Ridership continues to decline for the Capitol Corridor in FY2013; however, the drop in ridership for April 2013 was not as significant as prior FY2013
results. For April 2013, 151,080 passengers used the Capitol Corridor, representing a 1.8% drop compared to April 2012. While initial revenue estimates for April 2013 indicate a 5.3% decrease, year-to-date (YTD)revenues are up 0.5% compared to last year. On a positive note, a record was set for on-time performance (OTP) — 98% of all Capitol Corridor trains arrived on-time, which improved YTD OTP to 95% and moved the Capitol Corridor into the #2 spot as the most reliable service in the Amtrak
system. YTD system operating ratio is at 52%, which meets business plan projections.

While detailed statistics are not yet available for April 2013 ridership, I do have the details on ridership for March 2013. Compared to prior FY2013 monthly results, the ridership losses on substandard weekday trains are lessening (weekend trains continue to perform better than last year) and the five stations – Sacramento, Davis, Roseville, Fremont, and Richmond – that had experienced significant declines in ridership earlier this FY [-10% or worse] showed increased boardings last month.

Record Service Reliability

Service reliability reached its apex in April 2013 when only 14 trains were
late out of the 836 operated, representing an OTP of 98%. In fact, for
the 30 days in April the Capitol Corridor passengers experienced twenty-one
(21) days of “100% on time” days. UPRR continues its superb dispatching of
freight and passenger train on this busy shared use corridor. Only three
late trains were attributable to mechanical malfunctions – an enormous
improvement compared to Fall 2012. Delays due to bridge lifts of the
Suisun-Martinez rail drawbridge continue to decrease thanks to the improved
protocol developed and implemented by the UPRR, Coast Guard, Amtrak, CCJPA
and the Bar Pilots (tugboat operators).

California Passenger Rail Advocacy Forum – April 11, 2013, Sacramento

At the request of CCJPA Chair Jim Spering, a passenger rail advocacy event
hosted by the City of Sacramento, was held on April 11 in the Sacramento
City Council. Speakers at the event included state legislators
(Assemblymember Roger Dickinson and Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson) and
leaders of the various California passenger rail agencies. Special guests
included California transportation funding experts Josh Shaw (California
Transit Association) and Mark Watts (Transportation California). One key
highlight of the forum was the call to develop a Passenger Rail Caucus
within the State Legislature that would form around guiding principles that
include: continued appropriation of state funds to support the operation of
California’s three (3) intercity passenger rail services as well as any
emerging IPR routes; developing of stable sources of capital funds for
safety initiatives and service expansion; consistent planning and
coordination among all rail systems and users within the California
railroad network [including passenger high speed, intercity and commuter
rail as well as freight systems]; and maximizing partnerships with federal,
state, regional and local governments and agencies.

Project Updates

Summary

Monthly ridership results for the Capitol Corridor in FY2013 continue to
decline compared to last year’s all-time ridership records. Year-to-date,
ridership is down 3.6% versus last year, yet the recent monthly losses
appear to be lessening. Despite this ridership decline, other performance
measures continue to be steady: YTD revenues are up 0.5%, system operating
ratio is meeting business plan standard of 52%, and OTP is at a stellar 95%
and improving, keeping the Capitol Corridor trains as one of the most
reliable services in the Amtrak system. The CCJPA continues to work with
Amtrak to develop a revised weekday train schedule that will reallocate
some of the poorer performing late morning trains to other more attractive
times that will increase ridership, optimize revenues and maintain/reduce
operating costs. The CCJPA team working with our service partners, has
achieved progress in improving service reliability and continue to reinvest
in safety initiatives along the route while also moving ahead on completing
the pre-development work for the service expansion projects (San
Jose/Salinas, Placer County) and introducing customer enhancement
initiatives (bike access/storage, e-Ticketing upgrades).

Capitol Corridor April 2013
- Ridership: 151,080 riders; -1.8% vs. April 2012; -3.6% vs. prior YTD
- Revenue: $2,409,627; -5.3% vs. April 2012; +0.5% vs. prior YTD
- On-Time Performance: 98% [historical record for the service], YTD OTP of
95% (#2 in the nation).
- System Operating Ratio: 52% YTD vs. 52% in FY12
__________________________________________________
Pacific Surfliners April 2013:
- Ridership: 221,376 passengers; -2.4% vs. April 2012; +3.2% vs. prior YTD
- Ticket Revenue: -6.9% vs. April 2012; +8.6% vs. prior YTD
- On-time performance: 86% (YTD FY13 on-time performance: 87%)
__________________________________________________
San Joaquin April 2013:
- Ridership: 94,561 passengers -8.0% vs. April 2012; +6.2% vs. prior YTD
- Ticket Revenue only: -14.7% vs. April 2012; +2.7% vs. prior YTD
- On-time performance: 56% [lower OTP due to track maintenance projects]
(YTD FY13 on-time performance: 80%)

There are several major cities in this Country without intercity rail passenger service. There are many more major cities that are not connected to each other by rail passenger service. The largest city without rail service is Phoenix with a regional population of 4.3 million. That is close to the population of the Seattle area. Las Vegas with a regional population of 2.5 million, is one of the most visited city in America and has no rail service currently. Boise is the State Capitol of  Idaho with a metro population of 638,000 but has no rail passenger service. Albuquerque is in danger of losing its rail passenger service and has a regional population of 1.6 million, almost the same as Albany New York.

Kentucky has service only to a few towns on the edge of the State. But Louisville the largest city in Kentucky with a Metro area population of 1.2 million has no service. The Richmond, Virginia and New Orleans areas which both have slightly fewer people than Louisville have rail passenger service. The Cincinnati metro area which covers parts of Kentucky and Indiana has a populations of 2.1 million and has rail passenger service service three times a week. Tennessee has rail passenger service at Memphis with a metro populations of 1.3 million. But Knoxville, Tennessee at 848,000 doesn’t have rail passenger service. Neither does Nashville the State’s Capital with a metro population of 1.7 million .

The State of Ohio has several large cities. The Cleveland area with a population of 2 million and Toledo with 608,000 have rail passenger service as well as Cincinnati. Ohio also has Columbus with 1.9 million, Dayton with 800,000 and Akron with 700,000 persons in their metropolitan areas but no rail passenger service. On top of that you can’t go from Cincinnati to Cleveland by train let alone to Columbus, Dayton or Akron by passenger trains from either Cleveland or Cincinnati.

When we look at the top ten most populated metro areas there are a few suprises. New York City area is number 1, then Los Angeles and Chicago. Fourth is the combined Washington-Baltimore Area at 9.3 million. At Fifth is the combined San Francisco-San Jose area which is 8.4 million. Greater Boston is sixth and Philadelphia is 7th. At 8th is the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Houston at 10th. Dallas-Fort Worth has 2 daily trains while Houston has one tri-weekly and there in no train service between these two major urban areas. Number 9 is the Miami area which has 2 round trip trains to New York. For years this has been the busiest air corridor in the Nation. At 11th is greater Atlanta with one daily train but no connections to Miami or Chicago, both major travel corridors from Atlanta.

There are many reasons for the disparity between major population areas and rail passenger services.  Some of it is the condition of the railroads in a region, the existing smaller markets to major markets on major mainlines  with passenger service and sometimes it boils down to politics. These problems can’t be solved overnight. The bigger problem is no progress is being made, in fact the situation has gotten worse in the last 35 years with elimination of service to many of these cities.

Things could be greatly improved if we just put back services that were eliminated in the mistaken belief that this would save money.  Several trains were eliminated in 1979 by Amtrak and the result was their deficit grew. A new Floridian train could be routed from Chicago to Louisville, Nashville to Atlanta and Miami. Bringing back a modified National Limited could give connections to both New York City and Washington to Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Kansas City. The Lone Star or Texas Chief as it was called by the ATSF could be brought back to replace the Heartland Flyer and expand service. This could extend service to Houston from Dallas-Fort Worth and provide connections to the Southwest Chief. Service could be extended to Kansas City for connections to the new National Limited and the Lone Star then continuing on to Omaha for connections to the Zephyr then go across Iowa to Chicago.

The return of the Pioneer and Desert Wind as sections of the California Zephyr would give service from the Pacific Northwest and Boise to Salt Lake City, Denver, and Omaha. The same is true of Southern California and Las Vegas with the the Desert Wind. The Three Rivers can be brought back as an extension of the Pennsylvanian to Youngstown and Chicago. A section of the Lake Shore Limited could branch out at Cleveland to Columbus, Cincinnati on to St. Louis. A section of the Crescent at Meridian can serve Shreveport and Dallas. The City of New Orleans can be extend along the Gulf Coast to Orlando. Sooner or later we should have daily service on the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited. With a daily Sunset connections to Phoenix should also be rebuilt.

This is just a short list of what would be needed to create a truly National Rail Passenger services. It will cost money to do, hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. In Washington a billion dollar is a rounding error in a budget in the Trillions. This will however require action and funding approved by Congress. Tracks will have to be added and improved to allow more passenger trains on the railroad tracks. The passenger trains will need to meet decent service standards to attract passengers . There needs to be agreements with the railroads to insure they are paid enough to profit from passenger trains and these trains don’t disrupt freight traffic. To make this happen however will need broad political support. That is why to get a local project in one State, other States have to form a broad alliance to also get what they also want. That’s politics.

May 13, 2013 Part 1  May 13, 2013 Part 2  May 13, 2013 Part 3

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 to subscribe to this enewsletter write to nbraymer@railpac.orgThe 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 to subscribe to this enewsletter write to nbraymer@railpac.org

May 6, 2013 Part 1  May 6, 2013 Part 2  May 6, 2013 Part 3

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 to subscribe to this enewsletter write to nbraymer@railpac.orgThe 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 to subscribe to this enewsletter write to nbraymer@railpac.org

A recent international survey of air travelers by Skytrax rated the airports of the world. No American airport rated higher than 25th. LAX rated 109th out of 395 airports world wide. According to a story in the May 5, 2013 Los Angeles Times “What’s Wrong with Los Angeles International Airport? “ this article reports “Seating at the airport is limited, security staff are rude, signage is poor, bathrooms are in poor condition and travel between terminals is difficult and confusing”, according to Donna McSherry, who operates The Budget Travelers’ Guide to Sleeping in Airports website, which rates LAX among the world’s 10 worst.” This Times article also reports “LAX could climb the ranking, she said, by improving its signage, cleanliness, ambience and connections to mass transit. “International travelers really value having that direct connection with rail or bus service,” said Cheryl Marcell, a spokeswoman for ACI World, the trade group for the world’s airports.”

This sounds like good advice for any transportation service.

Recently I was in Los Angeles taking pictures of some the many rail transit projects that are under construction. While near LAX to check out part of the the route of the future Crenshaw Light Rail Line I went to visit my old neighborhood where I had lived for over 10 years. When I got there it was gone. Almost the entire block was now a large vacant lot all owned by LAX. It isn’t just my old block but many blocks around LAX are being steadily bought by the airport and the housing removed.

My old apartment near LAX in 1987. It was modest but comfortable, convenient and affordable . Click on any photos to enlarge view.

This is the view of where my old apartment use to be today. The only landmark left is the power pole in the back.

I lived in or near the Westchester neighborhood of Los Angeles from 1970 to 1988. Like many areas of California it saw rapid population growth and housing construction after World War II through the 1960′s. In the 1950′s the terminals of LAX where a mile further south than today on Imperial Highway and the Airport only had 2 runways south of Century Blvd. This changed in the 1960′s when new terminals were built a mile further north at Century Blvd and then 2 additional runways built north of Century Blvd. With the new runways the process of tearing up Westchester began.

Map of proposed Crenshaw Light Rail Line showing the old ATSF Harbor Line

The main reason for my visit to Westchester was to check out early construction of the Crenshaw Light Rail Line near LAX. Utility relocation work has started on the project which will run 8.5 miles south/north from a joint Green Line Station at Imperial Highway to the Crenshaw Blvd Expo Line Station. At Century and Aviation Blvds the Crenshaw and Green Lines will share a station next to LAX which will likely have a connection by People Mover to the LAX Terminals a mile away. The Crenshaw Line will use the old ATSF Harbor Line from Imperial Highway to Crenshaw Blvd at the northeast edge of Inglewood.

Early construction for utility relocation for Crenshaw Line on the old Harbor Line

The ATSF Harbor Line is out of service. All the grade crossing like this one are now decommissioned

The old ATSF Harbor Line is now out of service.  Along the east edge of the south runways the light rail tracks will be put in a covered trench on the Harbor Line Right of Way. At Century Blvd there is a viaduct for the Harbor Line. The  new light rail station at Century will be elevated where the People Mover will connect with light rail at that site. It is likely that the People Mover will be all elevated. At the Imperial Highway Station a mile away the trains will come out of their trench and climb back up to the elevated level of that existing station.

The current view of where a Light Rail Station will be built near LAX at Century Blvd

LAX is now in the middle of a $4.76 Billion Dollar overhaul. Part of this project is to enlarge terminals and rebuild runways to allow larger planes to use the airport. This is also being done to reduce the chance of collision on the ground and with planes landing or taking off. Much of this construction for LAX is opposed by the residents of Westchester and the cities around LAX. They want a cap on future growth at LAX and reduction of air and road traffic congestion in the local area.

Towards this end the Mayor of Los Angeles with broad public support has ordered LAWA, the city agency in control of LAX to transfer some air traffic to other regional airports from LAX. Since this order LAX has seen slow growth while the other regional airports have seen major declines in air traffic. The cost of air travel is directly connected to the cost of of fuel. The slow economy and rising fuel costs are why people are flying less. There is plenty of unused capacity at the other airports at communities which want more airport business. Ontario has seen traffic drop during the time LAX was suppose to shift traffic to other airports. The airport at Palmdale doesn’t have any airlines at the moment. These two airports are owned and controlled by LAWA, the same LA City Department that owns and operates LAX.

The planned Crenshaw/Green Lines rail services won’t attract many airline passengers. Transit Rail is not the best way to travel with luggage. Light Rail will be great for the many people who work at or near the airport. But neither the Green or Crenshaw Lines serve downtown Los Angeles or LAUS. For people who fly out of LAX from all over Southern California or traveling to areas outside of Los Angeles few will be able to take Light Rail without several transfers to and from where the are going. As for Ontario Airport there are long range plans to extend the Gold Line from LAUS to that airport. That will be a long 37 mile ride on Light Rail and won’t connect to many places in Southern California where people fly to or from. Bob Hope Airport in Burbank will have 2 train stations on different rail lines for future High Speed Rail, Metrolink and Amtrak. There are plans to serve Palmdale Airport in the future with both Metrolink and High Speed Rail. But there are no plans to create a unified rail passenger network to connect the entire region and serve the airports with fast, comfortable passenger trains. With the loss of the old Harbor Line by LAX for just Light Rail, connecting LAX by regional rail to the rest of Southern California will now be very expensive.

How expensive? London, England is now spending 15 billion Pounds (23.36 billion dollars) to connect 2 rail lines in central London as a continuous 73 mile service west to east from Maidenhead to Shenfield. What makes this project called Crossrail so expensive is 13 miles of tunneling mostly in central London. This will also include a tunnel to connect Heathrow Airport to Crossrail. Heathrow already has transit rail connections on the London Underground. When finished by 2018, 24 trains an hour in both directions with 10 car trains for up to 1,500 passengers each will run on Crossrail.

The official map of the Crossrail project now under construction in London The lines in red shows new tunneling. Click on  drawing to enlarge.

At the Farringdon Station in central London the Crossrail Line will connect with Thameslink. Thameslink is much like Crossrail only it runs 140 miles north-south of London from Bedford to Brighton. It too runs underground in London to provide direct service north and south of the city. It first opened in 1988 and by 1998 was overcrowded. In the north Thameslinks serves London Luton Airport and in the south of London, London Gatwick Airport. There is now a 5.5 billion Pound ($8.56 billion dollar) upgrade to Thameslink scheduled to be completed also by 2018 to add more stations and increase the line’s capacity to handle current and future growth.

With the ability to transfer between Crossrail and Thameslink to 3 major London area airports and at major central London trains stations with Underground connections travelers to or from the London area can travel by rail to most of greater London. There is also a fourth airport, London Stansted which has rail service which will connect to Crossrail at Liverpool Street Station in central London. But London is a big city. The greater London area beyond the city has 13.7 million people. By comparison the population of greater Los Angeles is 18 million. With future run-through tracks at Union Station and upgrades to existing rail rights of way for direct service to LAX and Ontario combined with connecting existing rail lines on Metrolink we can accomplish what London is doing now at a fraction of the cost. But for want of foresight the costs of doing this will continue to grow as will traffic congestion.

1.

The Denton County, Texas, A-Train, diesel-powered commuter trains travel between Denton and the Dallas DART transfer station in North Carrollton. This train is at the Highland Village-Lewisville Lake station, midway between the two stations and where the northbound and southbound trains meet on the single track ex-MKT line. The line carries over 2,000 riders daily and has Saturday service. (Photo by Russ Jackson)

2.

It’s “Earth Day” April 22, 2013, at Dallas Union Station. On the left, the on-time Amtrak Texas Eagle has departed for Ft. Worth, but is held for a Union Pacific inbound freight to clear, while on the right a DART light rail Blue Line train is arriving at the station. In the distance a BNSF freight train waits for Amtrak to clear the junction. (Photo by Russ Jackson)

3.

From the RailPAC Archives. A New Mexico Railrunner train has just arrived at the Santa Fe Station on a snowy day in the winter of 2009. Despite financial problems, the Railrunner continues to carry passengers between Santa Fe and Belen, with stops along the way including the historic Albuquerque train station. Check the RailPAC Archives in the column to the right on this page! (Photo by Bob Snow)

4.

In 2012 the Union Pacific and the State of Arizona completed a realignment of the former SP line east of Tucson, AZ, so it would parallel rather than cross Interstate 10 near Mescal. Shown here is the old railroad bridge. In the distance is a string of grain cars that are now stored on the former line, which is accessible only from the east end. (Photo by Richard Strandberg)

5.

This is the same location as photo 4, AFTER the rail bridge was demolished on March 8, 2013. Interstate 10 will be re-built, also, with a long bridge crossing Cienega Wash. The realigned UP tracks are in service. The reason for the removal of the rail bridge was primarily because the clearance under it was too low for some modern interstate trucks. (Photo by Richard Strandberg)

The Department of Transportation keeps records on many elements of this country’s transportation system. This is done by the DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration Bureau of Transportation Statistics. To measure how people travel the DOT counts the Passenger Miles traveled by different modes. For example a person riding a bike 2 miles produces 2 passenger miles. A family of 4 on a 100 mile car trip to Grandma’s produces 400 passenger miles. The DOT’s most recent data on passenger miles by travel modes has recently been published for 2010. Here are some numbers from this most recent report

2010 passenger-miles (in millions) for passenger modes

Autos                  2,814,055

Light Trucks          831,312

Air                          564,790

Bus                         292,319

Motorcycle                19,886

Rail                              6,420

Ferry                               389

What these numbers show is in terms of passenger miles, rail passenger service has a long way to go to be significant. For years cars and light trucks  which include SUV’s have produced well over 80 percent of total passenger miles of all travel modes. Air travel for years has carried around 10 per cent of all passenger miles while rail passenger service carries less than one percent of all passenger miles.

The key to producing passenger miles is to carry many people a long distance. Amtrak carries most of its passengers on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). This translates into 1.89 billion Rail Passenger Miles. The Long Distance Trains carry fewer passengers than the NEC Trains. But Long Distance Trains product 2.93 billion Rail Passenger Miles in this county. Expanding Long Distance Rail Service would be the fastest way to increase Rail Passenger Miles in this Country. This would also spread rail passenger service to more places and to more people across the country than Short Distance Trains. This translates into more political support for rail passenger service. Where communities have rail passenger service the level of support increases in proportion to the number of markets the trains serve. The reciprocal is true, people who live in places with no rail passenger service have little or no reason to support or even be interested in rail passenger service.

So how can we increase Rail Passenger Miles on Long Distance Trains? We can start by adding more cars to the trains we have now. In the past passenger trains carried as many as 18 cars. Few trains in this country carry more than 10 cars today. Will anyone fill these seat? Much of the year Amtrak turns passengers away because they don’t have enough room on their Long Distance Trains. Won’t Amtrak lose money increasing their costs with more passengers? That hasn’t seemed to be a problem on other Amtrak trains.

Former Amtrak President W. Graham Claytor said in 1991 his goal was to buy more long distance rail passenger cars to increase Amtrak’s revenue. His priority was to add more cars to existing Long Distance Trains because like today passengers were being turned away. Claytor also extended existing services to increase revenue by extending the Sunset from New Orleans to Florida and the Palmetto from Savannah to Jacksonville. While Claytor was at Amtrak the Pioneer still connected with the Zephyr in Utah to Seattle and the Desert Wind to Los Angeles. When Claytor was at Amtrak for just over 11 years he increased its cost recovery from 42 percent to 80 percent. He predicted when he left Amtrak in 1993 Amtrak could recover 100 percent of its costs by 2000 if it continued his policies.

The answer to that question will depend on the final evolution of this project.The California High Speed Rail Project has evolved in many ways just in the last 5 years. We can expect more changes to the California High Speed Rail Project before it is running. The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has been around since 1996. For years it was a small organization with much of its budget going to consultants. Most of its early work centered around Promotion, Public Relations and Lobbying. The Authority before 2008 did little planning on how this project would effect local communities or how this project would fit in with existing rail passenger services in the State.

Based largely on promises of future commercial development and jobs the strategy of the CHSRA was this would create enough political support to get State and Federal Funding for construction of this project. A major factor in the approval in 2008 of the bond issues for California High Speed Rail was the past history of voters approving projects for improved transportation and alternatives to highway travel.

It didn’t take long for the opponents of Rail Passenger Service to come out with the same old arguments against High Speed Rail. “High Speed Rail is too expensive, no one will ride it and it will be a disaster.” The best lies are the ones with some truth to them. Big expensive projects often go over budget, are often late being finished and are often oversold that they fail to live up to their promises at first. Subway construction in Los Angeles in the 1980′s and 90′s was like that. There were delays, cost overruns, cave-ins and a major sink hole which damaged many buildings in Hollywood. Things were so bad that Los Angeles banned future subway constructions for a few years. But the subway is busy now as are the light rail lines and there are plans to extend the original subway soon.

What we see planned for California High Speed Rail is much more realistic than what was planned 5 years ago. Most large projects have to be built in increments not all at once. There is never enough money or support to build everything and all at once. All planners have “perfect” plans which never gets built according to plan. The original plan for the freeway system for Los Angeles called for a grid of freeways every 5 miles so that a driver was never more than 2 and a half miles from a freeway. Construction began on a freeway that was planned to go through Beverly Hills. Needless to say these plans never were realized.

What is planned now instead of being a single grand project is broken into increments. The original plan would have left construction in the San Joaquin Valley in limbo if additional funding wasn’t available to finish the entire project. The plans were changed so that by 2018 when 130 miles of new high speed railroad is finished that there will be expanded service of San Joaquin Express Trains  at speeds up to 125 miles per hour

In order to get more funding to continue building High Speed Rail Service in California this first leg will have to be a success. So far little is known publicly of what is planned for the San Joaquins Express Trains which will use the new 130 miles of high speed track. These will be trains that stop only at Fresno between Bakersfield and Madera then travel on to either Oakland or Sacramento. There may be some trains to go to Richmond instead of Oakland but there is no word yet how passengers would get to their final destination from there. Union Pacific has said to run additional passenger trains on their tracks will require a third track between Oakland and Martinez and a second track between Stockton and Sacramento. General plans for service expansion by 2020 calls for between 5-9 trains from Bakersfield to Oakland on the new fast tracks and 2-5 to Sacramento and 4 additional trains to Richmond.

What will be needed to make this new San Joaquin Express service a success will be faster operating speeds, increased frequencies and improved, expanded bus connections. About half of all San Joaquin passengers now ride a bus at least once. Faster bus connections and better, shorter wait times connecting to other trains such as the Surfliners will be needed to get more people to ride trains through the San Joaquin Valley.

Caltrans has for years had plans to raise the speeds on the San Joaquins up to 90 miles per hour. This alone would cut best running times now between Bakersfield and Oakland from 6 hours 5 minutes to 4 hours 55 minutes. Between Bakersfield and Sacramento best travel times could go from 5 hours 10 minutes to 4 hours 5 minutes. This will require more double tracking of the existing BNSF route in the Valley plus signal, track and grade crossing upgrades. By 2018 Positive Train Control or PTC will be in use in the San Joaquin Valley which would allow faster trains speeds. Extra local train service is proposed for the San Joaquin Valley in the near future as feeders to High Speed Trains from Merced to Stockton, Sacramento and San Jose via the Altamont Pass. If passenger trains speeds can be raised to 90 miles per hour north of Madera by 2018 then combined with 125 miles per hour speeds between Bakersfield and Fresno even more running times can be cut from Bakersfield to Oakland and to Sacramento than was planned just for 90 miles per hour service.

What’s next? The problem will remain funding. Current estimates call for an additional 26 billion dollars to build 300 miles of electrified 220 mile per hour High Speed Rail between Merced and Burbank. This service would have connections at both terminals by rail to most of California and is planned to run by 2022. This is considered the minimum level of service that can operate at a profit by the CHSRA. After this happens High Speed Rail is expected to be able to service future debt to expand service to San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Anaheim and more.

What happens if the entire $26 billions dollars isn’t available? The answer is to build as much as you can with what money is available. How much money is available will depend on how successful the San Joaquin Express Trains are. They may not be an overnight success. They may have to be fine tuned before they take off. Even with some Federal Funding it may not be enough to build everything after 2018. The State could borrow more money at a low interest rate to be paid off over a long time with Federal Government backed loans. This might require legislation and perhaps a ballot measure both of which need broad based support.

There is the possibility of a grant or low cost loan from a foreign country. China is actively lending money to other countries to help build railroads they help to build. This is creating competition with other countries which may have to give counter offers so they can get the work instead. But before another country will want to invest in California it will want to see how much money California will be able to put up first.

What can be built for under 26 billion dollars? At a bare bone level a new rail line just between Palmdale and Bakersfield connecting with existing trackage could be built. This could be a single track line built for speeds under 200 miles per hour as a start up. Electrification would most likely have to be postponed for later. There could be shared use of this track with freight trains to increase revenue. A single track would work for one to two trains an hour. Such a service could travel from Los Angeles to the Bay Area in under 5 hours which is faster than by car and would see a major increase in rail ridership in California. This can be the spring board to raise even more money for faster, more frequent electrified State wide train service in the future.

April 29, 2013 Part 1   April 29, 2013 Part 2     April 29, 2013 Part 3                     April 29, 2013 Part 4

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 to subscribe to this enewsletter write to nbraymer@railpac.orgThe 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 to subscribe to this enewsletter write to nbraymer@railpac.org

Amtrak says that they lose over $500 million dollars a year running the Long Distance Passenger Trains. But Amtrak endures this hardship because of the transportation necessity provided by the Long Distance Trains in much of rural America. Amtrak has been hinting that they would like the States to help pay for the costs of the Long Distance Trains to keep them running. This would be much like how States pay for their Short Distance Trains.

Perhaps we should explore changes to the Long Distance Passenger Trains which would take the entire burden off of Amtrak. If the States are going to pay to keep trains  in their State maybe they should have some control over how they are run. This will need to be done in a way so passengers can still connect and transfer to other trains in the country with through ticketing. Local agencies should also have access to Federal Funds for capital improvements on the railroads that these Long Distance Train run on. Most important is by reorganizing the way Long Distance Trains are operated and funded every effort needs to be made to expand and improve service nationally while losses from running the services go down.

A joint powers agency of the States these trains runs in would be needed. This JPA should act like a board of directors. The primary job of these JPA’s should be to hire an operator for the service and oversee how well it does its job. The operators would run these trains like many commuter trains are run by contract with an operator. The JPA’s would have power of the purse and the contract would be up for renewal on a regular basis. Any company with railroad experience could compete for the contract including Amtrak, the companies now running commuter services and even the freight railroads. As part of the contract the bidder would  have to have a business plan to improve service, revenues and reduce costs per passenger. This would include a marketing plan to increase connections to other services. A capital budget for more equipment and service improvements would be needed for each route.

Cooperation between Long Distance operators and Amtrak could be much like how airlines often have alliances with each other sharing flights and ticketing with each other. There will need to be combined ticketing, some shared maintenance and station facilities for this new arrangement to work. Cars and locomotives will have to be bought or leased from Amtrak for start up. This will require legislation and funding for this happen. But if Amtrak is right this will take up to a half a billion  dollars off the Amtrak’s deficit. Amtrak would be paid for services such as ticketing, transferring passenger to its trains and providing maintenance service to other carriers.

For the States and Long Distance Passengers this will provide better and expanded service. This will increase the security that service will not be eliminated. For the taxpayer these means better service with less of a burden to the taxpayer. This will preserve the connections between trains and joint ticketing on trains. Each train could have a unique identity or continue to have the Amtrak brand name but operated by different companies. For the operating railroads that these trains would run on it opens up new possibilities to renegotiate charges for track use and for capital improvements needed to insure smooth operations of both freight and passenger service.

This may not happen all at once. A trial program to test this idea would be a good idea. Perhaps the best trains to start with would be the Coast Starlight. As a long distance trains it travels through only 3 states and all three states have experience and investments for expanding rail passenger service. The Coast Starlight route is also a major traffic corridor for all three states. These factors all make the Coast Starlight a good trial route for testing this plan.