February 6, 2012

The above copy of this enewletter is on a PDF file and  you will not be able to click on to the links in blue. If you would like an emailed copy of this enewsletter or to subscribe to it email nbraymer@railpac.org

January 30, 2012

The above copy of this enewletter is on a PDF file and  you will not be able to click on to the links in blue. If you would like an emailed copy of this enewsletter or to subscribe to it email nbraymer@railpac.org

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

Implement additional service to Placer County
Reduce number of trains from 16 roundtrips to 15

After riding Train #521 from Sacramento to Oakland at 4:30am and Train #712 from Oakland to “Atwater”/Merced for the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee, this writer/rider boarded Train #713 from “Atwater”/Merced to Emeryville for the goal and purpose of meeting Train #538 that was operating from San Jose to Sacramento. The connection was successful and entry was made in the rear-most Coach Car where Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Transportation Officer, Hubert Hanrahan was onboard having a few seats held for riders wanting to take in the conversation of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Draft Two-Year Business Plan.

Much about the business plan was discusses from Wi-Fi and food service to baggage service and bicycle storage. The main topic of this Business Plan Workshop focused on service frequencies, service consolidation, service expansion, and funding.

A temporary Capitol Corridor Timetable will be issued prior to the May 2012 Service Changes solely for the purpose of introducing riders to the joint CalTrain – Capitol Corridor Station known as Downtown Santa Clara/University Station. More information will be provided about this station in the Managing Director’s Report to the CCJPA Board on February 15, 2012 beginning at 10:00 A.M. inside Suisun City Hall Council Chambers.

The majority of the discussion was mainly about what is coming in May. From a page out of the “Draft” Business Plan, here is what is coming as far as proposed service is concerned and what riders should look ahead to. The wording in the “Draft” Business Plan Reads as Follows and was a major topic of the conversation held back on January 26th aboard Train #538 between Richmond and Sacramento:

FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 Operating Plan

FY 2012-13. With the completion of the Sacramento Railyards Relocation Project (Phase 1) and recognizing the limited financial (operating and capital) support from the State, the CCJPA plans to implemant a service plan for FY 2012-13 that optimizes available resources and meets ridership demand. The CCJPA will redeploy the trainsets used in the morning, which will reduce the weekday service levels from 32 trains (16 round trips) to 30 trains (15 round trips) by eliminating a low performance Oakland-to-Sacramento morning train (20 riders per weekday) and merging two, late weekday evening Sacramento-to-Oakland trains into one trip. The lost ridership and revenue (less than $100,000) are offset by the larger operating cost savings of approximately $1 million. This rationalization of the service plan will keep operating costs, especially diesel fuel purchases, under control, while ensuring the continued operation of high-performing trains. The corresponding CCJPA’s operating plan for FY 2012-13 will be as follows, unless additional capital funding is secured to implement more train service to Placer County resulting in a net increase in system ridership and revenue:
Sacramento – Oakland: 30 weekday trains (22 weekend day trains)
Oakland – San Jose: 14 daily trains
Sacramento – Roseville – Auburn: 2 daily trains (potential expansion to 4)
Closing Report Comments: CCJPA “Draft” Business Plan & “Draft” Operating Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014
All of the above in CCJPA’s “Draft” Business Plan are true and correct to what has been written. The “Draft” Business Plan is subject to approval by the CCJPA Board on Wednesday 15 February 2012 beginning at 10:00am in the City Council Chambers of the City of Suisun City.

In this section, I will provide written comments to the “Draft” Operating Plan. These are my own comments and through this disclosure, do not necessarily reflect the views of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, its Board Members, CalTrans Division of Rail, Union Pacific Railroad, any transit agency that supports the Capitol Corridor, nor do these comments reflect the views of any rail advocacy group including, but not limited to Train Riders Association of California (TRAC), Rail Passenger Association of California (RailPAC) or the Station Host Association of California, which consists of Volunteer Station Hosts for the staffed stations throughout Northern California, San Luis Obispo, and the San Joaquin Valley. Here then is my take on the “draft” operating plan:

Continue to Operate Train #518 (Oakland – Sacramento) if it can be interlined into Train #702 (Sacramento – Bakersfield).

While consolidating weekday Train #549; Train #551 into 1 (Sacramento – Oakland) run, allow “Aero” to transfer to bus #4768 @ OKJ, not EMY.
A quick footnote in that currently, Bus #4768 (Oakland – Santa Barbara) departs Jack London Square at 10:00pm, transfers riders to Train #768.

Interline Train #703 (Bakersfield – Sacramento) @ SAC into a new Capitol Corridor Train that would terminate at Oakland Jack London Square.

Extend Eastbound Capitol Corridor Train #538 (San Jose – Sacramento) to Roseville, Rocklin, Auburn and then terminate at Auburn Conheim.

Originate Capitol Corridor Train #527 (Sacramento – San Jose) at Auburn Conheim and serve Auburn, Rocklin, Roseville first, then Sacramento.

Originate Weekend #720 and Weekday #520 in San Jose as the eighth Eastbound train “from” San Jose Diridon Station.

At 7:10 P.M. Daily, operate likely new Train #549; existing #749 from Sacramento to San Jose as the eighth Westbound train “to” San Jose.

E-mail: mike_barnbaum@comcast.net

January 23, 2012

The above copy of this enewletter is on a PDF file and  you will not be able to click on to the links in blue. If you would like an emailed copy of this enewsletter or to subscribe to it email nbraymer@railpac.org

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

January 16, 2012

The above copy of this enewletter is on a PDF file and  you will not be able to click on to the links in blue. If you would like an emailed copy of this enewsletter or to subscribe to it email nbraymer@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?