Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Alternate Melissa Hernandez, City of Dublin

Alternate Diane Burgis, Contra Costa County

Alternate Mikey Hothi, City of Lodi

Alternate Tom Wheeler, Madera County Alternate Rey León, City of Huron Alternate Eddie Valero, Tulare County

Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Stanislaus County Councilmember Patrick Hume, Chair, City of Elk Grove Supervisor David Haubert, Alameda County Councilmember David Hudson, City of San Ramon Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Vice-Chair, Merced County Supervisor Kathy Miller, San Joaquin County Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Supervisor Brett Frazier, Vice-Chair, Madera County Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County

TELECONFERENCE BOARD MEETING

July 23, 2021 – 9:00 AM

Call-In Information: +1 (646) 749-3335 Conference Access Code: 201-391-501 GoToMeeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201391501

SPECIAL NOTICE Coronavirus COVID-19

In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members will be attending this meeting via teleconference or videoconference. Members of the public may observe the meeting by dialing +1 (646) 749-3335 with access code: 201-391-501 or log-in using a computer, tablet or smartphone at GoToMeeting.com using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201391501

Please note that all members of the public will be placed on mute until such times allow for public comments to be made. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function, or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at publiccommentssjjpa@sjjpa.com, in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period. Public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per comment, and no more than 240 words.

This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting.

All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the offices of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission located at 949 E. Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda and meeting materials are also available on the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Website: http://www.sjjpa.com/Home.

4.

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving the Following Consultants to be on the Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant Lists Related to the Valley Rail Program Capital Project Delivery for a Period From July 23, 2021 Through June 30, 2026, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects:

Rankings A. Project Development B. Right of Way

C. Construction Management

D. Rail Engineering

Services

1. TranSystems Corporation

Paragon Partners Ltd.

TRC Engineers, Inc.

Pennino Management Group

2. AECOM Technical Solutions, Inc.

Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.

WSP USA Inc.

3. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Beacon Integrated Professional Resources, Inc., dba Hamner, Jewell & Associates

Kleinfelder Construction Services, Inc.

ACTION

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Approve Minutes from May 21, 2021 Board Meeting Next Board Meeting Location SJJPA Operating Expense Report Washington Update Administrative Items

ACTION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION 3.

Public Comments Persons wishing to address the Authority on any item of interest to the public regarding SJJPA and the San Joaquin Rail Service shall state their names and addresses and make their presentation. The Authority cannot take action on matters not on the agenda unless the action is authorized by Section 54954.2 of the Government Code. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/476148605 and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at: publiccommentssjjpa@sjjpa.com, in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period. Public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per comment and no more than 240 words.

1. 2.

Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call Consent Calendar

Chair Hume

2 of 151

5.

6.

7.

8.

4.

SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc.

Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.

5. O'Dell Engineering NV5, Inc.

(David Ripperda)

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Project Support Agreements for the San Joaquins’ Merced Station Parking Lot Project with the Following Firms:

1.) O’Dell Engineering - Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), Not-to-Exceed $371,320

2.) Pennino Management Group, Project Management Services, Not-to-Exceed $162,750 (David Ripperda)

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. for Rail Engineering Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $408,773 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (David Ripperda)

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for the Design and Construction of the Video Surveillance System (VSS) Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (Rene Gutierrez)

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Amendment 02 to the Agreement with Jeffrey Scott Agency for Advertising and Creative Services with an Amendment Not-To-Exceed Amount of $571,970 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (David Lipari)

ACTION

ACTION

ACTION

ACTION

3 of 151

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Thruway Bus Network Update (Paul Herman)

South of Merced Integration Study Draft Report and Draft MOU (Dan Leavitt)

San Joaquins Service Update (David Lipari)

Station LOVE Program Update – Emeryville Station (Carmen Setness)

Executive Director’s Report

Board Member Comments

Adjournment The next regular meeting is scheduled for: September 24, 2021 – 9:00 am

INFORMATION

INFORMATION

INFORMATION

INFORMATION

INFORMATION

4 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

Item 2.1 ACTION

Minutes of SJJPA Board Meeting May 21, 2021

The regular meeting of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) was held at 9:00 am on May 21, 2021 in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members attended this meeting via teleconference or videoconference.

1 Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call

Chair Pat Hume called the meeting to order at 9:01 am and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Board Members Present: Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Espinosa, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

2 Consent Calendar 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Approve Minutes from March 26, 2021 Board Meeting Next Board Meeting Location SJJPA Operating Expense Report Washington Update Administrative Items

ACTION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION

M/S/C (Hudson/Haubert) to approve Items 2.1-2.5. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021, by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 10 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Espinosa, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

5 of 151

3

11

4

Public Comments

There were no public comments.

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Adopting the Final 2021 San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Business Plan Update and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Associated with the Master Fund Transfer Agreement Supplements for Operations, Administration, and Marketing Budgets for Fiscal Year 2021/2022.

Item 11 was moved up on the agenda after Item 3, Public Comments.

Paul Herman gave a presentation on this item.

There were no comments on this item.

M/S/C (Frazier/Hudson) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Adopting the Final 2021 San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Business Plan Update and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Associated with the Master Fund Transfer Agreement Supplements for Operations, Administration, and Marketing Budgets for Fiscal Year 2021/2022.

Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 10 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Espinosa, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Submit and Execute Any and All Grant Applications, Agreements, Certifications and Assurances and Any Other Documents Necessary to the California State Transportation Agency to obtain State Rail Assistance (SRA) Funding in the Amount of $3,120,000 for the Stockton Regional Rail Maintenance Facility Expansion Project.

David Ripperda gave a presentation on this item.

Member Chiesa inquired about the American Rescue Plan and available funding for operations or capital improvements.

Mr. Ripperda explained that the present proposal is unclear and that SJJPA is working with Congressman McNerny to attempt to get funding for this project

ACTION

ACTION

6 of 151

5

and that staff is waiting for confirmation that the funding proposals are accepted and passed by congress.

M/S/C (Chiesa/Frazier) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Submit and Execute Any and All Grant Applications, Agreements, Certifications and Assurances and Any Other Documents Necessary to the California State Transportation Agency to obtain State Rail Assistance (SRA) Funding in the Amount of $3,120,000 for the Stockton Regional Rail Maintenance Facility Expansion Project.

Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 10 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Espinosa, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

Approve Two (2) Resolutions of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and to Submit a Grant Application to the California State Transportation Agency for the Stockton Wye Project and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Action 1. Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with BNSF for the Stockton Wye Project in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Action 2. Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Submit and Execute Any and All Grant Applications, Agreements, Certifications and Assurances and Any Other Documents Necessary to the California State Transportation Agency to obtain State Rail Assistance (SRA) Funding in the Amount of $1,000,000 for the Stockton Wye Project and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

David Ripperda and Autumn Gowan gave a presentation on this item.

Member Chiesa inquired about work being completed concurrently for the Stockton Wye and Stockton Diamond.

ACTION

7 of 151

6

Mr. Ripperda explained that work will be completed in phases and that work for the Stockton Wye should go back to being completed this summer and work for the Stockton Diamond should be completed December of 2023.

M/S/C (Shuklian/Quintero) to Approve two (2) Resolutions of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and to Submit a Grant Application to the California State Transportation Agency for the Stockton Wye Project and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Action 1. Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with BNSF for the Stockton Wye Project in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Action 2. Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Submit and Execute Any and All Grant Applications, Agreements, Certifications and Assurances and Any Other Documents Necessary to the California State Transportation Agency to obtain State Rail Assistance (SRA) Funding in the Amount of $1,000,000 for the Stockton Wye Project and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 10 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Espinosa, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with BNSF to Design and Construct the Control Point (CP) Lake to CP West Escalon 2nd Main Track Project and the Modesto Empire Junction Universal Crossover Project in an amount not to exceed $18,250,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

David Ripperda and Autumn Gowan gave a presentation on this item.

There were no comments on this item.

ACTION

8 of 151

7

M/S/C (Miller/Hudson) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with BNSF to Design and Construct the Control Point (CP) Lake to CP West Escalon 2nd Main Track Project and the Modesto Empire Junction Universal Crossover Project in an amount not to exceed $18,250,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 10 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Espinosa, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with BNSF for Environmental Permitting and Preliminary Design for the BNSF 2nd Main TrackProject for an Amount Not to Exceed $1,750,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project 

David Ripperda and Autumn Gowan gave a presentation on this item.

There were no comments on this item.

M/S/C (Hudson/Espinoza) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with BNSF for Environmental Permitting and Preliminary Design for the BNSF 2nd Main Track Project for an Amount Not to Exceed $1,750,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 10 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Espinosa, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

ACTION

9 of 151

8

9

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Paragon Partner, Inc. for Right of Way Services for the Capital Projects Program for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $50,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Autumn Gowan gave a presentation on this item.

There were no comments on this item.

M/S/C (Frazier/Espinoza) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Paragon Partner, Inc. for Right of Way Services for the Capital Projects Program for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $50,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 10 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Espinosa, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Winter Consulting Group for Bay Area Region Marketing & Outreach Services, Not-To-Exceed $144,797, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

David Lipari and Autumn Gowan gave a presentation on this item.

There were no comments on this item.

M/S/C (Hudson/Miller) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Winter Consulting Group for Bay Area Region Marketing & Outreach Services, Not-To-Exceed $144,797, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project

Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 9 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 1 Vice Chair Espinosa

ACTION

ACTION

10 of 151

10

12

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Professional and Contracted Service Amendments for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute All Amendments Not-To-Exceed the Following Amounts:

a) Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney LLP = $195,000 b) DB Engineering & Consulting USA Inc = $400,000 c) Jeffrey Scott Agency = $212,330 d) KP Public Affairs LLC = $204,000 e) Legal Services; Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP and Neumiller &

Beardslee = $80,000

The agreement with Jeffrey Scott Agency was pulled from this item as the amount listed was inaccurate.

Autumn Gowan gave a presentation on this item.

Ms. Mortensen noted that legal counsel refused themselves for this item.

There were no comments on this item.

M/S/C (Hudson/Miller) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Professional and Contracted Service Amendments for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute All Amendments Not-To-Exceed the Following Amounts:

a) Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney LLP = $195,000 b) DB Engineering & Consulting USA Inc = $400,000 c) Jeffrey Scott Agency = $212,330 d) KP Public Affairs LLC = $204,000 e) Legal Services; Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP and Neumiller &

Beardslee = $80,000

Passed and Adopted as Amended by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 9 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 1 Vice Chair Espinosa

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Negotiate with Marsh (Existing Insurance Brokers) to Procure any Necessary Liability Insurance Coverage Related to the Caltrans Interagency Transfer Agreement, with a cost not to exceed $500,000.

ACTION

ACTION

11 of 151

13

14

15

Ms. Stacey Mortensen gave a presentation on this item.

Member Chiesa commented that this is a good thing and that with Ms. Mortensen understanding insurance needs with the operation of ACE, that if SJJPA needs more insurance coverage that it should be obtained.

Chair Hume expressed that he is in agreeance with Member Chiesa and that it is a good thing to have coverage in place.

M/S/C (Frazier/Chiesa) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Executive Director to Negotiate with Marsh (Existing Insurance Brokers) to Procure any Necessary Liability Insurance Coverage Related to the Caltrans Interagency Transfer Agreement, with a cost not to exceed $500,000.

Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on May 21, 2021 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 9 Chiesa, Haubert, Hudson, Miller, Quintero, Shuklian, Verboon, Vice Chair Frazier, Chair Hume

NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 1 Vice Chair Espinosa

San Joaquins Service Restoration of the 5th Roundtrip (Trains 714 and 717 - Oakland-Bakersfield)

Paul Herman gave a presentation on this item.

There were no comments on this item.

San Joaquins Service Update

David Lipari gave a presentation on this item.

Chair Hume commented on the return to normalcy and thanked Mr. Lipari for his presentation.

Station LOVE Program Update – Modesto Station

Rene Gutierrez and Autumn Gowan gave a presentation on this item.

Member Chiesa inquired about plans for car charging stations.

Ms. Gowan explained that staff will find out and follow up with Member Chiesa.

INFORMATION

INFORMATION

INFORMATION

12 of 151

16

17

18

Executive Director’s Report

Ms. Mortensen reported on the State’s interest in moving toward zero emission rolling stock and that SJJPA and the Rail Commission may lead in transitioning locomotives from the current clean diesel to potentially battery diesel hybrids, battery electric, and hydrogen battery.

Board Member Comments

Member Chiesa inquired about meeting in person.

Member Miller commented on other agencies gearing up for July and August.

Chair Hume suggested that SJJPA offer a hybrid meeting.

Adjournment Chair Hume adjourned the meeting at 10:17 am.

The next regular meeting is scheduled on: July 23, 2021 – 9:00 am

INFORMATION

13 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 2.2 INFORMATION

Next Board Meeting Location

Background:

The next SJJPA Board Meeting will be held on Friday, September 24, 2021, with the exact location to be determined based on availability. The meeting time will be coordinated with the San Joaquins schedule and in accordance with Federal, State and local ordinances related to COVID-19.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact.

Recommendation:

Advise on the next Board Meeting location.

14 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 2.3 INFORMATION

SJJPA Operating Expense Report

Please see the attached San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Operating Expense Report for the following period:

• Fiscal Year Start 2020/21 (July 1, 2020 – May 31, 2021)

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact.

Recommendation:

This is an informational item. There is no action requested.

15 of 151

SJJPA EXPENSE YTDFY 20-21 TO PERCENT

OPERATING EXPENSES ALLOCATION DATE EXPENDED

Salaries/Benefits/Contract Help 2,315,128 1,322,547 57%Office Expense 18,517 4,496 24%Subscriptions/Periodicals/Memberships 5,000 5,000 100%Computer Systems 5,000 - 0%Communications 28,977 8,853 31%Motor Pool 29,779 6,360 21%Transportation/Travel 5,000 95 2%Training 7,605 - 0%Audits Regulatory Reporting 23,000 22,390 97%Professional Services Legislative 34,486 24,833 72%Professional Services Legal 120,000 100,823 84%Professional Services General 281,015 175,764 63%Professional Services Grants 67,000 - 0%Publications/Legal Notices 10,000 403 4%Professional Services Operations 20,000 16,826 84%Communications, Operations 12,000 10,471 87%Maintenance of Headquarters Structures/Grounds 109,623 70,417 64%Insurance 93,850 54,667 58%Insurance Management Fees 2,500 - 0%Security Services/Safety Program 59,109 48,254 82%

3,247,589 1,872,199 58%

Marketing & Outreach 2,410,000 721,469 30%2,410,000 721,469 30%

San Joaquin Intercity Rail Operations (All Contracts) 60,205,207 33,130,339 55%60,205,207 33,130,339 55%

65,862,796 35,724,007 54%TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Marketing Expense

San Joaquin Joint Powers AuthorityOperating Expense Report

May 202192% of Budget Year Elapsed

Administrative Expenses

Administrative Expenses Subtotal

Marketing Expenses SubtotalContract Expense

Contract Expense Subtotal

16 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 2.4 INFORMATION Washington Update Please see attached Washington Update Report provided for the month of July 2021. Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact.

Recommendation:

This is an informational item. There is no action requested.

17 of 151

Tai Ginsberg & Associates, LLC 200 Massachusetts Ave. NW, 7th Floor

Washington, DC 20001 T 202 415 9703

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006 T 202 452 7900

TO: San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA)

FROM: TG&A Staff SUBJECT: Monthly Progress Report for JULY 2021 DATE: July 16, 2021

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION/EXECUTIVE BRANCH

July 9, 2021. President Joe Biden signed an Executive Order and here [Fact Sheet] to promote competition in the American economy. The Order includes 72 initiatives by more than a dozen federal agencies to address competition problems in the economy. Regarding transportation, the order as paraphrased (See Sec. 5 - Further Agency Responsibilities, (m) for specifics on transportation):

• Directs the DOT to consider issuing clear rules requiring the refund of fees when baggage is delayed or when service isn’t actually provided.

• Directs the DOT to consider issuing rules that require baggage, change, and cancellation fees to be clearly disclosed to the customer.

• Encourages the Surface Transportation Board to require railroad track owners to provide rights of way to passenger rail and to strengthen their obligations to treat other freight companies fairly.

• Encourages the Federal Maritime Commission to ensure vigorous enforcement against shippers charging American exporters exorbitant charges.

See Peter DeFazio (D-OR) statement applauding the Executive Order. July 1, 2021. The White House released state fact sheets to highlight how the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework will deliver for states and territories across the country. The individual fact sheets for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other territories are linked here. A fact sheet on how the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework advances racial equity is also linked here.

BIDEN 2021 TRANSPORTATION-RELATED NOMINATIONS/CONFIRMATIONS Since the June 2021 Report no relevant activity.

APPROPRIATIONS/BUDGET

Transportation-Related Appropriations Status Table for FY 2022

House (0 of 12)

Senate (0 of 12)

(0 of 12)

(0 of 12)

(0 of 12)

Appropriations Status Table Link

Bills Passed:

Bills Vetoed:

Both Chambers Passed:

Bills Enacted:

OVERALL FY 2022 APPROPRIATION BILL SUMMARY

Transportation-HUD House Senate House Senate House Senate Conference Rpt. House Senate

HR TBA (voice vote)

7/12/2021

Notes:

Transportation/HUD Appropriations - 7/12/2021 Subcommittee Press Release

Presidential

Approval

US Department of Transportation Appropriation Status Table FY 2022

Resolution of House-Senate DifferencesSubcommittee Approval Full Committee Approval Initial Passage

18 of 151

July 12-16, 2021. The House Committee on Appropriations has scheduled a Full Committee markup of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill on July 16, 2021. On July 12, 2021 the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development approved its FY 2022 funding bill (HR TBA) by voice vote. A listing of Community Project Funding items (earmarks) can be found here.

FY 2022 House Appropriations THUD Highlights The bill provides a total of $105.7 billion in budgetary resources for US DOT – an increase of $19 billion over the FY 2021 enacted level. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY National Infrastructure Investments (aka Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and

Equity, or RAISE grants) $ 1,200,000,000 (For Planning/Design Set-aside) $ 40,000,000 (For Areas of Persistent Poverty Set-aside) $ 20,000,000 Thriving Communities Initiative $ 100,000,000 Electric Vehicle Fleet $ 11,000,000 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Contract Tower Program $ 178,000,000

Grants-In-Aid For Airports (AIP) $ 3,350,000,000 (Small Community Air Service Development Pgm. AIP Set-aside) $ 10,000,000 Grants-In-Aid For Airports (Additional Amount) $ 400,000,000 (Incorporation of Community Proj. Funding (earmarks) Set-aside) $ 79,959,135 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Highway Obligation Limitation $61,882,102,951 Highway Infrastructure Programs $ 592,000,000 (Incorporation of Community Proj. Funding (earmarks) Set-aside) $ 427,500,000 FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program $ 389,212,000 High Priority Activities $ 59,108,000 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Highway Safety Program $ 384,000,000 National Priority Safety Programs $ 390,900,000 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION National Network Grants $ 1,500,000,000 Northeast Corridor Grans $ 1,200,000,000 Passenger Rail Improvement, Modernization & Expansion (PRIME Grants) $ 625,000,000 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements $ 500,000,000 Magnetic Levitation Technology Deployment $ 5,000,000 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Transit Obligation Limitation $12,150,348,462 Transit Infrastructure Grants $ 580,000,000 (Bus/Bus Facilities Set-aside) $ 203,000,000 (Low/No Emission Grants Set-aside) $ 240,000,000 (Innovative Mobility Solutions Set-aside) $ 25,000,000 (Integrated Smart Mobility Grants Set-aside) $ 50,000,000 Capital Investment Grants $ 2,473,000,000 MARITIME ADMINISTRATION Assistance to Small Shipyards $ 20,000,000 Port Infrastructure Development Program $ 300,000,000 America’s Marine Highway Program $ 14,819,000 (makes prior year recoveries available for AMHP)

19 of 151

July 13, 2021. The House Committee on Appropriations approved the FY 2022 Homeland Security funding bill on a 33-24 vote. The bill provides funding of $52.81 billion, an increase of $934 million above FY 2021. In total, the bill provides total funding of $76.15 billion, including $18.8 billion for major disaster response and recovery and $4.57 billion that is offset by fee collections. A summary of the bill is here. The text of the bill, before the adoption of amendments in full Committee, is here. A listing of Community Project Funding items (earmarks) can be found here. July 8, 2021. The Bipartisan Policy Center issued a warning that projecting the debt limit “X Date” after its suspension expires on August 1, 2021, will be more difficult than past instances, due to the high uncertainty of Treasury Department cash flows relating to COVID-19 relief disbursements and the pace of the economic recovery. Partially due to this cash flow uncertainty, in May 2021, the Treasury Department announced it would hold $450 billion in cash on hand on August 1,2021 (as opposed to the anticipated $118 billion), which will serve to supplement its emergency borrowing authority, known as “extraordinary measures.” BPC forecasts that these measures and cash on hand will be exhausted sometime in the fall, at which point the Treasury Department will have insufficient daily revenues to meet all of its obligations in full and on time. July 2, 2021. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has posted each Senator’s congressionally directed spending requests for FY 2021. Once all requests are made, the Chairman will post a link to a consolidated table so that the public can access all requests made to the Committee in one place. Senate members are not capped on the number of project requests as were House members at ten projects.

SENATE/HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION NEWS July 12, 2021. Senate Democratic leaders on the Budget Committee and the White House reached the broad outlines of an overall spending target of $3.5 trillion for the budget resolution (down from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) earlier sought after $6 trillion package). Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) noted that, “The budget resolution with instructions will be $3.5 trillion. If you add that to the $600 billion bipartisan plan, you get to $4.1 [trillion], which is very, very close to what President Biden asked us for.” Revenues for the plan include increasing the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent, raising the top capital-gains tax rate to 43.4 percent from 23.8 percent, taxing foreign earnings on corporations and tightening Internal Revenue Service enforcement to collect more taxes. Senate leaders are to present the proposal to the Democratic Caucus seeking their “buy-in” so that a budget resolution can be adopted and that will pave the way for a reconciliation bill that can advance through the 50-50 Senate without Republican support. July 1, 2021. According to multiple press reports, House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-KY) has decided to forgo taking up the FY 2022 House Budget Resolution; notwithstanding, the fact that a deeming resolution was used earlier to temporarily set the topline discretionary number to allow House appropriators time to begin to develop their FY 2022 appropriation bills - the House and Senate Appropriations Committees each have 12 subcommittees. The plan was that once adopted by the House and Senate, the concurrent resolution on the budget for FY 2022 would supersede the provisions of the deeming resolution. However, due to slim margins in the House and the possibility of not being able to adopt a House Budget Resolution, House Democrats are going to punt and see if Senate Democrats can pass a resolution through their 50/50 chamber. House Democrats would then likely end up adopting the Senate Budget Resolution. The House/Senate both need to adopt the same budget resolution to set up a filibuster-proof reconciliation package. See House Committee on the Budget document entitled, “Discretionary Spending and the Congressional Budget Process: An Explainer.”

20 of 151

SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS/BUSINESS July 16, 2021. The House Committee on Appropriations has scheduled a Full Committee markup of FY 2022 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills. Committee Link. July 1, 2021. The US House passed the $759 billion ($715 billion plus an additional $44 billion in floor amendments) five-year “Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act aka INVEST in America Act (engrossed version with all House Amendments) by a vote of 221-201 (219 Democrats and 2 Republicans). The INVEST in America Act (1,934 pages) is a surface transportation reauthorization and wastewater/drinking water infrastructure bill introduced by Peter DeFazio (D-OR). The bill also featured a return to Member Designated Projects or “earmarks” and ACE and CCJPA’s joint Agnew Siding project was included for funding. The House bill now moves to the Senate which has been working on its own bi-partisan version with the White House. That bill could be brought to the Senate floor as soon as the week of July 19. Any Senate-passed bill will then be conferenced with the House-passed bill before a negotiated bill can be sent to President Biden.

[See House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Peter DeFazio (D-OR) statement. See American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) statement.]

In broad strokes, the INVEST in America Act funds the following:

• Roads and Bridges $343 billion

• Transit $109 billion

• Passenger/Freight Rail $ 95 billion

• Drinking Water Infrastructure $117 billion

• Wastewater Infrastructure $ 51 billion INVEST in AMERICA ACT RESOURCES: HR 3684 (Placed on Senate Calendar – July 13, 2021) House Report 117-70 House Report 117-70 Part 2 House T&I Resources URL (Including FHWA/FTA Authorizations/State Apportionments)

SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL “TRANSPORTATION-RELATED” BILLS – JULY SENATE BILLS

S 2309 R. Warnock (D-GA) A bill to improve the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program (CRISI). Introduced 7/12/2021.

S 2229 Press Release

T. Cruz (R-TX) “Highway Formula Modernization Act of 2021.” Direct the US DOT to reevaluate the funding formulas used to distribute federal highway dollars Introduced 6/25/2021.

HOUSE BILLS

HR 4314 Press Release

B. Foster (D-IL) “Fair Allocation of Highway Funds Act.” With respect to apportionments to States for certain highway programs. Introduced 7/1/2021.

HR 4336 Press Release

D. Schweikert (R-AZ) “NEPA State Assignment Expansion Act.” Expand the NEPA assignment program to let federal agencies delegate NEPA review authority to relevant state entities, which can carry out NEPA review on the agency's behalf, under the supervision of the agency. Introduced 7/1/2021.

HR 3684 Funding Highlights H Rpt. 117-75

P. DeFazio (D-OR) “INVEST in America Act.” A $715 billion surface transportation reauthorization and water infrastructure bill. Passed House on 7/1/2021 by a vote of 221-201.

HR TBA Press Release

D. Schweikert (R-AZ) “NEPA Accountability and Enforcement Act.” Require federal agencies to complete the NEPA process in two years for proposed projects that need an EIS, among other items. Introduced 7/1/2021.

HR 4309 D. DeGette (D-CO) To advance innovation in and deployment of zero-emission electricity technology. Introduced 7/1/2021.

21 of 151

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY (NOFOs) / GRANT AWARDS July 2, 2021. Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI) announced that the application period is open for its competitive Rail Transit Safety Education Grants. The grants offer a total of $220,000 in funding for transit agencies and government entities that provide transit service to conduct rail transit safety education and public awareness initiatives. Grant amounts are capped at $20,000 and require non-federal matching funds of at least 25 percent of project costs. All applications must be submitted via the Common Grant Application online grant processing program by July 31, 2021. Grant awards will be announced by September 3, 2021. July 2, 2021. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) making available $10 million under the FY 2021 Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID) Demonstration Program. The AID Demonstration provides incentive funding for activities eligible for assistance in any phase of a highway transportation project between project planning and project delivery including: planning, financing, operation, structures, materials, pavements, environment, and construction that address Technology and Innovation Deployment Program (TIDP) goals, i.e. to accelerate the implementation of proven innovation in highway transportation. The TIDP funds are available at an 80 percent Federal share, which requires a minimum mandatory 20 percent cost share. The AID Demonstration grants are available to State Departments of transportation (DOTs), Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs), and Tribal governments. The Notice of Intent to apply due date is August 3, 2021, and applications are due September 28, 2021. July 1, 2021. The US DOT announced awards of $905.25 million to 24 projects in 18 states under the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program. US DOT evaluated 157 eligible applications from 42 states, as well as Guam. Applicants collectively requested approximately $6.8 billion in grant funds—more than seven times the funding available. The full list of proposed awards can be found here (project fact sheets). As required under the FAST Act, Congress will have 60 days to review the Department’s proposed project awardees. After the 60-day review period, the Department is free to begin obligating funding.

OTHER TRANSPORTATION-RELATED FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES July 8, 2021. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a Request for Applicants seeking applications from individuals who are interested in being appointed to serve on the Surface Transportation Security Advisory Committee (STSAC). The STSAC is composed of no more than 40 voting members from among stakeholders representing each mode of surface transportation, such as passenger rail, freight rail, mass transit, pipelines, highways, over-the-road bus, school bus industry, and trucking. TSA is seeking applications for up to 5 members with specific expertise in the pipeline mode of surface transportation and cybersecurity across all surface transportation modes. Applications for membership must be submitted to TSA on or before August 9, 2021.

OTHER REPORTS/NOTICES/NEWS ARTICLES July 9, 2021. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) posted new guidance to its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about travel to provide information about social distancing while traveling. July 7, 2021. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) issued a 15-page policy white paper that updates the organization’s key surface transportation priorities by addressing several critical issue elevated in importance over the last two years since its adoption of comprehensive surface reauthorization policies in 2019. July 7, 2021. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) sent a letter to Peter Buttigieg, US DOT Secretary, urging an increase in the selection of projects that will improve the nation’s public transit, passenger rail, and multimodal infrastructure from the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grants program.

22 of 151

APTA notes that, “In the past four years, the percentage of BUILD grants awarded for public transportation-related projects was significantly less than the historical average—decreasing from a historical average of 33 percent to less than 13 percent. July 7, 2021. Amtrak is contracting with California-based Siemens Mobility Inc.to manufacture a new fleet of up to 83 multi-powered modern trains that will be leveraged for state and northeast services, with further options for up to 130 additional trains to support Amtrak growth plans. Siemens Mobility Inc. will manufacture the trains at its Sacramento, California plant. The new equipment will operate on the Northeast Corridor, long distance Palmetto and various state-supported routes that will replace Amtrak-owned Amfleet, Metroliner, and state-owned equipment on certain routes throughout the country. In addition to the Northeast Regional, other routes will include the Adirondack, Carolinian, Cascades, Downeaster, Empire Service, Ethan Allen Express, Keystone Service, Maple Leaf, New Haven/Springfield Service (Amtrak Hartford Line and Valley Flyer), Pennsylvanian, Vermonter and Virginia Services. The $7.3 billion investment includes the purchase of equipment and a long-term parts supply and service agreement, facility modifications and upgrades, and other program expenses. The first units in a new $2 billion Acela express fleet are scheduled to begin passenger service this year. July 2, 2021. The US DOT Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report entitled, “Fully Implementing a Grants Management Framework Will Enhance FRA’s Amtrak Funding Oversight.” The report found that “FRA has not fully adopted a grants management framework for its Amtrak oversight program. It lacks measurable goals and metrics, complete policies and procedures to assess Amtrak’s adherence to requirements, and a centralized grants management system.” As a consequence, the report stated that, “These weaknesses may hinder FRA’s ability to assess its program’s effectiveness, improve the program, and maximize returns on investment in Amtrak.” The report notes that the FRA concurred with the OIG findings. July 1, 2021. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued an updated report entitled, “Amtrak, North Atlantic Rail Alliance Seek Support for Passenger Rail Proposals.” Both organizations (Amtrak and North Atlantic Rail Alliance) have requested various measures supportive of their plans to be included in federal legislation. Some of these—though not all—were included in bills passed by the House (H.R.3684, the INVEST in America Act) and marked up in the Senate (S. 2016, the Surface Transportation Investment Act).

23 of 151

June 28, 2021. The National Academies Press released a Report entitled, “Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers (2021).” June 28, 2021. The National Academies Press released a Report entitled, “Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide (2021).” June 25, 2021. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) launched a Public Transportation Workers Toolkit to provide current information from CDC, DOT, and OSHA on COVID- related workplace policies and regulations, vaccine availability, and other preventive measures of relevance to transit workers.

UPCOMING CONGRESSIONAL CALENDAR – AUGUST 2021 The Senate has announced a tentative Calendar with August 9 – September 10 (Labor Day – September 6) as being a State Work Period – these are days that the Senate will not be in session. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) released a Dear Colleague letter intimating that, “My intention for this work period is for the Senate to consider both the bipartisan infrastructure legislation and a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions, which is the first step for passing legislation through the reconciliation process.” The Dear Colleague letter continues by noting, “Senators should be prepared for the possibility of working long nights, weekends, and remaining in Washington into the previously-scheduled August state work period.” Meanwhile, the House is scheduled to recess the entire month of August, with July 30 (Friday) being their last day in session.

UPCOMING DEADLINES/EVENTS Note: Given the recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, many upcoming events have/are being cancelled or conducted “virtually” to prevent the spread of COVID-19. August 10-11 Michigan Rail Conference (Virtual); August 10-12 National Conference on Transportation Asset Management; August 15-19 AASHTO Management Institute (AMI) Bellevue WA, August 22-26 in Minneapolis, MN,

September 19-23 in Houston, TX; October 10-14 in Annapolis, MD; and November 7-11 in West Palm Beach, FL;

August 5-14 AASHTO Leadership Institute (ALI) at the University of Kansas campus, Lawrence, KS; September 7-9 North American Rail Shippers Annual Meeting (Chicago); October 4-7 AASHTO Executive Institute (AEI) in Washington D.C.

24 of 151

SCUTTLEBUTT/ICYMI July 12, 2021. DeKalb County, Georgia Commissioner Larry Johnson was sworn in as NACo’s new president at NACo’s 2021 Annual Business Meeting in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Mr. Johnson began his journey to the top spot when he was elected second vice president of NACo in 2019 at the Annual Conference in Clark County, Nevada. July 12, 2021. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), “more people are riding public transportation nationwide. In some communities, transit ridership is up more than 80 percent over early 2020 levels.” The FTA has several listening sessions to discuss, “what’s working to help transit agencies across America renew ridership.”

• Listening Session 1: 2-3:30 p.m. EDT Friday, July 30

• Listening Session 2: 2-3:30 p.m. EDT Friday, August 6

• Listening Session 3: 2-3:30 p.m. EDT Friday, August 13 July 6, 2021. Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) submitted a Joint Submission to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) detailing evidence on why the STB should approve CN’s voting trust structure. The joint comments argue that, “A CN-KCS combination will increase customer options, enhance rail-to-rail competition with larger Class Is, and benefit both the global environment and local communities by converting truck traffic to rail.” The submission also argues that, “Amtrak’s Interest in Potential Future Passenger Service Over KCS’s Baton Rouge-New Orleans Line Is Not Relevant to the Voting Trust.” At end of comment period, 1,752 letters of support were filed with the STB, including more than 1,000 letters of support for the voting trust. The Surface Transportation Board’s current merger rules haven’t been tested because it hasn’t approved any major railroad mergers since the 1990s. Meanwhile, KCS shareholders are being asked to consider and vote on a proposal to adopt the merger agreement at a special meeting of KCS’s stockholders to be held on August 19, 2021. Als, see CN press release. June 30, 2021. National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Robert L. Sumwalt ended his nearly 15 years at the NTSB, as he retired from government service. Sumwalt’s tenure as the 14th chairman of the NTSB began in August 2017 after being nominated to lead the agency by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the Senate. He was renominated for a second term as chairman in August 2019. Vice Chairman Bruce Landsberg will serve as the acting chairman until a new chair is confirmed by the Senate. June 29, 2021. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law on June 29, 1956 – 65 years ago. Under the act, the federal government would pay for 90 percent of the cost of construction of Interstate Highways. Each Interstate Highway was required to be a freeway with at least four lanes and no at-grade crossings. See President Joe Biden’s remarks and also see US DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s remarks. June 28, 2021. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) submitted comments before the Surface Transportation Board (STB) opposing the Joint Motion for Approval of Voting Trust Agreement on the terms proposed and as filed on May 26 with the STB by Canadian National Railway (CN) and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS). Amtrak’s comments note that, “Many parties to this proceeding have identified the 80-mile rail corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, along which CN and KCS have closely parallel rail lines, as the area of greatest concern with respect to rail freight service competition.” Amtrak’s comments continue by noting, “As the Board has repeatedly and consistently stated, conditions imposed on rail mergers must be “operationally feasible” and produce “net public benefits.” CN’s proposed “divestiture” flunks both tests.” Moreover, Amtrak states, “For the reasons stated above, CN’s proposed “divestiture” of the KCS Baton Rouge Line is not a feasible or statutorily permissible way to solve the competitive issues raised by CN’s proposed voting trust and the CN Acquisition.”

25 of 151

June 28, 2021. US Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement after President Biden initially sent a mixed message suggesting a possible veto of the Senate/President’s agreed-to infrastructure bill provided it is not linked to passage of a separate “human infrastructure” package and then the President’s subsequent backtracking of that statement noting that, “The President has appropriately delinked a potential bipartisan infrastructure bill from the massive, unrelated tax-and-spend plans that Democrats want to pursue on a partisan basis. Now I am calling on President Biden to engage Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi and make sure they follow his lead.”

26 of 151

Addendum B. – Calendar Year NOFO/AWARDS SCORECARD. An Excel spreadsheet with “hot-links” is available from TG&A upon request.

TYPE NOFO NOFO $s APPLICATION NOFO $

NOFO TITLE (NOFO / AWARD) ISSUANCE DATE NOFO URL MADE AVAILABLE DEADLINE AWARDS AWARDS URL AWARDED - DATE COMMENTS

US DOT

Inclusive Design Challenge (FY 2018 Funding) NOFO/AWARD 4/21/2020 NOFO URL 5,000,000 10/30/2020 3,000,000 Award URL 1/6/2021 $5 m. prize purse from FY 2018 “Highly

Automated Vehicle Research & Dev. Pgm."

Complete Trip - ITS4US Deployment Program NOFO/AWARD 6/18/2020 NOFO URL 40,000,000 7/7/2020 38,350,871 Award URL 1/6/2021

FY 2021 INFRA Discretionary Grants VOID - TBA - See 2/17/2021 for Revision NOFO 1/20/2021 NOFO URL 889,000,000 4/4/2021 TBD TBD TBD Postponed Notice URL

FY 2021 INFRA Discretionary Grants NOFO 2/17/2021 NOFO URL 1,039,000,000 3/19/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 National Infrastructure Investments (BUILD) VOID - See 4/13 for Update NOFO 1/21/2021 NOFO URL 1,000,000,000 4/20/2021 TBD TBD TBD Postponed Notice URL

Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program NOFO 2/18/2021 NOFO URL 1,000,000 4/16/2021 TBD TBD TBD FY 2021 INFRA NOF Fed Reg

Transportation Demonstration Program NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 100,000,000 6/25/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 National Infrastructure Investments (Rebuilding American Infrastructure

with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program)

NOFO 4/13/2021 NOFO URL 1,000,000,000 7/12/2021 TBD TBD TBD

Aviation Manufacturing Jobs Protection (AMJP) program NOFO 6/11/2021 NOFO Solicitation 3,000,000,000 7/13/2021 TBD TBD TBD

US DHS/

FEMA

FY 2020 Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grant program NOFO 1/14/2021 NOFO URL 35,500,000 2/26/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2020 Staffing For Adequate Fire And Emergency Response (SAFER) grants NOFO 1/27/2021 NOFO URL 355,000,000 3/12/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Port Security Grant Program NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 100,000,000 5/14/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Intercity Passenger Rail - Amtrak NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 10,000,000 5/14/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Nonprofit Security Grant Program NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 180,000,000 5/14/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Intercity Bus Security Grant Program NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 2,000,000 5/14/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Homeland Security Grant Program NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 1,120,000,000 5/14/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (Regions 1-10) NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 355,100,000 5/14/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Transit Security Grant Program NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 88,000,000 5/14/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 State Fire Training Systems Grant Program NOFO 6/16/2021 NOFO URL 1,000,000 7/27/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program NOFO 6/23/2021 NOFO URL 525,000 7/30/2021 TBD TBD TBD Projected No. of awards is 3.

US DOJ

FY 2021 COPS Hiring Program (CHP) Program NOFO 5/7/2021 NOFO URL 140,000,000 6/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD Solicitation

COPS Community Policing Development Funds NOFO 6/3/2021 NOFO URL 22,000,000 7/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD

DOE

Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy FOA 2/11/2021 FOA URL 100,000,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD Development of high-potential, high-impact

energy technologies.

EPA

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act NOFA 4/29/2021 NOFA URL 54,500,000 7/23/2021 TBD TBD TBD

State Infrastructure Finance Authority Water Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act NOFA 4/29/2021 NOFA URL 5,000,000 6/25/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FAA

Airport Coronavirus Response Grant Program Notice 12/31/2020 Notice URL 2,000,000,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD

Aviation Workforce Development Grant Program - Aviation Maintenance NOFO 1/20/2021 NOFO URL 5,000,000 3/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD

Aviation Workforce Development Grant Program - Aircraft Pilots NOFO 1/20/2021 NOFO URL 5,000,000 3/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD

Small Community Air Service Development Program NOFO 1/20/2021 NOFO URL 18,000,000 3/1/2021 TBD TBD TBD Rev. closing date - original was 1/26/2021

Environmental Mitigation Pilot Program NOFO 5/10/2021 NOFO URL 15,000,000 7/9/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FHWA

Highway Construction Workforce Partnership (HCWP) Grant Program NOFO 1/5/2021 NOFO URL 4,000,000 2/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD

Commuter Authority Rail Safety Improvement (CARSI) Grants NOFO/AWARD 8/26/2020 NOFO URL 50,000,000 40,255,750 Award URL 1/14/2021

Operation Lifesaver AWARD 200,000 200,000 Award URL 5/13/2021 O.L. is a nonprofit public safety education

org.

Operation Lifesaver AWARD 245,317 Award URL 5/25/2021 Competitive rail safety awareness grants

Accelerated Innovation Deployment Demonstration Grants NOFO/AWARD 7/16/2020 NOFO URL 5,000,000 See note. 5,619,191 Award URL 5/26/2021 Rolling solicitation.

Advanced Transportation and Congestion Mgt. Technologies Deployment Initiative NOFO 6/23/2021 NOFO URL 60,000,000 8/23/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID) Demonstration Program NOFO 7/2/2021 NOFO URL 10,000,000 9/28/2021 TBD TBD TBD Intent to apply deadline 8/3/2021.

Operation Lifesaver - Rail Transit Safety Education Grants NOFO 7/1/2021 NOFO URL 220,000 7/31/2021 TBD TBD TBD Grant amounts are capped at $20,000

FRA

FY 2021 Supplemental for the NEC Cooperative Agreement to Amtrak NOFO 2/11/2021 NOFO URL 1,209,483,050 2/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD Consolidated Approp. Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-

260)

FY 2021 Supp. for the National Network Cooperative Agreement to Amtrak NOFO 2/11/2021 NOFO URL 1,380,241,050 2/22/2021 TBD TBD TBD Consolidated Approp. Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-

260)

FY 2021 Supp.for the NEC Cooperative Agreement to Amtrak NOFO 2/9/2021 NOFO URL 969,388,160 4/23/2021 TBD TBD TBD American Rescue Plan Act, 2021

SELECTED TRANSPORTATION NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES (NOFOs) &/OR AWARDS

(SCORECARD for CY 2021)7/6/2021

27 of 151

TYPE NOFO NOFO $s APPLICATION NOFO $

NOFO TITLE (NOFO / AWARD) ISSUANCE DATE NOFO URL MADE AVAILABLE DEADLINE AWARDS AWARDS URL AWARDED - DATE COMMENTS

FY 2021 Supp. for the National Network Cooperative Agreement to Amtrak NOFO 2/9/2021 NOFO URL 728,611,840 4/23/2021 TBD TBD TBD American Rescue Plan Act, 2021

FY 2020/2021 Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning NOFO 4/21/2021 NOFO URL 10,052,572 6/21/2021 TBD TBD TBD US DOT Announcement

FY 2021 Rail Safety Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (Rail Safety IDEA) NOFO 5/4/2021 NOFO URL 400,000 5/14/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FTA

FTA - Coronavirus Response/Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 Notice 1/11/2021 Notice URL 14,000,000,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Low or No Emission Grant Program NOFO/AWARD 2/11/2021 NOFO URL 180,000,000 4/12/2021 182,156,692 Award URL 6/25/2021

Community Rides Grant Program NOFO 3/22/2021 NOFO URL 100,000 5/10/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2020/2021 Technical Assistance and Workforce Development NOFO 4/14/2021 NOFO URL 5,000,000 5/10/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Community Design Challenge Grants NOFO 5/26/2021 NOFO URL 25,000 7/12/2021 TBD TBD TBD Four communities to be selected.

FY 2020/2021 Areas of Persistent Poverty Program NOFO 6/30/2021 NOFO URL 16,259,614 8/30/2021 TBD TBD TBD Combination FY 2021/2021 funding.

HUD

MARAD

FY 2021 Small Shipyard Grants program NOFO 1/15/2021 NOFO URL 19,600,000 2/25/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Port Infrastructure Development Program NOFO 3/29/2021 NOFO URL 230,000,000 7/30/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2020 Small Shipyard Grants program NOFO/AWARD 1/6/2020 NOFO URL 19,600,000 2/18/2020 19,600,000 Award URL 4/26/2021

FY 2021 America’s Marine Highway Program NOFO 5/22/2021 NOFO URL 10,819,000 6/25/2021 TBD TBD TBD Only previously designated Marine Hwy.

Proj. eligible.

NAT'L.

SCIENCE

FOUNDATIO

NNHTSA /

FMCSA

FY 2021 High Priority- CMV program NOFO 1/28/2021 NOFO URL 25,211,500 3/15/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021–Commercial Motor Vehicle Operator Safety Training Program NOFO 1/28/2021 NOFO URL 2,000,000 3/15/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 Commercial Driver's License Program Implementation NOFO 1/28/2021 NOFO URL 32,702,000 3/15/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 High Priority Program – Innovative Technology Deployment NOFO 1/29/2021 NOFO URL 20,000,000 3/15/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2022 Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program NOFO 5/29/2021 NOFO URL 304,069,500 8/2/2021 TBD TBD TBD

Enhance Uniformity/Traffic Laws & Countermeasure/State Motor Veh. Admn. Office NOFO 6/11/2021 NOFO URL 648,109 7/6/2021 TBD TBD TBD Funds 1 Cooperative Agreement.

DOT /

PHMSA

FY 2021 Supplemental Public Sector Training (SPST) Grant program NOFO 2/4/2021 NOFO URL 1,300,000 3/15/2021 TBD TBD TBD

FY 2021 - State Damage Prevention Program Grants NOFO 2/26/2021 NOFO URL 100,000,000 3/15/2021 TBD TBD TBD

TREASURY

CERTS Coronavirus Economic Relief for Transportation Services NOFO 5/7/2021 NOFO URL 2,000,000,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD CERTS Guidelines

DOC/EDA

OSHA

USDA

SELECTED TRANSPORTATION NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES (NOFOs) &/OR AWARDS

(SCORECARD for CY 2021)7/6/2021

28 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 2.5 INFORMATION

Administrative Items

Media Stories:

Attached are several articles. Links are provided below.

Amtrak San Joaquins plans to restore service on some routes as ridership rebounds https://www.bakersfield.com/news/amtrak-san-joaquins-plans-to-restore-service-on-some-routes-as-ridership-rebounds/article_4303eb7e-d451-11eb-88d1-e362a50c065d.html

Our View: Don’t let Amtrak be a victim of the pandemic https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/our-view/our-view-don-t-let-amtrak-be-a-victim-of-the-pandemic/article_4b3cf9c6-b993-11eb-ac20-c3cc3d456153.html

Amtrak restores pre-pandemic service from Valley to Bay Area. What about Sacramento? https://www.modbee.com/news/coronavirus/article252446918.html

29 of 151

Amtrak Places Record $3.4 Billion Order for New Trains to Be Built in Sacramento https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2021/07/07/amtrak-places-record-3-4-billion-order-for-new-trains-to-be-built-in-sacramento/

Amtrak Buying $3.4 Billion Of Advanced Siemens Trains As It Overhauls Rail Network https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/07/07/amtrak-buying-advanced-siemens-trains-as-it-overhauls-rail-network/?sh=58de86f924e6

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact.

Recommendation:

This is an informational item. There is no action requested.

30 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 2.5.1 INFORMATION

Administrative Items

Media Stories:

Amtrak San Joaquins plans to restore service on some routes as ridership rebounds The Bakersfield Californian

Jun 23, 2021

As pandemic restrictions have eased and communities reopen, increased ridership on the Central Valley's Amtrak system has prompted the authority that represents the 365-mile San Joaquin Corridor to announce plans for restoring passenger service on certain routes.

"This increase in service will improve connectivity for the summer travel season," said David Lipari, marketing manager for the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. "We also anticipate making further adjustments to increase service this fall, including potentially restoring at least one direct train connection to Sacramento."

Here are the routes that will be restored on trains and buses starting Monday:

• Daily service will resume on Train 717, which heads north from Bakersfield at 2:12 p.m. and arrives in Oakland at 8:31 p.m.

• Daily service will resume on Train 714, which heads south from Oakland at 11:36 a.m. and arrives in Bakersfield at 5:57 p.m.

• Bus service will increase on Route 1, which covers Bakersfield to Los Angeles to San Diego; Route 3, which covers Redding to Sacramento to Stockton; and Route 99, which connects Oakland to Emeryville and San Francisco.

Café service will also be resuming on several trains with café cars. Those trains without café cars will offer passengers a free snack box.

Face masks will still be required on the Amtrak San Joaquins in accordance with CDC and state health guidance.

31 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 2.5.2 INFORMATION

Administrative Items

Media Stories:

Our View: Don’t let Amtrak be a victim of the pandemic The Bakersfield Californian

May 23, 2021

Just in the nick of time and as Amtrak celebrates its 50th anniversary, the nation’s pandemic-slammed passenger railway system has received an injection of cash from the American Rescue Plan Act President Biden recently signed into law.

It is a demonstration of support that is needed and deserved.

“The timing of this funding is essential to helping ensure that Amtrak is able to quickly return to service supporting the nation’s transportation need and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Federal Railroad Administration Acting Administrator Amit Bose, who pledge to account for how the money is spent to make Amtrak efficient and viable into the future.

About $1.7 billion in federal funds are being made available to restore services cut during the pandemic, bring back furloughed workers and assist states in paying their required operational matching funds.

“This is a real win for America’s passengers and for the hundreds of communities served by Amtrak’s long-distance trains — communities which suffered economic pain when they lost their service,” said Jim Mathews, president and chief executive of the Rail Passengers Association.

Whether a community exists along a long-distance, or regional train route, the need for passenger rail connection is long established.

32 of 151

This is particularly true for Bakersfield and other cities that either lack commercial airline service, or have access to few connecting flights.

Bakersfield is served by Amtrak’s San Joaquin route, which runs from Bakersfield in the south to the Bay Area in the north.

Before the pandemic, the San Joaquin was the fifth busiest passenger train line in the U.S. and carried nearly 1.1 million passengers during 2019-20. But as cities across the nation locked down to stop the spread of the coronavirus, people no longer commuted to work, nor did they engage in discretionary travel. Ridership plummeted.

By the end of 2020, Amtrak nationwide had lost more than $800 million, with California’s scenic Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin routes losing between 65 percent and 85 percent of their passengers.

Donna DeMartino, managing director of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, which operates the Pacific Surfliner, called the situation dire. “With so few people riding, we have very little in the way of fares that we’re collecting.”

While Amtrak relies mostly on federal funding, California and other states contribute smaller amounts. In 2019, California spent $114 million to support its three routes, which carried a combined 5.66 million passengers.

But as ridership and fares plummeted to only about 25 percent of normal levels, passenger revenues failed to help offset operating costs. Service cuts had to be made.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES) signed into law in early 2020 by former President Trump provided $1 billion to shore up Amtrak. But that was not enough. An injection of $1.7 billion was included in President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act. Additional funding for Amtrak improvements is proposed in Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure and climate plan.

From a pandemic low of 10 percent in April, ridership on the San Joaquin slowly rebounded by the end of 2020 to 35 percent of “normal.”

“A lot of that is due to the fact that the San Joaquins serve a lot of disadvantaged folks and people that need the service for essential travel,” David Lipari, marketing manager for San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, told the CalMatters news service. “They either don’t have a car, or don’t have a reliable vehicle to get themselves to their end destination, and really before the pandemic and during the pandemic this is the way they get around.”

As private railroad companies faced revenue losses and clamored to discontinue their passenger rail service, Amtrak was formed by an act of Congress in 1971 as a nonprofit corporation to fill the nation’s transportation needs.

33 of 151

That need continues to exist today — making Amtrak an essential service and infrastructure that deserves our appreciation and support.

34 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 2.5.3 INFORMATION

Administrative Items

Media Stories:

Amtrak restores pre-pandemic service from Valley to Bay Area. What about Sacramento? By John Holland

June 29, 2021 11:36 AM,

Duration 2:36 Amtrak medical chief explains coronavirus safety measures on trains, in stations

35 of 151

Enhanced cleaning, more space for physical distancing, travel flexibility and a contact-free travel experience are Amtrak's new standard of travel during coronavirus pandemic, says Amtrak Medical Director Dr. Ann Kuhnen. By Amtrak

Amtrak has restored a fifth daily round trip between Oakland and Bakersfield by way of Modesto.

Monday’s restart came about 15 months after COVID-19 forced the cutback on the Amtrak San Joaquin trains.

Amtrak also suspended the two round trips between Bakersfield and Sacramento. Passengers headed for the capital still must transfer to a bus in Stockton, but that could change in the fall.

The Bakersfield-Oakland route has stops in Modesto, Denair and 11 other locales in between.

The newly restored northbound train departs Bakersfield at 2:12 p.m. and arrives in Oakland at 8:31 p.m. Its southbound counterpart leaves Oakland at 11:36 a.m. and pulls into Bakersfield at 5:57 p.m.

Passengers must continue to wear masks as part of Amtrak’s safeguards against COVID-19. But they once again can buy food and drink on the trains, which had been suspended.

“We are excited to be welcoming back our riders and helping Californians reconnect to the places and people they want to visit,” said David Lipari, marketing manager for the route, in a news release. “This increase in service will improve connectivity for the summer travel season.”

Lipari said at least one of the Sacramento trains could be restored in the fall. The branch has stops in the downtowns of Stockton, Lodi and Sacramento.

ACE remains at three trains

The pandemic also reduced service on the Altamont Corridor Express, which serves mainly commuters between Stockton and San Jose.

A third weekday round trip returned in early May. The fourth could be back in September, said Lipari, who also handles marketing for this service.

ACE has full funding for an extension to Ceres as soon as 2023 and Merced by 2025, along with the Sacramento area by 2023. This is part of a $900 million effort that also will increase Amtrak trains to Sacramento.

ACE and Amtrak in turn could feed into the high-speed rail system that could be operating between Merced and Bakersfield by 2029. This project faces yet another round of criticism over cost overruns and delays.

36 of 151

Amtrak attendants monitor the platform before the train departs Monday May 7th, 2018 in Modesto, Calif. Joan Barnett Lee jlee@modbee.com

37 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 2.5.4 INFORMATION

Administrative Items

Media Stories:

Amtrak Buying $3.4 Billion Of Advanced Siemens Trains As It Overhauls Rail Network

Alan Ohnsman Forbes Staff Transportation I follow technology-driven changes reshaping transportation

President Joe Biden speaks at Amtrak’s 50th anniversary celebration on April 30.

Amtrak

Amtrak intends to spend $7.3 billion as part of wide-ranging efforts to overhaul the U.S. passenger rail service and tapped Siemens’ California unit to supply a new generation of less-polluting, more comfortable trains to upgrade its aging fleet.

Siemens Mobility won a contract worth $3.4 billion to build up to 73 train sets, including locomotive engines and passenger cars, at its rail factory in Sacramento, California, says Michael

38 of 151

Cahill, the unit’s president. The agreement runs through 2030, with the first units entering service in 2024. They’ll use multiple power sources, including only electricity on some routes (via overhead lines), diesel and a hybrid lithium-titanate battery system on others. Amtrak may buy an additional 10 trains as part of the first phase of the agreement and has an option to get as many as 130 more for use on the expanded network it envisions.

“These new trains will reshape the future of rail travel by replacing our aging 40- to 50-year-old fleet with state-of-the-art, American-made equipment,” said Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn. “This investment is essential to preserving and growing our Northeast Regional and state-supported services and will allow our customers to travel comfortably and safely, while reducing carbon emissions.”

Rendering of the Venture model train Siemens will supply to Amtrak.

Siemens Mobility

The major purchase agreement comes ahead of Congress approving a massive federal infrastructure bill as President Joe Biden, a longtime Amtrak rider and fan, seeks to both dramatically revamp the country’s main passenger rail service and cut harmful emissions from transportation. If it becomes law, the bipartisan compromise infrastructure spending plan unveiled last month earmarks $66 billion of new funding for passenger and freight rail upgrades.

“These new trains will reshape the future of rail travel by replacing our aging 40- to 50-year-old fleet with state-of-the-art, American-made equipment.”

Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn

The $7.3 billion investment outlined today includes the Siemens trains as well as long-term supplies of parts and service, facility modifications and other upgrades, Amtrak said. The new trains will run on electrified segments of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor as well as on routes in the

39 of 151

Pacific Northwest, New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Virginia and North Carolina.

The trains are based on Siemens’ Venture series, already in use in the U.S. by private passenger rail operator Brightline for its south Florida service, Cahill said. The German industrial giant’s rolling stock plant in Sacramento also supplies trains for services in California, Illinois and Canada. They’ll be roomier and offer a better passenger experience, with features including individual power outlets, USB ports, onboard Wi-Fi, improved lighting and panoramic windows.

Siemens’ Venture series trains are currently in use in the U.S. by Brightline, a private passenger rail company in south Florida.

Scott McIntyre/Bloomberg

“These will be more comfortable than ones that Amtrak has been running,” Cahill said. “The new trains have air suspension, there will be larger seats, wider aisles, better accessibility, bigger windows, and the trains inside are larger as well. We've gone to great lengths to maximize interior space without maximizing the exteriors.”

The trains from Siemens in California will comply with the Federal Railroad Administration Buy America Standards, Amtrak said. The Sacramento facility is in its thirtieth year of operations, employs more than 2,100 people and gets much of the power needed for its train production from a 2.1-megawatt solar power system.

40 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 4 ACTION

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving the Following Consultants to be on the Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant Lists Related to the Valley Rail Program Capital Project Delivery for a Period From July 23, 2021 Through June 30, 2026, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects:

Rankings A. Project Development B. Right of Way

C. Construction Management

D. Rail Engineering

Services

1. TranSystems Corporation

Paragon Partners Ltd.

TRC Engineers, Inc.

Pennino Management Group

2. AECOM Technical Solutions, Inc.

Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. WSP USA Inc.

3. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Beacon Integrated Professional Resources, Inc., dba Hamner, Jewell & Associates

Kleinfelder Construction Services, Inc.

4. SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc.

Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.

5. O'Dell Engineering NV5, Inc. Background: With the passage of both Senate Bill (SB) 132 and the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) the “Valley Rail Program” was created to expand and improve the ACE and San Joaquin passenger rail services throughout the Central Valley and Northern CA. Valley Rail will also provide a vital link to the California High Speed Rail Project from Bakersfield to Merced. In the interest of expediting project delivery, the San Joaquin Authority designated the Rail Commission as the lead agency for shared project implementation. However, the San Joaquin Authority is responsible to deliver several station projects on the San Joaquin Corridor outside of the shared service segment between Stockton and Natomas. The Rail Commission issued a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) on behalf of both agencies related to the following projects: Natomas Station Midtown Station

41 of 151

Merced San Joaquin Station on BNSF Merced ACE Station on UPRR Merced Train Layover Facility Madera Station Relocation

One purpose of the RFQ was to establish Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant Lists to assist with the various components of project delivery, including the following:

A. Project Development Services a. Preparation of Project Reports/Environmental Documents (PA&ED)

i. Environmental Assessments/Preliminary Design b. Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) c. Preparation of Federal Preliminary Engineering (PE)

B. Right of Way Professional Services (RW) C. Construction Management Professional Services (CM) D. Rail Engineering Support Services (ES)

The Rail Commission Board has approved the on-call lists related to the shared and ACE-specific projects, and it is recommended the San Joaquin Authority approve the list related to the San Joaquin-specific projects. Selection Process: In response to the RFQ, twenty-two (22) Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) responses were received by the RFQ deadline of June 17, 2021. The Rail Commission’s Procurement and Contracts Department reviewed the SOQs and deemed twenty-one (21) out of the twenty-two (22) were responsive in meeting the RFQ requirements. Consultant selection panels were set up by region (northern-Sac Area) (Central-Lodi/San Joaquin County) (southern-Merced/Madera region). The review panel for the south region consisted of public agency representatives from the City of Merced and Rail Commission. Based on the final score and rankings, five (5) consultants were recommended for the southern area Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant List. The On-Call Consultant List involves a “Two Step” process. As services are needed for specific projects, an RFP or request for cost proposal will be issued to the consultants on the on-call list. This ensures a competitive bid process and is used in support of the projects listed in the RFQ. These agreements would be brought before the Board for approval. Established Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant List: Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant List will be valid for a period of almost five years (5), from July 23, 2021, to June 30, 2026. The pre-qualified consultants are listed in order of rank and by service they will be providing:

42 of 151

Rankings A. Project Development B. Right of Way C. Construction

Management D. Rail

Engineering Services

1. TranSystems Corporation Paragon Partners Ltd. TRC Engineers,

Inc. Pennino Management Group

2. AECOM Technical Solutions, Inc.

Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. WSP USA Inc.

3. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Beacon Integrated Professional Resources, Inc., dba Hamner, Jewell & Associates

Kleinfelder Construction Services, Inc.

4. SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc. Ghirardelli

Associates, Inc. 5. O'Dell Engineering NV5, Inc.

Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact for establishing the Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant List. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving the Following Consultants to be on the Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant Lists Related to the Valley Rail Program Capital Project Delivery for a Period From July 23, 2021 Through June 30, 2026, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects:

Rankings A. Project Development B. Right of Way

C. Construction Management

D. Rail Engineering

Services

1. TranSystems Corporation

Paragon Partners Ltd.

TRC Engineers, Inc.

Pennino Management Group

2. AECOM Technical Solutions, Inc.

Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. WSP USA Inc.

3. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Beacon Integrated Professional Resources, Inc., dba Hamner, Jewell & Associates

Kleinfelder Construction Services, Inc.

4. SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc.

Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.

5. O'Dell Engineering NV5, Inc.

43 of 151

RESOLUTION SJJPA 21/22- RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVING THE FOLLOWING CONSULTANTS TO BE ON THE PRE-QUALIFIED ON-CALL CONSULTANT LISTS RELATED TO THE VALLEY RAIL PROGRAM CAPITAL PROJECT DELIVERY FOR A PERIOD FROM JULY 23, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2026, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECTS:

Rankings A. Project Development B. Right of Way

C. Construction Management

D. Rail Engineering

Services

1. TranSystems Corporation

Paragon Partners Ltd.

TRC Engineers, Inc.

Pennino Management Group

2. AECOM Technical Solutions, Inc.

Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. WSP USA Inc.

3. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Beacon Integrated Professional Resources, Inc., dba Hamner, Jewell & Associates

Kleinfelder Construction Services, Inc.

4. SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc.

Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.

5. O'Dell Engineering NV5, Inc.

WHEREAS, the Authority and the Rail Commission secured funding from multiple sources including Senate Bill (SB) 1, SB 132, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), Federal, and local funds for the Valley Rail Program; and

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2018, the Rail Commission was authorized to act on behalf of the Authority in the development of the Valley Rail Program joint train layover and station locations between the Cities of Stockton and Natomas using TIRCP funds; and

WHEREAS, the Rail Commission desires to establish a Pre-Qualified On-Call

Consultant List for services needed by both agencies for the Capital Projects in the Valley Rail Program for a term from July 23, 2021 through June 30, 2026; and

WHEREAS, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was released on May 4, 2021 for

On-Call Professional Consulting Services for the Capital Projects Program that included Project Development, Right of Way, Construction Management, and Rail Engineering Support Services; and

WHEREAS, on June 17, 2021, twenty-two (22) proposals were received for On-

Call Professional Consulting Services; and

44 of 151

WHEREAS, the proposals received were reviewed for completeness and responsiveness, evaluated and ranked, as part of the procurement process; and

WHEREAS, based on the final score and rankings, five (5) consultants were

recommended for the southern area Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant List; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San

Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Approves the Following Consultants to be on the Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant Lists Related to the Valley Rail Program Capital Project Delivery for a Period From July 23, 2021 Through June 30, 2026, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects:

Rankings A. Project Development B. Right of Way

C. Construction Management

D. Rail Engineering

Services

1. TranSystems Corporation

Paragon Partners Ltd.

TRC Engineers, Inc.

Pennino Management Group

2. AECOM Technical Solutions, Inc.

Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. WSP USA Inc.

3. Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.

Beacon Integrated Professional Resources, Inc., dba Hamner, Jewell & Associates

Kleinfelder Construction Services, Inc.

4. SENER Engineering and Systems, Inc.

Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.

5. O'Dell Engineering NV5, Inc.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 23rd day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

_____________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair

45 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 5 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Project Support Agreements for the San Joaquins’ Merced Station Parking Lot Project with the Following Firms: 1.) O’Dell Engineering - Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), Not-to-Exceed $371,320 2.) Pennino Management Group, Project Management Services, Not-to- Exceed $162,750 Background: The Request For Qualifications (RFQ) issued in May on behalf of the Rail Commission and San Joaquin Authority for the Valley Rail Capital Projects, provided for a pre-qualified on-call consultant list (as mentioned in the previous agenda item). It also identified projects for immediate contracting services. Consultants submitted their Statement of Qualifications on specific projects and thus, satisfied the requirement of a Request For Proposal (RFP) for those projects. Project Development Services for Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), as well as Rail Engineering Services (project management support) are required for the San Joaquins’ Merced Station Parking Lot. Selection Process: The Review and Selection Panel included Rail Commission and City of Merced staff. Based upon the RFQ scoring criteria, the firms recommended for the Merced station project include:

1. O’Dell Engineering for PS&E, not-to-exceed $371,320 2. Pennino Management Group for Project Management, not-to-exceed $162,750

O’Dell Engineering was the only firm that submitted qualifications for the PS&E Services. Procurement staff reviewed the price proposals with other comparable projects and found the proposal to be fair and reasonable.

46 of 151

Fiscal Impact: Costs and revenues for the Merced Station project development services are included in the adopted SJRRC/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Capital Budget. The project is funded with California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and State Rail Assistance (SRA) funds. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Project Support Agreements for the San Joaquins’ Merced Station Parking Lot Project with the Following Firms: 1.) O’Dell Engineering - Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), Not-to-Exceed $371,320 2.) Pennino Management Group, Project Management Services, Not-to- Exceed $162,750

47 of 151

SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22 - RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVING PROJECT SUPPORT AGREEMENTS FOR THE SAN JOAQUINS’ MERCED STATION PARKING LOT PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING FIRMS:

1.) O’DELL ENGINEERING - PREPARATION OF FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E), NOT-TO-EXCEED $371,320 2.) PENNINO MANAGEMENT GROUP, PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, NOT-TO-EXCEED $162,750

WHEREAS, the Authority and the Rail Commission secured funding from multiple sources including Senate Bill (SB) 1, SB 132, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), Federal, and local funds for the Valley Rail Program; and

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2018, the Rail Commission was authorized to act on behalf of the Authority in the development of the Valley Rail Program joint train layover and station locations between the Cities of Stockton and Natomas using TIRCP funds; and

WHEREAS, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was released on May 4, 2021 for

On-Call and Specific Project Professional Consulting Services for the Valley Rail Program that included Project Development, Right of Way, Construction Management, and Rail Engineering Support Services; and

WHEREAS, on June 17, 2021, twenty-two (22) proposals were received for On-

Call Professional Consulting Services; and WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Authority is responsible for the development and

delivery of several station projects outside of the shared corridor (Merced, Madera, Oakley) and can utilize the pre-qualified on-call consultant list as well as selection of consultants for specific project consulting services; and

WHEREAS, the San Joaquins’ Merced Station Parking Lot Project requires

professional services for the development of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and Project Management Services,

48 of 151

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Approves Project Support Agreements for the San Joaquins’ Merced Station Parking Lot Project with the Following Firms: 1.) O’Dell Engineering - Preparation of Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), Not-to-Exceed $371,320 2.) Pennino Management Group, Project Management Services, Not-to-Exceed $162,750

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 23rd day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT

POWERS AUTHORITY

_____________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair

49 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 6 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. for Rail Engineering Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $408,773 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project Background: Rail Engineering Services consultants provide On-Call consulting services as staff augmentation for SJRRC’s Capital Project Delivery Program. Duties focus on the delivery of project improvements and expansion program. Typical duties performed, but not limited to include:

• Development of Integrated Project Schedules and Service Implementation Plans. • Program cost controls • Organize meetings for the review of project status and the determination of needed

actions; prepare meeting notices, agenda, and minutes. • Organization, participation, and presentations at meetings held by lead agency staff

to neighborhood groups and other stakeholders. • Coordination with railroad owner/operator’s consultants, and other public

agencies.

In early 2021 Staff identified seven (7) Valley Rail Program projects as requiring Rail Engineering Services:

• City College Station • Lodi Station • Madera Station Relocation • Stanislaus River Bridge • Tuolumne River Bridge • Phillips Siding Rehabilitation • Del Paso Siding Extension

Five (5) of these projects, Lodi Station, Stanislaus River Bridge, Tuolumne River Bridge, Phillips Siding Rehabilitation, were approved by the Rail Commission Board in June 2021.

50 of 151

The Madera Station Relocation is outside of the Valley Rail shared service segment between Stockton and Natomas and falls under the responsibility of the San Joaquin Authority.

Procurement Approach: In 2019, a joint San Joaquin Authority/Rail Commission Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant list was approved for Rail Engineering Services with the following firms:

Rankings Rail Engineering Services

1. Pennino Management Group

2. Rail Surveyors and Engineers, Inc.

3. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. In March 2021, staff solicited Request for Proposals (RFP) for Rail Engineering Services from the joint Rail Commission/San Joaquin Authority pre-qualified on-call consultant list. In response to the RFP, two (2) of the three (3) firms responded by the due date of April 22, 2021. The Rail Commission’s Procurement and Contracts Department reviewed the proposals and deemed all proposals received were responsive in meeting the RFP requirements. The two (2) consulting firm responses were reviewed and scored by a review panel consisting of staff from the Rail Commission. Based on scores and ranking the review panel concluded that oral presentations were not required to select the most responsive firm for each project. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. was deemed the most responsive firm for the Madera Station Relocation Project. The estimated contract commencement date is July 23, 2021, with an end date of June 30, 2024. There are no option years. Procurement and Contracts Staff reviewed and confirmed the price of the agreement to be fair and reasonable.

Madera Station Relocation Project Area Map

51 of 151

Fiscal Impact: Project Expenditures and Revenues are included in the SJRRC/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Capital Budget and are funded with Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funds. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. for Rail Engineering Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $408,773 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

52 of 151

SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH LOCKWOOD,

ANDREWS & NEWNAM, INC. FOR RAIL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE MADERA STATION RELOCATION PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED

$408,773 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Authority and the Rail Commission secured funding from multiple

sources including Senate Bill (SB) 1, SB 132, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), Federal, and local funds for the Valley Rail Program; and

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2018, the Rail Commission was authorized to act on behalf of the Authority in the development of the Valley Rail Program joint train layover and station locations between the Cities of Stockton and Natomas using TIRCP funds; and

WHEREAS, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was released on January 15,

2019, for On-Call Professional Consulting Services for the Valley Rail Program Capital Projects that included Project Development, Right of Way, Construction Management, and Rail Engineering Support Services for twenty-nine (29) identified projects; and

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2019, the Rail Commission Board established a joint Rail

Commission/San Joaquin Authority Pre-Qualified On-Call Consultant List for Project and Development Services for the Valley Rail Program; and

WHEREAS, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released to the Pre-Qualified List

in March 2021 for Rail Engineering Services for seven (7) projects including the Madera Station Relocation Project; and

WHEREAS, staff deemed the firm of Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc as the

most responsive for the Madera Station Relocation Project and came to agreement on the terms and price for the required Rail Engineering Services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Approves an Agreement with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. for Rail Engineering Services for the Madera Station Relocation Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $408,773 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

53 of 151

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 23rd day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY _____________________________ _____________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair

54 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 7 ACTION

Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for the Design and Construction of the Video Surveillance System (VSS) Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project

Background: At the May 27, 2016, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Board Meeting the Board approved a Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute the grant applications, agreements, and certifications and assurances to obtain financial assistance provided by the State of California under California Transit Security Grant Program Proposition 1B for the San Joaquin Amtrak Safety and Security projects. As part of the Proposition 1B approved by California voters in November 2006, $1B was included for the California Ports Infrastructure, Security and Air Quality Improvement Act. Of that amount, $100 million was allocated to the three California Amtrak Intercity Services, Metrolink, and ACE for safety and security capital projects. The split between these five passenger train services was based on the established State Transit Assistance (STA) formula. The San Joaquin Corridor Prop 1B funding grant award totaled $5,996,830 and is available for use on projects that are approved by the San Joaquin Authority board. Historically, the Authority has worked with Amtrak on these projects due to access needed to the stations or property where the improvements will be taking place. Amtrak is the lease holder for the stations along the corridor and has access to an on-call list of consultants for the work needed. Past projects include Accessibility Safety Improvements, Security Lighting, Positive Train Control, and Security Fencing at San Joaquin Amtrak stations and along the Railroad Right of Way. VSS Project: Amtrak and the Authority share the goal of increasing video coverage of ten stations in the San Joaquin Valley. The purpose of the VSS Project is to mitigate San Joaquin Valley station's security vulnerabilities by upgrading the VSS. The stations will be established on the Amtrak Enterprise VSS on the Genetec Security Center platform. The Security Center platform is built to unify all of the data to manage security policies, monitor events, and run investigations. The platform allows Amtrak to expand the current system with the Authority and share the technology needed to face emerging threats.

55 of 151

The Authority will be granted access to the forensic video by using Genetec Clearance, a case management system that manages the storage and distribution of digital evidence from cameras and other devices. Designed as an open platform, it gives SJJPA staff the ability to integrate multimedia evidence from a variety of sensors and applications. With Genetec Clearance, SJJPA staff will better manage evidence throughout the lifecycle of an investigation at the ten upgraded stations. Genetec Clearance breaks down technology silos associated with traditional case management applications. It encourages collaboration across different agencies and helps users manage digital evidence from collection to case closed. The VSS Project will leverage existing investments to increase security by extending the range of its current analog system by adding new hardware, including high-resolution cameras. The VSS Project will focus on procuring the latest network cameras that operate the best in all lighting conditions and maximizing coverage. Cameras to be installed will enable crisp, high-resolution video with sufficient depth of field and maximum coverage areas. Amtrak's enterprise VSS is monitored in real-time by a national communication center 24/7/365. By unifying the video surveillance systems, this will increase the speed of the investigation and bring together video surveillance and communications to improve emergency response in public spaces. The open, unified platform will deliver reduced operation and maintenance costs. Procurement Approach: Amtrak is the lease holder for the stations along the corridor and has the authority to perform a competitive procurement for capital projects and services. It was determined that Amtrak is best positioned to design and construct the VSS Project in coordination with the SJJPA. Staff is recommending entering into a agreement with Amtrak to provide funds for design and construction of the VSS Project. Contract Structure: SJJPA will enter into an agreement with Amtrak for allowable costs associate with this project. Amtrak and SJJPA are working together with their respective legal counsels to come to a final agreement that is anticipated to be executed in August 2021. Fiscal Impact: Costs and revenues associated with this Agreement are included in the Approved 2021/2022 SJJPA Business Plans and Budgets and are funded by Prop 1B (CalOES) funds. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for the Design and Construction of the Video Surveillance System (VSS) Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

56 of 151

SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22-

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) FOR THE DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION OF THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (VSS) PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $700,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT

WHEREAS, the State of California provides state financial assistance to eligible grantees for transportation security projects, and WHEREAS, the California Governor’s Office of Homeland Security (OHS) is the grantee for state funds; and WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Regional Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) is an eligible sub grantee for state funding; and

WHEREAS, the State of California requires a resolution from the governing board in order to receive the funds and that SJJPA will abide by the terms that go with this grant; and

WHEREAS, the Video Surveillance System (VSS) Project will leverage existing investments to increase security by extending the range of its current analog system by adding new hardware, including high-resolution cameras; and

WHEREAS, the VSS Project is to mitigate San Joaquin Valley station's security vulnerabilities by upgrading the VSS; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak leases the stations and has the ability to perform a

competitive procurement for these services. It was determined through that Amtrak would design and construct the VSS Project in coordination with SJJPA; and

WHEREAS, SJJPA will enter into a reimbursement agreement with Amtrak for

allowable costs associate with this project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVLED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Approves an Agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for the Design and Construction of the Video Surveillance System (VSS) Project for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

57 of 151

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the SJJPA on this 23rd day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS

AUTHORITY ____________________________ __________________________ STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair

58 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 8 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Amendment 02 to the Agreement with Jeffrey Scott Agency for Advertising and Creative Services with an Amendment Not-To-Exceed Amount of $571,970 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project Background: Annually, the Authority utilizes option years for applicable professional and contracted services agreements. The Agreement with Jeffrey Scott Agency (JSA) for Advertising and Creative Services was previously approved by the Board on May 25, 2018, for the base term of three (3) years and annual pricing. The Agreement included the potential for two option years. Based on JSA’s performance during the base term, staff recommends utilizing the first of two option years. Procurement Approach: This amendment commencement date is July 23, 2021, with an end date of June 30, 2022, and is the first of two (2) option years. The amendment not-to-exceed amount is $571,970 and includes advertising and social media efforts. Procurement and Contracts Staff reviewed and confirmed the price of the amendment to be fair and reasonable. If the second option year is utilized, price will be negotiated in advance and will be brought to the board for approval as part of the annual budget review and approval process. Fiscal Impact: Costs associated with the amendment is identified in the SJRRC/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget Community Engagement and Marketing line and is funded by the State. Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving Amendment 02 to the Agreement with Jeffrey Scott Agency for Advertising and Creative Services with an Amendment Not-To-Exceed Amount of $571,970 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

59 of 151

SJJPA RESOLUTION 21/22- RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS

AUTHORITY APPROVING AMENDMENT 02 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH JEFFREY SCOTT AGENCY FOR ADVERTISING AND CREATIVE SERVICES WITH AN

AMENDMENT NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $571,970 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE

PROJECT

WHEREAS, annually the Governing Board approves amendments to professional and contracted services agreements to utilize option years for previously approved base contracts; and

WHEREAS, based on JSA’s performance during the base term, staff recommends

utilizing the first of two option years for Advertising and Creative Services; and WHEREAS, the funding for the professional and contracted services agreements are

included in the SJRRC/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2020/2021 Budget; and WHEREAS, the Authority came to an agreement on terms and pricing with each

consultant; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Hereby Approves Amendment 02 to the Agreement with Jeffrey Scott Agency for Advertising and Creative Services with an Amendment Not-To-Exceed Amount of $571,970 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA on this 23rd day of July 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS

AUTHORITY ____________________________ __________________________

STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary PATRICK HUME, Chair

60 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 9 INFORMATION

Thruway Bus Network Update Background:

The San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network is one of the nation’s largest intercity thruway bus networks. It has grown over decades starting initially with connections between the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, to today with over a dozen routes serving over one hundred communities from Arcata in the North and San Diego in the South. During the expansion of this network, certain routes of have lost their ridership growth due to a variety of reasons, including shifting housing patterns, and new competing transportation modes. With the COVID-19 pandemic, those routes that were struggling to stay viable pre-pandemic became even less so during stay-at-home orders and business closures. SJJPA staff has evaluated the operational costs, ridership, and revenue generation of the Thruway Bus Network and put together a list of recommendations for future Board action to maintain the viability of the overall Thruway Bus Network by reducing operational costs on underperforming routes while maintaining services in strong ridership corridors and markets.

Recommendations for Future Board Action:

• Route 1A (Bakersfield – Los Angeles – San Diego): Maintain current levels of service and expand with additional trains as they are returned to service. No changes to the route.

• Route 1B (Bakersfield – Los Angeles – Long Beach – San Pedro): Currently, this route does not make stops beyond Los Angeles Union Station. Recommend continuing to only serve up to LA Union Station (563.5 riders/day FY17) for the foreseeable future. Work with local transit partners to help passengers with utilizing LA Metro system for connections to Long Beach (15.9 riders/day FY17) and San Pedro (2.2 riders/day FY17).

• Route 1C (Bakersfield – Van Nuys – West LA): Pre-COVID, this route served communities in the San Fernando Valley and West Los Angeles. Today, the route is serving LA Union Station. Staff in early 2020 brought before the Board plans to truncate Route 1C to serve Santa Monica and to discontinue service to low ridership stops of Westchester (1.74 riders/day average FY17), El Segundo (2.11 riders/day average FY17), and Torrance (2.53 riders/day average FY17). Coming out of the pandemic, staff will restart those plans to bring back Route 1C to West LA with the service ending in Santa Monica.

61 of 151

• Route 3 (Stockton – Sacramento – Chico – Redding): No changes to service recommended at this time. As part of previously discussed planning efforts, SJJPA staff is working in partnership with Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) to bring new bus services between Redding and Sacramento along the I-5 corridor. Once this service is in operation, the current Route 3 service will be truncated to Chico.

• Route 6 (Stockton – Dublin/Pleasanton – Fremont – San Jose): Pre-COVID, Route 6

ran 4 daily round trips, this was reduced to 2 daily round trips during the pandemic. Staff is recommending maintaining Route 6 on 2 daily round trips for the foreseeable future. In the 2020 SJJPA Business Plan, funding was approved for a new route that would serve the San Jose region with a connection from Merced via Los Banos and Gilroy. In 2022, staff will begin steps to bring this new route into service that will provide faster connections for San Jose passengers.

• Route 7 (Martinez – Santa Rosa – Arcata): In response to the pandemic, SJJPA

initiated plans to truncate Route 7 to no longer to serve McKinleyville (1.29 riders/day FY17) as well as removing the stops of Rio Dell-Scotia (1.11 riders/day FY17), and Leggett (0.26 riders/day FY17) in order to bring this route into operating rules for thruway bus drivers trip times and to reduce costs. Staff will recommend making these changes to Route 7 permanent. With the return of in-class education anticipated for the upcoming fall semester, staff is looking into adding an additional stop in Arcata at Humboldt State University.

• Route 9 (Bakersfield – Las Vegas): This route is currently in an interline service

agreement between the bus vendor and Amtrak. This agreement has allowed for the route to continue in operation during the pandemic, and for the operations costs to be shifted to the bus vendor in exchange for a portion of bus revenue generated from the route. Staff recommends we continue this interline service agreement to save costs for the JPA and the State.

• Route 10 (Bakersfield – Santa Barbara): This route is currently in an interline service

agreement between the bus vendor and Amtrak. This agreement has allowed for the route to continue in operation during the pandemic, and for the operations costs to be shifted to the bus vendor in exchange for a portion of bus revenue generated from the route. Staff recommends we continue this interline service agreement to save costs for the JPA and the State.

• Route 12 (Bakersfield – Palmdale – Victorville): Before the pandemic, Route 12 was

identified as a route that did not meet financial viability of cost recovery compared to its operational costs. Cost to operate this route pre-COVID was $820,263, while total state revenue this route contributed was $537,886 in FY18 (See Attachment FY2018 Results by Thruway Route). This annual loss $315,381 has meant that Route 12 was suspended during the pandemic and coming out of the pandemic staff is recommending that the suspension of the service remain for the foreseeable future. As future developments take place for potential rail projects in the Route 12 region, SJJPA could reinitiate service in this corridor, but at this time it is recommended that the Route 12 service not be brought back into operations. As part of SJJPA’s South of Merced Study, staff is recommending having discussions with Kern Transit to see

62 of 151

if there is a partnership opportunity for bus connections between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley.

• Route 18 (Visalia – Hanford – San Luis Obispo – Santa Maria): This route is

currently in an interline service agreement between the bus vendor and Amtrak. This agreement has allowed for the route to continue in operation during the pandemic, and for the operations costs to be shifted to the bus vendor in exchange for a portion of bus revenue generated from the route. Recently, the vendor has made Amtrak and SJJPA staff aware of the potential for the vendor to cease operations of the route as the revenue generated from the route has not covered the operational costs. In a future Board action staff is recommending, to maintain service on Route 18, the JPA provide a revenue guarantee to the vendor to make sure the vendor’s costs are covered by a combination of bus revenue and JPA operational funds. Staff is also recommending initiating a partnership with Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) and Visalia Transit to fund increased connectivity between Hanford and Visalia. Further details on this partnership are outlined in the South of Merced Study Draft Report which is included in this board packet.

• Route 19 (Bakersfield – Pasadena – Riverside – San Bernardino): Pre-COVID Route

19 operated a split route schedule that served two extensions beyond the core route between Bakersfield and San Bernardino. Those extensions to the Palm Springs area and Hemet area contributed minor amounts of ridership and revenue to the overall route’s performance and added considerable operational costs. Staff is recommending permanently truncating this route to have all buses end in San Bernardino. For passengers looking to connect beyond San Bernardino, local and regional transit connections can be utilized to complete those trips.

63 of 151

• Route 34 (Stockton – Oakland – San Francisco): This route is currently suspended

due the Sacramento-bound San Joaquins trains being suspended that these route buses were connected to. In looking at the viability of this route before the pandemic, the route was under performing and staff is recommending not bringing back this route into service when the Sacramento-bound trains return to service (See Attachment FY2018 Results by Thruway Route).

• Route 99 (Emeryville – San Francisco): No changes to service recommended at this

time.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact at this time. In a future Board action, the staff recommendations if approved, would reduce the overall annual cost of the San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network.

Recommendation:

This is an informational item. There is no action requested.

64 of 151

65 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 10 INFORMATION

South of Merced Integration Study Draft Report and Draft MOU

CalSTA included $1 million in Network Integration planning funds as part of the April 2018 “Valley Rail” Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) award in April 2018. The intention of this additional funding was to ensure collaboration, eliminate duplicate investments, and ultimately create a seamless travel experience across rail and public transit in California. It is also intended to address network integration opportunities, including development of improved connections to other rail and transit services and consideration of network integration improvements throughout the Central Valley, as well as enhancements to disadvantaged communities/priority populations. The Network Integration planning work is being done in partnership/coordination with CalSTA, and Caltrans. All scopes of work are approved by Caltrans before work is initiated by the Network Integration consulting team. Staff meet with Caltrans/CalSTA regularly to review progress and determine additional areas of focus.

The “South of Merced Integration Study” is a key part of the Network Integration planning effort. This study effort focuses on network integration in Kings, Tulare, and Kern counites after the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Interim Service begins operations between Merced and Bakersfield. This study is particularly important since San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) expects to truncate the San Joaquins service at Merced once HSR Interim Service begins operations, thereby eliminating passenger rail service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco (which will not have HSR stations).

Work on this study was initiated in early 2020, but the completion of the effort was slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic. There are three key components to the South of Merced Integration Study:

1. Explore options to provide Bus Connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service.

2. Review and assist in the integration and implementation of the Cross Valley Rail Project.

3. Assess possible complementary regional uses for existing BNSF Slots South of Merced.

66 of 151

To carry out this study effort, SJJPA staff coordinated with Tulare County Association of Governments (SJJPA Member Agency for Tulare County) and Kings County Association of Governments (SJJPA Member Agency for Kings County), as well as Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA), Kern Council of Governments, Kern Transit, and the cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco. Based upon the findings and recommendations of the Draft South of Merced Study Report, Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) requested that SJJPA develop a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the SJJPA and Kings/Tulare agencies in order to help facilitate the implementation of the recommendations.

At the July 23, 2021, SJJPA Board meeting, staff will provide a summary of the Draft South of Merced Integration Study Report focusing on the key conclusions of this effort and also discuss the draft MOU between SJJPA, TCAG, KCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, and TCRTA. Please see the attached Draft South of Merced Integration Study Report (which includes a brief Executive Summary) and the draft MOU. The draft MOU has been reviewed by TCAG, KCAG, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit and TCRTA.

After receiving input from the SJJPA Board Members and the public, and making any necessary edits, it is staff’s intention to provide a revised South of Merced Integration Study Report and the MOU with Kings/Tulare agencies to the SJJPA for approval at the September 24, 2021, SJJPA Board Meeting.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact at this time.

Recommendation:

This is an informational item. There is no action requested.

67 of 151

San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission On-Call Network Integration Services

Task Order 11: South of Merced Integration Study

Draft South of Merced Integration Study Report

June 2021

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

68 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iv

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. vi

Objective 1: Bus Connectivity ...................................................................................................... vi Objective 2: Cross Valley Rail Project ........................................................................................ xii Objective 3: BNSF Slots ............................................................................................................. xiii

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Changes to San Joaquins Service ........................................................................................ 2 2.2 Pre-Pandemic Travel Patterns .............................................................................................. 2

3 OBJECTIVE 1: BUS CONNECTIVITY .................................................................................... 5

3.1 Kings and Tulare Counties ................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Kern County ........................................................................................................................ 20

4 OBJECTIVE 2: CROSS VALLEY RAIL PROJECT .............................................................. 27

4.1 Background and History of Corridor ................................................................................... 27 4.2 Cross Valley Corridor Plan Phases .................................................................................... 27 4.3 Key Findings Related to Rail from the 2018 CVC Plan ...................................................... 29 4.4 2018 CVC Plan Cost Estimates .......................................................................................... 34 4.5 Compatibility of Cross Valley Rail with Future Kings/Tulare HSR Station .......................... 35 4.6 Implementation Recommendations .................................................................................... 39

5 OBJECTIVE 3: BNSF SLOTS .............................................................................................. 41

5.1 Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Considered ........................................ 42 5.2 Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service Considered .................................................... 44 5.3 Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 47

Appendix A – Connecting Bus Service Cost Assumptions and Estimates Appendix B – Outreach Meetings Appendix C – Commuter Rail Service Cost Assumptions and Estimates

69 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Existing San Joaquins System .................................................................................... vii Figure 2: Truncated San Joaquins Service, HSR Interim Service, and Cross Valley Rail

(Future) ................................................................................................................................ viii Figure 3: Future Bus Connectivity (after implementation of HSR Interim Service) ...................... ix Figure 4: Existing San Joaquins Service ...................................................................................... 3 Figure 5: Truncated San Joaquins Service, HSR Interim Service, and Cross Valley Corridor

Rail (Future) ........................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 6: Future Bus Connectivity (after implementation of HSR Interim Service) ....................... 6 Figure 7: Existing Regional Bus Service in Kings and Tulare Counties ........................................ 7 Figure 8: Proposed Phase 1 Bus Services from the 2018 Cross Valley Corridor Plan ................. 9 Figure 9: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service ................................. 14 Figure 10: SJJPA-Managed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus

Service ................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 11: Recommended Connecting Bus Services in Kings and Tulare Counties .................. 19 Figure 12: Kern Transit Routes Serving Kern County ................................................................. 21 Figure 13: Proposed Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service Route ......................... 22 Figure 14: 2018 CVC Plan Phase 2 Bus and Rail Service Map ................................................. 28 Figure 15: 2018 CVC Plan Phase 3 Bus and Rail Service Map ................................................. 29 Figure 16: Railroad Subdivisions Map and CVC Track Map ....................................................... 30 Figure 17: Benefits of DMU Transit Systems .............................................................................. 33 Figure 18: Capital Metro DMU System in Austin, Texas ............................................................. 33 Figure 19: Sprinter DMU System in Oceanside, California ......................................................... 34 Figure 20: Location of the Future Kings/Tulare HSR Station ...................................................... 36 Figure 21: Cross Section of HSR Tracks on Viaduct at the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and

CVC ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 22: View of Columns for Future HSR Track Viaduct at Kings/Tulare HSR Station and

CVC ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 23: Plan View of Cross Valley Corridor Crossing Under HSR Viaduct ............................ 38 Figure 24: Concept of Potential Layout of Connection between Cross Valley Rail and

Kings/Tulare HSR Station .................................................................................................... 38 Figure 25: Kings/Tulare HSR Station Delivery Schedule ............................................................ 39 Figure 26: Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Considered ............................... 42 Figure 27: Wasco-Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service Considered............................................ 45

70 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Cross Valley Corridor Bus Service and Route Characteristics ..................................... 10 Table 2: Northbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Kings/Tulare HSR Station) ................ 11 Table 3: Southbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Kings/Tulare HSR Station)................ 11 Table 4: Connecting Bus Service Level Scenarios ..................................................................... 12 Table 5: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Hanford ......................... 13 Table 6: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and Route

Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 14 Table 7: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and Route

Characteristics With Tulare Loop Extension ........................................................................ 15 Table 8: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Corcoran ....................... 16 Table 9: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service and Route

Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 18 Table 10: Wasco-Bakersfield Connecting Bus Service Route Characteristics ........................... 23 Table 11: Northbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Bakersfield HSR Station) ................. 23 Table 12: Southbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Bakersfield HSR Station) ................ 24 Table 13: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Wasco .......................................... 25 Table 14: Costs for DMU Rail Phases of CVC from 2018 CVC Plan .......................................... 35 Table 15: Potential Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Characteristics............ 43 Table 16: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Corcoran ....................................... 43 Table 17: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Hanford ....................... 44 Table 18: Estimated Capital Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service ....... 44 Table 19: Estimated O&M Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service .......... 44 Table 20: Potential Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Characteristics .................................... 45 Table 21: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Wasco .......................................... 46 Table 22: Estimated Capital Cost for Wasco-Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service ..................... 46 Table 23: Estimated O&M Cost for Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service ........................ 46

71 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 v

ACRONYMS BNSF BNSF Railroad

CAHSR California High-Speed Rail

CHSRA California High-Speed Rail Authority

COG Council of Governments

CVRC JPA Cross Valley Rail Corridor Joint Powers Authority

DMU Diesel Multiple Unit

ETO Early Train Operator

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FY Fiscal Year

HSR High-Speed Rail

KART Kings Area Rural Transit

KCAPTA Kings County Area Public Transit Agency

KCAG Kings County Association of Governments

LRT Light Rail Transit

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAS Naval Air Station

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PTC Positive Train Control

SJJPA San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority

SJVR San Joaquin Valley Railroad

TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments

TCaT Tulare County Area Transit

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

ZEMU Zero-Emission Multiple Unit

72 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With the proposed implementation of the California High-Speed Rail Merced to Bakersfield Interim Service (HSR Interim Service) and proposed changes to the San Joaquins Intercity Passenger Rail Service (San Joaquins), the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) has been working with state and local agencies to explore opportunities to re-envision public transit connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley.

The South of Merced Integration Study (Study) is focused on three objectives:

Objective 1: Bus Connectivity Explore options to provide bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service.

SJJPA expects to truncate the San Joaquins service at Merced once the HSR Interim Service begins operations (Figure 1 and Figure 2), thereby eliminating rail service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco, which will not have HSR stations. To address this loss of rail service, SJJPA reviewed two models for providing bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to the HSR Interim Service in cooperation with local and regional agencies in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties. The two models include:

• SJJPA contract with private bus operators to provide connecting bus service • Partner with local agencies to provide integrated connecting bus service

Explore options to provide Bus Connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and

Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service

Review and assist in the integration and

implementation of the Cross Valley Rail Project

Assess possible complementary regional

uses for existing BNSF Slots

73 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 vii

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 1: Existing San Joaquins System

74 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 viii

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 2: Truncated San Joaquins Service, HSR Interim Service, and Cross Valley Rail (Future)

75 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 ix

This Study assessed bus connectivity in two regions:

• Kings and Tulare Counties, where Hanford and Corcoran are located • Kern County, where Wasco is located

Connecting bus services for each region are discussed below and shown on Figure 3.

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 3: Future Bus Connectivity (after implementation of HSR Interim Service)

76 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 x

Kings and Tulare Counties

The communities of Hanford and Corcoran have been served by the San Joaquins rail service for many years. Additionally, the San Joaquins provided Thruway Bus connections between Visalia and Hanford (Amtrak station) and the Central Coast by contracting with Orange Belt Stages using state funding. Twice daily round trips were run between Central Coast and Visalia via Hanford in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.

Phase 1 of the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2018 Cross Valley Corridor Plan (2018 CVC Plan) includes providing more coordinated bus service along the Cross Valley Corridor (Huron to Porterville via Hanford and Visalia). It included consolidating transit agencies and helping them run more efficiently to serve the three counties of Kings, Tulare, and Fresno. This network includes Huron, Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, Porterville, Dinuba, Woodlake, and Tulare.

Based on conversations with local partner agencies, it was determined that a partnership for connecting bus service within the Cross Valley Corridor would be beneficial. Rather than SJJPA providing a separate service, which would duplicate and compete with existing regional bus service for riders and funding, forming a partnership would not only provide connectivity to the station, but would also improve local and regional transit.

In addition to the bus service envisioned in the 2018 CVC Plan, bus connectivity from Corcoran and Central Coast to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station was assessed. Based on review and conversations with local partner agencies, it was determined that a partnership for bus service connecting Corcoran, Hanford, and Visalia to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station is preferred. As with the Cross Valley Corridor, rather than SJJPA providing a service that would duplicate and compete with local/regional bus service for both riders and funding, the agencies agreed partnering together and developing an integrated network was most beneficial.

For both connecting bus services within the Cross Valley Corridor and from Corcoran, partnering and pooling resources would not only provide connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station, but would also improve local and regional transit serving additional Kings/Tulare communities, including connectivity and frequency for local (non-HSR) trips between Kings and Tulare Counties.

In terms of service to and from the Central Coast the partners concluded that this service would not fit into the local bus service model due to the length of the bus route and associated equipment/amenity requirements and that this service should be managed separately by SJJPA. In the short-term, the partner agencies would like to work toward enhancing bus service between Visalia and Hanford to improve connectivity to the existing San Joaquins service until the HSR Interim Service begins operations.

TCAG, Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG), Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, and SJJPA recommend partnering with the local bus agencies to provide the connectivity and integration for their respective jurisdictions. The partners’ recommendations for Kings and Tulare Counties are below.

77 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 xi

OBJECTIVE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KINGS AND TULARE COUNTIES

Execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to contain two components—bus and Cross Valley Rail— with TCAG, KCAG, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency to jointly provide bus connectivity. The MOU will state each agency’s responsibilities and will describe the 2018 CVC Plan and SJJPA’s efforts for network integration with future California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR).

Continue to provide direct connections to downtown Hanford and downtown Corcoran to intercity passenger rail service, by working to secure state funds to enable timed bus connections from Corcoran and Hanford to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while increasing bus connectivity between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and Visalia.

Partner with the following existing local/regional transit operators to operate connecting bus services within Kings and Tulare Counties: KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency. SJJPA intends to support a larger, more frequent, and coordinated bus service that will coincide with the opening of HSR Interim Service. This partnership to enhance bus service will be key toward the implementation of Phase 1 of the 2018 CVC Plan.

For connecting bus service between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and the Central Coast service, operate as an SJJPA-managed service.

In the short-term, work with KCAPTA and Visalia Transit to enhance bus service between Visalia and Hanford to improve connectivity to the existing San Joaquins service until the HSR Interim Service begins operations.

Kern County

The community of Wasco has been served by the San Joaquins service for many years. No Thruway Bus connections have been provided from Wasco. With the loss of the San Joaquins service to the Wasco Station, SJJPA has been coordinating with the City of Wasco, Kern Council of Governments (COG), and Kern Transit on bus connectivity between Wasco and the Bakersfield HSR Station. As with the Kings and Tulare County partners, Kern County partner agencies concluded that running two separate bus systems in the Wasco-Bakersfield corridor is not desirable. Rather, leveraging existing Kern Transit bus service would not only avoid competing bus services, but would also provide an opportunity to integrate with existing service to McFarland and Delano. Therefore, it was determined that a partnership model for this bus connection is beneficial.

Through this coordination, SJJPA and Kern Transit are working toward the development of an MOU. SJJPA will also continue coordination with Kern Transit to find opportunities for near-term partnerships, including a bus connection between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley.

The partners’ recommendations for Kern County are below.

78 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 xii

OBJECTIVE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KERN COUNTY

Execute an MOU with Kern Transit to jointly provide bus connectivity. The MOU would state each agency’s responsibilities and SJJPA’s efforts for network integration with future HSR Interim Service.

Continue to provide a direct connection from Wasco to intercity passenger rail service by working to secure state funds to enable timed bus connections from Wasco to the Bakersfield HSR Station.

Through this coordination, work to find opportunities for near-term partnerships, including a bus connection between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley.

Objective 2: Cross Valley Rail Project Review and assist in the integration and implementation of the Cross Valley Rail Project.

Cross Valley is a 75-mile existing rail corridor between Huron and Porterville in Kings and Tulare Counties that could connect downtown Hanford, downtown Visalia, and other Kings/Tulare cities to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) currently owns the right-of-way and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) operates on most of the corridor except for a 1-mile portion of the UPRR mainline near Goshen. Existing track conditions are not suitable for passenger rail operations.

TCAG completed the CVC Plan in March 2018. Cross Valley Rail is supported in Tulare County and Kings County General Plans and is included in the 2018 State Rail Plan.

TCAG, KCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, and SJJPA in partnership recommend the following related to the rail component studied in the Cross Valley Corridor Plan.

OBJECTIVE 2: RECOMMENDATIONS

Execute an MOU to commit to work in partnership with TCAG and KCAG to plan, secure funding, and implement Cross Valley Rail.

In the MOU, identify the following steps for the implementation of Cross Valley Rail:

• Phase 1 will secure environmental clearance and right-of-way protection, conduct site selection, negotiate with freight railroads, and begin transit stations in communities without existing transit centers.

• Phase 2 will implement passenger rail service between Lemoore and Visalia (with stations at Hanford and Kings/Tulare HSR Station).

• Phase 3 will extend passenger rail service to Huron and Porterville with additional intermediate stations at NAS Lemoore, Farmersville, Exeter, and Lindsey.

In the MOU, identify SJJPA as a potential operating agency for Cross Valley Rail.

79 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 xiii

Acknowledge that additional and more detailed agreements will be needed and that parties would agree to work together toward achieving common agreed upon goals.

Objective 3: BNSF Slots Assess possible complementary regional uses for existing BNSF slots.

SJJPA considered the use of existing and potentially freed up slots on the BNSF Railroad (BNSF) corridor. The concepts included investigation of the feasibility for local or regional rail service that could operate once CAHSR is in service and the San Joaquins service is no longer operating south of Merced. SJJPA coordinated with TCAG, KCAG, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, Kern Transit, and Kern COG for consideration of this objective. SJJPA in partnership with the local entities determined that implementation of regional commuter rail service using BNSF slots was not recommended to be pursued in the foreseeable future and that the focus should be on bus connections to HSR Interim Service and the implementation of Cross Valley Rail.

This conclusion was based on the following:

• High capital and operating and maintenance costs • Competing with HSR markets and services • Lack of regional support

OBJECTIVE 3: RECOMMENDATIONS

Use of the BNSF slots for regional commuter rail service does not appear to be feasible in the foreseeable future. Therefore, do not further study commuter rail at this time.

80 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 1

1 INTRODUCTION With the proposed implementation of the California High-Speed Rail Merced to Bakersfield Interim Service (HSR Interim Service) and proposed changes to the San Joaquins Intercity Passenger Rail Service (San Joaquins), the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) has been working with state and local agencies to explore opportunities to re-envision public transit connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley.

This South of Merced Integration Study (Study) is focused on three objectives:

Explore options to provide Bus Connectivity from Corcoran, Hanford, and

Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service

Review and assist in the integration and

implementation of thCross Valley Rail Project

Assess possible complementary regional

uses for existing BNSF Slots

81 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 2

2 BACKGROUND SJJPA is the Managing Agency for the San Joaquins, which provides service between Oakland/Sacramento and Bakersfield, as shown on Figure 4. SJJPA has been closely coordinating with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and the California State Transportation Agency on the HSR Interim Service, which will implement high-speed rail service between Merced and Bakersfield. The HSR Interim Service is scheduled to be operational by 2029, and SJJPA is expected to be the operating agency.

2.1 Changes to San Joaquins Service As shown on Figure 5, the HSR Interim Service will replace the existing San Joaquins service between Merced and Bakersfield. Merced will be the new southern terminus for the San Joaquins and will serve as a transfer point between the new HSR Interim Service and the truncated San Joaquins service. The implementation of the HSR Interim Service will remove passenger rail service for Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco, which have been served by the San Joaquins for many years.

While Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco will no longer have direct access to passenger rail service, SJJPA is investigating how best to provide these communities with a high-quality and convenient connection to the new HSR Interim Service. To explore ways to continue to serve this demand as well a future demand from the initiation of the HSR Interim Service, this report evaluates bus strategies to provide connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to the HSR Interim Service.

2.2 Pre-Pandemic Travel Patterns To understand the existing demand and travel patterns of the San Joaquins in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties, San Joaquins ridership data between key origin-destination pairs in the region were analyzed.

According to the SJJPA 2021 Business Plan, in fiscal year (FY) 2019, 182,143 passengers boarded or alighted at the Hanford San Joaquins Station (Hanford Station). With the population of Hanford just over 50,000, the relatively high transit activity at the Hanford Station indicates that, in addition to Hanford residents, nearby communities such as Tulare and Visalia residents and commuters between Hanford and Fresno use the Hanford Station to access the San Joaquins. The most popular destination for people utilizing the Hanford Station was Fresno, with Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Bakersfield Stations following in popularity. The FY 2017 origin-destination pair ridership showed low ridership between the Hanford and Wasco Stations at only 806 riders annually.

82 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 3

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 4: Existing San Joaquins Service

83 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 4

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 5: Truncated San Joaquins Service, HSR Interim Service, and Cross Valley Corridor Rail (Future)

84 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 5

3 OBJECTIVE 1: BUS CONNECTIVITY Explore options to provide bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to rail service after loss of San Joaquins service

SJJPA expects to truncate the San Joaquins at Merced once the HSR Interim Service begins operations (Figure 4 and Figure 5), thereby eliminating rail service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco, which will not have HSR stations. To address this loss of rail service, SJJPA reviewed two models for providing bus connectivity from Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco to the HSR Interim Service in cooperation with local and regional agencies in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties.1

The two models are described below:

• SJJPA-Managed Connecting Bus Service. The first model, in which SJJPA would contract for bus service with bus operating companies, would be similar to how Amtrak currently contracts for bus service as part of the SJJPA-Amtrak Master Operating Agreement for Thruway Bus services. The primary purpose of this type of connecting bus service would be to provide connectivity to and from future HSR stations. A secondary purpose could be to provide general bus service along the routes for passengers traveling between bus stops (and not using the service to connect to HSR stations). This type of bus service would not be coordinated with existing bus services and would be entirely managed and funded by SJJPA. As discussed in Appendix A, the operational costs of this model are high.

• Partnership Connecting Bus Service. For the second model, SJJPA would partner with local agencies to leverage existing regional bus systems to provide connecting bus service to HSR stations while enhancing the existing service. In this model, SJJPA would establish agreements with local agencies to have local bus operators increase service levels to allow for timed connections with HSR stations, in which buses would meet HSR trains on a pulsed schedule at levels desired by SJJPA. SJJPA would provide a commensurate amount of funding support to match desired service levels. This model has the added benefit of enhancing bus service for all users since increased service levels to existing bus services would benefit the system as whole. This model can also provide costs savings since it would be leveraging existing bus operation resources and can lead to more efficient use of bus resources. However, cost estimates for this model are not provided in this Study, as cost/service levels would need to be assessed and negotiated with the local bus providers. The cost to the state (through SJJPA) would be included as part of future, more detailed agreements developed between SJJPA and partner agencies. The outreach process conducted in relationship to the consideration of partnerships is discussed in Appendix B.

1 It should be noted that the other cities with San Joaquins stations between (and including) Merced and Bakersfield (Merced, Madera, Fresno, and Bakersfield) will have HSR stations and will have considerably improved connectivity and accessibility once HSR Interim Service begins, and that Tulare County and parts of Kings County will also have improved connectivity and accessibility with the new Kings/Tulare HSR Station which will reduce access times to Tulare County.

85 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 6

Figure 6 shows the connecting bus services envisioned with the commencement of HSR Interim Service. Of the four connecting bus services envisioned, three are recommended to be partnership based, while one would be managed by SJJPA. Each connecting bus service is described below in detail along with analysis as to why a given model was selected.

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 6: Future Bus Connectivity (after implementation of HSR Interim Service)

86 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 7

3.1 Kings and Tulare Counties The communities of Hanford and Corcoran in Kings County have been served by the San Joaquins rail service for many years. Additionally, a Thruway Bus service is provided between Visalia in Tulare County and Hanford as well as the Central Coast. This service was previously provided by Orange Belt Stages, a bus operating company that is no longer in business. Currently, Amtrak is providing this Thruway Bus service by contracting a private bus operator separate from the SJJPA-Amtrak Master Agreement. One daily round trip currently runs between Visalia and Central Coast via Hanford.

3.1.1 Existing Bus Services

Several public agencies provide local and regional bus service in Kings and Tulare Counties. They include Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA), Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT). Figure 7 shows the regional bus service routes that connect the various communities of the two counties. Local routes within each community are not shown.

Source: 2018 CVC Plan / Annotation of Map by AECOM shows KART Route 13 (Hanford-Corcoran-Corcoran State Prison)

Figure 7: Existing Regional Bus Service in Kings and Tulare Counties

87 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 8

Two Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) routes (provided by KCAPTA) operate in the corridors being considered for connecting bus service in this Study and include the following:

• KART’s Route 13 bus service runs between Hanford and Corcoran (and on to Corcoran State Prison), with two rounds trip each weekday.

• KART’s Route 15 bus service runs between Hanford and Visalia, with three round trips each weekday.

3.1.2 Recommended Bus Connectivity

Based on conversations with local partner agencies, it was determined that a partnership model for two connecting bus service is beneficial compared to implementing a separate SJJPA-managed service. These two services would run within the following corridors:

• The Cross Valley Corridor (roughly defined by an existing freight rail corridor that runs between Huron to the west and Porterville to the southeast via Hanford and Visalia)

• Between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and Corcoran via Hanford

However, for a third corridor running from Kings/Tulare HSR Station to the Central Coast, the partners concluded that a connecting bus service should be managed by SJJPA.

All three connecting bus services are described below, along with the rationales for why the partners preferred the partnership model or the SJJPA-managed model.

3.1.2.1 Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service (Partnership)

Phase 1 of the Tulare County Association of Governments’ (TCAG) 2018 Cross Valley Corridor Plan (2018 CVC Plan) envisioned a network of enhanced bus services to the communities of Huron, Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, Porterville, Dinuba, Woodlake, and Tulare (Figure 8). The spine of this system coordinated bus service along the Cross Valley Corridor prior to implementing passenger rail. Additionally, the 2018 CVC Plan included a recommendation to consolidate transit agencies to increase bus operational efficiency in the three counties of Kings, Tulare, and Fresno.

88 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 9

Source: 2018 CVC Plan

Figure 8: Proposed Phase 1 Bus Services from the 2018 Cross Valley Corridor Plan Route Characteristics and Service Planning Connecting bus service within the Cross Valley Corridor, referred to in this Study as the “Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service,” was proposed in the 2018 CVC Plan. It is relevant to this Study because it includes service to Hanford and Visalia, which is currently serviced by a Thruway Bus. The Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service would serve 10 bus stops (which would be converted to rail stations in future phases) and provide both eastbound and westbound service. The partnership to augment this service would apply to the segment between Hanford and Visalia via the Kings–Tulare HSR Station. Several of the proposed bus stops would provide connections to local transit services, while the Kings/Tulare HSR bus stop would provide a direct connection to the HSR Interim Service. As shown in Table 1, the full route would be approximately 90 miles in length and have an estimated end-to-end travel time of 2 hours and 14 minutes.

89 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 10

Table 1: Cross Valley Corridor Bus Service and Route Characteristics

Stop Distance (miles)

Estimated Travel Time (minutes)

City/Town Population (2019, ACS) Connections

1 Huron Lassen Avenue 0 0 7,281 —

2 NAS Lemoore Naval Air Station 15 15 Located in a County

Area —

3 Lemoore Lemoore Depot – East Street

23 28 26,725 KART

4 Hanford Transit Center 32 43 56,910 KART

5 Kings/Tulare HSR SR 43 and Lacey Boulevard

35 52 Located in a County Area CAHSR

6 Visalia Visalia Transit Center 60 82 134,605 TCaT, KART,

Visalia Transit 7 Farmersville

Farmersville Boulevard and Visalia Road

67 95 10,703 Visalia Transit

8 Exeter East Palm Street and North East Street

70 102 10,485 Visalia Transit

9 Lindsay City Hall/Library – Mirage Avenue

79 117 13,463 TCaT

10 Porterville Porterville Transit Center 90 134 59,599 TCaT

Source: AECOM 2021 (Table based on route from 2018 CVC Plan) Note: Rows in gray indicate the segment of the corridor that would be considered for state funding support.

Based on the current and past Thruway Bus services connected to the San Joaquins between Hanford and Visalia, SJJPA would work with the partners to obtain state funding support for increased bus service between these two cities, as well as to incorporate a new bus stop at the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station. The length of this segment of the bus route would be approximately 28 miles.

According to the schedule created by the Early Train Operator (ETO) for the HSR Interim Service, HSR trains would run on an hourly pulse schedule. A total of 18 trains in each direction per day would serve the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, or 36 trains total per day (Table 2 and Table 3).

90 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 11

Table 2: Northbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Kings/Tulare HSR Station)

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority 2020 Business Plan (report done by the Early Train Operator)

Table 3: Southbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Kings/Tulare HSR Station)

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority 2020 Business Plan (report done by the Early Train Operator)

The HSR Interim Service schedule coordinates the northbound and southbound trains so that they arrive/depart at times very close to each other. For example, the northbound train from Kings/Tulare HSR Station would depart at 6:53 a.m., while the southbound trains from the same station would depart at 6:58 a.m. Cross Valley Corridor buses coming from the west and coming

91 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 12

from the east could arrive a few minutes before 6:53 a.m., so passengers from either bus could connect to either the northbound or southbound HSR trains within a few minutes of their arrival. The HSR Interim Service schedule carries this pattern for all the daily 18 round trips. Given this, this Study has assumed an average 10-minute transfer time for the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service

SJJPA and the partners would need to determine how many of these couplets of HSR trains should be connected with Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service buses. Table 4 shows three service scenarios with differing levels of connecting bus service – light, moderate, and robust.

Table 4: Connecting Bus Service Level Scenarios

Light Moderate Robust

4 round trips per day 8 round trips per day 12 round trips per day

Peak service only Approximately every 120 minutes (or every 2 hours)

Approximately every 60 minutes (or every hour), though some day hours would be skipped

Connects from/to select HSR trains in peak periods only. Similar to the current service level of comparable local bus services.

Connects from/to about half of HSR trains. Similar to the current service level of Amtrak San Joaquins.

Coordinated 60-minute pulse schedule during peak periods plus significant off-peak service with HSR trains.

Source: AECOM 2021

Travel times were also compared from downtown Hanford to other cities in the San Joaquin Valley to assess improvements or deterioration of intercity travel times from downtown Hanford2 when San Joaquins is no longer available and the HSR Interim Service combined with connecting bus service is implemented (Table 5). Travel times would significantly improve from downtown Hanford to Merced and Bakersfield, while a slight improvement would be realized to Fresno (currently the biggest market for Hanford on the San Joaquins). Travel times between Hanford and Corcoran would take approximately 6 minutes longer than current San Joaquins service. Travel times from Hanford to Wasco would significantly deteriorate, but demand between these two cities is small as indicated by pre-pandemic San Joaquins ridership. Only 806 trips were taken during FY 2017 between the two cities on the San Joaquins, which is just over two trips per day.

2 It should be noted that the Hanford Station serves passengers throughout Kings and Tulare counties. This study only focused on the impacts of trips from downtown Hanford. For many potential riders (like those coming from Tulare County) the HSR trip times would be considerably better since even the access to the future Kings/Tulare HSR station would be less than getting to the existing downtown Hanford Station.

92 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 13

Table 5: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Hanford

Origin – Destination Existing

(via San Joaquins) Future

(via Bus Only) Future

(via HSR + Bus) Hanford – Merced 1 hour, 40 minutes N/A 1 hour, 6 minutes* Hanford – Fresno 40 minutes N/A 36 minutes* Hanford – Corcoran 20 minutes 26 minutes N/A Hanford – Wasco 55 minutes N/A 1 hour, 43 minutes** Hanford - Bakersfield 1 hour, 20 minutes N/A 53 minutes*

Source: AECOM 2021 *10 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. ** 20 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.

Benefits Based on conversations with local partner agencies, it was determined that a partnership for connecting bus service within the Cross Valley Corridor would be beneficial. Rather than SJJPA providing a separate service, which would duplicate and compete with existing regional bus service for riders and funding, forming a partnership would not only provide connectivity to the station, but would also improve local and regional transit.

Benefits of pursuing a partnership for the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service include:

• The 2018 CVC Plan already provides a vision for a bus network, including a route that would connect Hanford, Kings/Tulare HSR, and Visalia. A partnership would jump start implementation of Phase 1 of the 2018 CVC Plan.

• Leveraging the resources of existing bus systems, in this case KCAPTA and potentially Visalia Transit, avoids adding another bus operating entity, which would just compete for riders and funding.

• Utilizing existing bus operating agencies to provide service can lead to increasing efficiencies and reducing lower overall costs.

• By pooling resources, increased frequencies can be provided, improving connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while also benefiting all riders (including those not making an HSR trip that are traveling within and between Kings and Tulare Counties) with more convenient service.

• A partnership would bring state resources to support the service in an area where public transportation dollars are limited.

3.1.2.2 Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service (Partnership)

In addition to connecting the City of Hanford to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station, connecting Corcoran to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station is important since direct rail service will no longer serve the city with the loss of the San Joaquins station. Therefore, SJJPA and the local partners are recommending a second partnership for connecting bus service that would link Corcoran to both downtown Hanford and to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. While this bus service is not envisioned in the 2018 CVC Plan, it would integrate seamlessly with it, as the proposed line would also connect directly with the Cross Valley Rail Connecting Bus Service (Figure 9).

93 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 14

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 9: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service Route Characteristics and Service Planning The Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service would serve three stops, connecting Corcoran and Hanford to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station as shown on Figure 9. Both the proposed Corcoran and Hanford bus stops would provide connections to local transit services, while the Kings/Tulare HSR stop would provide a direct connection to the HSR Interim Service. As shown in Table 6, the full route would be 23 miles in length and have an estimated end-to-end travel time of 36 minutes.

Table 6: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and Route Characteristics

Stop Distance (miles)

Estimated Travel Time

(minutes)

City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections

1 Corcoran Corcoran Station 0 0 21,676 Corcoran Area Transit

2 Hanford Transit Center 20 27 56,910 KART, Cross Valley

Corridor 3 Kings/Tulare HSR

SR 43 and Lacey Boulevard

23 36 Located in a County Area CAHSR, KART

Source: AECOM 2021 Note: This entire service would be considered for state funding support.

94 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 15

The City of Tulare is not currently served by the San Joaquins or a Thruway Bus service. With a population over 64,000 within the city limits, there is a strong potential travel market between Tulare and the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. To provide Tulare with a direct connection to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, a potential extension for the proposed Corcoran-Hanford Bus Service was identified during conversations with KCAG, KCAPTA, and Visalia Transit. The potential extension would create a ”bus loop” route that would serve the City of Tulare while providing increased regional connectivity between the Cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Tulare. The proposed bus loop route would offer bus service in both directions: one bus running in the clockwise direction and the other running in the counterclockwise direction. As shown in Table 7, the full route would be 62 miles in length and have an estimated end-to-end travel time of 1 hour and 24 minutes.

Table 7: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and Route Characteristics With Tulare Loop Extension

Stop Distance (miles)

Estimated Travel Time (minutes)

City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections

Loop continues from/to Tulare 1 Corcoran

Corcoran Station 0 0 21,676 Corcoran Area Transit

2 Hanford KART Transit Center

20 27 56,910 KART, Cross Valley Corridor

3 Kings/Tulare HSR SR 43 and Lacey Boulevard

23 36 Located in a County Area CAHSR, KART

4 Tulare Tulare Transit Center

43 58 64,475 TCaT, TIME Tulare Transit, Visalia Transit

1 Corcoran Corcoran Station 62 84 21,676 Corcoran Area Transit

Loop continues from/to Hanford Source: AECOM 2021 Note: Rows in gray indicated the segment of the corridor that would be considered for state funding support.

As with the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service, connecting bus service to/from Corcoran would also connect to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. Therefore, coordinating timed connections with the pulse-scheduled HSR trains would need to have buses arriving at the Kings/Tulare HSR Station a few minutes before the northbound and southbound HSR trains (which would depart at :53 and :58 of every other hour, respectively, for all 18 HSR round trips). See Table 2 and Table 3 for the HSR Interim Service schedule. Given this schedule, this Study has assumed an average 10-minute transfer time for the Kings/Tulare HSR-Hanford-Corcoran Connecting Bus Service. As was the case with the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service, SJJPA and the partners would need to determine how many of these couplets of HSR trains would need to meet with connecting bus service.

95 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 16

Travel times were compared from downtown Corcoran to other cities in the San Joaquin Valley to assess improvements or deterioration of intercity travel times when San Joaquins is no longer available and the HSR Interim Service combined with connecting bus service is implemented (Table 8). Travel times would significantly improve from Corcoran to Merced, while staying about the same to Bakersfield. Travel times from Fresno would slightly increase but not significantly. Travel times from Corcoran to Hanford would take approximately 9 minutes longer than current San Joaquins service. Travel times from Corcoran to Wasco would significantly increase. However, demand between these two cities is small as indicated by pre-pandemic San Joaquins ridership. FY 2017 San Joaquins ridership data indicate very low demand for trips between Corcoran and Wasco to justify providing new bus service between these cities. In FY 2017, only 113 trips occurred between Corcoran and Wasco on the San Joaquins, which is less than one trip per day.

Table 8: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Corcoran

Origin – Destination Existing

(via San Joaquins) Future

(via Bus Only) Future

(via HSR + Bus) Corcoran – Merced 1 hour, 59 minutes N/A 1 hour, 33 minutes* Corcoran – Fresno 58 minutes N/A 1 hour, 3 minutes* Corcoran – Hanford 17 minutes 26 min

(Note: It is 9 minutes from Hanford to Kings/Tulare HSR via bus, for a total

travel time of 36 minutes from Corcoran to

Kings/Tulare HSR)

N/A

Corcoran – Wasco 36 minutes N/A 2 hours, 10 minutes** Corcoran – Bakersfield 1 hour, 17 minutes N/A 1 hour, 20 minutes*

Source: AECOM 2021 * 10 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. ** 20 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.

The only destination that would see a substantial increase in travel time from both Corcoran and Hanford is Wasco. The travel time between Corcoran and Wasco is anticipated to increase by 1 hour and 35 minutes, while the travel time between Hanford and Wasco is anticipated to increase by 48 minutes.

Based on this analysis, the proposed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Bus Service would either maintain or improve the travel times to the destinations that people most frequently travel to and from Corcoran and Hanford.

Benefits Benefits of pursuing a partnership for the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service include:

• Would augment existing bus service provided in the corridor by KART (Route 13), and extend the service from Hanford to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station.

• Leveraging the resources of an existing bus system, in this case KART, avoids adding another bus operating entity and competition for riders and funding.

96 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 17

• Utilizing existing bus operating agencies to provide service can lead to increasing efficiencies and reducing overall costs.

• By pooling resources, increased frequencies can be provided, improving connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while also benefiting all riders (including those not making an HSR trip that are traveling within and between Kings and Tulare Counties) with more convenient service.

• A partnership will bring state resources to support the service in an area where public transportation dollars are limited.

3.1.2.3 Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service (SJJPA-Managed)

The Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service would provide a similar service to the Thruway Bus service currently operating between Visalia and the Central Coast, though the eastern terminus would be at the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, since the partnership related to the Cross Valley Corridor service would provide service to Visalia. The Kings/Tulare HSR– Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service could include nine stops, connecting the Kings/Tulare HSR Station to Hanford, Lemoore, and Kettleman City in Kings County, and five other cities along the Central Coast (Figure 10 and Table 10).

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 10: SJJPA-Managed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service

Route Characteristics and Service Planning Due to the length of the bus route (156 miles) and end-to-end travel times of well over 3 hours, buses along this route (Table 9) would need to include onboard equipment and amenities not normally provided in local and regional buses, including seating for long distance travel and a bathroom. Given this, KCAPTA would need to develop an entirely new type of bus fleet, which

97 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 18

would diminish the cost savings of a partnership. Additionally, KCAPTA is not ready organizationally manage another fleet type, which would require re-tooling their maintenance facility, etc. Given these factors, SJJPA and KCAPTA concluded that maintaining this SJJPA-managed connecting bus service would make the most sense.

Table 9: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service and Route Characteristics

Stop Distance (miles)

Estimated Travel Time

(minutes)

City/Town Population

(2018, ACS) Connections

1 Kings/Tulare HSR 0 0

Located in a County

Area CAHSR, KART

2 Hanford Transit Center 3 9 56,910 KART, Cross Valley Corridor

3 Lemoore Lemoore Depot – East Street

12 24 26,725 KART, Cross Valley Corridor

4 Kettleman City Carl’s Jr – Hubert Way

38 49 1,395 KART

5 Paso Robles Intermodal Station 93 124 31,656 Amtrak, SLO RTA, MST

6 Atascadero Transit Center 104 144 30,037 SLO RTA

7 San Luis Obispo Amtrak Station 122 174 47,160 Amtrak, SLO RTA, SLO

Transit 8 Grover Beach

Amtrak Station 137 189 13,538 Amtrak, SoCo Transit

9 Santa Maria IHOP – Cypress Street and Nicholson Avenue

156 214 105,483 SLO RTA, SMAT

Source: AECOM 2021 Note: This entire service would be considered for state funding support.

Benefits Continuing to provide connecting bus service to Kings and Tulare Counties and the Central Coast with the commencement of the HSR Interim Service will be desirable for maintaining a public transportation link between the HSR Interim Service in the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast. Additionally, with the recent change in state law, there is an opportunity to provide service to bus-only travelers between the two regions.

3.1.3 Near-Term Connecting Bus Service Enhancements

In addition to the recommended connecting bus services that correspond with the commencement of HSR Interim Service around 2029, SJJPA and stakeholders in Kings and

98 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 19

Tulare Counties have expressed an interest in working together to improve connectivity to the San Joaquins stations in the interim period. Specifically, improving connectivity between the San Joaquins at Hanford Station and Visalia is a near-term goal expressed by SJJPA and all the partners in Kings and Tulare Counties. Therefore, consideration is currently being given to augmenting KART and/or Visalia Transit service between Hanford Station and Visalia, with state funding assistance in the near-term.

3.1.4 Implementation Recommendations

TCAG, Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG), KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, and SJJPA recommend partnering with the local bus agencies to provide the connectivity and integration for their respective jurisdictions. The partners’ recommendations for Kings and Tulare Counties are below.

Source: AECOM

Figure 11: Recommended Connecting Bus Services in Kings and Tulare Counties

OBJECTIVE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KINGS AND TULARE COUNTIES

Execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to contain two components—bus and Cross Valley Rail— with TCAG, KCAG, KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency to jointly provide bus connectivity. The MOU will state each agency’s responsibilities and will describe the 2018 CVC Plan and SJJPA’s efforts for network integration with future California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR).

Continue to provide direct connections to downtown Hanford and downtown Corcoran to intercity passenger rail service, by working to secure state funds to enable timed bus

99 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 20

connections from Corcoran and Hanford to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while increasing bus connectivity between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and Visalia.

Partner with the following existing local/regional transit operators to operate connecting bus services within Kings and Tulare Counties: KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency. SJJPA intends to support a larger, more frequent, and coordinated bus service that will coincide with the opening of HSR Interim Service. This partnership to enhance bus service will be key toward the implementation of Phase 1 of the 2018 CVC Plan.

For connecting bus service between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and the Central Coast service, operate as an SJJPA-managed service.

In the short-term, work with KCAPTA and Visalia Transit to enhance bus service between Visalia and Hanford to improve connectivity to the existing San Joaquins service until the HSR Interim Service begins operations.

3.2 Kern County One connecting bus service is being studied for Kern County. The Wasco-Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service would connect Wasco and Shafter to the Bakersfield HSR Station as shown on Figure 10.

3.2.1 Existing Bus Services

One public agency – Kern Transit – currently provides regional bus service within Kern County. Two Kern Transit routes serve Wasco and include Route 110, which provides service between Bakersfield and Delano, and Route 115, which provides service between Bakersfield and Lost Hills. Figure 12 shows these two routes. Kern Transit has several other routes serving Kern County, but they are not shown since they do not serve Wasco.

100 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 21

Source: Kern Transit

Figure 12: Kern Transit Routes Serving Kern County

3.2.2 Recommended Bus Connectivity

Based on conversations with Kern Transit, the City of Wasco, and Kern Council of Governments (COG), there is an interest in providing bus connectivity from Wasco to the future Bakersfield HSR Station. SJJPA and Kern Transit are also considering a partnership in which Kern Transit’s existing service to Wasco could be augmented and adjusted to provide a connecting bus service from Wasco to the Bakersfield HSR Station. An additional route was explored as part of this Study that would run service from Wasco to Bakersfield HSR Station via Rosedale, California State University Bakersfield and downtown Bakersfield, but based on conversations with Kern Transit, a more direct route similar to existing service was preferred. The potential connecting bus service that be a partnership is described in the following section.

101 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 22

3.2.2.1 Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service (Partnership)

The Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service would serve three stops, connecting the Bakersfield HSR Station to Wasco and Shafter (Figure 13). There would also be the possibility of leveraging state support to Wasco to facilitate better service to Delano and McFarland to the north of Wasco.

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 13: Proposed Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service Route Route Characteristics and Service Planning Both the proposed Wasco and Shafter bus stops will provide connections to local transit services, while the Bakersfield HSR stop would provide a direct connection to the HSR Interim Service. As shown in Table 10, the full route would be 25 miles in length and have an estimated end-to-end travel time of 40 minutes.

102 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 23

Table 10: Wasco-Bakersfield Connecting Bus Service Route Characteristics

Stop Distance (miles)

Estimated Travel Time

(minutes)

City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections

1 Wasco City Hall – 8th Street 0 0 27,976 Kern Transit

2 Shafter City Hall – Pacific Avenue

8 12 20,058 Kern Transit

3 Bakersfield HSR F Street and Golden State Avenue

25 40 383,579 CAHSR, Kern Transit, GET Bus

Source: AECOM 2021 Note: This entire service would be considered for state funding support.

According to the schedule created by the ETO for the HSR Interim Service, HSR trains would run on an hourly pulse schedule, for a total of 18 trains in each direction serving the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, or 36 trains total (Table 11 and Table 12).

Table 11: Northbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Bakersfield HSR Station)

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority 2020 Business Plan (report done by the Early Train Operator)

103 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 24

Table 12: Southbound Schedule for HSR Interim Service (Bakersfield HSR Station)

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority 2020 Business Plan (report done by the Early Train Operator)

The HSR Interim Service schedule coordinates the northbound and southbound trains serving the Bakersfield HSR Station, so they arrive/depart at times fairly close to each other. For example, the northbound train from Bakersfield HSR Station would depart at 7:19 a.m., while the southbound trains would arrive at 7:30 a.m. Connecting buses to/from Wasco could arrive a few minutes before 7:19 a.m., so riders could transfer to catch a northbound HSR train. The same bus could then wait for the arriving HSR train at 7:30 a.m. to pick up passengers after they disembark the HSR train. This pattern could repeat throughout the day as the HSR Interim Service would be on a pulse-schedule at hourly intervals. This is a simpler operational pattern than the connection to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station since the Bakersfield HSR Station is a terminal station, whereas the former is mid-line station with service coming and going from two directions. This would make bus connections less complex to coordinate.

SJJPA and Kern Transit would need to determine how many of these couplets of HSR trains to meet with connecting bus service. Table 4 shows three possible service scenarios with differing levels of connecting bus service – light, moderate, and robust.

Travel times were compared from downtown Wasco to other cities in the San Joaquin Valley to assess improvements or deterioration of intercity travel times when San Joaquins is no longer available and the HSR Interim Service combined with connecting bus service is implemented (Table 13). Overall, there is a deterioration of intercity travel times from Wasco with San Joaquin Valley (except travel father north to Fresno and Merced is comparable given the longer time riders would be on HSR trains). This is due to the location of Wasco being north of the Bakersfield HSR Station, so to go north travelers would need to first go south and then north. A potential solution to this was explored, which would run a bus service north from Wasco all the

104 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 25

way to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. However, given the long travel times, small population served, limited demand that would be generated by Wasco, and high operating costs, this was not pursued as part of this Study as it would not be cost effective.

When considering travel to Los Angeles, travel times would only be about 15 minutes longer from Wasco over current service that includes the San Joaquins. Also, the bus service would include the benefit of serving the community of Shafter.

Table 13: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Wasco

Origin – Destination Existing

(via Amtrak San Joaquins) Future

(via Bus Only) Future

(via HSR + Bus) Wasco – Merced 2 hours 35 minutes N/A 2 hours 11

minutes* Wasco – Fresno 1 hour 35 minutes N/A 1 hour 41 minutes* Wasco – Hanford 55 minutes N/A 1 hour 43

minutes** Wasco – Corcoran 35 minutes N/A 2 hours 10

minutes** Wasco – Bakersfield 25 minutes 40 minutes N/A

Source: AECOM 2021 * 10 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. ** 20 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.

Benefits As with the Kings and Tulare County partners, it was concluded that running two separate bus systems in the Wasco-Bakersfield corridor is not desirable. Rather, leveraging existing Kern Transit bus service would not only avoid competing bus services, but would also provide an opportunity to integrate with existing service to McFarland and Delano. Therefore, it was determined that a partnership model for this bus connection is beneficial. Benefits of pursuing a partnership for the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Station Connecting Bus Service include:

• Would augment existing bus service provided in the corridor by Kern Transit Routes 110 and 115, while providing service directly to the Bakersfield HSR Station.

• Leveraging the resources of an existing bus system, in this case Kern Transit, avoids adding another bus operating entity and competition for riders and funding.

• Utilizing existing bus operating agencies to provide service can lead to increasing efficiencies and reducing lower overall costs.

• By pooling resources, increased frequencies can be provided, improving connectivity to the future Bakersfield HSR Station, while also benefiting all riders including those not making an HSR trip that are traveling within and between Kings and Tulare Counties) with more convenient service. This improved service could potentially benefit riders from Delano and McFarland to the north of Wasco given existing Wasco service also serves these cities.

• A partnership will bring state resources to support the service in an area where public transportation dollars are limited.

105 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 26

3.2.3 Near-Term Connecting Bus Service Enhancements

Interim bus route improvements to Wasco are currently not under consideration given the San Joaquins is still serving Wasco. However, SJJPA and Kern Transit are discussing the possibility of partnering on near-term improvements to bus service to the Antelope Valley, which could improve connectivity from the San Joaquins to that region. The connection to this service would take place at the existing San Joaquins Bakersfield Station.

3.2.4 Implementation Recommendations

SJJPA and Kern Transit recommend partnering on a Wasco-Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service. Below are specific recommendations for implementing connecting bus service in Kern County.

OBJECTIVE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KERN COUNTY

Execute an MOU with Kern Transit to jointly provide bus connectivity. The MOU would state each agency’s responsibilities and SJJPA’s efforts for network integration with future HSR Interim Service.

Continue to provide a direct connection from Wasco to intercity passenger rail service by working to secure state funds to enable timed bus connections from Wasco to the Bakersfield HSR Station.

Through this coordination, work to find opportunities for near-term partnerships, including a bus connection between Bakersfield and the Antelope Valley.

106 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 27

4 OBJECTIVE 2: CROSS VALLEY RAIL PROJECT Review and assist in the integration and implementation of the Cross Valley Rail project.

4.1 Background and History of Corridor The Cross Valley Corridor is a 75-mile existing freight rail corridor between Huron and Porterville in Kings and Tulare Counties that is active in some segments and abandoned in others. The Southern Pacific Railroad constructed the railroad in the late 1800s. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) currently owns the right-of-way and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) operates on most of the corridor except for a 1-mile portion of the UPRR mainline near Goshen. Existing track conditions are not suitable for passenger rail operations.

In 2000, the City of Lemoore worked with the Cities of Huron and Visalia to form the Cross Valley Rail Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CVRC JPA) [note to TCAG/KCAG: we would like to add a sentence on the status of this JPA, but were not able to find it; please provide and update] with the purpose of upgrading 45 miles of track from the City of Huron, through Lemoore and Hanford, to the Visalia industrial park. The CVRC JPA raised $14.2 million from government and private sources to resurface the rail corridor in 2002–2003 to accommodate heavier freight traffic and keep the line in operation in preparation for a passenger rail service.

In 2004 KCAG released the Cross Valley Rail Corridor Passenger Rail Study and in March 2018 TCAG published the CVC Plan, which evaluates connecting downtown Hanford, downtown Visalia, the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, and other cities.

According to the CVC Plan, the tracks between Lindsay and Porterville were abandoned in 2008 and removed in 2012, but the City of Porterville recently acquired the right-of-way with assistance from TCAG with the purpose of preserving the right-of-way for future rail service.

4.2 Cross Valley Corridor Plan Phases The 2018 CVC Plan recommended a three-phase implementation plan:

• Phase 1 would implement bus service between the cities on the Cross Valley Corridor (as described in Section 3).

• Phase 2 would implement passenger rail service from Lemoore to Visalia. • Phase 3 would extend passenger rail service from Lemoore to Huron and from Visalia to

Porterville.

Phase 2 of the implementation plan would have four stations located at Lemoore, Hanford, the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, and Visalia. As shown on Figure 14, the remaining communities along the CVC, including Huron, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, and Porterville, would continue to be served by bus service. Lemoore and Visalia would serve as transfer points between the bus service and the passenger rail service.

107 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 28

Source: 2018 CVC Plan

Figure 14: 2018 CVC Plan Phase 2 Bus and Rail Service Map Phase 3 would implement passenger rail service on the entire CVC from Huron to Porterville. As shown on Figure 15, the ultimate configuration of a CVC rail service would serve 10 stations: Huron, NAS Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, Visalia, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, and Porterville. Once the full build-out of a CVC rail corridor is operational, the CVC bus service would be replaced by the passenger rail service.

Cross Valley Rail is supported in Tulare County and Kings County General Plans and was included in the 2018 California State Rail Plan as part of the 2040 Vision to connect local communities to HSR.

108 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 29

Source: 2018 CVC Plan

Figure 15: 2018 CVC Plan Phase 3 Bus and Rail Service Map

4.3 Key Findings Related to Rail from the 2018 CVC Plan Key findings from the 2018 CVC Plan related to rail are summarized in the following sections.

4.3.1 Right-of-Way Ownership and San Joaquin Valley Railroad

As previously described, the CVC is currently a freight railroad corridor that is active in certain segments and abandoned in others. The majority of the corridor is single track freight railway owned by UPRR, as shown on Figure 16. The active portion of the railway is built and maintained to handle low-speed freight rail traffic.

109 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 30

Source: 2018 CVC Plan

Figure 16: Railroad Subdivisions Map and CVC Track Map According to the 2018 CVC Plan, SJVR is a Class III railroad owned by Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. that has trackage rights over the UPRR main line to operate several segments throughout Kern, Tulare, and Fresno Counties. The SJVR-operated segments connect the local shippers to the greater rail system through interchanges with BNSF and UPRR mainlines, which generally run parallel between Fresno and Bakersfield. The trackage rights allow SJVR to move its own equipment on the UPRR track to each of its segments. Any freight traffic from SJVR’s branch lines must be interchanged to UPRR to move on that line. Traffic includes lumber and forest products, consumer products, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, packaged foods, canned foods, frozen meats, poultry, cheese, carbonated beverages, and petroleum/chemical products.

110 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 31

4.3.2 Suitability for Passenger Rail

According to the 2018 CVC Plan, the existing freight rail line right-of-way is already in place and could serve as a backbone for a future CVC rail system. Overall, the right-of-way, which ranges from 50 to 200 feet in width, would be ideally suited for passenger rail mixed with freight use due to the following corridor conditions:

• Long, straight geometry • Large turning radii • Virtually zero gradients • Very few major geographic obstacles • Existing grade separations from major roadway crossings

In addition, the alignment generally connects downtown areas of the cities along the CVC, since the cities were founded by the railroad with the exception of the older City of Visalia.

4.3.3 Improvements Identified for Implementation of Passenger Rail

The following summarizes improvements identified in the 2018 CVC Plan potentially needed to allow the implementation of passenger rail:

• Condition of the Railroad: The track and structures (including bridges, culverts, and crossings) are aging and not suitable for passenger rail operations. The rails, ties, plates, embankments, switches, signaling, etc., would not meet United States Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), or Federal Transit Administration regulations for passenger rail service. Many bridges, such as the Kings River bridge, may need to be replaced or upgraded.

• Shared Track: A small length of track (approximately 500 feet) on the main UPRR line is shared by both the CVC and the main UPRR line, which may present an obstacle (UPRR approvals or operational limitations) and could necessitate improvements to allow for passenger rail service.

• Right-of-Way: Additional land acquisitions may be required for passing lanes, pocket tracks, maintenance facilities, operations centers, etc.

• Positive Train Control: To upgrade to passenger service, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 would require a Positive Train Control (PTC) system (49 CFR Part 236, Subpart I). PTC is a safety system designed to monitor and control trains and eliminate collisions within its system by using GPS and computerized tracking systems. It monitors the speed and positions of all trains and implements accident avoidance countermeasures if it detects an accident is imminent. The system will first warn the train operator, then take control of the train and bring it to a controlled stop.

• Maintenance and Storage Facility: A maintenance and storage facility would be required, and there are available sites along the CVC.

• Stations: Station infrastructure would be required. Potential station locations are shown on Figure 7. The cities of Lemoore, Hanford, Visalia, Tulare, Porterville, and Dinuba have public transportation systems that could serve a CVC station.

111 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 32

4.3.4 2018 CVC Plan Recommended Rail Vehicle Technology

The 2018 CVC Plan recommended diesel multiple unit (DMU) trainsets for further analysis, concluding that DMU trainsets have the highest potential to provide efficient and flexible transit service compared with the other mode alternatives. These same benefits could be realized by a zero-emission multiple unit (ZEMU) system. Subsequent to the completion of the 2018 CVC Plan, the state has adopted a policy of transitioning to an entire statewide fleet of zero emission vehicles by 2035 (Fleet Management Plan). It is likely that by the time that CVC Rail trainsets are ready to be procured in the future, that ZEMU trainsets will be the standard for these types of services in California. When CVC Rail is ready for procurement, it may not make sense to purchase DMU equipment that would need to be replaced by 2035. DMU or ZEMU trainsets have moderate costs compared to the other technologies examined in the 2018 CVC Plan. The other technologies evaluated include bus rapid transit, light rail transit (LRT), heavy rail, commuter rail, streetcar, Maglev, and a people mover system. Figure 17 lists the benefits of DMU or ZEMU systems as outlined in the 2018 CVC Plan.

DMU and ZEMU based rail systems are run by self-propelling railcars that can operate in LRT corridors, in dense urban areas, and in freight corridors as long as the vehicles are compliant with FRA crash and operational safety policies. The typical configuration of DMU vehicles in the United States is that of a diesel engine generating electric power for the vehicle’s traction motors (so-called diesel-electric multiple units). However, other propulsion systems have been under development, such as hydrogen fuel cells and natural gas-powered engines, which would be used in place of diesel engines to generate electric power for the vehicle’s traction motors in the absence of electric wires.

ZEMU vehicles are similar to LRT vehicles as they both can use an overhead catenary system. ZEMU systems can utilize batter power or hydrogen fuel cell and achieve FRA crash and operation safety policies. ZEMUs have higher vehicle costs than DMU trainsets; however, they have operational benefits (in terms of operational cost, acceleration, etc.) as the system grows in size and scale and meet the states goals for zero emission vehicles.

112 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 33

Source: 2018 CVC Plan (Note: These benefits would also apply to ZEMU trainsets)

Figure 17: Benefits of DMU Transit Systems

Source: 2018 CVC Plan

Figure 18: Capital Metro DMU System in Austin, Texas

113 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 34

Source: 2018 CVC Plan

Figure 19: Sprinter DMU System in Oceanside, California

4.4 2018 CVC Plan Cost Estimates The 2018 CVC Plan estimates both capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for each phase of the implementation plan assuming DMU operations. The 2018 CVC Plan estimated that the annual cost-per-mile for Phases 2 and 3 would be $515,000. This cost includes operator wages, fuel, and vehicle maintenance. Costs were based on operating costs for Denton County Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit Corporation, and North County Transit District. The schedule assumed operations would be seven days a week, from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with 30-minute peak headways and 60-minute off-peak headways. For Phase 2 operations 9 vehicles were assumed and for Phase 3 operations 26 vehicles were assumed.

Capital and operating cost estimates for Phase 2 and Phase 3 are shown in Table 14.

114 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 35

Table 14: Costs for DMU Rail Phases of CVC from 2018 CVC Plan Capital Costs

(2018 dollars assumed) Operating Costs

(2018 dollars assumed) Phase 2 DMU Rail Lemoore to Visalia (2018 dollars assumed)

$162 to 225 M $16 M per year

Phase 3 DMU Rail Huron to Porterville (2018 dollars assumed)

$179 to 252 M $20 M per year

Total $350 to $489 M $36 M per year Source: 2018 CVC Plan

4.5 Compatibility of Cross Valley Rail with Future Kings/Tulare HSR Station

In addition to providing rail service between the communities in central San Joaquin Valley, a CVC rail service would provide a convenient connection to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station. The 2018 CVC Plan discussed this connection, but a station concept was not provided as was provided for the other proposed rail stations along the CVC. The following is an update on the status of the design of the Kings/Tulare Station. In addition, the compatibility of the current design direction of the Kings/Tulare Station with transfers to a future CVC rail station is examined.

The location of the Kings/Tulare HSR Station is approximately one-half mile east and north of SR 43 and SR 198, respectively (Figure 20).

115 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 36

Source: CHSRA

Figure 20: Location of the Future Kings/Tulare HSR Station According to CHSRA officials, all track and civil design work is complete. The HSR tracks will be elevated on a viaduct structure in the vicinity of the Kings/Tulare Station. Therefore, the HSR track structure will be above the CVC tracks, which will remain at-grade (Figure 21 and Figure 22). The columns for the viaduct structure are complete except for the columns immediately adjacent to the CVC.

116 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 37

Source: CHSRA

Figure 21: Cross Section of HSR Tracks on Viaduct at the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and CVC

Source: CHSRA

Figure 22: View of Columns for Future HSR Track Viaduct at Kings/Tulare HSR Station and CVC

CHSRA provided a plan view graphic that indicates that a 100 foot wide right-of-way for the CVC would be accommodated between the columns flanking the CVC (Figure 23). While it is anticipated a single track and single side platform would be sufficient for operations, the right-of-way could accommodate expanded station facilities (i.e., a second track and second side platform if necessary).

117 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 38

Source: CHSRA

Figure 23: Plan View of Cross Valley Corridor Crossing Under HSR Viaduct Given the configuration previously described, a station for the CVC rail service could be placed directly under the HSR viaduct. In discussions with CHSRA staff, an initial assessment was made that a platform on the south side of the CVC corridor could be constructed to provide direct access (i.e., no tracks to traverse) to a pathway under the HSR viaduct between the supporting columns and the HSR station. Figure 24 illustrates this concept. The HSR station structure is anticipated to be approximately 300 feet south from where the Cross Valley Rail tracks would cross under the HSR viaduct.

Source: CHSRA (Base Map) / AECOM (Annotations)

Figure 24: Concept of Potential Layout of Connection between Cross Valley Rail and Kings/Tulare HSR Station

118 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 39

Over the last several years, CHSRA has been conducting an outreach process with stakeholders from the region regarding connectivity to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station . As part of this process, the 2018 CVC Plan was completed. Following the release of the 2018 CVC Plan, there have been ongoing project updates and follow-up outreach. According to CHSRA, the next step in this process is outreach related to the pre-design of the station, with stakeholder meetings about every 8 weeks.

The following topics will be covered at meetings in 2021:

• Regional Transit Access – June • Regional Patterns & Roadway Network – August • Hanford and Visalia Plans & Other Local Multimodal Access – October • Summary Meeting – December

The overall project schedule provided by CHSRA is shown in Figure 25.

Source: CHSRA 2020

Figure 25: Kings/Tulare HSR Station Delivery Schedule

4.6 Implementation Recommendations Implementation of Cross Valley Rail service will require coordination among a range of local stakeholders in addition to the local and state government.

A critical factor in project development is the ability to obtain funding. While the 2018 CVC Plan identifies potential phases for implementation, it does not contain detailed cost estimates and funding. Ridership for this initial segment would need to be estimated and evaluated for competitiveness for funding.

The following recommendations for the Cross Valley Rail service were developed in coordination with TCAG, KCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency.

OBJECTIVE 2: RECOMMENDATIONS

Execute an MOU to commit to work in partnership with TCAG and KCAG to plan, secure funding, and implement Cross Valley Rail.

In the MOU, identify the following steps for the implementation of Cross Valley Rail:

119 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 40

• Phase 1 will secure environmental clearance and right-of-way protection, conduct site selection, negotiate with freight railroads, and begin transit stations in communities without existing transit centers.

• Phase 2 will implement passenger rail service between Lemoore and Visalia (with stations at Hanford and Kings/Tulare HSR Station).

• Phase 3 will extend passenger rail service to Huron and Porterville with additional intermediate stations at NAS Lemoore, Farmersville, Exeter, and Lindsey.

In the MOU, identify SJJPA as a potential operating agency for Cross Valley Rail.

Acknowledge that additional and more detailed agreements will be needed and that parties would agree to work together toward achieving common agreed upon goals.

120 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 41

5 OBJECTIVE 3: BNSF SLOTS Assess possible complementary regional uses for existing BNSF slots.

This Study included the investigation of the potential use of existing and potentially available passenger rail slots along the BNSF Corridor for regional commuter rail services once the San Joaquins no longer operates between Merced and Bakersfield (after HSR Interim Service begins operations). The specific commuter rail services that were considered are described in the following sections and include a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran service and Wasco–Bakersfield service. A commuter rail service between Merced and Fresno was not considered, as Merced, Madera and Fresno will have stations along the HSR system, and therefore, the biggest markets for a commuter rail service between Merced and Fresno would be competing directly with the much faster HSR system.

After consultation with TCAG, KCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, Kern Transit, and Kern COG, it was concluded that commuter rail services should not be pursued for the foreseeable future for the following reasons:

• Capital and operating and maintenance costs. Capital costs range from $78 to $174 million and operating costs range from $5.9 to $8.4 million per year depending on the route See Appendix B for more details on the cost estimates. Capital costs are high compared to implementing connecting bus services. These costs would be borne by the local/regional communities, which have very limited budget capacity.

• Competing with HSR markets and services. Commuter rail service between Fresno, Hanford, and Corcoran would create a parallel rail system to HSR, which would significantly reduce the ridership potential of the commuter rail service, as HSR Interim Service will also run during commute times between Fresno and Kings/Tulare HSR Station near Hanford. Since travel on HSR trains will be much faster than travel on commuter rail trains, many commuters from Kings and Tulare Counties that park and ride would see improved travel times over that of commuter rail. For those accessing HSR via connecting bus services, there would be an increase in total travel time to Fresno from Hanford of about 4 minutes and from Corcoran of about 15 minutes (Table 16 and 17) over commuter rail. Given the similar travel times from Hanford, and the low population of Corcoran, this parallel commuter rail system is not seen as a good investment.

Commuter rail service between Wasco and Bakersfield would not compete directly with HSR (since there would not be an HSR station near Wasco). However, travel times were compared between commuter rail and a connecting bus service from Wasco to Bakersfield. While travel on a connecting bus would be about 10 minutes longer (Table 21), it was concluded that such a large investment in commuter rail would not be worth the investment at this time.

• Lack of regional support. For the reasons above, the stakeholders in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties have not expressed support for further consideration of commuter rail services on the BNSF. Implementation of Cross Valley Rail and bus connectivity are higher priorities for time and resources.

121 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 42

5.1 Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Considered As shown on Figure 26, SJJPA evaluated a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service that would provide service to Corcoran, Hanford, and Fresno. All three stations would use the existing San Joaquins stations. As a result, no direct connection to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station would be provided as both the Fresno and Kings/Tulare HSR Stations are not adjacent to any existing San Joaquins stations. All three stations would have connections to local transit services.

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 26: Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Considered

122 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 43

The full route would be 47 miles long and the end-to-end travel time is estimated at 48 minutes (Table 15).

Table 15: Potential Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service Characteristics

Station Distance (miles)

Estimated Travel Time (minutes)

City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections

1 Fresno Amtrak Station

0 0 530,093 Kern Transit

2 Hanford Amtrak Station

30 32 56,910 KART, Cross Valley Corridor

3 Corcoran Amtrak Station

47 48 21,676 Corcoran Area Transit

Source: AECOM 2021

The travel times for the potential Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service were compared to the travel times of the existing San Joaquins service and the estimated travel times of the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Bus Service.

As shown in Table 16, the travel times from Corcoran via commuter rail to key destinations are comparable with slight variations to existing San Joaquins service and the proposed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service. However, since the commuter rail does not directly connect to the CAHSR system, the destinations that passengers could reach by direct access to HSR service are limited compared to the proposed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service.

Table 16: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Corcoran

Destination Existing

(via San Joaquins) Future

(via Commuter Rail) Future

(via HSR + Bus) Merced 2 hours N/A 1 hour 33 minutes* Fresno 50 minutes 50 minutes 1 hour 3 minutes* Hanford (Downtown) 15 minutes 15 minutes 27 minutes Wasco 35 minutes N/A 2 hours 10 minutes** Bakersfield 1 hour N/A 1 hour 20 minutes*

Source: AECOM 2021 *10-minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. **20-minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.

As shown in Table 17, the travel times from Hanford to key destinations using the commuter rail line are comparable to existing San Joaquins service and the proposed Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service. However, since the commuter rail would not directly connect to the CAHSR system, the destinations that passengers could reach using the service are limited compared to the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service.

123 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 44

Table 17: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Downtown Hanford

Destination Existing

(via San Joaquins) Future

(via Commuter Rail) Future

(via HSR + Bus) Merced 1 hour 40 minutes N/A 1 hour 6 minutes* Fresno 32 minutes 32 minutes 36 minutes* Corcoran 15 minutes 15 minutes 27 minutes Wasco 55 minutes N/A 1 hour 43 minutes** Bakersfield 1 hour 20 minutes N/A 53 minutes*

Source: AECOM 2021 * 10-minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. **20-minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.

For the purpose of this Study, it was assumed that trains would run two northbound trains on weekday mornings and two southbound trains on weekday evenings. Table 18 and Table 19 summarize estimated capital and O&M costs, respectively. See Appendix C for more details on the cost estimates.

Table 18: Estimated Capital Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service

Improvement Capital Cost Estimates (FY 2020)

Stations $3 M – $6 M

Rolling Stock $25 M – $70 M

Maintenance Facility $50 M

Total Capital Cost $78 M – $126 M Source: AECOM 2021

Table 19: Estimated O&M Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service

O&M Cost Estimates Lower-bound Estimate

(FY 2020) Upper-bound Estimate

(FY 2020)

Agency Cost Items $ 1.5 M $ 2.5 M

Cost-per-mile Items $ 3.2 M $ 3.2 M

Other Unit Cost Items $ 2.6 M $ 2.7 M

Total Annual O&M Cost $ 7.3 M $ 8.4 M Source: AECOM 2021

5.2 Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service Considered As shown on Figure 27, SJJPA evaluated a Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service that would provide service to Wasco, Shafter, Rosedale, and Bakersfield. The route would stop at the existing Wasco and Bakersfield San Joaquins Station, while adding to new stations in Shafter and Rosedale. The route would not connect directly to HSR Interim Service.

124 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 45

Source: AECOM 2021

Figure 27: Wasco-Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service Considered The full route would be 27 miles long and the end-to-end travel time is estimated at 30 minutes (Table 20).

Table 20: Potential Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Characteristics

Stop Distance (miles)

Estimated Travel Time (minutes)

City/Town Population (2018, ACS) Connections

1 Wasco Amtrak Station

0 0 27,976 Kern Transit

2 Shafter City Hall – Pacific Avenue

8 9 20,058 Kern Transit

3 Rosedale Allen and Rosedale

19 21 16,737 GET Bus

4 Bakersfield Amtrak Station

27 30 383,579 Kern Transit, GET Bus

Source: AECOM 2021

The travel times for the potential Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service were compared to the estimated travel times of the existing San Joaquins service and the proposed Wasco-

125 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 46

Bakersfield HSR Bus Service. As shown in Table 21, the travel times from Wasco to key destinations using the commuter rail line are comparable to the existing San Joaquins service and the Wasco-Bakersfield HSR Bus Service. However, since the commuter rail does not directly connect to the Bakersfield HSR Station, the destinations that passengers could reach using the service are greatly limited compared to the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Bus Service.

Table 21: Travel Time Comparisons for Trips Originating in Wasco

Destination Existing

(via San Joaquins) Future

(via Commuter Rail) Future

(via HSR + Bus) Merced 2 hours 35 minutes N/A 2 hours 11 minutes* Fresno 1 hour 35 minutes N/A 1 hour 41 minutes* Hanford (Downtown) 55 minutes N/A 1 hour 43 minutes** Corcoran 35 minutes N/A 2 hours 10 minutes** Bakersfield 25 minutes 30 minutes 40 minutes (bus only)

Source: AECOM 2021 * 10 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require one transfer. ** 20 minute HSR-bus transfer time is assumed for origin-destination pairs that require two transfers.

For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that trains would run two northbound trains on weekday mornings and two southbound on weekday evenings. Table 22 and Table 23 summarize estimated capital and O&M costs, respectively. See Appendix C for more details on the cost estimates.

Table 22: Estimated Capital Cost for Wasco-Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service

Capital Cost Estimates (FY 2020)

Stations $42 M – $54 M

Rolling Stock $25 M – $70 M

Maintenance Facility $50 M

Total Capital Cost $117 M – $174 M Source: AECOM 2021

Table 23: Estimated O&M Cost for Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service

O&M Cost Estimates Lower-bound Estimate

(FY 2020) Upper-bound Estimate

(FY 2020)

Agency Cost Items $ 1.5 M $ 2.5 M

Cost-per-mile Items $ 1.8 M $ 1.8 M

Other Unit Cost Items $ 2.6 M $ 2.7 M

Total Annual O&M Cost $ 5.9 M $ 7.0 M Source: AECOM 2021

126 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study June 2021 47

5.3 Recommendation Below is the recommendation related to the possible utilization of passenger rail slots along the BNSF Corridor between Merced and Bakersfield for regional commuter rail.

OBJECTIVE 3 – RECOMMENDATIONS

Use of the BNSF slots for regional commuter rail service does not appear to be feasible in the foreseeable future. Therefore, do not further study commuter rail at this time.

127 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A June 2021 1

APPENDIX A – CONNECTING BUS SERVICE COST ASSUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATES This appendix documents assumptions used in developing rough-order-of-magnitude operations and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates and capital cost estimates for three connecting bus services, which include the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service, the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service and the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service. For the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service, both capital and O&M cost estimates were taken directly from the 2018 CVC Plan.

For the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service, the estimated O&M costs are based on the SJJPA-managed approach for connecting bus service (described in Section 3 of this Study), even though SJJPA and partnering agencies are now pursuing a partnership model to run such service. The reason for this is that these cost estimates were conducted early in the planning process to gain an understanding of the O&M costs if SJJPA were to run as separate bus services. This cost information helped inform the SJJPA that O&M costs should one key factor in considering forming partnerships for implementing connecting bus services. Furthermore, there are no O&M cost estimates provided in this Study for the partnerships being pursued currently, as those will be negotiated between SJJPA and the partner bus operating agencies. Capital costs are based on bus stop improvements to enhance the user experience.

For the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast Connecting Bus Service, the estimated O&M costs are based on the SJJPA-managed approach. Given the high-cost of this approach, SJJPA is exploring other approaches to reduce O&M costs. One approach being considered would be to form an agreement with a private bus operator that would reduce or eliminate upfront costs to the SJJPA and instead incentivize the operator by allowing them to keep more of the revenues generated. No capital cost estimates are provided as this service is assumed to use the existing bus stops as is currently use by the Thruway Bus service operated by Amtrak.

128 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A June 2021 2

Operation & Maintenance Cost Assumptions Eighteen (18) daily HSR round trips are planned to operate as part of the HSR Interim Service. Connecting bus services could be provided to meet some or most HSR trains, depending on anticipated demand and and cost. Given this, three service level scenarios were established with cost estimates provided for each. Table 1 shows the service level options that were used to calculate three different operational costs.

Table 1: Bus Service Level Scenarios

Light Moderate Robust

4 round trips per day 8 round trips per day 12 round trips per day

Peak service only Approximately every 120 minutes (or every 2 hours)

Approximately every 60 minutes (or every hour), though some day hours would be skipped

Connects from/to select HSR trains in peak periods only. Similar to the current service level of comparable local bus services.

Connects from/to about half of HSR trains. Similar to the current service level of Amtrak San Joaquins.

Coordinated 60-minute pulse schedule during peak periods plus significant off-peak service with HSR trains.

Source: AECOM 2021

As with the planned HSR Interim Service, connecting bus services are assumed to be operational everyday throughout the year, including weekends and holidays with the same service levels every day of the week.

To account for the differences in O&M costs between routes with different service characteristics, the O&M cost assumptions are based on pre-pandemic Thruway Bus O&M costs with a similar route length and that serve a similar market.1 An existing per-mile cost from established routes and a base rate was established $4.56 (based on FY 17), which was escalated to FY 2020 to $5.06 (inflation was assumed at 3.5% per year). Then a nominal 5% cost multiplier was added to the cost estimates to account for the fact the average route of Thruway Buses is somewhat longer on average than the routes under evaluation, which would lead to a higher percentage of dwell time at the end of the routes than the Thruway Buses.. Based on these assumptions, the cost-per-mile is estimated to be $5.31 for the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service and the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service. The O&M costs are derived by multiplying the per-mile estimated cost by the route miles and the number of trips (either 4, 8, or 12, depending on what service-level scenario is applied).

There are two exceptions to the $5.31 per mile rate. First is the Tulare Loop Extension (a variation of the Kings-Tulare–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service Since the Tulare

1 The O&M Costs are based on Thruway Bus routes between Bakersfield-Santa Barbara and Visalia-Santa Maria. Source: SJPPA Board Meeting Packet (May 2020), Item “Analysis for San Joaquins Thruway Bus Routes Recommendations for Change”. Note: Revenue data (annual revenue dollar and annual service mile) was used and the farebox recovery rate to estimate (i.e. back-calculate) the annual O&M cost of each Thruway Bus route.

129 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A June 2021 3

Loop Extension is closer to the average Thruway route length (62 miles) than the other proposed routes, it is estimated the cost-per-mile for this variation is slightly lower at $4.96.2 Additionally, the Kings-Tulare–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service is an even longer route (156 miles), with an estimated the cost-per-mile of $4.733 per mile.

Capital Cost Assumptions The primary capital costs to implement the bus service would be related to bus stop improvements. As mentioned above, bus stop improvement were only assessed for the Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service (including the Tulare Loop) and the Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service. Most of the proposed bus stops would be located at existing transit centers that already have passenger amenities. However, some of the proposed stand-alone bus stops would need further upgrades, such as shelters and benches, to provide a consistent experience and feel to all bus stops.

As shown in Table 2, capital cost assumptions for the shelters, benches, and signs were developed. The assumed unit costs are based on prevailing market prices for each physical component. All unit costs include the cost of materials, labor, and administration. The cost estimate for a shelter includes the cost for pavement upgrades that would be required to install the shelter. The cost estimate for signage includes the design costs.

Table 2: Capital Unit Cost Assumptions4

Bus Stop Amenity Unit Cost Shelter $36,000 Bench $4,000 Signage $2,500

Source: AECOM 2021

For stops located at an existing transit center that already has a bench and a shelter, it is assumed that the only capital investment the stop would need would be signage. For bus stops that do not have a bench and/or shelter, the capital costs account for adding the additional amenities.

It is assumed that buses and bus maintenance facilities would be provided by the bus service providers; therefore, bus maintenance facilities are excluded from the capital cost estimates. All capital costs for proposed bus stops located at future HSR stations are assumed to be covered as part of the HSR station construction budget. Therefore, no capital costs are identified at HSR stations.

2 The per mile rate of $4.96 was arrived at by adjusting the base rate down to $4.26 per mile. Then the adjusted base rate was escalating to $4.73 (from FY 17 to F 20). Then the 5% multiplier was added, for an assumed per mile cost of $4.96. 3 The per mile rate of $4.73 was arrived at by adjusting the base rate down to $4.26 per mile. Then the adjusted base rate was escalated to $4.73 (from FY 17 to F 20). Note, the 5% multiplier not applied to this route given its length is more typical of Amtrak Thruway route costs. 4 Shelter Cost: https://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BusReport_Spreads.pdf (page 12) describes a shelter cost to be between $2,000 and $15,000, and we inflated the highest figure to account for higher labor and admin cost, additional contingency and adjust for inflation, to come up with a conservative high-level estimate of $36,000 per shelter. Bench Cost: https://www.occoutdoors.com/benches/bus-stop-benches/ Material cost around $1,000 per bench. Inflated to account for additional installation labor and admin cost. Signage Cost: rough estimate with additional labor and admin cost inflation added. Material cost should be approximately $200 per sign.

130 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A June 2021 4

Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service – Bus Stop Assumptions The Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Service was assumed to have three bus stops, with the potential to add a fourth at the Tulare Transit Center by creating a loop serivce. Bus stops would be located at either an existing transit stop or a planned HSR station, which will allow the system to leverage existing infrastructure. Table 3 summarizes existing bus stop conditions and potential upgrades needed to implement the bus service.

Table 3: Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran Connecting Bus Serivce – Bus Stop Improvements

Stop Existing Conditions Proposed Upgrades Shelter Bench Signage

1 Corcoran Corcoran Station

Yes No Yes

2 Hanford KART Transit Center

No No Yes

3 Kings/Tulare HSR SR 43 and Lacey Boulevard

Stop constructed with HSR station

N/A N/A N/A

4 Tulare Tulare Transit Center (Optional Stop)

No No Yes

Source: AECOM 2021

131 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A June 2021 5

Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service – Bus Stop Assumptions The Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Service was assumed to have three bus stops. Each bus stop is assumed to be located at either an existing transit stop or a planned HSR station, which would allow the system to leverage existing infrastructure. Table 4 summarizes the existing bus stop conditions and potential upgrades needed to implement the bus service.

Table 4: Wasco–Bakersfield HSR Connecting Bus Serivce – Bus Stop Improvements

Stop Existing Conditions Proposed Upgrades Shelter Bench Signage

1 Wasco City Hall – 8th Street

Yes Yes Yes

2 Shafter City Hall – Pacific Avenue

Northbound

Yes Yes Yes

Southbound

No No Yes

3 Bakersfield HSR F Street and Golden State Avenue

Stop constructed with HSR station

N/A N/A N/A

Source: AECOM 2021

.

132 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix A June 2021 6

Summary of Costs Based on the assumptions describd above, Tables 5 summarizes the estimated capital costs and O&M costs for Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran, Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast, and Wasco–Bakersfield Connecting Bus Services.

Table 5: Summary of Capital and O&M Cost Estimations (2020 dollars)

Connecting Bus Service Estimated Capital Costs

Estimated Annual Operational Costs Light Moderate Robust

Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran

$40,000 to 60,000 $356,000 $713,000 $1,070,000

Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Corcoran (with Tulare Loop Extension)

$45,000 to $70,000 $898,000 $1,796,000 $2,694,000

Kings/Tulare HSR–Hanford–Central Coast

N/A $2,155,000 $4,309,000 $6,464,000

Wasco-Bakersfield Bus Service

$90,000 $388,000 $775,000 $1,163,000

Source: AECOM 2021

As mentioned above, the cost estimates for the Cross Valley Corridor Connecting Bus Service were taken directly from the 2018 CVC Plan, and are summarized below in Table 6.

Table 6: CVC Bus Service Costs from 2018 CVC Plan5

Proposed Route Estimated Capital Costs Annual Operating Cost Cross Valley Corridor Bus Service

$8.4 to $12 million $5 million

Source: AECOM 2021

5 Service assumptions from the 2018 CVC Plan include every day service running from 6 am to 11pm, with 30 minute headways at peak and 60 minute headways off-peak.

133 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix B June 2021 7

APPENDIX B – OUTREACH MEETINGS During the course of South of Merced Integration Study, SJJPA conducted numerous outreach meetings with elected officials and local agencies in Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties to provide updates and get input on planning concepts and to explore opportunities to partner on implementation of connecting bus and rail services. In addition, meetings were conducted with state agencies and regional advisory entities.

Outreach Meetings with Kings and Tulare Counties Entities Several meetings were conducted in Kings and Tulare Counties with elected officials and government agencies, which included Supervisors Doug Verboon and Amy Shuklian, Kings County Association of Governments, (KCAG), Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), Kings Area Rural Transit (KART), Visalia Transit and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA).

Table 1: Outreach Meetings Conducted by SJJPA with Kings and Tulare Counties Entities

Entities Date KART 6/25/20 KART 7/15/20 Supervisor Verboon and KCAG 7/16/20 Supervisor Shuklian and TCAG 7/20/20 KART 7/21/20 KCAG, KART and Visalia Transit 8/6/20 KART and Visalia Transit 8/28/20 TCAG 9/19/20 TCAG 4/14/21 KART and Visalia Transit 5/5/21 TCAG (Policy Board) and TCRTA 5/17/21 KCAG, TCAG, KART, Visalia Transit, and TCRTA 5/19/21 KCAG Policy Board 5/26/21 City of Corcoran 6/9/21 City of Hanford 6/15/21

134 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix B June 2021 8

Outreach Meetings with Kern County Entities Several meetings were conducted in Kern County with government agencies, which included Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG), the City of Wasco, and Kern Transit.

Table 2: Outreach Meetings Conducted by SJJPA with Kern County Entities

Entities Date City of Wasco 6/24/20 Kern COG 7/9/20 City of Wasco and Kern COG 7/15/20 City of Wasco and Kern COG 8/6/20 City of Wasco and Kern COG 9/30/20 Kern Transit 5/5/21

Outreach Meetings State Agencies and Regional Advisory Entities Several meetings were conducted with state agencies and regional advisory entities, which included the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail and Mass Transportation (Caltrans – DRMT), the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), Central Valley Rail Working Group and San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee.

Table 3: Outreach Meetings Conducted by SJJPA with State Agencies and Regional Advisory Entities

Entities Date Central Valley Rail Working Group 9/18/20 CalSTA 6/8/21 Caltrans – DRMT 6/14/21 California High-Speed Rail Authority 6/15/21 San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee 6/29/21 Central Valley Rail Working Group 7/9/21

135 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix C June 2021 9

APPENDIX C – COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE COST ASSUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATES This appendix documents assumptions used in developing rough-order-of-magnitude capital costs and operations and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for two possible commuter rail services considered. These are a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service and a Wasco–Bakersfield Commute Rail Service.

Capital Cost Assumptions and Estimates The commuter rail services considered, if implemented, would use a combination of existing San Joaquins stations and new in-fill rail stations along the BNSF corridor. Construction of new rail stations associated with each commuter rail service is estimated to cost between $20 million and $25 million per station6 and would consist of a new station siding track and one side platform. The re-use of existing San Joaquins stations (i.e. stations that would be used by future commuter rail service) would require them to be rebranded and reconfigured for commuter rail service. The rebranding and reconfiguration are estimated to cost between $1 million and $2 million per station.7 In addition, if any track improvements are needed within corridor to accommodate commuter rail service, the overall capital cost could significantly increase. Any track improvement costs are not included in the cost estimates included in this Study.

New rolling stock would be needed to implement commuter rail service. It is estimated that the cost of procuring a trainset that consist of one locomotive and six passenger cars would be between $25 million and $35 million.8 A new maintenance facility would also need to be constructed for each of the potential commuter rail services since they would not be connected. It is estimated that a new maintenance facility with capacity to accommodate and service one to two trainsets would cost approximately $50 million.9

Based on these assumptions, the capital cost estimates for both a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service and a Wasco–Bakersfield Commute Rail Service are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1: Estimated Capital Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service

Improvement Capital Cost Estimates (FY 2020)

Stations $3 M – $6 M

Rolling Stock $25 M – $70 M

Maintenance Facility $50 M

Total Capital Cost $78 M – $126 M Source: AECOM 2021

6 Rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates for new stations are based on cost estimates previously developed by AECOM for new Altamont Corridor Express and San Joaquins Station stations. The range is given to accommodate variations in station design. 7 Rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates for the rebranding of existing stations are very high-level and represent a broad range of elements that could be considered, such as new types of canopies, signage, shelters, number of benches, etc. 8 A range of cost estimates for trainsets were estimated based on different rolling stock types and the fact that a variety of features can be requested as part of an order for rolling stock. Also, prices can vary if an order is combined with a larger order. 9 Maintenance facility costs estimates are based on previous estimates done by AECOM for maintenance facilities related to ACE and San Joaquins rail systems.

136 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix C June 2021 10

Table 2: Estimated Capital Cost for Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service

Improvement Capital Cost Estimates (FY 2020)

Stations $42 M – $54 M

Rolling Stock $25 M – $70 M

Maintenance Facility $50 M

Total Capital Cost $117 M – $174 M Source: AECOM 2021

Operations and Maintenance Cost Assumptions The commuter rail O&M cost estimates include three cost categories:

• Agency cost items • Cost-per-mile items • Other unit cost items

Agency cost items and other unit cost items represent the cost of operating a rail agency. The cost-per-mile Items category represents the cost of actual rail operations, such as fuels, maintenance, passenger services, and dispatching. These costs are based on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) 2020 ACE operating budget.

An additional multiplier was added to the commuter rail O&M cost estimates to account for the overhead costs of establishing and operating a new agency. Since overhead costs can vary depending on a multitude of factors, a low-end and high-end multiplier for the cost estimates was identified. For the Agency Cost Items and Other Unit Cost Items categories, the low-end multiplier was 0.3 while the high-end multiplier was 0.5.

The cost-per-mile items cost estimates assume two daily round trips on weekdays for each proposed service. For the Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service, this means two trains would run from Corcoran to Fresno during the morning peak, and two trains would run from Fresno to Corcoran during the evening peak. For the Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service, this means two trains would run from Wasco to Bakersfield during the morning peak, and two trains would run from Bakersfield to Wasco during the evening peak.

The other unit cost items for contract services include maintenance and improvement cost for stations and the agency office, operating leases, insurance and management fees, and cost for Federal Rail Administration (FRA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) drug testing program.

Based on these assumptions, the operations and maintenance cost estimates for both a Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service and a Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.

137 of 151

Draft South of Merced Integration Study – Appendix C June 2021 11

Table 1: Estimated O&M Costs for Fresno–Hanford–Corcoran Commuter Rail Service

O&M Cost Estimates Lower-bound Estimate (FY 2020)

Upper-bound Estimate (FY 2020)

Agency Cost Items $ 1.5 M $ 2.5 M

Cost-per-mile Items $ 3.2 M $ 3.2 M

Other Unit Cost Items $ 2.6 M $ 2.7 M

Total Annual O&M Cost $ 7.3 M $ 8.4 M Source: AECOM 2021

Table 23: Estimated O&M Cost for Wasco–Bakersfield Commuter Rail Service

O&M Cost Estimates Lower-bound Est. (FY 2020) Upper-bound Est. (FY 2020)

Agency Cost Items $ 1.5 M $ 2.5 M

Cost-per-mile Items $ 1.8 M $ 1.8 M

Other Unit Cost Items $ 2.6 M $ 2.7 M

Total Annual O&M Cost $ 5.9 M $ 7.0 M Source: AECOM 2021

138 of 151

Page 1 of 6

1535797-1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE

TULARE COUNTY ASSOICATION OF GOVERNMENTS, TULARE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSIT AGENCY, KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, KINGS

COUNTY AREA PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCY, VISALIA TRANSIT AND

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

TO ESTABLISH THE PROCESS AND ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR INTEGRATING THE CROSS-VALLEY CORRIDOR PLAN, THE SAN JOAQUINS, AND

CONNECTIVITY TO THE STATE’S FUTURE HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into by and between the Tulare County Association of Governments, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency, Kings County Association of Governments, Kings County Area Public Transit Agency, Visalia Transit, and San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (referred to herein collectively as the “Participants”) to facilitate coordination in establishing the roles and responsibilities for integrating the Cross-Valley Corridor Plan, the San Joaquins Thruway bus services, and connectivity to the future State High-Speed Rail Service.

PERTINENT ENTITIES

Tulare County Association of Governments (Referred to in this MOU as “TCAG”): the agency responsible for metropolitan transportation planning for the Tulare County region, including planning for and addressing the mobility needs of the County’s growing population. Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (Referred to in this MOU as “TCRTA”): the agency responsible for providing public transit service to the County of Tulare and cities of Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, and Woodlake. Kings County Association of Governments (Referred to in this MOU as “KCAG”): the agency responsible for metropolitan transportation planning for the Kings County region, including planning for and addressing the mobility needs of the County’s growing population. Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (Referred to in this MOU as “KCAPTA”): the agency responsible for providing public transit service to the cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, Lemoore, and the unincorporated communities of Armona, Grangeville, Hardwick, Kettleman City, Laton, and Stratford. The City of Visalia (Referred to in this MOU as “COV”): the agency responsible for the governance, planning, implementation, operation and maintenance of the Visalia Transit service. San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (Referred to in this MOU as “SJJPA”): the agency responsible for the governance, operation and maintenance of the San Joaquins intercity passenger rail service.

139 of 151

Page 2 of 6

1535797-1

GENERAL BACKGROUND

In 2016, TCAG initiated the Cross Valley Plan (”Plan”) to study the connectivity and mobility improvements in the Central Valley. Its aim was to increase transit service efficiency, enable communities and cities within the Cross Valley Corridor (“Corridor”) to promote development that supports transit usage, encourage revitalization and economic development, and facilitate growth in support of the California High-Speed Rail (“HSR”) investment.

The Corridor would follow the existing freight rail corridor (“San Joaquin Valley Railroad tracks”) from Huron to Porterville, which also roughly parallels much of State Routes 198 and 65 located in central California. The Corridor would include the proposed Kings/Tulare Regional High-Speed Rail Station and would benefit the region by potentially linking the communities to each other. These cities and communities include Huron, Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, Goshen, Visalia, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, and Porterville. Unincorporated communities of Armona and Strathmore may also be served by transit stops. There is also a desire to provide easy transit connections to the Cities of Tulare, Dinuba, and Woodlake by utilizing their existing downtown transit centers.

This project enabled TCAG to evaluate a range of new public transit service alternatives that would be able to accommodate future population and economic growth, while being compatible with existing land uses and future development opportunities. By planning for a Corridor transit system well in advance, right-of-way and land needs can be identified and protected now, avoiding costly acquisitions or eminent domain processes later. In 2018, the Final Plan was adopted by TCAG.

The Plan focuses on the development of two components 1) a passenger rail system (“Cross Valley Rail Service”) on a 75-mile segment of the San Joaquin Valley Railroad tracks running between Huron and Porterville with multiple stations along its route, and 2) integrate passenger bus service (“Bus Service”) in the Corridor with the Cross Valley Rail Service and the planned Kings/Tulare Regional HSR station.

The San Joaquins Amtrak passenger rail service runs north and south through the San Joaquin Valley between Bakersfield, Sacramento, and Oakland (“San Joaquins System”) with multiple stations located therein between, together with a thruway bus system throughout the San Joaquins System. Two (2) of the San Joaquins stations are located within the Corridor: downtown Hanford and downtown Corcoran with thruway bus service between Visalia, the Hanford Amtrak station, and the Central Coast. SJJPA expects to truncate the San Joaquins at Merced once the Merced-Bakersfield HSR Interim Service is in service, making Merced its southern terminus and connecting the San Joaquins at Merced to HSR. SJJPA desires to continue to provide connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR station to Hanford, Corcoran, and Visalia, and other Kings/Tulare communities traditionally served by San Joaquins Thruway buses.

The Participants have discussed the potential advantages working together to implement integrated, enhanced local/regional bus service in the Corridor that provides connectivity to the

140 of 151

Page 3 of 6

1535797-1

future Kings/Tulare HSR Station and development and ultimately the operation of the Cross Valley passenger rail service along the San Joaquins System. In addition, the Participants have discussed the possibility of retaining the SJJPA to serve as the operator of the Cross Valley Rail Service. In order to begin the planning process to accomplish these objectives, the Participants desire to enter into this MOU for the purposes of memorializing the understanding of the Participants and establish a framework to negotiate agreements establishing their roles and responsibilities for the successful implementation of the objects contained in this MOU.

RECITALS

A. Whereas, in 2018 TCAG adopted the Plan to develop a rail system and bus service within

the Corridor; and B. Whereas, the implementation of coordinated bus service within the Corridor will connect to

the planned Cross Valley Rail System, and the State’s future HSR System; and C. Whereas, the implementation of the Cross Valley Rail System will provide regional service

over 75 miles of track, connection of multiple communities within the Corridor between Huron and Porterville; and

D. Whereas, the cities of Hanford, and Corcoran have been served by the San Joaquins stations for many years and should be provided good connectivity to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station; and

E. Whereas, the residents within and visiting the Corridor will benefit from the development and implementation of the Plan and additional bus connectivity by providing a coordinated and integrated transit system providing riders with transit options within and outside the Corridor; and

F. Whereas, the Participants desire to work together to develop and implement the objectives in the Plan;

G. Whereas, the Participants are interested and desire to pursue a coordinated implementation strategy to provide improved transit service, connecting the communities within the Corridor with each other, the Cross Valley Rail System, HSR and the San Joaquins; and

H. Whereas, the Participants desire to memorialize in this non-binding MOU their shared understanding for the development of the Plan; and

I. Whereas, the Participants intend to utilize this MOU as the next step in implementing the Plan and expect that this process will be collaborative and iterative; and

J. Whereas, the Participants desire to memorialize in this non-binding MOU their shared commitment to negotiate agreements establishing the roles and responsibilities for the Participants regarding the implementation of the Plan as it develops.

141 of 151

Page 4 of 6

1535797-1

K. Whereas, the Participants are interested in potentially retaining the SJJPA as the Operating Agency of the Rail System due to its experience in its operations of the San Joaquins as well as its managing agency, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, development and operation of the ACE commuter rail service between San Joaquin, Alameda and Santa Clara counties.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTICIPANTS SHARE THE FOLLOWING UNDERSTANDING:

Bus System:

• Further develop coordinated bus service along the Corridor, and helping them run more efficiently to serve three counties (Kings, Tulare, and Fresno). This network includes Huron, NAS Lemoore, Lemoore, Hanford, Farmersville, Exeter, Lindsay, Porterville, Dinuba, Woodlake, and Tulare.

• To continue to provide direct connection to downtown Hanford and downtown Corcoran to intercity passenger rail service once HSR Interim Service begins, SJJPA proposes to request state funds to enable timed bus connections from Corcoran and Hanford to the Kings/Tulare HSR Station, while also increasing bus connectivity between the Kings/Tulare HSR Station and Visalia.

• SJJPA intends to partner with the following existing local/regional transit operators: KCAPTA, Visalia Transit, and Tulare County Regional Transit Agency regarding feeder bus service to Hanford, Corcoran, and Visalia. SJJPA intends to request state funds to contribute to a larger, more frequent, and coordinated bus service that will coincide with the opening of Merced-Bakersfield HSR Interim Service. This partnership to enhance bus service will be key towards the implementation of Phase 1 of 2018 TCAG Cross-Valley Corridor Plan.

• SJJPA intends to work with KCAPTA and Visalia Transit to request state funding as part of the San Joaquins Thruway bus network to enhance local/regional bus service between Visalia and Hanford to improve connectivity to the existing San Joaquins service until the Merced-Bakersfield HSR Interim Service begins operations.

• Additional more detailed agreements will be needed. Parties agree to work together towards achieving common agreed upon goals.

Cross Valley Rail System:

• The Cross-Valley Rail System is a 75-mile existing rail corridor between Huron and Porterville in Kings and Tulare Counties which would connect downtown Hanford, downtown Visalia, and other Kings/Tulare cities to the future Kings/Tulare HSR Station. The existing freight rail corridor is active is some segments and abandoned in others.

142 of 151

Page 5 of 6

1535797-1

The majority of the corridor is currently owned and operated by the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVRR) and existing track conditions are not suitable for passenger rail operations.

• KCAG completed a Cross Valley Passenger Rail feasibility study back in 1997 and again in 2015.

• TCAG completed the “Cross Valley Corridor Plan” in March 2018.

• Cross Valley Passenger Rail is supported in the General Plans of Tulare County and Kings County and is included in the 2018 State Rail Plan.

• SJJPA would work in partnership with TCAG and KCAG to plan, secure funding, and implement Cross-Valley Rail.

o Phase 1 is to secure environmental clearance and right-of-way protection, negotiate with freight railroads, conduct site selection and begin transit stations in communities without existing transit centers.

o Phase 2 is to implement passenger rail service between Lemoore and Visalia (with stations at Hanford and Kings/Tulare HSR Station).

o Phase 3 is to extend passenger rail service to Huron and Porterville with additional intermediate stations at NAS Lemoore, Farmersville, Exeter, and Lindsey.

• SJJPA may be identified as the Operating Agency for Cross Valley Rail.

• Additional more detailed agreements will be needed. Parties agree to work together towards achieving common agreed upon goals.

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS The respective contact points for communication and information exchange, as well as any notice required to be submitted under this MOU are:

• Dan Leavitt, Manager of Regional Initiatives, SJJPA • Ted Smalley, Executive Director, TCAG • Richard Tree, Executive Director, Tulare County Regional Transit Agency • Terri King, Executive Director, KCAG • Angie Dow, Executive Director, KCAPTA • Angelina Soper, Transit Manager, Visalia Transit

NON-BINDING MOU

143 of 151

Page 6 of 6

1535797-1

a. This MOU is a non-binding, voluntary initiative and does not create any legally binding rights, limitations or obligations upon the Participants. This MOU does not purport to include all provisions relative to the structure or terms of the proposed transaction or definitive documents. Rather, the Participants agree that any binding commitments in future will be memorialized in agreements as they are negotiated. Each party shall bear its own costs related to this effort unless otherwise agreed to in writing.

b. Should the Participants reach an impasse in the collaborative effort anticipated by this MOU, the contact points (identified above) will make an expeditious and good faith effort at working together to resolve the impasse. Should that effort be unsuccessful, the Participants agree to elevate the outstanding issues to their respective governing body who will then make an expeditious and good faith effort at working together to resolve the impasse.

c. This MOU is not intended to amend or impact in any way other existing written agreements or MOUs that Participants may have entered pertaining to SJJPA, ACE or the Valley Link project, in general.

d. This MOU is effective from the date of its last signature and shall remain in effect until another MOU or agreement is executed between the Participants, or one Participant withdraws from the MOU, whichever is earlier.

e. The Participants may, at any time, withdraw from this MOU by providing a written notice to the other Participant.

f. This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile, pdf., or electronic/computer-image signatures will be treated as originals.

(Signature Lines to be inserted)

144 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 11 INFORMATION

San Joaquins Service Update San Joaquins Ridership and Revenue

Though the San Joaquins had been steadily recovering in ridership and revenue at the end of FY20, the implementation of increased travel restrictions and proactive instruction from health experts for Californians to not travel for the holidays resulted in the San Joaquins ridership and revenue taking a negative turn from recovery in the months of November and December. With COVID-19 cases slowly subsiding and health authority restrictions loosening, January - June returned ridership and revenue to a positive recovery trend. The table below shows San Joaquins’ ridership and revenue for FY21 compared to FY19. Comparing the current fiscal year to FY19 is more appropriate to determine actual ridership and recovery trends, since FY20 numbers were severely impacted by the pandemic.

San Joaquins Ridership and Revenue (Year Over Year FY21 vs. FY19)

Month Ridership Ticket Revenue

FY21 FY19 % change FY21 FY19 % change

Oct 30,639 84,802 -64% $950,444 $2,480,787 -62% Nov 28,796 101,070 -72% $1,016,156 $3,253,885 -69% Dec 23,363 93,180 -75% $837,133 $2,949,028 -72% Jan 22,401 76,154 -71% $708,912 $2,312,775 -69% Feb 23,656 70,735 -67% $766,333 $2,072,049 -63% Mar 32,429 91,820 -65% $987,390 $2,658,760 -63% Apr 36,464 95,631 -62% $1,174,510 $2,712,873 -57% May 41,533 95,569 -56% $1,351,489 $2,788,542 -51% June 46,490 93,739 -50% $1,492,376 $2,737,033 -45% Total 285,771 802,700 -64% $9,284,744 $23,965,732 -61%

145 of 151

The San Joaquins month over month FY21 ridership trend has been positive. As California continues to recover from the pandemic, the San Joaquins have shown a relatively durable ridership with the ability to return riders relatively quickly.

FY21 San Joaquins Ridership Trend by Day

36%

28%25%

29%33% 35%

38%43%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21

FY21 San Joaquins Ridership Trend by Month(Months Against FY19)

146 of 151

When compared the other California Routes, the San Joaquins is performing well. Ridership has recovered to 50% pre-pandemic levels. The San Joaquins are second the Pacific Surfliner in ridership quantity, but the San Joaquins have led throughout the pandemic in ridership recovery. From an efficiency of service perspective, Pacific Surfliner carried on average 147 passengers per train, San Joaquins 131 passengers per train, and Capitol Corridor 55 passengers per train for this federal fiscal year.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

California Routes Ridership OCT 2020 - JUN 2021

Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquins

-100.0

-80.0

-60.0

-40.0

-20.0

0.0

+20.0

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE

California Routes Ridership by % Year of Year OCT 2020 - JUN 2021(FY21 vs FY19)

Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquins

147 of 151

On-Time Performance (OTP):

San Joaquins On-Time Performance (OTP) for FY21 Q1 (Oct – Jun) held steady in the low to high 80s and has significantly improved in performance over the previous year. The reduced service levels and reduced freight levels are contributing to a significant increase in performance. For the recent months, the year of year comparison is less favorable due to significantly low freight volumes at the beginning of the pandemic.

San Joaquins End Point On-Time Performance (OTP) is a measure that reflects the performance of trains arriving to the end terminus station with the allowance of a 15-minute recovery period. Looking at the three California Routes, the San Joaquins End-Point OTP is comparable to the other services.

End-Point OTP (Oct – Jun)

Service FY21 FY20 San Joaquins 85.1% 81.3%

Capitol Corridor 90.4% 88.3% Pacific Surfliner 87.0% 84.0%

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact.

Recommendation:

This is an informational item. There is no action requested.

65% 69%78% 82%

76%84%

89%95%

87%82% 83% 82%94% 91%

80%87% 85% 82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

End Point OTP Performance(Oct - Apr FY20 vsv FY21)

FY20 FY21

148 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 12 INFORMATION

Station LOVE Program Update – Emeryville Station

Background:

“Station Love” is an internal program of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA). The Station Love Program divides the San Joaquins stations amongst agency staff to provide oversight, better communication, accountability, and a conduit of station related projects. The overall goal of this engagement is to improve passenger experience and community engagement. SJJPA staff are performing station visits on a quarterly schedule keeping “station matrix sheets” updated with near-term and long-term station needs. Station matrix sheets include station contact information, transit connectivity, entity responsible for platform, station and parking facilities, station amenities information, and County, City and transit partners contact information. Conducting station visits provides a communication conduit between Amtrak station staff and the SJJPA staff. As Station LOVE visits are performed, the Station LOVE administrator will gather station findings and coordinate a quarterly meeting to discuss findings. SJJPA staff will work in collaboration with Amtrak Engineering to program improvement projects as funding is available. The Implementation of the Station LOVE program has enabled staff to communicate and build relationships with station city and county stakeholders on a consistent basis providing service and station updates. SJJPA staff will continue to explore innovative programs and best practices to improve passenger experience and community engagement throughout the San Joaquins Corridor. Staff will provide program updates at each Board meeting and will spotlight a different station. At the July 23, 2021, SJJPA Board meeting, staff will be spotlighting the Emeryville Station (EMY). Emeryville is located between Berkeley and Oakland and is the closest Amtrak Train Station to San Francisco. Connecting Thruway bus service is available to travel hot spots and transfer hubs in downtown. With trains bound for the Bay Area, connecting Thruway bus service assists with the last mile into San Francisco from the Emeryville station. The Thruway bus loading area was moved on March 29, 2021 from the entrance of the station to the parking structure next to the station to better accommodate time efficiency and passenger experience. This new Thruway bus location consists of three (3) Thruway bus parking spaces located on the

149 of 151

ground floor of the parking structure, making it easier for passengers to transition from the train to their connecting Thruway bus. The station has two (2) platforms, one (1) parking garage with same-day and overnight parking available. The station and the grounds are kept clean and are inviting with lush greenery and landscaping.

As part of the Station LOVE effort, SJJPA has been working in coordination with Amtrak staff to identify needs and opportunities, including but not limited passenger concerns, safety and amenity input and overall improved responsiveness to service improvements. Larger projects affecting the Emeryville station include the roof and gutter upgrade, replacement of lobby floors, upgraded lighting, upgraded vendor space for the café in the station lobby and new paint throughout the station. Additional minor improvements include updating the signage around the station regarding parking and security measurements, and monthly power washing. Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact.

Recommendation:

This is an informational item. There is no action requested.

150 of 151

SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of July 23, 2021

STAFF REPORT

Item 13 INFORMATION Executive Director’s Report Executive Director, Ms. Stacey Mortensen will provide the Executive Director’s Report.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact.

Recommendation:

This is an informational item. There is no action requested.

151 of 151