• About

ntbraymer

~ Rail Passenger Service in California and the USA

ntbraymer

Monthly Archives: November 2016

More Rail Transit Sooner in LA because of Measure M

24 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by trainsonthebrains in commentary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

LA Metro

With Graphics

By Noel T. Braymer

Some good news from the November 8th election was the passage of Measure M in Los Angeles County. This measure will raise more money for transportation in the County and allow more projects to be built and to speed up construction of projects now long in the planning stage.This particularly includes rail transit projects. This means that over the next 40 years Los Angeles County’s 100 miles of rail transit will nearly double. Of the 3 rail transit projects now under construction, 2 will benefit from Measure M. On the Crenshaw/LAX rail line which is planned to open by 2019, Measure M will fund construction for a LAX transfer station with the airport people mover which will allow connections to the airport terminals. This project hadn’t been funded, but Measure M will allow construction to begin to finish the new station in time for when the People Mover is planned to be built by 2023. The other project now underway is the extension of the Purple Line subway west of Western Ave under Wilshire Blvd to the eastern edge of Beverly Hills by 2024 at La Cienega. The plan was to extend the Purple line to Westwood by 2036. With new funding because of Measure M this has been changed now to by 2024. The Wilshire corridor is the heaviest traveled corridor in Los Angeles County.

screenshot-2016-11-24-at-10-07-17-am-edited

Cropped LA Metro Map of the location of the joint Light Rail/ Airport People Mover Station for LAX

screenshot-2016-11-24-at-7-08-37-am-edited

Cropped LA Metro map showing part of the Expo and Crenshaw/LAX lines (bottom right) with the extension of the Purple Line to Westwood.

Another project which is going ahead is to extend rail transit east from the San Gabriel Valley. The current Gold Line was recently extended from Pasadena to Azusa. There are plans already underway to extend this line further east to Montclair which is in San Bernardino County next to the Los Angeles County Line. This is part of future plans to extend light rail service to Ontario Airport to the east of Montclair. Construction of this projects is less expensive than many Light Rail projects because it is using an existing railroad right of way publicly owned on what use to be the Santa Fe line between San Bernardino and Los Angeles via Pasadena. Extending Light Rail on this right of way will also allow joint stations and shared right of way with Metrolink at Montclair, Claremont and Pomona. Current plans now are for this line to be extended at least to Claremont by roughly 2025. While this Light Rail Line is now called the Gold Line this will change by 2021. With the construction of the Regional Connector, a new downtown Los Angeles subway; this will make it possible to extend the Blue Line from Long Beach to Union Station to the current Gold Line to Pasadena now to Azusa. At the same time the Expo Line from Santa Monica will be extended to Little Tokyo to the current Gold Line to East Los Angeles. At the Little Tokyo station riders will be able to transfer between the Blue and Expo Lines.
screenshot-2016-11-25-at-10-04-07-am-edited

Stations proposed for the Gold LIne extension to Montclair. This could share stations with Metrolink at Pomona, Claremont and and Montclair. Graphic by the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority

The San Fernando Valley has long felt neglected when it came to their share of projects, particularly when it came to rail service. The San Fernando Valley is the terminus of the Red Line subway at North Hollywood. Next to it is the Orange Line Busway. That has been pretty much it for rail transit in the San Fernando Valley. A project long in the works is to build Light Rail or a Busway on Van Nuys Blvd in the eastern San Fernando Valley. With the passage of Measure M it is looking more certain that this will be built as Light Rail. Current plans are for the project to start with connections to the Orange Line at Van Nuys and the Amtrak/Metrolink Station also on Van Nuys. It would turn up San Fernando Road in the northeast San Fernando Valley and end at the Metrolink Station at Sylmar/ San Fernando. There are plans to extend this south of the Orange Line at Oxnard and Van Nuys, but no alignment has been approved yet. With Measure M this line is planned to be build by roughly 2027.
screenshot-2016-11-23-at-8-04-23-am-edited

LA Metro Map of the route likely to be light rail from San Fernando down Van Nuys Blvd to roughly the Ventura Freeway

There is a project on the list for a Sepulveda Pass transit corridor to be open by 2026. There is nothing new on this project since 2013. It appears to be for a busway to be built next to the 405 Freeway in the Sepulveda Pass between Westwood and the central San Fernando Valley. Phase 1 is expected by 2028 and Phase 2 by 2033.The long range plan is to build rail service from Sylmar/San Fernando to Westwood connecting to the Purple Line. This would latter be extended on the 405 corridor to LAX. Planning for this is still not final. There are plans to speed up construction with private investment with Public, Private partnerships on several projects in Los Angeles County under Measure M. Nothing firm so far seems to have been worked out for rail transit in the 405 corridor.
screenshot-2016-11-24-at-2-24-32-pm-edited

This is a LA Metro Graphic of planning to extend light rail east of East Los Angeles. One of the 2 alignments shown will be picked for this extended service. Service is expected on this extension by 2035.

There are plans to create a Vermont Transit Corridor in Los Angeles by 2028. This would be a rapid bus service on the busy Vermont Ave with connections to the Expo Line and the Red Line. Also by 2028 are plans to built phase 1 of the West Santa Ana Transit Corridor. This would use a former Pacific Electric rail right of way named the West Santa Ana Branch which still exists south of the 710 Freeway to the west side of Santa Ana. The plan for phase 1 is to build a joint Green Line/ West Santa Ana line station where the two lines cross each other for transfers. The Line will continue on the old railroad right of way through Bellflower and terminate at Artesia near the Orange County Line. This line could be extended to Orange County, but there doesn’t seem to be any interest in doing this at this time. The project also calls for running up to downtown Los Angeles to Union Station mostly using a former Union Pacific branch line starting at Paramount. This second phased for now is not expected before 2041 By 2030 there are plans to extend the Green Line from the current Redondo Beach terminus to Torrance at Crenshaw Blvd. This would more than double the amount of the Green Line route in the South Bay area. This is a fairly simple project using an existing former railroad right of way. One last extension of the Green Line calls for it to be extended from its current Norwalk terminal by the 605 freeway just under 3 miles to the Metrolink Norwalk/ Santa Fe Springs Station which is east of the 5 Freeway at the border between Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs.  This site will also be a future California High Speed Rail Station which is planned to be running by 2029 or so. Current planning for the Green Line extension is for completion by 2052.
m-west-santa-ana

Map of the entire West Santa Ana Corridor with 2 possible routes between Los Angles Union Station and Huntington Park. The route between Paramount and Artesia will be built first with connections to the Green Line

m-green-line

Route of the Green Line today to Redondo Beach. Thos shows the future extension to Torrance

By 2047 there are plans to extend the Crenshaw/LAX Line north for connections with the Purple Line in the Wilshire Corridor at La Cienega  and to the Red Line in the Hollywood area. The current plan is to build rail connections from Westwood to LAX by 2057.
screenshot-2016-11-24-at-11-26-20-am-edited

The plan for the future Crenshaw/LAX extension is for it to go north from Exposition Blvd to the Purple Line Station at La Cienega at the east end of Beverly Hills. From there the extension will go through West Hollywood to the Red Line Station at Hollywood and Highlands which is the station nearest to West Hollywood

Advertisements

Letter to Amtrak 10 September 2016

19 Saturday Nov 2016

Posted by trainsonthebrains in commentary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Amtrak, LOSSAN, Pacific Surfliner

FROM: Rolland Graham
Mountain Outin’ Tours, Inc.
(949) 837-9061
info@mountainoutin.com
DATE: 6 October, 2016
RE: Comments/observations for recent group travel
Train #3 (29 Sept), 4 (8 Sept), 50 (10 Sept), 56 (12 Sept) 449 (28 Sept), 682 (28 Sept.)

amtrak-letter-10-sep-16

“It’s Not A Real Infrastructure Program Without Embracing An Economically Viable Inter-City Rail Corridor Inter-Connecting Network”

19 Saturday Nov 2016

Posted by trainsonthebrains in commentary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Long Distance Passenger Trains, Rail Passenger service

By M.E. Singer
Why the sound of crickets towards one critical component required to competently address our nation’s infrastructure deficiencies? For no valid reason, inter-city passenger rail corridor development continues to be missing within the context of the policy options to comprehensively approach our issue of re-building infrastructure.

Why would the well documented benefits of intercity passenger rail be neglected here, particularly given the increased demand for Midtown-Midtown mobility? Such a well planned rail infrastructure program would certainly be substantially less cost than a mile of interstate highway, or, another runway and apron. How do we continue to avoid “the elephant in the room” of airport gridlock due to so many flights serving markets under 500 miles; let alone the increased costs and reduced services to those places?

As evidenced in the Northeast Corridor, intercity rail has earned a well established position, offering schedule frequencies convenient to business and leisure travelers by what rail does best–serving numerous multi-market segments en route between Boston-Richmond. However, west of the Potomac, Amtrak has been politically and deliberately kept on a starvation funding diet inhibiting any bold planning to replicate fast, frequently scheduled rail to under-performing or ignored historical corridors.

Sufficient equipment to provide capacity to meet market demand has also been constrained, due to the lack of a consistent funding mechanism (as provided for air and highways) to facilitate long-term planning to achieve lower cost financing to acquire, or, even rehabilitate equipment. Not to be ignored, the long distance routes have been denied more than a daily frequency preventing any meaningful market development for serving the multi-market segments for tourism, leisure, and between small towns deprived of air and bus services. This lack of progress has only been exacerbated by an institutional managerial malaise in deference to Amtrak being previously run as a Politburo for political appointees, in disregard to services, skills, and support required by the system.

However, under its new CEO, Charles W. Moorman, who has a long history in successful railroad operations, Amtrak should have the “Carpe Diem” moment of opportunity as a new leadership team is put in place. Without losing anymore time to research vapid statistics, the template to energize lackluster or ignored rail corridor markets is now tested and available from California to be utilized.

Over the years, California, the model for an auto-centric state, has invested in true regional intercity rail through its Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) responsible for the operations. As a result, we learned how the “Pacific Surfliners” have increased revenues and load factors when operating directly from San Diego to Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo by running thru LA, instead of terminating there and requiring a transfer. As well, the “Capitol Corridor” operating from Sacramento-Emeryville (San Francisco) was extended to San Jose. The “San Joaquins” serving the Central Valley from Bakersfield/Fresno will eventually also be extended.

Key to what we have learned from the success of these JPAs is how the popularity of their rail services grew exponentially by extending and inter-connecting regions within networks of transportation resources. This significant point was achieved in parallel to acquiring new equipment and motive power, and increasing schedule frequencies.

Essential to embracing the economically viable concept of rail corridors requires a 21st century approach by federal, state, and municipal bodies to appreciate the fact that our Class 1 private freight railroads built, maintain, and own the infrastructure (and pay taxes on every mile of track and every building) that our intercity trains west of the Northeast must travel upon. Due to the difference between freight and passenger train speeds, the track and signaling, as well as grade crossings require costly adjustments for safety reasons. As neither Amtrak has the bank nor should the private railroads have such costs foisted upon them, this offers an opportune situation to achieve the true vision of P3–“Public-Private-Partnerships” to re-build our railway infrastructure to accommodate the pent up growth requirements of passenger services relying upon infrastructure built for freight.

As well, given the history of the rapid growth of TODs-“Transit Oriented Development” along the right-of-way of new streetcar, subway, and commuter rail lines, such economic opportunities could certainly be coupled to the P3 endeavors. We should remember how the transit and railway systems of Japan and Hong Kong derive higher revenues from their real estate operations at stations and en route than from carrying passengers; with such revenues utilized to support the rail operations.

Finally, to facilitate the obvious need to replace intercity rail equipment, Congress and the U.S. DOT must require the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) to expeditiously revamp its outmoded safety requirements for the construction and operation of passenger trains. Europe has already proven they can operate their trains faster and safer by omitting these regulations that previously only encumbered their trains with more weight, making them actually less safe. Again, in reference to California, Caltrains which provides the commuter rail service from the Peninsula suburbs into San Francisco has already secured such waivers, enabling it to electrify the line and utilize new, proven equipment from Stadler Rail of Switzerland. Already in service between Oceanside-Escondido, CA are diesel multiple unit commuter trains on the “Sprinter” service built by Siemens.

When debating the priorities of infrastructure, we frequently hear references to the Marshall Plan of 1947, Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway Act of 1956, and even, the Moon program of 1962-1969. Let us not forget that throughout those times referenced, we enjoyed a vast network of intercity and long distance passenger trains connecting our cities, towns, and regions, operated by the private railroads. This convenient, fast mode of travel was destroyed when the federal treasury became an open spigot to finance-and maintain-the interstate highway program, airports (munis), and the air traffic control system. The privately-owned, heavily regulated and taxed railroads could not compete on such an un-level playing field, with their own taxes used as a public trough supporting competitors who have never paid any meaningful user fees.

For a national infrastructure program to succeed going forward a course correction is required in respect to this history when the federal government overtly picked winners and losers. Such a program must embrace the successful template for intercity rail providing real inter-connectivity between regions, as proven in California; the economic role of P3 to include the private railroads to re-build infrastructure to accommodate passenger rail; ideally, legislating meaningful user fees for the interstates (e.g., tolls, higher gas or mileage taxes) and the air traffic control program (e.g., cost per flight).

For this to succeed, we must push aside the single dimension of lobbyists who have perverted our political process so that we may successfully educate the public that Amtrak, commuter rail, subways, and streetcars are not the only recipients of subsidy, as all modes of transportation are subsidized by the taxpayer.

California: 2000 versus 2016-What’s Different now?

18 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by trainsonthebrains in commentary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

California, Rail Passenger service

By Noel T. Braymer

This nation now is in a transition from a Democratic to a Republican Administration. Last time that happened was in late 2000. In the first decade of the 21st century California soon found itself on the ropes. A recession in 2001 due to the Dot.Com financial bubble caused a major decline in the State’s revenue with the reduction of capital gains taxes from stock sales. Almost overnight the State went from a budget surplus to a deficit. With no agreement in the Legislature on how to cover this shortfall, spending was slashed which in turned slowed the economy more. During this time many rail passenger and rail transit projects were delayed for years due to these cutbacks as well as other government services.

Adding to the State’s woes at this time between 2000-2001 were the many power outages on the State’s electrical grid. California was blamed at this time by pundits outside of California for not building enough power plants to meet demand. High energy costs resulted from importing electrical power needed with bidding for power on the electrical exchange run then by the now defunct Enron Corp. Enron promised the exchanges would lower the cost of electricity through competition. High priced electricity cost the State billions of dollars more than what it should have paid. It is now clear that power suppliers from outside of California using the electrical exchange with Enron’s involvement created artificial shortages which brought blackouts and raised electricity prices to obscene levels while screwing California.

These and other problems left the State heavily in debt with a sluggish economy. It was a favorite whipping boy of pundits from other States which were doing better at the time. The financial meltdown starting in 2007 affected California like all the States with people with mortgage problems and lost jobs. Since 2008 things have been improving in California. The State now has a budget surplus and cash reserves for the next “rainy day”. This was done the old fashion way, the same way then California Governor Reagan balanced the State Budget: cutting costs and raising taxes. One of the problems for the State in an economic downturn is State revenues drop while the need for government services increases. Reductions in government spending also makes the local economy slow down even more. With cash reserves when the next recession hits (many have claimed we are overdue for one) California will be in much better shape to weather a downturn than it was in 2001.

Another thing that has helped California is local governments around the State being able to pass measures to raise taxes to improve transportation. This despite the high bar of a 2/3’s majority needed for these measures to pass. This process began in the 1980’s and continues to grow with several tax increase measures just passed in November 2016. This investment and spending goes a long way to stimulate the economy and create economic growth. The success of local tax passages is reflected in the recent passage of Measure M in Los Angeles. Granted the last attempt by Los Angeles County in 2012 failed by about 1 percent to reaching the 2/3’s majority. But with the recent extensions of the Gold and Expo Lines, other areas of Los Angeles County are eager to have rail service in their communities. This measure won by almost 70% of the vote. With improved rail service we are seeing new development around the stations and new housing which is needed in Los Angeles and all urban areas of California. It should be noted that many local governments around the country have followed California’s lead with local tax measures for transportation and construction of new rail services.

There is broad support in California for cleaner air and greater energy efficiency. Critics love to complain that California has some of the highest electric power costs in the Nation. But what these critics don’t talk about is most Californians pay less for electricity than most Americans because we use less because we are more efficient. Increasingly California is becoming even more energy efficient and less dependent on fossil fuels and the pollution that come with them. California has long been a leader in renewable energy which continues to cost less and less while the cost to produce conventional fuels continues to grow. California represents the future which will be cleaner, more efficient with cheaper energy for a growing economy. Central to this future is modern transportation. We will still need roads and we like most places in this country have a backlog of repair work needed for our roads. But our roads will have to be more efficient with vehicles which carry more than one person. Roads already in urban areas are attracting more bicycle riders who require much less road space per person than cars and cause much less damage to the roads. For most short trips riding a bicycle takes less time than driving, when you include the time parking and walking.

California since 2010 has seen major economic growth in part because of its transportation and energy policies. In terms of gross domestic product California’s GDP ranked in 2016 6th among nations in the world. This was up from 10th in 2012. California’s economy is larger than that of Russia, Brazil or France. The future will see many changes in just the next 10 years. California is now positioned to lead the country with the transitions to come with more rail service, new development centered around rail service and cleaner, cheaper and more efficient energy. These changes will be opposed by those with vested interests in the status quo. This opposition will delay the transition and make it more expensive in some cases. But the end result will be the same. In the future the number of gas stations in this country will be about the same as video rental stores today.

Can Tax Credits Create a National Rail Passenger System?

18 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by trainsonthebrains in commentary

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Amtrak, California High Speed Rail, Long Distance Passenger Trains

By Noel T. Braymer

The latest proposal to stimulate the economy is to use tax credits to encourage private investors to build infrastructure. I don’t know what impact this will have on repairing existing infrastructure much of which is publicly owned ,unglamorous and doesn’t make money. Where there is private investment there needs to be income generated so investors get a return on their investment. Too often manipulation of the tax code does more to reduce taxes for large corporations than to build anything useful. Tax credits and accelerated depreciation are popular public subsidizes for private companies and is why many major corporations don’t owe taxes. These are activities which concerned the 18th Century Moral Philosopher Adam Smith. He criticized the British government’s subsidy of Herring fishing that ” it has, I am afraid, been too common for vessels to fit out for the sole purpose of catching, not the fish, but the bounty “. I remember in the 1980’s there was a boom in apartment building in California because of changes to the tax code. The result was poorly built apartments that didn’t make money but saved investors on taxes. I lived in one of these badly built apartments for a short time in 1990 which had more vacant apartments than rented ones.

For a Tax Credit scheme to work by generating income to pay investors, the investment must first make money. There has been much said about toll roads as the answer to our transportation infrastructure problems. The results so far have been that toll roads built in the last 20 years in this country rarely if ever make money, let alone pay back the borrowed money to pay for them. What usually happens is local governments take over ownership of the toll roads and bail out the investors. Where transportation can benefit from tax credits would be for upgrades on the railroads for long distance rail service, both freight and passengers. The most profitable rail service or any transportation service is in long haul service. In order to run more long distance passenger trains to have enough to be profitable, major trackwork is needed on the existing freight railroads to run both more passenger and freight trains. This track work is necessary so passenger and freight trains can share the tracks without creating conflicts that delay both freight and passenger service. These track upgrades will benefit the owners of the railroads by providing better service and more revenue with increase traffic. Recent double tracking by the BNSF has found that reduced running times for freight service greatly improved its productivity and customer satisfaction.

Long distance rail passenger service can make money and be a benefit to the host railroad. But to do this we need expanded service, for trains to run on time and for the host railroads to be paid enough from rail passenger service for it to be worthwhile for the host railroads. This will likely include new roles for Amtrak as other operators are involved in rail passenger service. There is an experiment now on the Hoosier State train supported by the State of Indiana with operation of the train handled by both Amtrak and a private company. Amtrak operates the trains while the other company is in charge of rolling stock and on board passenger services which under them have seen increases in train revenue. There are plans under the current Amtrak law for at least 3 long distance trains to be put out to bid for operation by private operators. It is likely that Amtrak will still be responsible for liability insurance for these trains as well as reservations and connections to other trains.

In California management of the three intra-state intercity trains is done by local Joint Powers Authorities for each train which contracts with Amtrak for operation of the trains. In the future we could see more equipment bought to be less dependent on Amtrak and save money . We might see other train related services sub-contracted out to save money. The key to profitable rail passenger service is good long distance service with connections to as many markets as possible. The subsidy needs for rail passenger service even now on a per passenger basis is much less than for most transit bus service which have much shorter average rides. By extending and even combing existing routes it will be possible to operate intra-California passenger trains at a profit.

If tax credit are available for track improvements it would be possible to extend rail passenger service from San Diego past San Luis Obispo to San Jose. There is now one daily train that runs from Los Angeles to San Jose and up to Seattle. There are now 2 round trips from San Diego to San Luis Obispo. This coastal area of California has potential for heavy ridership and connects the 2 largest populations centers of California. Extending the 2 roundtrips from San Diego to San Jose would greatly increase the revenues of the these trains. Already the current route to San Luis Obispo is the most productive of the Surfliner trains. In order to provide a decent service and be profitable there is the need for track and signalling improvements as well as more double tracking. These improvements could be handled by the UP with tax credits for this track work. With an improved railroad UP would be able to handle better service for both its freights and passenger customers.

Now what would greatly improve this service and profitability would be to extend this train from San Jose to Reno/Sparks Nevada. This would create a joint service of Surfliner and Capitol Corridor trains. The more frequent local services of the Capitol Corridor and Surfliners would remain. But up to 3 San Diego/Reno-Sparks train would do well. For this to happen track improvements will be needed between San Jose and Reno. Major track work would also be needed between Roseville and Reno. But the result would be a more profitable intercity rail passenger service and increased revenues for the host railroad .

So where would High Speed Rail fit into this? High Speed Rail around the world is considered long distance rail service. When you are traveling at over 100 miles per hour distances go by quickly. Around the world most High Speed Rail services operate at a profit. Most passenger rail services around the world operate at a profit with government subsidies for short distance service, but with profits from their long distance services including High Speed Rail. In Europe the railroads do this while working in a competitive environment with other operators.

Much the same could be done for the San Joaquin Trains. Modest improvements of tracks in the San Joaquin Valley will reduce running time and allow more operation of more trains. What is long overdue are more trains between Bakersfield and Sacramento. There have long been plans to raise train speeds up to 90 miles per hour in the San Joaquin Valley. It would be possible to run trains up to 120 miles per hour with the necessary upgrades. With the construction of High Speed Rail there is increased need to run connecting service with the San Joaquin trains from Madera just north of Fresno to the other cities without direct service by High Speed Rail and for connections up to Stockton and Sacramento. These will improve the economic performance of both the San Joaquin trains and High Speed Rail.

For California High Speed Rail there is need for more money to continue building the service. Speeding up construction will create a larger system sooner which will bring in the revenues to repay investors. But there will also be need for investment for the redevelopment that will be created with High Speed Rail in California around the stations. A major result of High Speed rail and the profits from it will be from the development around the stations and economic growth along its route. Development around stations have been seen just from the improved rail passenger service California has had in roughly the last 40 years. Major changes have happened around stations in San Diego and San Jose. Major new development is coming to Los Angeles Union Station with more rail passenger service. In Oceanside, California the creation of a transportation center in 1985 with rail, bus and transit service was central to the city’s redevelopment plans. This has resulted in turning around a blighted, downtown area with crime and vacant lots into a thriving beach resort today.

If Tax Credits are used to improve rail travel and development around the stations, these same results can be replicated around the County.

California Rail Passenger Service and Cleaner Air

11 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by trainsonthebrains in commentary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Amtrak, California High Speed Rail, Coaster, LOSSAN, Metrolink, Pacific Surfliner

By Noel T. Braymer

Despite record low truck and auto pollution emissions in Southern California, it just had the worse smog season in the last 6 years. The cause of this has been record high temperatures increasing the pollution levels despite lower emissions. It looks like we will have more hot weather in the future so we will need to do even more to reduce emissions. Rail passenger service is already doing its share to reduce traffic congestion and lower emissions. As Metrolink has been pointing out, its trains carry many passenger across counties. The impact of highway travel is based on the total miles vehicles travel, not the total number of vehicles. In other words a single vehicle being driven 20 miles will have 10 times the impact on traffic and emissions than a car going 2 miles. Carrying people by train and getting them out of their cars is like adding 1 to 2 additional lanes on existing freeways. In the San Francisco Bay Area whenever the BART system is not running, local traffic which is already bad, gets much worse.

Trains are going to be getting even cleaner. As new locomotives are bought they have to meet Tier IV low pollution levels. Future locomotives will likely run even cleaner and be more energy efficient than today’s Tier IV. Today on a per person level even with existing diesel rail passenger service already has lower emissions than one person in a typical car. To get greater benefits with rail passenger service in Southern California to keep a lid on traffic congestion and pollution we should expand rail passenger service on Metrolink, Surfliners and Coaster trains. There are already plans and projects in the works to do that. Here are some things that are being planned and also could be done to get more benefits from Rail Passenger service.

There is much track work and station improvements being planned which will allow more passenger rail service in Southern California. These include run-though tracks at Los Angeles Union Station which will allow more trains to run in and out of the station and for faster service to all points from both sides of Union Station. Work is planned to add more tracks between Bob Hope Airport in Burbank to Union Station on down to Fullerton. Much of this work is being paid in part by the California High Speed Rail Authority which will be sharing use of these tracks and Union Station. With these new tracks it will be possible to run more trains from southern Orange Country through Union Station to the Antelope Valley and parts of the San Fernando Valley. There are a limited number of trains that can be run from San Diego to Orange County due to single tracking in southern Orange County. But it will be possible to add a few more trains. Some additional Surfliner trains from San Diego can be run in the future to Ventura County on to Santa Barbara with a few more of these trains to San Luis Obispo. In Orange County Surfliner trains from San Diego and Los Angeles can be scheduled and ticketed to connect with Metrolink trains to the Inland Empire.

Other improvements that should be considered would be adding a 3rd track between Riverside and San Bernardino on the line from Fullerton.. This will allow more passenger service while not interfering with heavy freight traffic on this BNSF Transcon Mainline. Because of capacity problems there are few passenger trains between Riverside and San Bernardino. This would allow more rail travel between the Inland Empire to both Los Angeles and Orange County. There is a need for more rail passenger service between San Bernardino and Los Angeles. Los Angeles has plans now to extend Light Rail Service east from Azusa to Montclair in San Bernardino County near the Los Angels County Line. This will share right of way with Metrolink and possible joint stations at Montclair, Claremont and Pomona. The goal for this light rail service is for it to be extended to Ontario Airport. This could be complicated since there is only one rail line which goes past the terminals at Ontario Airport. There is no Metrolink service on this line or right of way to cheaply connect it to future Light Rail. This is the former SP Mainline between Colton and Los Angeles. It would make sense to add tracks to operated more express passenger service between the Inland Empire and Los Angeles on this line. There are long segments of single track between Los Angeles between El Monte now on Metrolink and it will be difficult to double track this segment to run more trains. The former SP Line would make sense for future High Speed Rail service between Los Angeles and San Diego through the Inland Empire. There are plans to have a high speed rail station at Ontrario Airport.

The LOSSAN Rail Corridor JPA and the County of Riverside are planning to start up rail passenger service with Amtrak between Los Angeles and Palm Springs. Such service should connect to as many places as possible in Southern California. The line to Palm Springs is already double tracked which will make additional service possible. The most likely route of this train will be via Riverside and Fullerton to Los Angeles. All three of these stations have connections to other rail service. San Diego County is adding additional double tracking and other improvements to run more frequent services between Oceanside and San Diego. Bus bridges can be run between southern Orange County and Oceanside to connect Coaster train passengers to Metrolink trains. Potential connections are possible to the San Diego Airport with dedicated bus service at the Old Town Station to the airport. Besides providing direct service to the airport for Coaster riders, Old Town is already a transportation hub for many local buses and the Trolley Green Line from Mission Valley. In the future it will also have Blue Line Trolley service from downtown San Diego north of Old Town to the major employment area of University City near UCSD.

What Should Be Government’s Role For Rail Passenger Service?

03 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by trainsonthebrains in commentary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Amtrak, California High Speed Rail, Rail Passenger service

By Noel T. Braymer

The Federal Government’s history of spending money for transportation goes back at least to 1824 when the Army Corps of Engineer was authorized to survey roads and canal routes as well as improve river traffic on major rivers. Even before the railroads were built the government supported stagecoach service with mail contracts. This continued with mail contracts for the railroads and later for passenger planes. In the 19th Century railroads often received cash and land grants from Federal and local government to get railroads built. Starting In the 1950’s the Federal Government paid 90% of the costs for the construction of the interstate highway system. Federal grants are a major funding source for rail transit construction projects in many major metropolitan areas in the country.

So what about Federal spending support for rail passenger service today? Most of the money the Federal Government spends for Rail Passenger service goes to Amtrak. It is often the favorite whipping boy for government critics. Much of Amtrak’s money is spent fixing and maintaining the railroad that it owns on the NEC between Boston, New York and Washington. This railroad has plenty of infrastructure over 100 years ago old and suffered years of deferred maintenance after World War II. Many of the commuter rail services on the East Coast depend on Amtrak to maintain and operate the tracks of the NEC that these commuter trains also use. Very little of the capital money that Amtrak gets is spent outside of the Northeast Corridor.

During the years between 2000-2008 the Federal Railroad Administration worked on a program to help fund construction for higher speed rail passenger service in major city corridors across the county. Of the $10 billion dollars congress approved for this program, the FRA received request from 39 states for $75 billion dollars. Almost all of this $10 billion dollars has been obligated in 5 major regions. These include Seattle-Portland, San Francisco-Los Angeles, North Carolina-Washington DC, the Northeast Corridor and the Midwest Chicago Hub. This covers 65 percent of the population of the county. Needless to say $10 billion dollars is only a drop in the bucket to increase rail passenger service even up to 125 miles per hour, let alone building services to over 200 miles per hour. It was only after the election of 2008 that funding for High Speed Rail projects became an issue. The main issue was more over partisan politics than transportation policy.

When the California High Speed Rail project bond issue passed in 2008, the California High Speed Rail Authority had reasonable expectations that the project would be able to received up to a third of the project’s funding from Federal sources. While attempts to defund California HSR construction has delayed the project, it has failed to kill it which was the intent. No viable alternatives for the transportation problems that affect California or the nation as a whole have been presented by opponents of High Speed Rail.

Lack of funding, particularly at the Federal level for transportation infrastructure spending will increase the problems we already have with poorly maintained bridges, congested roads and saturated air travel corridors. Transportation problems lead to problems for the economy. The best way to win the most support for increased transportation spending is to make sure as many people benefit as possible with such improvements. In politics, more gets done when more people are satisfied and the fewer feel cheated.

There is interest nation wide for more rail passenger service. The best returns on an investment with rail service comes improving what we already have. We have towns all across America which want rail passenger service or expanded service to what they already have.To do this on a national level will require funding to allow passenger trains to operate faster and allow smooth operation of mixed freight and passenger service. Expanding rail passenger service national wide will mean not everyone will get what they want. The NEC has a speed limit now of 160 mile per hour. It will be very expensive to realign many of these curves on the densely populated NEC to allow speeds faster than 160 miles per hour. What is long overdue and more productive is to turn the Northeast Corridor into a larger rail passenger network with major cities on the corridors becoming rail hubs. Networks are the norm around much of the world for rail passenger service. What we need to build is a system of regional rail networks to connect with a larger national rail network to serve the most markets and people as possible. What we have now on the NEC is a corridor with few connections at best to the surrounding area like Long Island, Upstate New York, Virginia, western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Toronto or Montreal.

From California’s experience with rail passenger service there is much to learn both good and bad, particularly for the efforts for High Speed Rail. Much of the early planning for California’s High Speed Rail was unrealistic and unaffordable. Also missing were good connections to existing rail service to serve more of the State by rail. Increasingly the California High Speed Rail Authority is saving money by using existing rights of way for High Speed Rail service, especially in urban areas. Time savings trying to go faster than 125 miles per hour are small in the short segments in urban areas. But the cost savings of using existing rights of way are significant. Money is also saved by sharing stations and tracks with other rail passenger services in urban areas. This also makes passenger transfers easier between High Speed and other rail services. This also allows the High Speed Rail Authority to spend money to help upgrade services such as electrifying Caltrain between San Jose and San Francisco as well as upgrade and add tracks in Southern California between Fullerton and Burbank. Not only does this improve rail service in general, but in is much cheaper than building separate railroads alongside the existing tracks.

The goal of a Federal Policy for National Rail Passenger service should be to largely fund infrastructure improvements which will allow faster rail passenger service, increase track capacity and reduce rail congestion for both passenger and freight trains. These should include projects that will help reduce the operating subsidy needs for intercity trains and promote services to operate at break even or at an operating profit. Any needed subsidies should be a local issue. Central to doing this is a need for interlocking systems of services creating a rail passenger network. This will provide service to more places nation wide and increase revenues and serve more people. The emphasis except in a few corridors of this network shouldn’t be to compete with air travel. But nationally rail service should be competitive with highway travel which will reduce congestion on the highways, reduce emissions and save energy.

Advertisements

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015

Categories

  • commentary
  • enewsletters
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel