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.

I wish this was an April Fools prank, but it isn’t.

Amtrak today released an updated Fleet Strategy Plan, but not suprisingly, all attention is still focused on single-level services and the NEC.  Electric locomotives (to be made in California) and single-level cars have been ordered, and Amtrak announced in February that 40 Acela coach cars will be ordered in FY 2012.  The diesel locomotives delivery schedule has been delayed under the updated plan as well.

An expanded fleet is much of what is holding us back from achieving an even larger percentage of Amtrak ridership.  Now is the time to write to Joe Boardman, the Amtrak Board of Directors and your state and federal representatives and urge them once again to equally support the West Coast long distance and corridor routes.

CEO John Fenton gave a presentation on Metrolink’s journey to become Southern California’s commute of choice. He covered Metrolink’s core values – safety, people, quality, efficiency and growth – and the ways Metrolink is working to add value to the region, such as introducing a pilot program of new express trains on the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino lines.

At the conference, Metrolink’s Guardian fleet was on display for the conference attendees. Operations staff was also on-hand to provide information about the cars and answer any questions.

Dave Potter, Monterey County District 1 supervisor and Chair of the TAMC Rail Policy Committee, noted, “The train system just to the north of us in the San Francisco Bay Area is well-developed, and we have two projects in the works that would help us to have better connections to that system. This tour helps show how important it is for us to establish this new connection, to provide another way for people to get between Monterey County and the Bay Area.”

Monterey City Councilmember and Rail Policy Committee Vice Chair Frank Sollecito agreed, “This was a wonderful opportunity for us to see where the train tracks go through Monterey County, and how a new Coast Daylight or commuter train would be a convenient, easy and comfortable travel option for Monterey County residents or visitors. The views were great, and the trip went beautifully.”

Special Soledad Stop
Of particular interest to the decision-makers on board, the train made a special stop in the City of Soledad. The train pulled in at the future site of the Soledad Coast Daylight Station, which was the historical site of the Southern Pacific Train Depot. Currently, the site is a park and ride lot. The City is planning to make improvements to the station area, including the construction of an 800-foot long platform with shelters and changes to the tracks, in order to facilitate the future Coast Daylight train stopping in Soledad.

Amtrak “Coast Daylight” Service
Tour participants learned about the proposed Amtrak “Coast Daylight” service, which is planned to be daily operation of new state-sponsored Amtrak service along the Coast Rail route between downtown Los Angeles and downtown San Francisco. The service is being proposed to close a gap in existing train services, serve travel demand between Los Angeles and San Francisco, improve mobility for visitors and millions of Californians living in counties served by the new train, enhance goods movement and economic development at stations along the route, and provide environmentally sound transportation for a variety of travel markets and needs.

Rail Extension to Salinas
The tour also was relevant to the Transportation Agency’s proposal to extend the commuter rail system from San Francisco Bay Area to Salinas. Such a service would be operated by Capitol Corridor or Caltrain, and would relieve congestion and provide transportation alternatives for commuters and those seeking access to health care and education. This proposed service would start in 2014 with two to three round trips and expand to four to six round trips as demand warrants. Improvements that are planned as part of the project include a Salinas layover facility; platforms, parking and bus bays in Salinas, Pajaro/Watsonville and Castroville; and track improvements to the mainline track and at station areas.

###

Photo Credits: Christina Watson, TAMC: Boarding Starlight in San Jose, Flowers and Field
Alan Miller, Caltrans: Steven McHarris in Soledad

The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) is responsible for investing in regional transportation projects for Monterey County residents, businesses and visitors. The mission of TAMC is to develop and maintain a multimodal transportation system that enhances mobility, safety, access, environment quality and economic activities in Monterey County. For more information visit www.tamcmonterey.org or call 831.775.0903.

In November of 2009, California was poised to apply for federal funds for improvement of its three intercity rail corridors as well as for the high-speed rail project.   As reported as the lead story in the LA Times on November 13, 2009,  “Schwarzenegger quietly quashed effort to improve commuter (and intercity) rails.”  The entire application of $1.1 billion by Caltrans Division of Rail for rail cars and track/signal improvements was never even applied for as per the Governor’s last-minute directive.

Unlike the high-speed rail project, almost all of the projects Caltrans was to apply for were and are shovel ready.   Again today, both Caltrans and the High Speed Rail Authority will apply for the available funds, with applications due April 4^th.   The California state passenger rail corridors are themselves vital components of the High Speed Rail Program.  It is a mistake to direct all available resources to the High Speed Rail program alone.   The infusion of funds to the state corridors will provide immediate employment to construction workers as well as laying important building blocks upon which the state rail system will thrive whether true high speed rail is built or not.

RailPAC president Paul Dyson wrote a letter to LOSSAN Board and the Governor.  We urge you to write a similar letter to Governor Brown immediately.  Click here for contact information.

As promised, we are providing the files presented on March 19, 2011 at Steel Wheels in California. Some files are large, so please be patient.

SPEAKERS AND EVENTS

Richard Katz
Chairman, SCRRA / Metro Board Member

Gene Skoropowski (presentation coming soon!)
Consultant to the LOSSAN Board, HNTB

William Duggan
General Manager – West, Amtrak

Andrew Selden
Vice President, Law and Policy, United Rail Passenger Alliance

John Fenton
CEO, Metrolink

Robert Stewart
Chairman, NARP

Hans Van Winkle
Project Manager, California High Speed Rail Authority

Romm Doulton
CEO, Pullman Palace Car Company, Limited

Special Railcar Display
Courtesy of Amtrak and Metrolink

RailPAC Business Meeting
Treasurer’s Report

THANK YOU TO OUR GENEROUS SPONSORS FOR MAKING THIS EVENT POSSIBLE!

Union Pacific is investing $12,900,000 in track improvements to their Coast Line this month.  The right-of-way between Watsonville and San Lucas is a 76-mile long staging area, with more than 82,000 railroad ties waiting to be installed, along with new rail and 42,000 tons of ballast.

Union Pacific is now calling the Coast Line a “premium rail corridor”.  But what do they mean by that?  Will the track be upgraded to 79 MPH for the Coast Starlight?  Will this, combined with the track work in Southern California and on the BNSF up north, finally allow for time to be removed with the May schedule change?  It looks like more of the Coast Starlight Communities Network’s plan for the route will soon come to life.

Reported by Chris Flescher, Associate Director

Pipeline and Branch Line

The Marina Coast Water District and California American Water have requested a letter of support from TAMC for a Coastal Development Permit, to be obtained from the California Coastal Commission, for the Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Project.  A portion of the project (a water pipeline) will be located on the Monterey Branch Line (MBL) right of way.

An appraisal of the property used for the desalination project will be conducted in the coming months.  TAMC will be compensated for the use of the property.  These funds will be used to cover a portion of the operations and maintenance of the light rail service on the corridor.

When TAMC bought the MBL from Union Pacific, they also bought the utility easement rights.  This is something that Union Pacific does not usually sell.

The proposed letter will include the following:

1. TAMC understands and supports the portion of the project that is to be located on the MBL right of way.
2. TAMC, the Marina Coast Water District, and California American Water are working on an agreement that provides the foundation for construction and operations of the Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Project.
3. TAMC will be compensated for the property used on the MBL right of way.
4. The Marina Coast Water District and California American Water will work with TAMC to coordinate construction of the light rail and pipeline as well as potentially provide a service road for the light rail where the pipeline will be laid.

Commuter Rail to Salinas

TAMC is working with the Salinas Redevelopment Agency on a draft of a memorandum of understanding for the Salinas Intermodal Transportation Center.  TAMC representatives and City staff made presentations on the project to the City Council (January 11) and its Design Review Board (January 24).  One needed piece of land in Salinas (for the layover facility) is in escrow, and the cleanup process is underway.

The FTA has assigned an environmental specialist to look at the Salinas rail project.  That person will examine TAMC’s environmental documents, which should help TAMC in getting all the documents completed.

On February 2, TAMC staff met with Capitol Corridor, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Caltrain, and Caltrans staff to discuss the project, including how to coordinate the schedules of the various trains.  Caltrain may end service to Gilroy and weekend service due to financial problems.  They would like to keep serving Gilroy if they can afford to do so.

Rail Tour

On March 3, there will be a tour on the southbound Coast Starlight, making stops in San Jose, Salinas, and a special stop in Soledad. The trip is sponsored by TAMC, the Coast Rail Coordinating Council, and the City of Soledad.  This will be on the same route as the proposed commuter rail to Salinas and Coast Daylight services.

Our own Art Lloyd and Bruce Jenkins are interviewed by KCBS!

Ventura
January 11, 2011 – 5:00 – 7:00 PM
Camarillo Public Library
4101 Las Posas Road
Camarillo, CA 93010

Santa Barbara
January 12, 2011 – 5:00 – 7:00 PM
Louise Lowry Davis Center – Lu Gilbert Room
1232 De La Vina St.
Santa Barbara, CA, 93101

San Luis Obispo
January 13, 2011 – 5:00 – 7:00 PM
San Luis Obispo City/County Public Library – Community Room
995 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401