of the 91, San Bernardino, and Riverside trains. I would like to submit comments to the Metrolink Boards concerning ALL of the potential fare increases from 5-9%. I have been a loyal customer to Metrolink for the last 5 years, riding from Rancho Cucamonga to Los Angeles Union Station. It is important to me to have easy access to transit due to the long distance to my job in Los Angeles. Working for a public agency, I am encouraged to use Public Transportation, and Metrolink has helped make that possible. 5/23/2012 Over the past 5 years, I have seen many changes occur. A major positive change includes the installation of improved break systems on the trains in response to the tragic Chatsworth incident, which has ensured to the customers, to me, that we will be safer during our rides to work. Also, the addition of the Express Train on the San Bernardino line has been a HUGE convenience to us, as our trip home has been expedited. I am appreciative of all of those positive changes. Page

116 However, there have also been some negative issues that have occurred. I am at least 5 minutes late to work every morning, because my train is constantly running behind schedule. I have notices some conductors are better about gently nudging people to move more quickly when getting on the train, as opposed to the usual slow pace that occurs in the morning. This has not occurred on my train for quite some time. In addition, I've seen on some trains that a "bike car" has been added. While I certainly support efforts to encourage biking in areas to reduce green house gasses and encourage physical activity, I've also never seen more than one or two bikes in these cars at a time. In my opinion, this was a waste of money. There has been several initiatives which have occurred, which to me, have been a waste of resources. So in my opinion, it is challenging for people to accept an increase in ticket prices, when wasteful additions have been made. Further, I have not seen the "official numbers," but based on empirical observation, it would appear to me that train ridership is at an all time high. Yet the fare is still expected to increase. I understand that the cost of fuel increases overtime, especially in recent economic times. But I also understand the reality of the rider as well. Many of the riders, including myself, are being furloughed, taking cuts to our pension and other benefits, paying more for rent and food, which leaves us with a significantly small amount of marginal income. On top of that, an increase from t nancy hensien nhensien@ochcs.com Inland Empire - Orange County temecula ca Karin Wakefield thewakester@yahoo.com Ventura County Reseda CA Karin Wakefield thewakester@yahoo.com Ventura County You say last year you didn't raise fares but mine got raised, you cut Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student from 50% to 25% so i went fom to So YES i got raised last year. What about this time leaving Handicap, Disabled, Military, and student alone. And raise evweryone else. Because of the economy, my company has been unable to give me a COLA raise in 2 years, and to raise the fare becomes a financial liability for me. This is totally unlikely for me, financially. Thank you. No written comment was submitted. 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 Page

117 Reseda CA Monica Perches 91 Norwalk CA QUAN TRUONG m 91 Corona CA salah alamoodi Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Alberto Martinez m Orange County Downey Ca 9% is way too much!! Parking at the Norwalk has already been incresed by the city. The increase in cost would make make commuting by car cheaper! My humble recommendations: 1.SCRRA Board of Directors need to implement the performance improvement process that increases Metrolink's productivity and organization efficiency which will allow more resources to be transferred to undertaking more performance improvement tasks. There is no doubt that evident Quality Improvement techniques can be applied successfully in your organization. The best way to safeguard the well-being of the passengers is to combine public service with the highly reliable techniques of quality improvement. By eliminating inefficiency, error, and redundancy, Metrolink can continually improve critical processes and reduce costs associated with poor quality. 2.Metrolink managers must establish a QI plan, support request process, and educational resources are expected to guide all units in integrating Performance Improvement into daily operations. It refers to a continuous and ongoing effort to achieve measurable improvements in all sectors of processes and services. This will increase accountability and productivity, improve management decisions, and enhance service quality. Ultimately, it will help the Department achieve its mission to protect health, prevent disease, and promote health and well-being. 3.For Metrolink to reach its full potential, it must strive towards improving its performance, efficiency, and services. Metrolink leaders must be willing to make a long-term commitment to developing processes that demonstrate improved results and drive inefficiency from the system. 4.Large-scale change is seldom quick or easy and cannot be done without the commitment and personal stewardship of the Board of Directors. I see more and more people using the system, therefore, you are generating much more profits that should over come the cost of operations, please show these figures and compare them before you adjust the rates. Hello, a 9% increase would affect me by $20 on my route from the Norwalk/Sante Fe Springs Metrolink Station to the Irvine Metrolink station. The reason this is unacceptable is because just last month (April 24, 2012), the city of Norwalk voted to increase the parking rate at the Norwalk/Sante Fe Springs Metrolink Station from $20 to $30 per month. An addition increase of $20 would put my monthly commute cost at $262 from $232. 5/23/2012 5/23/2012 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 I oppose such a steep increase unless one of the following can be implemented: - Added a bicycle car on route 682 from Union Station to Laguna Nigel and on 689 from Irvine to Union Station. Page

118 Just this morning we could not load our bicycles on one car because there were 5 bicycles already there. We had to rush to a second car and that car had 4 bicycles on it as well but had to make it work. I have pictures if you are interested. john brown john.brow@aol.com Riverside Ontario ca Esmeralda Valencia valencia_esmeralda@hot mail.com Riverside Downtowne Pomona Markus Quon markusq@gmail.com Orange County Oceanside CA need more income to offset fare increase. Police officers have to pay to ride. Bike riders need to pay extra for having a bike on the train. people that bring more that one large or two small carry on need to pay extra sepecially when they take up 3 or 4 seats. I'm opposing to fare increases since I already pay enough for my monthly pass $219 and it's not including the extra charge I pay to get on the bus from and to Union station to my final destination. I've been a Metrolink rider for just about 8 years and have watched the fare increase significantly over the years. The first major increase I recall was when fuel prices soared about 4-5 years ago. Metrolink then announced the need for a fare increase because of increasing fuel prices. However, here we are again with Metrolink stating a need to increase fares due to fuel prices that are merely at the levels when the prior increase occured. Additionally, monthly ticket holders watched as the December reduced rate was eroded and the agency continued to throw the burden on the backs of it's most dependable and compliant patrons. We also watched as alternate train lines were discontinued eliminating many of the options we would have to get home at alternate times. 5/22/2012 5/22/2012 5/21/2012 I simply cannot support any fee increase until I see the authority do the following to erode those that free-load on the system. That being, to first, remove the 10 trip pass option and eliminate the acceptance of the 10 trip ticket from Amtrak. I have observed over the years how people abuse this ticket option because they know conductors don't check every day. These people are daily riders. Second, while the authority believes there is a high compliance rate on the OC line (or any line) they should require more aggressive fare enforcement. I personally wouldn't care if my ticket was checked 2 or three times on my trip. Sandra Southers sjean84@yahoo.com At this point, I'm finding that I might as well join a vanpool which would save me money and time. No written comment was submitted. 5/20/2012 Page

119 San Bernardino Fontana CA Carolyn Delgado v San Bernardino Rialto Ca nancy rhodes Riverside rancho cucamonga ca Justin Case San Bernardino Covina ca I am against the fare increase of 9%...with this fare increase I won't be able to ride everyday because I can barely pay what the fare is now. No written comment was submitted. This is increase presents a real threat to hundreds of commuters who are absolutely dependent on this service to be able to survive, the cost of Metrolink services is ridiculously expensive as it, any increase really cripples those who are day to day trying to keep a job. If the main argument for this increase is the deficit then focus where that money is going because I GUARANTEE there's always a margin of profit at the top. 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 5/20/2012 If you will raise the prices then PROVIDE the service you are actually charging for or install a REFUND POLICY for every time a train is late more than 30 mins, which happens EVERYDAY in every single rout. It is an abomination and an abuse to keep squeezing for more money those who don't have an optional mean of transportation, you are affecting too many lives who are just trying to survive these harsh economic times. The public is not responsible for lack of company management, we shouldn't have to bail the economic mistakes made by the company. Projected profit "deficit" DOES NOT justifies fare increases, INCENTIVES do! Eileen Haniuk mseileenflores@yahoo.co m Orange County If the prices increases WHAT IS METROLINK doing for me? Are you going to add WIFI? Are you going going to provide more Express services? Earlier and MORE trains on weekends? Refound my money back every time you don't keep your word on your side of the bargain getting me from point A to B at the time you said you would? Fair increases satisfies your needs, but, what about ours? Since I started riding the train back in Fall 2007 the fare has increased by almost 30%. I went from paying $160 to now paying $200 for a monthly pass from Buena Park to Downtown Burbank. To increase the fare another 9% on monthly pass holders as myself is is absurd. At a certain point riding the train will become a financial hard ship and passengers will opt to drive in. With the fare increases over the past few years train service has remained the same and has not improved. It would be understandable to raise the fares if the trains would run besides peak hours. However, riding the train is inconveinent because the trains do not 5/18/2012 Page

120 operate every hour. Also the new train cars are uncomfortable and do not fit the average passenger. With paying so much in train fare I would expect the trains to operate more frequent and the new train cars to accomadate passengers comfortably. However, metrolink has not done an adaquate job in making the changes their patrons would like. Having this meeting at a time when most metrolink patrons are at work is pure stupidity or maybe metrolink is trying to avoid the issues by not allowing patrons to take part in this meeting. Either way i oppose any fare increase! Work with what is given. Most likely I know metrolink will ignore it's customers and increase the fare if so please avoid increasing the fair on monthly pass holders. They should be exempt from the increase as they pay the most and are frequent patrons. Alicia Garcia alicia.i.garcia@kp.org Inland Empire - Orange County Quail Valley CA V McDaniel cashmereheart@att.net Riverside Riverside ca Scott Barker scotty5678@aol.com San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga CA Robert Torres gruporeysc@gmail.com Inland Empire - Orange County Corona 9% OR 5% THE MESSAGE IS VERY CONFUSING TO WHAT THE INCREASE IS AND FOR WHAT CATEGORY. I AM A DISABLE PERSON WHO TRAVELS FROM QUAIL VALLEY TO ORANGE COUNTY. TWO HOUR COMMUTE. OUR RATES WERE RAISED AND THEN DISCOUNT WAS ONLY 25% INSTEAD OF 50% - THREE TIMES INCREASE FOR MONTHLY. NOW, WE HAVE MORE INCREASES. I, LIKE OTHERS, ARE FEELING THE STRESS OF JOB LOSES, INCREASE FOOD/RENT/GASOLINE PRICES - GOVERNMENT CUT BACKS. MY 3% ANNUAL INCREASE IS BEING EATEN UP BY TRANSPORTATION CAUSES. THE TRAINS ARE SO PACK THAT I CANNOT GET A SEAT MOST OF THE TIME - DISABLE SEATING IS USED BY OTHERS. WHEN WILL THIS STOP. DELAYS IN TRAIN OR CANCELLATIONS - NO SEATS AND BUSES TO GET TO TRAIN IN RIVERSIDE OTHER THAN THE COMMUTERS, CHARGE FOR RIDING. I HAVE TO TAKE THE BUS 7 (PAY FARE) THEN 206 TO NORTH MAIN TO ANAHEIM CANYON (METROLINK FARE) - GAS TO THE OUTLET - PARK AND RIDES AND FAR AND FEW. TRAVELLING HAS BECOME A NIGHTMARE. No written comment was submitted. I think that the 5% increase should be enough, at some point I think the riders may go to other means of transportation,that would be a shame since the train gets so many cars off the road Disappointed with Metrolink on this proposal to increase fairs that are already high. Any increase would force me and several other monthly pass holders to carpool. Metrolink should worry more about passengers with no passes that are riding for free on a daily basis. If daily or more frequent ticket checks would be preformed Metrolink would see this increase is not necessary. I have been a monthly pass holder for four years and I personally have seen an increase in passengers without any pass. Very rarely do we see any conductor or law enforcement agent checking passes. Metrolink should reconsider any fair increase and if any increase is approved many of us wold be forced to commute in our own vehicles. 5/18/2012 5/18/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 Page

121 Justin Rogers om Orange County Buena Park CA Gerry Geronimo om 91 Corona Ca Jon Lyle Orange County Anaheim Ca Dave Hodges Orange County orange CA Dave Hodges Orange County orange CA sam anthone m Ventura County Simivalley CA sam anthone m Ventura County Simivalley CA I strongly oppose a fare increase on Metrolink fares. If the service was great I could see raising fares slightly to meet budget requirements but the service is far from great. My trains operate behind schedule more often than not and I've been subjected to multiple hour plus long delays while using Metrolink. Also, the coordination of train traffic at LA Union Station is horrible. Just about everyday my train is forced to sit outside Union Station for anywhere from 5-10 minutes, which in turn makes me miss my connecting bus and makes me late for work. All of these problems should be fixed before any kind of fare increase is even considered. I understand that increased costs have pushed prices up for all consumer goods and services up as well. I didn't see any differences in the quality of service and the improved performance of the trains with the last fare increase. I hope, especially in these times where scandals of public officials and numerous government agencies are coming out with personal use of the funds that should be used for certain "OPERATING COSTS" is really being used. The 91 line never runs on time and 75% of the time the trains have something wrong with them. So, I totally oppose the fare increase. I believe there are other sources to find money for operating costs such as freezing salaries or cutting salaries of executives. It seams as if you have increased your fares more often than an organization should. The frequent increases implies that you are not managing your budgets as you should. This is very frustrating to me and others as your customers. If you implement this you should also lower the Senior age limit to 62. For this increase you are getting greedy, and I definitely oppose it. I Boo- Hoo, a potential fare increase for Metrolink!!! we people take the train to save on the gas, paring etc but with the fare increase seems like a group of 2 people in our family who wor in LA downtown can potentially drive/van pool which is more economical and time saving for us, it's not just with us but couple of other families as well. The potential fare increase is making people to give a second thought on the option to use there own vehicles atleast from places like Simivalley, Van Nuys, Burbank etc which takes almost the same or less time as train to commute. We highly the thought of fare increase at any cost. 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 Page

122 Paula Hoffman Ventura County Camarillo ca Paula Hoffman Ventura County Camarillo ca Albric Ghokasian cgov.com Orange County Santa Ana CA Albric Ghokasian cgov.com Orange County Santa Ana CA Albric Ghokasian cgov.com Orange County Santa Ana CA James Freeman 91 Corona CA mary smith 91 fullerton ca No written comment was submitted. KEEP PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS LOW COST AS POSSIBLE!!! Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging transportation at both ends. Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging transportation at both ends. Metrolink raises the fares with the excuse that fuel cost has gone up. Metrolink forgets to lower the fares when fuel cost go down. It appears that Metrolink is just waiting for an excuse to raise the fare and forgetting that its customers will stop using public transportation if it's cost comes close to operating their car plus hardship of waiting in train station and arrenging transportation at both ends. A 3-5% increase is acceptible, given rising costs of fuel. 9% is rediculous and will force many riders to considers other options. Feels like an attempt to increase profits at commuters expense. Given the average cost of living increase of 3% or less annually, it will take 3-5 years for the average rider to catch up with the increase. And by that time you will have raised fares at least 4 times. It's wrong, and will affect your bottom line by (literally) driving away customers. NOW IS THE TIME TO START RIDING THE BUS IF THE FARES ARE INCREASED AND TO TELL ALL OF THE OTHER TRAIN RIDERS TO DO THE SAME. 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 5/17/2012 Page

123 mary smith 91 fullerton ca Yvette Robinson mutual.com San Bernardino Claremont CA Pam Pert al.com Orange County San Clemente ca Sue Clemons Antelope Valley Santa Clarita CA Jeff Carlon Antelope Valley Pearblossom ca Mary Alexander Orange County Mission Viejo CA Efren Malagon v San Bernardino Fontana CA THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! ANY INCREASE IN FARE WOULD CAUSE ME TO RIDE THE BUS AND I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST IT TO EVERY TRAIN RIDER I KNOW - THE BUS DROPS YOU AT YOUR DOOR AND IS CHEAPER! I have used the 10 Trip Ticket for the last 4 years. This ticket is no longer available making my trip more expensive as of 5/16/12. I have calculated by trip is now 5% more expensive my eliminating the 10 day trip ticket. With a proposed 9% increase my fare is now 14% more expensive. An additional increase would not be fair or reasonable. I have effectively just had a 5% rate increase by virture of the elimination of the 10 trip pass. This would increase my fare to a total of 14%. At this point, the fare starts to become unreasonaly high and I will have to start working from home more often. No written comment was submitted. I have been riding the MetroLinkl since January. I take the 4:18 in the morning and try to catch the 4:01 in the Afternoon.Since January I have been asked to show my ticket maybe five times. I watch people who do not have a ticket move to another car or avoid the Sherriff as he walks through. Everytime the checked peoples tickets they always find someone who didnt pay. Instead of increasing fares try inforcing your fares you already have. If you increase my fare I will stop riding the train and go back to driving my car. We as riders on your Metro Link put up with the worst type of treatment mostly on the way back up to the AV by passengers who have no regard for following the rules and buying a ticket. If you raise the price you are only hurting the ones who already buy a ticket. This raise in price will not bring in more revenue. because you will drive away the good customers.thank you for your time. Jeff Carlon My family and I are trying very hard to pull ourselves out of the financial devastation that has dogged us since Now the train tickets are going up again. I was fine with the monthly pass and 10 trip for months I didn't work at least 18 days. Then you jacked the price of the 10 trip up $15 and added that awful weekly pass that makes me pay for 7 days when I only work 4. The cost of the monthly pass has been steadily creeping up. I realize the fuel is outrageous, but I'm sure it doesn't justify a 9% increase (and according to your flyer it may be as much as 20%). Also mentioned is a nationwide labor settlement--i haven't have a raise in over 4 years. I hope Metrolink has explored cutting waste with endless consultants and high salaries at the top before making it even more difficult for us to go to work and earn a living. No written comment was submitted. 5/17/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 5/15/2012 5/15/2012 5/14/2012 Page

124 Joanne Choi Riverside Sandy Ikeda Ventura County PORT HUENEME ca Carlos Garibay m Riverside Rowland Heights Ca Angela Perez Ventura County Simi Valley CA danny Quezada m Ventura County Oxnard ca danny Quezada m Ventura County Oxnard ca Maggie Martinez Ventura County Chatsworth ca Matt Barrett m San Bernardino Upland CA The real estate market in the Inland Empire is not doing very well, the job market in the US is also not doing well, the gas price is going up, people in the Inland Empire depend on public transportation to get to work. When peopl already have a hundred pound on their shoulder, increase in Metrolink fares means puting an extra pound on their shoulder. Please reconsider, if you can delay in increasing the price or when the job market is getting a little better, I don't think I would oppose to a 5% increase but right now is not a good time. Consolidate Train, Bus and light rail systems into one agency to cross promote and coordinate transit across the city. Get rid of redundant and highly paid executives and stop putting the burden of costs on the current riders. Bring back the 10 trip, you are just going to make it less convenient to ride and send more riders away. My monthly costs are $323.00, that's a car payment plus gas and I question whether or not I should continue riding now. Any type of fare increase at or above 5% is ridiculous. The reason for taking the train is to avoid the high price of gas as well as contributing to the green movement. I will stop riding on the train if the fare increase is approved. I am a City of LA employee that has endured Furloughs & pay decreases, and will not be able to afford an increase in the Metrolink fare. I would be forced to find another means of transportation after riding the Metrolink for the past 8 yrs. Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. Bart, Cal-train, metro, you name it is cheaper than Metrolink at current prices. Why is metrolink rising their prices because they can't operate efficiently. They need to focus on implementing a better schedule with less delays and more transfer options to increase ridership. Raising the fares is only going to decrease ridership. With this bad economy and employers not giving us any insentives to ride on the train and the gas prices going up, it is very difficult to even pay for the current monthly pass as it is now and increasing the price might just be pushing it too much. This is ridiculous, I would expect metro to lower the price so more riders can take the train and add more travel to your schedule since you have large gap in between each hour that it does not make it convenient for travelers... My suggestion is add more trains in between your schedule and lower your prices and you'll have more riders. Metrolink needs to prove to passengers that it has done all it can to raise revenues before passing on an increase to passengers. Internal Car Car ad sales, beverage and snack sales, and ad wrapped trains should be vigorously pursued first. Metrolink has gotten away with being ad free for twenty years. Its not sustainable. Start selling. 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 5/14/2012 Page

125 Bob Garcia m San Bernardino Fontana CA From its budget documents Metrolink is anticipating to keep 98% of its riders, despite raising fares by 9%. I am an economist and know a bit about elasticity, and this is absolutely incorrect. Metrolink will probably lose at least 10% of riders when the fare goes up, and possibly more. This means that the budget hole is exactly the same after raising the fares, and Metrolink is no faster to solving the budget deficit. It is one thing if oil and gas prices keep going up, but if fuel prices stay stable Metrolink is not going to gain riders, when there are express buses, the new toll lanes on the 10 freeway which will provide another option, and vanpools. Instead of raising fares implement more express trains - they are really popular, and cut back some of the midday trains. They added some midday trains but how many people actually use them, and how much fuel are you burning with them? Replace them with charter buses so that people can still have options but not at the high cost of running an empty train. 5/13/2012 Casate Yuri aracelm@aol.com 91 Corona ca Rick Ehrlich rick451@linkline.com Ventura County Camarillo CA Also MTA just got into trouble with their Title VI analysis. Metrolink needs to analyze every increase and make sure that there is no discrimination. Otherwise some lawyer with an ax to grind can file a lawsuit or complain to the FTA, just like what happened with the MTA when they had to suspend their service changes. One key area of possible discrimination I see is in Orange County where the predominantly white residents of that county have the Metrolink OC Pass, while other counties which might be more minority don't have that and have to pay full fare for their suburban trips. Eliminate the OC Pass or have the same kind of pass used on the trains in SB and Riverside, because they are often empty in that area. I find it hard to believe that you cannot find cost efficiencies with in your organization to cover your the monetary shortfall. Going back to your customers, while it's the path of least resistance, should be your last resort, instead your management should challenge the unions and re think your business model so real time adjustments (both increase and decrease) due to fuel price fluctuations are be reflected in the price of the fare. Any other operational costs increases should be handle in the form of challenges to management to reducing costs. Reading the Ventura County Star, I don't understand how you can claim a 78% increase in fule over the past two years. Looking at Gasoline (not diesel) averages in Los Angeles (according to GasBuddy.com), it seems that the gas prices have increased 38%. What else is contributing to your rising fuel prices? Are there more runs? More engines? Maybe it is time to review your fuel contract? Taking the train from Camarillo is not at all quicker than driving. However, there is my personal fuel savings. I can drive into work and pay $355.90per month. (This is 1800 miles per month, being very conservative my car averages 22 miles per gallon. I used the price of 4.35 per gallon.) I enjoy having the extra $73.90 in my account, less wear and tear on my car and the idea that public transportation is better for the environment on. The average drive in to the office is minutes. The train ride plus bus (from downtown Burbank to media center) is around 1 hour and 20 minutes. So the disadvantage is the personal time I give up riding the train and the frequent whiff of sewage. I have wanted to take the train for years but it never made financial sense. As soon as gas prices sky rocketed, it made sense to me. I have been purchasing a monthly pass for about a year and two months now. 5/11/2012 5/11/2012 I have met many people who like me, are newer to Metrolink. Page

126 The trains are noticeably fuller. If you initiate a rate hike, as soon as gas prices drop, you may lose more riders than you would like. I also have some suggestions that may help. If anyone even reads this and cares, please feel free to me with contact information and I would be delighted so offer some suggestions that I think will go over well with passengers and could help with your cash shortages. Thank you, Rick Mark Gonzales markgonzales2@gmail.co m Orange County Norwalk CA Brenda Vasquez brendamai1@hotmail.co m Inland Empire - Orange County Sylmar CA Robert Theobald rtheobald@paragonprecision.com Antelope Valley Lancaster Ca Paula Schiffman paula.schiffman@csun.ed Fare increase could violate Title VI since you are not raising the fares for the OC pass. It makes no sense that I can travel from Buena Park to Irvine for $7 round trip but my ticket from Buena Park to LA could cost $7 one way. Since Orange County is more white and less minority than LA County commuters, Metrolink needs to do a Title VI analysis, or raise the OC Link pass just like all the other passes. Impossible. You will make metrolink use only possible for those who are in a high income bracket. Lower your cost and increase your ridership. I am a daily Metrolink rider (LA Union Station - Northridge) and am completely against any fare hike at this time (9% or whatever!). Fossil fuel prices have come down somewhat in the 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 5/9/2012 Page

127 u Ventura County Los Angeles CA Travis Anderson Antelope Valley Lancaster CA Sonya Rivera Antelope Valley Granada Hills CA Raed Elaraj 91 Corona M Walters walterspartyof4@sbcglob al.net Ventura County Simi Valley CA Beverly Kurz bkurz@socal.rr.com Antelope Valley CA past few months and the forecasts do not suggest a reversal in the foreseeable future. Metrolink should be doing everything it possibly can to INCREASE RIDERSHIP and a key element of that effort should be keeping ticket prices as low as possible. Every time you guys raise prices, riders go back to their cars. And that is completely antithetical to what a public transit agency should be accomplishing! Be creative! Think outside the box! Economize in other areas! I strongly oppose any fare increase. My commute has practically doubled in 7 years which is ridiculous. Public transit should be designed to save commuters money through significant efficiencies and economies of scale. The only problem Metrolink has is a spending problem and not operating within its means. Are you kidding me!!!! Personally getting a 5% pay cut on July 1 as a result of City's budget deficit. Gas prices are going up and causing inflation. We can not take any increase in fares at this time. Please reconsider. I am opposed to the fare increase manly on the basis that the service to Ventura County is already limited; there are no trains past 6:40 and there is no weekend service, so for those passengers who work on weekends the monthly pass doesn't offer the full benefit. Amtrak is not a feasible option because it does not offer the same number of trains throughout the day and it can be unreliable in terms of timeliness. Hi. Metrolink has consistently raised their prices year by year by year. Unfortunately, most of the people who now are still employed have taken huge cuts in pay. I personally have lost almost 20 percent of my income. I don't understand why the people who would take the biggest hit are the ones that actually "pay" to be riding on the Metrolink. I have seen tons of people that get "free" tickets through the Access program and the crazy thing is that most of these people are the ones that have no respect for the train and/or the people on it. I also understand that Metrolink has a pretty good ridership as it is sometimes difficult to even find a seat when departing L.A. Union Station (depending on what time it is). I am going to also assume that since Metrolink knows that people need to get to work that they will use this to their advantage and simply know that most of us have to get to work some how some way. I personally think it is wrong to impose this increase of your loyal riders. After all, I don't see anyone getting pay increases and if so, they are not usually working in Los Angeles. 5/9/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 The only way that I would agree to a percentage rate increase is if Metrolink could actually have an express train out of any of the three Santa Clarita stations that actually was "express" train. If it could save at least 1/2 hour each way, then it would be worthwhile to have a fare increase for the advantage of being able to have more time for your family both prior and after work. Just a thought and passing it along. Page

128 Dale O'Brien Antelope Valley Sylmar CA Chris Beacham Riverside S S sestewart79@gmail.com Riverside eric watkins watkinsep@yahoo.com Orange County irvine ca eric watkins watkinsep@yahoo.com Orange County irvine ca Tinna Li liteenie@hotmail.com San Bernardino Duane Neja mrmajestic@usa.com Orange County Fullerton CA No written comment was submitted. I would suggest utilizing officers and/or conductors to check tickets more often. I see so many riders riding trains without having paid fare. Instead of checking once a month, possibly check a little more frequent. In addition, why not begin charging uniformed officers. While our costs continue to rise what seems like every 6 months, they remain free. And even though they are free, all too often i see paying customers stand while they sit comfortably for free. That is obsurd!!! There are many other options I feel have not been explored rather than just passing the buck on to customers. Since I take the train all the way from Downtown Riverside to Union Station I already pay one of the highest monthly pass rates. Fortunately, my sompany does reimburse me the equivalent of what they would otherwise be paying for me to park downtown, but that only helps me to afford it as long as the fares stay at about where they are now. At this point, it starts to cost me about what it costs in gas to drive everyday, which defeats the purpose, so I'd probably stop riding the train altogether and go back to driving. I would start carpooling if rates increased I travel from Irvine to Burbank daily. I am already spending hundreds of dollars monthly. My standard of living has already been decreasing as have the rest of the country's (just look at the US volume numbers of CPG companies like P&G). Please don't inrease our fares. While it is true that purchasing a Metrolink monthly pass is more cost effective than driving every day, the cost savings isn't as much as is calculated on Metrolink's website. 5-9% does not amount to much per month, but that increase adds up throughout the year. With gas prices starting to fall, the cost savings between driving every day and a monthly pass will decrease and I will be less motivated to take Metrolink. Two months ago, the increase in commuting time was a small sacrifice to save about one hundred dollars per month but as fares increase and gas prices come down, I will not want to spend another 1.5 hours commuting just to save a little money. Please do not increase fares at all. I don't want to be responsible for post employment benefits, just because it wasn't previously budgeted. I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 5/7/2012 Page

129 and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. wes hinson wes.hinson@att.net Antelope Valley Grace Ito gito1956@yahoo.com charlesduane romero charlesduaneromero9027 0@msn.com Inland Empire - Orange County perris CA Tammi Ba tammiannba@gmail.com Ventura County Sherman Oaks CA I keep seeing the train fares increase and no improvement to schedule or service. In fact it is now harder for me to make connections between the Antelope valley line and 91 lines in the afternoon than in years past. My options are to hope the 91 line train (705) gets in at 3:55 (which it does contrary to published times) and hassle over to catch the Antelope Valley train 213 or wait an additional 45 minutes. In the morning I have to wait 30 minutes for the 91 line train 702, because train 700 leaves 8 minutes before Antelope Valley line train 200 arrives. I would be willing to accept a request for increase price the train connections and schedules were improved. You should not be penalizing monthly pass holders! They are the backbone of your revenue! Instead of several sheriff's deputies standing around and only checking tickets once in a while, a system should be implemented to check every ticket prior to boarding! You can't get on an airplane based on the honor system. What makes you think it works on a train? The revenue leak, under the current system, is HUGE! If every passenger was checked for a valid ticket for every ride, who know how much additional money would be raised! 3 May 2012: Thursday: I do not believe a fare increase of 9 % will work. Folks just do not have the extra money. Please try to obtain Federal funding to off-set any fare increases. I support a 5 % increase, but I cannot go for a 9 % fare this time. People are still losing their homes to foreclosures, & food prices are just going thru the roof. Thank you very much. I have a disabied young friend who has to rely on Metrolink trains once a month. He cannot afford a 9 % fare increas. Charles Duane Romero. retired Disabied VFW American USAFR Gulf War Veteran. bring back the 10-trip ticket. There are people who work only 2 or 3 days a week the 7 trip does them no good. Keep monthly pass holder's prices low, and make one-way and roundtrip fares higher - don't penalize the people who continually ride every day and every month on Metrolink. Why should we take up the slack - keep their passes lower. Have the Sheriffs you see everywhere doing almost nothing - check tickets everyday - no ticket = no ride. No other state in the U.S. let's riders get on the train for free or via honorable system. Create turnstiles or jobs as Metrolink Reps who just check tickets = more jobs better economy too. The word about checking tickets would get out and people would not ride the train for free - and if they want 5/4/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 Page

130 to ride the train - they have to buy a ticket, like every other honest person does. Why penalize the honest people who buy a ticket, when others ride for free. Add more tracks - two tracks instead of one along each route - so trains can't run into each other and we can get to work on time when another train is broken down or late. D Lee amblewagon@yahoo.com San Bernardino Fontana ca Ann Genovese genoveseannmarie21@g mail.com Ventura County Northridge CA Janelle Bielak Janelle_sue@hotmail.co m San Bernardino I'll drive! First I want to say I love taking Metrolink. But...you would have more riders if you bring back the 10 trip. Also, have the Sheriffs check fares consistently - no fare - no ride. People still know they can ride for free and they do. If you made sure with turn-stiles like they are putting in for MTA or conductors who just check tickets your revenue woudl go up. And Ventura line does not run on Sat. & Sundays so the weekend trip ticket is of no use for us. Thank you - higher fares = less riders = more debt to you. No written comment was submitted. 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 5/2/2012 Julie Miller Shortyninr@msn.com Ventura County Oxnard Ca Abraham Lora hammylora@yahoo.com San Bernardino Ontario CA This is not something I would absorb. I would look to drive or seek van pool! Crazy high increase for all lines! I've gone 5 years with NO salary increase yet everything continues to go up. I understand that your union employees hold you hostage and I'm sure have managed to obtain salary increases despite the various economic factors you reference in your justification to increase fares. I would like to know what recourse I have for any of this? Furthermore, I would like to know if YOUR non-contract staff has received any increases during these years. That would be a very telling statistic. Also, what cuts have been made to your discretionary budget and your operating budget? All I hear about is raise fare yet there are no specific figures stated about how Metrolink is "feeling the pain" along with ridership. This is beyond frustrating. I oppose ANY increases. 5/2/2012 5/2/2012 Page

131 May 30, 2012 Special Board Meeting ITEM 3 Attachment D Passenger Comments for July 1, 2012 on Service Delivery Policy As of May 22,

132 Attachment D ecomment Report Metrolink Notice of Public Hearing / Service Delivery Policy Wednesday, May 30, 2012 Top Discussion Item Agenda Item Position % PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains Support None 0% 25% 75% Total Number of Comments: 4 Public Comments Summary Opinion Agenda Item Support None Total PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of Page 1 125

133 available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains PERFORMANCE MEASURE: On-Time Performance (schedule adherence); CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Schedule adherence is reported manually by Metrolink conductors as part of the Delay Report, which may also be validated using Metrolink s Centralized Automated Dispatch system.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% of all trains arrive at their final destination within five minutes of their scheduled time. This measure does not apply to trains annulled or canceled en-route due to force majeure. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: On-Time Performance (schedule adherence); CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Schedule adherence is reported manually by Metrolink conductors as part of the Delay Report, which may also be validated using Metrolink s Centralized Automated Dispatch system.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% of all trains arrive at their final destination within five minutes of their scheduled time. This measure does not apply to trains annulled or canceled enroute due to force majeure. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Service Span (hours of service); CATEGORY: Service Availability; DEFINITION: Service span is the hours during a day that service is provided, starting from the time of the first train of the day until the last train of the day. The service span may differ by day of week and station.; SERVICE STANDARD: Weekday: min. 12 hours - Saturday: min. 9 hours - Sunday: min. 9 hours PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Station amenities; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Station amenities refer to items of comfort and convenience available to the general riding public. These items include, but are not limited to, benches, shelter, ticket vending machines, schedules, and maps.; SERVICE STANDARD: Station amenities to be provided at a minimum: Canopies, Platform, furniture, Information Kiosk/Display Cases, Passenger Information Phone, Ticket Vending Machine, Parking (min. 500 spaces for new stations), ADA accessible ramp, Schedules and maps, Electronic displays and PA systems Total 14 Public Comments Details Page 2 126

134 Agenda Item Support None Total PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains cheng ming chuong Orange County Irvine CA I am not sure it belongs to this category. I feel strong about the canceling of 10 trip ticket. It is not about the price which you can adjust. It is aabout the inconvenience. Many of us take train depending on the schedule, and mix it with AMTRAK 10 ticekts. By canceling it, we have to buy ticket many times. Already the vending machine has lines lined up. None 5/21/2012 In many other cities, there are procedures to reduce these lines and help serve the purpose of saving time for transit. You are doing this backwards. Some officer says it because people do not punch their card. This will not save the problem by canceling 10 trip tickets. I hope you reinstall 10 trip ticket. They can be single ticket X 10 price. regards James Takos 300Penguins@gmail.com Orange County Fullerton CA Lawrence BLANTON starrfire7685@sbcglobal. net Antelope Valley Valencia CA Cheng Ming Chuong Professor of University of Southern California cmchuong@usc.edu Thecars made in ore are not properly designed for western body frame. Any alleged energy reduction in an accident is a pure antisy as people cannot sit properly in the seating. This will invaribly lead to more injuries in an accidnet. I strongly urge the cessation of car replacement with cars made in Korea. Antelope Valley line train 211 is consistently failing to meet its load factor for disabled passengers. This train experiences an almost daily delay at the Sylmar/San Fernando station to double or even triple spot the train. This train needs a dedicated car with fewer seats and room for 15 to 20 wheelchairs. Metrolink/MTA/SCRRA is failing to address the needs of its disabled passengers at for this route. 5/18/2012 5/6/2012 Agenda Item Support None Total Page 3 127

135 PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Load Factor; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Load factors reflect the number of passengers at the peak load point per available seats. A load factor of 95% indicates that 95% of available seats are occupied. Given the daily fluctuation of passengers and train consist configurations the median peak passenger count is used to calculate monthly load factors. Peak passenger counts are currently based on manual counts taken by Metrolink conductors.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% load factor for peak period trains - 85% load factor for off-peak trains Phyllis Trabold phyllis.a.trabold@usace.a rmy.mil Ventura County Los Angeles CA Your new "Chatsworth" cars are lousy These are the silver ones with the wosh deisgn. The exterior of the cars is too relflective and they are blinding if the sun is hitting them. The interiors are not very conducive to commuter comraderie and force one person to take 2 seats. There are none of the odd seats like in the old cars and it seems like a bunch of cubicles rather than a train car. The windows are smaller and the cars are less friendly and inviting. There is no leg room and I am only 5 ft 9. The staircases are poorly designed and are an invitation to a concussion. Please discontunue those automated announcements - THEY ARE ANNOYING ESPECIALLY IN THE QUIET CAR. If you have not noticed everyone heads to the old cars if there are any on each train. Please include at least one old car on each train for those of us who like a comfortable seat and a view during our 1-hour train ride. None 5/22/2012 Marilyn Mills mmjjjmills@aol.com Orange County Buena Park CA Hank Fung hank@bleeble.org San Bernardino Pomona CA Ann Genovese genoveseannmarie21@g mail.com Ventura County Northridge ca The bike cars are a good idea and ther should be one on our 117 train going home. I ride the 601 train daily from Buena Park. It is rare that everyone getting on at BP gets a seat, many are standing as we board, no one gets a seat if they board at Norwalk. I wouldn't mind the increase if another car was provided, or better yet add a line between the 681 and the 601. I get to the station 20 mins early each day to be first or second in line, there are never enough seats for everyone. This should also discuss bicycle loading policies and set a standard for bicycle availability. For instance assignment of bike cars should be based on projected demand, both on a macro (i.e., average bikes per train over a quarter or year) and micro level (i.e., considering bicycle-based events such as Ciclavia and bike races to ensure that bicycle capacity is available on trains arriving before and after the event). If the fares were lower - you would have a higher percentage of riders. If you notice, on rainy days the ridership is higher than normal days. And on days when the gas prices leap up - the ridership is higher than normal. So maybe make the roundtrip higher and keep the Monthly passes lower - since we "monthly pass holders" ride every work day. Also, it would be good to bring back the 10 trip - I have contract people who work downtown Monday Wednesday and Friday or Tues & Thursdays and 7 day is not cost effective. None 5/21/2012 None 5/7/2012 5/3/2012 Agenda Item Support None Total PERFORMANCE MEASURE: On-Time Performance (schedule adherence); CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Schedule adherence is reported manually by Metrolink conductors as part of the Delay Report, which may also Page 4 128

136 be validated using Metrolink s Centralized Automated Dispatch system.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% of all trains arrive at their final destination within five minutes of their scheduled time. This measure does not apply to trains annulled or canceled en-route due to force majeure. Devin Campbell dcampbell@tca-arch.com Orange County Rancho Santa Margarita CA I find that over the last 6 months or so my On-Time performance experience has become very poor. Even in the last few weeks, I don't think I have been on time for both direction of my trip more than 25% of the time. This appears to be due to train and/or car mechanical issues, either of my train or of a train that effects my trains ability to procede on time. Late times range from 15 minutes to 2 hours. This is unacceptable. If the SCRRA is going to implement a 95% on-time standard, I would like to see some accountability and reporting of monthly if not weekly performance. I will also be commenting on the fare increase, especially as it relates to on-time perfromance and percieved poor mecahnical or working order of the trains and cars in operation. Support 5/7/2012 Agenda Item Support None Total PERFORMANCE MEASURE: On-Time Performance (schedule adherence); CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Schedule adherence is reported manually by Metrolink conductors as part of the Delay Report, which may also be validated using Metrolink s Centralized Automated Dispatch system.; SERVICE STANDARD: 95% of all trains arrive at their final destination within five minutes of their scheduled time. This measure does not apply to trains annulled or canceled en-route due to force majeure Phyllis Trabold phyllis.a.trabold@usace.a rmy.muil Ventura County Los Angeles CA Phyllis Trabold phyllis.a.trabold@usace.a rmy.mil Ventura County Los Angeles CA Please try to coordinate your Metrolink arrivals with the Metro trains (red, blue, purple). You measure on time performance at the end of the route. This does not adequately address this issue. It should be done at each station to provide a more complete picture. How can your trains be on time 95% when we were late several days last week getting to Moorpark from Union Station. Out of 8 total trips last week (Moorpark to Union Station) I was late 3-4 times, making your on time performance 50% - 67% much worse than your 95%. Yes, this counts in your 5-minute grace period. It would be nice if the trains had an electronic device to scan them at each station to record arrival time. This would yield more and better data and you could see segements where on time performance is not 95%. And I do not understand why we run at half speed, especially going home and then try to speed up. You still give late trains the right of way which them makes the other train late. Please be consistent and make the late train wait. I would like to see on time performanvce on my route (train 100 & 117) be 95% on time. We get in so late at Moorpark that sometimes we must wait on the southbound Amtrak Sufliner which is using the south track (the signs says Amtrak will use the north platform). Please fix the electronic signs at the Camarillo staion so people can see how on time or late the trains are. None 5/22/2012 None 5/22/2012 Page 5 129

137 Duane Neja Orange County I would think that a service provider would base fare increases on performance, however that does not seem to be the case for Metrolink. EVERY week, EACH week the train is late at least 2 days a week. Yet, nobody gets fired and your organization still increases fares. I personally do not pay for incompetence and in no way believe employees should get a raise if they cannot perform their jobs on a time schedule they are supposed to adhere to. In addition in this economy, I have not gotten a cost of living increase in 10 years, no increase at all, but did get a 5% decrease. WHY should any of the unions that forced raises for employees that are continuously behind schedule be justified? If anything they should be fired and get new employees that actually do work on time. No fare increase are warranted for Metrolink, the service you provide is subpar, your employees cannot adhere to a time schedule and it is common sense that fuel prices will continue to rise every year, as such Metrolink needs to find alternative methods of power. If...IF your trains ran on time without being late o often then perhaps a fare increase might be justified in the future, but Metrolink needs to show they can run trains on time on a consistant basis for at least a year first. 5/7/2012 Agenda Item Support None Total PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Service Span (hours of service); CATEGORY: Service Availability; DEFINITION: Service span is the hours during a day that service is provided, starting from the time of the first train of the day until the last train of the day. The service span may differ by day of week and station.; SERVICE STANDARD: Weekday: min. 12 hours - Saturday: min. 9 hours - Sunday: min. 9 hours Phyllis Trabold phyllis.a.trabold@usace.a rmy.mil Ventura County Los Angeles CA Efren Malagon efren.malagon@dss.ca.go v San Bernardino Fontana CA It would be useful if you had an earlier train from Camarillo, such as Train 100. Yes, I know it sits on a siding a Moorpark. It causes me to drive all the way to Moorpark from Santa Paula since that is the earliest train. Could you find a siding in Camarillo? I sometimes saw an Amtrak locomotive parked on a siding when I took the ran from Camarillo. I belive people riding the 102 would ride an earlier train if it was available. It would be useful if more trains could run at least as far as Camarillo (westbound). Out of 22 trains on your Ventura Line only 8 run as far as Camarillo. To reduce cost Metrolink should eliminate some of the trains schedules. I believe that the trains should only run during peak hours and then maybe run every few hours. There is no need for the trains to run hourly. This will eliminate some of the trains from running empty. Maybe weekend trains should only run a few times a day. Maybe even eliminate weekend services. None 5/22/2012 5/14/2012 Agenda Item Support None Total PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Station amenities; CATEGORY: Service Quality; DEFINITION: Station amenities refer to items of comfort and convenience available to the general riding public. These items include, but are not limited to, Page 6 130

138 benches, shelter, ticket vending machines, schedules, and maps.; SERVICE STANDARD: Station amenities to be provided at a minimum: Canopies, Platform, furniture, Information Kiosk/Display Cases, Passenger Information Phone, Ticket Vending Machine, Parking (min. 500 spaces for new stations), ADA accessible ramp, Schedules and maps, Electronic displays and PA systems. Phyllis Trabold phyllis.a.trabold@usace.a rmy.mil Ventura County Los Angeles CA If you want to save some money discontinue your "Metrolink MAtters" newsletter. I use them for sketching. Also print a black and white brochure on less expensive paper. Switch to more cost-effective locomtive technology such as stem. Union Station was not designed for commuter trains and the platforms and passageways to the main "tunnel" reflect this. It would be useful to expand the passageways from the tunnel to the platforms if possible. The traffic-parking lot layout at the Camarillo station is poor. It causes cars to pile up and block the interior roads at the middle and south exits. It is very difficult to leave the south Moorpark Metrolink lot due to signal light timing and the railroad crossing. Caltrans should mark Hwy. 23 as 2 lanes north of High STreet for northbound traffic and consider making changes for better traffic flow at this congested site. None 5/22/2012 Page 7 131

139 ATTACHMENT E

140 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 2, 2012 Media contacts: Sherita Coffelt, Metrolink Media Relations (213) or Metrolink Conducting Public Outreach Process for Potential 5-9% Fare Increase and Title VI Service Delivery Standards Increase in fuel costs and contracts due to labor agreements drive $13 million funding gap for FY budget Los Angeles On April 27, the Metrolink Board of Directors directed staff to initiate a public outreach process for a potential system-wide fare increase to help close an existing $13 million funding gap for Fiscal Year budget and Metrolink s proposed Title VI Service Delivery Policy. The public will be asked to give feedback regarding an average system-wide fare increase between 5 and 9 percent to go into effect on or after July 1, Last year, we were able to delay an increase to passenger fares and member agency subsidies while increasing train service by 14 percent. This year, despite continued efficient management practices, our costs have increased mostly because of the rising cost of fuel and an increase in our operations contracts due to a sweeping nationwide labor negotiation settlement, said Metrolink CEO John Fenton. A fare increase is a last resort to be able to maintain current service levels. The proposed fare increase will only cover a portion of the funding gap. It would take a 20 percent fare increase to cover the entire funding gap. Metrolink member agencies are also being asked to increase their subsidy to reduce the amount of the fare increase to passengers. 132

141 The major increases include: $4.7 million increase in fuel costs (in the past two years, Metrolink s fuel costs have increased by 78 percent) $3.2 million in increases to contracted vendor costs due to a nationwide labor agreement $1.3 million in connecting transit transfer costs for Metrolink riders $1.0 million in the Bombardier contract to support the rail reliability program and increased car cleaning costs associated with the additional rolling stock additions to the fleet. $2.5 million for post employment benefits, which weren t previously budgeted for The current economic climate, including soaring fuel prices, requires tough decisions by transportation leaders to fund operations at a level that will continue to meet the region s transportation needs. Many transportation providers across the country and in the Southern California region are faced with the same challenges, and have responded by raising fares up to 35 percent, Fenton said. This proposed fare increase is separate from the 2004 Board adopted policy to restructure fares from a zone-based fee to mileage-based fares over a 10-year period. The phased restructuring is not meant to generate additional revenue for Metrolink, but was implemented to ensure a fair and equitable fare policy. When combined with the proposed 5-9 percent increase, this could result in increases of up to percent for less than one percent of Monthly Pass holders and up to 20 percent for less than one percent of one-way or roundtrip tickets. The average increase across the system would be between 5 and 9 percent, however. Fare tables are posted online and will be available at public workshops and at the public hearing to help members of the public determine the potential fare increase s impact to them. As a recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding, Metrolink is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to carry out the United States Department of Transportation s Title VI regulations. Comments and suggestions on the proposed fare increase and the Title VI Service Delivery 133

142 Standards may be submitted orally or in writing at a public hearing to be held on May 30, 2012 at a special-called meeting of the Metrolink Board of Directors or submitted in advance (by May 29, 2012 at noon) of the public hearing by clicking on the ecomment option at Comments can also be submitted by mail in advance of the public hearing by sending feedback to the attention of Metrolink Fares at the SCRRA headquarters located at One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA or faxed to the attention of Metrolink Fares at (213) No public comments will be considered after the public hearing scheduled for May 30, 2012 begins. Metrolink will also hold public meeting workshops across its five-county service area to provide additional information to the public and solicit additional input from the public. The locations of these meetings will be announced by May 6 online at and in handouts on the trains. ABOUT METROLINK ( Metrolink is Southern California s regional commuter rail service in its 19th year of operation. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a joint powers authority made up of an 11-member board representing the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, governs the service. Metrolink operates over seven routes through a sixcounty, 512 route-mile network. Metrolink is the third largest commuter rail agency in the United States based on directional route miles and the seventh largest based on annual ridership. ### 134

143 DATE: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 CONDUCTOR ANNOUNCEMENT Potential Fare Increase TO: METROLINK CONDUCTORS DATE(s) TO ANNOUNCE: Thursday, May 17 thru May 29th LINES: All Lines TRAIN: All Trains LOCATION: Prior to departure from all stations. **Please do every station from Thursday, May 17 thru Sunday, May 20 and at heavy-boarding stations from Monday, May 21 thru Tuesday, May 28.** REGULAR ANNOUNCEMENT: "May I have your attention please, Metrolink will convene a public hearing on May 30, 2012 at a Special Board meeting regarding a potential fare increase. For more information or to submit comments, please visit our website at metrolinktrains.com or review our notices posted at all stations. 135

144 *ATTENTION* Metrolink Conductors Potential Fare Increase SCRRA will convene a public hearing at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors (Board) on May 30, 2012 regarding a potential fare increase to close a $13 million funding gap in the Fiscal Year budget and a new service delivery policy. The funding gap is caused by increased operations costs due to a 78% percent increase in the cost of fuel over the past two years and a nationwide labor settlement increasing the cost of major operations contracts. The Board approved commencing a public comment process at the April 27 Special Board Meeting (agenda item #3 and #4) available at the SCRRA website, related to the proposed FY13 budget. The hearing issues include proposals for (1) the modification or restructuring of fares to for purpose of funding SCRRA s continued safe operations, and (2) Title VI Service Delivery Policy. A public hearing will occur at a Special Meeting of the SCRRA Board of Directors on: May 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) Board Room One Gateway Plaza, 3 rd Floor Los Angeles, CA Passengers can find additional information as follows: Notices posted on TVMs Notices posted at station info kiosks Newspaper ads (in 6 languages) A seat drop w/o 5/7 (public hearing notice) A seat drop w/o 5/14 (w/workshop dates and locations) Public Workshops (Oxnard, Palmdale, LAUS, Santa Ana, San Bernardino) On our website at metrolinktrains.com On Facebook at facebook.com/metrolink By calling the call center at

145 METROLINK COMMUTER UPDATE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA) NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS / NOTICE OF POTENTIAL FARE INCREASES / SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) will convene public workshops across its five-county service area on May 21 st, 22 nd, 23 rd, 24 th and 29 th regarding a potential fare increase to close a $13 million funding gap in the Fiscal Year budget and a new service delivery policy. The funding gap is caused by increased operations costs due to a 78% percent increase in the cost of fuel over the past two years and a nationwide labor settlement increasing the cost of major operations contracts. Information at all of the public workshops will be the same. The meetings will be an open house format with a 20-minute formal presentation starting at 6 PM. These meetings are designed to provide a one-on-one dialogue with the Metrolink team members. This is a learning environment in which community members may engage at their own pace and in what interests them most. Additional information will be available for viewing on boards staffed by team members. Metrolink will also conduct a public hearing on May 30, 2012 at 10 a.m. to give members of the public an opportunity to provide feedback to the Metrolink Board of Directors. The Public Workshops will take place at the following locations: Monday, May 21, PM to 8 PM Santa Ana Station - 5 th Floor Meeting 1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard Santa Ana, CA Tuesday, May 22, PM to 8 PM Larry Chimbole Cultural Center - Joshua Room Sierra Highway Palmdale, CA Wednesday, May 23, PM to 8 PM Oxnard Public Library - Meeting Room B 251 South A Street Oxnard, CA Thursday, May 24, PM to 8 PM Metrolink One Gateway Plaza 3 rd Floor- Union station Conference Room Los Angeles, CA Tuesday, May 29, PM to 8 PM City of San Bernardino - Council Chambers 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA A public hearing will occur at a Special Meeting of the SCRRA Board of Directors on: May 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) Board Room One Gateway Plaza, 3 rd Floor Los Angeles, CA POTENTIAL FARE INCREASE and TITLE VI SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY A proposed system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% or 9% for all ticket types, except for the Weekend Pass, to be implemented as early as July 1, (Due to ongoing fare restructuring, One-Way, Round-Trip and 7-Day fares for a less than one percent of station pairs could have increases as high as 20.51% and Monthly Pass fares for less than one percent of station pairs could have increases as high as 13.58% if the 9% increase level is selected.) The average increase across the system would be between 5 and 9 percent, however. Information regarding the proposed system-wide average fare increase and the proposed Title VI Service Delivery Policy is available for public inspection on the Metrolink website at or in the SCRRA headquarters office, located at One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA during regular office hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Comments and suggestions may be submitted orally or in writing at a public hearing to be held on May 30, 2012 at a special-called meeting of the Metrolink Board of Directors or submitted in advance (by May 29, 2012 at noon) of the public hearing by clicking on the ecomment option at Comments can also be submitted by mail in advance of the public hearing by sending feedback to the attention of Metrolink Fares at the SCRRA headquarters located at One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA or faxed to the attention of Metrolink Fares at (213) No public comments will be considered after public hearing scheduled for May 30, 2012 begins. For more information, please visit 137

146 METROLINK COMMUTER UPDATE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING / NOTICE OF POTENTIAL FARE INCREASES / SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) will convene a public hearing at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors (Board) on May 30, 2012 regarding a potential fare increase to close a $13 million funding gap in the Fiscal Year budget and a new service delivery policy. The funding gap is caused by increased operations costs due to a 78% percent increase in the cost of fuel over the past two years and a nationwide labor settlement increasing the cost of major operations contracts. The Board approved commencing a public comment process at the April 27 Special Board Meeting (agenda item #3 and #4) available at the SCRRA website, related to the proposed FY13 budget. The hearing issues include proposals for (1) the modification or restructuring of fares to for purpose of funding SCRRA s continued safe operations, and (2) Title VI Service Delivery Policy. The hearing will also consider any California Environmental Quality Act-related requirements (including California Public Resources Code Sections 21080(b)(8), 21065, and related regulations), and the determination of whether the modification or restructuring of fares would constitute a "project", a schedule for a response as necessary to public suggestions on service changes, and fiscal emergency findings within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section , to realize the necessary budget reductions. POTENTIAL FARE INCREASE and TITLE VI SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY A proposed system-wide average fare increase for Metrolink fares at 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% or 9% for all ticket types, except for the Weekend Pass, to be implemented as early as July 1, (Due to ongoing fare restructuring, One-Way, Round-Trip and 7-Day fares for a less than one percent of station pairs could have increases as high as 20.51% and Monthly Pass fares for less than one percent of station pairs could have increases as high as 13.58% if the 9% increase level is selected. The average increase across the system would be between 5 and 9 percent, however. A public hearing will occur at a Special Meeting of the SCRRA Board of Directors on: May 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) Board Room One Gateway Plaza, 3 rd Floor Los Angeles, CA Information regarding the proposed system-wide average fare increase and the proposed Title VI Service Delivery Policy is available for public inspection on the Metrolink website at or in the SCRRA headquarters office, located at 1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA during regular office hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Comments and suggestions may be submitted orally or in writing at a public hearing to be held on May 30, 2012 at a special-called meeting of the Metrolink Board of Directors or submitted in advance (by May 29, 2012 at noon) of the public hearing by clicking on the ecomment option at Comments can also be submitted by mail in advance of the public hearing by sending feedback to the attention of Metrolink Fares at the SCRRA headquarters located at One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA or faxed to the attention of Metrolink Fares at (213) Metrolink will also hold public meeting workshops in all five member counties to provide additional information to the public and solicit additional comments. The locations of these meetings will be announced by May 6 online at and in handouts on the trains. No public comments will be considered after public hearing scheduled for May 30, 2012 begins. 138

147 METROLINK ACTUALIZACIÓN DE VIAJERO DIARIO AUTORIDAD FERROVIARIA REGIONAL DEL SUR DE CALIFORNIA (SCRRA, POR SUS SIGLAS EN INGLÉS) AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA / AVISO DE INCREMENTO POTENCIAL A LAS TARIFAS / POLÍTICA DE SERVICIO DE ENTREGA La Autoridad Ferroviaria Regional del Sur de California (SCRRA, por sus siglas en inglés) celebrará una audiencia pública en una Reunión Extraordinaria de la Junta de Directores (Junta) el 30 de mayo de 2012 con respecto al un potencial aumento de tarifas para cerrar una brecha de financiamiento de $13 millones en el presupuesto del Año Fiscal y una nueva política de prestación de servicios. La diferencia de financiamiento es causada por el aumento de los costos de operación debido al incremento del 78% en el costo del combustible en los últimos dos años y un acuerdo de trabajo en todo el país, aumentando el costo de los contratos de las operaciones más importantes. La Junta aprobó iniciar un proceso de comentarios públicos en la Reunión Especial de la Junta del 27 de abril (tema de la agenda #3 y #4) disponible en el sitio en línea de SCRRA, relacionadas con el proyecto de presupuesto Año Fiscal 13. Los asuntos de la audiencia incluyen las propuestas de (1) la modificación o reestructuración de las tarifas con el objeto de financiar las operaciones seguras de SCARRA, y (2) La Política de Servicio de Entrega título VI. La Audiencia también tendrá en cuenta cualquier requerimiento relacionado con la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (incluyendo el Código de Recursos Públicos de California Secciones 21080(b)(8), 21065, y reglamentos relacionados), y la determinación de su la modificación o reestructuración de las tarifas constituirían un proyecto, una programación para una respuesta según sea necesario a las sugerencias sobre cambios en el servicio público, y los resultados fiscales de emergencia, en el sentido de la Sección del Código de Recursos públicos, para realizar las reducciones presupuestarias necesarias. INCREMENTO PORTENCIAL DE TARIFA y POLÍTICA DE SERVICIO DE ENTREGA TÍTULO VI Un proyecto de incremento de la tarifa promedio de todo el sistema para las tarifas de Metrolink 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% o 9% para todos los tipos de boletos, a excepción del Pase de Fin de Semana, a ser implementado a partir del 1 de julio de Debido a la restructuración de tarifas en curso, tarifas de Un Sentido, Viaje Redondo y 7 Días para menos de un por ciento de estaciones pares podrían tener incrementos de hasta 20.51% y las tarifas de Pases Mensuales por menos del uno por ciento de las estaciones de pares podrían tener incrementos de hasta el 13.58% si el nivel de aumento del 9% es seleccionado. El incremento promedio a través del sistema sería entre el 5 y 9 por ciento, de todos modos. La Audiencia pública tendrá lugar en una Reunión Extraordinaria de la Junta de Directores de SCRRA el: 30 mayo de 2012 a las 10:00 a.m. Autoridad Metropolitana de Transporte del Condado de Los Ángeles (METRO, por sus siglas en inglés) Sala de Juntas One Gateway Plaza, 3 er Piso Los Angeles, CA La información relacionada al proyecto de propuesta del aumento de la tarifa promedio de todo el sistema y la Política de Servicio de Entrega Título VI está disponible para inspección pública en el sitio en línea de Metrolink en: o en la oficina sede de SCRRA, ubicada en 1 Gateway Plaza, 12vo Piso, Los Ángeles, CA durante el horario regular de oficina de lunes a viernes, de 8:00 A.M. hasta las 5:00 P.M. Comentarios y sugerencias podrían presentarse oralmente o por escrito en una audiencia pública que se celebrará el 30 de mayo de 2012 en una reunión especial de la Junta de Directores de Metrolink o presentada con antelación (al 29 de mayo de 2012 al mediodía) de la Audiencia pública hacienda clic en la opción ecomment en Los comentarios también pueden ser enviados por correo antes de la fecha de la Audiencia pública mediante el envío de información a la atención de Tarifas Metrolink, en la sede de SCRRA ubicada en One Gateway Plaza, Piso 12, Los Ángeles, CA o por fax a la atención de Tarifas Metrolink al (213) Metrolink también llevará a cabo talleres de reuniones públicas en todos los cinco condados para proporcionar información adicional al público y solicitar comentarios adicionales. La ubicación de estas reuniones se dará a conocer el 6 de mayo en línea en y en los folletos de los trenes. Ningún comentario público será considerado después del inicio de la audiencia pública prevista para el 30 de mayo de Para obtener más información de Metrolink, por favor visite nuestro sitio en línea en llame al (LINK) o llame al TDD para clientes con discapacidades auditivas o del habla. 139

148 CẬP NHẬT CHO NGƯỜI ĐI LÀM BẰNG VÉ THÁNG METROLINK NHÀ ĐƯƠNG CỤC ĐƯỜNG RÀY KHU VỰC MIỀN NAM CALIFORNIA (SCRRA) THÔNG BÁO VỀ PHIÊN ĐIỀU TRẦN CÔNG CỘNG/THÔNG BÁO VỀ VIỆC CÓ THỂ GIA TĂNG LỘ PHÍ/CHÍNH SÁCH CHUYỂN GIAO DỊCH VỤ Nhà Đương Cục Đường Rày Khu Vực Miền Nam California (Southern California Regional Rail Authority - SCRRA) sẽ triệu tập một phiên điều trần công cộng tại một Buổi Họp Đặc Biệt của Ủy Ban Các Giám Đốc (gọi tắt là Ủy Ban) vào ngày 30 Tháng Năm, 2012 về việc có thể gia tăng lộ phí để thu hẹp khoảng hở về tài trợ là $13 trong ngân sách của Tài Khóa và một chính sách chuyển giao dịch vụ mới. Khoảng hở tài trợ này là do các chi phí về điều hành gia tăng vì có sự gia tăng 78% phần trăm chi phí về nhiên liệu trong hai năm qua và một sự dàn xếp về lao động trên toàn quốc làm gia tăng chi phí của các hợp đồng chính về điều hành. Ủy Ban chấp thuận cho bắt đầu tiến trình góp ý của công chúng tại Buổi Họp Đặc Biệt của Ủy Ban vào ngày 27 Tháng Tư (nghị trình mục #3 và #4) hiện có tại trang mạng của SCRRA, có liên quan tới ngân sách đề nghị cho Tài Khóa 13. Các vấn đề điều trần bao gồm các đề nghị cho (1) việc bổ sung hoặc tái cấu trúc các lộ phí cho nhằm mục đích tài trợ cho các hoạt động an toàn tiếp tục của SCRRA, và (2) Chính Sách Chuyển Giao Dịch Vụ Tựa Đề VI. Phiên điều trần cũng sẽ xét đến bất cứ yêu cầu nào có liên quan đến Đạo Luật Chất Lượng Môi Trường California (bao gồm Bộ Luật Các Nguồn Tài Nguyên Công Cộng California các Phần 21080(b)(8), 21065, và các quy định có liên quan), và xác định xem việc bổ sung hoặc tái cấu trúc lộ phí có làm thành một "dự án" hay không, một lịch trình để đáp ứng cần thiết cho các đề nghị của công chúng về các thay đổi dịch vụ, và các phát hiện khẩn cấp về tài chánh trong phạm vi ý nghĩa của Bộ Luật Các Nguồn Tài Nguyên Công Cộng Phần , để nhận ra sự giảm bớt cần thiết về ngân sách. TIỀM NĂNG GIA TĂNG LỘ PHÍ và CHÍNH SÁCH CHUYỂN GIAO DỊCH VỤ TỰA ĐỀ VI Đề nghị gia tăng lộ phí trung bình trên toàn hệ thống cho các lộ phí của Metrolink ở mức 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% hoặc 9% cho tất cả các loại vé, ngoại trừ Thẻ Đi Xe Cuối Tuần, sẽ được xúc tiến sớm vào Ngày 1 Tháng Bảy, (Do việc tái cấu trúc tiếp diễn về lộ phí, các lộ phí Một Chiều, Khứ Hồi và 7 Ngày cho ít hơn một phần trăm của các trạm đi và về có thể gia tăng tới 20.51% và Thẻ Đi Xe Tháng cho ít hơn một phần trăm các trạm đi và về có thể gia tăng tới 13.58% nếu mức gia tăng 9% được lựa chọn. Tuy nhiên, sự gia tăng trung bình trên toàn hệ thống sẽ là vào khoảng từ 5 tới 9 phần trăm. Một phiên điều trần sẽ diễn ra tại một cuộc Họp Đặc Biệt của Ủy Ban Các Giám Đốc SCRRA vào ngày: 30 Tháng Năm, 2012 lúc 10:00 sáng Phòng Ủy Ban của Đương Cục Vận Chuyển Đô Thị Quận Los Angeles (METRO) One Gateway Plaza, 3 rd Floor Los Angeles, CA Thông tin về sự gia tăng lệ phí trung bình được đề nghị cho toàn hệ thống và Chính Sách Chuyển Giao Dịch Vụ Tựa Đề VI đã được đề nghị hiện có cho công chúng kiểm tra trên trang mạng của Metrolink tại hoặc tại văn phòng đại bản doanh của SCRRA, toạ lạc tại 1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA trong giờ làm việc thông thường Thứ Hai tới Thứ Sáu, từ 8:00 SÁNG 5:00 CHIỀU. Các góp ý và đề nghị có thể được nộp lên bằng lời nói hoặc trên văn bản tại một phiên điều trần công cộng sẽ được tổ chức vào Ngày 30 Tháng Năm, 2012 tại một buổi họp được kêu gọi đặc biệt của Ủy Ban Các Giám Đốc Metrolink hoặc nộp trước (trước Ngày 29 Tháng Năm, 2012 buổi trưa) phiên điều trần công cộng bằng cách bấm vào lựa chọn ecomment tại Các góp ý cũng có thể được nộp lên qua thư trước phiên điều trần công cộng bằng cách gửi ý kiến phản hồi lên cho Metrolink Fares tại đại bản doanh SCRRA tọa lạc tại One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA hoặc fax cho Metrolink Fares tại số (213) Metrolink cũng sẽ tổ chức các buổi hội thảo công cộng tại tất cả năm quận thành viên để cung cấp thêm thông tin cho công chúng và kêu gọi góp ý thêm. Địa điểm của các buổi họp này sẽ được công bố trước Ngày 6 Tháng Năm trên mạng tại và trong các tờ truyền đơn trên xe lửa. Không có các góp ý công cộng nào được xét đến sau khi phiên điều trần công cộng đã được quy định cho Ngày 30 Tháng Năm, 2012 bắt đầu. Để có thông tin của Metrolink, xin viếng trang mạng của chúng tôi tại gọi số (LINK) hoặc gọi số TDD dành cho các khách hàng bị khuyết tật về lời nói hoặc thính giác 140

149 메트로링크통근자수정안 남부캘리포니아지역철도당국 (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA)) 공공심리통보서 / 잠재적교통비인상에관한통보서 / 서비스조달방침 2012년 5월 30일남부캘리포니아지역철도당국은 회계년도예산에서의천삼백만달러의부족분을메우기위한잠재적형태로서의교통비인상및새로운서비스조달방침에관하여이사회특별모임에서공공심리를열고자합니다. 본부족분은지난 2년간에걸친연료비의 78% 의인상으로인한운행비의증가및주요운영계약의비용을증대기킨전국노동해결안으로발생한것입니다. 이사회는 4월 27일특별위원회모임 ( 안건항목 3, 4) 에서제시된회계년도 13 예산과관련하여공공의견과정의시행을받아들였습니다. 이는 SCRRA 사이트 ( 에서찾아보실수있습니다. 심리안건으로서 (1) SCRRA의지속된안전운행기금조성의목적의요금의수정혹은재구성 (2) 6. 서비스조달방침에관한제안서를포함하고있습니다. 심리는또한캘리포니아환경품질조항관련요구사항 ( 캘리포니아공공자원코드법조항 21080(b)(8), 21065, 및관련법규 ) 을고려합니다. 또한교통비의수정혹은재구성이 프로젝트 를구성하게될것인지의결정여부를다루게됩니다. 서비스변경에관한공공의제시안에필요한답변안에관한일정및필요한예산의감축을실현하기위한공공자원법조항 의의미내에서회계년도비상기금을또한다루게됩니다. 잠재적형태의교통비인상및 6. 서비스조달방침 메트로링크를위한제시된시스템평균교통비인상은 2012 년 7 월 1 일부를시작으로서주말교통표를 제외한전체교통표에대하여 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% 혹은 9% 가됩니다 ( 지속적인교통비재조정으로하여 9% 의인상수준이채택될경우 1 퍼센트미만의정거장쌍에대한편도, 왕복, 7 일교통표에대하여 20.51% 의인상및 1 퍼센트미만의정거장쌍에대하여월별패스비는 13.58% 의인상이있게됩니다. 그러나시스템의평균증가는 5 9 퍼센트가될것입니다. 다음일자에공공심리는 SCRRA 이사회특별모임에서이루어지게됩니다 : 2012 년 5 월 30 일오전 10 시 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) Board Room One Gateway Plaza, 3 rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 제시된시스템평균교통비인상및제시된 6. 서비스조달방침에관한안내사항은메트로링크 사이트 metrolinktrains.com 의공공조사혹은 SCRRA 본사사무소 (1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, 월 금, 정규영업시간오전 8 시 오후 5 시 ) 에안내되어 있습니다 년 5 월 30 일메트로링크이사회특별요청모임에서열리게되는공공심리에서 141

150 구술상이나서면상으로서의견서나제시안이제시되어질수있습니다. 혹은 e의견서 조항에클릭하여공공심리이전에 (2012년 5월 29일정오까지 ) 제출하실수있습니다. 또한공공심리이전에우편으로서의견사항을 SCRRA 본사에제출하실수도있습니다 ( 받는이 : Metrolink Fares, One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA). 팩스 (213) 로보내실경우 Metrolink Fares를받는이로하여주시기바랍니다. 메트로링크는또한 5개회원카운티전체에서공공모임워크샵을열어기타안내사항을제공하며의견을수렴하게될것입니다. 이들모임의위치는온라인 으로혹은기차에서전단지로 5월 6일까지안내되게됩니다. 2012년 5월 30일공공심리가시작한이후로는제안사항을받지않을것입니다. 메트로링크안내는 를방문하시거나 (LINK), TDD ( 청각및언어장애인용 ) 로연락하여주시기바랍니다. 142

151 اخبار خط رفت و برگشت Metrolink اداره راهآھن منطقهای کاليفرنيای جنوبی (SCRRA) اطالعيه جلسه عمومی / اطالعيه افزايش احتمالی کرايهھا / سياست ارائه خدمات اداره راهآھن منطقهای کاليفرنيای جنوبی (SCRRA) در روز 30 می 2012 جلسهای عمومی را در نشست ويژه ھيات مديره (ھيات) برگزار خواھد کرد. در اين جلسه موضوع افزايش احتمالی کرايهھا برای پر کردن شکاف بودجهای 13 ميليون دالری در سال مالی و نيز سياست جديد ارائه خدمات مورد بررسی قرار خواھد گرفت. شکاف بودجهای ايجاد شده ناشی از افزايش ھزينهھای عملياتی به دليل افزايش 78 درصدی ھزينهھای سوخت طی دو سال اخير و نيز توافق کارگری ملی برای افزايش ھزينه قراردادھای عمده عملياتی است. ھيات مديره در تاريخ 27 آوريل در نشست ويژه خود (موارد 3 و 4 برنامه کاری) تصويب کرد که يک نظرسنجی عمومی درباره بودجه سال مالی 2013 برگزار شود. جزييات اين جلسه در وب سايت SCRRA به نشانی آمده است. پيشنھادھای مربوط به (1) اصالح يا بازنگری کرايهھا برای تامين بودجه مستمر عمليات ايمن SCRRA و (2) سياست ارائه خدمات عنوان شش در جلسه عمومی مطرح خواھند شد. ھمچنين کليه الزامات مربوط به قانون حفاظت از محيط زيست کاليفرنيا (شامل بخشھای (8)(b) و مقررات مرتبط از قانون منابع عمومی کاليفرنيا) و تصميم درباره اين که آيا اصالح يا بازنگری کرايهھا در قالب يک "طرح" صورت خواھد گرفت يا خير زمانبندی ارائه پاسخ الزم به پيشنھادھای عمومی درباره تغييرات مربوط به خدمات و احکام اضطراری مالی در چارچوب بخش از قانون منابع عمومی برای شناسايی کسورات الزم از بودجه در اين جلسه مطرح خواھد شد. افزايش احتمالی کرايهھا و سياست ارائه خدمات عنوان شش افزايش پيشنھادی کرايهھای Metrolink در سطح سيستم به ميزان ميانگين 5% 6% 7% 8% يا 9% برای تمام انواع بليت به جز بليت آخر ھفته Pass) (Weekend از 1 جوالی 2012 اعمال خواھد شد. به دليل بازنگری مستمر در نرخ کرايهھا اگر سطح افزايش 9% انتخاب شود قيمت بليتھای يک طرفه دو سره و 7 روزه برای کمتر از يک درصد از جفت ايستگاهھا افزايشی حداکثر درصدی خواھد داشت و قيمت بليت ماھانه برای کمتر از يک درصد از جفت ايستگاهھا با افزايشی حداکثر درصدی روبرو خواھد شد. به ھر حال ميانگين افزايش در سطح سيستم بين 5 تا 9 درصد خواھد بود. تاريخ برگزاری جلسه عمومی در نشست ويژه ھيات مديره :SCRRA ساعت 10 صبح روز 30 می 2012 مکان برگزاری: ھيات مديره اداره حمل و نقل شھری بخش لس آنجلس (METRO) One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA اطالعات مربوط به ميانگين افزايش پيشنھادی کرايهھا در سطح سيستم و سياست ارائه خدمات عنوان شش برای آگاھی عموم مردم بر روی وب سايت 1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA به نشانی SCRRA يا در دفتر مرکزی به نشانی Metrolink ارائه شده است. ساعات کاری معمول دفتر مرکزی 8 صبح تا 5 عصر روزھای دوشنبه تا جمعه است. در جلسه عمومی که در تاريخ 30 می 2012 در نشست ويژه اعضای ھيات مديره Metrolink برگزار میشود امکان ارائه شفاھی يا کتبی نظرھا و پيشنھادھا وجود دارد. ھمچنين افراد با کليک کردن بر روی گزينه "ecomment" در نشانی اينترنتی میتوانند نظرھا و پيشنھادھای خود را پيشاپيش (تا ظھر روز 29 می 2012) ارائه کنند. امکان ارائه ديدگاهھا پيش از برگزاری جلسه عمومی با ارسال بازخورد به قسمت "کرايهھای "Metrolink در دفتر مرکزی SCRRA به نشانی 1 Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA يا با ارسال نمابر به قسمت "کرايهھای "Metrolink به شماره (213) نيز وجود دارد. Metrolink ھمچنين کارگاهھای مربوط به جلسه عمومی را برای ارائه اطالعات تکميلی به عموم مردم و دريافت ديدگاهھای بيشتر در ھر پنج بخش عضو برگزار خواھد کرد. مکان برگزاری اين کارگاهھا تا روز 6 می در وب سايت يا در آگھیھايی که در قطارھا پخش میشود به اطالع عموم خواھد رسيد. پس از شروع جلسه عمومی مورخ 30 می 2012 ديگر ديدگاهھای عمومی بررسی نخواھد شد. برای دريافت اخبار Metrolink لطفا از وب سايت بازديد کنيد يا با شماره (LINK) تماس بگيريد. افراد دچار مشکالت گفتاری يا شنوايی نيز میتوانند با شماره TDD تماس بگيرند 143

152 METROLINK 通勤最新簡報 南加州地區鐵路管理局 (SCRRA) 公眾聽證會通知 / 車費可能漲價通知 / 提供服務政策 南加州地區鐵路管理局 (SCRRA) 定於 2012 年 5 月 30 日在其理事會 ( 理事會 ) 的特別會議中舉行公眾聽證會, 討論爲了填補 財年預算的 1300 萬元資金缺口的車費可能漲價和新的提供服務政策事宜 該項資金缺口是過去兩年來燃油價格上漲 78% 造成的經營費用上漲以及全國性勞資和解帶來的主要運營合同成本上升所造成的 理事會在 4 月 27 日的理事會特別會議中批准了著手徵求民眾意見過程 ( 議程第 3 項和第 4 項 ), 提議的 2013 財年預算的相關資訊可以在 SCRRA 網站查閱 聽證會的事項包括下列提議 :(1) 爲了資助 SCRRA 的持續安全運營而對車費進行修改或重組, 及 (2) 第六篇提供服務政策 聽證會還會考慮與 加州環境品質法案 相關的任何要求 ( 包括 加州公共資源法 第 21080(b)(8) 款機器相關的規定 ) 車費的修改或重組是否會構成一個 項目 的決定 根據民眾提出的服務變更建議的必要時間表 以及爲了實現必要的預算削減根據 加州公共資源法 第 款定義的財政緊急調查結果 車費可能漲價和第六篇提供服務政策 Metrolink 車費進行全系統車費平均漲價的提議為 5% 6% 7% 8% 或 9%, 適用各類車票, 但是週末車票例外, 計劃最早於 2012 年 7 月 1 日開始實施 由於持續的車費重組, 如果選擇漲價 9%, 不到百分之一車站對的單程 往返和七天車費可能漲價達 20.51%, 不到百分之一車站對的月票車費可能漲價達 13.58% 但是, 整個系統的平均漲價在 5% 至 9% 之間 公眾聽證會定於下列時間和地點在 SCRRA 理事會特別會中舉行 : 2012 年 5 月 30 日上午 10 時洛杉磯縣大都會交通管理局 (METRO) 理事會會議室 One Gateway Plaza, 3 rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 全系統平均車費漲價提議和第六篇提供服務政策提議在 Metrolink 網站 上供民眾審閱, 並且民眾可以在週一至週五上午 8 時至下午 5 時的上班時間到 SCRRA 的總部調閱, 地址是 1 Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 意見和建議可以在 2012 年 5 月 30 日 Metrolink 理事會召開的特別會議的公眾聽證會上口頭或書面提交, 或者在公眾聽證會之前 ( 在 2012 年 5 月 29 日中午以前 ) 在網上提交, 即在 網頁上點擊 ecomment 選項 民眾還可以通過郵件提前提交反饋意見, 即寫信到 SCRRA 總部, 注明收件人 :Attn: Metrolink Fares, 地址是 One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA 90012, 或者發傳真至 (212) , 注明收件人 :Attn: Metrolink Fares Metrolink 還會在所有的五個成員縣舉行公眾講座, 向公眾提供更多的資訊, 並且徵求更多的意見 這些會議的地點將於 5 月 6 日在 網站上公佈, 並且在火車上發放傳單 在預定的 2012 年 5 月 30 日公眾聽證會開始之後不再考慮公眾意見 關於 Metrolink 的資訊, 請查看我們的網站 致電 (LINK), 講話或者聽力殘障的客戶可以致電 TDD 144

153 POTENTIAL FARE INCREASE AND PUBLIC HEARING WEBSITE POSTINGS 145

154 NEWS ON HOMEPAGE AD ON HOMEPAGE LANDING PAGE 146

155 REMINDER ON FACEBOOK EVENTS ON FACEBOOK 147

156 METROLINK Potential Fare Increases and Title VI Service Delivery Policy Public Workshop May 21,

157 Agenda Metrolink Fare Workshop Presentation Metrolink overview Funding gap overview Proposed fare increase Fare restructure Sample fare increase table Title VI Service Delivery Policy Public Comment Options 149

158 Metrolink Overview Metrolink is governed by Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a joint powers authority that was formed 1991 and comprises five county agencies that were tasked with reducing highway congestion and improving mobility throughout Southern California. 1. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) 2. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 3. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 4. San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) 5. Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) Metrolink serves as the link between six Southern California counties by providing commuters seamless transportation connectivity options. Metrolink has grown to seven service lines, 55 stations and over 40, 000 daily passengers and covers a 512 route-mile network. 150

159 151

160 Where We Are Today $13 million funding gap in the FY budget due to: Fuel price / usage increases Passenger transfer rate increases Contract labor increases 152

161 Where We Are Today To close the budget gap a variety of options are under consideration: Increasing member agency subsidies Increasing fares to passengers Service reductions Or a combination of these options 153

162 Where We Are Today Metrolink is considering a 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% or 9% system wide average fare increase to help offset operational costs expected for fiscal year The potential increase is in addition to the 2004 Fare Restructuring Policy, that includes incremental adjustments over a 10 year period to complete the transition from zone based to mileage based fares. This results in varied rates depending on the individual s station pairs. 154

163 Fare Restructure Prior to 2005, Metrolink s fares were calculated using a zone based system All stations in same ZONE paid same fare to cross zones 155