This commentary is a follow-up to this writer’s original commentary entitled “Is California High Speed Rail on Track for Successful Implementation?”, published in spring 2010 illustrating the futility of spending early HSR dollars in the Central Valley as compared to other sections of the ultimate HSR route.

In the intervening two years the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has made clear its intention to construct the first section of high speed right-of-way in the Central Valley between the vicinity of Fresno and Bakersfield, “Bakersfield North” in this discussion. “Bakersfield South” in this discussion is construction via Tehachapi Pass between the existing Amtrak station in Bakersfield and the existing Metrolink station in Lancaster. It is not the purpose of this commentary to debate the merits of routing HSR via Lancaster/Palmdale or the I-5 corridor; that is an independent issue. Travel times via the I-5 corridor would be about a half hour less than those detailed herein if that option were considered.

General Assumptions

Construction costs for all options would be of approximately equal magnitude for budgeting purposes, in the vicinity of $6 -7 Billion.
No electrification or purchase of electric-powered equipment would be included. Right-of-way would initially serve conventional Amtrak California trains. Maximum speed of conventional trains on high speed right-of-way would be limited to 110 mph based on the capabilities of existing equipment. Maximum speed of conventional trains on the steepest portions of high speed right-of-way is estimated at 80 mph with diesel power. The actual speed possible could vary significantly based on actual train length, train weight and specific locomotives assigned.

Maximum speed on unimproved portions of San Joaquin and Metrolink routes would be increased from 79 to 90 mph with Positive Train Control (PTC) where possible without major realignment. San Joaquin schedules of four Bay Area and two Sacramento round trips per day would be unchanged for the start of revenue service over newly constructed HSR segments.

For “Bakersfield South”, thru-running of San Joaquin schedules to San Diego (four of six round trips are time-appropriate) and thru-running of Surfliner schedules to the San Joaquin Merced crew base (one round trip is time-appropriate) is assumed to fully integrate the corridors. Additional conventional equipment would be required for “Bakersfield South” to permit extension of San Joaquin schedules from Bakersfield to Los Angeles and San Diego.

These assumptions, taken as a group, are intended to reasonably approximate conditions that would exist in 7-10 years when the initial segment of HSR right-of-way would be opened for revenue service. Minor deviations from these assumptions can add or subtract minutes here and there but do not alter the conclusions to be reached.

Discussion of Bakersfield North

For purposes of this comparison, construction of HSR infrastructure is assumed to begin at a point approximately 15 miles north of Fresno on the BNSF/Amtrak corridor, swing westward to the Union Pacific corridor along Highway 99 through Fresno, return to a route roughly parallel to the BNSF corridor to the Hanford area and on to Bakersfield for a total distance of approximately 125 miles. These particulars are derived from public information including the CHSRA website, and are subject to variations.

Travel times north of Bakersfield are based on a simplified model that travel on the existing route would be at a track speed of 90 mph except where limited by existing restrictions through the cities of Fresno and Hanford, the Laton curves and the approach to the Bakersfield station. All intermediate stops would be maintained, and an average of 5 minutes elapsed time would be added for each stop to allow for deceleration, station dwell and acceleration back to track speed.

Travel over the proposed HSR route on this section would be at a track speed of 110 mph with no intermediate restrictions. All intermediate stops would be maintained and an average of 6 minutes elapsed time would be added for each stop based on longer deceleration and acceleration times required from the higher track speed. The simplified model includes Merced crew change allowance and intermediate recovery time approximating that used in current schedules.

Construction costs per mile in the Valley should be lower than in other proposed sections of HSR due to relatively long distances between dense population centers and lack of mountainous terrain. A significant portion of this cost advantage, however, is lost due to the many miles of elevated structures that are proposed in the most recent CHSRA business plan.

Discussion of Bakersfield South

For purposes of this comparison, construction of HSR infrastructure is assumed to begin at or near the current Bakersfield Amtrak station, with appropriate modifications to the existing track structure to accommodate through running and avoid conflict with BNSF freight movements. As described on the CHSRA website, the route would roughly follow SR58 from Bakersfield to Mojave, then roughly follow SR14 to Lancaster, a distance of approximately 77 miles, where it would join the current end of Metrolink track to Palmdale and Los Angeles.

Approximately one third of the distance between Bakersfield and Lancaster is through difficult mountainous territory. Construction over this portion would be fully compatible with HSR standards but would include only single-bore tunnels to save initial construction costs on one of the most expensive components of HSR. Without overhead electrification, all bores could easily accommodate bi-level California Cars, but it is this writer’s opinion that tunneling should be adequately sized to permit eventual operation of bi-level HSR equipment (or electrified conventional equipment) for maximum flexibility and capacity improvements over the long run. Depending on specific design details, major bridges could also be initially constructed as single-track structures where cost savings could justify the temporarily reduced operational flexibility. Adequate passing sidings and/or double track are assumed in other areas to maintain schedule reliability.

Travel times calculated for Bakersfield/Lancaster are based on a simplified model similar to “Bakersfield North”, but with a limitation of 80 mph applied on the steepest portion of the route with diesel locomotives. With this consideration, actual speeds are assumed to be 110 mph only between Bakersfield and the start of serious grades east of Edison and between Tehachapi and Lancaster. A single intermediate station stop is assumed at Tehachapi and is allowed 6 minutes and the station stop at Lancaster/Palmdale is allowed 5 minutes.

Travel times calculated for Lancaster/Los Angeles are based on a track speed of 90 mph, but recognizing the significant speed restrictions in place through Soledad Canyon, Santa Clarita and the summit tunnel near Newhall. Three intermediate station stops are assumed in the vicinity of Santa Clarita, Sylmar and Glendale/Burbank with an allowance of 5 minutes each. Also assumed are additional passing sidings and double track on the Metrolink route to maintain schedules with significantly increased traffic.

Construction costs per mile in the mountainous sections south of Bakersfield will be higher than in the Valley, but with an incremental approach, substantial costs can be deferred until increased traffic levels can justify the additional investment required to double-track the entire route.

Note 1: Case 1 baseline from 2011 published timetables. Transfer times average both directions from all schedules with thru connections. Maximum track speed 79 MPH with standing restrictions for curves.

Note 2: Case 2 based on assumed implementation of mandated PTC on conventional San Joaquin route. Maximum track speed 90 MPH with standing restrictions for curves (no realignments from 2011 baseline).

Note 3: Case 3 assumes Case 2 upgrade to 90 MPH track speed on conventional portion of route with no curve realignments. *Assumes transition to HSR alignment north of Fresno per published construction plan and train speed limited to 110 MPH by equipment design.

Note 4: Case 4 assumes Case 2 upgrade to 90 MPH track speed on conventional San Joaquin route with no curve realignments. Five minutes of end-point recovery time removed at Bakersfield for thru-running. Assumes transition to HSR alignment south of Bakersfield connecting with existing Metrolink track at Lancaster. Assumes capability of 110 MPH operation but actual speeds on steepest portions limited to approximately 80 MPH by power requirements with diesel locomotives. Assumes minor upgrades to Metrolink track, 90 mph where feasible and only 3 stops to reduce travel time from 2011 Metrolink schedules.

Note 5: Stockton times reflect rail travel 4 of 6 trips Oakland, 2 of 6 trips Sacramento. Other trips bus bridge.

As can be seen from the accompanying time comparison tabulation, nothing approaching “High Speed Rail” travel times between Northern and Southern California can be achieved from the initial HSR construction segment, regardless of the route or location chosen. Using the most likely scenario of 90 mph track speed under PTC on the San Joaquin and Metrolink corridors, $7 Billion spent north of Bakersfield buys about a half hour of time savings on a trip from Northern California to Southern California and still requires a 2 1/2 hour bus ride and one or two transfers. The same investment made south of Bakersfield via Lancaster does not materially change the travel time to downtown Los Angeles, but the bus ride and transfers are eliminated thus saving about an hour to points south to San Diego.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the above numbers. First, some travel time reduction will be gained from the first HSR construction wherever it is, but the roughly one hour maximum savings from an all day trip of 8 to 11 hours by itself is not going to attract any significant ridership. Second, the assumptions made to calculate travel times (not just maximum line speed) such as the specific route selected, coordination of connections, thru running at Los Angeles and the improvements made to existing routes can also have a very significant effect on travel times, plus or minus from the mid-range assumptions made herein. Third, there is much room for improvement on the Pacific Surfliner corridor where 90 mph track speed is already available, but end-to-end speed averages only about 47 mph.

Justifying the Investment

If a very modest reduction in travel time cannot justify the $7 Billion cost (which it obviously cannot), what then would bring some sanity to this level of expenditure of public funds? The only justifications available are greatly increased convenience and opening a large market for rail travel where none presently exists. Construction in the Central Valley clearly cannot increase convenience when a “California High Speed Rail” trip requires a 2 1/2 hour bus ride to reach Los Angeles and a long walk and long second transfer to reach points south to San Diego. There are no new markets created beyond those that exist today. In fact, if HSR construction bypasses some of the smaller stops of Corcoran, Wasco or Madera as has been speculated in some reports, there will be a decrease in convenience and market.

Construction between Bakersfield and Metrolink, whether via Lancaster/Palmdale or the I-5 corridor, immediately produces tangible benefits that meet both justifications. Convenience is drastically improved by offering for the first time a single-seat ride between Sacramento or the Bay Area and San Diego. Also for the first time in nearly half a century direct rail service will link the San Joaquin Valley to the Los Angeles basin. For the first time ever, this rail service will be auto-competitive and will open a large market that has never existed for the rail traveler.

Conclusion

For HSR to be successful and be supported by the public, each incremental investment must produce an incremental return of commensurate value. Even if by some magic the entire HSR system were to be in place overnight it would take years or decades to develop the ridership needed to fully support it. Thus it is critical that each segment be designed and paced to capture the most incremental ridership and build public support on a steadily increasing customer base. A stranded asset of the magnitude envisioned by building first in the Central Valley will not attract commensurate ridership and might well be cause to discredit the concept of HSR for decades to come.

If transportation value is the desired goal for the first segment of HSR construction, decisions must be based on engineering rather than political evaluations, convenience to the traveling public rather than convenience to politicians or operating entities, value for public dollar rather than windfall for organized labor and immediate usefulness of the completed segment rather than future usefulness only if many more Billions are spent.

It is becoming more and more evident that the dominant considerations driving the current CHSRA planning concern political districts (construction jobs in high unemployment areas of the Valley), timing based on national politics (start building before the November 2012 elections or lose federal funding), turf-building between operating entities (Amtrak not committed to using Valley HSR if built, no coordinated operational planning with Metrolink or Pacific Surfliner) and the familiar line that it is necessary to spend extra Billions now for potential 220 mph running through metropolitan areas to ensure some arbitrary end point timing in the indefinite future. If the concept of High Speed Rail in California is to remain alive, planning must return to engineering-based decisions, funding must not be held hostage to political timetables, decisions must keep public convenience and financial constraint at the forefront, all potential operating entities must work together without turf-building and the highest importance must be assigned to the immediate benefits obtained. Initial investment must build a necessary segment of the ultimate plan, but must be viewed as if no additional funding were available for the second or additional phases—which is exactly a best-case scenario of today’s reality.

Construction of HSR is not a question of Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberals vs. Conservatives or District A vs. District B. It is a question of common sense vs. politics-as-usual of any stripe. If common sense cannot prevail it is, unfortunately, time to back off until it does.

SJVRC Passes Resolution Supporting Closure of the Southern Gap
Caltrans’ Bill Bronte drops a bombshell
SJVRC is urged to revive the idea of a JPA for the Corridor

Rail was all over the Northern California Map on Thursday the 26th of January as both the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee held its quarterly meeting at the Castle Air Conference Center in Atwater, and the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority held its final Draft Business Plan Update Workshop for FY’s 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 onboard Train #538 between Richmond & Sacramento. This writer attended both meetings and found out some interesting news on station facilities, budgets & staffing, as well as service changes that have occurred and will be occurring. Enjoy the reading, as there is much to cover through this electronic communication including an entire resolution on the Bakersfield – Los Angeles Gap Closure.

The San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee was called to order by 10:50am with roll being called and a quorum being established. After the Pledge of Allegiance and the adoption of the minutes of the last meeting, the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee passed a resolution supporting Railroad Safety and Passenger Rail Improvement Projects. It was after this resolution that the Gap Closure Items were called by Chair John Pedrozo of Merced County and an interesting discussion took place. The discussion first surrounded around an Ad-Hoc Committee consisting of a dozen or more people of a study done by the California Department of Transportation Division of Rail (CalTrans Division of Rail). Many speakers spoke their piece about the work of the Ad-Hoc Committee including Stacey Mortensen of San Joaquin County, Matt Machado of Stanislaus County, and Angelo Lamas of Merced County. Howard Abelson of Conta Costa County asked Stacey Mortensen about a “Plan B” if the High Speed Rail does not go through. Stacey mentioned that there is one developing in the works and that a report back to the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee is coming. Bob Snoddy of Kern County mentioned on going work that work get “incremental” improvements to Metrolink service based in Southern California that would bring Metrolink to Bakersfield. Bruce Heard of Los Angeles County Agreed to Bob Snoody’s statements, as did Supervisor Dave Rodgers of Madera County. The vote was called for with Dave Rodgers making the motion and Bruce Heard seconding the motion. It passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Resolution Supporting Closure of the Passenger Rail Gap Between Bakersfield and Los Angeles Stations

WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee (SJVRC) was created by the California State Legislature to advise CalTrans, Amtrak, federal governments and their rail agencies on behalf of the thirteen counties served by Amtrak’s San Joaquin Service – being Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare Counties; and,

WHEREAS, the mission of the Committee in providing such advice is to promote ridership on San Joaquin trains connecting the Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Area to Southern California via the San Joaquin Valley and to monitor and suggest legislation pertinent to passenger rail and the San Joaquin train service to state and federal representatives; and,

WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Corridor is the 5th busiest corridor compared to other Amtrak passenger rail corridors nationwide and California passenger riders represent approximately 20% of the total passenger rail travelers nationwide; and,

WHEREAS, the SJVRC recognizes the vital importance and reliability of the Bakersfield to Southern California bus links to the San Joaquin Corridor, the SJVRC acknowledges that, through customer satisfaction surveys, riders have listed the bus segment as the least desirable portion of their trip; and,

WHEREAS, the SJVRC concurs with the two largest passenger rail advocacy groups in the state, Train Riders Association of California (TRAC) and Rail Passengers Association of California (RailPAC), along with many other advocates and analysts, who observe that by far the most valuable addition to the state’s passenger rail infrastructure would be a rail link that close the generation’s old “gap” between Bakersfield and Los Angeles.

BE IT NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that on this day, January 26, 2012, the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee strongly recommends that the development/construction of a passenger rail link between the Bakersfield and Los Angeles stations be of the highest priority for the installation of any state wide rail system, whether this be high speed rail or conventional rail.

I, JOHN PEDROZO, Chair of the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee, do hereby certify that the forgoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by said Committee at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January 2012 by a unanimous vote.

The meeting continued after the “Gap Closure” Resolution passed by unanimous vote with Yosemite Area Regional Transit System General Manager, Dick Whittington making a presentation about ridership and park visitation to Yosemite National Park. The YARTS Service runs from Merced to Yosemite year-round with a Summer Seasonal Extension to Mammoth Mountain in MONO County. Dick mentioned that 700,000 people visited Yosemite National Park in July as well as August of 2011. These were record numbers for park visitation. It was mentioned that Amtrak Ridership and YARTS ridership is up, as well as park visitation. The only concern in the presentation is that Amtrak Thruway ridership is down. When discussion took place, Ty Holscher of Tulare County asked whether it would be possible to ban cars altogether to/from Yosemite. Whittington mentioned that that idea is in the park plan, but park management does not think it’s feasable for now. Andrew Felden of Amtrak and Amtrak Thruway Bus Operations, based in Sacramento, mentioned that he heard of some information that is coming in regards to some joint marketing with Amtrak, CalTrans, and National Parks that may include a promotion.

Amtrak Government Affairs made a presentation that was given by Alex Khalfin of the Port of Oakland. In his summary there was a lowlight, for lack of a better word, that included the following in the printed report:

On November 18, 2011, the President signed into law H.R. 2112, the “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012.” H.R. 2112 includes funding for Amtrak for the current fiscal year at $1.418 billion, including $466 million for operating, $616 million for capital, and $271 million for debt service. This represents the lowest federal appropriation for Amtrak since FY08, and the second year in a row in which Amtrak has received less than the previous year.

For the Federal Fiscal Year 2011, that ended back on September 30, 2011, San Joaquin ridership was 1,067,441 (+9.2%); passenger revenue was $35,704,109 (+13.9%); endpoint OTP was 89.5%. The + percentages in parenthesis representa the increase over the previous Federal Fiscal Year.

In the State Budget Presentation, Bill Bronte delivered a “bombshell” to the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee. As proposed, the Governor’s January Budget Proposal would virtually wipe out the people in the Division of Rail. The nineteen people today in Operations, Marketing, and Planning would be forced to lose fifteen people. The five people in marketing would be cut to just one and the three in rail operations would be cut to just one. There is a “Walking of the Halls” event in Sacramento scheduled for Thursday the 16th day of February 2012 to stop this part of the budget proposal from going through as well as an educational effort and awareness campaign making legislators aware of AmtrakCalifornia and its success in California with Amtrak as the chosen operator.

The good news from Bill Bronte is that AmtrakCalifornia is now positioned to go after Federal Funding, thanks in large part because capital programming has been done on several projects throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Work is ongoing, mainly through Positive Train Control, better known as PTC, to see that each trip can go 90mph. The improved speeds, will soon allow for planning of the next roundtrip, and hopefully get up to 11 roundtrips in the Valley. Both Bill Bronte of CalTrans and Anthony Chapa of Amtrak mentioned a piece about the upcoming delivery of “Comet” Cars. These cars were previously used by New Jersey Transit and will most likely be on the San Joaquin by Labor Day 2012. This, in the interim, will increase train lengths and provide a benefit for both the Capitol Corridor as well as the San Joaquin.

Andrew Felden of Amtrak and Alan Miller of CalTrans talked about upcoming Thruway Bus Activities and service changes on the Pacific Surfliner Line that has benefits for folks riding Amtrak in the San Joaquin Valley.

A new contract was awarded to Coach America with new buses on the way. The new buses will have Power Outlets, Tables, and Wireless Fidelity, better referred to as Wi-Fi. Three routes will be tested in selling E-Tickets as soon as the E-Ticketing Program is rolled out on Amtrak Trains. Those routes operate between Stackton and Redding, Sacramento and Sparks or South Lake Tahoe, as well as Emeryville to San Francisco. Other routes will come online afterwards. In May, with the new aligned tracks coming online at Sacramento Valley Station, more time will be given to all Thruway Services so as to allow passengers the time needed to walk to/from the new train platforms. This will likely occur over the Weekend of National Train Day, which according to http://www.nationaltrainday.com/ is scheduled for Saturday the 12th day of May, 2012. Since most schedule changes on Amtrak occur on Monday, rather than on Sunday, as is the case with Transit Operators like the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the AmtrakCalifornia service changes and new tracks will likely become available to riders beginning no later than Monday the 14th day of May 2012, but no earlier than Monday the 7th day of May 2012. If there is going to be any grand opening celebration of this magnitude at the Sacramento Valley Station commemorating the opening of the new train tracks, event organizers will need to make sure that any elected officials and/or other dignitaries have their calendar cleared in May through the 14th, and for sure on National Train Day itself, the 12th day of May 2012.

Last but not least, Stacey Mortensen asked for an item to come back regarding pursuing legislation in Sacramento that would provide the San Joaquin with JPA Powers and Authority. It was mentioned, by Stacey that folks in the LOS-SAN Corridor in Southern California are pursuing such a matter that is modeled after what is in place to day at the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority in Northern California.

With this request, the meeting adjourned with a reminder from new Chair Vito Chiesa of Stanislaus County and new Vice-Chair Dave Rogers of Madera County that the next meeting of the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee will “tentatively” be on Thursday the 26th day of April 2012 in Fresno. The location and times, based on train running times, will be put together by CalTrans Division of Rail and sent under a separate mailing in Early April so that those riding to the meeting will have ample time to purchase their tickets.

E-mail: mike_barnbaum@comcast.net

Back in the 80s an ad hoc coalition of elected representatives and advocates including RailPAC were successful in bringing about an increase in frequency of the San Diegan trains as they were called then, and their extension to Santa Barbara.

What we did not have was the plethora of agencies that we have today, many of which are represented in this room. And I feel compelled to say that the progress made in this intercity corridor in those years by a small group of bipartisan, public spirited individuals was at least as great, year over year, as the accomplishments of all the Boards and agencies that have been conjured into existence in the last two decades.

Furthermore, based on a brief perusal of the documents which have been circulated prior to this meeting regarding the proposed Joint Powers Authority, it seems to me that there are agencies which are deliberately obstructing progress towards a more efficient, reliable, and speedy intercity service. Many of you will have read our publications and a couple of stories; one about the “Berlin Wall” at Oceanside, the other entitled “So many agencies, so little service”. Many of you will be all too well aware that the owners of the rights of way give priority to their “own” trains, and are content to delay Surfliner trains in order to maintain their own performance statistics, even if from a system point of view the right thing to do would be to take a small delay on their own train for the greater good of the travelling public.

Now RailPAC has consistently called for a single regional agency to operate passenger trains in Southern California. However, we have been asked by a number of elected officials to support this body’s attempt to reorganize itself into a JPA to more directly manage this corridor. Recognizing the institutional relationships and the agencies already in place, I will state that RailPAC strongly supports the creation of a LOSSAN Joint Powers Authority. However, we do so with the caveat that this has to be an interim step on the way to a unified authority. We see such a single agency as the only way to overcome the turf battles that are unacceptable to railroad passengers and taxpayers in general. We are paying the salaries around here and the lack of cooperation between public agencies is totally unacceptable. The cardinal principle here should be that public agencies have a collective responsibility to deliver value for money service to passengers and taxpayers. Cooperation, and setting regional needs over local control, is a requirement, not an option.

Paul Dyson
President
pdyson@railpac.org

Isn’t there an old adage that it’s not what you say it’s what you don’t say? Or is it the old adage that keeping silent is worth a thousand words? In the case of Amtrak’s premier showcase for most of the United States, the western long-distance trains, the silence in that report is deafening. Let’s review the past few months:

1. On October 29, Trains magazine writer Fred Frailey reported that at least five long-distance trains were in jeopardy, the Sunset Limited, Cardinal, Silver Star, Crescent, and Southwest Chief, and that Mr. Boardman had set the internal priorities of the company to be the Northeast Corridor #1, the state-supported corridor trains, such as California’s, #2, and the long-distance trains a distant #3. Mr. Boardman was quoted by Mr. Frailey, and it was in other publications such as RailPAC’s, as telling a U.S. Senator that the reason for Amtrak’s bad economic straits was the long-distance trains. See “Amtrak long-distance trains: the kinda good, the pretty bad, the really ugly” posted in October on www.railpac.org. In that article this writer concluded by saying “All rail passenger advocates like us must be aware of what is likely to be coming from Amtrak in the next few months,” and that decisions may have already been made “so watch out in January.”

2. On December 12 Trains writer Don Phillips reported an interview he had with Mr. Boardman after a meeting where the Amtrak CEO stated that company operations “outside the Northeast Corridor do not cover their basic operating costs, so what should we stop doing?” He included the state-supported corridor trains “until you add in the state support.” In the interview Mr. Boardman told Don Phillips that the long-distance trains are “sacrosanct,” and the trains will not go away as long as he is Amtrak President. See “We hear you, Mr. Boardman, now let’s see some Action” posted in early December on www.railpac.org. This information from Mr. Boardman was encouraging, and we looked forward to a brighter day.

Well, it’s January, 2012 and the sounds of silence appeared in “Amtrak Moves Aggressive Agenda for 2012,” where they say “America’s Railroad is building for the future.” That future appears to be a withering of the long-distance trains by neglect while the company pretends to “strengthen current services.” What is in this “Agenda”? As expected, the already announced order for 70 new electric locomotives (NEC), 130 new single-level long-distance cars (Eastern routes only), plus a high-capacity next-generation high-speed rail system (NEC), upgrading tracks, bridges and other infrastructure (NEC) (which he claims are essential for supporting our national network), expanding Acela Express capacity (NEC), additional capacity into Manhattan, NY, (NEC), improving ADA station accessibility (not specified), development of the on board e-ticketing and the next generation reservation system (NEC and Corridors first), new technology for onboard food sales (NEC and Corridors first), 160 MPH HSR upgrades along a 24-mile section in New Jersey (NEC) , Positive Train Control (NEC first), and expanding the Amtrak Police Department (NEC). Oh, they throw in a Seattle, Washington Maintenance Facility (for the Cascade Corridor).

Amtrak has police dogs! These two were being shown to folks who came to see the Amtrak 40th anniversary train at the Ft.Worth, TX Intermodal station on January 7, 2012. (Russ Jackson photo)

Did you see anything for the western long-distance trains in there? After this presentation, Mr. Boardman opened the press conference to questions and then the fun began. Here are the highlights:

1. As quoted by all reporters present, Mr. Boardman said that Amtrak “won’t push for negotiations with Union Pacific over the $700 million tab the UP wants to make the Sunset Limited daily,” noting that the UP “used an astronomical number for us to go seven days a week.” Apparently the UP set this in concrete, or we must ask did Amtrak just give up? The UP’s figure was exorbitant, everyone knows that, but as was learned in the California Capitol Corridor, you keep after what you want and you get most of it. Suspicious, in that Mr. Boardman admittted that Amtrak loses more money on tri-weekly than daily trains. Then he said that pursuing the UP “was not a priority and I’m not going to do it now, either.” So there goes the Sunset Limted and the Cardinal? The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 requires Amtrak to improve the performance of its long-distance trains. Each year they have been “studying” five, and this year the last five will get the treatment. When the Sunset Limited was studied the report said its performance could be increased dramatically with daily service. Now we have “hands up,” total surrender.

2. Then Don Phillips got in the act again, asking about the company’s plans to expand its railcar fleet beyond the already announced acquisitions, since there are no plans for anything other than what has already been announced. Mr. Boardman replied that they will NOT add equipment by piggybacking a separate Amtrak order for bilevel cars onto orders that California and Midwest states are ready to place. He said the company “intends (note that term) to continue rebuilding its Superliner fleet at its Beech Grove, Indiana shop. What you see is all you will get. Deplorable avoidance of future needs, so draw your conclusion.

A Superliner car sits on yellow shop trucks, without decals, at the Amtrak Beech Grove shop in October, 2011. (Richard Strandberg photo while on a tour of the facility)

3. The bombshell for western rail advocates then came in the quote that appeared on the Trains magazine report of the conference by Bob Johnston. “One of the things I learned in the transit business before I came to Amtrak,” Mr. Boardman said, “is that as I added more trains during the peak hour my losses increased. Right now, the business model that exists for long-distance trains is that as you add trains your losses increase, and that is our policy direction coming from the administration and Congress, so Amtrak believes that is achieved by rebuilding the equipment we have.” OH? Has he looked at Amtrak California’s corridors? Each time the number of trains increased so did the productivity of the system. They can’t do that in the NEC?

So, there it is. The Western long-distance trains get nada…bupkus… Comments have poured in. RailPAC President Paul Dyson said, “Boardman killed the Sunset, the rest of the western trains to die a lingering death.” A railfan said, “He stepped in it yesterday, now he is busy trying to wipe it off his shoes.” A major national railfan organization called the Agenda a bold step forward, saying Boardman also told them, “I believe that we are in for a rough time in keeping our long-distance network together and my focus is on that and not on expansion. I support long distance trains, a coast to coast border to border service to maintain the mobility and connectivity our nation needs.” Really? It does not look like it from here in the West.

Sure, if you live in the east you will have a lot of mobility and connectivity! Or, sure, if you live near a state-supported corridor where, incidentally, those organizations would like to be rid of Amtrak and allowed to pick an operator that they could trust more fully, you stand a chance of having train service. But, the rest of us who want to travel as a former colleague of this writer just did, ride the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, then return to his Lake San Marcos, CA., home on the Coast Starlight because that is his preferred method of travel. How long will it take for the long-distance system to wither and die? Well, unless there is a major change at the top at Amtrak that day has now been hastened. Dead by neglect over a long period of time. Ride ‘em while you can. Does this remind anyone of what passenger rail faced in the 1960′s? Is it time for a NEW AMTRAK?

Joe Boardman condemns the long distance trains to a lingering death.
Sunset Limited in “immediate danger”.

Someone needs to tell Mr. Boardman that he is CEO of the NATIONAL Railroad Passenger Corporation. It seems that since he took the CEO position a couple of years ago that is one memo that did not cross his desk. Whether he has made up his own mind that the national passenger rail network is expendable or whether he is receiving marching orders from the administration, or even indirectly from the class one railroads, the end result is the same. Boardman’s words and (in)actions speak loud and clear. The long distance trains, especially in the west, are expendable. Indeed the Sunset Limited is in immediate danger, and we’ll need your help to save it.

Why do I draw this conclusion? Yesterday Mr. Boardman held a press conference at which he managed once again to characterize the long distance trains as losers, stated that he refused to fight for his own turf, viz. the future of the Sunset Limited, and at the same time managed to insult and denigrate his own marketing staff for their handling of the Sunset issue.

Furthermore he turned down the golden opportunity of cooperating with the states over the bi-level building program. Here was a chance in a lifetime for a transportation company to reduce its costs and expand its service, as well as help its partners reduce their costs, by piggybacking on a modest order for new passenger equipment for the western states. (Freight railroads and shippers do this all the time). Instead Boardman repeats the old bromide, more or less that “the more business I do the more money I lose”. I suppose that’s the price we pay for putting a government administrator in charge of what is supposed to be a commercial enterprise.

Here are some opinions that I believe are shared by most proponents of a successful passenger rail network:

If Amtrak gives in to Union Pacific over the Sunset the writing is on the wall for the Zephyr, Starlight, and Eagle, as well as any hope for the Pioneer and Desert Wind.

If we don’t supply new cars for these same trains plus the Builder and Chief both to make up the consists and to grow the business, these trains have a very limited future. Already there are far too many short consists, in service failures, trains without dining car service.

The end of trains like the Sunset will destroy the possibility of corridor service for places like Palm Springs, or through service to Phoenix or Reno.

We need a new Amtrak CEO and Board. Boardman must go, it’s that simple.

There are those that are convinced that this is some kind of conspiracy, that Mr. Boardman, and Ray LaHood for that matter, were appointed to carry out the task of finally ridding the railroads of their legacy passenger obligations. Others say that the CEO is simply incompetent, that the organization is now out of control with the loss of so many senior managers from the mishandled buyout. I prefer to withhold my judgment. Suffice it to say that the net result is the same.

We need to call out the Obama administration on this. This is supposed to be a passenger rail friendly government but we hear very little support for what we have, only platitudes about High Speed Rail projects, most of which have crashed and burned before leaving the drawing board. Where do you stand, Mr. President?

We also need to call out NARP. Is the National Association of Railroad Passengers willing to let this pass, and simply say that Mr. Boardman is doing his best, (while still marshalling 95% of the resources to the NEC of course)? Or will NARP also see the writing on the wall and join us and the Steel Wheels Coalition in defending the national system?

These events bring us back to commentaries and opinions we have shared over recent years, namely that we need to split Amtrak and divest the NEC into another organization, leaving a new National Railroad Passenger Corporation with the specific task of preserving and developing the national network. We need to think about what this post Amtrak world will look like and how the new organization will rise to the many challenges. Where will the money come from to make the necessary and overdue investments in rolling stock? How will it preserve and expand its rights to run trains over the common carrier railroads’ infrastructure, and what will it be charged?

These are questions for future discussion. In the short term once again we are having to fight with our backs to the wall. It will be an uphill struggle to explain to elected officials and the public that in spite of the ceaseless propaganda about losses we have a national asset that is worth protecting and expanding. We will need the support of all of our members and friends. If you live along the route of the Sunset Limited get your local elected officials involved. Let them know that if Union Pacific has the infrastructure to run the train 3 days a week then they can run it on the other 4 days too. Have your electeds write to the STB and the DoT to have them investigate. Tell them we need a new Amtrak CEO who believes in his job, and Amtrak Board members from the western states. Most of all make your Senators aware that mobility is an issue, the national network is an issue, and that there are votes to be won or lost.

Paul Dyson, President
pdyson@railpac.org

11th January, 2012

Governor Jerry Brown
State Capitol Suite 1173
Sacramento CA 95814

PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE IS RIGHT ON HIGH SPEED RAIL

Dear Governor Brown:

Our organization has consistently advocated the creation of a network of modern passenger trains for the State of California as part of a balanced transportation system and has specifically campaigned for High Speed Rail since 1980. We originally welcomed the High Speed Rail project as a step change in the otherwise painfully slow development of the State rail corridors and regional networks. We still believe that there is a place for a well designed and engineered High Speed Rail System but we are concerned that the California High Speed Rail Authority (“CHSRA”) is taking a serious misstep with their priorities.

The CHSRA has spent over $800 million of taxpayer funds without an acre of land being purchased or a yard of track laid. The engineering consultants are paid to design sections of route, and paid again to redesign them when they are found to be unacceptable to the local community or are simply too expensive. This must stop.

It is increasingly clear that CHSRA is unable to deliver the system that the voters approved in 2008 with Proposition 1A. The authority’s plan, and the only thing they have the funds to deliver, is a stretch of about 130 miles of track in the San Joaquin Valley, with no power or signaling system with which to run trains, and no trains to run on it. Additional money would have to be found to link this orphan track with existing lower speed rail routes. The Authority’s best case is for a connection between the Bay Area and Southern California in 2033. In our opinion this is not how Californians would like to see their money spent.

We believe that the Peer Review Committee has reached the only logical and acceptable conclusion. Neither the Federal Government nor the state, on behalf of taxpayers, should spend the very limited funds available on an incomplete route segment in the San Joaquin Valley.

That the High Speed Rail Project has to be built in segments is incontrovertible. We believe that each of these segments should be like building blocks, each adding to the mobility options currently available and giving value for money for this large public
investment. Using the regional rail systems at each end of the route as anchors, the logical choice is to build outward from each end so that as each segment is opened it can immediately add to the matrix of destinations available. By this measure the first segment to be built should connect Los Angeles with Bakersfield. This can then offer passenger rail service between northern and southern California via the San Joaquin Valley cities which can be incrementally improved to higher speeds as funds become available.

It is never too late to review a project and modify it so that it gives value for money for Californians and better mobility options for passengers. The CHSRA is proceeding down the wrong path and we support the attempt of the Peer Review Committee to bring some common sense to bear.

Yours sincerely,

Paul J Dyson
President

pdyson@railpac.org

RailPAC is an all volunteer non-profit advocacy group, and a California Corporation.

There has been much discussion in the past month or so about the immediate fate of the Amtrak long-distance trains. This writer provided his share of the verbiage in an article posted on www.railpac.org, titled “Amtrak long distance trains, the kinda good, the pretty bad, the really ugly,” which explained what was going on as of that time. That article was inspired by several sources, the work of Trains Magazine’s excellent writer Fred Frailey, who stirred up the rail advocacy community; by RailPAC Executive VP Bob Manning’s very successful trip to Washington, DC, and his personal visit with Senator Barbara Boxer among many others (his report is also on the website); and by RailPAC’s long commitment to the preservation of the long-distance trains as a needed economic part of the passenger rail transportation system in the country.

On December 7, 2011, a “Special employee Advisory” was published to all Amtrak employees by President Joseph Boardman. It begins, “I know that there is a feeling of uncertainty in the air for some of you, and that many of you have questions. I don’t have all the answers that many of you are seeking, but I want to tell you where the company is going….etc.” He goes on with a lengthy explanation of some of the changes he is seeking based on the Strategic Plan they published in October which calls on Amtrak to be “more bottom-line business focused.” He reported that 150 non-agreement-covered executive level people have taken the buy-out offered to help reduce costs and streamline the company’s operations, although the expertise of many of those folks is badly needed. He talks of improvements inside the Northeast Corridor, but outside of the Northeast Corridor he only speaks of cost cutting because, “Our operations outside of the NEC do not cover their basic operating costs,” so, “What should we stop doing?”

Now you can see where Fred Frailey and others like this writer heard alarm bells about the future of the long-distance trains. The Congress had just removed the provision in the Amtrak legislation that would have eliminated federal funding for the short-distance corridors. With the NEC Amtrak’s #1 priority, and these corridor trains #2, that left only the long-distance trains as the source of cutbacks when the Congress reduced Amtrak’s subsidy for the rest of this fiscal year. We all waited for the bombshell that we felt was coming.

On December 12, Trains Magazine’s veteran writer, Don Phillips, who has spoken at several RailPAC meetings in recent years, posted an intriguing article on the Trains news wire, titled, “Amtrak boss: Long-distance trains are sacrosanct.” That article, written following an “impromptu interview while touring mockups of new single-level equipment,” begins, “Amtrak President Joe Boardman says all long-distance trains will be protected as long as he is head of Amtrak, without any exceptions.” He goes on to tell Mr. Phillips, “We’re not cutting any long-distance trains…We’re not cutting any service.” Phillips then asked why he had not made such an unequivocal statement earlier when speculation was intensifying, and Mr. Boardman replied, “I’m not a bragger.” Well, knock us over with a feather. There it is. Or is it? Was this really “damage control” as some have suggested? Is he only trying to “improve his defensive game and is outright reacting to what Business and Politics and others are saying?”

Yes, Mr. Boardman has now promised that all long-distance trains will be protected as long as he is there. Yes, there is little doubt Bob Manning’s timely visit, Fred Frailey’s devastating article, Don Phillips’ interview report, and RailPAC’s long and vocal commitment to the long-distance trains were all instrumental in Boardman’s response. Maybe there was a political firestorm that descended upon the Amtrak President, but whatever happened we now have his word to rely on. We will give him the benefit of the doubt, and confidently use our tickets for our annual winter trip on the Sunset Limited. But, what happens when the Congress gets to working on the 2013 money for Amtrak? Eventually, they will have to. Will they give Amtrak what they say they “need”? Or, will another cutback be coming that will allow Mr. Boardman to throw up his hands and say “goodbye,” and/or “there’s nothing I can do now, it’s out of my hands?” You know he won’t touch the NEC or the state-supported short-distance corridor trains.

If Mr. Boardman means that the long-distance trains are “sacrosanct,” his Actions will speak louder than his words. Here’s where he could provide real assurance: 1) A contract to get the Sunset Limited daily; 2) A contract for purchase OR LEASE of new bi-level cars for the western long-distance trains; 3) A contract for continuance of the Southwest Chief on the current historic route; and 4) a realistic commitment to funding improvements to the quality of service and for GROWTH through added capacity. Then he should BE a “bragger,” telling the world how great passenger rail is through his company. In his interview with Don Phillips, Mr. Boardman said he is looking for ways to finance other equipment beyond the ones already announced, but “cannot yet announce any other purchases.” Let’s see that happen soon!

If we were instrumental in “saving the system” again, let’s be smug and proud, but skeptical. We have worked how long, only 30 plus years to get Amtrak to do what they should have been doing all along? Thank you to all who participated in this “victory,” if it does indeed prove to be one. Now let’s get back to work.

Often we complain about things but fail to correct the problem. Yes, I’m referring to the underserved passenger train service in the west. This conveys the sad possibility that some service may be cut while we are attempting to inaugurate daily service between Los Angeles to Palm Springs and Indio California. It’s a simple fact that we have major problems. The Sunset Limited may be eliminated along with other trains such as the Southwest Chief. Here is why:

The Sunset Limited operates three days a week – two nights to reach its destination. This exemplifies Amtrak’s worst financially performing train. Federal Legislation requires Amtrak to improve its lowest performing trains. As a result Amtrak completed an internal on how to best improve the fabled Sunset Limited. The study clearly simply revealed that if this train operated daily, it would be one of the best financially performing trains.

Apparently Amtrak took the case to the Union Pacific Railroad. It was told the cost would be approximately $760 million plus, to operate four more daily passenger trains. Unfortunately, the Sunset Limited operates almost 80% on the line owned by the Union Pacific Railroad. As a result nothing has happened.

Recently Amtrak CEO, Joe Boardman, stated that the BNSF Railroad, over which the Southwest Chief operates most of its route, does an excellent job. It appears too good! Amtrak pays BNSF an on time bonus, causing Southwest Chief to become a very expensive train to operate, and one of the first trains to be eliminated. According to Mr. Boardman, this cancellation would occur if Congress does not approve full funding as requested by Amtrak. You can bet full funding will not happen. At this point I will refrain from comment as to why Amtrak does not have any Western representation on the Amtrak Board of Directors.

Another problem: The Western Long Distance trains are aging and no new ones have been ordered. Yet, new passenger cars were ordered for the Eastern trains. It appears the Western part of our country is being ignored. Therefore, it was decided to bring this information to the attention of some members of our California Congressional delegation, along with Amtrak senior management.

My colleague and friend Greg Pettis, a Cathedral City, CA Councilman and current Chair for the Riverside County Transportation Commission, and I arrived in Washington, DC on Sunday, October l6, 2011. Co-incidentally, we landed at Baltimore Washington International Airport just as Rail Volution 2011, a huge event, attended by politicians, decision makers, business leaders was getting started. An event committed to creating transit for livable communities. Subsequently, I was fortunate to attend several compelling conferences dealing with transit planned communities, as described below.

Gregg and I met with Joe McHugh Amtrak Vice President of Government Affairs & Corporate Communications. He expressed concern regarding the overall situation of Amtrak funding, given the financial situation in Congress.

Joe was very supportive of the issues facing the West, especially California. He discussed the various issues endeavoring to satisfy our concerns, but he pretty much indicated a stalemate existed with Sunset Limited and the Union Pacific Railroad. He was very interested in a new corridor train from Los Angeles to Palm Springs/Indio, and wanted to work with us to achieve this goal.

Mr. McHugh stated that he and Steven Gardner Amtrak Vice President of Policy & Development would be in Orange County, California the following week to address the LOSSAN Board of Directors. LOSSAN was forming a new Joint Powers Agreement and the meeting with the LOSSAN Board by Amtrak was to clearly demonstrate that Amtrak would remain a strong partner in California passenger rail service.

I had a separate meeting with Emmett Fremaux Amtrak Vice President, Marketing & Product Management. We talked at length regarding the new proposed passenger train from Los Angeles to Palm Springs and Indio. I indicated that we could possibly showcase this service by providing a demonstration weekend train for the Coachella Fest 2012 weekend. Emmett was truly enthused about this prospect after a very informative discussion. He immediately authorized his staff to initiate the process so the demo-weekend train would happen.

I was delighted to meet with Matthew Nelson, Legislative Assistant for US Senator Dianne Feinstein. Our talk also concerned the Western long distance trains, the proposed new passenger service between Los Angeles to Palm Springs/Indio and of course the Sunset Limited.

Matthew knew that the Sunset Limited was at the bottom of the financial heap of long distance trains, and asked how to deal with it. I explained that the Sunset Limited only runs thrice weekly, and that if it were a daily train according to Amtrak’s internal study, this train would become one of the top performing trains. I also advised that the Union Pacific Railroad wanted to charge Amtrak 760 million plus dollars to run four additional trains a week. Keep in mind that about 80% of the route of the Sunset Limited runs over the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad.

Mr. Nelson stated that Senator Feinstein is very supportive of passenger rail in general and especially for California. He asked that I keep the Senator’s office informed regarding passenger rail issues, which I plan to do.

I was fortunate to have my picture taken with Senator Boxer, and then the Senator’s Legislative Aide Kyle Chapman took another picture with my phone camera.

At the same time, I was in a detailed discussion with Lynn Abramson, pointing out the current situation with the Sunset Limited, and the uncertain future of Western long distance trains. Lynn was deeply interested as I explained the problems we are facing regarding the daily train from Los Angeles to Palm Springs/Indio. Lynn asked that we keep her office and Senator Boxer’s up to date on the situation. Lynn re-emphasized that the Senator remains supportive of passenger rail in California. After this lengthy, frank discussion, I went to the Senate Gallery. Here I watched first hand as Senator Boxer spoke to the members of the Senate regarding the counter amendment. Then a vote was taken. Senator Boxer prevailed. Witnessing our government in action is a profound experience.

Our special thanks to Senator Boxer and her staff for the ongoing support of passenger rail in general. I must also add that Mr. Alton Garrett, the local senior staffer for Senator Boxer has been vital in assisting our efforts. Alton is very easy to work with and very down to earth.

On another front Greg Pettis had positive meetings with the staffs of Congressmen Mica, Gus Billirakis, Raul Grijalva, and very assuring talks with staff members of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Greg was non committal in his meeting with Frank Cullen, chief of Staff of Congresswoman Mary Bono-Mack, who represents the 45th California Congressional District which includes the greater Coachella Valley area.

It does make a difference to visit members of Congress with an educational theme. That’s what we do and that is what we are all about. We can make a difference.

I. Trip Overview

A fairly unusual circumstance set up the opportunity for a round trip on Amtrak California beginning and ending at the “away” terminal of Grover Beach and turning at the “home” terminals of Auburn and Colfax. Due to the limited schedule options available for thru travel on and off both the San Joaquin and Capitol trunk lines and the desire to travel once on each, the San Joaquin was chosen over the essentially equal Capitol alternative northbound and the Capitol was chosen over the decidedly less suitable San Joaquin options southbound.

Comment: Another example of the value of intermediate stations vs. just the major city end points. Using Colfax, Auburn, and Grover Beach instead of Sacramento and San Luis Obispo greatly shortened the pick-up/drop-off mileage at both ends and made leaving a vehicle at the home terminal much easier.

Grover Beach to Auburn (San Joaquin)

My wife and I enjoyed breakfast at the Station Diner adjacent to the Grover Beach Amtrak station. The diner was open in plenty of time to make the 7:30AM bus departure for Hanford and all buses and trains load just a few steps from the building, serving Pacific Surfliner, Capitol and San Joaquin schedules. The morning Surfliner 774 to Los Angeles and San Diego stopped on time at 7:05AM while we were eating.

My bus was out on time and we picked up additional passengers up to Paso Robles for a total of about 16 on board to Hanford, where we arrived several minutes early despite delays for road construction enroute. There was no business at Atascadero, Kettleman City or Lemoore.

Train 713 was approximately five minutes late departing Hanford, and maintained that status all the way to Stockton. The train was moderately populated and had regular turnover at all intermediate stops. Two buses met the train at Stockton—one express to Sacramento and the other making intermediate stops at Lodi and Elk Grove. After a fairly long 45 minute layover and change of buses in Sacramento, I caught the “Auburn Express” bus to Auburn (not noted in the public timetable, but used to position the 5:10PM departure from Auburn back to Sacramento) where I picked up the car for the final leg home. It was pleasant to note that the Stockton shuttle buses, formerly best described as rattletraps, are now up to standard with modern equipment.

Colfax to Grover Beach (Capitol Corridor)

For the return trip about a week later I arranged to be dropped off at the Colfax station to catch the 10:05AM bus from Reno to Sacramento. The bus arrived early as usual for a 15 minute rest stop before boarding for Sacramento. At the Auburn stop, the driver held back a minute or two as the RB/B&B circus train made its way up the mountain through the station on its way east to the next engagement. It was obviously an interesting and unusual sight for many of those on board the bus.

Arrival at Sacramento was early and there was about a half hour wait to board train 537 to San Jose. Construction for the new platform area and relocated UP trackage was evident with a “bridge to nowhere” overpass with no approaches standing over the future track location and an underground pedestrian tunnel making its way from the new platform area back toward the existing station.

We were out on time but lost about six minutes immediately due to a door alarm that would not clear. After two impromptu stops the problem was resolved and there were no more issues. It was refreshing to overhear a radio conversation near the Suisun stop with the UP dispatcher wanting to know why we were running so late (six minutes!). There was minimal delay meeting an on-time train 530 and weaving around a westbound auto-rack train approaching Martinez. Departure from Oakland was almost on time and arrival at San Jose was early. Major track and platform construction was evident where we joined the Caltrain line at College Park and at the San Jose station. Ridership was light to moderate at all points.

The Santa Barbara bus was waiting a short distance from the station and, after a nominal wait, we departed on time with about 20 on board. At the King City meal stop we had five minutes to dart inside the McDonald’s restaurant, order, use the restroom and get back on board. It sounds worse than it was, and everyone who participated in this exercise was back on board to eat their dinner in motion.

At San Luis Obispo, all passengers continuing south are required to change buses, which consumed a bit more than the allotted time so we were about five minutes late at Grover Beach for the end of the trip.

Summary Comments

The travel described occurred on a Thursday and Monday and was as punctual as one could want. Most intermediate points ran about five minutes behind schedule, but most end points were early. Bus patronage was about 50% of capacity (except for only a half dozen or so on the Auburn express), which allowed people to spread out comfortably while still representing a decent load factor. The San Joaquin was fairly crowded at times, the Capitol less so with plenty of seats available. Food from the lounge cars was adequate.

The only problem with either of these trips is that they were mostly bus rides and transfers. Using Auburn and Grover Beach as the end points, the San Joaquin consisted of one three-hour bus ride, one three-hour train ride, one one-hour bus ride and another one-hour bus ride. The Capitol consisted of one one-hour bus ride, one three-hour train ride and one four-hour bus ride. Counting the non-timetabled bus to bus transfer in San Luis Obispo, each trip required eight hours of actual travel, three transfers and an elapsed time of nine to nine and a half hours from point to point. Driving time is approximately seven hours. In short, I am glad it is available, it works in an emergency and for the dedicated rail traveler, but it is never going to attract a meaningful share of the available market with all the transfers, connecting time, long bus rides and hassles with luggage that are required.

NOTE: Part II of this report is further commentary about the difficulties of making this trip that are built into the current timetables and makes recommendations for improvements. Mr. James lives near Blue Canyon in the Sierra, and is a long time RailPAC member.

II. Perspective from the Foothills

Given the difficulties of using Amtrak and Amtrak California between the foothills east of Sacramento and the Central Coast illustrated in the preceding trip report (Part I), what would acceptable service look like and how might it be incrementally developed? Equally important, how might acceptable service from the Sierra foothills to Fresno and Bakersfield be integrated into the matrix? Existing northbound and southbound options are not identical, but are similar enough that this commentary will examine only the weekday (M-F) southbound travel direction.

Living an hour and a half east of Sacramento on the I-80 corridor, Colfax would be our station of choice and Auburn (half way to Sacramento) would be a reasonable second choice. Driving all the way to Sacramento is highly undesirable due to distance, traffic and cost of parking, and would eliminate the usefulness of using rail for most trips shorter than to the Bay Area or beyond Fresno. A convenient level of service would consist generally of the following elements as a wish list:

1. Early morning train all the way to San Jose with direct bus to Central Coast
2. Connecting service to Coast Starlight
3. One or two mid-day connections, two transfers maximum
4. Late day overnight no-transfer train to coast and LA

Here are the 2011 travel options segment by segment:

Colfax-Sacramento: 3 buses
Auburn-Sacramento: 4 buses + 1 Capitol train
Sacramento-Oakland: 16 Capitol trains
Oakland-San Jose: 7 Capitol trains
Oakland/San Jose-Central Coast: 5 buses
Sacramento-Bakersfield: 4 buses to Stockton + 2 San Joaquin trains
Hanford-Central Coast: 2 buses

In addition to the Amtrak California services noted above, the California Zephyr serves Colfax (not Auburn) to Oakland (Emeryville) and the Coast Starlight serves Sacramento to the Central Coast. Sounds impressive until the segments that do not connect in a reasonable manner start to be eliminated. (Is this the “unmatrix” theory?)

For Central Coast travel the Amtrak long distance trains can be immediately eliminated because they mis-connect by about 16 hours and would require an overnight stay enroute. The California Zephyr mis-connects to the afternoon coastal bus by three hours at Oakland or requires a five hour layover for the all-night red-eye bus south.

The only train out of Auburn leaves at 6:35AM and mis-connects to the Starlight by an hour in Sacramento. It mis-connects by 40 minutes to the thru train to San Jose, which then requires an hour and a quarter layover for coastal connections. It would be timed perfectly to make the 11:25AM bus connection to the coast at San Jose, but that train terminates at Oakland so misses that opportunity completely. It does make a 20 minute connection to the Stockton bus to San Joaquin 712, which connects at Hanford to the morning coastal bus to Grover Beach. That routing still requires three transfers, but is a very reliable connection that I have personally used from time to time. It is not shown in the computer, it cannot be booked through Guest Rewards without a long discussion and two redemptions, and reservations agents do not recognize it for booking. As a result, nobody from the general public will ever find out about or use this very useful early morning routing to the Valley or coastal points.

The morning bus leaves Auburn at 10:35AM and makes direct connections with Capitol 537 at Sacramento. 537 makes direct connections to the coastal bus in San Jose. This is the ONLY option shown in the Amtrak computer for public booking and it happened to be the best fit for my travel needs for the trip just reported.

The early afternoon bus leaves Auburn at 2:00PM and makes direct connections with Capitol 543 to San Jose. Unfortunately there is no coastal connection available. If one is willing to make an hour and a half layover in Sacramento, there is a connection to San Joaquin train 704, which connects to the evening coastal bus at Hanford for a midnight arrival in Grover Beach. This option has one less bus segment and transfer, but since it is not shown in the Amtrak computer as a recognized routing the chance that a member of the general public will ever find or book it is near zero. This exact connection from Auburn to Fresno and other San Joaquin destinations is shown as a recognized routing, however, so it is just the connection to coastal points that is missing from the Amtrak computer.

The late afternoon bus leaves Auburn at 5:10PM. This schedule mis-connects to San Joaquin 704 and the last coastal connection by an hour and a half. Connecting train 549 only goes as far as Oakland, and requires an hour and a half layover at either Sacramento or Oakland to connect to the overnight coastal bus which takes six and a half hours to reach Grover Beach at 4:30AM. Although this combination is theoretically possible, the circumstances to book it would have to be extreme and I don’t blame Amtrak for not showing it as a viable option in the computer.

The last bus of the day leaves Auburn at 7:35PM and connects with Capitol 553 in Sacramento, which mis-connects with the overnight coastal bus by an hour at Oakland. The only option here is a six hour midnight layover for a five and a half hour bus ride to Grover Beach the next morning. This option can also be realistically eliminated for thru travel.

So, out of five Auburn departures, sixteen Capitol Corridor trains, five coastal connections and two long distance trains that could potentially serve Auburn and Grover Beach there is only one thru connection that is carded for sale. Two others via the San Joaquin routing can be constructed by those who are timetable-savvy and are willing to bypass computers and reservations agents who will insist that it is not possible. One of these alternatives is a close but very reliable connection in Sacramento and the other adds an extra hour and a half layover enroute. Every alternative involves more bus travel than train travel (some substantially more) and all require multiple transfers and waiting time for connections. Thru service on the otherwise exemplary Capitol Corridor presents itself as complex and quite unattractive to most potential travelers.

Some Short and Long Term Improvement Possibilities

The problems with thru travel over the Capitol Corridor are obviously not due to lack of frequency, but rather lack of connectivity, multiple transfers, long cumulative transfer times and long bus rides relative to train travel. Lack of appropriate marketing of available service options also keeps customers away.

Marketing should be addressed immediately as a zero cost improvement that takes advantage of every reasonable travel option that is already available, several of which are not listed in the Amtrak computer. Specific examples include:

1. Auburn early morning train 529 connecting to San Joaquin 712 bus in Sacramento for all Valley and Coastal destinations.
2. Auburn early afternoon bus connecting to Coastal destinations via San Joaquin 704 at Sacramento (currently only Valley destinations are listed)
3. Re-evaluate and adjust interline fare structure with San Joaquin route to align incentives with reality.
4. Yield management should place a premium on filling always-empty seats out of Auburn rather than penalize travelers who endure more than a two hour layover at Martinez by using train 529 to San Joaquin 714 instead of the later bus ($55 to Fresno vs. $31 for the much shorter bus trip)
5. Allow optional routing to San Joaquin via rail-to-rail transfer at Martinez or rail-to-bus-to-rail double transfer at Sacramento and Stockton at uniform lower thru fare (train 529 to San Joaquin 714 bus until connection to 712 bus is recognized).

Short to medium term improvements should be undertaken by making a serious effort to coordinate schedules between the Capitol, San Joaquin and Surfliner corridors. In effect, the entire distance from Reno to Sacramento to San Jose to Santa Barbara to Los Angeles to San Diego is a single travel corridor with a lightly-populated center section. With one exception, the specifics are much too complex to address here, but with many mis-connects being only about an hour there are certainly a number of other possibilities to explore.

1. Extend train 529 to San Jose instead of train 527. The difference is only 40 minutes, but this change would open the entire Capitol route to morning service from Auburn in addition to providing a four hour earlier coastal connection and currently the only possible thru service to the Central Coast requiring only a single transfer.
2. Medium to long term improvements should consider the following as a starting point: Add earlier morning departure from Auburn to connect with both the Coast Starlight and San Joaquin 702. Such a schedule in isolation would be problematic at present, but if implemented as an overnight departure from Reno could open reasonable markets not now served. It would also be possible to use thru equipment to/from San Joaquin 702 and 703 to open single-seat travel from Reno and the foothills to Bakersfield in addition to the Starlight connections both ways. This is a potentially large market that is not reasonably served at all by today’s schedules.
3. Extend the California Zephyr to Los Angeles overnight. This extension has long been on the RailPac wish list and would provide a single-seat ride from the foothills to the Central Coast, although at awkward early-morning hours for points short of Santa Barbara.
4. Craft additional planned Auburn service with thru connections in mind to both Valley and Coastal destinations, not just the Sacramento commuter market.
5. Once convenient travel options are implemented, market to the foothills to fill empty seats at the fringe and generate higher passenger-mile trips.

This Foothills Perspective is presented to highlight the difficulty that exists when attempting travel that starts or ends outside of the corridor core, despite copious service in the mid-section, and to suggest both simple and complex options to improve thru travel. The longer-term improvements suggested are, of course, highly speculative given today’s funding conditions and access issues to Union Pacific tracks.