Cover Letter for Supplemental Mailing...CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE FY 2016-17 – FY 2017-18 BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE FINAL DRAFT -I -IN FY 2016-17 AND FY 2017-18 THE CCJPA WILL BUILD UPON

CAPITOL CORRIDOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE FY 2016-17 – FY 2017-18

FEBRUARY 2016 FINAL DRAFT

PREPARED BY

CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

PREPARED FOR CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ I 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 2. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE ........................................................................... 2 3. OPERATING PLAN AND STRATEGIES ............................................................................................. 2

Train Service and Expansions ...............................................................................................................................3 Motorcoach Service and Transit Connections .......................................................................................................3 FY 2015-16 Operating Plan ...................................................................................................................................3 FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Operating Plan.........................................................................................................4

4. SHORT- AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................. 4 Programmed and Current Capital Improvements ..................................................................................................7 Out-Year Capital Improvement Program ................................................................................................................8 Specific Capital Improvement Program Discussion ...............................................................................................8

5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND ACTION PLAN .................................................................... 10 FY 2014-15 Performance Standards and Results .............................................................................................. 11 FY 2015-16 Performance Standards and Results to Date .................................................................................. 12 FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Performance Standards ....................................................................................... 12 FY 2015-16 Action Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 12 FY 2017-18 Action Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 14

6. ESTABLISHMENT OF FARES ........................................................................................................... 14 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 FY 2016-17 Fares ............................................................................................................................................... 14

7. SERVICE AMENITIES, FOOD SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT........................................................ 15 Service Amenities ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Equipment Acquisition, Maintenance, and Renovation ....................................................................................... 16

8. MARKETING STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................ 17 FY 2016-17 Marketing Program .......................................................................................................................... 18 FY 2017-18 Marketing Program .......................................................................................................................... 19

9. ANNUAL FUNDING REQUIREMENT: COSTS AND RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS ........................ 19 FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Operating Costs ................................................................................................... 19 FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Marketing Expenses ............................................................................................. 20 FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................... 21 FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Total Budget ......................................................................................................... 21

10. SEPARATION OF FUNDING ............................................................................................................ 21 11. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER SERVICE EXPANSIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS ...................... 21

State Rail Plan and Northern California HST Blended Service........................................................................... 21 Rail Service Expansion Planning ........................................................................................................................ 22

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................... 24 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................................... 25 APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................................................... 27

CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE FY 2016-17 – FY 2017-18 BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE FINAL DRAFT

- I -

IN FY 2016-17 AND FY

2017-18 THE CCJPA WILL

BUILD UPON RECORD

SERVICE PERFORMANCE IN

FY 2015-16 AND FOCUS

ON SERVICE EXPANSION

STEPS FOR THE PLACER

COUNTY AND SILICON

VALLEY MARKETS.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction. This Business Plan Update presents an overview of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority’s (CCJPA) strategic plan and funding request for the next two fiscal years (FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18), to be submitted to the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) in April 2016. It also outlines the service and capital improvements that have contributed to the Capitol Corridor’s success, identifies needed improvements to sustain its growth, and incorporates customer input as detailed in Chapter 263 of California State Law. As administrator of the service, the CCJPA’s primary focus is the continuous improvement of the Capitol Corridor® train service by effective cost management, gaining share in the travel market, and delivering a customer-focused, safe, frequent, reliable, and green transportation alternative to the congested I-80, I-680, and I-880 highway corridors. The CCJPA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of 16 elected

officials from six member agencies along the 170-mile Capitol Corridor® route (see Figure 1-1):

• Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) • Solano Transportation Authority (STA) • Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD) • Sacramento Regional Transit District (Sac RT) • San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

History. The Capitol Corridor service began in December 1991 with six daily trains between San Jose and Sacramento. The CCJPA assumed management

responsibility for the service in October 1998. Since then, it has grown into the third busiest intercity passenger rail service in the nation. In August 2006, the CCJPA expanded service by 33% from 24 to 32 weekday trains between Sacramento and Oakland, and 14 daily trains continuing on to San Jose. In August 2012 the CCJPA was able to utilize the reconfigured Sacramento station to optimize operational cost effectiveness and reduced service to 30 daily round trips between Sacramento and Oakland (freeing up the two allotted track capacity slots to the sister San Joaquin IPR service). Operating Plan. The service levels introduced in 2012 for weekday and weekend service, with slight modifications, have proven a success since it was introduced and for FY 2016-17 the CCJPA will maintain this successful operating plan. During the past year (FY 2015-16) the CCJPA worked with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak®) to ensure that eTicketing via the Amtrak website and on smartphones was available all ticket types, not just single ride tickets. The success of eTicketing has been two-fold: increased percentage of sales via digital channels (website, mobile devices) and an excellent and accurate source of data (station ridership, delay reporting (location, type), and train passenger loadings). The basic operating costs for the Capitol Corridor conform with Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 (PRIIA). This policy was used to develop the costs for the FY 2016-17 CCJPA/Amtrak operating agreement and subsequent future CCJPA/Amtrak operating agreements. Based on initial forecasts, the FY 2016-17 budget is projected to decrease by $227,000 due to the combination of continued lower diesel fuel prices, a reduction in station staffing costs due to the increasing popularity of e-ticketing sales and increased revenues (from projected moderate ridership growth) that offset increased labor costs and higher insurance premiums. These forecasts are preliminary and will be updated by Amtrak in late March 2016.

Performance Standards. CCJPA’s Vision Plan Update (adopted in 2014) establishes Capitol Corridor’s prevailing ridership goals, system operating ratio and on-time performance (OTP) standards

Capitol Corridor Service FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Sacramento – Oakland 30 weekday trains (22 weekend) 30 weekday trains (22 weekend) Oakland – San Jose 14 daily trains 14 daily trains Sacramento – Roseville 2 daily trains (with plans for up to 20) 2 daily trains (with plans for up to 20) Roseville – Auburn 2 daily trains 2 daily trains Total Budget (Operations, Marketing & Administration)

$35,762,000 $36,568,000

Change vs. FY 2015-16 Budget -$227,000 [-0.6%] +$579,000 [+1.6%]


- II -

THE CCJPA IS ACTIVE IN

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM

IN CALIFORNIA IN

REVIEWING DRAFT

GUIDANCE AND

SUPPORTING AIR QUALITY

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

FOR THE PROGRAM.

and strengthened partnerships with the service operators: Amtrak and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Performance highlights include: • Ridership was up 3.9% from the prior year in FY 2014-15; to date, FY 2015-16 ridership is up 3%

from the prior year (through December 2015). • Revenue was up 3.7% with the prior year in FY 2014-15; to date, FY 2015-16 revenue is 4% from the

prior year (through December 2015). • System operating ratio (a.k.a. farebox return) was 52% in FY 2014-15; to date the FY 2015-16

operating ratio is 53% (through December 2015). • End-Point OTP was 93% in FY 2014-15, the best OTP in the Amtrak system for the sixth year in a

row; to date (December 2015) OTP is at 94%. The table below summarizes the standards and results for FY 2014-15 and the results and updated standards for FY 2015-16 for the next two fiscal years (see Appendix C):

FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Performance Standard Actual Standard % Change Actual Standard %

Change Standard Standard

Usage Route Ridership 1,474,873

1,408,600

(through 2/15)

4.7% 502,687 (through 1/16)

482,880 (through 1/16)

3.7% 1,534,000 1,565,000

Passenger Miles 98,943,004 95,384,000 3.7% 25,994,826 (through 12/15)

24,563,800 (through 12/15)

6.0% 102,901,000 104,980,000

Efficiency System Operating Ratio (train and feeder bus)

52%

47%

11.4% 54% (through 1/16)

50%

8.6% 49% 49%

Total Operating Cost/Passenger-Mile

$0.58 $0.63 -7.9% $0.55 (through 12/15)

$0.64 (through 12/15)

-14.1% $0.63 $0.63

Service Quality End-Point On-Time Performance

93%

90%

3.4% 95% (through 1/16)

90%

5.6% 90% 90%

Stations On-Time Performance

95% 90% 5.5% 95% (through 12/15)

90% 4.9% 90% 90%

Operator Delays/10K Miles 481

<325 +48.0% 365 (through 12/15)

<325 12.3% <325 <325

Capital Improvement Program. The CCJPA’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is consistent with regional and State of California transportation plans (e.g. Regional Transportation Plans, [RTPs] and Caltrans’ Statewide Rail Plan). The CIP includes projects aimed to increase reliability and capacity, build or renovate stations, add rolling stock, reduce travel times and enhance safety and security.

For FY 2016-17, the CCJPA will continue installing at-station bicycle access improvements to support the ever-growing sector of Capitol Corridor riders accessing the trains with their bikes and continuing its Capitalized Maintenance program with UPRR to maintain the superior OTP and reduce travel times for the Capitol Corridor trains. With environmental documentation for service expansion of up to ten round trips to Roseville cleared, the project is proceeding to final design. Expansion of service to San Jose will require an inclusive partnership with Bay Area agencies to address the complexities of the numerous rail routes along the East Bay for freight and passenger services. Concurrently, the CCJPA will continue working with state and federal transportation agencies to assemble funding sources for the construction of these service expansions.

Marketing Strategies. The CCJPA’s marketing strategies for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 will continue to target markets and increase ridership where seating capacity is available by raising awareness of destinations, transit connections, and amenities. Another objective is to enhance customer service and travel information using enhanced communications. Action Plan. Working with its service partners, the CCJPA was able to achieve record performance results for the Capitol Corridor in FY 2014-15 and, as set forth in this business plan update, will focus on delivering a superior, safe, frequent, reliable, and customer-focused service plan for the Capitol Corridor trains while also setting the stage for implementing service expansions, meeting or exceeding near-term budget projections, and implementing promotional programs and campaigns to maintain the Capitol Corridor as the preferred transport alternative in Northern California Megaregion.


- 1 -

THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR IS

UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO

PROVIDE A SUSTAINABLE

TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

CONNECTING THE THREE

ECONOMIC EMPLOYMENT

CENTERS IN NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA –

SACRAMENTO/CAPITAL, SAN

FRANCISCO/OAKLAND, AND

SAN JOSE/SILICON VALLEY.

1. INTRODUCTION This Business Plan Update modifies the CCJPA’s report submitted to the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) every April. This Business Plan Update identifies the service and capital improvements that have contributed to the Capitol Corridor’s success during the past 15 years. It also incorporates customer input detailed in Chapter 263 of State Law that allowed for the transfer of the

Capitol Corridor service to the CCJPA on July 1, 1998. As part of that transfer, the CCJPA is required to prepare an annual Business Plan that identifies the current fiscal year’s operating and marketing strategies; capital improvement plans for the Capitol Corridor; and the funding request to the Secretary of CalSTA for the CCJPA’s operating, administrative, and marketing costs for inclusion in the State Budget proposal to the Legislature. For FY 2016-17, CCJPA will initially continue the operation of the schedule introduced in August 2012 made feasible at the Sacramento Valley Station by relocation of the passenger platforms and corresponding increased layover storage facilities. The service levels for FY 16-17 will remain the same as what is provided today: 30 trains during the weekdays between Sacramento and Oakland (22 weekend trains); 14 daily trains between Oakland Jack London Square and San Jose and 2

daily trains between Sacramento and Auburn. The CCJPA is evaluating various service optimization plans to drive down operating costs and/or increase ridership/revenues.

• Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) • Solano Transportation Authority (STA) • Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD) • Sacramento Regional Transit District (Sac RT) • San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

The CCJPA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of 16 elected officials from six member agencies along the 170-mile Capitol Corridor rail route (see Figure 1-1): As administrator for the Capitol Corridor, the CCJPA’s responsibilities include overseeing day-to-day train and motorcoach scheduling and operations; reinvesting operating efficiencies into service enhancements; overseeing Amtrak’s deployment and maintenance of rolling stock for the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains; and interfacing with Amtrak and the UPRR on dispatching, engineering, and other railroad-related issues. The Capitol Corridor serves 17 train stations along the 170-mile rail corridor connecting Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco (via motorcoach), and Santa Clara counties. The train service parallels the I-80/I-680 highway corridor between Sacramento and Oakland, and I-880 between Oakland and San Jose. In addition, the Capitol Corridor connects outlying communities to the train service via a dedicated motorcoach bus network and partnerships with local transit agencies that assist passengers traveling to destinations beyond the train station. Capitol Corridor services are developed with input from riders, private sector stakeholders (such as Chambers of Commerce), and public sector interests (such as local transportation agencies), along with the entities that help deliver the Capitol Corridor service – Amtrak, UPRR, Caltrans, and the various agencies and communities that are along the Capitol Corridor. Implementation Plan and Vision Communications Plan. The CCJPA Board has established a CCJPA Board Ad Hoc Vision Plan Subcommittee which helped guide the 2014 Vision Plan Update. This Vision Plan Update has significant focus on the long-term evolution of the Capitol Corridor service and includes two additional plan elements, a Vision Implementation Plan (VIP) and Vision Communications Plan (VCP). CCJPA commenced the VIP in 2015 which will continue in to 2016. The VCP will commence after the VIP is further advanced.


- 2 -

2. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE On December 12, 1991, the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Amtrak initiated the Capitol Corridor intercity train service with six daily trains between San Jose and Sacramento. In 1996, legislation was enacted to establish the CCJPA, a partnership among six local transportation agencies sharing in the administration and management of the Capitol Corridor intercity train service. In July 1998, an Interagency Transfer Agreement (ITA) transferred the operation of the Capitol Corridor service to the CCJPA for an initial three-year term. The CCJPA now operates and manages the Capitol Corridor service through an operating agreement with Amtrak. In July 2001, the ITA was extended for another three-year term through June 2004. In September 2003, legislation was enacted that eliminated the sunset date in the ITA and established the current, permanent governance structure for the CCJPA. Appendix A presents an overview of the financial performance and ridership growth of the Capitol Corridor service since its inception in December 1991. 3. OPERATING PLAN AND STRATEGIES The CCJPA aims to meet the travel and transportation needs of Northern Californians by providing safe, frequent, reliable, and environmentally-friendly Capitol Corridor intercity train service.

Figure 1-1

Map of Capitol Corridor Service Area


- 3 -

SERVICE EXPANSIONS, CORRESPONDING TRACK

CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS

AND TRAIN EQUIPMENT

ACQUISITIONS HAVE

ENABLED THE CAPITOL

CORRIDOR TO INCREASE

MARKET SHARE AND SUSTAIN

SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN

RIDERSHIP (+265%) AND

REVENUES (+370%) DURING

THE PAST 17 YEARS.

Train Service and Expansions In response to growing demand, the CCJPA expanded service in October 2002, January 2003, and April 2003 to achieve a schedule of 24 weekday trains between Sacramento and Oakland, using the same State budget allocated for 18 daily trains. In August 2006, with another flat budget allocation, the CCJPA increased service to 32 weekday (22 weekend day) trains between Sacramento and Oakland, and 14 daily trains between Oakland and San Jose. This 33% expansion was made possible with the completion of Phase 1 of the Oakland-to-San Jose track improvements (completed in 2006) and the Yolo Causeway second main track (completed in 2004). Together, these projects contributed to a 10-minute reduction in travel time between Sacramento and Oakland, in addition to more frequent service. The success of the August 2006 service expansion has highlighted the need to increase service frequencies to San Jose/Silicon Valley and Placer County. Expanding this hourly train service to and from San Jose and Placer County will require additional rolling stock and further track capacity improvements (see Section 4). Absent these expansions, the sole means to increase ridership is through (1) further optimizations of the service plan/train schedule and (2) securing additional rolling stock that will increase seating capacity by adding more rail cars to the existing scheduled trains.

The benefits of these service expansions, service optimization adjustments, corresponding track capacity improvements and train equipment acquisitions have enabled the Capitol Corridor to increase market share and sustain significant growth in ridership (+265%) and revenues (+370%) during the past 17 years. These expansions have propelled and solidified Capitol Corridor’s status as the third busiest route in the Amtrak national system. Future service expansions to Roseville and San Jose, which are in various stages of development, show promise of additional ridership and revenue when these expansions are constructed and implemented in future years. Motorcoach Service and Transit Connections To supplement train service, the Capitol Corridor provides dedicated motorcoach bus connections to San Francisco and communities along the

Central Coast region south of San Jose (Salinas, San Luis Obispo) and east of Sacramento (South Lake Tahoe, CA and Reno, NV). In addition, the CCJPA partners with local transit agencies to offer expanded options for transit connections throughout the corridor. Currently, the train service connects with the BART system at the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations; Caltrain service (Gilroy – San Jose – San Francisco) at the San Jose-Diridon and Santa Clara/University stations; the Altamont Commuter Express service (Stockton – Livermore – San Jose) at the Fremont/Centerville, Great America/Santa Clara, and San Jose Diridon stations; San Joaquin intercity trains at the Oakland Jack London, Emeryville, Richmond, Martinez and Sacramento stations; VTA light rail at Great America and San Jose Diridon stations; and Sacramento RT light rail at Sacramento Station. Together with these local transit systems, the Capitol Corridor covers the second-largest urban service area in the Western United States. The CCJPA offers several programs to enhance transit connectivity. BART tickets are sold at a 20% discount onboard the Capitol Corridor trains to facilitate transfers to BART at the Richmond and Oakland Coliseum stations. The Transit Transfer Program allows Capitol Corridor passengers to transfer free of charge to participating local transit services, including AC Transit, Sacramento RT, Rio Vista Delta Breeze, E-Tran (Elk Grove), Yolobus, Unitrans, County Connection (Martinez), Santa Clara VTA, Fairfield and Suisun Transit, Benicia Breeze, and WestCAT. The CCJPA reimburses the transit agencies for each transfer collected as part of our operating expenses. There is also a joint ticketing arrangement with Placer Commuter Express and Roseville Transit. CCJPA also partners with Santa Cruz Metro and Monterey-Salinas Transit to share operating costs for the benefit of both agencies and their riders. FY 2015-16 Operating Plan The CCJPA’s operating plan for FY 2015-16 is based on the August 13, 2012 timetable schedule which reduced two weekday trains (that allocated capacity on the route was provided to the San Joaquin IPR service). Rationalized service planning in 2012 optimized the performance of the Capitol Corridor, established an efficient mixture of service along with train and crew turns and also addressed limited


- 4 -

THE CCJPA’S USE OF 480-VOLT POWER CABINETS

DURING EQUIPMENT LAYOVER

AT THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY

AND SAN JOSE-DIRIDON

STATIONS HAS RESULTED IN A

2% REDUCTION DIESEL FUEL

CONSUMPTION, REDUCING

EXPENSES AND POLLUTANT

EMISSIONS. THESE SAVINGS

WILL BE FURTHER ENHANCED

WITH THE ADDITION OF A

CABINET AT THE AUBURN

STATION IN SUMMER 2016.

financial (operating and capital) support from the State. This core 2012 service plan continues to be the basis for the current Operating Plan for FY 2015-16:

• Sacramento – Oakland: 30 weekday trains (22 weekend day trains) • Oakland – San Jose: 14 daily trains • Sacramento – Roseville – Auburn: two daily trains

Due to sudden, rising labor costs for San Francisco motorcoach service, CCJPA plans to reduce the service levels in San Francisco and/or increase fares into San Francisco in order the budget. These service changes are expected to occur in Spring/Summer 2016. A majority of the San Francisco bus stops are well-served by local transit such as BART and SF Muni. Discounted BART tickets are offered for sale on board Capitol Corridor, and CCJPA plans to approach SF Muni about joining our Transit Transfer program, to facilitate connections to San Francisco for our passengers. FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Operating Plan FY 2016-17. The CCJPA will maintain an operating plan for FY 2016-17 that will be the same as the current FY 2015-16 Operating Plan. The plan is as follows:

• Sacramento – Oakland: 30 weekday trains (22 weekend day trains) • Oakland – San Jose: 14 daily trains • Sacramento – Roseville – Auburn: two daily trains

While the basis of these operating plans is built on the efficiencies realized from the core 2012 service plan the CCJPA is currently working with Amtrak and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) to explore opportunities to optimize the service delivery plan to reduce operating costs and/or increase ridership/revenues. The CCJPA is also working with local communities that own the train stations served by the Capitol Corridor trains to address station access limitations (e.g., lack of available car parking after certain hours, minimal connecting transit access, lack of secure bicycle parking facilities) that will in turn help to maximize ridership growth. 4. SHORT- AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The CCJPA maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) used to continuously improve the Capitol Corridor’s reliability, travel times, on-time performance, safety/security, but also to expand service frequency in the face of increasingly uncertain sources for capital funding. Since the inception of the Capitol Corridor service, nearly $995 million from a mixture of funding sources has been invested or programmed to purchase rolling stock, build or renovate stations, upgrade track and signal systems for

increased capacity, and construct train maintenance and layover/storage facilities. Most of these investments (approximately $950 million) occurred between the inception of the Capitol Corridor service in 1991 until 2006, a period of more certain capital funding sources on the state side. In contrast to those first fifteen or so years, over the last ten years the CCJPA has only received $49 million in capital funding to invest in the route. The pace of capital investment can be directly tracked to the shift from more stable longer-term funding sources (State Transportation Improvement Program or STIP) to funding sources that are ad-hoc in nature (bonding programs, legislatively-capped programs) that can variously require extensive preparation of competitive grants and review by state authorities for award. Due to a variety of external pressures, total STIP funding has declined significantly over time. In 2002, over $7 billion was available to be programmed for new transportation projects over the following five years. In 2012, only half that amount, or roughly $3.5 billion, was available to program

new projects in the five years following California Transportation Commission adoption of the plan. The ITIP is an intercity portion of the overall STIP and the partition of the STIP usable by the CCJPA as the manager of the Capitol Corridor IPR service. Because it is determined by statutory formula, the amount available for ITIP funding has decreased proportionally over that time. For CCJPA, the dwindling ITIP


- 5 -

program has primarily consisted of continued support for Capitalized Maintenance ($1 million per year) for another five years (via the 2014 STIP – ITIP portion). These projects include a program of upgrades to replace track and signal components that will continue to ensure high on-time performance for the Capitol Corridor trains – vitally important to the Capitol Corridor service. With the diminishing capacity of the STIP, capital funding alternatives such as bond and grant programs now come to the forefront of CCJPA’s CIP perspective. Proposition 1B bonds have been responsible for a series of station, service amenity, and track infrastructure improvements over the last decade. Proposition 1A bond funds are intended to support high-speed connected capital infrastructure projects but Capitol Corridor’s share has yet to be expended. The programmed Proposition 1A funds Capitol Corridor intends to use are but matching sources for larger and more capital funding intensive projects. Thus, pairing Proposition 1A funds becomes effective only if paired with competitive grant programs or other related bond sources – STIP funds are not abundant enough in the future to be that stable source of large scale capital funding. To date, in the grant award area CCJPA is able to share some highlights. These include a set of small state allocations and successful regional grant awards being used to support the demand for at-station bicycle facilities such as eLockers and folding bicycle rental kiosks at select stations. However, the brightest spot for CCJPA in the grant area was an award of funding from the Cap and Trade program for a travel time-savings project which would result in a ten-minute travel time reduction (and also benefit the Altamont Corridor Express commuter rail service). Transformative service frequency projects, like those done in the 1998-2006 period, require significant and (usually) stable capital funding – precisely what is lacking at this time. CCJPA is working to increase service frequencies on the two ends of its existing service corridor: Roseville and San Jose/Silicon Valley.

- Sacramento and Roseville 3rd Track Project: CCJPA expended $3.53 million of state funding to complete initial design and environmentally clear a third mainline track between Sacramento and Roseville (called the Sacramento to Roseville 3rd Track Project), which would allow for the increase from two daily trains to up to twenty daily trains. This project is poised to move into the construction phase once sufficient funding (estimated cost is $275 million) is assembled. Currently, identification of stable funding sources has not yet emerged nor has any phased implementation plan using incremental capital funding been established as of this writing. At present, just short of $19 million is assembled in programmed funding including some Proposition 1A funding. Several options to proceed include seeking one time or multi-year grants for the project via Cap and Trade (Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program) funds and via federal FAST Act funding sources, assuming proposed authorization levels for FY 2017 – FY 2020 are included subsequent federal appropriations.

- Oakland-San Jose Phase 2 Project: Service expansion between Oakland and San Jose from the

current 14 to 22 daily trains (and setting the stage for service extension to Salinas) has been an objective of the CCJPA Board for years but has proven a difficult objective to achieve with the ownership, freight growth preservation, and passenger rail expansion objectives of not only the CCJPA but also the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter rail service, Caltrain and the planned high speed train service into San Jose/San Francisco. These complexities exacerbate the already complicated funding picture. Ongoing discussions with the various agencies and the host railroad (UPRR) have not yet yielded results acceptable to all parties.

However, in preparation of eventual and anticipated track work required in the Oakland to San Jose territory, the CCJPA is presently using state funding programmed and allocated ($3.35 million) several years ago to support engineering design and environmental documentation for a limited set of sub-projects south of Newark and in the Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon area. These sections of track improvements once designed and environmentally cleared will be useful advances for CCJPA’s objective of more service to/from San Jose that will complement and supplement any capital improvement package agreed to the interested parties. While these sub-projects are advanced, the CCJPA and a variety of other state and Bay Area partners will continue to negotiate with the UPRR for an effective and balanced solution toward passenger rail and freight goods movement in the Bay Area.


- 6 -

THE CCJPA WAS ACTIVE IN

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

INAUGURAL RAIL TITLE IN

THE RECENT 5-YEAR

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORIZATION, FIXING

AMERICA’S SURFACE

TRANSPORTATION (FAST)

ACT OF 2015, WHICH

IDENTIFIES OVER $2 BILLION

FOR CAPITAL GRANTS TO

STATE INTERCITY PASSENGER

RAIL PROGRAMS.

At the state level, the Cap and Trade auction revenues are aimed at being allocated toward various eligible transformative greenhouse gas (GHG) reducing projects which also may provide localized air quality benefits to various designated disadvantaged communities throughout California. Notably the Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) is best oriented towards CCJPA’s capital project objectives. CCJPA was successful in the initial 2014-15 program with the Capitol Corridor Travel Time Savings Project discussed above being awarded from the initial awards TIRCP projects. Future funding rounds of TIRCP are being developed at this time and with recently enacted legislation (SB9, Beall) which would allow for multi-year allocations for longer-term projects, the TIRCP program appears to be most promising for funding CCJPA’s capital projects that align with the state’s TIRCP objectives. If CCJPA were awarded a multi-year grant, this would provide funding stability akin to the role the STIP program played in the key service frequency objectives that CCJPA successfully implemented in the past.

As with the state capital funding picture, the federal picture is evolving and appears promising for federal investment in state intercity passenger rail for the first time ever. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 report was prepared for Congress in November 2015 and was approved by Congress (the House of Representatives and Senate) on December 3, 2015. President Obama signed the bill into law the next day, December 4, 2015. The FAST Act, the first multi-year surface transportation authorization in over 10 years, provides up to $305B over five years for the nation's highway network, transit and commuter rail services, Amtrak, and – for the first time ever – state-supported intercity passenger rail services. The bill is the first time state IPR services are now part of a truly multi-modal federal surface transportation program and can pursue federal funds with matching state/regional/local funds to help continue the success and the growth of these passenger train services.

Of the $305B, the Rail Title authorizes approximately $10.4B for Amtrak, state-supported IPR services, and freight and other rail related programs. Key passenger rail-related accounts in the FAST Act are:

- Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRI & SI): The US DOT will seek projects from eligible applicants for competitive grants to finance improvements to passenger and freight rail services in terms of safety, efficiency, or reliability. PTC and other technology items and rail line relocation are also eligible for funding. $1.103B over five years; a 50% match is required.

- State Of Good Repair (SOGR): The US DOT shall develop a program that will allow for grants

to eligible applicants, on a competitive basis, to finance capital projects that reduce the state of good repair backlog with respect to qualified railroad assets. $0.997B over 5 years; 20% match is required.

- State Supported Route Commission (SSRC): The SSRC is authorized at $10M ($2M per year for

five years) and established by the US DOT Secretary of Transportation to coordinate planning of trains operated by Amtrak on state-supported routes so as to further implement Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Members include US DOT (likely FRA), Amtrak, and state intercity passenger rail agencies. (Note: The current State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC) closely resembles the SSRC as described in the FAST Act.)

For all the effort put forth by the CCJPA and other state intercity passenger rail agencies to be included in the 5- year FAST Act (FY 2016 – FY 2020), the FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill did not include the $200 million authorized under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRI & SI) and State Of Good Repair (SOGR) sections of the FAST Act. The FY 2016 Omnibus budget did include the continuation of the popular TIGER grant program ($500 million), which doles out an average of $10-$20 million per project. TIGER funding was perhaps the only other federal funding source available to the CCJPA for investments in the Capitol Corridor service. For instance, several years ago the City of Sacramento was successful in obtaining some TIGER funding for the Phase 2 rehabilitation of the Sacramento Depot building.


- 7 -

THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR’S

RIDERSHIP GROWTH

BENEFITS THE

ENVIRONMENT BY

REDUCING AIR POLLUTION

AND GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS. IN FY 2014-15

THIS WAS ROUGHLY A NET

REDUCTION OF OVER

2,700 TONS OF REDUCED

CO2 ; EQUIVALENT TO THE

PLANTING OF MORE THAN

13,000 TREES.

While the federal awareness of IPR services is growing as evidenced by the passage of the FAST Act, the outlook for federal transportation funding for any aspect of Capitol Corridor service would not become evident until FY 2017 at the earliest. The Capitol Corridor service described in this business plan and in all business plans since FY 2005-06 is directly a by-product of the state’s prior capital investment. The ridership and revenue results year after year from these investments are well documented. CCJPA’s August 2006 service expansion to San Jose (Oakland-San Jose Phase 1 Project) was made possible by state capital investments from the 1998 to 2002 capital funding era. This was the last period of time when sufficient capital funding was consistently provided to build new service frequency increase (the increase in service between Oakland and San Jose from eight to fourteen daily trains). Since 2008, as discussed above, the flow of capital funding from the state has slowed to a trickle. However, momentum seems to be moving back towards investing in intercity passenger rail services due

to cost-effectiveness, relative expedient project implementation, and ease of integration with rail and transit service providers. This can be seen in the previously noted inclusion of a Rail Title in the FAST Act of 2015 and, most notably, the emergence of California’s Cap and Trade auction revenues as a viable, long-term funding source for state transit and intercity passenger rail services. Taken together, these two programs provide the best capital funding prospect for future Capitol Corridor capital improvement opportunities. Regardless of what transpires for capital funding sources, it has always been CCJPA’s philosophy to maintain a CIP that can serve as a blueprint for the near-term future and advance projects through the design and environmental review phases so as to be shovel-ready when capital investment opportunities become available to the CCJPA. A list of CIP projects that have been completed or are currently underway is included in Appendix B. The CIP is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) adopted by

MTC, SACOG, PCTPA, Caltrans’ 10-Year Statewide Rail Plan and the FRA’s National Rail Plan. Each RTP includes a list of anticipated projects and cost estimates for a 25-year planning horizon. When possible, the CCJPA will share costs and coordinate with other rail and transit services on station and track projects. Programmed and Current Capital Improvements Improvements during FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 do not include any major service frequency improvements due to the nature of available funding (see Table 4-1 for all projects underway, programmed, or planned). CCJPA has been successful at using a relatively small stream of capital funding since 2009 to maintain a track and maintenance program, albeit one that can only be sustained as long as funding is available (the Capitol Corridor is currently in year two of a five year allocation of $1 million per year for this purpose) or shifted to an annual operating source. Without question, this ongoing investment with the UPRR has ensured that the track is maintained in optimal condition and thus been responsible for the exceptional on-time performance since 2009. CCJPA is also combining some of its safety and security funding with funding managed by Caltrans to use the Wi-Fi system to be the communications basis to install an On-Board Passenger Information (OBIS) system which will provide the infrastructure for automated audio and video based on-train announcements (e.g. station arrival information) and service alert messages. OBIS is such a complex logistical project to develop, test, and then install on a fleet in heavy use that CCJPA does not expect to have OBIS before the public until the first cars retrofitted in early to mid-2017. Other current capital programs include safety/security projects implemented with Proposition 1B funding provided by the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) with funding that will expire in FY 2015-16 (but be eligible for expenditure over the next three additional years). Proposition 1B awards support safety and security projects, and CalOES obligates $1.9 million per year for the Capitol Corridor, which is used with specially identified Transit Safety and Security funds. Projects funded in this area include station security cameras, right-of-way security fences, and the fore-mentioned OBIS system. Mentioned already is the ongoing engineering design and environmental documentation processes for the Oakland to San Jose Phase 2 service expansion.


- 8 -

CAPITOL CORRIDOR ENDED FY

2014-15 WITH AN ON-TIME

PERFORMANCE (OTP) OF 93%, THE BEST IN THE AMTRAK

NETWORK, DUE TO A SOLID

TRACK MAINTENANCE

PROGRAM AND DISCIPLINED

DISPATCHING BY UNION

PACIFIC RAILROAD AND

CALTRAIN.

Out-Year Capital Improvement Program Whether maintained as an ongoing capital investment program or subsumed into annual operations there is absolutely no debate that the CCJPA’s most valuable capital investment will be to continue the investment in capitalized track maintenance. This program plays a massive role ensuring that Capitol Corridor service is the top on-time performing intercity passenger rail service in the nation. Ongoing 2014 STIP funding will ensure that capitalized maintenance will receive $1 million annually for five years but beyond that the future is unclear. Ensuring a funding stream for capitalized maintenance will continually be an ongoing CIP top objective. Even in the short-term and extending into the long-term, the picture for capital funding, as discussed above, coupled with ongoing negotiations with UPRR about service capacity increases make discussion of the CIP beyond what is funded today an exercise in speculation. There are, in effect, two categories of capital improvements; those that can be implemented for under $10M and often times much lower, and those that are transformative and likely to be in the $200M or much more category. CCJPA continues to project opportunities for funding for the lower threshold level of projects. These projects are often times aimed at direct fixes, be they for service amenities, such as WiFi, or for station amenities, such as station signage. The truly transformational projects such as added service frequencies to Roseville or San Jose have effectively been off-the-table from a CIP perspective since the funding they require just has never been amassed or been amassable since CCJPA last completed a service frequency increase in 2006. Clearly, these transformational projects will require more deliberation and discussion with the many partners that could realize benefits. Thus, CCJPA’s existing strategy to remain poised to utilize any funding at the state or federal levels should any bond sales, funding, or new programs be announced seems more suitable for the “under $10M” category of CIPA projects. For the larger projects, it is now clear that CCJPA must work with a variety of partners involved in transformational change of which Capitol Corridor is a part of that change. CCJPA’s ability as a funding partner to utilize Cap and Trade proceeds through TIRCP may be the key to realizing not only CCJPA objectives, but those of other agencies whose objectives overlap with CCJPA’s. This transformation into a connected and regional/mega-regional agency must be a focus of the CCJPA if the larger service expansion projects are expected to stand a chance of implementation. Specific Capital Improvement Program Discussion Additional New Cars and Locomotives: Caltrans, owner of 95% of the rolling stock assigned to the Northern California intercity rail fleet, awarded a contract to a builder of new bi-level passenger rail cars in late 2012. The funding is comprised of the federal HSIPR program ($168 million) and $42 million in Prop 1B funds to acquire additional rolling

stock. This added rolling stock will directly benefit CCJPA with the introduction of 10 new passenger cars, and is now expected to arrive in late 2018. In January 2014, the state of Illinois, as lead agency for the Midwest states, California, Oregon, and Washington, recently announced the award of a federally-funded locomotive procurement for the cleanest diesel-electric locomotives in the world, meeting EPA Tier IV emissions requirements. Six (6) of these cleaning-burning Tier IV locomotives, named “Chargers”, will be assigned to Northern California for use in the San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor services and are expected to arrive in mid to late 2016. CCJPA is actively engaged with rail partners around the state and with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to increase the use of renewable fuels as a blend or all-out substitute of the current carbon-based diesel

fuel as soon as possible so that the “well to wheels” GHG emissions of the fuel used to propel the locomotives is significantly reduced. Positive Train Control: Another crucial short-term capital project is implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC). Federal law requires that a PTC system be in place by 2018 after extending past an original December 31, 2015 deadline. Caltrans Division of Rail (as owner of the rail cars and locomotives), working with Amtrak, is (1) completing the installation of the on-board PTC equipment on the cab control cars and locomotives and (2) constructing a remote server that will share the location of various intercity passenger trains


- 9 -

operated by Amtrak (including the three California intercity passenger rail routes) with the dispatching centers of the various host railroads to ensure interoperability between the various PTC systems with the on-board PTC systems of the intercity passenger trains. The UPRR and Caltrain (as railroad owners) have begun to install wayside PTC equipment along their respective railroad tracks.

Extension of Capitol Corridor Trains to Salinas: CCJPA has been engaged with the Transportation Authority for Monterey County (TAMC) to extend two trains to Salinas once service to San Jose reaches 22 weekday trains. TAMC and CCJPA were actively working on a capital, funding, and governance program that can be taken to the respective Boards for approval; however, the viability of the approach CCJPA can take is directly linked to the evolving service expansion approach to/from San Jose. Grade Separations: Grade separations will continue to rank high on the list with both CCJPA and UPRR however there are no concrete plans at this time to pursue additional grade separations other than the Peabody Road separation which is underway at this time associated with the new, now under-construction Fairfield/Vacaville station. Scarce funding opportunities for these important safety and operational improvements have meant that very few communities along the route can effectively marshal the resources to plan for eliminating grade crossings or constructing separations, much less pay for them. It is likely that a strategy for service expansion to/from San Jose will need to include a program of grade separation constructions.

CCJPA Sponsored Projects

Status $ Programmed Funding Sources Project Cost Description/benefits

Sacramento to Roseville Third Main Track Construction (Phase 1A)

Limited construction funding programmed. CEQA approval Nov. 2015; NEPA FONSI poised once CCJPA makes application for federal funding

$18.80 Prop 1A HST, STIP, PCTPA STIP

$275.00 A third main track between Sacramento and Roseville which may be implemented in phases for eventually allowing 10 round trip trains to/from Roseville.

Oakland to San Jose Track Improvements

Limited construction funding programmed. Package of investments for service increase in flux due to ongoing negotiations with UPRR.

$50.85 Prop 1A HST, ACTC funds, and sources TBD.

TBD Service expansion plans in flux due to ongoing negotiations with UPRR, assessment of project benefits, and various fundings sources. Intended project is to supply a higher frequency of service.

Capitalized Maintenance Ph 4

Programmed/Underway $5.00 STIP $5.00 An ongoing track maintenance upgrade and enhancement program to retain high OTP

At-Station Bicycle eLockers and Folding Bicycle Rental

Underway in permitting at stations $0.67 STIP $25K/FY13; $556K/FY14; $90K BAAQMD

$0.67 Program for adding bicycle storage at stations along the route.

On-Board Passenger Information System (PIS) - Wireless Network component

Underway in design $4.00 Prop 1B $22.70 Funds the development and installation of an on-board video/audio information system based on geo-fencing and real time information. CCJPA funding supporting Caltrans Rail Division lead funding.

Travel Time Savings Project Design underway $5.43 California Transit and Intercity Rail Program (TIRCP)

$5.43 Project would improve running times along existing Capitol Corridor route by increasing speed on selected curves. This would take advantage of the enhanced abilities of the California equipment to travel faster on curved track.

Richmond train approach indicator and parking validator

Design underway $2.50 CCRP $2.50 Install a flashing light that will indicate to Capitol Corridor trains when a BART train is approaching, to allow better coordination of passengers transferring from BART to Capitol Corridor. Install a parking validator machine so that Capitol Corridor passengers can pay for parking in the station parking garage.

Auburn Security Cameras, Lighting and Standby Power

Design complete and construction to begin

$1.90 CCRP and Prop. 1B $1.90 Improve safety and security by improving lighting and security cameras at the Auburn station and equipment layover facility. Constuction of a standby power system will allow shutdown of locomotive engines during layover servicing period, saving fuel and reducing emissions.

Auburn Security Cameras, Lighting and Standby Power


$1.90 CCRP and Prop. 1B $1.90 Improve safety and security by improving lighting and security cameras at the Auburn station and equipment layover facility. Constuction of a standby power system will allow shutdown of locomotive engines during layover servicing period, saving fuel and reducing emissions.

Station Safety and Informational signage


$0.70 CCRP and MCIP $0.70 Adopt an improved station information sign system to improve safety messaging and enhance Capitol Corridor branding. Install Capitol Corridor trailblazer signs leading to stations.

$100.73 NON-TBD TOTAL $366.65 Non-CCJPA Sponsored Projects

Status $ Programmed Funding Sources Project Cost Description/benefits

New Rolling Stock A Caltrans led project that is underway

$54.00 Prop 1B ICR, HSIPR(federal funding)

$54.00 Funds the addition of 10 cars and 2 locomotives for use in CCJPA operations

Station Security Camera System Installation


$1.50 Prop. 1B and CCRP $1.50 Install security cameras covering the boarding platforms at four unstaffed stations: Rocklin, Roseville, Suisun and Fremont.

Salinas Service Extension Planning and environmental documentation steps in various stages of development.

$141.00 Extension of Capitol Corridor service to Salinas with an initial 2 round trips with the potential for up to 6 round trips

TBD Not yet approved by the CCJPA Board but being planned and coordinated with CCJPA and TAMC. UPRR modeling results required to determine project costs. Also awaiting outcome of Oakland to San Jose service frequency improvements.

$240.50 NON-TBD TOTAL $196.50 $341.23 NON-TBD TOTAL $563.15

SUBTOTAL: NON- CCJPA SPONSORED PROJECTSTOTAL - ALL PROJECTS

Table 4-1Capital Projects by CCJPA and Others ($ million)

Capitol Corridor

SUBTOTAL: CCJPA SPONSORED PROJECTS


- 10 -

Vision Plan Update and Long-Term Capital Improvements (FY 2024 and beyond): In 2013 the CCJPA Board established an CCJPA Board Ad Hoc Vision Plan Subcommittee (“subcommittee”) with the objective to describe a Capitol Corridor service which would look ahead an entire generation. The larger question asked was what would need to be done to meet the transportation needs of northern California in 2030 and beyond? Over the course of 2014, this subcommittee met several times to shape this longer-term vision for Capitol Corridor service and it resulted in adoption in November 2014 of the first of three Vision Plan documents, the Vision Plan Update. The long-term vision for Capitol Corridor fundamentally involves developing Capitol Corridor service as one where frequency is not capped by existing host railroad agreements and one where higher-speed service (150 mph – electrified service) is permitted. Utilizing experts in engineering and planning, the subcommittee first established the core service objectives (e.g., much greater frequency, higher speed, adapting to sea level rise) and then worked with the resulting high-level engineering analysis to identify route alignment and alignment options. Those investments involve dedicated passenger rail tracks between Sacramento and the Bay Area; inclusion of a replacement higher elevation railroad bridge across the Carquinez Strait; a new alignment from Martinez to Richmond that connects with a higher approach from a replaced railroad bridge; and routing that avoids the exposure to anticipated higher rising tides on the current route. With this core alignment analysis completed, various service schedules were developed based on presumed travel times and transit connections (e.g. connections with BART) and some initial ridership estimates were developed to establish if the resulting ridership utility was a worthwhile pursuit to continue. In short, the CCJPA Board felt that even with very conservative ridership estimates a long-range Vision Plan update should continue to be refined as a key CCJPA planning document for the future. While approving the Vision Plan Update, which outlines the core short and medium term objectives of this business plan along with the long-term vision described above, the CCJPA Board directed CCJPA staff to further develop a Vision Implementation Plan (VIP) and subsequent to that effort, if deemed viable at that point, develop a Vision Communications Plan (VCP) and then, if that proved viable, any of the follow-up processes, such as obtaining funding for initial design, environmental documentation, right-of-way acquisition, and eventually, construction and operations. In the Business Plan submitted last year (FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17) it was mentioned that future business plans will be developed on the basis of the CCJPA’s Vision Plan efforts. This statement could not have been more accurate. The Vision Implementation Plan (VIP) step is underway at this time and has proven to be revealing in CCJPA’s approach to capital programming. The combination of negotiations with UPRR for service expansion to/from San Jose, initial air quality analysis results of prior service expansion objectives, and discussions with both expert consultants and transportation partners in the Bay Area coupled with the VIP process thus far has revealed CCJPA is in the midst of a paradigm shift with respect to capital investment. The VIP was envisioned as a deeper dive into the high level objectives supported when the CCJPA Board adopted the Vision Plan Update document, the first of the three documents. Diving into the VIP has already caused CCJPA staff to look at capital investment and phasing in a new way. While still in process, examination of capital investment from the Oakland to San Jose section has revealed that a more near-term shift away from sharing tracks with a freight partner and towards right-of-way ownership of the rights of ownership with dedicated passenger tracks is a more useful public investment than trying to obtain passenger slots amongst freight trains. The capital investment is significant, but so is the payoff for the public. The VIP is still in progress and no outcomes and documentation are yet adopted by the CCJPA Board yet it is difficult to ignore the paradigm shift already suggested for CCJPA’s capital investment program. The Business Plan for next year will, in all likelihood, be more concrete towards the influence of the VIP than as presented here. 5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND ACTION PLAN The CCJPA’s management program for the Capitol Corridor utilizes a customer-focused business model approach. It emphasizes delivering reliable, frequent, safe, and cost-effective train service designed to sustain growth in ridership and revenue. During the past 16 years, ridership has trended upward by providing a viable, transport alternative to the parallel congested I-80/I-680/I-880 highway corridors that is competitive in terms of travel time, reliability, and price.


- 11 -

THE CCJPA STRIVES TO

MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCIES

FOR THE OPERATION OF

THE CAPITOL CORRIDOR

SERVICE AND NOW WILL

TURN ITS ATTENTION TO

WORKING WITH STATION

OWNERS TO IMPLEMENT

ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS

UNIQUE TO EACH STATION

TO INCREASE RIDERSHIP

AND IMPROVE CUSTOMER

SATISFACTION.

In addition to the typical performance metrics, it is worth examining the environmental impact of the Capitol Corridor’s success and growth. The Capitol Corridor’s ridership growth benefits the environment by reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In California, approximately 58% of greenhouse

gas emissions come from the transportation sector. Based on profiles of the Capitol Corridor rider from on-board surveys and the 1.47 million riders in FY 2014-15 (see Table 5-1), the Capitol Corridor generated over 98 million passenger miles, which corresponds to over 74 million vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) removed from Northern California highways. The net reduction of carbon dioxide provided by Capitol Corridor train service was over 2,800 tons for FY 2015-16, the equivalent of planting more than 13,500 trees. For health pollutant impacts such as ozone and particulate matter, the net effect for Californians is a reduction in those pollutants over automobile travel and as locomotives are replaced with the ordered Tier 4 cleaner burning locomotives, the net reduction of those pollutants begins to increase significantly. The CCJPA develops performance standards for the Capitol Corridor service in coordination with the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). On June 30, 2014, in accordance with the Intercity Passenger Rail Act of 2012, the performance standards starting in FY 14-15 and onwards were updated by CalSTA to measure usage (ridership and

passenger-miles), cost efficiency (system operating ratio and total operating costs/passenger-mile), and reliability (end-point on-time performance, station on-time performance, and operator delays/10,000 miles). Table 5-1 summarizes the updated standards and results for FY 2014-15 and for FY 2015-16 through December 2015, as well as the standards for the next two fiscal years. Appendix C shows the measures used to develop standards for two additional years through FY 2019-20. Table 5-1 – System Performance Results and Standards

FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Performance Standard Actual Standard % Change Actual Standard %

Change Standard Standard

Usage Route Ridership 1,474,873

1,408,600

(through 2/15)

4.7% 502,687 (through 1/16)

482,880 (through 1/16)

3.7% 1,534,000 1,565,000

Passenger Miles 98,943,004 95,384,000 3.7% 25,994,826 (through 12/15)

24,563,800 (through 12/15)

6.0% 102,901,000 104,980,000

Efficiency System Operating Ratio (train and feeder bus)

52%

47%

11.4% 54% (through 1/16)

50%

8.6% 49% 49%

Total Operating Cost/Passenger-Mile

$0.58 $0.63 -7.9% $0.55 (through 12/15)

$0.64 (through 12/15)

-14.1% $0.63 $0.63

Service Quality End-Point On-Time Performance

93%

90%

3.4% 95% (through 1/16)

90%

5.6% 90% 90%

Stations On-Time Performance

95% 90% 5.5% 95% (through 12/15)

90% 4.9% 90% 90%

Operator Delays/10K Miles 481

<325 +48.0% 365 (through 12/15)

<325 12.3% <325 <325

FY 2014-15 Performance Standards and Results The service plan for FY 2014-15 maintained the service that was initiated August 13, 2012 with a service plan of 30 weekday trains (22 weekend day). This service plan was initiated at the time to save approximately $1 million in operating costs. Analysis over the fiscal year of ridership and revenue, and cost trends have demonstrated that solutions to improve ridership, revenue, and to reduce costs may require changes to the train schedules to address relatively flat ridership and revenue against gradually increasing costs. CCJPA is currently operating the maximum level of service frequencies along the entire Auburn-San Jose route permitted by the host railroads (UPRR and Caltrain) with the current available train equipment assigned to the Capitol Corridor. FY 2014-15 was a historic year for the Capitol Corridor. Records were set for the three R’s (ridership, revenue and reliability). Ridership and revenue increased by 5% and 4%, respectively and Capitol Corridor retained the number one spot for on-time performance (reliability) in the Amtrak system for the sixth consecutive year. The primary reasons for the high level of OTP is an effective capitalized maintenance program (resulting in a solid state of good repair) and disciplined dispatching by the host railroads (UPRR and Caltrain) to keep the Capitol Corridor trains operating safely and reliably.


- 12 -

CCJPA ACHIEVED A

MILESTONE IN JUNE 2015

WHEN AMTRAK

INTRODUCED THE ABILITY

TO PURCHASE MULTI-RIDE

TICKETS VIA THE AMTRAK

APP THAT INCREASED THE

CONVENIENCE FOR THE

MAJORITY OF CAPITOL

CORRIDOR PASSENGERS.

For the busiest trains, a recovering regional economy plus high service reliability helped to sustain ridership and increase the attractiveness of the Capitol Corridor as a viable, safe, frequent, customer-focused public transport service linking the three metropolitan regions in Northern California. Increases in weekend ridership were experienced due to football games at Levi’s stadium in Santa Clara and the Oakland Coliseum. In FY 2014-15:

• Ridership was 1.47 million, an increase of 5% over the prior FY 2013-14. • Revenue was at $30.0 million, which was 4% above FY 2013-14. • System operating ratio (a.k.a. farebox return) was 52%, above the 47% ratio for FY 2013-14,

primarily due to increased revenues and lower fuel expenses. • OTP was 93%, keeping the Capitol Corridor as the most reliable IPR service in Amtrak’s national

system. FY 2015-16 Performance Standards and Results to Date The CCJPA, in cooperation with Amtrak and Caltrans, developed the FY 2015-16 standards based on ridership, revenue, and operating expenses identified in the current FY 2015-16 CCJPA/Amtrak operating contract. These standards are presented in Table 5-1.

• Ridership. Year-to-date (through January 2016) ridership is 3.7% above last year and 4.1% above business plan projections due to an improving economy in Northern California (more specifically in Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area employment bases), and strong weekend ridership (due to travel to sporting events [49ers, Raiders, Cal Bears, Oakland A’s]).

• Revenue. Year-to-date (through January 2016) revenue is 3.9% above last year and 3.4% above business plan projections.

• System Operating Ratio. Year-to-date (through January 2016) system operating ratio (total revenues divided by fixed and variable operating costs, a.k.a. farebox return) is 54%, above the FY 2015-16 standard of 50%.

• On-Time Performance (OTP). Year-to-date (through January 2016) OTP is 95%, which is above the 90% standard and maintains the Capitol Corridor service as the most reliable train route in the Amtrak system.

FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Performance Standards Table 5-1 provides the preliminary performance standards for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. Appendix C shows the measures used to develop the performance standards. The FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 and future operating costs have been developed to conform with PRIIA Section 209 pricing policy, which stipulates that all state-financed, Amtrak-operated intercity passenger rail (IPR) routes under 750 miles shall be priced by Amtrak in a fair and equitable manner. FY 2016-17 Action Plan For FY 2016-17, the assignment of rolling stock to the Capitol Corridor service with increased on-train bicycle storage (through the use of retrofitted 8300 and existing 8200 series cars) has proved instrumental

in safely accommodating demand for bicycle access and this will be maintained. Also, the first of the at-station secure bicycle facilities will be installed with potential completion by the end of the next fiscal year. There is potential that late in FY 2015-16 some of the initial “test” modified cars with on-board information systems (OBIS) may appear later in the fiscal year (retrofit will continue into next fiscal year). In terms of performance and customer satisfaction the CCJPA will continue to strive for even higher levels of service performance through added or improved amenities related to real-time information and customer engagement through social media and other technology methods.. The following actions attempt to meet or exceed the established performance standards and provide exceptional service to the public traveling on the

congested I-80/I-680/I-880 transportation corridor.


- 13 -

1Q FY 2016-17 • Update CIP and funding sources based on programming capacity in the State FY 2016-17 budget • Further the implementation of OBIS design with Amtrak’s selected vendor for train on-board

information systems (OBIS) • Develop Amtrak operating contract for FY 2017 that implements PRIIA Section 209 pricing policy • Install and implement the initial secure bicycle storage at select Capitol Corridor stations • Seek marketing and promotional partnerships (such as the Oakland A’s) to leverage added value

and/or revenues • Monitor and expand the programs with transit agencies to improve connectivity between the trains

and local transit services • Continue the environmental documentation and design efforts for the Oakland to San Jose Phase 2

project • As approved, begin planning for any initial phases of Sacramento to Roseville Third Main Track

Project • Monitor the delivery, testing, and maintenance procedures for the first Tier IV locomotives as they

arrive in Northern California • Complete the construction plans and implement initial improvements for the Travel Time Savings

project 2Q FY 2016-17 • Evaluate measures to improve train and motorcoach bus performance, including modifications to the

service • Seek Prop 1B Transit Safety/Security funds to support the FY 2016-17 security improvements,

including, but not limited to cameras on trains and trackside safety fences; OBIS for the fleet • Continue the install, as needed, of secure bicycle storage and develop the folding bicycle lease

program at select Capitol Corridor stations • Continue, with Caltrans Division of Rail staff, the various ongoing task orders for installation of OBIS

for the Northern California Fleet, including initial test install on one trainset, if ready. • Continue the environmental documentation and design efforts for the Oakland to San Jose Phase 2

project • Implement the next (and final) phase of the Travel Time Savings project 3Q FY 2016-17 • Complete the Travel Time Savings project and test travel times and implement a new train schedule • Receive the last of the new Tier IV locomotives and oversee transition from testing into full service

for the six locomotives for the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin IPR services • Continue implementation of the first phase of at-station bicycle improvements with the respective

vendors; issue RFP for folding bicycle program for select stations • Develop Annual Performance Report and other information to present an overview of current

performance and future plans • Develop revised Business Plan Update for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19; hold public workshops to

receive public input • Initiate fleet installation of OBIS on the Northern California Fleet presuming testing on initial test

trainset is successful • Continue the environmental documentation and design efforts for the Oakland to San Jose Phase 2

project 4Q FY 2016-17 • Complete implementation of the first phase of at-station bicycle improvements with the respective

vendors; select vendor for folding bicycle program • Monitor installation of OBIS on the Northern California Fleet • Conduct annual onboard surveys to assess rider profile and solicit feedback on Amtrak’s performance • Develop FY 2017-18 marketing program, including market research • Continue the environmental documentation and design efforts for the Oakland to San Jose Phase 2

project • Advance any approved phases of the Sacramento to Roseville Third Main Track project toward

construction and complete service planning for any added trains


- 14 -

THE FREE ‘WI-FI’ SERVICE

HAS SUPPORTED A 2.7%

INCREASE IN TRIPS BASED

ON UC DAVIS

RESEARCHERS. THE

INTERNET CONNECTION IS

ALSO THE

COMMUNICATIONS

BACKBONE FOR PENDING

OPERATIONAL

APPLICATIONS SUCH AS THE

ON-BOARD INFORMATION

SYSTEM.

FY 2017-18 Action Plan This action plan for FY 2017-18 is preliminary and will be revised during the second half of FY 2016-17. The CCJPA intends to focus on: • Working with the UPRR and Amtrak to continue ridership and revenue growth by improving

reliability, adjusting the service plan, and/or implementing projects that add capacity and reduce travel times

• Monitoring development and manufacturing of additional rolling stock, safety and security upgrades and track and signal projects to meet service expansion plans

• Developing marketing programs that retain riders through expanded amenities, loyalty campaigns and offers; and increase ridership through market research

• Updating performance standards as necessary • Working with Amtrak to secure additional cost efficiencies to be reinvested in service enhancements • Work with select local jurisdictions to implement the folding bicycle system • Complete the environmental documentation process for the Oakland to San Jose Phase 2

Improvements • Monitor any approved phases of the Sacramento to Roseville Third Main Track project and complete

service plans for additional trains 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF FARES The CCJPA develops fares in conjunction with Amtrak to ensure the Capitol Corridor service is attractive

and competitive with the automobile and other transit options. Ticket types include standard one-way and roundtrip fares, as well as monthly passes and 10-ride tickets valid for 45 days. These discounted multi-ride fares are competitive with other transportation options and have become increasingly popular due to the high number of repeat riders who use the Capitol Corridor trains as their primary means of travel along the corridor. The monthly and multi-ride tickets can be used year-round for all regularly scheduled train service. Reservations are not required for any of the trains. eTicketing was introduced in FY 2011-12 for one-way/round trip ticket purchases and in January 2014 all multi-ride tickets were moved to an eTicketing platform. There was program of small group ticketing initiated on a pilot basis in FY 2014-15 and based on its success, a more permanent program will be implemented in late FY 2014-15 or early FY 2015-16. The current fare structure is based on a one-way tariff, with the roundtrip tariff equal to double the one-way tariff. Discount fares are available to seniors, students, military personnel and children under age 15. Amtrak also provides reduced fares for certain

national partners, such as AAA members. Fare modifications are used selectively to maximize revenue and ridership, while still working toward the State’s farebox ratio goal of at least 50%. FY 2016-17 Fares The CCJPA has held fares flat for the last three years for Capitol Corridor ticket prices. (Fares were last adjusted with an across-the-board 2% increase in June 2013). For FY 2016-17, the CCJPA intends to increase multi-ride ticket fares (45-day/10-ride and monthly) by 2% in July 2016, with subsequent 2% increases on multi-ride tickets for the next two years (FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18). In the past, the CCJPA has incrementally increased fares based on service improvements such as added trains, reduced travel times and served new stations and to address cost increases (such as fuel and Amtrak labor rates). These proposed multi-ride fare increases are intended to coincide with (1) increased Amtrak insurance premiums to manage the CCJPA’s risk in managing the Capitol Corridor service and (2) pending service improvements (reduced travel times and the new Fairfield/Vacaville Station). The CCJPA’s planned 2% increase in multi-ride ticket prices for FY 2016-17 may need to be adjusted upwards if there are unforeseen cost increases, such as spikes in fuel prices (which appears rather unlikely at this moment). If this action is required, the CCJPA will work with Amtrak to consider factors such as ridership results, revenue levels, variable operating expenses (such as fuel), and overall economic conditions along communities in the corridor. As part of its Marketing Program (Section 8), the CCJPA will develop initiatives designed to increase customer satisfaction and ridership.


- 15 -

RECENTLY COMPLETED CAB

CAR MODIFICATIONS TO

CARRY MORE BICYCLES

ALONG WITH UTILIZATION OF

OTHER DEDICATED BICYCLE

CARS HAS BEEN

INSTRUMENTAL TO MEET THE

GROWING USE OF A BICYCLE

WITH CAPITOL CORRIDOR

TRAIN TRAVEL.

Opportunities include: • Create and enhance communications channels with custoemrs, before and during their trips, for

schedule information, train status, and service advisories • Explore a new discount ticket for less-frequent riders • Enhancing customer loyalty and referral programs to attract new riders • Promoting the use of the folding bicycle lease program and electronically accessed secure bicycle

facilities with Capitol Corridor as they are installed at stations • Highlighting on-board amenities such as ‘Wi-Fi’ and the Café Car to emphasize convenience • Increasing utilization of Amtrak’s various eTicketing initiatives will enable real-time validation and

improve customer convenience. Having real-time information on ridership and revenue data will also lead to better operating cost efficiencies

Together, these fare and ticketing programs for FY 2016-17 will enhance customer convenience and increase revenue yield as part of the expanding eTicketing program. FY 2017-18 Fares The projected fare structure for FY 2017-18 will include the projected 2% increase in multi-ride ticket prices in July 2017. If operating expenses are fluctuate significantly (either increases or decreases), this planned fare increase will be revisited and be adjusted accordingly. Other fare and ticketing opportunities include: • Continuing and expanding of transit connectivity programs such as the Transit Transfer Program,

joint ticketing, and transfer of motorcoach bus routes to parallel local transit services

7. SERVICE AMENITIES, FOOD SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT The CCJPA is responsible for the administration and maintenance supervision of the State-owned fleet of rail cars and locomotives assigned to Northern California. The CCJPA works to ensure equity in the operation and maintenance of equipment assigned to the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin Corridor

services. In accordance with the ITA, the CCJPA is entrusted with ensuring the rail fleet is operated and maintained to the highest standards of reliability, cleanliness, and safety. In addition, it makes certain that the unique features and amenities of the State-owned train equipment are well utilized and maintained to standards established by Amtrak, the State, and the CCJPA. Service Amenities Accessibility: The Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin Corridor trains provide complete accessibility to passengers. Accessibility features include onboard wheelchair lifts, two designated spaces per train car for passengers in wheelchairs, and one wheelchair-accessible lavatory on the lower level of each train car. Mobility-impaired persons not in wheelchairs can utilize grip bars at each door, work

with conductors to utilize on-train step stools, or even utilize the wheelchair lifts if boarding the train from the platform is needed. The OBIS system will include support for inductive hearing devices and compliant video and audio messaging. Information Displays: Each California Car is equipped with passenger information displays that provide the train number and destination. OBIS will be implemented to replace these aging systems. The development process for OBIS will commence with the vendor and Amtrak in late FY 2014-15 and proceed through to implementation over a period of years but these displays will gradually be upgraded through the implementation of the OBIS system that will involve modern video and audio messaging and announcements. Lavatories. Lavatories in California Cars feature electric hand dryers, soap dispensers, and infant diaper-changing tables. Telecommunications/’Wi-Fi’: All cars in the fleet have ‘Wi-Fi’ service which runs off of the “brain” car, or Café/diner car. This service is free to the customer and permits basic email and web-browsing. Amtrak’s Wi-Fi Connect prohibits streaming services which would use up excessive amounts of


- 16 -

bandwidth for a limited number of users. Free ‘Wi-Fi’ service launched November 28, 2011, was upgraded in March 2013, and will receive an additional upgrade in by June 2015. Power plug access at each seat has been available for years and can power and charge passengers’ various electronic devices. The ‘Wi-Fi’ system is also a basis for operational applications, such as OBIS, which will be added over time as described above. Bicycle Access: All Northern California Coach Cars have bicycle storage units that hold three bicycles on the lower level of the car. In addition, the 14 first generation California Cab Cars (8300-series) were retrofitted in FY 2013-14 to hold 13 bicycles as opposed to 7 bicycles. The five Surfliner Cab Cars (6000-series) have storage space for up to 13 bicycles in the lower level baggage area. Bicycle storage demand on the Capitol Corridor trains has outstripped the capacity to safely meet demand. In FY 2012-13, the CCJPA adopted the Bicycle Access Plan which presents key actions to improve and increase on-train and secure station bicycle capacity Food and Beverage Services: CCJPA is reaping the benefits of food service improvements implemented in prior fiscal years in customer satisfaction and increased sales of menu items. Modern point-of sale registers have been installed and are working well. As a future phase of OBIS, CCJPA and Amtrak will evaluate the viability of providing food service promotions and advertisements via on-board flat screen monitors. The continuing efforts by the CCJPA and Caltrans ensure the food and beverage service on the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin Corridor trains exceeds customer expectations while contributing effectively to the services’ revenues. Equipment Acquisition, Maintenance, and Renovation The CCJPA continues to work closely with Caltrans and Amtrak to refine the maintenance and operations programs to improve the reliability, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the rail fleet. The Northern California Fleet supports both the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin services. The fleet is a mix of California-owned equipment and leased Amtrak equipment as demonstrated in Table 7-1. New fleet acquisitions under development will dramatically increase service capacity. During FY 2012-13, Caltrans secured funding earmarked for 40 new coaches and six cleaner-burning locomotives for the Northern California fleet.

Rehabilitation and Modification Programs. Using previously allocated State funds, the CCJPA, Caltrans, and Amtrak have created a multi-year program of periodic overhauls to the existing train fleet that will improve the fleet performance and maintain the valued assets of the State’s rolling stock investment. Rail Equipment Projects Completed in 2015

• The original nine locomotives owned by the state went through an extensive multi-year state-funded renovation program. The main propulsion engines were rebuilt, exceeding current EPA

NOTES15 P59 locomotives assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service assigned to San Joaquin service

NOTES assigned to San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor service assigned to San Joaquin service assigned to San Joaquin service assigned to San Joaquin service3 single level Café Cars3 NCPU single level baggage cars

Table 7-1Northern California Equipment Fleet

Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin

84 bilevel California Coach and Café Cars14 single level Comet Cars

California owned rail equipment

Amtrak Supplemental Equipment3 P42 locomotives3 bilevel Superliner coach cars

2 DASH-8 locomotives


- 17 -

CCJPA’S MARKETING

BUDGET HAS BEEN

STAGNANT SINCE THE

TRANSFER OF THE

CAPITOL CORRIDOR

SERVICE OVER SIXTEEN

YEARS AGO AND THE

PROGRAM HAS BEEN

ADAPTED TO LEVERAGE

IN-KIND PARTNERSHIPS

AND LOW COST SOCIAL

MEDIA OPPORTUNITIES.

TIER II emissions standards, thus maintaining our status as one of the cleanest fleets in the nation. Also, the head-end power (HEP) units in the locomotives that provide power for lighting, electrical outlets, etc., were updated to EPA Tier 4 standards.

• The Installation of Positive Train Control Equipment was installed in all of the States Locomotives.

• The CCJPA provided a contract with Caterpillar to assist Amtrak with the Maintenance and Training for the Head End Power units in the Locomotives.

• As part of our safety and security program, all cab-cars and locomotives are now equipped with a "forward facing" digital security camera system. This provides the CCJPA with a valuable tool to protect equipment from vandalism and assist with post-incident investigations.

• The 14 Comet 1B Coaches, three Horizon Diners and three non-powered control-unit (NPCU) Cab Cars are in use primarily on the San Joaquin Route.

Upcoming Projects FY 2016-2017 • The HVAC units, ducting and control systems will be replaced providing better air quality and

climate control using new environmentally friendly technology and refrigerants. At the same time all Vestibule Flooring will be replaced.

• The Chillers for the Dining Cars will be replaced (the units that keep the food to proper temperature.

8. MARKETING STRATEGIES The CCJPA employs a strategy of combining targeted advertising campaigns, multi-channeled cross-promotions and media outreach efforts to build awareness of the Capitol Corridor service. A primary

objective is promoting the service in key markets and attracting riders to trains with available capacity. Staff will also focus on trying to attract first time riders through advertising, increasing brand visibility in the digital media space, and retaining existing riders. Marketing dollars and impact are maximized through joint promotions and advertising with key partners along our service route, as well as some reciprocal marketing programs with the State, Amtrak, CCJPA member agencies, and other selected partners. Advertising Campaigns and Brand Awareness. Advertising campaigns inform leisure and business travel audiences about the advantages of train travel, including service attributes, promotions/pricing, and destinations. Recent advertising efforts include social media advertising, radio spots, local television, and online paid search. This mix is tailored for each campaign and continually adjusted to ensure consistent visibility in the target markets. For FY 2016-17, CCJPA’s advertising efforts will emphasize the Capitol Corridor image and brand, in accordance with the CCJPA Board’s edict to create a distinct, regional brand for Capitol Corridor and strengthen

brand awareness throughout the service area. Promotions: The CCJPA will also continue successful programs that target specific markets designed to build ridership during off-peak hours such as midday, mid-week and weekend travel. Destination-focused promotions highlight riding the train to Oakland Coliseum and Levi’s® Stadium events, which create awareness of the train as a way to reach other leisure destinations throughout Northern California. Additionally, the CCJPA continues to refine customer retention efforts through Rider Appreciation programs, social media engagement, and enhancing passenger-focused communication channels. Online Presence and Customer Engagement. The CCJPA places great importance on delivering passenger communications via multiple channels. Efforts include:

• Leveraging Capitol Corridor’s online presence across the Internet, boosting participation in online social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter.

• Coordination with Amtrak to enhance customer experience at the Contact Center level, including self-service of Transportation Credits, and customization of itinerary documents for Capitol Corridor travel. .


- 18 -

• Coordinating communications between the Customer Contact center, Marketing and Operations staff to ensure customers receive clear and up-to-date information about the Capitol Corridor service and promotions.

• Integration of our passenger service advisory system, including SMS text and e-mail service alerts, with the Capitol Corridor website and social media channels.

Partnership Brand Marketing. The Capitol Corridor’s Strategic Marketing Partnership Program has established a catalog of marketing assets and associated metrics to enhance the CCJPA’s trade promotion negotiations. These assets enable selected partners to market their products through Capitol Corridor marketing channels such as interior, exterior, and station signage, and electronic media. The program now has a solid foundation for increasing value and revenues to the advertising program through leveraging partnerships with well-known organizations that share similar target audiences to increase the visibility of the Capitol Corridor brand. This work is increasingly important as advertising channels multiply despite persistent annual flat marketing budgets. For FY 2016-17, CCJPA will develop a new website for the on-board wi-fi service, which will be an information/service advisory/entertainment resource for passengers, and another means for partners to convey messaging. Joint Marketing and Outreach. The CCJPA achieves cost efficiencies by working with local community partners such as CCJPA member agencies and local destinations to develop creative programs that promote both destination and rail travel. CCJPA also partners with Amtrak and Caltrans on select promotions and events to better leverage shared marketing dollars. Customer Relations. The CCJPA views communication with passengers as the cornerstone of our customer-focused service delivery. We encourage passengers to provide input on our service performance through comment cards on the trains, phone calls, letters, and email. We use this feedback to identify and prioritize service modifications, capital improvements, and desired amenities in the service. Use of an online customer comment tracking portal has allowed the CCJPA to do a better job of communicating with the public, as well as coordinating internally to ensure that passengers receive an appropriate and timely response to their request or issue. Public Relations. In FY 2016-17, the CCJPA’s public information efforts will use traditional and social media to continue to build awareness about its Bicycle Access Plan, promotions, rail safety and CCJPA’s customer service upgrades. We intend to enhance our current communications strategies to consistently alert passengers of service issues. Outreach and Advocacy. The CCJPA will develop a broader plan for advocacy of the Capitol Corridor and related services, and build upon outreach efforts with communities along the route. Efforts include:

• Advocacy and public relations efforts that aim to increase the Capitol Corridor’s visibility and recognition as a unique interagency partnership

• Helping communities along the Capitol Corridor route build awareness of the service in their respective cities through local marketing campaigns including transit connections via the Transit Transfer Program

• Leveraging CCJPA riders who use and benefit from the service as advocates in their communities • Reciprocal marketing with the tourism industry (i.e., hotels, airports, and convention/visitor

bureaus) • An Annual Performance Report that informs the public and elected officials of the service’s

successes, benefits, and challenges to local communities • Working with Operation Lifesaver – a voluntary effort by railroads, safety experts, law

enforcement, public agencies, and the general public – the CCJPA coordinates with Caltrans Rail to support regional rail safety campaigns through education, engineering and enforcement

FY 2016-17 Marketing Program The CCJPA’s FY 2016-17 Marketing Program will continue to focus on increasing ridership on trains with available capacity by emphasizing the convenience of modern train travel and targeting service periods with the highest growth potential. The CCJPA will continue its own independent campaigns that position Capitol Corridor as a distinct regional service brand. CCJPA will also coordinate with local partners and Amtrak on the most beneficial


- 19 -

promotions, outreach, and shared marketing collateral. Marketing initiatives will also aim to enhance customer communications and engagement with passengers. Key elements will include: Redesign of wi-fi landing page/website, which will be the primary touchpoint with our customers while they are on board, and will complement the future OBIS system by being an interactive resource for our passengers. The media- and content-rich site we hope will help ease the bandwidth demand on the existing Wi-Fi system, and be an enjoyable and beneficial resource for all of our passengers. The site will offer live information about the Wi-Fi speed, service advisories, ETA for next station, and plenty of other content for our riders Joint media promotions with well-known organizations and continued coordination with Amtrak on selected promotions intended to maximize media dollars and expand market reach. Expansion of social media marketing through networks such as Facebook and Twitter. Enhance features and navigation of mobile-friendly website to improve communication to customers. Create programs to encourage year-round travel for school/youth groups, and increase outreach to adult and senior citizens’ groups. FY 2017-18 Marketing Program The CCJPA will place continued emphasis on the Capitol Corridor brand to increase regional brand awareness and maximize use of the marketing budget. Longer-term plans include additional customer outreach and reinvigorated retention efforts via a specific loyalty program for Capitol Corridor customers and development of mobile applications to enhance customer communications. Marketing and communication efforts will emphasize CCJPA’s commitment to high quality, customer-focused passenger rail service and continue to personalize the service. 9. ANNUAL FUNDING REQUIREMENT: COSTS AND RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS The primary purpose of this Business Plan Update, as identified in the ITA, is to request the annual funds required by the CCJPA to operate, administer, and market the Capitol Corridor service for agreed-upon service levels. Previous sections in this document describe the proposed operating plan, planned service improvements, and capital improvements for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Operating Costs Based on the Operating Plan and Strategies (Section 3), the CCJPA has prepared an initial forecast for the FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 operating expenses. The FY 2016-17 operating costs conform with Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 (PRIIA), which was implemented in FY 2013-14 as part national launch of a pricing policy for all Amtrak-operated IPR services under 750 miles. Amtrak will provide updated estimates in late March 2016. Projected operating costs are shown in Table 9-1 and include the basic train service and associated feeder bus services provided by Amtrak plus the CCJPA’s costs for the Information and Customer Support Services provided at the BART/CCJPA Contact Center and the CCJPA’s share of relating to the local transit service partnerships. Compared to the existing FY 2015-16 budget, the FY 2016-17 operating costs are expected to decrease by $227,000 (or -0.6%) due to continued decreases in fuel prices, lower station staffing costs through the increased use of e-ticketing and increased revenues (from ridership growth) that offset increased labor expenses and insurance premiums. The CCJPA’s budget request for the FY 2017-18 operations plan is expected increase by $579,000 [+1.6%] compared to the current FY 2015-16 operating budget due to a projected net increase in operating expenses that are greater than estimated growth in revenues.


- 20 -

FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Marketing Expenses The CCJPA’s marketing budget for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 will fund the respective year’s Marketing Programs presented in Section 8. The CCJPA will develop the various campaigns and programs. The budget estimates illustrated in Table 9-1 represent only direct expenditures of the CCJPA and do not include any costs for marketing programs provided solely by Amtrak or the State.

CurrentFY 2015-16 Budget FY 2016-17 Budget FY 2017-18 Budget

Sacramento-Oakland Weekday 30 30 30 Weekend 22 22 22 Oakland-San Jose Weekday 14 14 14 Weekend 14 14 14 Sacramento-Roseville 2 2 2 Roseville-Auburn 2 2 2

Ridership 1,461,000 1,534,000 1,565,000

Third Party Expenses (a) 12,518,000$ 12,820,000$ 13,076,000$ Amtrak Expenses (b) 49,634,000$ 50,493,000$ 51,755,000$ Information/Customer Support Services (c) 817,000$ 817,000$ 817,000$

TOTAL Expenses 62,969,000$ 64,130,000$ 65,648,000$

Ticket Revenue 28,419,000$ 29,554,000$ 30,219,000$ Food & Beverage Revenue 1,546,000$ 1,615,000$ 1,651,000$ Other Revenue (d) 441,000$ 507,000$ 518,000$

TOTAL Revenue 30,406,000$ 31,676,000$ 32,388,000$

CCJPA Funding RequirementCCJPA Operating Budget 32,563,000$ 32,454,000$ 33,260,000$ Net Amtrak Operating Costs [Expenses less Revenues] 31,746,000$ 31,637,000$ 32,443,000$ CCJPA Expenses - Info/Customer Services 817,000$ 817,000$ 817,000$ Marketing Budget (e) 1,174,000$ 1,174,000$ 1,174,000$ Administrative Budget (f) 2,134,000$ 2,134,000$ 2,134,000$

TOTAL CCJPA Funding Request (g) 35,871,000$ 35,762,000$ 36,568,000$ Difference from FY15-16 Budget (109,000)$ 697,000$ Percent Change from FY15-16 Budget -0.3% 1.9%SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATIONS

Minor Capital Projects (h) 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$

(a) Includes Fuel, Host Railroad Maintenance of Way and Host Railroad On-Time Performance Incentive payments.

(g) Sum of CCJPA Operating Budget plus Marketing & Administrative Budgets.(h) Expenses to be allocated for small or minor capital projects.

Service Level

(b) Expenses for services provided by Amtrak (i.e. On Board Staffing, Station Services, Ticketing and Maintenance of Equipment) and overhead support fees. (c) Operating expenses for call center/phone information and customer services provided by CCJPA/BART.(d) Miscellaneous revenue as allocated by Amtrak's Performance Tracking system.(e) Due to State budget constraints, the FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 marketing expenses will be capped at the same levels as the 12 prior fiscal years ($1,174,000). Does not include contributions by Amtrak or additional resources provided by the State (i.e. market research program).(f) Expenses for administrative support of the CCJPA Board and for management of the Capitol Corridor service.

Table 9-1CCJPA FY 2016-17 - FY 2017-18 Funding Requirement

Capitol Corridor Service

Proposed


- 21 -

A SERVICE EXTENSION TO

SALINAS WITH AN INITIAL

TWO ROUNDTRIPS IS BEING

PLANNED BETWEEN TAMC

AND CCJPA BUT THE

PROJECT WILL LIKELY BE

DEPENDENT ON EXPANDING

SERVICE FREQUENCY

BETWEEN OAKLAND AND

SAN JOSE AND A FULL

FUNDING PLAN.

FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Administrative Expenses Table 9-1 identifies the estimate for the FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 budgets that support the administrative activities of the CCJPA for the Capitol Corridor service. The FY 16-17 expenses to support the CCJPA’s administrative and management activities will remain the same as the current FY 15-16 Administrative Budget [$2,134,000]. FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Total Budget Compared to the current period (FY 2015-16), the FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 total budgets for operating, marketing, and administrative costs of the CCJPA are expected to decrease by 0.6% in FY 2017-18 and increase by 1.6% in FY 2017-18. The operating budgets for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 should be considered draft until Amtrak provides the operating cost estimates for FY 2016-17 in late March 2016. The Capitol Corridor service will remain a part of the state’s IPR system and pursuant to the ITA the service will continue to receive annual funding appropriations from the state. To that end, the CCJPA will provide the level of service consistent with funding appropriated by the Legislature and allocated by the State. Any cost savings realized by the CCJPA or revenues in excess of business plan projections during the term of the ITA will be used by the CCJPA for service improvements. 10. SEPARATION OF FUNDING As identified in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the CCJPA, the Controller-Treasurer of the Managing Agency of the CCJPA will perform the functions of Treasurer, Auditor, and Controller of

the CCJPA. BART’s prior agreement with the CCJPA to serve as the CCJPA’s Managing Agency was first renewed in February 2005 for a five-year term through February 2010, and subsequently renewed for another five years for the period of February 2010 through February 2015. These five-year terms are consistent with the enactment of AB 1717 in September 2003 that allows the CCJPA Board five years, instead of three, to monitor BART’s performance as the Managing Agency. Most recently, the CCJPA Board at its November 2014 meeting has approved a five-year term with BART for the period of February 2015 – February 2020 subject to BART Board approval in February 2015. As identified in the ITA, the State performs audits and reviews of CCJPA’s Capitol Corridor service–related financial statements. In addition, the CCJPA requires that the Controller-Treasurer shall provide for an annual independent audit of the accounts of

the CCJPA within six months of the close of the State fiscal year. BART has established the appropriate accounting and financial procedures to ensure that the funds secured by the CCJPA during FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 to support the Capitol Corridor service are solely expended to operate, administer, and market the service. 11. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER SERVICE EXPANSIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS This section presents service expansion and enhancement opportunities beyond the CCJPA’s FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 service plans and funding requirements. Planning for potential new services will require securing capital improvements, additional operating funds, and institutional agreements. These efforts related to the Vision Plan Update and the additional analysis that will be ongoing were previously described. State Rail Plan and Northern California HST Blended Service The State Rail Plan was developed at this time to become compliant with the FRA, which has actively engaged the states to grow the federal involvement and funding in passenger (intercity and high-speed) rail since the establishment of the PRIIA legislation in 2008. The FRA awarded Caltrans Rail Division funding to develop and release a coordinated State Rail Plan that will be done to conform to meeting Federal planning requirements. The plan incorporates not only the IPR services, but also the planning efforts for the California High Speed Rail system. Capitol Corridor’s direct links with the High Speed Rail system will be in San Jose, and, when eventually built as planned, Sacramento, whereas the existing Capitol Corridor route as a whole is an important feeder/distributor to the High Speed Rail system. During much


- 22 -

of FY 2013-14 and ongoing into FY 2014-15 the CCJPA participated with a host of statewide rail partners in planning for a blended and coordinated California passenger rail system. These meetings and the analysis discussed among all partners illustrated the need for state government leadership to set the structure for future blended service relationships. Not only with presenting the service to the public, capital investment is required for all rail operators across California and the coordination of the efforts at the state level has proven a challenge due to the separated yet supportive administrative bodies charged with intercity and commuter passenger rail service. CCJPA specifically is focused on obtaining capital funding to support service expansion improvements between Sacramento and Roseville, and the Oakland to San Jose territory as it relates to being a feeder/distributor in the overall state passenger rail system. Rail Service Expansion Planning The CCJPA has set forth and adopted a Train Service Policy supporting future extensions to new markets beyond the Capitol Corridor. This policy encourages partnerships between several passenger rail services and local/regional transportation agencies. For example, there are ongoing discussions with the Transportation Agency of Monterey, Caltrain, and VTA about expanding Capitol Corridor service to Salinas. Pursuant to CCJPA Board direction, CCJPA staff are actively engaged in this discussion in a manner that protects the existing core service but fairly lays out the requirements of extending service to Salinas (e.g., an integrated train schedule, additional rolling stock, complete and compliant stations, operating funding support, and CCJPA governing/legislative modifications). Plans for this expansion have advanced steadily and will evolve as funding, operational, and governance matters are addressed. This potential expansion is reflected in the State Rail Plan as appropriate. With any service expansion, the goal is to ensure that these proposed service extensions provide mutual cost savings through the use of joint facilities and equipment. As a vital element in California’s passenger rail community, the CCJPA has developed working relationships with:

• San Joaquin Corridor service • Amtrak National Network (California Zephyr and Coast Starlight) • Altamont Commuter Express service (Stockton – Livermore – San Jose) • California High Speed Rail Authority


23

APPENDICES


24

APPENDIX A

Daily Total % Change Riders % Change Operating % Change Farebox State

Fiscal Year Trains RidershipPrior Year Per Day Revenue* Prior Year Expenses* Prior Year Ratio* Costs*

SFY 91/92 (a) 6 173,672 - - 864 $1,973,255 - - $4,848,967 - - 40.7% $1,592,907SFY 92/93 6 238,785 - - 650 $2,970,103 - - $8,333,093 - - 35.6% $6,712,017SFY 93/94 6 364,070 52.5% 1,000 $3,598,978 21.2% $9,911,735 18.9% 36.3% $6,714,761SFY 94/95 6 349,056 -4.1% 960 $3,757,146 4.4% $9,679,401 -2.3% 38.8% $6,012,315

SFY 95/96 (b) 8 403,050 15.5% 1,100 $4,805,072 27.9% $11,077,485 14.4% 43.4% $6,434,940SFY 96/97 8 496,586 23.2% 1,360 $5,938,072 23.6% $20,510,936 85.2% 29.0% $9,701,519

FFY 97/98 (c) 8 462,480 -6.9% 1,270 $6,245,105 5.2% $20,527,997 0.1% 30.4% $11,404,143FFY 98/99 (d) 10/12 543,323 17.5% 1,490 $7,314,165 17.1% $23,453,325 14.3% 31.2% $16,022,024FFY 99/00 (e) 12/14 767,749 41.3% 2,100 $9,115,611 24.6% $25,672,749 9.5% 35.7% $16,440,540FFY 00/01 (f) 14/18 1,073,419 39.8% 2,941 $11,675,117 28.1% $28,696,741 11.8% 40.7% $17,680,477

FFY 01/02 18 1,079,779 0.6% 2,960 $12,201,602 4.5% $32,842,038 14.4% 37.2% $20,590,919FFY 02/03 (g) 18/20/22/24 1,142,958 5.9% 3,130 $12,800,469 4.9% $36,469,383 11.0% 38.1% $21,540,910

FFY 03/04 24 1,165,334 2.0% 3,190 $13,168,373 2.9% $35,579,266 -2.4% 37.2% $22,708,181FFY 04/05 24 1,260,249 8.1% 3,450 $15,148,333 15.0% $35,110,571 -1.3% 43.2% $19,962,238

FFY 05/06 (h) 24/32 1,273,088 1.0% 3,490 $16,014,636 5.7% $35,147,033 0.1% 45.8% $19,132,397FFY 06/07 32 1,450,069 13.9% 3,970 $19,480,992 21.6% $40,533,332 15.3% 48.1% $21,052,340FFY 07/08 32 1,693,580 16.8% 4,640 $23,822,862 22.3% $43,119,290 6.4% 55.2% $22,265,039FFY 08/09 32 1,599,625 -5.5% 4,383 $23,505,602 -1.3% $50,159,032 16.3% 47.0% $25,113,642FFY 09/10 32 1,580,619 -1.2% 4,330 $24,372,185 3.7% $52,843,973 5.4% 46.0% $27,499,149FFY 10/11 32 1,708,618 8.1% 4,681 $27,176,573 11.5% $56,699,385 7.3% 48.0% $29,158,222

FFY 11/12 (i) 32/30 1,746,397 6.7% 4,785 $29,200,000 7.4% $59,035,857 4.1% 50.2% $29,606,390FFY 12/13 30 1,701,185 -2.6% 4,661 $29,186,617 -0.05% $60,472,128 2.4% 51.0% $29,110,318

FFY 13/14 (j) 30 1,419,084 1.1% 3,888 $29,177,880 -0.03% $58,063,314 -4.0% 50.9% $28,421,000FFY 14/15 30 1,474,873 3.9% 4,041 $30,092,694 3.1% $57,586,946 -0.8% 52.0% $32,595,784

FFY 15/16 (k) 30 384,878 3.3% 4,183 $8,172,276 4.0% $9,422,050 1.0% 59.0% $5,064,821SFY = State Fiscal Year (July 1- June 30)

FFY = Federal Fiscal Year (October 1 -September 30)

a. Statistics available for partial year only because service began in December 1991.

b. Increase to 8 trains began in April 1996.

c. Statistics presented for FFY 97/98 and each subsequent FFY to conform w ith Performance Standards developed by BT&H.

d. 10 trains began on October 25, 1998 and 12 trains began on February 21, 1999.

i. 30 trains began on August 13, 2012 (service optimization w ith re-opening of the Sacramento Valley Station platform).

k. Year-to-date data for ridership and revenue through December 2015, all other categories through November 2015

Historical Service Statistics

e. 14 trains began on February 28, 2000 .

f. 18 trains began on April 29, 2001.

g. 20 trains began on October 27, 2002; increase to 22 trains began on January 6, 2003; increase to 24 trains began on April 28, 2003.

h. 32 trains began on August 26, 2006 (w ith increase to 14 daily trains to/from San Jose).

j. Starting in FY 2014 Amtrak adjusted ridership reports to account for the actual tickets lif ted via the scanning of tickets by the conductors, w hich results in ridership forecasts and reports that are 15%-20% below previous forecasts and reports. Previously, multiride tickets w ere not directly logged into the system but the passenger counts for multiride tickets w ere estimated based on assumed inflated usage. Prior year % change is made using adjusted FY 12/13 ridership.


25

APPENDIX B

PROGRAMMED OR COMPLETED CAPITOL CORRIDOR PROJECTS

Programmed or Completed Projects (Preliminary and Tentative - Subject to Revision) Costs

Colfax $2,508,165 Auburn $3,131,656 Rocklin $2,114,173 Roseville $1,619,104 Sacramento* $81,749,526 Davis $5,576,643 Fairfield/Vacaville $44,000,000 Suisun/Fairfield $3,834,049 Martinez* $38,145,628 Richmond* $22,384,408 Berkeley $4,745,500 Emeryville* $13,502,136 San Francisco – Ferry Building* $584,842 Oakland Jack London Square* $20,469,077 Oakland Coliseum $6,132,000 Hayward $1,782,500 Fremont/Centerville $3,544,050 Great America/Santa Clara $3,082,627 San Jose Diridon $79,638,542 Platform Signs $63,101 Real-time message signs $2,344,842 Other $1,440,575 SUBTOTAL – Station Projects $342,393,144

*shared stations with the San Joaquin route

Placer County $500,000 Auburn Track and Signal Improvements $350,000 Sacramento – Roseville (3rd Track) Improvements $6,950,000 Yolo Causeway 2nd Track $14,555,533 Yolo West Crossover $5,000,000 Sacramento – Emeryville $60,219,132 Oakland – Santa Clara (Hayward Line) [1991] $14,900,000 Niles Junction – Newark (Centerville Line) $10,667,740 Sacramento – San Jose C-Plates $14,156 Oakland – San Jose $62,755,333 San Jose 4th Track $41,850,000 Bahia-Benicia Crossover Project $4,190,000 Safety Fencing along ROW $1,600,000 Harder Road (Hayward) Undercrossing [2001] $8,898,000 Positive Train Control (estimated CCJPA share $12M) $35,000,000 SUBTOTAL – Track and Signal Projects $267,449,894

San Jose (Pullman Way) Maintenance Facility $5,789,862 Oakland Maintenance Facility (new – owned by the State) $64,135,956 Oakland Maintenance Base (former site) $464,884 Colfax/Auburn Layover Facility $691,956 Roseville Layover Facility $157,702 Sacramento Layover Facility $941,316 Capitalized Maintenance1 $9,505,000 SUBTOTAL – Maintenance and Layover Facility Projects $81,686,676

Base Rolling Stock $238,982,226 2012 Ordered Rolling Stock added to Northern CA pool $57,435,192 On-Train Amenities $6,404,000 SUBTOTAL – Rolling Stock $302,821,418 TOTAL – PROGRAMMED1 OR COMPLETED PROJECTS $994,351,132

Rolling Stock (California Cars and Locomotives – owned by the State)

Maintenance and Layover Facility Projects

Station Projects

Track and Signal Projects


26

APPENDIX C

CAPITOL CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FY 2014-15 TO FY 2019-20

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20VARIANCE PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY

PERFORMANCE ST ANDARD ACT UAL ST ANDARD ACT UAL T O PERCENT ST ANDARD ST ANDARD ST ANDARD ST ANDARD ST ANDARDST ANDARD CHANGE

NUMBER OF DAILY TRAINS (SAC-OAK) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30USAGERo ute R id e rship 1,474,873 1,408,700 66,173 4.7% 1,461,000 1,534,000 1,565,000 1,596,000 1,628,000 Passenger Miles 98,943,004 92,269,850 6,673,154 7.2% 98,255,200 102,901,000 104,980,000 107,060,000 109,206,000 Average Daily Ridership 4,041 3,859 181 4.7% 4,003 4,203 4,288 4,373 4,460 Percent Change in Route Ridership 3.9% -5.5% -1.9% 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%Percent Change in Train Passenger Miles 6.4% -5.5% 0.7% 4.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%Percent Change in Train Miles 1.3% -0.7% -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Passenger Miles per Train Mile (PM/TM) 85.7 79.8 5.8 7.3% 84.5 88.5 90.3 92.1 93.9 COST EFFICIENCYSyste m Op e ra ting Ra tio 52% 45% 6.3% -- 48% 49% 49% 49% 50%Total Operating Costs per Passenger Mile $0.64 $0.62 $0.63 $0.63 $0.63Percent Change in Total Revenue 3.0% -8.8% -- -- -2.6% 4.2% 2.2% 3.0% 3.0%Percent Change in Total Expenses -1.1% 4.2% -- -- 5.8% 0.3% 2.4% 2.7% 2.8%Train Revenue per Train Mile $24.18 $23.17 $1.01 4.4% $24.58 $25.41 $25.98 $26.96 $27.77Train Revenue per Passenger Mile (Yield) $0.29 $0.276 $0.01 3.4% $0.276 $0.282 $0.288 $0.293 $0.299Train Expenses per Train Mile $46.28 $53.12 -$6.84 -12.9% $53.12 $54.71 $56.36 $58.05 $59.79Train Only State Cost per Train Mile $22.10 $27.46 -$5.36 -19.5% $24.86 $25.47 $26.12 $26.69 $27.48Train Only State Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.26 $0.34 -$0.08 -24.0% $0.29 $0.29 $0.29 $0.29 $0.29SERVICE QUALIT YEnd -Po int On T ime Pe rfo rma nce 93% 90% 3% -- 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%Sta tio ns On T ime Pe rfo rma nce 95% 90% 6% -- 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%Op e ra to r De la ys p e r 10,000 Mile s 481 325 156 48.0% >325 >325 >325 >325 >325Percent of California Car Fleet Available 84% 87% -3% -- 87% 87% 87% 87% 87%OPERAT ING RESULT ST RAIN AND BUS

Total Revenue 30,092,695$ 28,487,000$ $1,605,695 5.6% 30,406,000$ 31,676,000$ 32,388,000$ 33,360,000$ 34,361,000$ Total Expenses 58,403,946$ 62,956,000$ ($4,552,054) -7.2% 63,941,000$ 64,130,000$ 65,648,000$ 67,453,000$ 69,308,000$ T o ta l CCJPA Op e ra ting Bud g e t $27,494,252 $31,706,784 ($4,212,532) -13.3% $33,093,000 $32,454,000 $33,260,000 $34,093,000 $34,947,000

T RAIN ONLYTrain Only Revenue 28,287,133$ 26,777,780$ 1,509,353 5.6% 28,582,000$ 29,554,000$ 30,219,000$ 31,358,400$ 32,299,340$ Train Only Expenses 54,147,028$ 58,519,000$ (4,371,972) -7.5% 57,497,000$ 59,176,000$ 60,595,000$ 62,400,000$ 64,255,000$ Train Only State Operating Cost 25,859,895$ 31,741,220$ (5,881,325) -18.5% 28,915,000$ 29,622,000$ 30,376,000$ 31,041,600$ 31,955,660$ Train Miles 1,170,000 1,155,806 14,194 1.2% 1,163,000 1,163,000 1,163,000 1,163,000 1,163,000

- Includes payments to Amtrak for use of equipment (including insurance) and minor capital costs. Not included in any other line item.

FY 2014-15


27

APPENDIX D RIDERSHIP RESULTS

1

MEMORANDUM

TO: CCJPA Board Directors FROM: David B. Kutrosky, Managing Director DATE: February 12, 2016 SUBJECT: SUMMARY – Business Plan Workshops (January 25-28, 2016) Provided is a summary of the twelve (12) workshops that were held on Capitol Corridor trains and at the BART Boardroom to provide the public with the opportunity to receive an overview of and provide comments on the CCJPA’s Draft FY 16-17 – FY 17-18 Business Plan Update.

Train #538 (Great America to Oakland)– Jan. 25, 2016 – 6 attendees • Does the fare increase apply to monthly tickets? [STAFF REPLY: Yes, monthly tickets are scheduled to increase

by 2% in July, along with other multi-ride ticket fares.] • Does the service expansion to/from San Jose mean more trains running to/from Sacramento to San Jose? [STAFF

REPLY: Yes.] Train #538 (Richmond to Sacramento)– Jan. 25, 2016 – 8 attendees

• Why doesn’t train 523 always double stop at Berkeley to allow bikes off of other railcars? [STAFF REPLY: We are aware of your issue this morning trying to step off with your bike at Berkeley and are working with Amtrak to make sure all crews are informed to double stop peak trains at Berkeley on track one.

• Great service the Capitol Corridor provides. [STAFF REPLY: Thank you.] • How many riders use the San Joaquin and when do you add cars to the Capitol Corridor trains? [STAFF REPLY:

I do not have the exact ridership numbers for the San Joaquin trains, I can tell you they are busiest in the summer months and around holiday. This period, January is their low season. The threshold to add cars to Capitol Corridor trains is when the high count averages 75% of train capacity.]

• Can you provide a baseball fans car on game days to keep all the intoxicated fans together? [STAFF REPLY: We can look at that.]

• The fare increase is fair, you haven’t raised prices in quite some time. [STAFF REPLY: Yes, it was June of 2013.]

• Why the slow progress with bike lockers at Sacramento? [STAFF REPLY: Staff is working on the various aspects of the locker installation with the city. The Station redevelopment is completing the first phase at this point and they are preparing for phase II which will redevelop the west end of the station.]

• I can’t understand the reason for a café on the north side of the station. Who would want to sit there and look at bike lockers and smell the buses? You should consider moving the bike lockers to the top of the tunnel ramp (the midway plaza area). Riders could get their tickets there and rider their bikes further. [STAFF REPLY: Yes, good suggestion, however bike users would still need to walk their bikes on the pedestrian path.]

• Why can’t I take my dog on the train? [STAFF REPLY: Amtrak has a pilot program in effect in Chicago and on the East Coast already that will eventually be expanded to California and Capitol Corridor. There are some challenges with an unreserved service and equipment limitations regarding storage space under the seats of our state owned equipment that will need to be worked through.]

• When an extra car is in the train lineup and it is empty from a weekend football game or such, why can’t we ride in it? [STAFF REPLY: You should be able to ride in an extra car unless it is not fit for occupancy. Train crews should keep those cars in good order open for everyone. We will remind Amtrak Management of this.]

• Service is good, I am very happy and the on time performance is great. [STAFF REPLY: Thank you.] • I haven’t seen the on board survey as often. [STAFF REPLY: There was only one survey in 2015.] • I ride from Sacramento to Suisun in the morning and go home in the afternoon. Sometimes the train is very

crowded with bikes, I have not been turned away, the conductors keep a good eye on things. [STAFF REPLY: That is good to hear.]

• I travel from Davis to University Santa Clara with my bike. I have been turned away when I rode Caltrain and when I used to ride Yolo Bus. I never want to be turned away on the Capitol Corrido as I need my bike to get to

Page 2

work, or I cannot use the train. The Yolo buses are frequent but if I can’t get on the Capitol Corridor at Santa Clara the next train may not be for an hour and a half. [STAFF REPLY: I understand, we are making every effort to help avoid having to turn you away. The train crews have options with the bike cars for stacking bikes if necessary or allowing you to stand in vestibule (without a conductor panel) should it come to that. Thank you for your input!]

BART/CCJPA Offices Workshop – Jan. 25, 2016 – 0 attendees

• No attendees

Train #536 (Richmond to Sacramento) – Jan. 26, 2016 – 6 attendees • Rider notes that there are more frequent locomotive/maintenance issues that have caused delays in the past few

months. [STAFF REPLY: We continue to work with Amtrak maintenance crews to ensure comprehensive mechanical maintenance procedures are followed.]

• Are the [OBIS] audio announcements really necessary, especially for regular riders? [STAFF REPLY: The audio announcements are required for ADA policy compliance.]

• You should consider installing cameras for the train baggage storage areas; this will improve security not only for the baggage but for bikes that are stored there as well. [STAFF REPLY: That is a great suggestion. We will share this idea among staff and study its feasibility.]

• If you raise the multi-ride ticket fares, you might lose riders because the increased train fares may make driving look more cost-effective. [STAFF REPLY: We understand that a slight fare increase may cause some riders to switch to driving, but the fare increase is necessary because general costs, such as insurance and labor, have increased and are expected to increase in the next 2 years. CCJPA will monitor ridership numbers for impact from the fare increase.]

• You need more creative ideas to market the train service. Have you considered billboard signs or the traffic signs on the highways to specifically target those drivers who may be frustrated while stuck in traffic? [STAFF REPLY: We have done billboard advertising before, but they were not very effective, to my knowledge. I will pass on your suggestion to our marketing staff for considerations.]

• We need more on-board bicycle storage capacity. [STAFF REPLY: Staff are aware of the need for more on-board bike storage and are continually looking for ways to increase capacity. We anticipate issuing a Request for Information later this year to gather innovative bike storage solutions.]

• You could consider converting the lower floor of upper-level café cars to be bike storage, since not many people sit there. [STAFF REPLY: There might be some limitations of space on the lower floor because some spaces are used for storage, but we will explore the possibility.]

• You might lose revenue if you increase the price of bus tickets to SF or reduce the number of runs. [STAFF REPLY: We continue to look into options for this situation, and we will be holding public meetings to evaluate the options.]

• What can you do to compensate customers when delays occur? [STAFF REPLY: We know that time is invaluable to customers. We have two delay compensation tools: (1) The service voucher is for delays of 30"+ minutes; (2) The snack pack is intended for delays of 2 hours plus.]

• You should consider making the last train out of Great America station later to capture the attendees of late-night events at Levi’s Stadium. [STAFF REPLY: We will forward your suggestion to our Transportation Officer and other CCJPA staff for consideration.]

• Why would you have a new station (i.e. Vacaville) so close to an existing station (i.e. Suisun/Fairfield)? [STAFF REPLY: The new Vacaville station is a little more than 5 miles away from Suisun/Fairfield, and while travel time will increase by a few minutes, ridership models have shown an overall increase in ridership numbers from add a new station at Vacaville.]

• I would like to see more/earlier trains on weekends. [STAFF REPLY: Your comment will be shared with CCJPA staff, but I expect there just wasn’t enough market on weekend mornings to run trains.]

• The bus drivers in/out of SF aren’t Amtrak employees? [STAFF REPLY: No, they are contracted by Amtrak just for the Emeryville-SF route.]

• I am happy that the new Vacaville station is opening, because it is closer to where I live. [STAFF REPLY: We are glad that the new station will be able to serve you better!]

• We need more bike lockers at Emeryville; existing lockers are not accessible. [STAFF REPLY: We are actively working on installing eLockers at Emeryville.]

Page 3

Train #536 (Sacramento to Auburn) –Jan. 26, 2016 – 12 attendees • The ridership incentives you mentioned to UPRR, do they actually work? [STAFF REPLY: The on-time

performance incentives coupled with the capitalized maintenance performed by UPRR staff, but funded by CCJPA via state funding, do appear to combine to make the CCJPA’s OTP the best in the Amtrak system for six years running. UPRR’s host delays are well below the threshold of concern.]

• We would like more bus services to Auburn, specifically a 9 AM bus to Sacramento [STAFF REPLY: We note your recommendation and will examine this in light of the bus service we maintain from Reno in to Sacramento. We should note that we have made prior adjustments in the past to the bus schedule and low ridership buses were eliminated to maintain costs to a budget so we may not be feasibly be able to address this desire. The additional trains to/from Roseville may permit an option to change this – however the soonest that project could be expected to be partially completed would be late 2018 at best.]

• Will you ever be able to extend trains to Truckee, like snow or summer resort trains? [STAFF REPLY: We looked at this possibility about 11 years ago and the concept was not feasible due to capacity issues. Negotiations with the UPRR at the state level may cause a reconsideration but for now, and for the CCJPA, this option is not immediately feasible.]

• Can you please extend train 529 to San Jose? [STAFF REPLY: The ridership market for San Jose is far stronger for the earlier trains and the CCJPA does not have any additional time slots available from UPRR. As such, we end that train in Oakland.]

• Why are the number of cars decreasing on this train? [STAFF REPLY: The CCJPA needed to keep the service in budget and as part of cost and revenue management, we examined seating capacity. While train 536 does get many people sharing a row of seats (crowding is considered more than 75% seat occupancy), the train is not considered at a crowded level yet during its peak period usually between Martinez and Suisun station. If and when the crowding threshold is regularly met, the CCJPA will work within the demands placed on the Northern California fleet shared with the San Joaquins IPR service to try to put on another car – however right now spare cars are at a premium. As noted, in the Sacramento to Placer County stations, there is not the level of crowding as found earlier in the train’s weekday runs.]

• Can we please have the downstairs dining car so we can have more seats available on the train? [STAFF REPLY: There are other train rotations with similar crowding concerns (as the above question/response) which require the use of the downstairs dining cars on those services to ensure we can match and maximize the cost effectiveness of the available train equipment. Cars do cycle through maintenance, however, so while there is a chance that the downstairs dining car may be on the train 529/536 rotation, it would not be maintained for more than a week in general.]

Train #547 (Davis to Martinez) – Jan. 26, 2016 – 6 attendees • Bike security at Davis needs to be improved; I’ve had multiple things stolen off my bike there, and there has been

inadequate follow-up from Amtrak police or City of Davis police. [STAFF REPLY: We are working on installing new or better security cameras at all the stations, including Davis, and we are also working on installing secure bicycle lockers at Davis.]

• Weekend train schedule spacing needs to be tighter to reduce long gaps. [STAFF REPLY: We have limited train slots on Union Pacific ROW, but we do hope to run more frequent trains on weekends in the future.]

• We request that weekend trains out of Sacramento to be earlier so that we can attend morning events in the Bay Area. [STAFF REPLY: Your suggestion will be forwarded to our Transportation Officer, who can evaluate the feasibility of an early morning train out of Sacramento on the weekends.]

• The nighttime security of the path to the overfill parking lot at Martinez station needs to be addressed. There is no lighting along the path, and the path is not in the best condition. It’s a scary experience every time for me. [STAFF REPLY: We will reach out to City of Martinez to explore what they can do to improve that situation.]

• I do not enjoy the food offered in the Café. Is it possible to get a new vendor or new food items? [STAFF REPLY: Your comment is noted and will be taken into consideration when the times to design a new menu.]

• What is the impact of San Joaquin’s 8th roundtrip train on Capitol Corridor’s equipment use? [STAFF REPLY: Equipment use is quite tight now. New train cars are on order at this time so by the time the capital improvements are completed on the San Joaquin route, it is anticipated that there will be sufficient equipment in the fleet when the new cars arrive.]

Page 4

• We need more concrete to make the middle platform at Berkeley longer so that riders with bicycles can get out from all the cars instead of only two cars right now. [STAFF REPLY: There might be limitations by Union Pacific on the middle platform length, but we will look into it.]

• The Capitol Corridor’s Super Bowl special schedule could be an example of what future service to/from San Jose can look like. [STAFF REPLY: The Super Bowl special schedule was developed after extension conversations with Union Pacific. While we don’t expect that level of frequent service to continue after the Super Bowl due to existing train slot limitations, we definitely want to move toward that level of service to/from San Jose in the future.]

Train #543 (Davis to Martinez) – Jan. 27, 2016 – 3 attendees

• What is going on with the quality of the tracks in the South Bay? [STAFF REPLY: The tracks in the area are safe and the train runs at safe speeds along the route. The fact that they cause the train to move sideways through curves is a product of the track design. The upcoming CCJPA travel time savings project should marginally improve the ride quality.]

• There should be more vegetarian options in the Café Car. There used to be more but they were taken off the menu. [STAFF REPLY: We will inquire with Amtrak at the next menu change to examine the vegetarian food selections however, based on sales, some items are not doing as well as others. We will, however, strive to offer stock competitive vegetarian options at our next opportunity.]

• Why is WiFi slow? [STAFF REPLY: The free WiFi service is a product of what eight available cellular cards (made out of a mixture of the major cellular providers) can provide at any given time and location. As well, based on use on the train, a full train can really impact the speed of the service. There are no other cost effective options to provide WiFi that what we have at this time but the good news is that when 5G comes along, once the vendor works out integration with the 5G cards, we can swap in the promised faster 5G network cellular cards. However, the pace of doing that is dependent on how fast the cellular communication carriers are investing in a new system.]

• BART vs Caltrain vs Capitol Corridor - If you were to run more and faster trains between Oakland to San Jose, like Caltrain but on the East Bay, would you compete with BART? [STAFF REPLY: Because of where a likely route option presents itself and the way BART and a future Capitol Corridor or even modified Capitol Corridor service, like a Caltrain, would run, we believe the BART and Capitol Corridor markets are different enough to exist roughly in the same area. BART is planned much closer along the hillside in Santa Clara whereas the Capitol Corridor route would be closer to the Silicon Valley employment centers. Depending on when BART and any future Capitol Corridor high-frequency service would be implemented, it is likely that some people might switch services. The demand on the highway routes would suggest that both services would be complimentary for travel to/from the Silicon Valley area.

Train #545 (Davis to Martinez) – Jan. 27, 2016 – 15 attendees

• There seems to large pricing differential between Oakland JLS/Emeryville – Davis/Sacramento city pairs and Berkeley/Richmond – Davis/Sacramento city pairs. [STAFF REPLY: Thank you for the feedback. Staff will work with Amtrak ticketing pricing staff and likely make adjustments as part of the planned the 2% multi-ride ticket increase]

• Interested in getting updates on the Vision Plan. [STAFF REPLY: Staff will look into hosting on-board briefings.]

• General concern that there is no “Complaint” button on the website when the customer comment page. [STAFF REPLY: Staff will see how a “Complaint” button can be added to this section of the website.]

• Per the comment above, the passenger is complaining about lack of signs and enforcement of morning Quiet Cars. [STAFF REPLY: Staff will work with Amtrak transportation management to ensure protocols are followed for Quiet Cars.]

• Does the planned Travel Time Savings (TTS) Project assist with the introduction of the new Fairfield/Vacaville Station? [STAFF REPLY: Yes, the first phase of the TTS Project will include a proposed 4-minutes travel time reduction between Oakland and Sacramento that can used in the timetable/schedule when the Fairfield/Vacaville Station in opened for Capitol Corridor service.]

• Passenger noted that sometimes a Cap Corr train will wait at either side of the Benicia double-track drawbridge while another train passes by. Why would this delay happen if the bridge has 2 tracks? [STAFF REPLY: This

Page 5

delay could occur if a freight train would be on either of the drawbridge and blocking use of one of the two main tracks.]

• Concern expressed about lack of lighting and pedestrian pathway linking the Martinez Station with the satellite parking facilities. [STAFF REPLY: Staff will contact the City about its plan to provide safer access including the pedestrian overpass connecting the new parking lot over the train tracks to the station depot.]

Train #540 (Richmond to Sacramento) – Jan. 27, 2016 – 2 attendees • I am concerned about the bus service to and from San Francisco. I like the bus service and I am done with BART,

I am over BART. My father worked on the construction of BART and helped design the track system and I have ridden BART since I was a little girl.. The bus is convenient, however, they are currently dropping us and picking us up at the Trans Bay Temporary Terminal (for the Super Bowl events) and I don’t care for it. When I go home there are four buses waiting to board at the Terminal and the building is too small for all of the people waiting, it is just too tight. Sometimes the buses are late or they get caught in traffic. We have had issues with bus heating or air conditioning. The train is efficient and comfortable for riders. So it seems the bus is the weakest link in the system. We have a very good bus driver named Adrian who is courteous and concerned for riders. He notices when a rider is not there on a particular day. [STAFF REPLY: ] Thank you for your input. If you arrive at the Trans Bay Terminal when the bus is loading you can walk directly to the coach without going in the waiting room area. We will pass along your kind words about Adrian to his supervisor.

• When will you add another car to the 4 car trains? [STAFF REPLY:} We monitor the ridership on the trains and when we reach a 75% high count occupancy we will consider adding another car.

Train #544 (Great America to Oakland Coliseum) – Jan. 27, 2016 – 8 attendees

• Wi-Fi performance needs to be improved. I always have to use my Mi-Fi because the quality of the train Wi-Fi is not good enough – sometimes I can’t connect to it and sometimes it just disconnects automatically. Is there a way to set up a private, better-performance, Wi-Fi connection that riders can pay for if they want to use it? [STAFF REPLY: We continually try to improve the free Wi-Fi connection performance, but have not explored the option of a paid Wi-Fi connection. Your suggestion will be shared with CCJPA staff for further evaluation.]

• What is the latest situation with parking at Emeryville? [STAFF REPLY: All parking at the Emeryville station is now located at the adjacent Terraces Parking Garage at 5855 Horton St. Free parking is offered to monthly ticket riders, but daily or multi-day riders need to pay a $5 daily fee to park in the garage.]

• My car has been broken into multiple times at the Coliseum station, and follow-up by Amtrak police has not resulted to anything. Security needs to be significantly improved at Coliseum. Perhaps you could consider having a guard there periodically to ward off perpetrators? What about offering free parking in the nearby BART parking lot (they don’t seem to have break-in issues there)? [STAFF REPLY: Security camera technology is always improving, and it’s part of our station security program to install or replace security cameras at different stations, and Coliseum is definitely a key one that we know to be a problem station. We will share your suggestions with CCJPA staff and evaluate feasibility.]

• We need more bicycle lockers at stations! [STAFF REPLY: We are working hard to make that happen!] • The bathrooms really stink on some of the trains. Can you do more to improve bathroom cleanliness? [STAFF

REPLY: We will continue to work with Amtrak to make sure that the bathrooms are cleaned thoroughly and that the air fresheners are working.]

• Can you improve connection timing between Capitol Corridor trains and the ACE shuttles, as well as with the VTA light rail trains? [STAFF REPLY: Sure, we will reach out to ACE and VTA to see what we can do for timely connections between the systems.]

• Conductors are great! I’ve been riding for a few years, and I’m always impressed by how friendly and flexible most of the conductors are. [STAFF REPLY: Thank you! We think our conductors are great too!]

• We need more bike space on the 7:30am train out of Sacramento. [STAFF REPLY: We are definitely looking for ways to increase on-board bike storage, and we anticipate releasing a Request for Information later this year to gather innovative solutions.]

• You need to offer better customer service after trespasser incidents. By now, we all know that the train is going to be stuck for more than an hour after a trespasser incident, so you should start procedures to send out bus shuttles to transport riders out of the train immediately after a trespasser incident occurs. [STAFF REPLY: Your suggestion will be forwarded to our Transportation Officer.]

Page 6

• Bike share around the Great America station, coordinated with popular employers in the area, could help to alleviate the tight bicycle storage situation on the trains. [STAFF REPLY: Your recommendation is noted and we will keep it in mind as we develop bike share ideas in the future.]

• CCJPA needs to do a better job at notifying riders of impacts to Great America station ACE shuttles, parking and bicycle routes from the Super Bowl. [STAFF REPLY: We have posted news about Great America station changes in the News section of our website, but I will let Marketing staff know that we need to make those more visible.]

• I’ve heard that other trains have gotten Rider Appreciation treatments, but I have not experienced that on this train [Train 544]. [STAFF REPLY: We have limited staff capacity, so we can’t do Rider Appreciation on every train, but I will note your comment down for consideration for future Rider Appreciation event planning.]

Train #542 (Great America to Oakland Coliseum) – Jan. 28, 2016 – 14 attendees

• Why do kids with a person holding a 10 ride have to be charged like an adult? [STAFF REPLY: This is Amtrak’s ticketing policy with a steeply discounted multi-ride pass. One option to explore is CCJPA (and Amtrak’s) friends and family promotion which does not use your ten-ride but instead, there is one full fare but then all other family members can be 50% off. If CCJPA brings back the 5 for 5 on Weekends, then that is another promotion that might be a good discount for family travel.]

• Can we please have longer trains so it is not as crowded? [STAFF REPLY: The trains are getting more crowded but for effective cost to revenue management, we need to minimize our costs by ensuring we are putting out only the vehicles needed for service based on use numbers. As well, our shared and finite amount of rolling stock (shared with the San Joaquins) is undergoing maintenance/repair so in many cases we can’t lengthen trains due to equipment availability. We are monitoring crowding with data gathered daily against seats so we can provide the most cost effective service feasible.]

• There are night classes with the various San Jose area universities/colleges that end just at the wrong time to take the train. Could you schedule trains later out of San Jose to allow for these trips? [STAFF REPLY: We will certainly examine this suggestion and see what adjustments could be made but we will have to consider the entire route to render our assessment of this option.]

• Can you initiate paid parking security at the Oakland Coliseum station due to the massive car break-ins – there were 20 in one day a while back? [STAFF REPLY: We can’t since we do not control the station but we will be sure to alert the City of Oakland Police Department and/or talk with the City about installing such a patrol system. We also suggest your expression of need to Oakland officials including elected officials, since they oversee this city amenity.]

• Please use Twitter more for delay alerts! [STAFF REPLY: Our team agrees with you and we are exploring ways to automate and/or work with the Amtrak Operations staff to provide more alerts over Twitter.]

• You should promote the pre-tax transit travel benefits again since it went up to $255. [STAFF REPLY: We out a reminder message in our customer communications about this in addition to whatever your employer may have been doing. As well, we are working with Amtrak to make for an easier delivery and payment method for these pre-tax transit dollars.]

• Can the Great America Bus Shuttles come back for the Capitol Corridor service – not just for ACE? [STAFF REPLY: CCJPA eliminated those buses several years ago as a cost management objective. We do not anticipate having funds to restore such a service. As such, we suggest exploring other first/mile last mile means, including waiting to use the ACE shuttles since we mutually agreed as a partnership between ourselves that ACE would allow Capitol Corridor passengers who were willing to wait a bit to use those shuttles.]

• Could the VTA light rail be relocated to be right above the Capitol Corridor station or at least the schedules worked out to time with the arrival of the Capitol Corridor trains? [STAFF REPLY: We have suggested to the City of Santa Clara that via a larger effort with the new proposed commercial/residential development to the Northwest of the station be an opportunity to revisit repositioning the VTA light rail. The nature of the VTA light rail and Capitol Corridor service are not time compatible nor are they at present proximate enough to warrant a practice of waiting for one of the services.

Train #542 (Richmond to Sacramento) – Jan. 28, 2016 – 16 attendees

• You should partner with tech companies who have marketing cash to wrap Capitol Corridor trains [STAFF REPLY: The CCJPA has done a number of wraps in the past usually associated with events where riding the train is part of the experience. We will consider this an opportunity to explore yet advertising experts we work with have not been successful at attracting the attention of technology companies.]

Page 7

• You should think about using the luggage doors above all the seats as opportunities to put advertisements so you can earn additional revenue. [STAFF REPLY: We have noticed a general trend away from cost effective print advertising which this would entail. As well, we are concerned about the sense of clutter and experience this sort of measure would have for patrons who are perhaps seeking a more restful space free of marketing of this nature. The fact of sharing the rolling stock with another JPA (the San Joaquins) would also be another complication. We applaud the search to find additional revenue opportunities but do not feel this is suitable for our service. A means to put digital advertising is coming via OBIS and the WiFi landing page. Those opportunities are less costly for all and less intrusive.]

• When I ride the less crowded trains I generally see too many conductors for such low ridership trains. Would you please explore opportunities to reduce those costs if possible? [STAFF REPLY: Our contract with Amtrak stipulates that we observe the union contracts between Amtrak and the train and engine crews, which at this time, requires a Conductor and Assistant Conductor on each passenger train.]

• Can you get “us” involved in awareness and political issues for how “we” can be involved to support Capitol Corridor service? [STAFF REPLY: The CCJPA has not formally supported any passenger advocacy organization however several have formed with the most notable being the Placer County group called the “CC Riders”. They have represented service issues both to CCJPA itself and also elected officials. This was a self-organized group of riders and not developed by CCJPA. While we do participate in providing information to elected officials and have both state and federal lobbyists, we have not done any enlisting of rider advocacy groups.]

• Would you be able to get a corporate logo type of food chain to support the café car or maybe some elements of the café car food – for instance, Starbucks? There would probably be more food sales if you were to do that. [STAFF REPLY: CCJPA have contemplated this option but at this time the food contract for service is through an overall all-state contract for a food vendor. The food service is a very complicated set of maneuvers between the food warehouse and the lounge service attendants as the trains change – inventory management and control is vital. The ability to parse out a portion of that or introduce more corporate or brand-aware food vendors to the train services would have to contend with the way these various elements interact and typically the brands we may know from establishments on the street are not equipped or specialized to deal with the various food and inventory logistics. As well, we are unsure if the general riding public wants to be limited to one brand’s food styles, like Starbucks, which was mentioned.]

• You could use Kings games at the new Sacramento Arena to attract Bay Area people on the train to see games and teams they maybe can’t see in the Bay Area with the more pricey and impacted Warriors basketball games. [STAFF REPLY: We can explore this option as a promotion however the train service levels and schedules we maintain for ridership across the year are not usually conducive to travel to/from Sacramento for those games. As well, the additional cost of tickets for the Capitol Corridor would more than eliminate any cost differences. However – as an overnight experience in Sacramento, the use of the arena for all the events planned for it does present a unique opportunity to try out some marketing to see how it is received.]

• You should look into the use of StubHub for ads for Capitol Corridor service. [STAFF REPLY: CCJPA staff are looking into StubHub at this time to learn if it is a right fit for the resources and marketing approach CCJPA is pursuing.]

• When the new Fairfield/Vacaville station opens up will you have any changes to service at the Suisun Station? [STAFF REPLY: The CCJPA will be serving both stations.]

• The new Fairfield/Vacaville station will present a great opportunity to put compatible land uses like apartments and commercial around it I would think. Is that happening? [STAFF REPLY: From the plans we have seen it is likely that land uses of that nature are planned around the station and as such, that should be supportive of ridership growth to/from that station.]

• THE NEXT SET OF COMMENTS ARE ALL CONCERNING THE ROUTE CHANGES ANTICIPATED FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BUS SERVICE WITH THE SUDDEN PROPOSED COST INCREASES:

o Balance BART service with the San Francisco options. o The BART discount tickets could go down to $6 and that might be a fair match to encourage more

BART ridership as opposed to the Emeryville Bus option. That should be analyzed. o You should balance costs and revenues for what sort of service would survive to serve San Francisco o You should ask the state for the additional funds to offset the cost increase and maintain the same level

of service or maybe just a bit less service. Either way, the state should help with this and it should not all be on the back of the riders. You should at least ask about this option.

o Do you have data on the San Francisco bus services?

Page 8

o You should explore vanpool options from Emeryville for people that can drive to particular locations in San Francisco and park there.

[STAFF REPLIES: CCJPA is already and will continue to analyze a variety of options to balance the costs and revenues of preserving some level of service to/from San Francisco to/from Emeryville. These will include the use of BART for some as a substitute we would expect and even encourage. The use of fares is an option as suggested. We do not anticipate the state being in a position to assist with supplying CCJPA the funds to fill or partially fill the funding gap we are currently seeing with the service options being presented. The CCJPA will hold workshops focusing on the affected riders in late February/early March 2016 to work out a solution, however, until we take action, the high costs are not sustainable for CCJPA so the urgency for a cost effective solution is strong. We will use data we have gathered to support analysis of various service options – the service options we will present to the affected riders. The use of vanpools is a thought but would need to overcome the complexities of launching such a service and then driver and vehicle reliability as a substitute. Emailed Comments to bizplancomments:

1 Hello I had a quick look at the business plan, and it all seems quite sensible. You talk about funding problems for improving the service between Oakland and San Jose. However, Measure BB, passed a year or so ago. I didn't see mention made of it (I skimmed the report, so perhaps I missed it). It specifically called out funds for improving the service frequency and reliability. I don't remember the amount mentioned in the ballot. Is there a plan to incorporate these funds into the plan? Thanks much, Neil Gilfedder (a usually happy Capitol Corridor passenger) [CCJPA Response: Yes there is a plan to use these funds combined with an effort to increase service to/from San Jose As alluded to in the plan, we are building an effort with various Bay Area transportation partners – namely Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) – and then eventually local cities that would be needed to pull off a larger, more complex, but more effective project. We are still in early stages but the objectives are aligning but we also know that such an effort will need to be larger than just Capitol Corridor meeting its own expansion objectives A freight goods movement is a huge component and then once the public side is aligned on this, the host railroad needs to buy in to the solution, not to mention local cities. So it will take some time but those Measure BB funds are poised to play a role in that larger effort. ALSO Hi Neal- First, thanks for your continued patronage of the Cap Corr trains. And yes, while you took a quick look at the business plan update, you correctly point out Alameda County Measure BB has identified the investment of a portion of these sales tax proceeds for passenger rail in Alameda County, which can help address the funding issues that are delaying the Oakland-San Jose Phase 2 Project. The CCJPA has recently been working with Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and other interested parties to develop a comprehensive rail plan that addresses the need to increase passenger rail service in the county while also improving the movement of goods and freight via the existing rail Infrastruture connecting the Port of Oakland with the Central Valley.

Page 9

With so many partners, and the need for a comprehensive solution has resulted in a more methodical, programmatic approach to addressing the technical, financial, and institutional challenges of the various partners, which has delayed the implementation of the CCJPA's Oakland-San Jose Phase 2 Project. ] ALSO: REPLY FROM NEIL GILFEDDER Hello Again I had a phone call with Robert this afternoon, and he talked me through the plans for the Oakland-San Jose part of the route. I'd just like to lend my enthusiastic support for these, including using the track nearer the bay to allow double-tracking and more frequent service. I'd also support doing anything to increase bike capacity. Thanks! Neil ALSO REPLY FROM CCJPA DIRECTOR ROBERT RABURN TO PRIOR NEIL GELFEDDER Thank-you, Neil, for your astute observations and support for the Cap Corridor. You are the second bicyclist I heard from during the week of Jan 25-29 concerned about a lack of two bike cars on the morning Oakland to San Jose trains. Please let us know if this situation will be corrected soon. -Robert Raburn, PhD Director - District 4 SF Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) 510-530-3444 hm

2 Hi, I am a daily rider of Amtrak Capitol Corridor. I would like to suggest that part of the business plan be to include lighting between the Martinez Amtrak station and the overflow parking lot across the tracks. Currently there is no lighting and it is extremely dangerous to walk back to my car at night. I regularly fear that a car will not see me when I am walking or that I may hit a pedestrian when leaving the lot in my car. If this request does not fit into the scope of the business plan I would like to request that this issue be addressed through other means. Thanks for providing a great service! Best, Marika Inhoff [CCJPA Response: These are directly the types of suggestions we encourage during the review of the business plan. Although we do not control the station and areas near the station, we will take your suggestion into advisement and contact the City of Martinez and try to develop a cost effective solution.]

3 Excerpt from FY16-17 Capital Corridor Business Plan: “Customer Relations. The

Page 10

CCJPA views communication with passengers as the cornerstone of our customer-focused service delivery. We encourage passengers to provide input on our service performance through comment cards on the trains, phone calls, letters, and email. “ Given the above, here is some feedback from someone who just started using the service last year.

• 1. Train Identification: For a new customer, there aren’t any readily identifiable markings on the CC trains to let one know it is actually a CC train (I noticed that the ACE trains which share some track and stations with CC are clearly marked.) Try to appreciate how much concern there can be over boarding the wrong train! In addition to the generic route indication, I have yet to see the train number posted clearly on any CC train. How hard would it be to have poster-size signs in the windows of at least every-other car for a given train?

• 2. Parking: Most of us rely on having parking available near or actually at given station.

The GAC (Great America) parking area is a good example where public transportation worked out a cost effective and convenient parking service with local government, but it seems to be the only one that is large enough and free to customers. In contrast, the lot a San Jose is tiny and the lot in Sacramento costs $10/day. This turns a $60 round trip into a $110 cost for those of us who need to use long term parking there. What’s worse, the municipal staff of Sacramento have no appreciation of the difficulties people have in using the cryptic pay machines. I have lost count of how many times I’ve shown other riders how it works… While the new smartphone app helps, the cost remains an issue. Bottom line is riders would really like to see broader coordination between public transportation providers and the municipalities they service.

Regards, Jerry Applegate [CCJPA Response: Thank you for your observations and suggestions. I will answer the suggestions in this email to the extent we can. Regarding signage for which train there is - there are some inconsistent outdated LCD signs on most cars but the brightness, readability of those signs is dubious and has been so for years. CCJPA is not the owner of the rail rolling stock but we are working with Caltrans (the owner) to install an updated on-train information system called OBIS which will comprise of interior video screens and audio. This will also include replacement of side of car signage which will have train numbers on it. This will, however, take some time to develop. Your suggestion to post paper signs in the windows will be noted and considered in our operations but we will have to weigh this potential feature against the Amtrak crew duties and the look/feel of these signs, and their vulnerability to folks who may damage and remove them to see outside the window. The concept we understand but we will weigh the other short term options for filling in this need until OBIS is available in several years. On the parking - again CCJPA will have to claim no direct control - each station is owned and managed by the respective cities and subject to how they are wanting to manage their station. We do bring up the limitations and policies at Sacramento with City Staff and have done so for some time however this has not resulted in modifications that always please patrons of those stations. The online option, as you mention, is an improvement. We will continue to convey the dissatisfaction with the City staff and City leadership when the opportunities are presented in the future however we do encourage station patrons to reach out to their respective station owners (aka Cities) for improvements that would make use of the stations more customer friendly.]

Page 11

Item V.6

Date: February 11, 2016 From: David B. Kutrosky To: CCJPA Board Subject: Managing Director’s Report – February 2016

Service Performance Overview The performance results for the Capitol Corridor in January 2016 continue trending upwards. A total of 117,809 passengers rode the Capitol Corridor trains in January 2016, a 4.6% increase in year-over-year growth with revenue up 4.8% compared to January 2016. The Year to Date (FYTD 16) System Operating Ratio is 54%, exceeding the standard of 50%. On-time Performance (OTP) for October 2015 was a stellar 95%.

The following are ridership highlights from January 2016: - Average weekend ridership for January 2016 increased by 4%, which indicates the popularity

of the Friends/Family 50% offer that has been able to attract families and small groups compared to historically low gas prices.

- Average weekday ridership was up 5% compared to January 2016, with strong growth on the San Jose/Silicon Valley trains and the two trains serving the Placer County stations.

Capitol Corridor Service Plan for Super Bowl 50 For nearly 2 years, CCJPA staff worked closely with the NFL Super Bowl Committee and partner transit agencies to develop an operating plan to provide safe, convenient train service to and from Super Bowl 50 on February 7, 2016. Staff developed a special one-day schedule for the Capitol Corridor on Super Bowl Sunday, February 7, 2016 and limited connecting bus service in San Francisco to only the temporary TransBay Terminal bus depot between January 25, 2016 and February 12, 2016 due to street closures around Super Bowl City and the NFL Experience. Preliminary data shows the Capitol Corridor trains carried approximately 1,100 riders in each direction (for a total of 2,200 trips) to and from Super Bowl 50, the highest ridership ever for an event at Levi’s Stadium. FY 16-17 Draft State Budget/State Legislation On January 7, 2016, Governor Brown released his draft budget for FY 16-17. Consistent with prior actions, this draft budget includes $127 million to support the state’s popular three intercity passenger

Standard Jan. 2016 vs. Jan. 2015 YTD vs. Prior YTD vs. FY16 PlanRidership 117,809 4.6% 502,687 3.7% 4.1%Revenue $2,434,980 4.8% $10,607,256 3.9% 3.4%Operating Ratio 48% 44% 54% 3.7% 5.0%OTP 95% 98% 95% 1.3% 8.6%Customer Satisfaction 88 87 88 0.7% 0%

Notes: A total of 117,809 passengers rode Capitol Corridor trains on January 2016, a 4.6% increase over January 2015, and revenues were 4.8% above year-over-year, and another record for the month. These performance results continue the trend of sustained growth. Fuel prices still dropping and revenue above plan, the FY 2016 System Operating remains at 54%, above the FY 2016 standard of 50%. On-Time Performance (OTP) for January 2016 was a stellar 95%, keeping the Capitol Corridor in the #1 position as the most reliable service in the Amtrak system. The Customer Satisfaction report received from Amtrak for December was 88% Highly Satisfied with YTD customer satisfaction at 88%, equal to the standard set for FY 2016.

rail (IPR) services including the Capitol Corridor. The Governor’s budget proposal continues the movement to address the state’s transportation infrastructure crisis, which would invest $36 billion in transportation over the next 10 years. Specifically, the Governor’s proposed FY 16-17 transportation funding package requests a supplemental $400 million for the Cap and Trade Transit/Intercity Rail Program (TIRCP) on top of the $200 million in the baseline FY 16-17 TIRCP funds. In a parallel effort, Assemblymember Frazier, who is also Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, has introduced AB 1591, which would double the amount of the TIRCP from the current 10% of Cap and Trade auction revenues to 20%. FY 2017 Federal Legislation With the passage of a 5-year federal surface transportation authorization, titled Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 on December 4, 2015, the $305B program includes for the first time ever a Rail Title with annual authorized funding of nearly $2 billion in competitive grants for state-supported IPR services. For all the success of including state IPR in the Rail Title of the FAST Act of 2015 (FY 2016 – FY 2020), the FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill did not include the $200 million authorized for the various capital funding programs for state IPR services. That being stated, efforts are underway to include the full FY 2017 authorization amounts [approximately $350 million] identified in the FAST Act within the FY 2017 appropriations bill(s). Customer Service Program Upgrades

• Bicycle Access Program: CCJPA staff continues to work with station owners to install the eLockers. Amtrak is the lead for installation for eLockers located within the envelope of the station platform, while CCJPA staff will lead the installation with station owners for those eLockers located in the non-platform, public access areas. Contractual duties include insurance coverage and liability responsibilities, securing building permits and rights of occupancy, and completing funding and related installation contracts.

• Richmond Station Platform Improvements. The CCJPA staff has been working with BART on two access improvements at the Richmond station: installation of a flashing light/beacon at the Capitol Corridor/Amtrak Richmond station platform which will indicate to conductors on Sacramento/Auburn-bound Capitol Corridor trains that a BART train is approaching and will allow conductors to wait for passengers to transfer from the inbound BART train to the waiting eastbound Capitol Corridor train; and installation of a Clipper Card Parking Validation Machine (PVM) on the Capitol Corridor/Amtrak boarding platform so that Capitol Corridor passengers parking at the Richmond BART parking garage can pay/validate for parking with their Clipper Card on the train platform. Funding has been secured for these projects. Next steps include completing design plans and preparing procurement contracts. A preliminary completion date is Spring 2017.

• Marketing: Promotions continue with the Friends & Family small group deal running through

December 31, 2016. The Wi-Fi landing page for on-train users is being updated and improved with a focus on Capitol Corridor-specifics topics.

Safety Initiatives

• Security Cameras at Capitol Corridor Stations: Funding has been secured to install cameras and surveillance equipment at the Rocklin, Roseville, Suisun, and Fremont stations. This project is under development and will be constructed during the fall and winter months. Funding has been identified in a future funding year for security cameras at the Martinez, Emeryville, and Oakland Jack London Square stations. When complete, all Capitol Corridor stations will be equipped with security cameras and surveillance equipment.

• Positive Train Control: While Congress enacted a 3-year extension of PTC in November 2015, the Union Pacific Railroad remains committed to first implementing PTC in the Los Angeles basin, with the Northern California area next. The PTC system is now being tested in the Los Angeles basin and a completion date has not been identified at this time. With respect to the installation of the PTC equipment on the state-owned rail equipment in Northern California, hardware (electronic equipment) has been installed on all locomotives and cab cars. The next steps include software installation and programming that is expected to be complete in Summer 2016.

Project Updates • Travel Time Savings Project: UPRR, in consultation with the CCJPA, is completing the

phasing plan for the project, which will develop work programs, schedules, and budgets for each of the two planned phases (#1 - Oakland-Benicia, #2 - Oakland-Santa Clara). It is anticipated that 10 minutes in reduced travel times will be achieved for Capitol Corridor trains between Sacramento and San Jose with the completion of the project. This project was awarded $4.62 million in Cap and Trade TIRCP funds, for which the CCJPA will be seeking an allocation of these TIRCP funds in spring 2016.

• Oakland-San Jose Phase 2 Track Project. The engineering and environmental consultants continue working for CCJPA on the Newark-Albrae and Great America double track segments. Initial survey data has been gathered and conceptual design is advancing. Concurrently, Caltrain is completing the design and environmental plans for the track upgrades into and out of the San Jose Diridon station terminal facility as a means to accommodate additional Capitol Corridor trains.

• Sacramento-Roseville 3rd Track Project. With the adoption of the California environmental review document by the CCJPA Board at its November 18, 2015 meeting, staff is working on the development of a phased implementation plan for the project which also includes cobbling together a phased financing plan. Two primary sources of financing include the California Cap and Trade TIRCP funds and the annual appropriations from the annual authorization program in the FAST Act for intercity passenger rail grants. Concurrently, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is advancing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental documentation and for the Project and will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project when the CCJPA applies for any federal funding (i.e., appropriations pursuant to the FAST Act).

Outlook – Closing Through one-third of FY 2016, the performance of the Capitol Corridor continues to be at or above established annual performance standards, continuing the momentum gained in FY2015. The three R’s – ridership, revenue, and reliability maintain an upward trend due to a strong economy in Northern California, the ongoing commitment from our service partners (UPRR, Caltrain, Amtrak, and Caltrans/CalSTA) to the safe, reliable operation of the Capitol Corridor trains and connecting bus services, and the sustained support from the CCJPA’s communities and state funding partners. Through the remainder of FY2016, CCJPA will: begin preparations for the arrival of the new Tier 4 “Charger” locomotives in the Northern California intercity passenger rail (IPR) fleet; assist, as needed, with the installation and testing of PTC on the NorCal IPR fleet and along the Capitol Corridor route; and identify and secure funding for security and safety initiatives, projects to support service expansion plans (San Jose/Salinas, Placer County) and various customer service and access amenities.

Ridership On-time Performance System Operating Ratio (b)Customer

SatisfactionMonth Actual Business Plan Actual Actual Actual Business Plan Actual

October-15 134,233 127,310 94.4% 51.8% $2,686,162 $2,522,142 88

November-15 130,045 127,120 92.4% 59.7% $2,845,496 $2,800,028 87

December-15 120,600 116,620 95.9% 57.3% $2,640,617 $2,605,670 88

January-16 117,809 111,830 95.4% 47.8% $2,434,980 $2,332,299

February-16 112,030 $2,308,541

March-16 128,460 $2,619,967

April-16 126,870 $2,521,391

May-16 131,030 $2,621,365

June-16 121,650 $2,472,371

July-16 117,260 $2,582,879

August-16 124,340 $2,528,269

September-16 116,930 $2,491,078

Total YTD 502,687 482,880 94.5% 54% $10,607,256 $10,260,139 88Previous YTD 484,922 - - 93.2% 52% $10,206,919 - - 87YTD Change 3.7% 4.1% 1.3% 3.7% 3.9% 3.4% 0.7%

Annual Standard/Measure 1,461,450 90% 50% $30,406,000 88

b) This standard measures total revenues (farebox and other operating credits) divided by total expenses (Amtrak operations + CCJPA Call Center)

State Perfomance Standards (a)

a) Standard developed by CCJPA in annual business plan update and approved by the California State Transportation Agency

Other Performance Measures

FY 2016 Performance Measures

Revenues

2009 2015-2016 Capitol Corridor- Completed/Proposed

Marketing & Communications Activities Calendar Modified 2/3/2016

July Oakland A’s promotion ongoing Renewal of contracts with marketing vendors Continue budget close out of FY15 Plan Fall promotions Sacramento River Cats promotion continues Pier 39 promotion starts New Timetable Group Travel Planning for FY15

August Sacramento River Cats promotion continues Oakland A’s promotion continues Oakland Raiders promotion begins Launched Levi’s Stadium page for 2015 season San Jose Jazz Festival Pier 39 promotion continues Rail Safety month planning Group Travel Transition to Amtrak September Cal Athletics promotion begins Oakland A’s promotion ends Sacramento River Cats promotion concludes Visit Sacramento/Gold Rush Days promotion Pier 39 promotion continues Rail Safety Month: debut Rail Safety Video, social

media, other PR Website RFP for FY16 Plan Winter/Spring Promotional Offers Eat Real Food Festival promotion Train Status Launch Cappy coloring book

October October Schedule Change Train Treks Fares Order Rider Appreciation/Cappy Hour onboard event Text review of Annual report Raiders Social Media contest

November Cal, Raiders promos continue 2016 Transit Transfers, Placer County Step-Up

Coupons Begin planning with Placer County for 2016 Begin design/production of Annual report Chinook Book co-branded mobile app Hot Italian restaurant promo (SAC, DAV, EMY)

December Cal & Raiders promos conclude “Friends and Family” offer renewed 20% coupon Renewal/Development Super Bowl 50 communications planning Holiday Ice rink promotions (SJ, SAC, SF)

January Business Plan– draft and Public Workshops Super Bowl 50 communications planning Harlem Globetrotters promotion Holiday Ice rink promotions continue SJ Downtown Ice “School on Skates” sponsorship SF Beer Week promotion

February • Promotion of new AGR program • Advertising RFP for FY16 • Stitch ‘n’ Ride Discount Offer • Feld/Disney on Ice promotion • Super Bowl 50 • Annual Report published & mailed March • Possible Spring Timetable? April • BART Blue Sky Event – San Francisco

May • Local Bike to Work Day events

June • Contract/Vendor planning for FY17 • Amtrak Train Days, Sacramento • Get On Board/Message to Riders

Status Report – CCJPA Marketing: 2/3/2016

ADVERTISING, PROMOTIONS & EVENTS Advertising/Promotions

• Disney On Ice: FROZEN – Partnership promotes Capitol Corridor on TV and radio, discounted train travel and show tickets.

Strategic Marketing Partnerships

• Holiday Ice Rinks: Promoted travel to holiday ice rinks in Sacramento, San Jose and San Francisco • Harlem Globetrotters: promoted travel to Harlem Globetrotters games at Oakland

Coliseum Arena in January • SF Beer Week Jan. 22 – 31 – promoted travel to this week-long event • Oakland A’s: 25% fare discount for 2015 season began in February and concluded in

November 2015. Currently renegotiating contract for 2016-17 season. Public/Media Relations, Announcements & Events:

• Super Bowl 50: Coordinating communications about gameday service and regular service impacts

PRINT COLLATERAL • 2015 Annual Performance Report • Visit Oakland/Multi-Ride tickets on

App – On board posters installed • Chinook Book ad for FY16 coupon

book

WEBSITE/ E-MAIL MARKETING/ SOCIAL MEDIA/ BLOGS • E-Updates Program -- Capitol Corridor uses GovDelivery to provide subscription-based email and SMS updates about Capitol

Corridor directly to a computer or wireless device. This system allows CCJPA to manage several mailing lists, including CC Rail Mail (2,974 subscribers) and Service Alerts (2,183 subscribers)

• Get On Board (http://www.capitolcorridor.org/blogs/get_on_board/) – Blogs are now consolidated with new design and content (see screenshot below).

• Twitter, Facebook –

Facebook Fans = 11,136

Twitter Followers = 3,893

Joint Community/Member Agency Projects

o Placer County Transportation Planning Agency- coordinating with staff to bolster weekday and weekend ridership to/from Placer County. Second campaign done late spring, including social media ads, print ads and direct mail.

Ongoing Offers

• 20% coupon – This coupon is used primarily to offer a discount to single travelers and/or assist with customer service, so this is not in major distribution. New Coupon begins February 2016.

http://www.capitolcorridor.org/blogs/get_on_board/


PROMOTIONS REPORT Friends and Family 50% Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Total

YTD Ridership N/A N/A N/A N/A 146 317 447 364 848 872 741 N/A 3735 Revenue N/A N/A N/A N/A $

2,889 $ 5,286

$ 8,467

$7,135 $14,974 $17,964 $13,548 N/A $ 70,263

Oakland A's 25% Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Total

YTD Ridership N/A 11 46 441 435 401 309 688 677 147 21 N/A

3,176 Revenue N/A $

236 $ 528

$ 7,597

$ 8,216

$ 7,776

$ 5,891

$13,588 $12,867 $1,796 $406 N/A $ 58,900

20% Discount Coupon Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Total

YTD Ridership N/A N/A 1 5 90 8 12 12 2 5 9 N/A 144 Revenue N/A N/A $

23 $ 75

$ 1,536

$ 162

$ 272

$ 281

$64 $105 $210 N/A $ 2,727


Website Statistics – JANUARY 2016


05

101520

16 6 4 1

1

6 4

5

10

1 0

5

10

15

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6

Weekly Coverage

Earned Media Reports – January 2016 TOTAL EARNED MEDIA VALUE $ 591,424

Media Type Analysis Capitol Corridor received a total of 27 articles for the month of January 2016. Websites published the highest volume of coverage with 16 articles. The notable websites were Yahoo! Travel, SFGate, San Bruno Patch and Hipmunk. Newspapers published six articles. The top outlets were San Jose Mercury News, the Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner. Broadcast came next with four clips. The prominent channels were KDVR and KTVU. Magazines published one article from METRO Magazine. Trend of Coverage Coverage for Capitol Corridor was high during the fifth week of January with 10 articles. Prominent theme was,

• The Capitol Corridor train service adding special trains for those heading to the Super Bowl game.

Second week received the next highest volume of coverage with six articles. Prominent theme was,

• The Capitol Corridor train offering service from Sacramento to the Levi’s stadium.

Prior FY 16 (FY 16)Encumbered Contracts Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Expenditures Total

Web Development and Maintenance $49,440

Miscellaneous $4,722 $9,469 $7,500

Sub-total $4,722 $58,909 $7,500 $276,916 $348,047Purchase Orders

Miscellaneous $5,924 $10,898 $8,686

Sub-total $5,924 $10,898 $8,686 $178,665 $204,173TOTAL $10,646 $69,807 $16,186 $455,581 $552,220

FY 2015/2016 ENCUMBERED CONTRACTS & PURCHASE ORDERSCAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

Cover Letter for Supplemental Mailing...CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE FY 2016-17 – FY 2017-18 BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE FINAL DRAFT -I -IN FY 2016-17 AND FY 2017-18 THE CCJPA WILL BUILD UPON

Documents