Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-28; City Council; 8977; Draft Los Angeles San Diego Rail Corridor StudyCIT OF CARLSBAD - AGEN D BILL AB# TITLE: MTG. 4/28/87� DRAFT LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO DEPT. C--M--_ RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPT. A JU CITY ATTY CITY MGR._;� City Council adopt Resolution No. 9034supporting the recommendation of the Los Angeles -San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study. ITEM EXPLANATION: The Los Angeles -San Diego Passenger Rail Study is being conducted under the provision of Senate Bill 1095 (Senator Craven 1985) . The legislation established the Corridor Study Group, chaired by the Director of CalTrans. Eleven members sit on the Study Group, including SANDAG, James Mills, MTDB Board Chairman, and Councilman Walter Gilbert of Oceanside. The final report is to be submitted to the legislature by July of this year. The draft study indicates both increased inter city service (San Diego to Los Angeles) and commuter services (Oceanside to San Diego) are feasible and cost effective. The study details an increase from seven to ten inter city trips per day and two* commuter trips from Ocean- side to San Diego. Capital improvements to accommodate the study include added trackage and six additional commuter stops in San Diego County. As planned, Carlsbad would have a commuter station near Elm Avenue and Palomar Airport Road. Encinitas would have a commuter station near La Costa Boulevard. SANDAG's schedule for the study is to review the draft plan with corridor agen- cies and jurisdictions in April and May, and hold & final public hearing in June with submittal to the legislature before July 1. SANDAG is requesting the Carlsbad City Council to approve the draft study as presented, recognizing that final detailed approvals of station sites would come at a later time. The Draft Summary Report is available for review at the City Clerk's office. EXHIBITS: 1.� SANDAG's Agenda Report No. R-30, Draft Los Angeles -San Diego Rail Corridor Study. 2. 'Executive Summary Los Angeles -San Diego State Rail Corridor Study. 1' 1 RESOLUTION NO. 9034 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO SUPPORT THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO 3 (LOSSAN) STATE RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 4 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has reviewed the Draft Los Angeles- 5 San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study; and 6 WHEREAS, the Study has identified improvements in the rail corridor 7 that will reduce intercity AMTRAK rail running time and facilitate the 8I operation of additional intercity trains; and 9 WHEREAS, San Diego region commuter service Oceanside to San Diego 10 has been determined to be cost efficient and an effective alternative to 11 growing traffic congestion in the coastal corridor; and 12 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad will have a further opportunity to 13 review actual rail station locations during further analysis; and 14 WHEREAS, the November 3, 1987 Local Transportation Ballot Measure 15 if passed will provide a source of revenue to institute commuter rail 16 service; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the 18 City of Carlsbad does hereby urge the State Legislature to accept the 19 recommendation of the Los Angeles -San Diego (LOSSAPI) State Rail 20 Corridor Study, and urges active State participation in implementation of 21 recommended actions. 22 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 23 Carlsbad City )uncil, held on the 28th day of April, 1987 by the 24 following vote, to wit: 25/lllllJlllJ1/l1/lIll1/llllllllllllllll!llllilllll!ll1/lllllllllllllll!l!1/lll 26//l!llll!llllllllll!IIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIIl1/llllllll!l 27 /llllllllllllllllJllll111llllllllllllll!ll!llllllllll!lllll!llllllllllllllll 28/l!llllllllll!lllllllll111111llllllllllllll!l!llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson NOES: None ABSENT: None CLAUDE A. "BUD" LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cie c (SEAL) 0 3 San Diego Association of Governments BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 27, 1987 DRAFT LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY I. Background EXHIBIT 1 AGENDA REPORT No.: R--30 The Los Angeles -San Diego Passenger Rail Study is being conducted and the provisions of Senate Bill 1095 (Senator Craven, 1985). The legislation established the Los Angeles -San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group chaired by the Director of CAL'TRANS. The legislation also authorized the Los Angeles County Transporta- tion Commission, the Orange County Transportation Commission, the Southern California Association of Governments, the San Diego Association of Governments, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Senate Committee on Rules, the National Rail- road Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), and Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail- way Company, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Secretary -Treasurer of the California Labor Federation to each appoint a representative to the study group (for a total of 11 members). San Diego is represented on the Study Group by Councilman Walter Gilbert of Oceanside and James Mills, MTDB Board Chairman. The study commenced in April 1986; a final report is to be submitted to the legis- lature by July of this year. A preliminary draft of the Los Angeles to San Diego Passenger Rail Study indicates that both increased intercity service (San Diego to Los Angeles) and commuter service (Oceanside to San Diego) are feasible and cost effective. The study details capital and operating improvements necessary to increase intercity service from 7 to 10 round trips per day and add 2 commuter round trips from Oceanside to San Diego. The exper.diture plan for the local transportation sales tax includes funding for the commuter rail service described in the corridor study. Some of the capital improvements recommended include: added trackage for switching, passing, turnaround and mainline operations, track realignment near Miramar, two added intercity stations, and six additional commuter stops in San Diego County. Other improvements include: train control and signalization enhancements, and track bed fencing and pedestrian improvements. Costs for these improvements are presented in a series of packages that incre- mentally improve the line. A time savings of nearly 11 minutes on the intercity schedule of 2 hours and 40 minutes can be realized in the short term for about $5.2 million. Total improvement costs over a 15-year period are estimated to be about $255 million. II. Schedule The completion schedule for the study effort includes corridor agency and juris- diction review of the draft study recommendations in April and May with a final public hearing in June and submittal to the legislature before July lst. It is, therefore, my q RECOMMENDATION that the Board direct staff to review the draft document with affected San Diego agencies and jurisdictions. Attached is a summary of the Draft "Los Angeles -San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study." KENNETH E. ULZ R Executive Direc or Attachment 2 N Z O cc J W 0 Y W N N 4 a DRAFT LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY SUMMARY I. Existing Service The rail corridor extends for 128 miles between downtown Los Angeles and down- town San Diego. Second only to the Northeast Corridor in patronage on the AMTRAK rail passenger system, the line serves some 1.4 million passenger trips annually (see Figure 1). The rail line is an important link between communities in the rapidly growing three -county area of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego, which collectively houses over 12 million people, half of whom reside within five miles of the corridor. 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 FIGURE 9 ANNUALPATRONAGE SAN DIEGAN RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 YEAR Owned by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company, the line is used for both freight and passenger service. The 26-mile double -tracked segment between Los Angeles and Fullerton is a portion of the ATSF transcontinental main line and serves a significant volume of freight traffic. The 102-mile segment between Fullerton and San Diego, on the other hand, is single -tracked with very limited freight activity. Passenger service is provided by AMTRAK through an operating agreement with the ATSF. At present, AMTRAK operates seven daily round trip "San Diegan" 1 0 passenger trains, with stops at nine locations: Los Angeles, Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Oceanside, Del Mar, and San Diego. Railroad station -to -station distance in miles is shown in Table 1. Commitments have already been made to add an additional station at Irvine. Three of the seven daily round trips are subsidized by the state. Both ridership and productivity of passenger service have been increasing in recent years, with the average annual farebox recovery ratio for the state -subsidized trains at roughly 90%. TABLE 1 RAILROAD STATION -TO -STATION DISTANCE IN MILES LA FUL ANH SNA SJC SCM OCD DLM SD LA - 25.1 30.6 35.6 57.3 64.9 86.3 104.1 127.6 FUL - 5.5 10.5 32.2 39.8 61.2 79.0 102.6 ANH - 5.0 26.7 34.3 55.7 73.5 97.0 SNA -- 21.7 Z9.3 50.7 68.5 92.0 SJC - 7.6 29.0 46.8 70.3 SCM - 21.4 39.2 62.7 OCD - 17.8 41.3 DLM - 23.5 SD - Source: AMTRAK trip reports, 1985. Average speed on the San Diegan is currently only 48 mph due to numerous speed restrictions, delays, and station stops. The maximum authorized speed from Los Angeles to Buena Park is 65 mph, from Buena Park to Santa Ana 79 mph, from Santa Ana to Sorrento 90 mph, and from Sorrento to San Diego 79 mph. (See Figure 2, Eastbound train speed profile.) H. Proposed Projects The rail corridor study addresses the needs and potential benefits of improving passenger rail service in the corridor. Two alternative levels of increased rail service are being considered: o Ten daily intercity trips (three more than at present) attainable prior to 1995. o Initiation of two daily commuter services - one between San Clemente and Los Angeles; the other Oceanside to Centre City San Diego. The San Diego service is considered implementable in the short term, possibly by 1990. Rerommended improver-.ents by level of service and cost are displayed on Table 2. Initial distribution of costs among state, local, AMTRAK and ATSF is also given. The various improvement levels include: 2 ul U. a cc IL C W LU N A uj cc CC t7 z m O in a uw Oba i Q ueS a moll t 1 i I Jew led ci W LW cn ©i of opisueaOp r 1 � Xi i eluauralo ueS i oueJaslde� o I uenr ueS aulnJI euy eaueS l n = W wlayeuy �) 7-Oi _ UOZJallnd I QI� `^ w XN � Q r�� l JaMOl UOIssIW r. SQ120UW 5a1 o aid % (HdW) 033dS 3 Ln �o c LU J E TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE PROJECT COSTS BY LEVEL OF SERVICE Short -Term Im rovements 1. Time Savings Projects 2. Upgrade Industry Siding & Double Track LAUPT lead 3. Four Crossovers 4. Double Track Serra - SJC 5. Upgrade Oceanside Siding 6. New AMTRAK Stations TOTAL 10-Train Schedule 1. Additional Rolling Stock (two train sets plus ten additional coaches) 2. Outside platforms & passenger uuderpasses at Fullerton & Oceanside 3. Extend and upgrade South Main between Santa Ana & Irvine 4. Passing siding between San Onofre and Fallbrook Junction 5. Underpass at Santa Ana Station 6. Double Track between Sorrento & Miramar* 7. Upgrade sidings at Anaheim, Gilman, & San Onofre 8. Modify Existing Stations 9. Main Line track upgrade TOTAL Los Angeles Commuter Train 1. Trackage for equipment storage at Serra 2. Rolling Stock (2.5 train sets) 3. Five Commuter Stations 4. San Clemente Station & Track Modifications TOTAL San Diego Commuter Train 1. Commuter Station & Storage Tracks at Oceanside Z. Rolling Stock (2.5 train sets) 3. Six Commuter Stations 4. Passing Sidings: a. Between Gilman Road & Old Town b. West of Del Mar 5. Commuter Facilities in San Diego TOTAL GRAND TOTAL *A portion of this cost could be attributed to commuter trains. 4 Estimated Cost (Millions) $29.94 6.70 4.26 6.11 1.80 19.00 $67.81 Distribution of Cost State Local AMTRAK AT&SF X X X X X X X X X X X X X $44.04 X X 0.48 X X X 12.79 X X 1.67 X X 0.18 X X 8.11 X X 3.90 X X 1.80 X X 52.85 X X X X $125.82 $1.80 16.35 12.00 2.20 $32.35 $2.04 16.35 8.24 1.67 1.31 1.59 $31.20 $257.18 X X X X X X X X X X 0 Short -Term Improvements. AMTRAK is scheduled to add an eighth train in cne fall of 1987, along with push pull operations. The initial short-term improvements would include high priority time savings projects (i.e., track work, grade crossing improvements, minor fencing near Oceanside, added crossovers, etc.), as well as improving a third track (called the industrial lead) from Fullerton to Los Angeles in the heavily freight trafficked Santa Fe third district. It would also include double tracking a section of track near San Clemente, upgrading a siding near Oceanside, and constructing two new AMTRAK stations (one near Pico Rivera; the other near Gilman Drive).* Also included is a standardization of all station plat- forms at a height of 8 inches above rail to reduce station dwell time. 10-Train Schedule. The study indicates that expansion from eight intercity trains to ten would be cost effective and should be added as soon as possible. Two train sets plus ten coaches would have to be purchased and modifications would be necessary at the Fullerton, Santa Ana, and Oceanside terminals to provide outside platforms and pedestrian underpasses. It would also be desirable to realign and double track a section of the San Diego line between Sorrento and Miramar, acid eventually replace 95 miles of the 128- mile route with upgraded continuously welded rail. The existing rail was con- structed between 1939 and 1941 and is reaching the end of its 50-year life expectancy. Los Angeles Commuter Train. Costs in this imps ovement include purchase of two and one-half train sets (one train set to be shared with San Diego as a back up), addition of five commuter stations (East Los Angeles, Norwalk, Buena Park, North Irvine, and Mission Viejo), and some modest track improvement near San Clemente. (See Figure 3) San Diego Commuter Train. Commuter train storage tracks would have to be provided at Oceanside along with six additional commuter stations (Carlsbad Elm, Carlsbad Palomar, Encinitas La Costa, Sorrento, Miramar, and Old Town). Two and one-half train sets would be purchased (one to be shared with Orange County as a back up), and passing sidings would need to be added between Gilman and Old Town, and just north of the Del Mar station. (See Figure 3) III. Patronage In 1986, there were 1.4 million riders on AMTRAK, or approximately 4,000 trips/ day. Forty-four percent of the trips were either work or business related. Figure 4 indicates that by adding three additional intercity trains and two commuter trains, annual patronage would increase by a factor of 2.5 to nearly 4 million annual passengers, or about 12,000 passengers/day. *The selection of specific locations for new stations is a matter for subsequent decision by local authorities. 13 FIGURE 3 PROPOSED STATIONS WITH COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) CORRIDOR Los Angeles East Los Angeles Commorce/Pfco Rivers LOS Angeles County Norwalk �ueni Psrk Fullerton Anaheim Pacific Ocean Santa Ana North Irvine Orange County • irvino Mission Viola San Juan Capistrano San Clements Existing Amtrak Station I Amtrak Station kinder Oevoiopment O Proposed Station (One Station in Los Angeles County and One Station in San Diego County to be an Amtrak Station, Doi Mar Station to be Relocated)* Gam' N * NOTE: Actual new station locations are a matter for subsequent decision by local authorities. N. San Diego County Oceanside Carlsbad (Etn Avenue) Carlsbad (Palomar Airport Road) 1 Encinitas (La Costs) r Encinitas f8irmingham Avenue) Dol Mar Sorrento Miramar Glimen Drive Old Town San Olego 4.0 in 3.5 Z O J 3.0 N 2.5 Q W C7 Z 2.0 W N 4) 1.5 J Q Z 1.0 Z Q .5 FIGURE 4 PATRONAGE FORECAST LOSSAN IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING 8 TRAINS 10 TRAINS 10 TRAINS SERVICE 2 COMMUTERS (SD & LA) IMPROVEMENTS The relationship between rail and highway travel times will have a positive effect on increased rail patronage. Current avarage daily traffic volumes along I-5 vary from a low of 85,000 near Oceanside at the Orange/San Diego County line to a high of 210,000 in Los Angeles. Volumes at the Orange County line are projected by SANDAG to reach 134,000 by 2005, an increase of about 58 percent over cur- rent volumes, or about 3 percent per year. Los Angeles area data provided by CALTRANS corroborates this estimate, projecting an ADT of 144,000 at the Orange County line by Z010. Much of I-5 will operate at service level F and lower. Currently, peak hour travel time San Diego to Los Angeles is 2 hours 40 minutes for rail and 2 hours 48 minutes for automobile. With the ability through recommended improvements to cut 20 minutes off of rail travel time and ever increasing peak hour congestion on the highway caused by continued growth and development, the time savings on rail will become more substantial. Estimates completed by SANDAG on rail service from Oceanside to San Diego indicate the potential for 2,300 daily or 575,000 annual trips with two morning and evening commuters. Eighty-nine percent of the patronage would be bound for Centre City and much of the balance to the Old Town station. Travel time over the 41 miles from Oceanside to San Diego would be I hour 10 minutes, with eleven station stops spaced about five miles apart. Commuter rail connectivity will be enhanced by completion of light rail to the Old Town, Gilman and Miramar stops. Eventual completion of a Route 78 corridor system will also add to potential commuter patronage. 7 IV. Maintenance and Operatine Cost Implications The annual cost of operating the seven daily AMTRAK round trips in 1986 was 21.7 million, including 2.4 million for interest and depreciation on rolling stock. Annual costs in 1987 are expected to be slightly lower at $21.3 million because of projected savings with AMTRAK train and engine crews and push pull operations. Estimated operating costs for eight intercity and ten intercity as well as com- muter trains are given below in Table 3. With all the recommended Improvements the cost per passenger remains below that of today. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS (1986 Dollars) Estimated Annual Annual Operating Costs Patronage Cost/ Service Alternatives/Year (Millions) (Millions) Passenger A. Intercity (AMTRAK) Service 19VI - 7 Trains $21.7 1.433 $15.13 1987 - 7 Trains $20.5 1.550 $13.23 (AMTRAK crews) 1990 •- 8 Trains $22.9 1.940 $11.80 1990 - 10 Trains $26.9 2.040 $13.19 1995 - 10 Trains $29.0 2.560 $11.33 B. Commuter Rail Services Los Angeles -Orange County $1.543 0.750 $2.05 San Diego County $1.213 0.575 $2.11 V. Draft Study Recommendations Short Range (1987-1990) 1. Establish a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency (JPA) to articulate the interests of the Corridor communities to state and federal governments, AMTRAK and the Santa Fe. Include agencies which already exercise authority over trans- portation policy in the LOSSAN Corridor. 8 13 Z. Seek the allocation of an amount equal to the San Diegan-related UMTA Section 9 funds contingent upon being matched by an equal amount of state funds. (For San Diego this would approximate $2.9 million/year.) 3. Establish a working group to begin negotiations with Santa Fe for either the R.O.W. or rail facilities from Fullerton south to San Diego. 4. Begin the implementation of a short-term corridor improvement program which will markedly improve AMTRAK service with eight intercity trains per day and demonstrate the continuing commitment of the state administration and the legislature to the incremental upgrading of the corridor's service and physical plant. 5. Provide a funding plan by 1990 for essential rail replacement and track up- grading to be implemented between 1990 and 1995. 6. Further evaluate the financial feasibility of implementing commuter rail service between Oceanside and downtown San Diego, and if feasible imple- ment service. %. Further evaluate the financial feasibility of implementing commuter rail service between San Clemente and downtown Los Angeles, and if feasible, implement service. 8. Conduct more detailed technical studies and negotiations with AT&SF as required to implement one new AMTRAK station in southeast Los Angeles County and one in north San Diego County. Long Term (1990-2000) 9. Acquire the railroad right-of-way between Fullerton and San Diego (or acquire ownership of the railroad facilities with land ownership remaining with the AT&SF). 10. Expand AMTRAK services incrementally by adding a ninth train after 1990, and adding a tenth train by 1995. 11. Implement additional higher -cost time savings projects subject to the avail- ability of funding. RemainingIssues sues 1. Potential Rail Replacement - To what extent will the existing rail need to be replaced with continuous welded rail? AMTRAK considers this to be an essential project. While the short -'germ program includes rail replacement on a spot basis, at those locations where recommended investments will be made, this may not be optimal. In addition, full-scale replacement of the rail at a cost of some $52 million would likely need to be associated with public acquisition of the line. 2. Funding - How will the costs of improvements be shared among local, state and private participants? Initial guidelines are being considered, whereby improvements benefiting the entire corridor could be funded under one 0 Iq formula and improvements of local benefit such as stations under another. How will San Diego's proposed sales tax monies fit into this? It will also be important to allow for state and local agencies to receive credit for their investments in the event of public acquisition of the line. 3. Institutional Arrangements - What is the best institutional structure to pro- vide a forum for articulating local policies, concerns, and priorities in the short -run, and for instituting public ownership of the line and/or initiating commuter services in the longer run? A formal mechanism such as a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency (JPA) or local interagency agreements may be desirable. 10 K:Vu1Q1-r- •, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO (LO55AN) STATE RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY The Los Angeles - San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study was undertaken in direct response to Senate Bill 1095 (Craven). SB1095 created the Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group and mandated that the Study Group develop a program for incremental upgrading of the existing rail line. The upgrading program that was developed in this Study includes improvements along the line which will reduce train running times, increase the reliability of service, facilitate additional frequencies for intercity service and provide for the introduction of commuter rail service, while maintaining capacity for current freight operations. Amtrak assumed responsibility for intercity passenger services in this corridor in 1971 with only two daily round trips and a. third tri-weekly round trip. Between 1976 and 1978 additional trains were added with State support through Section 403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service Act, and annual patronage increased from about 300,000 passenger trips per year to more than 300,000 trips per year. A seventh train was added in 1980 and Amtrak now serves almost 1,500,000 trips per year and the state -supported 403(b) trains have been a very cost-effective transit investment. (1) Corridor (2) Major Corridor Segments a) Los Angeles -Fullerton b) Fullerton - San Diego W 128 miles in length 6 million people within 5 miles radius of rail stations. 26 miles; mostly double track; heavy freight activity. 102 miles; single track with passing sidings; one daily through freight each way. S-1 ` San Diego County Mat FIGURE A THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) RAIL CORRIDOR S-z 0 (3) Existing Passenger Train Service a) 7 daily Amtrak round trips (3 with state operating subsidy) b) 9 stations (LA, San Diego plus 7 intermediate stations) c) 2 hour 40 minute typical travel time between L.A. and San Diego d) Maximum Authorized Speeds L.A. to Buena Park 65 mph. Buena Park to Santa Ana 79 mph Santa Ana to Sorrento 90 mph Sorrento to San Diego 79 mph e) Actual Average Speed 43 mph due to numerous speed restrictions/delays/station stops f) On -Time Performance Poor in 1936; frequent unscheduled train -meet delays and ion- station dwell times (4) Facilities a) Track Condition Generally good but 45 year old 112 lb. bolted rail nearing end of useful life for passenger train operations between Fullerton and San Diego b) Stations 6 stations renovated or recently constructed; 3 obsolete stations; inadequate access/parking for growth. (5) Patronage a) 0.323 million passenger trips in 1973; b) 1.344 million passenger trips in 1985; c) 6.6% increase to 1.433 million in 1986; d) L.A.-San Diego trips = 190/6 of total; (811's of all trips use intermediate stations); e) 30% of total trips are work -related (over 30°,0 on some trains). (6) FY 35/36 Financial Performance a) Route Operating Cost - $21.7m b) Route Operating Revenue - $14.5m S-3 0 c) Short -Term Avoidable Cost, 403(b) Trains - $6.4m d) Revenue, 403(b) Trains - $5.6m e) Farebox Ratio, 403(b) Trains - 88% (7) Candidate Improvements Identified (Not in Prioritv Order) More than 185 individual candidate capital improvements were identified which would improve rail passenger services in the Corridor, and these were grouped to form logical projects for analysis. The total cost of these projects would be 257.18 million ($1986 dollars), excluding the cost of acquiring AT & SF right-of-way. Cost in Project Grouo(1) 1986 Dollars(2) (Millions) A) 25 Travel Time Reduction Projects $ 29.94 B) Desirable Early Action Track Improvements for Expanded Amtrak Service With 8 Daily Trains 18.37 C) Two Additional Amtrak Stations and Relocation of Del ivlar Amtrak Station 19.00 0-1) Equipment and Track Improvements Required for 10-Train Amtrak Service Plus 2 Commuter Rail Services 102.41 D-2) Projects Desirable for Efficient Scheduling 3.46 D-3) Additional Projects Desirable for Operations 26.65 E) Modifications to Existing Stations F) Track Upgrading/Rail Replacement(2) 52.85 TOTAL $ 257.18 (1) Not Listed in Priority Order (2) Excludes Cost to Acquire AT & SF Right -of -Way. S-4 0 (8) Future Patronage Potentials The Study addressed needs and potential improvements in the context of two alternative levels of rail service expansion: Level A 8 daily intercity (Amtrak) round trips (i.e., one more than at present); Level S 10 daily intercity (Amtrak) round trips plus two daily commuter round trips between Orange County communities and downtown Los Angeles, plus two daily commuter round trips between Oceanside and San Diego in San Diego County. a) 1.740 to 1.940 million intercity passenger trips per year by 1990 with 8 Amtrak trains, new Irvine Station and high priority travel time reduction projects (i.e., 21 to 35 percent increase over FY 86). b) 2.250 to 2.558 million intercity passenger trips per year by 2000 with 10 Amtrak trains, additional Amtrak stations, plus travel time reduction projects (i.e., 57 to 78 percent increase over FY 86). c) 0.500 to 0.750 million additional passenger trips per year by Year 2000 with 2-train L.A.-Orange County commuter rail service, and 0.350 to 0.565 million additional passenger trips per year with 2-train commuter rail service between Oceanside and San Diego. d) Total Patronage Potential = 3.1 to 3.9 million trips per year -- 2.2 to 2.7 times present level within about 10 years plus additional longer range potentials. S-5 u (9) Annual Ooeratine Cost and Subsidv Implications (1986 dollars) Operating(l) Annual Annua �2) Farebox Types/Level of Service Cost Rides Revenue Recovery (millions) (millions) (millions) (percent) a) Inter City Rail Service 1986 - 7 Trains $21.7 $1.43 $14.5 67 (AT&SF crews) 1987 - 7 Trains 20.5 1.50-1.55 15.3-15.8 75-77 (Amtrak crews) 1990 - 8 Trains 22.9 1.74-1.94 17.7-19.3 77-36 1990 - 10 Trains 26.9 1.84-2.04 18.8-20.3 70-77 0 2000 - 10 Trains 29.0 2.25-2.56 22.9-26.1 79-90 b) Commuter Rail Service - Los Angeles - Orange County 1990 - 2 Trains 1.54 0.40-0.60 0.60-0.90 39-53 2000 - 2 Trains 1.54 0.50-0.75 0.75-1.12 49-73 c) Commuter Rail Service, San Diego County 1990 - 2 Trains 1.21 0.25-0.40 0.38-0.60 31-50 2000 - 2 Trains 1.21 0.35-0.58 0.53-0.37 44-72 (1) Total route cost ($1986 dollars) for all trains; includes interest and depreciation on equipment. (2) Assumes that future fare increases offset future cost inflation; assumes $1.50 average fare for commuter rail service. S-6 (10) Other Program Implications a) Increased Track & Signal Maintenance Costs - Many of the candidate projects will increase railroad maintenance costs to some extent. On the other hand, a major program of track rehabilitation and rail replacement would decrease maintenance costs. These changes will need to be considerations for broader negotiations with the AT&SF relative to expanded public use and control of the right-of-way. b) Environmental Impacts - Most of the candidate projects, including most of the track and signal improvements within existing rail right-of-way, would not entail significant adverse impacts on the environment, and probably would not require an environmental impact report. Site -specific environmental impacts of significance could require mitigation in new station areas. Vehicle maintenance and storage facilities for commuter rail requirements, fencing in selected areas to control pedestrian crossings of the track, and a major track relocation project in the Miramar Hills are other elements of the overall program of candidate projects which could impact the environment and probably require further study. c) Long Range Transportation Needs of the Corridor - Traffic congestion on Los Angeles and Orange County segments of the corridor is severe and is projected to intensify and spread to San Diego County segments, creating an environment conducive to an expanded role for rail services in meeting long-term transportation needs. d) Need for Track Upgrading Including Rail Replacement - The existing rail between Fullerton and San Diego shows considerable wear and is nearing the end of its useful life for 90 mph passenger train operations. Over 95 miles of line will require rail replacement (or train speeds reduced) within the next decade. S-7 rehabilitation and rail replacement would decrease maintenance costs. These changes will need to be considerations for broader negotiations with the AT&SF relative to expanded public use and control of the right-of-way. b) Environmental Impacts - Most of the candidate projects, including most of the track and signal improvements within existing rail right-of-way, would not entail significant adverse impacts on the environment, and probably would not require an environmental impact report. Site -specific environmental impacts of significance could require mitigation in new station areas. Vehicle maintenance and storage facilities for commuter rail requirements, fencing in selected areas to control pedestrian crossings of the track, and a major track relocation project in the Miramar Hills are other elements of the overall program of candidate projects which could impact the environment and probably require further study. c) Long Range Transportation weeds of the Corridor - Traffic congestion on Los Angeles and Orange County segments of the corridor is severe and is projected to intensify and spread to San Diego County segments, creating an environment conducive to an expanded role for rail services in meeting long-term transportation needs. d) Need for Track Upgrading Including Rail Reolacement - The existing rail between Fullerton and San Diego shows considerable wear and is nearing the end of its useful life for 90 mph passenger train operations. Over 95 miles of line will require rail replacement (or train speeds reduced) within the next decade. S-8 a3 (11) Recommendations PHASE I (1) Establish a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency (3PA) t.) articulate the interests of the Corridor communities to State and Federal governments, Amtrak and the Santa Fe. Include agencies which already exercise authority over transportation policy in the LOSSAN Corridor. (2) Seek the allocation of local funds in an amount equal to San Megan - related UN1TA Section 9 funds, contingent upon being matched by an equal amount of State funds, for the purpose of financing the recommended capital improvement program (in conjunction with funds from other sources). (3) Enter into an agreement with the AT do SF to credit an appropriate portion of the recommeded short-range public investment in track and other rail facility improvements against the price to acquire ownership of, and/or rights to utilize AT & SF railroad rights -of -way needed for LOSSAN corridor rail passenger services. (4) Begin implementation of the Corridor improvement program with low- cost projects which will markedly improve Amtrak service with 8 intercity trains per day and demonstrate the continuing commitment of local agencies, the State administration and the legislature to the incremental upgrading of the the Corridor's service and physical plant. A modest $35.15 million capital improvement program which would meet this immediate objective is shown in Table A (Phase I, Part A). The track improvements included in this first phase of the program would include limited replacement of aging rail (where projects would involve track modifications), which would represent a significant beginning to the needed replacement of rail throughout the long segment of line between Fullerton and San Diego. They would also serve to protect the interests of shippers in the corridor who might be affected by the rail passenger service improvements. S-9 c2 (5) Initiate funding by 1990 for essential rail replacement and track upgrading to be fully implemented by 1995 (See Table A, Phase I, Part B). (6) Develop a funding mechanism for purchase of the AT & SF rail right-of- way (or facilities) from Fullerton to San Diego, and rights to utilize AT Lac SF right-of-way between Los Angeles and r u4lerton. (7) Further evaluate the financial feasibility of implementing commuter rail service between Oceanside and downtown San Diego, between Orange County communities and downtown Los Angeles, or both, and determine the specific timing for implementation (Phase I, Part C in Table A). (3) Conduct more detailed technical studies and negotiations with AT do SF as required to implement one new Amtrak Station in southeast Los Angeles County and one in north San Diego County. Implementation of these two station additions is recommended subject to satisfactory mitigation of rail freight operations concerns of the AT & SF. Phase II (1) Acquire railroad right-of-way between Fullerton and San Diego (or acquire ownership of the railroad facilities with land ownership remaining with the AT&SF), and acquire rights to utilize AT & SF right- of-way for passenger rail services between Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal and Fullerton. (2) Expand Amtrak services incrementally by adding a ninth train after 1990, and adding a tenth train by 1995. (3) Provide additional intercity service capacity as may be required by adding cars to existing Amtrak '4. ains during peak periods. (4) Implement additional higher -cost time savings projects subject to the availability of funding. S-10 �S (5) Develop a longer -range plan for the further development of this rail line beyond Year 2000. (6) Create an intergovernmental consortium consisting of the State of California and the operators of the commuter rail service in the Corridor. (7) Promote the establishment of an. Amtrak California regional office with responsibility over the scheduling of Corridor service, negotiating service contracts with the State and the sub -Corridor commuter agencies and serving as the link between the corridor consortium (or . OPA) and the Santa Fe. S-11 Table A RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Los Angeles - San Diego State Raul Corridor TENTATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION _ ESTIMATED C05T(1) COST RESPONSIBILITY (millions) State Local Amtrak AT&SF PHASE I A. EXPAND//IMPROVE Amtrak SERVICE WITH EIGHT DAILY TRAINS (1937-1990) 1. High Priority Time Savings Projects $ 3.25 $2.625 $2.625 2. Add crossovers at four 4.26 2.130 2.130 locations (Los Angeles -Fullerton) 3. 8 inch platforms at Fullerton, SJC & San Clemente 0.57 0.235 0.235 4. Upgrade Industrial Lead and 5.06 2.530 2.530 Replace Siding ' (Los Angeles - Redondo Jct.) 3. Improving track from Serra to San Juan Capistrano & station improvements at SJC 6.11 2.733 0.600 2.755 6. Upgrade Oceanside Passing Tracks 1.30 0.900 0.900 7. Two New Amtrak Stations (2) 12.10 6.050 6.050 SUBTOTAL $ 33.15 $17.275 $6.935 $10.940 - B. UPGRADE TRACK/REPLACE RAIL (1990-1995) 32.35 $23.733 $23.732 $5.235 C. IMPLEMENT COMMUTF0 RAIL SERVICES 1. Commuter Rail; San Diego County 31.20 13.600 15.600 2. Commuter Rail; LAUPT- Orange County 32.35 16.175 16.173 3. Track and Station Improvements Required for 10 Amtrak Trains dc Commuter Rail 30.00 7.300 7.300 15.000 SUBTOTAL $ 93.55 $39.275 $39.275 $15.000 - PHASE 11 A. EXP.gND Amtrak SERVICE TO TEN DAILY TRAINS I. Add 2 t%dd'1 Amtrak Trains 27.10 13.530 13.550 2. Add'1 Time Savings Projects 24.69 12.345 12.343 3. Add 10 Amtrak Cars to accommodate growth 16.94 8.470 3.470 4. Del Mar Station Relocation 6.90 3.450 3.450 SUBTOTAL $ 73.63 37.80 3.450 34.365 - GRAND TOTAL $ 237.18 $118.143 $49.660 $34.087 $3.233 !) 1986 dollars; excludes cost to acquire AT do SF right-of-way or public control thereof. (2) Subject to satisfactory mitigation of rail freight operations concerns of the AT 3t SF. S-12 f IvCU Sil;i-.1 EXHIBIT 2 ds!< N!W rr April 8, 1987 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) STATE RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY The Los Angeles - San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study was undertaken in direct response to Senate Bill 1095 (Craven). SB1095 created the Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group and mandated that the Study Group develop a program for incremental upgrading of the existing rail line. The upgrading program that was developed in this Study includes improvements along the line which will reduce train running times, increase the reliability of service, facilitate additional frequencies for intercity service and provide for tl7e introduction Of commuter rail service, while maintaining capacity for current freight operations. Amtrak assumed responsibility for intercity passenger services in this corridor in 1971 with only two daily round trips and a third tri-weekly round trip. Between 1976 and 1978 additional trains were added with State support through Section 403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service Act, and annual patronage increased from about 300,000 passenger trips per year to more than 800,000 trips per year. A seventh train was added in 1980 'and Amtrak now serves almost 1,500,000 trips per year and the State -supported 403(b) trains have been a very cost-effective transit investment. (1) Corridor (2) Major Corridor Segments a) Los Angeles - Fullerton S-1 128 miles in length 6 million people within 5 miles radius of rail stations. 26 miles; mostly double track; heavy freight activity. r2 r FIGURE A THE-LOS ANGELES—SCAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) STATE RAIL CORRIDOR .2 cl b) Fullerton - San Diego (3) Existing Passenger Train Service April 8, 1987 102 miles; single track with passing sidings; one daily through freight each way. a) 7 daily Amtrak round trips (3 with State operating subsidy) b) 9 stations (LA, San Diego plus 7 intermediate stations) c) 2 hour 40 minute typical travel time between L.A. and San Diego d) Maximum Authorized Speeds L.A. to Buena Park 65 mph Buena Park to Santa Ana 79 mph Santa Ana to Sorrento 90 mph Sorrento to San Diego 79 mph e) Actual Average Speed 48 mph due to numerous speed restrictions/train meets/station stops f) On -Time Performance Unsatisfactory in 1986; frequent unscheduled train -meet delays and long station dwell times (4) Facilities a) Track Condition Generally good but 45 year old 112 lb. bolted rail nearing end of useful life for passenger train operations between Fullerton and San Diego b) Stations 6 stations renovated or recently constructed; 3 obsolete stations; inadequate access/parking for growth. c) Signalling S-3 40 year old Automatic Train Stop (ATS) system. 30 April 8, 1987 (5) Patronage a) 0.328 million passenger trips in 1973; b) 1.344 million passenger trips in 1985; c) 6.6% increase to 1.433 million in 1986; d) L.A.-San Diego trips = 19% of total; (81% of all trips use intermediate stations); e) 30% of total trips are work -related (over 80% on some trains). (6) FY 85/86 Financial Performance a) Route Operating Cost - $21.7m b) Route Operating Revenue-$14.5m c) Short -Term Avoidable Cost for State - supported 403(b) Trains -$6.4m d) Revenue, 403(b) Trains -$5.6m e) Farebox Ratio, 403(b) Trains -38% (7) Candidate Improvement Projects (Not in Priority Order) More than 185 individual candidate capital improvements were identified which would improve rail passenger services in the Corridor, and these were grouped to form logical projects for analysis. The total cost of these projects would be $246.33 million (1986 dollars), excluding the cost of acquiring AT do SF right-of-way and the cost of a new cab signalling system. Of this total program cost, $101.74 million relates to improvements which are considered necessary or desirable with only an 8-train Amtrak service, including $42.00 million for essential rail replacement and track upgrading. The remainder would only be required for further expansion to 10-train intercity service and/or commuter rail operations. S-4 ,31 April 8, 1987 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS CANDIDATE PROJECTS Cost in Project Category(1) 1986 Dollars(2) (Millions) I) 25 Travel Time Reduction Projects $ 29.94 II) Desirable Early Action Track Improvements for Expanded Amtrak Service With 8 Daily Trains 10.80 III) Two Additional Amtrak Stations and Relocation of Del Mar Amtrak Station 19.00 IV -A) Equipment (Vehicles) and Track Improvements Required for 10-Train Amtrak Service Plus 2-Train Commuter Rail Services 102.41 IV-8) Projects Desirable for Efficient Scheduling 3.46 IV-C) Additional Projects Desirable for Operations 34.72 V) Modifications to Existing Stations 4.00 VI) Track Upgrading/Rail Replacement(3) 42.00 TOTAL $ 246.33 (1) Not Listed in Priority Order (2) Excludes Cost to Acquire AT be SF Right -of -Way and new cab signalling system. (3) Based on use of 115 lb. continuous welded rail. Projects located in San Diego County (or attributed to San Diego County) account for 47 percent of the total cost; Orange County projects account for 35 percent and Los Angeles County projects account for 18 percent. S-5 Jz April 8, 1987 (8) Future Patronage Potentials The Study addressed needs and potential improvements in the context of two alternative levels of rail service expansion: Service Level A - 8 daily intercity (Amtrak) round trips (i.e., one more than at present; Service Level B - 10 daily intercity (Amtrak) round trips plus two daily commuter round trips beween Orange County communities and downtown Los Angeles, plus two daily commuter round trips between Oceanside and San Diego in San Diego County. Patronage Forecasts: a) 1.740 to 1.940 million intercity passenger trips per year by 1990 with 8 Amtrak trains, new Irvine Station and high priority travel time reduction projects (i.e., 21 to 35 percent increase over FY 86). b) 2.250 to 2.559 million intercity passenger trips per year by 2000 with 10 Amtrak trains, additional Amtrak stations, plus travel time reduction projects (i.e., 57 to 78 percent increase over FY 36). c) 0.500 to 0.750 million additional passenger trips per year by Year 2000 with 2-train L.A.-Orange County commuter rail service, and 0.350 to 0.565 million additional passenger trips per year with 2-train commuter rail service between Oceanside and San Diego. M 33 • April 8, 1987 d) Total Patronage Potential = 3.1 to 3.9 million trips per year -- 2.2 to 2.7 times present level within about 10 years plus additional longer range potentials. (9) Annual Operating Cost and Subsidy Implications (1986 dollars) Operating Annual Annual Fdrebox Types/Level of Service _ Cost(1) Rides Revenue(2) Recover (millions) (millions) (millions) (percent) Inter City Rail Service 1986 - 7 Trains $21.7 1.43 $14.5 67 (AT&SF crews) 1987 - 7 Trains 20.5 1.50-1.55 15.3-15.8 75-77 (Amtrak crews) 1990 - 8 Trains 22.9 1.74-1.94 17.7-19.8 77-86 1990 - 10 Trains 26.9 1.84-2.04 18.8-20.8 70-77 2000 - 10 Trains 29.0 2.25-2.56 22.9-26.1 79-90 b) Commuter Rail Service - Los Angeles - Orange County 1990 - 2 Trains 1.54 0.40-0.60 0.60-0.90 39-58 2000 - 2 Trains 1.54 0.50-0.75 0.75-1.12 49-73 c) Commuter Rail Service, San Diego County 1990 - 2 Trains 1.21 0.25-0.40 0.38-0.60 31-50 2000 - 2 Trains 1.21 0.35-0.58 0.53-0.87 44-72 (1) Total route cost (1986 dollars) for all trains; for intercity service, includes interest and depreciation on equipment. (2) Assumes that future fare increases offset future cost inflation; assumes $1.50 average fare for commuter rail service. W, April 8, 1987 (10) Other Program Implications a) Increased Track & Signal Maintenance Costs - Many of the candidate projects will increase railroad maintenance costs to some extent. On the other hand, a major program of track rehabilitation and rail replacement would decrease maintenance costs. These changes will need to be considerations in broader negotiations with the AT&SF relative to expanded public use and control of the right-of-way. b) Environmental Impacts - Most of the candidate projects, including track and signal improvements within existing rail right-of-way, would not entail significant adverse impacts on the environment, and probably would not require an environmental impact report. Site -specific environmental impacts of significance could require mitigation in new station areas. Vehicle maintenance and storage facilities for commuter rail services, fencing in selected areas to control pedestrian crossings of the track, and a major track relocation project in the Miramar Hills are other elements of the overall program of candidate projects which could impact the environment and probably require further study. c) Long Range Transportation Needs of the Corridor - Traffic congestion on Los Angeles and Orange County segments of the corridor is severe and is projected to intensify and spread to San Diego County segments, creating an environment conducive to an expanded role for rail services in meeting long-term transportation needs. d) Need for Track Upgrading Includin_g_Rail Replacement - The existing rail between Fullerton and San Diego shows considerable wear and is nearing the end of its useful life for 90 mph passenger S-8 3� S April 8, 1987 train operations. Over 95 miles of line will require rail replacement within the next decade to avoid reduced speeds and longer schedules. This program should be phased in as soon as practicable. (11) Recommendations PHASE I (1) Establish a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency (JPA) to articulate the interests of the Corridor communities to State and Federal governments, Amtrak and the Santa Fe. Include agencies which already exercise authority over transportation policy in the LOSSAN Corridor. (2) Seek the allocation of local funds in an amount equal to San Diegan- related UMTA Section 9 funds, contingent upon being matched by an equal amount of State funds, for the purpose of financing the recommended capital improvement program (in conjunction with funds from other sources). (3) Enter into an agreement with the AT & SF to credit an appropriate portion of the recommended short-range public investment in track and other rail facility improvements against the price to acquire ownership of, and/or rights to utilize AT do SF railroad rights -of -way needed for LOSSAN corridor rail passenger services. (4) Begin implementation of the Corridor improvement program with low- cost projects which will markedly improve Amtrak service with 8 intercity trains per day and demonstrate the continuing commitment of local agencies, the State administration and the legislature to the incremental upgrading of the the Corridor's service and physical plant. S-9 36, A modest $35.11 million capital improvement program which would meet this immediate objective is shown in Table A (Phase I, Part A). The track improvements included in 'this first phase of the program would include limited replacement of aging rail (where projects would involve 'track modifications), which would represent a significant beginning to the needed replacement of rail throughout the long segment of line between Fullerton and San Diego. They would also serve to protect the interests of shippers in the corridor who might be affected by the rail passenger service improvements. (5) Initiate finding as promptly as practicable for essential rail replacement and track upgrading to be fully implemented by 1995 (See Table A, Phase I, Part B). A detailed inventory and engineering evaluation is required to identify those line segments where the most critical need exists for early rail replacement, and to develop a specific comprehensive track upgrading and rail replacement program. (6) Develop a funding mechanism for purchase of the AT do SF rail right-of- way (or facilities) from Fullerton to San Diego, and rights to utilize AT & SF right-of-way between Los Angeles and Fullerton. (7) Further evaluate the financial feasibility of implementing commuter rail service between Oceanside and downtown San Diego, between Orange County communities and downtown Los Angeles, or both, and determine the specific timing for implementation (Phase I, Part C. in Table A). (S) Conduct more detailed technical studies and negotiations with AT & SF as required to implement one new Amtrak Station in southeast Los Angeles County and one in north San Diego County. Implementation of these two station additions is recommended subject to satisfactory mitigation of rail freight operations concerns of the AT & SF. S-10 37 April 8, 1987 Phase II (1) Acquire railroad right-of-way between Fullerton and San Diego (or acquire ownership of the railroad facilities with land ownership remaining with the AT&SF), and acquire rights to utilize AT & SF right- of-way for passenger rail services . between Los A.n`eles Union Passenger Terminal and Fullerton. (2) Expand Amtrak services incrementally by adding a ninth train after 1990, and adding a tenth train by 1995. (3) Provide additional intercity service capacity as may be required by adding cars to existing Amtrak trains during peak periods. (4) Implement additional higher -cost time savings projects subject to the availability of funding. (5) Evaluate replacement of the obsolete automatic train stop (ATS) system with new solid state cab signals and speed control systems. (6) Develop a longer -range plan for the further development of this rail line beyond Year 2000. (7) Create an intergovernmental consortium consisting of the State of California and the operators of the commuter rail services in the Corridor. (8) Promote the designation by Amtrak of an officer at its regional office in Los Angeles who will have authority to act on Amtrak's behalf as a liaison with the State, the sub -corridor commuter agencies and/or other jurisdictions responsible for the various aspects of rail service in the LOSSAN corridor. 3r' a Table A RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor TENTATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST(') COST RESPONSIBILITY (millions) State Local Federal AT&SF PHASE I A. EXPANDHIMPROVE AMTRAK SERVICE WITH EIGHT DAILY TRAINS 1. Low Cost Time Reduction Projects $ 5.25 $ 2.625 $2.625 2. Add crossovers at four 4.26 2.130 2.130 locations (Los Angeles -Fullerton) 3. Grade crossing and signal- ling time reduction improvements; Old Town to San Diego 6.96 3.480 3.480 4. Upgrade sidings and signals at 3.90 1.950 1.950 Anaheim, Galivan, San Onofre 5. Upgrade siding and signals at Sorrento 0.84 0.420 0.420 6. Upgrade Oceanside Passing Tracks 1.80 0.900 0.900 7. Two New Amtrak Stations (2) 12.10 6.050 6.050 SUBTOTAL $ 35.11 $17.555 $ 6.050 $11.505 B. UPGRADE TRACK REPLACE RAIL 42.00 $13.900 $18.900 $4.200 C. IMPLEMENT COMMUTER RAIL SERVICES 1. Commuter Rail; San Diego County 31.20 15.600 15.600 2. Commuter Rail; LAUPT- Orange County 3205 16.175 16.L75 r 3. Track and Station Improvements Required for 10 Amtrak Trains & Commuter Rail 37.00 9.250 9.250 18.500 SUBTOTAL $100.55 $41.025 $42.025 $18.500 - PHASE 11 A. EXPAND Amtrak SERVICE TO TEN DAILY TRAINS I. Add 2 Add'1 Amtrak Trains 27.10 13.550 13.550 2. Add'1 Time Savings Projects 17.73 8.865 8.865 3. Add 10 Amtrak Cars to y accommodate growth 16.94 8.470 8.470 4. Del Mar Station Relocation 6.90 3.450 3.450 SUBTOTAL $ 68.67 $34.335 $ 3.450 $30.885 - GRAND TOTAL $246.33 $111.815 $50.525 $79.790 $4.200 11-T- 1986 dollars; excludes costs to acquire AT & SF right-of-way or new cab signalling system. (2) Subject to satisfactory mitigation of rail freight operations concerns of the AT & SF. 5-12 U S 9fe'At2 Ymil% and ,46,4acia'led Consulting Engineers . Planners Mr. Thomas W. Glover Contract Administrator Rail Service Branch California Department of Transportation Division of glass Transportation 1130 K Street, Suite 101 P.O. Box 942374 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 RE: LOSSAN State Rail Corridor Study Dear Mr. Glover: 282 Second Street, 2nd Floor April 3, 1987 San Francisco, CA 94105-3189 Phone (4151896-0670 Telex: 573439 Cable: WILSMITH RECEIVED STAN OFTELIE /APR 00 1987 DISCYS 3Jcr ELM ,-- On Wednesday, April 1, 1987, members of our consulting team met with Mr. James Larson and Mr. Al Clark of Amtrak to review their concerns relative to the March 17, 1987 draft of the Summary Report on the Los Angeles -San Diego State Rail Corridor Study. I am pleased to report that we reached full agreement on certain changes and editorial refinements which Mr. Larson stated would enable Amtrak to endorse the report, and which we find fully acceptable. Referring to the main technical comments in Mr. Larson's presentation of March 31, 1987 to the Study Group: (1) CORRIDOR POTENTIAL We take no exception to Mr. Larson's comments about corridor potential, t, (2) CURRENT PROBLEMS a) It was agreed by WSA/MKE and Amtrak that the upgraded Industry Siding between Mission Tower and Redondo Junction is a desirable project, but one which could be deferred and included in Phase II instead of Phase I. The AT&SF were contacted and they also agreed to this change. b) It was agreed by WSA/MKE and Amtrak that the additional crossovers between Redondo Junction and Fullerton are desirable and should remain in Phase I as recommended. c) It was agreed by WSA/MKE and Amtrak that extension of the Serra siding to provide double track from Serra to the San Juan Capistrano Station would involve construction of a bridge and entail certain implementation difficulties, and therefore this Albany, NY - Alliance, OH - Columbia, SC - Cairo, Egypt - Falls Church, VA - Hong Kong - Houston, TX - Knoxville, TN - Miami, FL Lexington, KY - Neenah, W1 - New Haven, CT - New York, NY - Orlando, FL - Phoenix, AZ - Pittsburgh, PA - Providence, RI Raleigh, NC - Richmond, VA - Roselle, IL - San F. ancisco, CA - Singapore - South Orange, NJ - Toronto, Canada - Washington, DC / "( 0 ` Mr. Thomas W. Glover April 3, 1987 Page 2 project should be moved from Phase I to Phase II. (Both WSA and Amtrak believe that an extension of the Serra siding is desirable, but disagree on the specific scope of this project) d) WSA/MKE and Amtrak agreed that the upgraded siding at Oceanside is an appropriate Phase I project as recommended. The effect of the above is to reduce Phase I requirements by $11.17 million and to increase Phase II by same amount. This decrease in Phase I cost would be offset by additional adjustments in project priorities as noted below: e) WSA/MKE and Amtrak agreed that the recommended upgrades of sidings at Anaheim, Galivan and San Onofre ($3.90 million) should be :roved up in priority from Phase II to Phase I. (Although these would not be scheduled train meet locations in the future with the train schedules assumed for this study, they are problem locations now, and both parties agree as to their long term values). f) WSA/MKE and Amtrak agreed to include an upgraded siding at Sorrento in Phase 1 ($0.84 million). This was part of a more comprehensive project recommended by WSA for Phase II; the Phase II cost will be reduced by this same amount. g) WSA/MKE and Amtrak agreed that recommended grade crossing improvements between Old Town and the San 'Diego terminal should be given a higher priority and moved from Phase II to Phase I ($6.96 million). This project ranked tenth among the 25 candidate time savings projects and it had not been included in Phase I originally only to limit Phase I funding requirements to about $35 million. {` The net result of all of the above is not to change the overall program at all but to increase Phase I by only $0.53 million and to decrease Phase II by a like amount. (3) STATIONS It was agreed that adding two additional stations would increase total scheduled trip time. However, the train performance simulations performed by MKE in the LOSSAN study suggest that Amtrak's estimate of 10 to 12 added minutes for two stations is excessive; eight to ten minutes is a more reasonable allowance and reflects station dwell time data supplied by Amtrak. No report change is indicated. WSA did agree to modify the language in the report to indicate a three minute per train time savings potential (30 seconds per station for trains with six intermediate stations) with low (8 inch) platforms and operational changes recommended in the report - instead of "3.5 to 7.0 minutes per train" as the report now reads. q( k1r. Thomas W. ;lover April 3, 1937 Page 3 WSA does not propose high-level platforms and it 1was agreed that this recommendation will not be changed. (4) RAIL REPLACEMENT Four separate issues relating to rail replacement were raised by Amtrak. There was never any disagreement by WSA/MKE (as implied by Amtrak) that rail replacement is a critical short-term need. a) Timing - It was agreed by WSA/MKE and Amtrak to provide more programming flexibility by recommending initiation of rail replacement "as soon as practicable" instead of "by 1990"; the reference to completion by 1995 is to be retained. b) Implementation P-.riod - Amtrak agreed to the WSA/.'BIKE conclusion that a 95-mile rail replacement program costing $40- 50 million would need to be programmed over several years (probably at least three), and WSA/MKE agreed with Amtrak that the total period of implementation should be as short as practicable (no change in report text is required). c) Type of Rail - WSA/MKE agreed with Amtrak that 136 lb. rail is not really essential between Fullerton and San Diego because of the low tonnage served, and that the report should be revised to reflect use of 115 lb. or 119 lb. rail. (WSA wishes to point out that original estimates by WSA/MKE were based on 132 lb. rail because that was the standard applied by Amtrak in developing its own February 15, 1985 Capital Improvement Recommendations for this line. Subsequently, WSA/MKE was advised to assume 136 lb. rail since this is the AT&SF standard. WSA/MKE has no reluctance to recommend 115 lb. or 119 lb. rail since this is now acceptable to both Amtrak and the AT&SF). d) Cost - Amtrak agreed with the WSA estimate that the rail replacement cost would be about 20 percent less with 115 lb. rail than with 136 lb. rail (page 27 of WSA/MKE report). It was agreed, therefore, that the 552.85 million estimate for 136 lb. rail would be changed to reflect a $42 million cost with 115 lb. rail. Other than the new assumption about the type of rail used, the WSA/MKE cost estimate will not be reduced (It is worth noting that Amtraks' 1995 estimate with 132 lb. rail wasT68.6 million). 5. AUTOMATIC TRAIN STOP SYSTEM This issue was debated at length. It was agreed that the following Phase II recommendations will be added to page 63 of the report and to the Executive Summary, page 5-11: Mr. Thomas W. Glover April 3, 19"IJ7 Page 4 "(S) Evaluate replacement of the obsolete automatic train stop (ATS) system with new solid state cab signals and speed control systems. "The existing ATS system is 40 years old and is obsolete. Replacement parts are no longer readily available. With a speed control system, unlike an automatic train stop (ATS) system, the speed at which a train is operated under certain circumstances is not left to the discretion of the locomotive engineer and signal compliance is enforced by the train control engineer - a safety improvement. I trust that you and the rest of the Study Group will have no trouble accepting these program adjustments. We will make up a copy of the Summary Report to show all the changes agreed upon with Amtrak for your review as soon as possible. Very truly yours, WIT BUR SMITH AND SSOCIATES //Gerard L. Drake Vice President GLD/rkg 192740 Enclosure �3 LOS ANGELES SUMMARY REPORT FULLERTON DRAFT IlL ANAHEIM S :-A ANA IRVINE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SAN CLEMENTE LOS ANGELES- SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) STATE RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY MARCH 17, 1987 OCEANSIDE DEL MAR 0 SAN DIEGO WIL BUR SMITH AND ASSOCIATES MORRISON-KNUD aEN ENGINEERS ARTHUR BAUER & ASSOCIATES r THE LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) STATE RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY GROUP (formed under the provisions of Senate Bill 1095) Lee F. Deter, California Department of Transportation, Chairman Jacki Bacharach, Los Angeles county Transportation Commission Richard B. Edgar, Orange County Transportation Commission Gordana Swanson, Southern California Association of Government Walter Gilbert, San Diego Association of Governments Claudia Elliott, Speaker of the Assembly Senator Jim Mills, Senate Committee on Rules Tim Gillespie, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Robert-E.-Welk Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Lawson L. Chadwick, California Labor Federation CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMAR`! S-1 SUMMARY REPORT I The LOSSAN Rail Corridor 2 Existing Rail Facilities and Operations 6 Candidate Improvement Projects 12 Summary of Capital Costs of Candidate Projects 27 Potential Future Ridership 31 1990 Ridership with Service Level A 33 Year 2000 Ridership with Service Level B 35 Summary of Ridership Potentials - Alternative Service 37 Improvement Strategies Maintenance and Operating Cost Implications of Service Expansion 40 Projected Annual Operating Costs 40 Maintenance Cost Implications 42 Environmental Impact Considerations 44 Capital Program Alternatives 46 Institutional and Financial Issues 49 Recommenoations 57 Phase I 57 Phase II 61 Financing LOSSAN Corridor Improvements 64 APPENDICES Appendix A: Senate Bill 1095 Appendix Br Diagram of Santa Fe Lines Appendix C: List of Technical Working Papers TABULATIONS Table Page A Recommended Capital Improvement Program 5-12 1 Financial Performance of the San Diegans 4 2 Summary of Costs and Time Savings Candidate Travel Time Reduction Projects 19 3 Representati•te Amtrak Operating Schedules Defined for Determination of Candidate Capital Improvement Projects With 10 Intercity (Amtrak) Trains 22 4 Summary of Capital Costs Candidate Projects 28 S Summary of Candidate Project Costs by Type of Service 29 6 1990 Patronage Forecast: Service Level A 34 7 Year 2000 Patronage Forecasts: Service Level B 36 8 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Ridership Projections for Alternative Service Improvement Strategies 33 9 Summary of Estimated Operating Costs Alternative Service Improvement Strategies 41 10 ;Maintenance Cost Implications of Candidate Projects 42 11 Projected Farebox Recovery Alternative Service Expansion Plans 43 12 Alternative Capital Improvement Programs 47 13 Recommended Capital Improvement Program 60 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) STATE RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY The Los Angeles - San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study was undertaken in direct response to Senate Bill 1095 (Craven). SB1095 created the Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group and mandated that the Study Group develop a program for incremental upgrading of the existing rail line. The upgrading program that was developed in this Study in:ludes improvements along the line which will reduce train running times, increase the reliability of service, facilitate additional frequencies for intercity service and provide for the introduction of commuter rail service, while maintaining capacity for current freight operations. Amtrak assumed responsibility for intercity passenger services in this corridor in 1971 with only two daily round trips and a. third tri-weekly round trip. Between 1976 and 1978 additional trains were added with State support through Section 403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service Act, and annual patronage increased from about 300,000 passenger trips per year to more than 800,000 trips per year. A seventh train was added in 1980 and Amtrak now serves almost 1,500,000 trips per year and the state -supported 403(b) trains have been a very cost-effective transit investment. (1) Corridor (2) Maior Corridor Segments a) Los Angeles -Fullerton b) Fullerton - San Diego ni 123 miles in length 6 million people within 5 -Hiles radius of rail stations. 26 miles; mostly double track; heavy freight activity. 102 miles; single track with passing sidings; one daily through freight each way. S-1 1 Los Angeias Son Clemente ® Existing Amtrak Station 0 Amtrak Station Under Development Urbanized Area F FIGURE A THE LOS ANG►'LES-SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) RAIL CORRIDOR S-2 a 0 IM 11a, , (3) Existing Passenger Train Service a) 7 daily Amtrak round trips (3 with state operating subsidy) b) 9 stations (LA, San Diego plus 7 intermediate stations) c) 2 hour 40 minute typical travel time between L.A. and San Diego d) Maximum Authorized Speeds L.A. to Buena Park 65 mph Buena Park to Santa Ana 79 mph Santa Ana to Sorrento 90 mph Sorrento to San Diego 79 mph e) Actual Average Speed 48 mph due to numerous speed restrictions/delays/station stops f) On -Time Performance Poor in 1986; frequent unscheduled train -meet delays and long station dwell times (4) Facilities a) Track Condition Generally good but 45 year old 112 lb. bolted rail nearing end of useful life for passenger train operations between Fullerton and San Diego b) Stations 6 stations renovated or recently constructed; 3 obsolete stations; inadequate access/parking for growth. (5) Patronage a) b) cl d) e) 0.323 million passenger trips in 1973; 1.344 million passenger trips in 1985; 6.646 increase to 1.433 million in 1986; L.A.-San Diego trips = 1911'6 of total; (810,6 of all trips use intermediate statio,is); 30% of total trips are work -related (over 30% on some trains). (6) FY 85/86 Financial Performance a) Route Operating Cost - $21.7m b) Route Operating Revenue - $14.5m S-3 c) Short -Term Avoidable Cost, 403(b) Trains - $6.4m d) Revenue, 403(b) Trains - $5.6m e) Farebox Ratio, 403(b) Trains - 33% (7) Candidate Improvements Identified (Not in Priority Order) %lore than 185 individual candidate capital improvements were identified which would improve rail passenger services in the Corridor, and these were grouped to form logical projects for analysis. The total cost of these projects would be 257.18 million ($1956 dollars), excluding the cost of acquiring AT & SF right-of-way. Cost in Project Grouo{1? 1986 Dollars(2) (Millions) A) 25 Travel Time Reduction Projects $ 29.94 3) Desirable Early Action Track Improvements for Expanded Amtrak Service With 8 Daily Trains 18.87 C) Two Additional Amtrak Stations and Relocation of Del Nlar Amtrak Station 19.00 D-1) Equipment and Track Improvements Required for 10-Train Amtrak Service Plus 2 Commuter Rail Services 102.41 D-2) Projects Desirable for Efficient Scheduling 3.46 D-3) Additional Projects Desirable for Operations 26.65 E) Modifications to Existing Stations F) Track Upgrading/Rail Replacement(2) 52.85 TOTAL $ 257.18 (1) Not Listed in Priority Order (2) Excludes Cost to Acquire AT & SF Right -of -Way. S-4 (8) Future Patronage Potentials The Study addressed needs and potential improvements in the context of two alternative levels of rail service expansion: Level A 8 daily intercity (Amtrak) round trips (i.e., one more than at present); Level 8 10 daily intercity (Amtrak) round trips plus two daily ccmmuter round trips between Orange County communities and downtown Los Angeles, plus two daily commuter round trips between Oceanside and San Diego in San Diego County. a) 1.740 to 1.940 million intercity passenger trips per year by 1990 with 8 Amtrak trains, new Irvine Station and high priority travel time reduction projects (i.e., 21 to 35 percent increase over FY 86). b) 2.250 to 2.558 million intercity passenger trips per year by 2000 with 10 Amtrak trains, additional Amtrak stations, plus travel time reduction projects (i.e., 57 to 78 percent increase over FY 86). c) 0.500 to 0.750 million additional passenger trips per year by Year 2000 with 2-train L.A.-Orange County commuter rail service, and 0.350 to 0.565 million additional passenger trips per year with 2-train commuter rail service between Oceanside and San Diego. d) Total Patronage Potential = 3.1 to 3.9 million trips per year -- 2.2 to 2.7 times present level within about 10 years plus additional longer range potentials. S-5 (9) Annual Operating Cost and Subsidv Implications (1986 dollars) Operating(l) Annual Annual() Farebox Types/Level of Service Cost Rides RFvenue ` Recovery (millions) (millions) (millions) (percent) a) Inter Citv Rail Service 1986 - 7 Trains $21.7 $1.43 $14.5 67 (AT&SF crews) 1987 -7 Trains 20.5 1.50-1.55 15.3-15.8 75-77 (Amtrak crews) 1990 -8 Trains 22.9 1.74-1.94 17.7-19.3 7-86 1990 - 10 Trains 26.9 1.84-2.04 18.8-20.9 70-77 2000 - 10 Trains 29.0 2.25-2.56 22.9-26.1 79-90 b) Commuter Rail Service - Los Angeles - Orange County 1990 - 2 Trains 1.54 0.40-0.60 0.60-0.90 39-58 2000 - 2 Trains 1.54 0.50-0.75 0.75-1.12 49-73 c) Commuter Rail Servic< '-n Diego County 1990 - 2 Trains 1.21 0.25-0.40 0.38-0.60 31-50 2000 - 2 Trains 1.21 0.35-0.58 0.53-0.87 44-72 (1) Total route cost ($1986 dollars) for all trains; includes interest and depreciation on equipment. (2) Assumes that future fare increases offset future cost inflation; assumes $1.50 average fare for commuter rail service. s-6 (10) Other Program Implications a) Increased Track do Signal Maintenance Costs - Many of the candidate projects will increase railroad maintenance costs to some extent. Or the other hand, a major program of track rehabilitation and rail replacement would decrease maintenance costs. These changes will need to be considerations for broader negotiations with the AT&SF relative to expanded public use and control of the right-of-way. b) Environmental Impacts - Most of the candidate projects, including most of the track and signal improvements within existing rail right-of-way, would not entail significant adverse impacts on the environment, and probably would not require an environmental impact report. Site -specific environmental impacts of significance could require mitigation in new station areas. Vehicle maintenance and storage facilities for commuter rail requirements, fencing in selected areas to control pedestrian crossings of the track, and a major track relocation project in the Miramar Hills are other elements of the overall program of candidate projects which could impact the environment and probably require further study. c) Long Range Transportation Needs of the Corridor - Traffic congestion on Los Angeles and Orange County segments of the corridor is severe and is projected to intensify and spread to San Diego County segments, creating an environment conducive to an expanded role for rail services in meeting long-term transportation needs. d) Need for Track Upgrading Including Rail Replacement - The existing rail between Fullerton and San Diego shows considerable wear and is nearing the end of its useful life for 90 mph passenger train operations. Over 95 miles of line will require rail replacement (or train speeds reduced) within the next decade. S-7 rehabilitation and rail replacement would decrease maintenance costs. These changes will need to be considerations for broader f negotiations with the AT&SF relative to expanded public use and control of the right-of-way. b) Environmental Impacts - Most of the candidate projects, including most of the track and signal improvements within existing rail right-of-way, would not entail significant adverse impacts on the environment, and probably would not require an environmental impact report. Site -specific environmental impacts of significance could require mitigation in new station areas. Vehicle maintenance and storage facilities for commuter rail requirements, fencing in selected areas to control pedes-':rian crossings of the track, and a major track relocation project in the Miramar Hills are other elements of the overall program of candidate projects which could impact the environment and probably require further study. c) Long Range Transportation Needs of the Corridor - Traffic congestion on Los Angeles and Orange County segments of the corridor is severe and is projected to intensify and spread to San Diego County segments, creating an environment conducive to an expanded role for rail services in meeting long-term transportation needs. d) Need for Track Upgrading Including Rail Replacement - The existing rail between Fullerton and San Diego shows considerable wear and is nearing the end of its useful life for 90 mph passenger train operations. Over 95 miles of line will require rail replacement (6r train speeds reduced) within the next decade. s-8 01) Recommendations PHASE II (1) Establish a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency (JPA) to articulate the interests of the Corridor communities to State and Federal governments, Amtrak and the Santa Fe. Include agencies which already exercise authority over transportation policy in the LOSSAN Corridor. (2) Seek the allocation of local funds in an amount equal to San Ditgan- related UNATA Section 9 funds, contingent upon being matched by an equal amount of State funds, for the purpose of financing the recommended capital improvement program (in conjunction with funds from other sources). (3) Enter into an agreement with the AT & SF to credit an appropriate portion of the recommended short-range public investment in track and other rail facility improvements against the price to acquire ownership of, and/or rights to utilize AT & SF railroad rights -of -way needed for LOSSAN corridor rail passenger services. (4) Begin implementation of the Corridor improvement program with low- cost projects which will markedly improve Amtrak service with 8 intercity trains per day and demonstrate the continuing commitment of local agencies, the State administration anQ' the legislature to the incremental upgrading of the the Corridor's service and physical plant. A modest $35.13 million capital improvement program which would meet this immediate objective is shown in Table A (Phase I, Part A). The track improvements included in this first phase of the program would include limited replacement of aging rail (where projects would involve track modifications), which would represent a significant beginning to the needed replacement of rail throughout the long segment of line between Fullerton and San Diego. They would also serve to protect the interests of shippers in the corridor who might be affected by the rail passenger service improvements. 5-9 (5) Initiate funding by 1990 for essential rail replacement and track upgrading to be fully implemented by 1995 (See Table A, Phase I, Part B). (6) Develop a funding mechanism for purchase of the AT & SF rail right-of- way (or facilities) from Fullerton to San Diego, and rights to utilize AT & SF right-of-way between Los Angeles and Fullerton. (7) Further evaluate the financial feasibility of implementing commuter rail service between Oceanside and downtown San Diego, between Orange County communities and downtown Los Angeles, or both, and determine the specific timing for implementation (Phase I, Part C in Table A). (3) Conduct more detailed technical studies and negotiations with AT & SF as required to implement one new Amtrak Station in southeast Los Angeles County and one in north San Diego County. Implementation of these two station additions is recommended subject to satisfactory mitigation of rail freight operations concerns of the AT & SF. Phase 1I (1) Acquire railroad right-of-way between Fullerton and San Diego (or acquire ownership of the railroad facilities with land ownership remaining with the AT&SF), and acquire rights to utilize AT & SF right- of-way for passenger rail services between Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal and Fullerton. (2) Expand Amtrak services incrementally by adding a ninth train after 1990, and adding a tenth train by 1995. (3) Provide additional intercity service capacity as may be required by adding cars to existing Amtrak trains during peak periods. (4) Implement additional higher -cost time savings projects subject to the availability of funding. 5-10 (5) Develop a longer -range plan for the further development of this rail line beyond Year 2000. (6) Create an intergovernmental consortium consisting of the State of California and the operators of the commuter rail service in the Corridor. (7) Promote the establishment of an Amtrak California regional office with responsibility over the scheduling of Corridor service, negotiating service contracts with the State and the sub -Corridor commuter agencies and serving as the link between the corridor consortium (or JPA) and the Santa re. S-11 Table A RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor TENTATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST(i) COST RESPONSIBILITY (millions) State Local Amtrak AT&5F PHASE 1 A. EXPAND//IMPROVE Amtrak SERVICE WITH EIGHT DAILY TRAINS (1987_1990) 1. High Priority Time Savings Projects $ 5.25 $2.625 $2.625 2. Add crossovers at four 4.26 2.130 2.130 locations (Los Angeles -Fullerton) 3. 8 inch platforms at Fullerton, SJC & San CIemente 0.57 0.235 0.233 4. Upgrade Industrial Lead and 5.06 2.530 2.530 Replace Siding , (Los Angeles - Redondo Jct.) 5. Improving track from Serra to San Juan Capistrano & station improvements at SJC 6.11 2.755 0.600 2.755 6. Upgrade Oceanside Passing Tracks 1.30 0.900 0.900 7. Two New Amtrak Stations(2) 12.10 6.050 6.050 SUBTOTAL $ 35.15 $17.275 $6.935 $10.940 - B. UPGRADE TRACK/REPLACE RAIL U99019951 52.33 $23,733 $23.732 $5.235 C. I.MPLEMENT CO,%wUTER RAIL SERVICES 1. Commuter Rail; San Diego County 31.20 15.600 15.600 2. Commuter Rail; LAUPT- Orange County 32.33 16.175 16.175 3. Track and Station Improvements Required for 10 Amtrak Trains & Commuter Rail 30.00 7.300 7.500 15.000 SUBTOTAL $ 93.33 $39.275 $39.275 $15.000 - PHASE 11 A. EXPAND Amtrak SERVICE TO TEN DAILY TRAINS i. Add 2 Add'1 Amtrak Trains 27.10 13.330 13.550 2. Add'l Time Savings Projects 24.69 12.345 12.345 3. Add 10 Amtrak Cars to accommodate growth 16.94 8.470 8.470 4. Del star Station Relocation 6.90 3.450 3.450 SUBTOTAL $ 75.63 37.315 3.450 34.363 - GRAND TOTAL $ 257.18 $f 18. 148 $49.660 $34.087 $5.235 (1) 1936 dollars; excludes cost to acquire AT & SF right-of-way or public control thereof. (2) Subject to .satisfactory mitigation of rail freight operations concerns of the AT & SF. S-12 SUMMARY REPORT LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) STATE RAIL. CORRIDOR STUDY The Los Angeles - San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study was undertaken in direct response to Senate Bill 1095 (Craven). SB1095 created the Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group and mandated that the Study Group develop a program for incremental upgrading of the existing rail line. The upgrading program that was developed in this Study includes improvements along the line which will reduce train running times, increase the reliability of service, and facilitate additional frequencies for intercity service, and the introduction of commuter rail services, while maintaining capacity for current freight operations. The Study Group was comprised of representatives of the State Director of Transportation (Caltrans); the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC); the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC); the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); the Speaker of the Assembly; the Senate Committee on Rules; the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railway Company; and the —alifornia Labor Federation. More than 100 candidate improvement projects which would improve LOSSAN corridor rail passenger services and contribute toward the attainment of current program objectives for the corridor were identified in the detailed technical work which was performed for the Study Group. Emphasis was placed on relatively low cost projects which would (1) enable the elimination of existing speed restrictions; (2) improve system accessibility; and (3) facilitate incremental service expansion -- rather than costly projects to increase existing maximum authorized speeds. The recommended program of high priority capital improvements and institutional changes needed for implementation of these improvements, which is presented in this report, was formulated in collaboration with the Study Group and its technical support staff and represents a strong multi -agency concensus on the actions needed to meet the objectives set forth in SB 1095. 1 The LOSSAN Rail Corridor The LOSSAN rail corridor (see Figure A) extends for 128 miles between the downtown areas of Los Angeles and San Diego, and is second only to the Northeast Corridor in ridership on the Amtrak rail passenger system. The rail line links a string of communities in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties which collectively house over 12 million people, half of whom reside within 5 miles of the rail line. Intercity passenger rail service is presently provided to nine of these communities (Los Angeles, Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Oceanside, Del Mar and San Diego). Amtrak started service between Los Angeles and San Diego in 1971, with two daily round trips and a third tri-weekly round trip. Travel time was 2 hours and 55 minutes until 1973. Between 1976 and 1978, an extra daily round trip was added in each of those years, with State support through Section 403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service Act, and the scheduled trip time was reduced to 2 hours 35 minutes. A seventh daily round trip was implemented in October 1980. These trains were known as the "San Diegans". In April 1984, a new train service replaced one of the seven San Diegans. This train, known as the "Metroliner", offered service at a surcharge over the regular San Diegan ticket. This service was discontinued after a year of operation due to negative response from the public, and the seventh regular San Diegan train was restored. Amtrak's current service in the LOSSAN corridor still includes seven daily trains, provided through an operating agreement with the AT&SF. (An eighth train is planned for October 1997.) Three of these trains are subsidized by the State of California; California has committed about $27.5 million in operating assistance and capital funding for corridor improvements since it began supporting LOSSAN rail service development in 1976, The "San Diegans" have been a highly cost- effective investment; ridership has increased dramatically over the last 10 years (see Figure B), and fares cover S8 percent of the operating costs (see Table 1). With the future growth projected for the LOSSAN corridor and the provision of additional stations, the population located within easy access of the rail line 2 Urbanized Area It Oce• V �a San Diego County ;Del Mar FIGURE A THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) RAIL CORRIDOR 3 could be doubled by Year 2000. In addition, the Santa Tina Freeway (I-5), which parallels the rail line, is heavily congested for long periods of the day on Los Angeles and Orange County segments, and this condition is expected to spread and intensify, creating an environment conducive to increased use of the rail services. Thus, the potential clearly exists for a greatly expanded role for rail services in meeting the growing transportation needs of the LOSSAN corridor. Table 1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF THE SAN DIEGANS ITE41 FY 84/85 FY 85/86 036 CHANGE (millions) (millions) Route Ridership 1.240 1.394 +12.4 403(b) Ridership 0.569 0.597 +4.9 403(b) Cost 6.411 6.425 +0.2 403(b) Revenue 5.411 5.659 +4.6 403(b)Subsidy 1.000 0.766 -23.3 403(b) Farebox Ratio 34.406 33.1% +4.2 403(b)Subsidy/Passenger $1.75 $1.23 -23.5 NOTE: 403(b) trains are the "San Diegans" operated by Amtrak with operating support from the State of California. The data shown includes connecting buses. 4 160 I a I '20 I I I I I I I lA I i j C I I 9 i00 I I I � a 80 I L 7TH I I 'TRAIN I 6TH rRAW IADDED I i G7 V 60 I j I i i I I I I I a I i I W I I I 40- I I I � I I LSTHITRAIN ADDED I � 20 I I I 4TH I I T RAIN ADOHD 11 0 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 79 7 a 1 ' 1975 1976I 1977 1978 � 1979 ' 1980 I 198, 1982 19 I i 83 t98a 1985 1986 FIGURE B SAN DIEGAN PATRONAGE TREND 5 Existing Rail Facilities and Operations The Los Angeles - San Diego rail line includes two significantly different segments of the AT&SF system -- a portion of the AT&SF Third Subdivision, Mission Tower to Fullerton, and the Fourth Subdivision from Fullerton to San Diego. The 26-mile section of the Third Subdivision within the LOSSAN corridor (,Mission Tower to Fullerton) is a heavily used freight line which contains major freight marshalling yards, industry sidings, and spur tracks. Conflicts between passenger and freight operations occur regularly on this segment, which influence passenger train schedules and frequently cause unscheduled passenger train delays. The Fourth Subdivision from Fullerton to San Diego (102 miles ) has limited freight traffic with most trains being Amtrak passenger trains. Figure C describes the AT&SF system in the study area in diagrammatic format. Potential impacts of candidate passenger service improvements on AT&SF freight operations was a major issue of concern in this study. Facilities The Third Subdivision within the LOSSAN corridor includes a two -track mainline system running from Redondo Junction to Fullerton, a distance of 22.2 miles, plus a 3.2-mile section of single-track mainline between Mission Tower and Redondo Junction. An industry lead parallels the single-track mainline from Mission Tower to Redondo Junction. Amtrak's Eighth Street coach yards, locomotive maintenance yard and round house are located in the vicinity of Redondo Junction. These facilities service and maintain the San Diegan trains as well as other West Coast and transcontinental trains terminating in Los Angeles. Hobart Yard, a major marshalling yard for transcontinental freight trains, also is located in this segment of the corridor. The Fourth Subdivision, beginning at Fullerton and running to San Diego, is a single track line with passing sidings. Several industry sidings and spurs exist along this section, but are limited in number and located primarily in the westerly portion of the line from Fullerton to Irvine and in the easterly portion in San Diego County. Major passing sidings and double track segments are provided at 12 locations along this long segment of the line. 2 L'1 PASADE.NA LOS ANGELSS / UN 1014 PASSENGER TERMI IJAL MISSION TOWER REDONDO 1 JUNC-10N IVISION MALASAR HOBART f y9 PICO RIVERA THIRD SUBDIVISION SEGUNDO C FUI L=RToty WATSON WILMINGTON SAN PEDRO LONG BEACH LEGEND ON: MAIN TRACK TWO MAIN TRACKS ■ TERMINAL FOR THROUGH FREIGHT TRAINS nTWOOD OLIVc- SUBDIVISION ORANGE C SANTk ANA GA�ti �j rjs' rC n11 SAN CLE.YENTE TO BARSTOW ' SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE TO SAN DIEGO FIGURE C AT & SF RAIL LINES IN THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 7 The route from Los Angeles to San Diego has very little profile rise and fall, except near E1 Toro, where the maximum grade is 1.27 percent, and at `Miramar Hills, where the maximum grade is 2.20 percent. Maximum curvature along the route also occurs in the Wrarnar Hills section with curves in excess of 10 degrees. These conditions require reduced train speeds which has a significant effect on overall trip times between Los Angeles and San Diego. There are 82 signalized at -grade public crossings along the rail line -- 12 between Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT) and Fullerton. A long term objective is to provide grade separations at all of the 12 crossings between Los Angeles and Fullerton. Switches and signals governing movements on, to, or from main tracks are remotely controlled under a system which the AT&SF calls the Traffic Control System (TCS). Control operators at various locations direct the movement of trains, utilizing main track crossovers and sidings to arrange "meets" between opposing trains, or to arrange a faster train movement overtaking a slower movement. Between Santa Ana and Sorrento, an Automatic Train Stop (ATS) system is installed, whereby trains failing to obey restrictive signals are automatically braked. Most of the present track between Fullerton and San Diego is constructed of jointed 112 lb. rail, rolled between 1939 and 1941. Although track condition is generally good, the rail shows considerable wear and is nearing the end of its useful life for 90 mph passenger train operations. It is anticipated that replacement of the bolted rail will be required, or train speeds reduced, within the next decade. AT&SF has programmed some rail replacement on curves where the rail is approaching the condemnable condition. Station facilities at Los Angeles, Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Oceanside and San Diego are now in good condition, following renovations or new construction. Hov;aver, the stations at San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente and Del Nlar have inadequate platforms and parking space. In addition, access deficiencies exist at most of the stations. Despite substantial investments in the station facilities by local jurisdictions and the State, station access and parking deficiencies still represent important constraints to future patronage growth. 8 Operations During this study, the scheduled total trip time for the typical daily train between LAUPT and San Diego was 2 hours 40 minutes, representing an average speed of about 48 miles per hour including station stops. Of this total, actual train running time was about 2 hours 20 minutes; the remainder was for station stops, scheduled train meet delays and schedule recovery allowances. On -time performance with the prevailing schedules was unsatisfactory in 1986 (only 75 to 85 percent of the trains were on -time) and five minutes was added to the schedules fur selected trains. The first northbound (San Diego to Los Angeles) trip each day does not stop in Anaheim; only one round trip each day serves San Clemente. The Amtrak equipment is capable of operating at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour. The maximum authorized speed is 65 miles per hour between Los Angeles and Buena Park, 79 miles per hour between Buena Park and Santa Ana, 90 mph between Santa Ana and Sorrento, and 79 mph between Sorrento and San Diego, but speed restrictions apply which limit operations at various points to speeds as low as 15 miles per hour (see Figure D). Three San Diegan train consists originate daily service from San Diego. These consists, along with two originating in Los Angeles, make a total of five in service for the seven daily round trips. An additional consist is available for rotation into the operation for maintenance of the rolling stock. The typical train consist includes one locomotive and five passenger cars, although additional cars are frequently used during peak demand periods. Total fleet size is 37 cars. When this study began, it was necessary to back trains out of the two terminals to turn them around at "wye" tracks. Subsequently, an agreement was reached between Caitrans and Amtrak to institute "push-pull" operations(l) to expedite these terminal operations and reduce costs. This change is scheduled to take place in the fall of 1987. (1) With "push-pull' operations, the locomotive pulls the train in the conventional way in one direction, and then pushes the train from behind on the return trip. o6aia uec =71 t _ C .,4 Loil I C Jew Iaa I i j O ^I I I t O M I NI I N aoisueao0 c < I I I I N I — c_ I I =1 I I aluawato ueS I m oueJ:Slae ON I uenr uec I I I i I I O i I I I I G'1 aUTAJ - O q euy eaueS wiayeuv p uo1Ja l In j CIS I ,.o C I I JaM01 UOISSIW p C c O G O Sajaouv Sol O W %a r [V (HdW) 4==dS 10 W LL 0 C� a G W LU a N c N C LU w Z H Z m �J9 Q W In addition to the San Die -an passenger trains, other Amtrak passenger equipment and locomotives are shuttled between LAUPT and the coach yard at 3th Street and/or the locomotive facility at Redondo Junction and a siding known as the Industry Lead. The Industry Lead is used by Amtrak equipment and locomotive shuttle movements, as well as by AT&SF yard engines serving industries in the Redondo Junction/SAission Tower area or moving intermodal equipment to and from the First Street storage yard. It is used occasionally by freight trains to and from the Second District which must clear conflicting -Nmtrak train schedules. There are three types of freight trains operating on main tracks along the route. These are through freight trains, road switchers, and yard engines. Through freight trains operate in lengths up to 3,000 feet and 11,000 tons in weight, customarily drawn by three or more locomotive units. Maximum authorized speeds for such trains range up to 55 mph; however, 55 mph is permitted only for trains averaging less than 90 tons per car or .ess than 7,000 tons per train. In addition, certain through freight trains must make stops on the main tracks between terminals in order to interchange traffic with local freight train operations. Such stops regularly occur at Pico Rivera, La Mirada, Fullerton, Irvine, Tustin, Oceanside, and occasionally at other points along the route. Road switchers and yard trains are generally less than 3,000 feet in length and are drawn by one or two locomotive units. Maximum authorized speed on main tracks for such trains is 55 mph, although typical operating speeds are much lower. Road switchers operating on main tracks along the route are based at Hobart, Fullerton, and San Diego (the Fourth Subdivision and Escondido Local). These trains make numerous stops on main tracks in accomplishing switching and customer pickup and delivery. These freight train operations occasionally delay Amtrak passenger trains and influence the types of track improvements needed to expand passenger train service. 11 Candidate Improvement Projects Aspects of the intercity rail services which will affect future rail ridership in the LOSSAN corridor and which were addressed in this study include (a) travel time reductions attainable through implementation of candidate capital improvement projects to increase rail operating speeds; (b) increased service frequency (and capacity) attainable by adding additional intercity trains; (c) increased system accessibility attainable by adding stations and removing access constraints at existing stations; (d) improved on -time performance (service reliability), attainable by adding switches, sidings and other desirable features to enhance the operational flexibility of the existing railroad and reducing the incidence of passenger/freight train schedule conflict; and (e) passenger amenities, including improved ride quality attainable primarily through track improvements. Marketing and rail fare policy are additional factors affecting future Amtrak rail patronage which were outside the scope of this analysis. The introduction of peak period services specifically oriented to the commuter market, which would be a departure from the Amtrak mission, would also increase rail ridership in this corridor. The Study addressed needs and potential improvements in the context of two alternative levels of rail service expansion: Level A - 8 daily intercity (Amtrak) round trips (i.e., one more than at present); and Level D - 10 daily intercity (Amtrak) round trips plus 2 daily commuter round trips between Orange County communities and downtown Los Angeles, plus 2 daily commuter round trips in San Diego County between Oceanside and the San Diego rail terminal. The locations of candidate projects included in the recommended improvement program are showy, in Figure E. Grout) A. Travel Time Reduction Projects ($29.94 million) This study determined that (a) various speed restrictions along the 128-mile line prevent the existing equipment from operating at higher speeds; and (b) 12 \ Ln \yj - - s � _■� O l co C1 M 41 } Z N N O t7 G Ll- } I l �avd VN3na N AlNnO� 39NdaG A1Nn03 'd'i - O < o u o N cu c ,y C7 L L 2 Y 3 L Q7 E O W O w � o H Y N � U o N v W C O C O H G H o o _o, _ Lz y U Q 4J cu 0i13231Now _ c .. ti C r0 W H ¢1 u W C G 7 p N C C O W i O al L Q_ cu Lo u f c c u U y 61 C a / v y C ow_� p c o" O L7 j OW � i O `° O S3139Nb J o a Spy ��®� o z C tU) _NO W n m / ^ O , a a Q G J 13 F- V W i O a Z W W t!� W ` {L W V' Q cc Q Y W = :u o CL Oa a Cl) 1L.O Oj O ei 0 O O O F- J W tna t -_•_W lf1 O G m C G n 0 �w W < C � U w 7 r- N r c`. \ Q J Q .ti I G O W LJ C Ln Ln O 14 1 11 no) p93/Q a1Nno3 �oNeXo v` W W O W Fc J 4 V N cn C O Lf1�N Hal bW C W U O z U Q C. V`J r w /1� ii a w 2 w > °� U. � a c 0 C ?V a U. u, sn oc = 0 � in < OCl) Cl) "A O z O I— 'Q V O e 3mll HJlvw J— /l/I Oil T� .ryrOdbJ N / sy ti�Od CD 0 i _ O 3N11 H71blJ W u O u w 3N ..-"N 15 practical opportunities do exist to eliminate or mitigate the conditions which have caused some of these speed restrictions. The study determined that a primary focus of any early action program of capital investment in the LOSSAN Corridor should be the elimination of speed restrictions where practicable to permit the existing equipment to function at higher speeds up to the maximum authorized speed limit. This study determined that travel times can be reduced, and identified 25 candidate groups of inter -related projects to achieve travel time reduction. The maximum practical potential for running time reduction through low to moderate cost capital and operational improvements was found to be about 21 minutes, or about 13 percent of the typical 2 hour 40 minute trip time between LAUPT and San , Diego. Not all trains in the daily schedule would realize the full time reduction potential because of operational constraints, and part of this reduction would be offset by the addition of new Amtrak station stops. Nevertheless, the travel time reduction projects identified in this study would make an important contribution to the objective of increasing the overall appeal of the service and thereby increasing patronage. In general, these running time reduction projects would 'involve: o Increased "permitted speeds" on curves based on a policy of 3 inch allowable unbalanced superelevation. (Unbalanced superelevation occurs when a train is permitted to operate at a speed in excess of that which distributes the weight of the train equally on the two rails and thereby optimizes ride comfort.) A 3 inch unbalanced superelevation is considered a safe comfortable allowance by Federal Railroad Administration standards (It has been used on some locations in the AT be SF Fourth Subdivision). o Increased actual superelevation on selected curves to permit higher speeds (which will increase track maintenance costs); o Upgraded at -grade railroad and road crossings; 16 o Longer signal circuits and extended installation of the existing train control system; o Higher speed turnouts; o Fences, overpasses and controlled at -grade crossings for pedestrians at key locations; and o Track relocations and/or realignments. In addition to the potential for running time reduction from projects of the types noted above, the potential also exists for modest reductions in station dwell times, amounting to 30 to 60 seconds per station at present patronage levels, or 3.5 to 7.0 minutes overall with 7 intermediate stations. Several ways were identified to expedite train boarding and alighting including: o Platform Provisions - Longer platforms built to a height of 3 inches above the top of rail to eliminate manual placement of step stools at San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente and Del Mar, and new 3-inch platforms to be constructed at Fullerton. (The new stations at Anaheim, Santa Ana and Oceanside already have platforms of this type); o Station SiQnaQe - Suitable graphics and instructions to be placed at all stations, including markings in the boarding area to advise passengers of the boarding process; o ;Modified Procedures - Improved operating practices both on -board (such as consistent advance station announcements) and at stations, including stopping passenger cars at prearranged locations with regard to train length; and o Equipment - Selection of equipment for future commuter services with wide double center doorways and steps for loading from the S-inch platforms. 17 Of the 25 candidate projects, the 13 list,!d below were determined to warrant high priority; these 13 projects could be implemented for about $5.25 million and would reduce trip time by about 10 minutes. TIME SAVINGS COST HIGH PRIORITY TIME SAVINGS PROJECTS (min:sec) (in millions) o San Clemente pedestrian control projects 2:23 (1) $1.497 (fencing acid pedestrian separations);* o Increased unbalanced superelevation between :23 -- LAUPT and Mission Tower; o Increased unbalanced superelevation near :10 -- Buena Park station; o Increased actual superelevation near Sorrento;* :15 .003 o Scven grade crossing improvements and fencing 1:16 .964 west of Anaheim Stadium;* o Five grade crossing improvements plus v,,o 1:44 .723 track crossing upgrades in Pico Rivera and Santa Fe Springs area;* o Three additional grade crossing improvements :55 .192 (flashers, extended circuits, etc.) in Santa Fe Springs and the La Mirada area;* o Three grade crossings and minor fencing in :46 .165 Oceanside; o Fencing, two grade crossing improvements, and :28 .312 increased superelevation on one curve between Orange and Santa Ana station;* o Increased actual superelevation on one curve and :30 .153 fencing east of Santa Ana station;* o Realigned crossover, upgraded track (high speed :38 .378 turnouts), and increased superelevation between Mission Tower/Redondo Junction;* o Three grade crossing improvements and fencing :11 .620 east of Anaheim Stadium; and o Increased superelevation and UPRR grade crossing -27 240 replacement near Fullerton station.* 10:11 $5.247 (1) An additional 48 seconds savings will result from a track realignment in this area, which was approved prior to initiation of this study. * Also includes increased unbalanced superelevation on selected curves within the limits of these improvements. 18 The total cost of all the candidate time reduction projects identified in this study (other than the cost of new equipment) would be about $29.94 million (1996 dollars), as summarized in Table 2. Table 2 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND TIME SAVINGS CANDIDATE TRAVEL TIME REDUCTION PRO3ECTS TIME SAVING PROJECT IMPROVEMENT GROUP Los Angeles -Fullerton Segment Station Boarding/Alighting Projects San Clemente Pedestrian Controls/Signals Fullerton -Santa Ana Segment San Clemente -Old Town Segment Old Town -San Diego Segment Miramar Hills Track Relocation TOTAL TIME COST(1) SAVINGS (Millions) (min:sec) $ 1.70 7:23 0.57 3:30 1. 50 2:23 2.06 2:25 6.03 4:10 7.74 2:13 10.34 2:50 $ 29.94 24:54(2) (1) 1996 dollars. (2) Running time reduction projects account for 21:24 of this total. Group B. Candidate Projects for Improved Ooerations With Eighth Amtrak Train - Service Level A ($18.87 million) An agreement has been reached between Caltrans and Amtrak to install push- pull operations in the near future to expedite terminal operations (to eliminate costly and time consuming operations required at present to turn around trains). The conversion to push-pull will enable the implementation of an 8-train service (and extension of service to Santa Barbara) by modifying existing equipment available to Amtrak. This improvement has already been funded. . No capital needs in addition to those required by the conversion to push-pull operations (such as the equipment modifications) will be required to add the eighth train. However, several candidate projects were identified as desirable to reduce i9 +-- - - - -- - conflicts with freight operations and to reduce delays due to train meets with an S- train Amtrak schedule. These desirable improvements include the following: a) An upgraded industry siding (about 3 miles in length) and train control signalization to provide a second main line track between Mission Tower and Redondo Junction, the addition of an equivalent length of track for a replacement industry siding, and double -tracking between LAUPT and Mission Tower ($6.70 million). b) Three single crossovers, at La Mirada, Buena Park and Basta, plus a double crossover at Los Nietos, to provide a double 50 mph crossover at approximately 2.5 mile intervals in the double track segment between Redondo Junction and Fullerton ($4.26 million). c) Double track for the line segment from Serra to San Juan Capistrano. Right-of-way, track and provisions for a two -track bridge would be included in plans for a realignment project already planned and currently being designed. This project would permit improved train meets; a westbound train could proceed to the San Juan Capistrano Station and handle passengers while waiting for a delayed eastbound train. Verdugo Street, east of the station, would be closed. Station platforms would be extended east of this street as part of the overall project, and a passenger underpass would be provided ($6.11 million). d) An upgraded passing track near the Oceanside Station. This project is desirable because there will be two train meets at this location with S- train service ($1.80 million). These projects would cost about $18.37 million (1956 dollars), and would be desirable with or without the candidate time reduction projects. Group C. New Amtrak Stations ($19.00 million) A new Amtrak station in Irvine is already approved and under development. Candidate projects which would be desirable to further improve system accessibility and increase patronage include an additional station in south Los 20 Angeles County and an additional station in north San Diego County. Several locations were identified in this study as locally acceptable alternatives for these new stations. The selection of specific locations for these two new stations is a matter for subsequent decision by the responsible authorities, and must recognize freight operational problems they may create for the AT&SF. Prior to implementation of arty additional new stations, these operational problems would need to be addressed in detail. In addition, the existing station site at Del Mar is inadequate to accommodate access needs in that area and is a candidate for relocation. A new station in or near Del Mar is proposed to serve Amtrak trains; the existing station would remain as a local commuter stop. Since particular locations for these stations have not been fixed, site specific cost estimates could not be developed. lHowever, it is estimated that three new stations could be provided for about $19.00 million (1986 dollars). Group D. Service Level 8 - 10 Amtrak Trains Plus Commuter Rail Services ( 132.52 million) Service Level 3 is a 10 train intercity (Amtrak) schedule with 2-train commuter rail services at each end of the LOSSAN corridor. Departure times for the 10 Amtrak trains assumed for the determination of candidate capital improvement needs are shown in Table 3. The commuter operation on the Los Angeles - Orange County segment was defined to operate between San Juan Capistrano and LAUPT, with an equipment storage point at Serra. With 10 stations (plus the LAUPT terminus), total trip time would be about 1 hour 22 minutes (plus a 6 percent allowance for recov ^ry time train meets), with scheduled arrivals and departures as shown below: Depart Orange County Terminus 6:00a, 7.00a Arrive Los Angeles: 7:30a, 3:30a Depart Los Angeles: 4:20p, 5:20p Arrive Orange County Terminus 5:45p, 6:45p 21 Candidate station locations which have been proposed are shown in Figure F. An alternative for commuter rail services to LAUPT with a suburban terminus at San Clemente was also defined. With this option, a station track (or passing track) at San Clemente would be required to mitigate significant operational conflicts between the commuter trains and four of the Amtrak intercity trains, and the trip time would be about 7 minutes longer. Table 3 REPRESENTATIVE AMTRAK OPERATING SCHEDULES DEFINED FOR DETERMINATION OF CANDIDATE CAPITAL ItMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WITH 10 INTERCITY (AMTRAK) TRAINS Southbound Northbound Deoart Los Angeles Depart San Diego --- 5:15a 6:45a 6:45a 8:45a 8:45a 10:45a 10:45a 12:45a 12:45a 2:45p 2:45p 3:45p -- 4:45p 4:45p 5:45p 5:45p 6:45p 6:45p 8:45p 8:45p The commuter rail operation in San Diego County was defined to operate between Oceanside and San Diego. The commuter trains would stop at Carlsbad (Elm Avenue); Carlsbad (Palomar Airport Road); Encinitas (La Costa); Encinitas (Birmingham Avenue); Del Mar; Sorrento; 'Miramar; Gilman Drive; and Old Town, as well as the terminal stations in San Diego and Oceanside. Total trip times would average about 70 -mnutes for this 41-mile service. 22 Los Angeles E at Los Angeles Commerce/Pico Rivers Los Angeles County Norwalk Buena Is'aF-k / Fullerton Anaheim Pacific Ocean Santa Ana North Irvine Orange County e Irvine AnMIs,lon Viejo Juan Capistrano San Clemente fb Existing Amtrak Station Q Amtrak Station Under Development QProposed Station (One Station in Los Angeles County and One Station in San Diego County to be an Amtrak Station, Del ?Aar Station to be Relocated) G� FIGURE F San Diego County Oceanside Carlsbad (Elm Avenue) Carlsbad (Palomar Airport Road) Encinitas (La Costs) Encinitas (Birmingham Avenue) �Doi Mar Sorrento Miramar Gilman Drive Old Town San Diego PROPOSED STATIONS WITH COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) CORRIDOR 23 A representative operating schedule for the San Diego County commuter rail services is shown below. This representative schedule is subject to adjustments do facilitate commuter train meets with intercity trains. Depart Oceanside 6:35a, 7:15a Arrive San Diego: 7i45a, 8:25a Depart San Diego: 5:15p, 6:OOp Arrive Oceanside 6:25p, 7:10p In addition to the candidate projects to enhance operations with 8-train frequencies, (Group B as listed above), candidate projects that would be necessary or desirable to implement Service Level B (10 intercity plus 2 commuter trains) were identified as follows: D (1) Proiects reauired to implement the service ($102.41 million) o A separate commuter station track and a commuter train storage track at Oceanside; the separate station track would be required to avoid conflicts between Amtrak and commuter trains at this key train -meet location, and the City of Oceanside has agreed to set aside land for a 4-track right-of-way, and a commuter line terminal ($2.04 million); o Trackage for equipment storage at Serra ($1.80 million); o =quipment with wide center doors and fixed low-level steps to permit rapid boarding suitable for the commuter operations. Four active train sets would be required, two for the Los Angeles - Orange County service and two for the San Diego County service ($32.70 million); o additional stations for the commuter rail service including 5 for Cos Angeles to Orange County service and 6 for Oceanside to San Diego service ($20.24 million); and 24 o Additional Amtrak equipment (2 additional train sets plus 10 additional coaches to accommodate ridership growth). Level of Service D would appear to require six active train sets for intercity service. However, two consecutive train sets must turn around in less than 30 minutes once a day at San Di ago: train set No. 5 in 25 minutes and train set No. 6 in 20 minutes. These turnaround times can probably be met with proper planning, but the cascading effect of missed train rneets for later trains will be much more pronounced if either or both trains arrive late in San Diego. In order to avoid this possibility, a seventh active train set would be necessary ($44.04 million). o Commuter service facilities at San Diego including storage tracks, turnouts, platform and signalization ($1.59 million). D (2) Desirable projects to permit reasonable scheduling and operational flexibility ($3.46 million) o A passing siding between Gilman Road and Old Town ($1.67 million); o A passing siding west of Del Mar at a location where a track had previously been in place ($1.31 million); and o Outside platforms and passenger underpasses or overpasses at the Fullerton and Oceanside stations. These irnorovements would be made particularly important at Fullerton by the introduction of commuter rail service ($0.48 million). D (3) Additional projects that are desirable for enhanced operations ($26.65 million) o Extension and upgrading of the south main track between Santa Ana and Irvine and installation of high speed turnouts to provide for passenger train meets and eliminate conflicts with freight operations, plus pro,rision of 50 mph double crossovers at Santa 25 �' c i Ana and Irvine for running around local switcher or freight trains ($12.79 million); o A passing siding between San Onofre and Fallbrook Junction near Las Flores or Agra ($1.67 million); o An underpass to the center platform at Santa Ana to provide passenger access ($0.18 million); o A double -track main line in conjunction with a track relocation between Sorrento and Miramar (which would close the single- track "gap" between Sorrento and Elvira ($8.11 million); and o No. 20 switches, signals and upgrading of sidings at Anaheim, Galivan and San Onofre ($3.90 million). The total cost of these projects which includes commuter rail service as well as two additional Amtrak trains, would be about $130.93 million (1986 dollars) of which $52.94 million would be for commuter rail equipment and stations and another $44.04 million for adjitlon.', Amtrak equipment to accommodate projected growth in patronage. The remainder, or $33.95 million of the total, would be for rail system infrastructure. E. Modifications to Existing Stations ($4.0 million) Access and parking facilities will need to be improved and/or expanded at Fullerton, Irvine, Sari Juan Capistrano, San Clemente and Del Mar. Approximately $4.0 million would be required to meet these needs, exclusive of existing local expansion plans which are already funded. This estimate includes station and trail; modifications at San Clemente and modest allowances for some property acquisition. F. Main Lane Track Uograde ($52.85 million) Where candidate projects would involve track modifications, it was assumed that the new track would be 136 lb. continuous welded rail suitable for higher speed 26 passenger train operations. An additional 95 miles of the line will need to be upgraded within about 10 years. Upgrading would consist of laying new 136 lb. continuous welded rail (CWR) and fastenings, plus 55 main line turnouts not otherwise replaced. Approximately 30 to 40 percent of the crossties and switch ties would be renewed and the track surfaced and lined. Additional ballast would be applied as required. On this basis, the cost of upgrading the main line track was estimated to be approximately $52.85 million (1986 dollars). This estimate is based on a relatively high unit cost value of $80 per linear foot of track replacement plus 10 percent for contingencies and 15 percent for engineering and construction management (plus costs relating to the turnouts). The relatively high preliminary unit cost value used reflects the large number of road crossings involved, and rail traffic operational requirements which would create implementation complexities and could lead to extensive work at night. It is possible that this track upgrading could be done for as little as $38 to $40 million. It should also be noted that the AT&SF is bound to a 1971 contract with Amtrak to maintain the "level of utility" of this rail line for 25 years or until 1996. The practical implications of this commitment with respect to rail replacement are not clear. If the entire 95 miles of track were to be replaced with lighter 115 lb. rail (similar to that in place between Fullerton and San Diego), the cost would be somewhat less (about 20 percent less) than the $38-$53 range indicated above. Summary of Caoit«1 Costs of Candidate Projects The total cost of all the candidate improvement projects identified above and considered appropriate for a 10 to 15 year program would be about $257 million (1986 dollars) as summarized in Table 4. This estimate is exclusive of the cost of public acquisition of the rail right-of-way (or rail facilities) between Fullerton and San Diego, a desirable long term objective. Various other high cost/lower priority projects were also identified for possible implementation over the longer term, subject to funding availability. These included line electrification, replacement of the Amtrak fleet, high-level platforms, cab signalling, extensive grade separation of the line, a tunnel in the Miramar Hills area, and replacement of wooden ties with concrete ties for maintenance cost reduction and ride quality benefits. These are all high cost 27 improvements which are not considered critical to the achievement of specified near -term objectives of this program. In Table 5, candidate improvement projects are summarized by type of service to distinguish Amtrak intercity improvements from commuter rail requirements. Table 4 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS CANDIDATE PROJECTS PROJECT GROUP(') A 25 Travel Time Reduction Projects B Desirable Early Action Track Improvements for Expanded Amtrack Service With 8 Daily Trains (Service Level A) C Two Additional Amtrak/Inter-City Stations and Relocation of Del Mar Amtrak Station D-1 Equipment and Track Improvements Required to Implement Service Level B (10 Amtrak Trains + Commuter Rail Services) D-2 Projects Desirable with Service Level B for Efficient Scheduling D-3 Additional Projects Desirable with Service Level 3 for Enhanced Operations E Modifications to Existing Stations F Main Line Track Upgrade/Rail Replacement TOTAL (1) Projects are not listed in priority order (2) Excludes cost to acquire AT&SF right-of-way. 28 ESTIMATED COST 1986 DOLLARS(2) (millions) $ 29.94 18.87 19.00 102.41 3.46 26.65 4.00 52.85 $ 257.18 Table 5 SUMMARY OF CANCIDATE PROJECT COSTS BY TYPE OF SERVICE 8-Train Schedule 1. Time Savings Projects 2. Upgrade Industry Siding & Double Track LAUPT lead 3. Four Crossovers 4. Double Track Serra - SJC 5. Upgrade Oceanside Siding 6. New Amtrak Stations TOTAL 10-Train Schedule - Amtrak Trains 1. Additional Rolling Stock (two train sets plus ten additional coaches) 2. Outside platforms cat passengi-r underpasses at Fullerton & Oceanside 3. Extend & upgrade South Main between Santa Ana and Irvine 4. Passing siding between San Onofre and F allbrook Junction 5. Underpass at Santa Ana Station 6. Double Track between Sorrento & Miramar* 7. Upgrade sidings at Anaheim, Galivan do San Onofre 8. Modify Existing Stations 9. Main Line track upgrade "TOTAL 2-Train Schedule - L.A.-Orange County Commute Trains 1. Trackage for equipment storage at Serra 2. Rolling Stock (2.5 train sets) 3. Five commuter stations 4. San Clemente Station & Track Modifications TOTAL 2-Train Schedule - San Diego Commute Trains 1. Commuter Station & Storage tracks at Oceanside 2. Rolling Stock (2.5 train sets) 3. Six Commuter Stations 4. Passing Sidings: (a) Between Gilman Rd. & Old Town (b) West of Del Mar 5. Commuter Facilities in San Diego TOTAL GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (millions) *A small portion of this cost could be attributed to commuter trains. 29 $ 29.94 6.70 4.26 6.11 1.80 19.00 $ 67.81 $ 44.04 0.49 12.79 1.67 0.18 3.11 3.90 1.80 52.85 $125.82 $ 1.80 16.35 12.00 2.20 $ 32.35 $ 2.04 16.35 8.24 1.67 1.31 1.59 31.20 $257.18 Candidate projects located in San Diego County (or attributed to San Diego County) account for about $122 million, or 47 percent of the total cost of all candidate projects; those in Orange County account for about $90 million, or 35 percent, and Los Angeles County projects account for $45 million, or 13 percent of the total cost. These percentages reflect a distribution of Amtrak fleet expansion costs according to the distribution of 1936 patronage at stations in each county, and an equal allocation of commuter rail vehicle costs for the Los Angeles -Orange County service to each of those two counties. 30 r- Potential Future Ridership In 1985, 1.344 million passenger trips were served by the San Diegans. Available data indicates that annual patronage reached the 1.433 million level in calendar year 1986, representing a 6.6 percent increase. Ridership has been increasing steadily in recent years despite declining gasoline prices and modest fare increases, as trains have been added and stations improved. Other factors which appear to have contributed to increased ridership are corridor -wide growth in population, increased levels of highway traffic congestion and effective marketing of the expanded rail services including introduction of a $7.00 return fare in September 1985. Interviews of a sample of the passengers using the San Diegans in July 1985 determined that full length trips between the corridor termini in Los Angeles and San Diego accounted for only about 19 percent of total patronage; 81 percent of the trips began or ended (or both) at one of the seven intermediate stations. Work - related trips account for about 30 percent of total ridership (substantially more on some trains), although service to commuters is not the Amtrak mission. These characteristics of rail patronage in this corridor were important considerations in assessing the impacts of candidate improvement projects on future ridership and the formulation of the proposed program of incremental improvements. The primary rail service -related factors affecting future patronage include th.- following. (1) Frequency of Service - It can be demonstrated that rail patronage increases in the LOSSAN corridor have followed the addition of trains to the Amtrak service. The added trains have certainly provided added capacity needed to accommodate patronage growth. The degree to which increased frequency of service beyond that currently provided would actually create additional patronage is less clear. (2) System .accessibility - The addition of stations would open up new rail markets and improve overall system accessibility. Estimates of the net effects of a new station must account for both the positive accessibility effects of patronage generated by the new station and the negative 31 effects on patronage at existing stations due to increased line -haul travel times. In addition, access and parking limitations at some stations (Fullerton, San Juan Capistrano and Del Mar, for example) represent constraints on patronage growth which must be mitigated or recognized in the ridership forecasting process. (3) Rail Operating Speed - Relatively small incremental improvements in rail operating speeds are attainable with modest capital investments in LOSSAN rail facilities. These will probably affect commuter and business travel to some extent, but other types of trips will be relatively insensitive to small travel time reductions. A potentially more important influence on comparative highway/rail travel times is increasing highway congestion. Rail travel time reductions through modest levels of capital investment will be needed to offset line -haul travel time losses due to the addition of new station stops to the Amtrak service. (4) Service Schedule - The substantial patronage of the existing service for work trips (and other studies of peak period transit needs in this corridor), indicate a market for additional peak period service oriented to commuters. (5) Schedule Reliability - On -time performance is perceived by users as an important factor, particularly by commuters and business travellers. Capital improvements to improve the reliability of LOSSAN rail service have been identified in this Study. If these improvements are not made, patronage growth could be adversely affected. (6) passenger Amenities - Major improvements in stations including passenger amenities have already been made at various locations. Ride quality is not ideal, and replacement of the aging track will be needed to improve this condition. Nevertheless, passenger amenities are probably less critical to patronage growth than the other factors noted above. 32 t- (7) Marketing and Pare Policy - These are important considerations which are outside the scope of this study. Intensive marketing of the LOSSAN rail service in recent years by both Amtrak and Caltrans appears to have been effective. The coordination of Amtrak and commuter rail services through an integrated fare policy could have a significant effect on patronage. For purposes of this study, future fare increases were assumed to be small and regular adjustments to offset inflation (as in recent years). A wealth of information already exists from prior studies relative to LOSSAN corridor rail patronage and future patronage potentials. The design of this current analysis of patronage potentials involved (1) collaboration between the consulting team and Caltrans, SANDAG and Amtrak; (2) use of relevant information and forecasts from the prior studies to the maximum extent practical and appropriate - particularly the Patronage Analysis of the Commuter Rail Element of the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternati,ies Analysis, conducted in 1982/83 by SCAG in collaboration with Caltrans; (3) emphasis on analyses of incremental changes from known and documented existing conditions and patronage levels (rather than theoretical projections of total patronage); and (4) careful consideration of the historical patronage response to incremental improvements previously implemented in the LOSSAN corridor such as additional train frequencies. Patronage forecasts were developed in this study for two basic conditions: (1) Service Level A - 1990 conditions with 8 Amtrak trains, the new Irvine station, travel time reductions and high priority operational improvements. (2) Service Level D - Year 2000 conditions with 10 Amtrak trains, 2 additional Amtrak stations and 2-train commuter rail services plus travel time reductions and operational improvements. 1990 Ridership with Service Level A With Service Level A, it was estimated that Amtrak patronage could be increased from the 1986 level of about 1.433 million passenger trips per year to the 33 V 1.740 to 1.940 million range by 1990 (see Table 6). Whereas the existing 7-train service carried about 205,000 annual passengers per weekday round trip in 1986, the patronage range projected for 1990 with Service Level A represents 220,000 to 240,000 annual passengers per round trip with S trains. The additional train will be needed to accommodate the added passenger loads attributable to growth, increasing highway congestion, the new station at Irvine and the effects of travel time reduction efforts. It is also quite likely that gasoline prices will increase with some effect on choice of mode. Table 6 1990 PATRONAGE FORECAST SERVICE LEVEL A 8 Daily Trains (Round Trips) CONDITION ANNUAL PASSENGER TRIPS 19S5 Annual Patronage 1956 Annual Patronage Impact of Eighth Train Impact of Irvine Station Impact of Travel Time Reductions Impact of Corridor Growth and Traffic Congestion 1,334,000 1,433,000 ± +60,000 to 120,0000) +25,000 to 75,000(2) +30,000 to 120,000(3) +125.000 to 175,000(4) TOTAL 1,740,000 to 1,940,000 (1) Range reflects uncertainty about precise train schedules which can influence attractivness of the eighth train to commuters (2) Range reflects level of service (i.e., the number of trains stopping at Irvine), and negative impacts on line travel times. Initial 1-train/day service would attract 25,000-35,000 trips/year. (3) Range reflects variable magnitude of time savings actually realized (i.e., number of candidate projects selected for implementation and operational changes actually made). (4) Range reflects uncertainty about growth projections and future gasoline prices. MA , Although increased train frequency is generally less important to potential users than trip time, cost and schedule reliability (at service levels under consideration in this study), the eighth train could be attractive to a new market -- San Diego commuters -- if scheduled to arrive in San Diego on its eastbound trip early enough. The eighth train is now planned to arrive in San Diego at about 3:25 A `Y I . The new station at Irvine was assumed to have one train -per -day service in each direction in 1990, scheduled to depart from Irvine for LAUPT at about 8:00 AM with a 5:45 PM return. On this basis, the net effect on overall line patronage is expected to be quite modest (25,000-35,000 passenger trips per year). If the initial response to this initial service is strong, additional trains could be scheduled to stop at Irvine and station patronage could reach the 75,000 level by 1990. Year 2000 Ridershio with Service Level 8 With Service Level $, Amtrak rail services :n the LOSSAN corridor could be attracting 2.3 to 2.5 million passenger trips per year by Year 2000, and the two 2- train-per-day commuter rail services would add 0.8 to 1.3 million passenger trips per year to the intercity total (see Table 7). Thus, if all candidate projects identified in this study were implemented, including commuter train operations, total line patronage could probabiy be increased to between 3.0 and 4.0 million by Year 2000, or 2 to 2.5 times the present level. Most of the added patronage over the level expected by 1990 with Service Level A would relate to growth and congestion effects (and possible gas price increases) and the new markets opened up by the added commuter rail services. The two additional inter -city trains would be desirable to accommodate the additional patronage expected between 1990 and 2000 as a result of corridor growth and congestion, and the added service (increased train frequencies) these trains would provide would induce some additional patronage. It should be noted, however, that although additional passenger trains would be desirable to increase patronage, they would reduce the daily "window of time" available to the AT&Si= for -ack maintenance and freight movement activities and thereby present certain op-.ational problems. 35 Table 7 YEAR 2000 PATRONAGE FORECAST SERVICE LEVEL B 10 Daily Trains r Commuter Rail Services CONDITION 1. Inter -City Rail Services 1985 Annual Patronage Estimated 1986 Annual Patronage 1990 Patronage -Service Level A (8 trains) Impact of Corridor Growth and Congestion With Two Additional Trains Two New Amtrak Stations - Los Angeles County - San Diego County Intercity Subtotal (10 trains) 2. Commuter Pail Services - Los Angeles/Orange County (2 trains) - San Diego County (2 trains) Commuter Subtotal 3. TOTAL CORRIDOR 36 ANNUAL PASSENGER TRIPS 1,334,000 1,433,000 1,740,000 to 1,940,000 460,000 to 5501000 ' 29,000 to 37,000 21,000 to 31,000 2,250,000 to 2,558,000 500,000 350,000 350,000 3,100,000 to 750,000 to 575,000 to 1,325,000 to 3,883,000 It is important to note that regional rail system connectivity will be important to the ultimate effectiveness of capital investments in the LOSSAN corridor and attainment of the patronage levels shown in Table 7. For example, the Los Angeles ,Metro Rail Project will provide an important link between intercity (and possible future commuter rail) services in the LOSSAN corridor and major activity centers in Los Angeles. An initial 4-mile segment of the subway through the Los Angeles central business district and terminating at LAUPT is planned for completion in 1992. Los Angeles County's Century Rail Line is another relevant project which could link the LOSSAN rail service with LAX and heavily populated areas of South Central and West Los Angeles. This project is planned for completion in 1993, but will end about two miles short of a possible connection with the rail line at Norwalk. Prospects for c!osing the gap with a rail extension do not appear to be very promising; however, a direct bus connection is likely. :Norwalk officials appear to be supportive of a new Amtrak or commuter rail systern at an appropriate location. In San Diego, several feasible alignments have been identified for a northerly extension of the existing San Diego Trolley (light rail) system. The alignment selected follows the I-5 corridor to the Del %,Iar Fairgrounds with a spur line east of 1-5 to North University City and continuing to I-805. This alignment provides for LOSSAN rail corridor interface possibilities at Gilman Drive, :Miramar or the Sorrento Valley. An extension of the San Diego Trolley as far as Gilman Drive is planned for completion by 1995, subject to funding availability. From the above, it appears that significant positive impacts on LOSSAN corridor rail patronage due to new connecting urban guideway systems are in prospect for the longer term future, and are reflected in the Year 2000 projections shown in Table 7. In addition, Caltrans and Amtrak plan to extend one daily San Diegan -train to Santa Barbara in the fall of 1987. Summary of Ridershio Potentials - Alternative Service Improvement Strategies Table 8 provides a summary of the future ridership levels to be expected for each of eight possible service improvement scenarios. Each of these projections is expressed in terms of a range of values, reflecting both rail system -related policy variables and uncertainty about future conditions which will significantly influence 37 Table 8 LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1990 - 8 Amtrak Trains Irvine Station + Travel Time Reductions !990 - 8 Amtrak Trains + San Diego County commuter rail 1990 - 3 Amtrak Trains + LA -Orange County commuter rail 1990 - 8 Amtrak Trains + both commuter rail services 1990 - 10 Amtrak Trains/Add'l Stations No commuter rail service 1990 - 10 Amtrak Trains/Add'1 Stations + San Diego County commuter rail 1990 - 10 Amtrak Trains/Add'1 Stations + LA -Orange County commuter rail 1990 - 10 Amtrak Trains/Add'1 Stations + both commuter rail services ANNUAL RIDERSHIP POTENTIAL 1,500,000 1,334,000 1,433,000 to 1,550,000 1,740,000 (1) to 1,940,000 (2) 1,990,000 to 2,340,000 2,140,000 to 2,540,000 2,390,000 to 2,940,000 1,840,000 to 2,040,000 2,090,000 to 2,440,000 2,240,000 to 2,640,000 2,690,000 to 3,040,000 2000 - 10 Amtrak Trains/Add'1 Stations 2,250,000 to 2,560,000 No commuter rail service 2000 - 3 Amtrak Trains 2,800,000 to 3,540,000 + both commuter rail services 2000 - 10 Amtrak Trains/Add'1 Stations 3,100,000 to 3,880,000 + both commuter rail services (1) Reflects only high priority travel time .reduction projects, 1 train/day service to Irvine and conservative allowances for growth and congestion effects. (2) Reflects all travel time reduction projects, additional train(s) to Irvine, higher allowances for growth and congestion, and higher gas prices. 38 rail patronage. Differences in potential patronage between alternative service dev--lopment strategies which focus on inter -city service expansion versus commuter rail service implementation are indicated by these projections. 39 %F' Maintenance and Operating Cost Implications of Service Expansion The annual cost of operating the seven daily Amtrak round trips in 1996 was about $21.7 million, including $2.4 million for interest and depreciation on rolling stock. This is an estimate based on recent Amtrak bills to Caltrans for the State - supported 403(b) trains which comprise part of the LOSSAN corridor service; train and engine crew costs were estimated as if furnished by the AT&SF for the entire year although Amtrak crews assumed control late in 1986. Annual costs in 1937 arc expected to be slightly lower at $21.3 million; projected savings with Amtrak train and engine crews operating the San Diegans are expected to be partially offset by anticipated increases in other cost items. (The 1987 cost estimate represents $20.5 million in 1986 dollars.) Projected Annual Operating Costs Estimated annual operating costs for intercity service expansion to 3 and 10 trains, and for introducing 2 train commuter rail services, are shown in Table 9. These estimates are expressed in 1986 dollars, with escalated values shown in parentheses. Adding an eighth train would increase annual operating costs by about $2.4 million at 1990 patronage levels (12 percent), excluding the effects of inflation. A 10-train service would increase operating costs by $6.4 million (29 percent) at projected 1990 patronage levels or by $8.5 million at Year 2000 patronage levels. (The increased cost between 1990 and 2000, excluding inflationary effects, relates to the need for longer trains and other cost items which vary with patronage). The projections shown in Table 9 suggest that the addition of the eighth train by 1990 would be cost-effective in that operating cost per passenger would be reduced by 1990 (in terms of 1986 dollars). Expansion to 10 trains by Year 2000 also would result in a reduced cost/passenger as compared to 1986/1987 levels; phased expansion with a ninth train soon after 1990 and the tenth train by 1995 would be appropriate. 40. Table 9 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS ($1986) Alternative Service Improvement Strategies ESTIMATED ANNUAL ANNUAL COST/ SERVICE ALTERNATIVES/YEAR OPERATING COST PATRONAGE PASSENGER (Millions) (Millions) A. Intercitv (Amtrak) Service 1936 - 7 Trains $ 21.7 1.433 $15..14 1987 - 7 Trains 20.5 1.500-1.550 13.67-13.23 (Amtrak crews) (21.3 escalated) 1990 - 3 Trains 22.9 1.740-1.940 13.16-11.80 (Service Level A) (27.3 escalated) ' 1990 - 10 Trains 26.9 1.840-2.040 14.62-13.19 (Service Level B) (31.7 escalated) 2000 - 10 Trains 29.0 2.250-2.560 12.89-11.33 (Service Level B) (56.6 escalated) B. Commuter nail Services Los Angeles - Orange County 1.543 0.500-0.750 3.07-2.05 (2.949 escalated to Year 2000) San Diego County 1.213 0.350-0.575 3.47-2.11 (2.323 escalated to Year 200) 41 Maintenance Cost Imolications The candidate projects identified to improve train operating speeds and reduce schedule conflicts would have some effect on the cost of maintaining the track and other railroad facilities if implemented. These costs could be expected to increase in most cases, but there would also be offsetting cost reduciions. The primary changes affecting maintenance costs, and order -of -magnitude estimates of the cost implications, are summarized in Table 10. Initially, there would be a significant increase in annual track and signal maintenance costs; the eventual replacement of the aging bolted rail with new continuous welded rail would probably result in a compensating cost reduction. Negotiations with the AT&SF would be necessary to establish firm values for these maintenance cost impacts as an elernent of broader negotiations relative to expanded public use and control of the railroad right-of-way. Table 10 MAINTENANCE COST IMPLICATIONS OF CANDIDATE PROJECTS ADDED REDUCED DESCRIPTION ANNUAL COST ANNUAL COST 1. Increase in Unbalanced Superelevation x 2. Use of 5" Max Superelevation x 3. Increase in Trackage $235,000-$240,000 4. Track Realignments x 5. Raise Speed at 3 Railroad Crossings ;,25,000-$30,000 6. Lengthen Road Crossing Signals Circuits o 0 7. Increase Length of Signalization $75,000-$80,000 S. Fences/Overpasses $8,000-$9,000 9. Track Upgrade with CWR $400,000 x = change in cost o = no change in cost 42 Operating, Subsidy Implications Implications of the rail service expansion alternatives with respect to operating subsidy requirements are reflected in the projections shown in Table 11. Assuming that additional patronage does develop as anticipated, farebox recovery of operating cost would be higher by 1990 than in 1986 with any of the alternative service plans studied. Farebox recovery for the Los Angeles -Orange County commuter rail service would range between 39 and 59 percent if implemented by 1990, the percentage depending upon actual ridership. Farebox recovery for the San Diego commuter service would probably be somewhat lower (311 to 50 percent). These estimates are based on an assumed $1.50 average fare for the commuter services. Table 11 PROJECTED FAREEOX RECOVERY ALTERNATIVE SERVICE EXPANSION PLANS Operating(l) Annual Annual Farebox Types/Level of Service Cost Rides Revenue(2) Recovery (millions) (millions) (millions) (percent) a) Inter City Rail Service 1986 - 7 Trains $21.7 1.43 $14.5 67 (AT&SF crews) 1987 - 7 Trair.s 20.5 1.50-1.55 15.3-15.8 75-77 (Amtrak crews) 1990 - 8 Trains 22.9 1.74-1.94 17.7-19.3 77-86 1990 - 10 Trains 26.9 1.84-2.04 18.8-20.3 70-77 2000 - 10 Trains 29.0 2.25-2.56 22.9-26.1 79-90 b) Commuter Rail Service, Los Angeles - Orange County 1990 - 2 Trains 1.54 0.40-0.60 0.60-0.90 39-58 2000 - 2 Trains 1.54 0.50-0.75 0.75-1.12 49-73 c) Commuter Rail Service, San Diego County 1990 - 2 Trains 1.21 0.25-0.40 0.38-0.60 31-50 2000 - 2 Trains 1.21 0.35-0.58 0.53-0.87 44-72 (1) Total route cost (1986 dollars) for all trains; includes interest and depreciation on equipment. (2) Assumes that future fare increases offset future rost inflation; assumes $1.50 average fare'for commuter rail service. 43 Environmental Impact Considerations A preliminary environmental review was conducted as part of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Study to identify potential adverse environmental impacts and concerns associated with candidate improvement projects and to highlight those impacts, if any, which could present significant barriers to project implementation. The intent was neither to perform a quantitative assessment of impacts related to these projects nor to produce a detailed environmental impact report (EIR) but rather to perform a summary review of environmental conditions along the alignment, highlighting potentially sensitive areas of concern which might then later be given more specific attention as the various projects progress toward implementation. As a result of this review, it was determined that no significant long-lasting environmental effects would result from implementation of the majority of the LOSSAN corridor candidate improvement projects. In fact, the high priority time savings projects and operational movements, in particular, would be environmentally beneficial due to improvements in rail service levels and patronage and modest reductions in freeway/highway congestion levels. The LOSSAN program of projects in general would further the region -wide goal of reducing dependence on the single occupant vehicle. While rail is inherently safer than auto travel, the projects calling for grade and signal crossing improvements, fencing, and double tracking would further mitigate safety concerns associated with higher train operating speeds. Other relevant considerations resulting from this preliminary environmental review are as follows- 0 Throughout the length of the corridor, a conscious effort was made to minimize displacements or property takings whenever possible. In fact, the taking of structures would be avoided in all cases (with the possible exception of a locally -sponsored plan to relocate the station at San Clemente) and property acquisition would be negligible. o Most of the proposed improvements occur within -the existing railroad right-of-way resulting in negligible change to environmental conditions along the alignment. 44 o In those instances where short-term construction -related impacts might result, careful planning and coordination with local jurisdictions would mitigate minor adverse effects. o At proposed new station sites where the potential does exist for moderate to significant impacts, including impacts on archeological and/or paleontological artifacts, more detailed site specific analyses might be required to determine the level of effect, if any. Issues of noise, glare, traffic circulation and auto emission levels will also need to be addressed as part of the station site selection process. No significant environmental impacts are forseen if station sites are carefully selected and adjusted to mitigate adverse effects which might be identified during the more specific site review process. o Careful consideration should be given to traffic/transportation, socioeconomic, land use, cultural, aesthetic, ecological, archeological/historical and noise issues throughout the corridor. At those locations where potential for adverse environmental impact exists, sensitivity to environmental issues should weigh heavily in the ultimate implementation decision. 45 I Capital Program Alternatives Capital programs consisting of different combinations of candidate projects were formualted for different funding levels and/or prioritization policies. These are summarized in Table 12. Two of these candidate programs (A-1 and A-2) represent improvement scenarios focussed on high priority travel time reduction projects and operational improvements. Alternatives B-1 and B-2 include a major program of rail replacement. Four others (C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4) represent alternative strategies for service expansion focusing on either expansion of Amtrak service or the introduction of commuter rail service. Scenario D combines all candidate projects into a single overall program. Program Alternative A-1 is a minimum cost approach which includes 13 low cost time savings projects and several track improvements which should be implemented in conjunction with the expansion of Amtrak service to 3 trains/day and the addition of the Irvine Station. The time savings projects will more than offset the adverse effects of the Irvine Station on through trip travel times; the other track improvements, while providing immediate benefits, will be required in any case prior to further service expansion of any type. Program Alternative A-2 consists of the same projects as Alternative A-1 but adds two new Amtrak stations -- one in southeast Los Angeles and one in the north - County -area of San Diego County. Adding new stations early in the program is not essential from the technical standpoint, but could be important to the development of a feasible multi -agency funding package for subsequent improvements. Essential to the continuation ,f higher -speed passenger train service beyond 1990 will be the extensive program of track upgrading and rail replacement. This work, included in Alternative B-1, should be initiated before any major program of service expansion or introduction of commuter rail services. It would be desirable to include rail replacement in any short-range capital improvement program, but the scale of this investment requires that it be implemented only in conjuction with a broad -ranging agreement with the AT&SF on public ownership or public control of the railroad right-of-way. 46 Table 12 ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ESTIMATED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE 1983 DOLLARS (millions) A-1 High Priority Time Savings Projects and Track Improvements for 3 Amtrak Trains(1) $ 23.05 A-2 A-1 Plus 2 New Amtrak Stations 35.15 B-1 A-2 Plus Track Upgrade(2) 98.00 B-2 B-1 Plus Additional Time Savings Projects 112.69 C-1 B-1 Plus 10 Amtrak Trains; Equipment and Track Improvements for Additional Amtrak cars for Increased Capacity; and Relocation of Del t.lar Station 168.94 C-2 B-1 Plus San Diego Commuter Rail Plus Related Track Improvements(3) 131.82 C-3 B-1 Plus LA -Orange County Commuter Rail Plus Related Track Improvements(3) 137.73 C-4 B-1 Plus Both Commuter Rail Services and Related Track Improvements(3) 181.55 D All Candidate Projects 257.18(4) (1) Includes time savings projects listed on page 11 plus Candidate Group B Projects B(b), B(C ) and part of B(a) plus 3 inch platforms at 3 stations. (2)Includes remaining 95 track miles of rail replacement in addition to rail replacement included in Program A-1. (3) Includes all relevant track improvements required for Service Level B but excludes Amtrak fleet expansion and Del Mar station relocation. (4) Excludes cost to acquire AT&SF right-of-way. Alternative B-2 would consist of Alternative B-1 plus any number of additional time savings projects as funding might allow (the cost figure shown reflects all candidate time savings projects not included in A-1). It is not essential that any of these additional time savings projects be implemented as a condition precedent to subsequent service expansion. These projects would b-- lower in priority than other candidate -projects. 47 Program Alternatives C-1 represents a distinctly different approach to servics- expansion in the 1990's than C-2, C-3 or C-4. Alternative C-1 would focus resources on additional Amtrak service. Alternatives C-2, C-3 and C-4 would focus on commuter rail services; C-2 would focus them on a new commuter rail service in San Diego County, C-3 would focus them on a Los Angeles -Orange County commuter rail service, and C-4 would include both commuter services. Although these approaches are mutually exclusive to a large extent, it is important to note that the trackwork included in Alternative C-1 would also be desirable (not essential) if commuter rail services were implemented without Amtrak service expansion. Program Alternative 0 includes all candidate projects which were considered appropriate for implementation prior to Year 2000. If Amtrak expansion and both commuter rail services were desired but the total funding required was not available for all remaining program items, the program could be scaled back somewhat by deferring low -priority time savings projects ($20-$25 million) and projects which are identified as desirable but not essential for service expansion ($20 million). There is also the possibility that sufficient track upgrading/rail replacement can be performed for $10-$15 million less than the conservative $53 million preliminary estimate. This would need to be confirmed by more detailed engineering. 48 Institutional and Financial Issues Each of the parties involved with making decisions regarding improvements to rail passenger service in the LOSSAN Corridor is confronted with several issues which can be expected to influence their point of view regarding investing in intercity or commuter rail improvements. The following is a composite of the major issues that were expressed during interviews with State, local and Amtrak officials and knowledgeable private interests. Amtrak - Amtrak desires to provide more intercity service in this corridor with little or no net increase in its operating cost. 'Moreover, Amtrak may desire to provide commuter service under a contract with the State or local agencies, provided the terms of the contract are such that they allow Amtrak to make a modest profit. Amtrak's capital budget does not have the resources to finance Corridor improvements; consequently, other sources of funds will have to be obtained, including congressional and State or local. State of California - Although it is acknowledged that the LOSSAN Corridor service has been extremely successful, the State wishes to minimize its participation in financing improvements to the LOSSAN Corridor. However, it is encountering an issue of equity, since it has participated in the financing of substantial improvements in connection with thc: Peninsula Commute Service. Unfortunately, the TP&D Account, the source of funds, is in decline. In addition, the State may find itself fiscally constrained because of the constitutionally imposed expenditure limitation. Finally, the State will continue to encourage cost-effective passenger rail service. AT&SF - The AT&SF desires to protect its track capacity between Fullerton and Los Angeles in order to accommodate added demand for timely freight service. Moreover, AT&SF desires to be reimbursed for any added maintenance costs associated with track and way improvements in the Corridor. AT&SF does not endorse the institution of commuter rail in the 49 Corridor, but is interested in disposing of its right-of-way between Fullerton and San Diego for "fair market value", since the predominant use of that segment of right• -way is passenger service; freight service on this line segment is only incidental. Finally, AT&SF is concerned that additional Amtrak stations would create operations! problems. Los Angeles Countv - There is a strong desire for at least one LOSSAN Corridor Amtrak stop in Los Angeles County. Although there is interest and support for ,naugurating commuter rail service from southern Orange County into Los Angeles, there is concern that the financial burden associated with commuter service not undermine the financial integrity of the Metro Rail project and the light rail transit projects. On the other hand, the regional connectivity afforded by the ease of transfer between corridor intercity and commuter servic.: and Metro Rail at LAUPT is recognized as potentially making a significant contribution of Metro Rail's patronage. Moreover, the possibility of enhanced regional connectivity with a link to the Century Freeway light rail transit line near Norwalk is recognized. Lastly, commuter servic^ in the 1-5 Corridor is regarded as a possible interim solution to a long-term commitment to extend Metro Rail down the Corridor. There is a strong interest in having an intermediate Amtrak passenger station added in southeast Los Angeles County. The fact that the only Corridor stop in the County is at the terminus of service at Union Station is viewed as unfortunate. It is argued that an intermediate stop would not only contribute to ridership, but increase awareness of the service on the part of the County's residents. There is also some interest in having several commuter rail stations in southeast Los Angeles County, if a commuter rail service becomes part of the rail corridor development program. Orange County - Along the railroad right-of-way there is considerable enthusiasm for passenger service. This enthusiasm is manifested by the station improvement programs local agencies have successfully promoted. In 50 addition, there is interest in additional service improvements in the Corridor, both intercity and commuter. On the other hand, there is a commitment to developing a program of highway and transit improvements in the I-5 Corridor. Thus, any financial commitments associated with Corridor improvements should not destabilize funding for the I-5 program of projects, especially the proposed busway program. San Diego County - In San Diego County there is strong interest in instituting commuter rail service between Oceanside and San Diego, as well as increasing intercity service. A major reason for the interest in commuter service is the increasing peak hour congestion on 1-5. In addition, commuter rail is viewed as an interim service until light rail transit can be extended north from metropolitan San Diego. There is also a desire to add a north - County station. Because of the proximity of the San Diego Trolley to the Amtrak terminal, the potential impact of regional connectivity is recognized. There is also the possibility of regional connectivity at Oceanside should a rail transit program be instituted between Oceanside and Escondido. Funding in San Diego is limited. The availability of funds for the program will probably depend on the passage of a local transportation sales tax. When considering the structure for organizing, to provide enhanced intercity and commuter service in the LOSSAN Corridor, the scope of authority of the organization ultimately selected should at least include the following: o Control over sufficient resources to carry out the agency's charge; o Authority to acquire and condemn property; o Authority to enter into contracts; o Authority to control the level -of -service and facilities necessary to provide the service; and o Capability of representing and advocating a community of interest, including users of beneficiaries of the service, and those who pay for the service. The following points summarize the conclusions of this study with regard to these institutional, and financial issues: 51 o Improvements to the existing service could be provided under the existing institutional arrangement. However, there is no formal mechanism by which local governments can express their concerns regarding levels of service, location of stops, quality of service and relai::d issues. o Sources of revenue which are available for funding LOSSAN Corridor capital improvements and operating subsidies are generally made available through specific policy decisions related to an appropriation or allocation process, as opposed to being distributed by formula. o The Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction policy at the national level and the Gann expenditure limitation at the state level put a premium on maximizing revenues from a variety of sources. This in turn requires an institutional arrangement capable of determining investment priorities in advance of the availability of funds, and which is capable of moving promptly to take advantage of funding opportunities as soon as they occur. o The principal source of State funding for financing LOSSAN corridor capital improvements and operating subsidies is the Transportation Planning and Development Account which has been funded in recent years at about one-half of its statutory minimum of $110 million. The other possible sources of State revenues for capital improvements, the Grade Separation Program and the Article XIX Guideway Program, are funded from the State Highway Account. There is considerable competition within the Corridor for funds from these sources to finance existing high priority projects such as the Metro Rail project and San Diego Trolley extensions. o Possible sources of local funds include the Transportation Development Act revenues, the local transit sales tax in Los Angeles County, redevelopment revenues and contributions from--iva'e sources. TDA revenues which are derived from a % percent o. the local sales tax generated $164.2 million in Los Angeles County, $53.9 million in Orange County and $41.1 mUlion in San Diego County in fiscal year 1936. By 52 1990, these funds are expected to grow to $195 million in Los Angeles County. Similarly, in Orange County TDA revenues are likely to increase to $63.3 million by the end of the decade. San Diego's TDA revenues will increase to $46.8 million. Expenses of transit operators who are entitled to TDA revenues will increase as well. Consequently, access to TDA revenues, especially for financing the operating deficit of a commuter rail program, may require the reprogramming of existing expenditure plans. o Other local funds such as redevelopment funds have been important in financing municipally sponsored station improvements. For example, the City of Santa Ana financed its new Amtrak station with $6.2 million of redevelopment funds. Likewise, the City of Fullerton committed $2.5 million in redevelopment funds to enhancing its station area. The City of Irvine received a contribution of land valued at $3.4 million from the Irvine Company for a new Amtrak station. Although it is anticipated that redevelopment revenues and other local sources will be made available in the future, it is difficult to forecast the exact amount of revenue that will be available since it will be related to specific local projects. o The principal sources of Federal funding are revenues made available through programs managed by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (U,MTA) and through Amtrak. A portion of UMTA Section 9 operating and capital assistance funds for the Los Angeles - Orange County metropolitan area and the San Diego area is derived from the number of passengers currently using the Corridor service during commuter hours. For the Los Angeles/Orange County urbanized region, this portion amounted to $3.9 million in Fiscal Year 1987, and for San Diego the relevant portion was $2.9 million -- for a total of $6.8 million. In Los Angeles County, funds attributed to this calculation have been used to finance the El Monte Busway operations and capital costs related to Metro Rail. Orange County is commiting $1.8 million of these funds to finance the $2.7 million realignment of the existing Santa Fe right-of-way and the construction of a new bridge at San Juan Capistrano. San Diego County has been allocating these funds for extension of the San Diego Trolley system. 53 It was found that UMTA funds have been used elsewhere in the State to finance the acquisition of commuter rail equipment. Caltrans financed I the acquisition of $106 million of rail equipment for the State sponsored Peninsula Commuter Service operating between San Jose and San Francisco using UMTA funds in conjunction with State funds. The UMTA funding program is scheduled for reauthorization during 1987; consequently, the amount of funds that will be available in the future from that source is unknown. o Amtrak is a viable source of funds for assisting in financing improvements in the LOSSAN Corridor. In addition to financing $2 billion of improvements to the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is joining the State of New Jersey to participate in the financing of rail improvements between Philadelphia and Atlantic City. Amtrak is also participating with the State of New York in the financing of a new passenger rail access into midtown Manhattan. o To secure revenues from Amtrak requires a congressional appropriation. Bec-Wse of interest elsewhere in the country in upgrading corridor rail pa :._ ?er services, especially in the Northeast, it may be possible to form • coalition of regional interests to advocate for additional funds in Congress. Among the groups that have exhibited an interest in such a coalition is the Conference of Northeast Governors. o The capital program can be prioritized in various ways and implemented in stages. Some program alternatives would emphasize improvements to intercity service, whereas others would focus on commuter service. o Although several institutional alternatives can be envisioned for providing an upgraded level of passenger rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor, the basic terms and conditions governing the provision of the existing service greatly constrain the available alternatives. 54 o Because the AT&SF owns the LOSSAN Corridor right-of-way and because the intercity service operated by Amtrak is part of its national system, the ultimate institutional arrangement implemented in the Corridor will be obligated to acknowledge the responsibilities of both of these entities. o There are three distinct communities of interest in the LOSSAN Corridor, each representing three identifiable markets. There is a community of interest concerned with the overall quality of intercity service. A second community of interest is concerned with sub - Corridor commuter service from Oceanside to San Diego. Advocates for sub -Corridor commuter service from San Clemente to Los Angeles constitute the third community of interest. o The State of California has taken the leadership in enhancing the level of intercity service which is consistent with State policy. Commuter service is the responsibility of local and regional agencies. o Other than continuing the status quo, it was found that at least three institutional alternatives, based on the execution of a joint exercise of powers agreement, are possible. One alternative assumes the inauguration of commuter rail service between Oceanside and San Diego. Another alternative is based on the provision of commuter rail service between San Clemente and downtown Los Angeles. o Existing State law allows the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the Orange County Transportation Commission to form a joint powers agency to plan and implement rail transit service between the two counties. o The third alternative for managing passenger service in the Corridor is the most mature, since it assumes the implementation of a commuter rail service through a contractual agreement with Amtrak, and public acquisition of control of the right-of-way from Fullerton to San Diego. 55 The parties to this intergovernmental consortium would include the State of California, representatives from the commuter agency operating in the Corridor in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, as well as the agency operating in San Diego County. o There is no established market value for the right-of-way between Fullerton and San Diego. Indeed, there are no comparable transactions to refer to for some idea of value. Consequently, acquisition of the right-of-way would be a negotiated purchase with several non -market factors influencing the final price. o Public control of the right-of-way might be achieved by either of two approaches -- purchase of the track facilities and the right-of-way, or purchase of track and facilities only with the right-of-way being held by the AT&SF. The value of the right-of-way alone would be relatively high; the purchase price for the track, bridges and signals would be based on the "in -place value" of these facilities. The in -place value would be the replacement cost less the value of accumulated usage or adjusted for the present condition. 56 Recommendations On the basis of this study, recommendations were developed for both short and long term actions which are grouped in two phases distinguished by prospects for funding availability, relative need, and institutional requirements. The practical timing for initiation of commuter rail service in either or both segments of the Corridor is highly dependent upon local decisions and funding. PHASE I (1) Establish a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency (JPA) to articulate the interests of the Corridor communities to State and Federal governments, Amtrak and the Santa Fe. Include agencies in the JPA which already exercise authority over transportation policy in the LOSSAN Corridor. Creation of a formal mechanism to manage the major elements of the overall program is recommended as a short term action. At this stage of institutional evolution, it is not intended that a new public agency be created to operate or contract for service, but rather to serve as a forum in which an expenditure program consistent with available revenues could be cooperatively developed and implemented. :Moreover, it would be a forum in which the common concerns of the Corridor communities and the users of the services could be articulated regarding the frequency of service, statlon stops, schedules and related matters. It would also be a forum in which the concerns of the Corridor communities could be expressed to State and Federal governments. Among the agencies from which the membership should be drawn are the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, the Orange County Transportation Commission, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Board, the North County Transit District, the three counties in the Corridor, and representatives of the muncipalities along the Corridor. 57 IWY (2) Seek the allocation of local funds in an amount equal to San Diegan- related U\ATA Section 9 funds available to Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties, contingent upon being matched by an equal amount of State funds, for the purpose of financing the recommended capital improvement program in conjunction with funding from other sources. The rationale for this approach is that (1) users of the San Diegan have "earned" these funds; and (2) there is a growing need for rail improvements in the San Diegan corridor which warrant consideration in the prioritization of Section 9 funding allocations. (3) Enter into an agreement with the AT&SF to credit an appropriate portion of the recommended public investment in track upgrading and rail replacement against the future price to acquire ownership of AT&SF railroad right-of-way and/or facilities required for LOSSAN corridor rail passenger services between Fullerton and San Diego and to acquire rights to utilize AT&SF facilities between Los Angeles and Fullerton. (4) Begin implementation of the Corridor improvement program with low- cost projects which will markedly improve Amtrak service with 8 intercity trains per day and demonstrate the continuing commitment of local agencies, the State administration and the legislature to the incremental upgrading of the Corridor's service and physical plant. The track improvements included in the first phase of this program would include limited replacement of aging rail (where projects would involve track modifications) which would represent a significant beginning to the needed replacement of rail throughout the long segment of line between Fullerton and San Diego. A modest short term capital improvement program which would meet the objective of this recommendation is shown in Table 13, Phase I, Part A. This program would achieve time savings of about 11 minutes. Moreover, it would provide Los Angeles County with its first intermediate station and add a station in San Diego County, provided that concerns of the AT&SF over operational impacts could be addressed satisfactorily. In addition, it world improve the platforms at 58 three stations. Lastly, the program contains several operational improvements which would facilitate the movement of both freight and passenger trains and protect the interests of shippers in an intensely used three mile segment of right-of-way in the industrial area of Los Angeles. Table 13 also identifies the suggested cost responsibility for the various improvements. (5) Initiate funding by 1990 for essential rail replacement and track upgrading to be fully implemented by 1995 (See Table 13, Phase I, Part B). An essential program of rail replacement would be initiated, in effect, as part of the recommended short-range program inasmuch as aging rail would be replaced in conjunction with track modifications. However, an additional 95 miles of rail (mostly between Fullerton and San Diego) would need to be replaced by about 1995 (or speeds reduced). An agreement with AF&SF would be needed whereby the costs of track upgrading are credited against the cost of public acquisition of railroad right-of-way and/or facilities. (6) Develop a funding mechanism for purchase of the AT&SF railroad right- of-way (or facilities) in the corridor from Fullerton to San Diego, and to acquire rights to utilize AT&SF right-of-way and facilities between Los Angeles and Fullerton. (7) Further evaluate the financial feasibility of instituting commuter rail service between Oceanside and downtown San Diego, and determine the specific timing for implementation (Phase I, Part C in Table 13). This evaluation should be undertaken jointly by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, the San Diego Association of Governments, and North County Transit. This is necessary to determine the final scope of the capital improvement program. (8) Further evaluate the financial feasibility of implementing commuter rail service between Orange County communities and downtown Los 59 Table 13 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor TENTATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST(!) C05T RESPONSIBILITY (millions) State Local Amtrak AT&SF PHASE I A. EXPAND//IMPROVE Amtrak SERVICE WITH EIGHT DAILY TRAINS (1937-1990) 1. High Priority Time Savings Projects $ 5.25 $2.625 $2.625 2. Add crossovers at four 4.26 2.130 2.130 locations (Los Angeles -Fullerton) 3. 8 inch platforms at Fullerton, 53C & San Clemente 0.57 0.233 0.235 4. Upgrade Industrial Lead and 5.06 2.530 2.530 Replace Siding (Los Angeles - Redondo Jct.) 5. Improving track from Serra to San Juan Capistrano & station improvements at 53C 6.11 2.755 0.600 2.755 6. Upgrade Oceanside Passing Tracks 1.30 0.900 0.900 7. Two New Amtrak Stations(2) 12.10 6.050 6.050 SUBTOTAL $ 35.13 $17.275 $6.933 $10.940 - B. UPGRADE TRACK/REPLACE RAIL (1990-1995) 5 52.35 $23.733 $23.732 $5.235 C. IMPLEMENT COMMUTER RAIL SERVICES 1. Commuter Rail; San Diego County 31.20 15.600 15.600 2. Commuter Rail; LAUPT- Orange County 32.35 16.L75 16.175 3. Track and Station Improvements Required for 10 Amtrak Trains & Commuter !tail 30.00 7.500 7.500 13.000 SUBTOTAL $ 93.55 $39.275 $39.275 $15.000 - PHASE II A. EXPAND Amtrak SERVICE TO TEN DAILY TRAINS 1. Add 2 Add'1 Amtrak Trains 27.10 13.550 13.550 2. Add'1 Time Savings Projects 24.69 12.345 12.345 3. Add 10 Amtrak Cars to accommodate growth 16.94 8.470 8.470 4. Del Mar Station Relocation 6.90 3.450 3.450 - SUBTOTAL $ 75.63 37.315 3.450 34.365 - GRAND TOTAL $ 257.18 $113.148 $49.660 $34.087 $5.235 (1) 1986 dollars; excludes cost to acquire AT & SF right-of-way or public control thereof. (2) Subject to satisfactory mitigation of rail freight operations concerns of the AT & SF. Angeles, and determine the specific timing for implementation (Phase I, Part C in Table 13). By law, this evaluation must be undertaken jointly by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and Orange County Transportation Commission. Further study is also necessary to define station locations and determine the specific scope of the commuter service. (9) Conduct more detailed technical studies and negotiations with AT & SF as required to implement one new Amtrak Station in Southeast Los Angeles County and one in San Diego County. Implementation of these two station additions is recommended subject to satisfactory mitigation of rail freight operations concerns of the AT&SF. PHASE II (1) Acquire the railroad right-of-way between Fullerton and San Diego (or acquire ownership of the railroad facilities with land ownership remaining with the AT&SF), and acquire rights to utilize AT&SF facilities over the long term between Los Angeles and Fullerton. The public interest in the negotiations should be represented by the State of California because of the value of the facilities for inter- regional transportation service. The terms and conditions of the acquisition should include a definition of the maximum number of trains per hour permitted to operate between Fullerton and Los Angeles, a formula for distributing the maintenance and related costs among the users of the right-of-way, a clear definition of where responsibilities rest for dispatching and controlling trains operating on the Corridor, and a provision ensuring that freight service will continue to be provided to southern Orange County and San Diego County. Local investments made prior to acquisition, such as rail replacement, should be credited to the purchase price in these negotiations. 61 Yfi � It is not dear that the land on which the railroad facilities between Fullerton and San Diego are located would have to be purchased as well as the facilities. Negotiations with the AT&SF might limit public acquisition requirements to the in -place value of the railroad facilities ' since it could be argued that there is no market for the land in the absence of railroad abandonment. (2) Expand Amtrak services incrementally by adding a ninth train after 1990, and adding a tenth train by 1995. (3) Provide additional intercity service capacity as may be required by adding cars to existing Amtrak trains during peak periods. (4) Implement additional higher -cost time savings projects subject to the availability of funding. (5) Develop a longer -range system development plan for the further development of this rail line beyond year 2000. (6) Create an intergovernmental consortium consisting of the State of California and the operators of the commuter rail service in the Corridor. Should the decision be taken to institute twelve or more trains in the LOSSAN Corridor (ten Corridor and two commuter trains) it would be appropriate to create an agency to oversee the implementation of the capital improvement program required to support this level of service. The short term institutional agreement (or JPA) recommended above would be dissolveri since sub -Corridor interests would be represented by the commuter agencies and the Corridor concerns by the State. The State should participate in the consortium by virtue of its role as the r ;ency having responsibility for providing the inter -regional Corridor service. Several institutional formats are available for structuring the 62 consortium, including the JPA, a co-operati,,re agreement, a memorandum of understanding and a statutory agency. The tri-partite agency that would evolve when the service level (ten Corridor trains and two commuter trains) is instituted would be the most mature public institution. (7) Promote the establishment of an Amtrak California regional office with responsibility over the scheduling of Corridor service, negotiating service contracts with the State and the sub -Corridor commuter agencies and serving as the link between the corridor consortium (or JPA) and the Santa Fe. 63 / -.4 Financing LOSSAN Corridor Improvements Financing the improvements in the Recommended Capital Improvement Program (RCIP) will require the marshalling of state, federal, Amtrak and local resources. The availability of resources can be expected to vary over time, depending on the capacity of the revenue sources to generate funds and the willingness of the state, federal and local governments to commit revenues to the improvements. The RCIP (Table 13) identifies the party or parties having responsibility for financing specific improvements. In terms of sharing the cost of improvements among state, local and federal governments and Amtrak, two fundamental assumptions were made. First, it is proposed that track and right-of-way improvements be shared between the state government and Amtrak. The reason being that the resources required to make these improvements are beyond the capacity of the local agencies. Moreover, all users of the rail service benefit - intercity corri.4or users, commuters and transfer riders from or to Amtrak's other services beginning and terminating in Los Angeles. Second, it is suggested that the cost of station improvements, commuter equipment and related maintenance facilities be shared between state and local agencies. Among the funds available to local governments, federal UMTA funds apportioned to urbanized areas by formula are considered local revenues f.o,P purposes of this analysis, since the UMTA Section 9 funds can be used at - discretion of local agencies for a variety of mass transit purposes including commuter rail service. The funding of station and commuter improvements is assigned to the state and local governments on the basis of the demonstrated capability of a state -local government partnership to fund successfully improvements of this type. Furthermore, the beneficiaries of the commuter improvements are corridor residents. In regard to the role of the State of California as a partner in the financing of commmuter-related improvements, it should be noted that the state has spent in 64 excess of $81 million for improvements to the Peninsula Commute Service between San Francisco and San Jose. Moreover, the state has programmed $182.9 million of improvements to the Peninsula Commute Service over the next five years. In the current fiscal year, the state has committed $9.3 million to capital improvements for the Peninsula Commute Service. For the next fiscal year, the state is seeking $21.7 million for additional Peninsula Commute Service related improvements. Consequently, as a matter of equity the financial involvement of the state in funding LOSSAN corridor improvements should not be unexpected. Sources of Local Revenues for LOSSAN Corridor Improvements Local governments have several sources of revenue at their disposal for participating in the financing of LOSSAN corridor improvements. To date, they have used redevelopment funds, Transportation Development Act funds and federal transit assistance funds. In addition, Los Angeles County has a Y2 percent sales tax to finance transit improvements. San Diego County anticipates seeking voter approval for a similar tax in 1987. To be sure, there is considerable competition for these funds; consequently, the commitment of local funds to the LOSSAN corridor will require the careful balancing of priorities among competing claims. Sources of State Revenues for Funding LOSSAN Corridor Improvements The main source of state revenues is the Transportation Planning and Development account (TP&D). State law sets the minimum annual amount of revenue in the TP&D account at $110 million. Forty percent of the revenues in the account are used to fund transit capital. After appropriation by the legislature the funds are allocated to specific projects by the California Transportation Commission. The selection of projects is a competitive process. Caltrans and the Commission review applications for the funds and award grants to worthy projects. Although the account has not always been funded to its statutory minimum, revenues have been allocated from the account to various transit projects, including the Peninsula Commute Service. A systematic program of projects, such as recommended in the RCIP, around which there is local concensus, has been looked upon favorably by the Commissior. 65 11 A Sources of Amtrak Revenues for Funding LOSSAN Corridor Imorovernents Amtrak funds available for financing LOSSAN corridor improvements will result from Congressional appropriations. Congress has been willing to finance similar improvements to Amtrak elsewhere in the Country. To secure Congressional appropriations, it will be necessary for California and the corridor communities to forge a coalition with other regions of the Country. An important ground rule governing appropriations for improvements of the type in the RCIP is that the additional service or facilities must not add cost to Amtrak's operations. W. APPENDIX A SENATE BILL NO. 1095, Craven Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor Study `6. " �j Senate Bill No. 1095 CHAPTER 1313 An act relating to transportation, and malting an appropriation therefor. (Approved by Governor September 30, 1W. Filed with Secretary of Sate October 1. 1965.1 LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST SB 1095, Craven. Transportation: Los Angeles -San Diego rail corridor study group. Under existing law, the Department of Transportation performs various functions regarding planning and ' funding for transportation -related projects. This bill would state certain legislative findings and declarations regarding the rail transportation needs and alternatives within the Los Angeles -San Diego transportation corridor. The bill would create the Los Angeles -San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group chaired by the Director of Transportation or the director's designee. The bill would authorize the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, the Orange County Transportation Commission, the Southern California Association of Governments, and the San Diego Association of Governments to each appoint a representative to the study group. The bill would also authorize the Speaker of the Assembly, the Senate Committee on Rules, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Secretary -Treasurer of the California Labor Federation to each appoint a representative to the study group. The bill would direct the study group to identify improvements on the line that will reduce inning times, increase service reliability, and facilitate the operation of additional intercity and commuter trains, while maintaining current freight capacity; develop criteria to c etermine the priorities of these improvements on a cost=uenent oasis; investigate the feasibility of public acquisition of the line to preserve rail passenger and transit service; establish an implementation and funding plan; and prepare and submit to the Legislature a report of its findings and recommendations on or before January 1, 1997. The bill would appropriate $150,000 from the Transportation Planning and Development Account in the State Transportation Fund to the department for these purposes, to be made available to match, in an equal amount, any funds or in -kind services or contributions provided for the purposes from nonstate sources. Appropriation: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 91 so Ch. 1313 —2— SECTION 1. The Legislature Finds and declares as follows: (a) In the Los Angeles -San Diego transportation corridor, which traverses the state's three most populous counties, is one of the most heavily traveied transportation corridors in the country. State Highway Route 5, which is the major transportation facility serving this corridor, is already operating at design capacity on many segments of .he highway. (b) It is obvious that, if the ever-expanding transportation needs in the Los Angeles -San Diego corridor are to be met, alternate modes of transportation need to be expanded and the corridor studied and considered as a whole in achievine this end. (c) The existing rail line in the Los Angeles -San Diego corridor has the potential to accommodate a significant portion of intercity and commuter travel within the corridor, and it is necessary and in the public interest to develop a program of upgrading the line to accommodate faster and more frequent rail service that will not disruot essential freight service. SEC. 2. (a) There is hereby created the Los Angeles -San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group. The group shall be chaired by the Director of Transportation or a designee of the director. (b) The following may each appoint a representative to the group: (1) T'ne Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. (2) The Orange County Transportation Commission. (3) The Southern California Association of Governments. (4) The San Diego Association of Governments. (3) The Speaker of the Assembly. (o) The Senate Committee on Rules. (7) The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). (8) The Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe Railway -Company. (9) The Federal Railroad Administration. (10) The Secretary -Treasurer of the California Labor Federation. This representative to the group shall be a resident of the County of Los Angeles, Orange, or San Diego; currently emploved in one of the crafts engaged in the operation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation trains in the Los Angeles -San Diego corridor; and a representative of a group of employees so engaged. (c) The group shall develop a program of incremental upgrading of the rail corridor and, in this connection, shall do all of the following: (1) Identify improvements on the line that will reduce train running times, increase reliability of service, and facilitate additional frequencies for both intercity and commuter service, while maintaining capacity for current freight operations. (A) Review e.dsting studies of the rail transportation needs of the corridor. (B) Survey present utilization of facilities for rail travel within the corridor. 91 80 -3— Ch. 1313 (2) Develop criteria to determine priorities of these isnl.-ovements on a cost -benefit bass, and analyze and make recommendations of the feasible alternative modes of rail transportation. (3) Investigate the feasibility of public acquisition of all or part of the line to preserve rail passenger and transit service. (4) Establish an implementation and funding plan. (d) The group shall prepare and submit to the Legislature a report of its .findings and recommendations to the Legislature on or before january 1, 1987. SEC. 3. The sum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) is hereby appropriated from the Transportation Planning and Development Account in the State Transportation Fund to the Department of Transportation for purposes of Section 2 of this act, to be made available to match, in an equal amount, any funds or in -kind services or contributions provided for these purposes from nonstate sources. U 91 90 Appendix B DIAGRAM OF SANTA FE LINES Los Angeles - San Diego lD co s J fn � I w h i a N_ r �- O N Y. Y i u s u u .. Y I ¢ ¢ J N s Cc, r - 'L. EX W O O Z U r a OZ y LU w w W J U yq W ;r. La)q C J J w W a J ¢ 0 0 3 Z O O J = fn a. C N Q (n CL Z O .❑.° III$$- t Q LLJ O fn J O W ¢ O J U N N 0 zZ N .-1 Q W UZ O— to Z Q W (n I-- Z N O cr rn m Q 32 �41Ul Z O U o `oa r� rs �'- w z O n' \ \� ¢ O O m U a z ¢` r `n > (I (n U Z O s M o \ b. a w ea a Vl 6 J � mr W (XK` u.) A8Vd VN3ns 'Oo 3pNVao _ �( .11Nn0o 'V'1 l ¢ O Q (D ¢ cn U 2 d y N IA W - W ¢ z N 6 N r- UN �N 4 _ -r T XK Q ❑ V ¢ ix O > ¢ / d d' u l < asro — N 0113931NOW W U C O U \ cr cx 4 2 .>.. OZ Z t� w ¢ r 0, 9,730&V Sol _ mo mo Q �- or 0 = o 0 a Y, GG _ cm c c 70 N> !� LL W r u YI W =\ cc r r WN wcx OC r V1 U I 03 3111 1 I IJ Lvil ----• ul �yQ r N N ■ Us yWs / o 0 yr. N o'y O a 0 W O z Q N O 1 � 2 In N o . W In — _ a / N O 0 J C / N - �> W F In O = W I N i J 2 1 N p O i x}ll W U. In 41 O I- J J Q 111 a It Z U 0 ¢ % z In I a o c u I N v u Q o ! W a > p a O ui ~ J U a _ -- C N I ♦Z G Z al ci O p O N O O r-¢ .O. H _� N. N O 1- ...1 0:^� U 1n a O Q fn W z N a U I t N J1 cli O O In l O r N K z ®� LLl N O p z a ¢ J W N W O D a sr a U M,q rcJ 1 - ��) 3r1 I l I I-O L vw L I NI IF' Appendix C LIST OF TECHNICAL WORKING PAPERS Los Angeles - San Diego State Rail Corridor Study LIST OF TECHNICAL WORKING PAPERS AND REPORTS Los Angeles - San Diego Rail Corridor Study Working Paper No. I Working Paper No. 2 Working Paper No. 3 Working Paper No. 3A Working Paper No. 4 Project Evaluation Worksheet Candidate Improvement Project List Assumptions and Procedures for Speed and Travel Time Analysis Speed and Travel Times Analysis Prioritization of Project Evaluation Criteria Working Paper No. 4A Documentation of Prioritization Workshop Interim Report Evaluation of Systerns Operations Working Paper No. 5A Rail Patronage Characteristics Working Paper No. 5B Rail Patronage Forecasts Working Paper No. 6 Working Paper No. 7 Working Paper No. 3 Working Paper No. 9 Working Paper No. 10 Interim Report Draft Summary Report Candidate New Stations Environmental Review Capital Cost Estimates Increased Maintenance Cost Operations Costs Financial and Institutional Issues 06/06/86 06/02/36 06/19/86 07/25/36 07/07/86 07/18/36 09/11/86 08/28/86 10/10/86 07/21/86 03/06/87 08/08/36 10/13/36 11/26/36 01/08/37 03/17/37 t THE LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Sharon Greene, Chair Warren '~Veber Matt Paul Thomas Glover Craig Johnson Michael '.don Bijan Yarjani/Alan Havens Q.W. Torpin/A1 Polich Jim Larson/Ron Scolaro Helene Kornblatt Glen Campbell Bill Lorenz/Bow Bowman/John Puskas Patricia Kouios Janet Habel Ken Fischer Terry Galvin John Harris Ken Montgomery Byron Nordberg Bill Schlapper Patricia Willcocks/Amy Jane Frater Pam Hallan Gibson/Jennifer Williams Bill Liebel Ken Nelson/Lathon Wells/Andy Shigenaga Bill Dillon Carl Schiermeyer Brad Wiliams/Bob Matson OCTC Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation Caltrans, Division of Mass Transportation LACTC SANDAG SCA G AT&SF AMTRAK MTDB, San Diego OCTD County of San Diego County of Los Angeles Anaheim Buena Park Fullerton Irvine Norwalk Oceanside Pico Rivera San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Caltrans, Los Angeles CalTrans, San Diego Consultant Irvine Company RESOLUTION NO. 87-59 ,1 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE LOS ANGELES - LAN DIEGO (LOSSAN) STATE RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY WHEREAS, the City of Encinitas has reviewed the Draft. Los Angeles - San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study; and WHEREAS, the Study has identified improvements in the rail corridor that will reduce intercity AMTRAK rail running time and facilitate the operation of•aL�itional intercity trains; and WHEREAS, the San Diego region's proposed commuter service between Oceanside and San Diego will be further studied to determine its cost effectiveness and potential as an alternative to growing traffic congestion in the coastal corridor; and WHEREAS, the City of Encinitas will have an opportunity to review actual rail station locations and implementation actions resulting from additional analysis; and WHEREAS, the November 3, 1987 Local Transportation Ballot Measure, if passed, will provide a source of revenue to implement commuter rail service; NOW THEREFORE BE -IT RESOLVED that the City of Encinitas does hereby approve in concept the draft Los Angeles -San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Study with the understanding that the City of Encinitas will reserve final approval on station locations, right-of-way CCRO.Ol/JEP/dnc �a ownership, and commuter operations until the cdmpletion of more _! detailed follow-ups analysis by the State and local agencies. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of ue , 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Gaines, Steel, Shea, Omsted, Luke NAYS: None ABSENT: ,IV.-. orie Gaines, Mayor ATTEST: E. &ne Pool, City Clerk CCRO.01/JEP/dnc