Monthly Archives

June 2007

Rail Photos

Are you go-ing to San Fran-cis-co this summer?

To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the “summer of love?” :) Go to a ball game? Go to Fishermans Wharf/Pier 39? Ride the cable cars? Let’s go! Here’s a photo story of rail in San Francisco in the summer of 2007. Photos and comments by RailPAC website Editor Russ Jackson

A rail journey to San Francisco can start at the Emeryville Amtrak station or at the Caltrain station. This is Capitol Corridor train 534, at the EMY station on June 12, having arrived from San Jose.

In this photo taken from the Giants’ AT&T Park on June 27 the Caltrain station can be seen. The ballpark is within walking distance, and accessible by Caltrain, Muni, and/or Amtrak Thruway bus connection from the Capitol Corridor.

A Caltrain “baby bullet” train waits at its departure platform at the Caltrain station. Frequent service from San Jose makes visiting “The City” easy.

june-2007-045.jpgsan-fran-3rd-st-t-line-map.jpgThe newest Muni line is the T line (or 3rd St. rail) which opened April 7 of this year. It travels from downtown to Visitacion Valley near Daly City, and curves away from the Embarcadero line here. The Caltrain station is just behind the train. (Map courtesy MTC)

This Muni light rail train is at the Brannan station on the Embarcadero, before entering the tunnel which will take it under Market Street. Muni trains are convenient and service is frequent.

Amtrak Thruway buses stop at Fishermans Wharf/Pier 39, coming from the Emeryville train station. From there one can catch an histroic PCC car for a ride back through the city and up Market Street on the surface. Each car is painted in colors of a city that ran these cars. This one is from Minneapolis! A cablecar bus can take you on scenic tours.

Or, you can ride the real thing: the famous San Francisco cable cars. This one is loading passengers at Fishermans Wharf to take them up to the top of Lombard Street and into the downtown area.

Of course no rail visit to the Bay Area is complete without a ride on BART, which carries hundreds of thousands of commuters into and out of San Francisco every day.

If you go to San-Fran-cis-co this year you don’t have to wear flowers in your hair.


Californians don’t love their cars, many have no choice.

June 1 Editorial by Noel Braymer

In mid June of this year there were several news stories about a U.S. Census survey which showed that Americans, particularly Californians where driving alone more than ever. This is despite millions of dollars being spent to encourage car-pooling and ride sharing. Many of the stories in the papers harped on the old clichés about peoples so called “love affair” with their automobile and so on. One newspaper, the Los Angeles Daily News got it right. Their headline for the story by Brent Hopkins on June 13th said it all: Southland drivers are the loneliest in the U.S.; jobs, housing key reason.

There was a time when a house was a place to live. When you got a new job you moved to where your job was. Today a house is more of an investment than a domicile. People increasingly are living 50 miles or more from their jobs in order to find a house they can afford. Often when a person changes jobs they can’t afford to move. With two or more incomes needed to pay for a house, the occupants often are traveling in opposite directions when going to work. In turn their co-workers come to work from many different directions. This all adds up to record traffic congestion. Making things worse, many new housing tracts are literally in the middle of nowhere. The nearest stores, entertainment even schools may be miles away. Nothing is in walking distance. Most schools today have grid lock conditions with SUV’S and Mini-Vans clogging the roads at the start and end of the school day. Even if the distances are not great, it is unpleasant to walk or ride a bike by major arterials with heavy traffic that are the only way to go anywhere.

The usual “solutions” for traffic congestion is to build more or expand existing roads. Time and again, it has been shown this makes traffic worse. More roads lead to more urban sprawl. This increasingly spreads out jobs, shopping, schools and entertainment, forcing people to be more dependent on their cars and driving more, causing more traffic. The reality is, increasingly roads and auto travel is becoming more expensive. The rising price of oil and gasoline alone leads to higher prices for everything, especially construction. For example: San Diego County expects to spend almost 1.3 billion dollars by 2012 upgrading 20 miles of I-15 for expanded car pool lanes. Much of this is going for 8 miles of 4 new lanes between Ranchos Penasquitos and Rancho Bernardo. Even if there was an infinite amount of money available to expand roads, people will fight them. A good example is the attempt to build carpool lanes in Los Angeles on I-405. Near-by residents are up in arms when they discovered that their houses may be needed to expand the freeway.

Rail passenger service works to reduce congestion and save money. But for this to happen, development has to be part of the picture. Housing, jobs, shopping and entertainment need to be tied together to rail and all public transportation. Most people don’t love their cars, they love economy and convenience. When it is easier and cheaper to take the train, they will leave their car at home. When they take the train, everything can be close by and require less running around. But first, they have to have a train to take that goes where and when they need to go. In California, that is happening more all the time.


Hybrid Technology for railroads

From Modern Railways with Comments added by RailPAC President, Paul Dyson

The following is an extract from the June 2007 edition of Modern Railways, the leading UK railway magazine. It was written by Roger Ford, a former traction engineer with the English Electric Company, and now technical editor of MR. It is reproduced with his and the magazine’s permission.

Given the extraordinary capital cost of electrification, not to mention visual intrusion, safety issues, and energy consumed in mining and producing all that copper, aluminum, steel and other metals, I’ve always hoped that hybrid technology could be applied to railroad traction for a more cost effective solution.

For those not familiar with the terms, a class 43 is the power car of BR’s intercity 125 diesel train, and Mark 3 coaches are the trailer cars that operate therewith. Porterbrook is a UK rolling stock leasing company. Hayabusa is Japanese for peregrine falcon. The Brush company has traditionally used the names of birds of prey for its prototypes.

Mr. Ford writes:


Long experience tells me it is prudent to be sceptical about new technology. So I went off to Loughborough to see Porterbrook’s ‘new’ Hitachi/Brush hybrid Class 43 IC125 power car with some hard questions and some hard numbers to back them up. On the way I ran a quick spread sheet to get a feel for the numbers involved. I made the kinetic energy of a 70-tonne Class 43 at 125mph around 20 kWh. The ability of the hybrid system to recover and store this energy when braking would be my test case.


What Hitachi and Brush have done is to install the Lithium-ion battery, supplied by Hitachi Vehicle Energy Ltd., in a Mk 3 trailer guard second (TGS) which is coupled to the power car. The Class 43 has been fitted with new Hitachi alternating current traction motors rated at 300kW each.

Power to the traction motors is provided by inverters mounted underneath the TGS. The inverters can be supplied from the battery, the existing alternator on the power car’s diesel engine, or both.

Hybrid technology stands or falls on the battery. On this prototype it is assembled from modules, each with a capacity of 1kWh and weighing 20kg. With 48 modules the battery has a total capacity of 48kWh and weighs 960kg (2115 pounds). Specific capacity is thus 50kWh/tonne (metric ton) – the current benchmark for Lithium-ion.

That said, Hitachi is keen to point out that battery technology is developing rapidly with significant reductions in weight and increases in storage capacity, driven by the demands of the automotive industry. But I didn’t get an answer when I asked the hybrid’s battery cost.


So the 960kg battery is more than capable of storing the energy regenerated when braking the Class 43 electrically from maximum speed to standstill. What about reusing the recovered energy? The peak power output is an impressive 1MegaWatt or 1,350hp.

For comparison, the Class 43’s diesel prime mover has a rating of 1.68MW (2,250hp). However, the off-the-shelf traction motors have derated the hybrid to 1.2MW for traction at the wheels.

With these ratings and a fully charged battery, the power car could accelerate away at around 80% of the traction motors’ full power for around 170 seconds. A couple of stops from 125mph would then recharge the battery.

And to see a 2 power cars plus three formation zip away silently like an EMU and then return at speed got everyone’s attention. As English Electric (and EMD!) knew – to sell something new build a demonstrator.

Technical Issues

There is a limit to the rate at which the hybrid’s battery can be charged. But if it can’t accept all the braking energy, the surplus is dissipated in resistors as with rheostatic braking (dynamic braking, PD). Trial running to date indicates that the battery can store most of the energy generated in the equivalent of notch 2 braking.

Another issue to be explored is the relationship between battery life and capacity. Experience with hybrid cars suggests that battery life is maximized when the battery is kept charged to between 20% and 60% of its capacity.

Clearly, using that 1MW for long periods could shorten the battery life. And while Hitachi is coy on the cost of the tonne of battery, it won’t be cheap and you want it to last. But even staying within the optimum life charging zone the hybrid power car will be able to brake its own weight and enable the prototype train to arrive and depart at terminal stations without the engines running.

Of course Hayabusa is not a perpetual motion machine. According to Hitachi Transportation Systems project engineer, the internal losses of the battery mean that charging and discharging are each around 90% efficient, so only 80% of the regenerated energy is available for traction.

Initial estimates are that fuel saving with the hybrid system in operation will be of the order of 20%, similar to an electric train regenerating into the overhead line. But in a production hybrid the overall savings would be even greater.

First, the hybrid control system can blend in the battery power under acceleration so that instead of the diesel engine working at full power the engine management system keeps it at the point on the power/speed curve for optimum fuel consumption.

Second, with battery boost, the diesel engine can be made smaller, which means that the cooler group can be smaller and lighter and the train can carry less fuel. The benefits should more than outweigh the extra mass of the battery.

Paul Dyson adds:

The large fleet of DMU vehicles in Europe, especially the UK, presents a ready market for this technology. The much heavier weight of US rail equipment, built to meet what many maintain are out of date FRA standards, presents more of a problem, although it should not be insurmountable. As Mr. Ford says, pushed by a demand for fuel saving highway vehicles, battery performance is improving all the time.

While I remain a proponent of electrification, it’s hard to see where the capital will come from for track improvements, rolling stock and signaling for new services AND stringing up catenary. The USA needs to consider the option of hybrid diesel technology; it may be the answer for our next generation of trains.

Hitachi has three hybrid DEMUs entering service in Japan. How about a demonstrator for California?


Paul Dyson


LOSSAN Corridor Board Meeting report

LOSSAN Board Meeting, Los Angeles, 06/13/07
Report and IMPORTANT COMMENTARY by Paul Dyson, RailPAC President

Although the meeting took place there was no quorum as Chairman Art Brown was taken ill en route to the meeting and there were too many other absences. The meeting could not therefore make any Board decisions, but heard the reports and discussed some of the issues.

Jacki Bacharach conducted the meeting. My comments to the Board are posted separately on this website.

Richard Dial of the consultant firm, IBI, made a report on the LOSSAN North Strategic Business Plan. This “final draft” can be viewed on the SANDAG website. In my opinion it’s a very disappointing document and has little to show for the three years it has taken to produce. Part of the delay has been caused by Caltrans Rail asking the consultant to review the proposed Ventura – Santa Barbara commuter service and incorporate it into this “plan”. While RailPAC strongly supports a sensible and well thought out commuter service for that corridor there is no more justification for including it in the LOSSAN report than there is for say the Metrolink long range plan or changes to Coaster. Furthermore, Wilbur Smith just completed a study of the issue in 2005, and SCAG has just commissioned Sharon Greene to study it again!

I have also reviewed the draft corridor wide strategic business plan, which IBI introduced at the meeting. This is supposed to combine the points from the southern and northern reports. This report, 20 pages of text and 7 of maps, in reality consists of lists of track projects, sorted by county and by timeline, which will be familiar to everyone who knows the line and could have been written by Caltrans staff in an afternoon.

The highlight of the meeting was an informed and sensible presentation by Darrell Johnson of OCTA staff outlining Orange County’s vision of an integrated corridor wide service. OCTA has taken the lead in using Metrolink as the core of its transit system, and they clearly have the vision to see how the three rail operators in the corridor can work together to provide more travel opportunities. Let’s hope the process does not become bogged down in Consultant land.

Pat Merrill and Linda Culp updated the meeting on the state budget process and corridor projects. Pat Merrill took exception to my public comment calling for less study and more action, listing a number of projects in progress. While we applaud the progress of double and triple tracking south of Los Angeles, not one of the active projects is in the Northern part of the corridor, which was my point.

Jonathan Hutchison of Amtrak gave a report of the status of Amtrak funding and federal legislation, together with ridership and punctuality reports for the corridor. On time performance is still stuck at or below 80%. Ridership continues to grow (see our other reports on the California corridors).

The Board is hoping to meet in August, earlier than scheduled, so that decisions can be made by the full Board.

My Comments:

RailPAC has always taken the stance of being a constructive critic of the public agencies and we do our best to be supportive in the public arena. We realize that funding issues are tough, and progress is slow. There are times however when it is necessary to take what might be an unpopular position and to make some waves. The LOSSAN “Strategic Business Plan” process has been extremely disappointing to this writer and to many of our supporters. No one in the private sector would recognize this document as being a business or strategic plan. There is no discussion of the objectives, no targets for revenue or passenger miles, no alternatives examined, such as longer but fewer trains, trains with fewer stops and some stations served by more frequent Metrolink trains, and all the many alternatives that a commercial business would consider. Instead the end result is a list of projects, a list we have seen before from previous reports, with little changed except the price tag. An attempt was made to provide some justification for the timeline of the projects by referring to the Washington Group’s capacity analysis. It is my contention that this analysis is fatally flawed and will lead to the wrong conclusions. (See my public comments for the meeting).

The net result is that Caltrans has spent a great deal of public money on a consultant’s report that in the real world has very little value. The consultant’s contract expires on June 30, and my belief is that this report will be for the most part ignored by those agencies making the investment decisions. What we must learn from this debacle is that it really makes no sense to look at Inter City (Amtrak) service on this corridor in isolation. The only sensible “Strategic Plan” is one that uses the resources of Amtrak, Metrolink and Coaster working in concert to provide the best possible mobility options given the resources that are available.

Paul Dyson


Coast Rail Coordinating Council meeting report

Report and commentary from the TAC meeting, Santa Barbara, 6/8/07 by Paul Dyson Including news about the new car order!

The CRCC Technical Advisory Committee met at Santa Barbara last week, led by the indefatigable Peter Rodgers of SLOCOG. Also there were Royce Gotcher and Clem Bomar of Caltrans Division of Rail, Eileen Low from Caltrans, Izzy Rodriguez of City of Soledad, Mike Powers of SBCAG, and from Santa Barbara City Council staff Rob Dayton and council member Das Williams. Also attending, from our affiliate Coastal Rail Now were RailPAC Director Dennis Story, Jan Atkins and Mark Bradley, and this writer.

Pete Rodgers distributed copies of the updated Coast Daylight brochure which outlines the project for the benefit of communities along the route.

Caltrans Rail reps reported that meetings would be held in late June with Union Pacific regarding track access issues for the Coast Daylight. It also looked as if the RTIP process and other state funds would generate about $6.8 million for expenditure in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.

Clem Bomar was introduced as point man and project manager for the Coast Daylight. He reported that bids will be invited for new rolling stock, to be based on an upgraded specification of the Surfliner car, most likely in December of this year. A contract would likely then be awarded in June of 2008. I think we’ll be lucky to see any new equipment before 2012 at that pace.

Pete Rodgers and Mike Powers reported on the proposal to build an ethanol plant on the SMV in Santa Maria. This would generate 2 unit trains inbound per week with return empties, plus the possibility of local tank car traffic with finished product. In my view this is good news for the Coast line as it helps justify infrastructure investment for passenger and freight.

P.J. Dyson


Monterey County Rail Policy Committee report

June 4, 2007, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Rail Policy Committee meeting
Report and commentary by Chris Flescher, RailPAC, Salinas

There is an interest in awarding Parsons another contract for planning work on the Monterey Branch Line. The contract would involve aerial photography to create more detailed maps of the area. There would be enough detail to finish the final design plans.

The group AMBAG (Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments) is planning to do an aerial survey of the entire region, not just the area near the rail line. It appears that the AMBAG survey and the proposed Parsons survey will produce very different information, so the AMBAG study might not produce the necessary information for Parsons and TAMC. There is a desire to schedule a meeting between Parsons, TAMC and AMBAG to determine if the two aerial surveys can be combined into one, and still produce the information that TAMC and AMBAG need.

The plan for the Parsons study will produce topographic information to create a digital terrain model. It will also examine all records of utility placements on or near the r.o.w., to determine what is currently in the way of starting train service.

The city of Monterey would like to hold a public meeting to discuss certain things with the Monterey City Council, such as the impact of trains on public buildings, and the exact route of the rail line. There is an interest in having Parsons run one (or more) public meetings.

(The following is my own opinion, not something mentioned at the meeting):
I believe that in part of Monterey, near the Lighthouse Avenue tunnel, the old r.o.w. of the rail line no longer exists. If the service is extended to Cannery Row, it will be necessary to determine what route to take, in order to get through that part of Monterey. I have walked on the bike trail in that area, and it seems to curve away from the old r.o.w. for around 1/3 of a mile.

(Back to TAMC meeting info):
A motion was passed to recommend signing a new contract with Parsons. The new contract will involve creating a much more detailed study of the Monterey Branch Line. Before awarding a contract, the plans will be discussed with AMBAG, to see if any money can be saved by using some of the results of the upcoming AMBAG study.

For the Caltrain extension (Gilroy to Salinas), there are plans to perform a track capacity analysis, to be finished by the end of the summer. Then TAMC can apply to the federal government to get permission to proceed to the next phase. The desire is to apply by September, which would allow TAMC to get some money from the New Starts Funding, for this year, rather than next year.

It appears likely that it will take until December to get some companies to bid on the contract for the next stage of the project. TAMC expects the cost to be about $10 million. A motion was passed to recommend that TAMC put the contract for the next stage, out for bids in December.

Rail Photos

New California rail PHOTOS

Photos from Southern California include the LA Gold Line, Santa Ana, Fullerton, and Santa Barbara. Posted mid-June, 2007.

A Los Angeles Gold Line train is at the Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park station. Notice the “transit oriented development” condos adjacent to this station. (Noel Braymer photo)

Quad gates at this Heritage Park station intersection provide increased safety for Gold Line trains and for drivers crossing here. See these gates in operation on RailPAC’s video (Noel Braymer photo)

Lincoln Avenue in Santa Ana on the route of the Surfliners has been a single track bottleneck dating back to Santa Fe railroad days. It is finally being double tracked. (Noel Braymer photo)

The Fullerton Railway Plaza Association held its annual Rail Fair May 5-6, 2007. Amtrak California dressed up a Thruway bus for its display! (Mike Palmer photo)

Northbound Coast Starlight #14 is at the Cesar Chavez grade crossing, less than a mile before reaching the Santa Barbara station. It was “on time!” Timekeeping for the Starlight has improved greatly in recent weeks. (Mike Palmer photo)


LOSSAN Corridor: Statement by RailPAC President Paul Dyson

COMMENTS presented to THE LOSSAN BOARD – JUNE 13, 2007

Chairman Brown, Board members, I was told a long time ago that in advocacy it is always better to be for something than against. Well, that’s not going to be an easy job today, although item 7, Passenger Rail Integration, is indeed a ray of hope.

Let me comment on item 5, the draft LOSSAN North Strategic Business Plan. Back in 2004 at your meeting in Santa Barbara I expressed dismay that we are paying for yet another study, to add to the growing pile since the 1950s. I said at that time that this latest effort would almost certainly come to the same conclusions and give us the same list of improvements as we had seen in 1985, 1988, 1992 and so on. Let me quote briefly here: “recommended extended sidings at Carpinteria, Seacliff, Ventura, Oxnard, Leesdale, Camarillo, Moorpark, Strathearn, Santa Susana and Northridge. Long sidings are to be added at Capitan, Casmalia-Devon, etc. Line changes are recommended to reduce curvature at Dulah, Callender, etc.” This quote could have come from the IBI draft, could it not? Almost all these projects are mentioned therein. I have in fact quoted from the July, 1955 Southern Pacific report, which has since been echoed by Wilbur Smith, Hill and Associates, and Schiermeyer.

Adding insult to injury is the late addition of the Santa Barbara commuter service to the study. I have been unable to discover any meaningful difference between this report and the Wilbur Smith study completed in July 2005, so why the extra expense and delay? If it was to address the capacity issues then a similar case could be made for encompassing the Metrolink expansion plans as they affect the corridor. And to really make my year we now have a SCAG commissioned report on this same commuter service in course of compilation. What on earth does Caltrans and the other public agencies think they are doing?

Let’s get back to the report, and the circumstances that we face today. We all know that in the immediate term, even if given a major injection of funds, we could neither add track capacity nor rolling stock in less than a four to five year time frame, given all the processes that have to be gone through. Does this “Strategic Plan” address that? Where is the discussion about integrating Metrolink and Amtrak to provide an interim solution? In terms of increasing mobility and improving service, one approach would be to add cars to existing trains, given the expense and long time frame to add capacity. Where is the analysis and discussion of that approach? What about an 8 car train with two locomotives? Would this be better value than more, shorter trains but with more money spent on signaling and sidings? You’d expect these alternatives to be raised in a strategic plan.

The report talks vaguely about improving journey times. What is the target we hope to achieve? Where are the quantifications of how each project will improve service? What in fact is in this plan that is not already included in the Amtrak 20-year plan, the California Passenger Rail Improvement Plan, or the Caltrans Surfliner Route Business Plan?

There is a section about capacity modeling that I don’t have time to go into now, except to say that it is fundamentally flawed. Let me simply say that you model the capacity needs for a railroad based on the schedule you want to run, not using today’s mediocre and delay prone service as a benchmark.

So let’s move on. It would have been nice to have a couple of sidings fitted with CTC instead of the money spent on this, but let’s be positive, let me be for something.

What RailPAC is FOR is item 7, Passenger Rail Service Integration, another item not addressed in the strategic plan. When you have no money, or even if you have some money but you cannot invest it quickly enough to bear any fruit, you have to THINK. What resources do we have now? How can we best use them to achieve our goals of improved mobility?

To me the obvious answer is the integration of the three passenger rail services in the corridor. North of Los Angeles we have 6 Amtrak trains including the Starlight, spread over a 12-hour period. What if we could schedule 6 of the 10 Metrolink trains that traverse the southern end of the route to provide an overall hourly frequency? South of Los Angeles we should be able to do even better, especially if we have some local run-through all-stations trains operated jointly by Metrolink and Coaster. And as much as I hate to suggest it, we should even consider reducing the Amtrak frequency through the winter months to catch up on the backlog of maintenance, and reduce the miles operated on these trains until new stock is delivered. That’s real world railroading that can make a difference with very little expense.

This prospect of integration, giving taxpayers better value for the money separately invested in these services, must not be marred by another three years delay and consultation. This time, let’s have some action.

Paul Dyson


California Corridors May statistics

Provided by Gene Skoropowski, Managing Director, Capitol Corridor JPA.

We just received the May 2007 ridership results, and while California in total is ‘looking good’, the Capitol Corridor is skyrocketing! I am still in awe of where we are in riders.


Summary of May 2007 ridership and ticket revenue results for California state-supported service:

Capitol Corridor:
· 141,789 passengers +18.2% vs. FY06 – highest monthly ridership total in the history of the service!
· $1,680,877 ticket revenue +30.3% vs. FY06

(May 2006 ridership was 119,986 and the highest prior month was April 2007 at 127,572) (Fiscal year-to-date ridership increase is +13.3% due to 8 consecutive months of substantial growth, and the revenue increase is +21.7%, again, after 8 months. This is going to be another very good year)

Contributing factors: continuation of ridership growth following introduction of the 32 train schedule last fall; target marketing to fill seats on the trains with available capacity; improvement of on-time performance by Union Pacific and Amtrak mechanical; more trains with ‘full consists’ thereby offering more seats (but we are sort of ‘out-of-rabbits’ with available coaches, and Caltrans Rail is working with Amtrak to supplement the Northern California fleet with some overhauled Amtrak Superliner coaches, which will really help us with seat capacity until new coaches arrive in 4-5 years, assuming passage of the capital funding included in the Governor’s “May Revise” budget, submitted last month.) There was some very modest increase in riders in the week following the I-580 bridge fire/closure, and some increase from escalating gasoline prices. Overall, these last two were minor contributors, but contributors none the less. The bottom line here is that our service is the travel choice for an increasing number of riders, and for an increasingly diverse number of reasons, largely due to an increased availability/frequency of train service.

The revenue-to-cost ratio is still looking to be on-track at between 46%to 50% by September 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Ridership for the last 12 months is now 1,384,364 meaning that we will likely also break the 1.4 million ridership mark for the first time during this fiscal year.

Average trip length is holding at just under 70 miles, so that’s getting close to 10,000,000 passenger miles per month (or as California DOT Director Will Kempton often quotes “that was 10,000,000 VMTs this month that were on Capitol Corridor trains and were NOT on California’s highways.”)

Pacific Surfliner:
· 247,986 passengers +3.5% vs. FY06 and a record for the month!
· $4,093,804 ticket revenue +11.4% vs. FY06

San Joaquins:
· 75,815 passengers +0.0% vs. FY06
· $2,204,265 ticket revenue +7.1% vs. FY06