San Bernardino Line Infrastructure Improvement Study

San Gabriel Valley COG Transportation Committee

August 21, 2014
1
What is Metro Regional Rail
> Manage more than
165 miles of R/W in
L.A. County
> Develop capital
improvement projects
and programs.
> Coordinate with
Metrolink, Amtrak,
CHSRA, and freight.
Los Angeles
Union Station
To Bakersfield
High Desert
Corridor
San Bernardino Line
Antelope Valley Line
LOSSAN Corridor
2
Regional Rail in L.A. County
> We are taking a strong role in the region and the state
regarding passenger rail.
> Working with Metrolink to define needs in L.A. County.
> Working with local municipalities to identify needs in L.A.
County.
> Developing a Regional Rail program.
> Programming projects to advance regional rail.
> Working with the LOSSAN J PA on strategic needs.
3
San Bernardino Line
Los Angeles
Union Station
San Bernardino Line
4
> Busiest line in the
Metrolink system, 13,000
daily riders.
> Twenty minute peak period
headways.
> Shared passenger and
freight service.
> 55 Miles, 33 in L.A. County
> 38 Miles single track with
sidings.
> 13 Stations, 8 in L. A.
County
Weekday Boardings By Station
5
Study Goals
> Identify cost effective
infrastructure
improvements that lead to
the following outcomes:
> Increased average train
speed.
> Reduced travel times.
> Enhanced overall
capacity.
> Safety enhancements.
> Model the system for the
future
6
Items Studied
> Safety Enhancements:
>Fencing
>Grade crossings
> Examine Stations
>Parking
>Platforms
> Utilities
>Culverts
>Fiber optics
>Electrical
> Right-of- way
>Constraints
>Impact on capacity
improvements
7
Challenges
> 70% of the corridor is
single track.
> Limited ability for peak
hour trains to pass.
> Right of way constraints
> I-10 Freeway.
> Narrow right-of-way.
> 68 At-grade crossings in
L.A. County
8
Study Goals
9
Capital Cost Assessment
10
Double Track
Corridors
I
-
1
0

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

C
P

A
m
a
r

(
M
P

1
6
.
6
)


t
o

C
P

I
r
w
i
n

(
M
P

2
0
.
4
)

C
P

B
a
r
r
a
n
c
a

(
M
P

2
3
.
4
)


t
o

C
P

W
h
i
t
e

(
M
P

3
0
.
4
)


L
o
n
e

H
i
l
l

A
v
e

(
M
P

2
6
.
5
5
)


t
o

C
P

W
h
i
t
e

(
M
P

3
0
.
4
)

(
A
L
T
)

C
P

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

(
M
P

3
4
.
6
)


t
o

C
P

A
r
c
h
i
b
a
l
d

(
M
P

4
0
.
2
)

C
P

L
i
l
a
c

(
M
P

5
2
.
4
)


t
o

C
P

R
a
n
c
h
o

(
M
P

5
5
.
3
)

Cost



Right of Way Impacts



Qualitative Rating Cost Range ($M) Right of Way Impacts (Miles of
Potential ROW Acquisition)
High - >$110 M >1.75
Medium-
$80 M - $110 M 0.25 1.75
Low - <$80 M <0.25

Legend
Modeling
> Different scenarios were modeled for the strategic
placement of improvements.
> Modeling took into account present and planned growth
of the system.
> Several double track locations were examined for
effectiveness.
> Some were excluded due to feasibility:
>High cost
>Right of way limitations
>I-10 freeway
11
Modeling Tables
Base Case
12
Alternative Base
Delay (%) 6.99
Delay minutes per 100
train miles (min)
4.14
On time performance
(%)
93.27
Alternative Base CP Central -
CP
Archibald
Lone Hill
Ave. - CP
White
CP Lilac -
CP Rancho
Delay (%) 4.90 3.92 4.81 4.38
Delay minutes per 100
train miles (min)
2.82 2.22 2.78 2.52
On time performance (%) 95.24 97.42 93.80 94.57
Scenario 2 Base case with independent potential double track projects
Modeling Tables
Scenario 3 Scenario 2 with an additional round trip with a 44
train daily schedule
13
Alternative Lone Hill
Ave.
- CP White +
CP Central -
CP
Archibald
CP Central
- CP
Archibald +
CP
Lilac - CP
Rancho
Lone Hill
Ave. -
CP White +
CP Lilac -
CP
Rancho
Delay (%) 4.81 4.40 4.73
Delay minutes per 100
train miles (min)
3.35 3.06 3.33
On time performance (%) 93.02 92.08 88.64
> Scenario 4 2020: Each combination modeled with a 48 train
daily schedule
Alternative Lone Hill
Ave. - CP
White
CP Central
CP
Archibald
CP Lilac -
CP Rancho
Delay (%) 5.31 5.15 5.06
Delay minutes per 100
train miles (min)
3.65 3.51 3.45
On time performance (%) 88.85 88.40 87.81
Modeling Tables
14
Alternative Lone Hill
Ave.
- CP White +
CP Central -
CP
Archibald
CP Central
- CP
Archibald +
CP
Lilac - CP
Rancho
Lone Hill
Ave. -
CP White +
CP Lilac -
CP
Rancho
Delay (%) 5.65 4.51 5.82
Delay minutes per 100
train miles (min)
4.58 3.65 4.76
On time performance (%) 94.12 93.51 90.44
> Scenario 5 2035: Each combination modeled with a 56 train
daily schedule
Modeling Results
> A segment of single track between Lone Hill Ave. and
CP White was a strong candidate.
> This double track segment will provide capacity for:
>Second Express round trip trains.
>Allow an increase in daily trains from 42 to 44.
> An accompanying project in San Bernardino in tandem
will allow an increase from 42 to 48 trains a day in the
near term.
> The two double track projects will allow 56 daily trains in
2036.
> The largest factor affected is on-time performance.
15
16
Station
The Study made several recommendations for station
improvements that need further study
17
Station Improvements for Further Study
Cal State L.A. Additional Parking (100 spaces), Lengthen platforms
El Monte Consider relocation of station to be adjacent to the El Monte
Transit Center. Would include an elevated second track and
access to bus station. TOD potential
Baldwin Park Additional Parking (100 spaces), Lengthen platforms, TOD
potential
Covina Additional Parking (200 spaces), Lengthen platforms,
pedestrian overpass
Pomona North Additional Parking (200 spaces), TOD potential
Claremont Pedestrian overpass, lengthen platforms, TOD potential
Ridership
> Ridership modeling is being developed with SCAG
>Looking at the impacts of the proposed
improvements to ridership.
> Examining a limited skip/stop service:
>Some trains will serve a group of stations while
others will serve the rest.
> Operational modeling determined that some trains could
stop at four stations only and maintain OTP.
> Modeling will assess the impacts to ridership.
18
Lone Hill to CP White
> Double Track
> Env. and PE
> 3.8 Miles in length
> Eliminate an existing
bottleneck
> Provide additional
capacity - up to 44 trains
in the near term.
> RFP expected
Fall/Winter 2014
19
Project Area
Lone Hill to CP White Costs
20
Task Duration 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Preliminary
Engineering
March 2015 March 2016 1.9 - - - - - 1.9
Final Design March 2016 - March 2017 - 1.7 2.0 - - - 3.7
Construction J uly 2017 - Dec 2018 - - - 43.8 22.6 - 66.4
Total $1.9 $1.7 $2.0 $43.8 $22.6 - $71.9
Lone Hill Avenue to CP White, Project Cost by Year (in millions, YOE $)
Summary of Potential Funding Sources
21
Programming Agency/Source
Availability Estimated Range
Metro
Measure R 3%

$20+M annually until FY 2039, PTC first priority.

Proposition C 10%

$7M-18M annually
CMAQ

$10M-15M annually after FY 30

State Transit Assistance (STA)

<$1M annually
Caltrans
Proposition 1B Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Account
(HRCSA)

CHSR
Proposition 1A High Speed Rail Bonds - Early Investment

SB Line not eligible for Phase I

CARB
AB 32 Cap and Trade Auction Revenues

$50M proposed for rail modernization in FY 15, with up

to $100-$400M annually thereafter (10% set-aside for
disadvantaged communities)
FTA
Section 5309 New Starts Core Capacity

Not likely to be competitive based on ridership

projections
Legend:
Potential Near-Term Availability Limited Availability
Fully Committed to Other Projects
Potential Near Term Availability
Limited Availability
Fully committed to other projects
Conclusions
> The study of potential double track projects in L.A.
County showed that the Lone Hill to CP White was the
most beneficial.
> Further studies need to be conducted regarding
stations.
> Grade crossings should be further evaluated.
> Advance corridor fencing and right of way security
measures.
> Look at opportunities for funding projects.
> Work with the cities to advance projects.
>Station work
>Grade crossings
22