Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review Organized based on Caltrans Strategic Goals

JUNE 2013

Faculty: Pavlína Látková, Ph.D., Jackson Wilson, Ph.D., Erik Rosegard, Ph.D., Asunción Suren, Ed.D. Research Assistants: Rachelle Wilson, Joshua Hodges, Nicolo Enriquez, Rebecca Griswold, Jasmine Ferguson, Cassandra Blank, Susie Barr-Wilson

Images provided by California Department of Transportation, iStockphoto, and stock.XCHNG. Graphic design by Victoria Odson.

Executive Summary This report briefly documents the historical happenings of passenger rail. Although the focus is on the state supported passenger rail corridors; Capitol, Pacific Surfliner, and San Joaquin; this effort is complemented by information about passenger rail across the US and other modalities of passenger travel. The historical overview uses data from internal documents provided by Caltrans and a range of external material.

The key results of the historical overview of Amtrak and Caltrans are reported in seven sections: (1) Introduction, (2) History, (3) Safety, (4) Mobility, (5) Delivery, (6) Stewardship, and (7) Service. The last five sections are aligned with Caltrans’ strategic goals.

Introduction Amtrak is a quasi-public organization with the federal government being the main stakeholder. In accordance with the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), Amtrak is charged with the provision of efficient and effective service that is a viable transportation option. This report is partially reliant on comprehensive rail plans that are required by PRIIA and the state of California. These plans assist the Division of Rail’s capital, operations, and marketing departments with development and implementation of strategies to collectively address Caltrans’ five strategic goals. Although vision and mission statements, and strategic goals are similar among plans (e.g., Caltrans, Intercity Passenger Rail, California Transportation Plan), there are enough differences to warrant a comparative analysis to determine priorities and potential conflicts among plans.

History Passenger rail shifted the mass transportation paradigm in the US. Since development of transcontinental railroad, the fortunes of passenger rail have risen and fallen. Due to alternative modes of transportation (i.e., auto and air), passenger rail miles decreased nearly 80% from the 1920s until the 1970s, passenger rail services were not profitable and lost significant funding from the government. Congress responded by establishing Amtrak in 1971 to release the obligations of private railroads to provide domestic passenger rail travel.

Nationwide, Amtrak began services in 43 states with a total of 21 routes on May 1, 1971 (Amtrak, 2012c). The outdated rolling stock and general underinvestment by the private sector in passenger rail left Amtrak struggling to be a for-profit company.

In California, both Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin Corridors suffered discontinued service on several occasions. Through reorganization, statesupported trains, and legislation, Amtrak regained ridership with a recent increase of 49% from 2000 to 2012. In addition, three of the top five routes in the US (measured by number of passengers served) are California corridors (i.e., Capitol, Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin).

In 2008, Congress passed PRIIA, which strengthened the US passenger rail network by tasking Amtrak and other stakeholders (e.g., California, Federal

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

1

Railroad Administration) to improve service, operations, and facilities. The Act focuses on intercity passenger rail and authorizes the appropriation of funds to the US Department of Transportation for fiscal years 2009-2013 to award grants to Amtrak covering operating costs, capital investments, and partial repayment of long-term debt. Other legislation (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, National Environmental Policy Act) has directed Amtrak to focus on several issues including safety.

Safety Safety is a key aspect of the passenger rail mission in the US and California. The total number of passenger rail accidents/incidents in the US and California has seen a slight increase over time. Specifically, there were 378 incidents or accidents reported in California in 2012 (Figure 1). Although the total number of accidents/incidents in California appears to be on the rise, when adjusted for the ridership on Amtrak California state supported trains (Figure 2), the number of accidents/incidents compared to number of riders is decreasing. After 2008, the number of train-related fatalities fell in California (Figure 3) and the death of on-duty employees is extremely rare (Figure 4).

In contrast to accidents/incidents as a whole, the number of train accidents (Figure 5) and highway-rail incidents is decreasing (Figure 8). The US and California have had slightly different patterns in train accident causation over the last seven years (Figures 6 &7). In the US, the number one source of accidents was obstructions and other types of causes. In comparison, derailment was the top cause for train accidents in California. Stories about collisions, derailments, and fatalities assist with safety-related statistics interpretation. A brief overview of safety-related measures adopted by passenger rail in California suggests rail safety has been gradually improving.

Mobility In accordance with Caltrans goal to maximize transportation system performance and accessibility, passenger rail in California provides mobility to millions of passengers every year. Amtrak operates a national intercity passenger rail network of more than 21,200 miles of routes, serving an average of 82,000 passengers daily and more than 500 destinations in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and three Canadian provinces (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). State supported corridors are the fastest growing portion of the Amtrak system (Boardman, 2011). State supported trains carry half (50%) of Amtrak’s annual riders (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). In FY12, Amtrak had a record number of passengers, 31.2 million (Snider & Everett, 2012). This was a 3.5% increase in ridership and an associated 6.8% increase in ticket revenue.

Amtrak-owned property includes 363 miles of the 457-mile Northeast Corridor (NEC), a 60.5 mile track segment between New Haven (CT) and Springfield (MA), 104 miles of track between Philadelphia and Harrisburg (PA), and a 96-mile segment in Michigan and Indiana (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). As of FY11, Amtrak served 524 stations (Figure 10) (Amtrak, 2012c) including 74 stations in California.

Amtrak is the nation’s only high-speed intercity passenger rail provider with trains operating at speeds equal to or exceeding 150 mph (241 kph). The NEC is the busiest rail corridor in North America with more than 825,000 riders generating more than 4.9 million passenger miles every weekday (Amtrak, 2012c). The NEC is the only Amtrak corridor that has no operating losses (Keane, 2012) and accounts for 52% of all Amtrak ticket revenues (Amtrak, 2012b).

Amtrak is preparing for the next-generation 220 mph High Speed Rail (HSR) service along the NEC. It has begun to implement a fleet renewal program to meet anticipated future service expansion (Amtrak, 2012c) that will potentially quadruple ridership in the NEC (Keane, 2012).

2

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Caltrans funds three of the five busiest state-supported corridors in the country, the Pacific Surfliner corridor (ranked second), Capitol Corridor (ranked third), and San Joaquin corridor (ranked fifth). The number of passengers in the state supported Amtrak corridors increased over the last decade, even when accounting for increases in California state population (Figures 18, 19, & 20). Long distance trains, commuter trains, and feeder buses all contribute to the mobility of Americans. Although the NEC is the only current example of HSR in the US, California is developing a HSR system that may eventually eclipse the NEC.

Delivery Caltrans’ mission reflects a commitment to efficient delivery of quality transportation and services in order to improve the movement of people, goods, and service across California. The Division of Rail’s capital program has developed and implemented strategies to facilitate the delivery of Amtrak California related projects on time and on budget (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Amtrak’s ability to efficiently deliver quality capital projects depends on continuing support from the public (i.e., state and local entities and federal appropriations) and private sectors. These investments are crucial for Amtrak’s infrastructure, systems, rolling stock and station maintenance, as well as the NEC improvements (Amtrak, 2011b). The FY12 Amtrak’s capital projects budget (not including debt service) totaled $1,086.4 million (including $686.6 million from general federal appropriations after an estimated $9.5 million deduction for FRA oversight) (Amtrak, 2012e). Capital projects funds are utilized to rebuild, upgrade, and modernize existing infrastructure (e.g., tracks, bridges, stations) across the US and to build new infrastructure along the NEC (Amtrak, 2011b).

Recent capital projects conducted reflect increased interest in HSR and the need to advance compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (Amtrak, 2012c). Specifically, Amtrak capital projects focused on improving the NEC services and building a 2-track, HSR alignment between Boston and Washington to serve the fast-growing intercity rail market known as “NextGen HSR” system, and making Amtrak rail stations accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities (Amtrak, 2012e).

Capital projects in California have mainly focused on increasing reliability, ontime performance (OTP), and improving safety on existing routes. As outlined in the 2013 California State Rail Plan draft, future capital projects will focus on the development of integrated rail service and expansion of state-supported intercity rail routes to improve mobility across California and to address various challenges associated with population growth in California (California Department of Transportation, 2013).

Stewardship The Caltrans goal of stewardship reflects the California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2025 vision, which defines quality of life as a “prosperous economy,” “quality environment,” and “social equity,” and identifies the transportation system as an “enhanced, ecologically healthy environment, and is developed with appropriate safeguards to protect open space, agricultural and sensitive lands, critical habitats, wildlife, and water and air quality; to minimize noise and visual impacts; and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases” (California Department of Transportation, 2006b).

The perceived value of rail in comparison to other forms of domestic passenger transportation is highly political and controversial (Cervero & Guerra, 2011; United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011). On one side, passenger

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

3

rail promoters laud it as an energy efficient, land efficient, relatively safe, environmentally friendly, underfunded, increasingly popular, socially just form of transportation that reduces dependence on foreign oil and reduces costs related to congestion. Conversely, detractors posit that passenger rail in general, and Amtrak specifically, is an economically inefficient boondoggle that costs American taxpayers too much money and suppresses private competition.

It is often difficult to directly compare different modalities of transportation with research and statistics being used to support both sides of the argument. Amtrak receives approximately 7% of the subsidy level that air receives and 3% of what highways receive (Figure 23) (Amtrak, 2011a; United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011). However, it may be more appropriate to compare the modalities based on the number of passengers, or passenger miles each mode is responsible for since there are far more cars and trucks on the road than locomotives and cars on rails (Figure 24), even though the passenger rail vehicles experience far more miles per vehicle (Figure 25). Moreover, the capacity of rail vehicles is second only to air (Figures 26). This high capacity coupled with longer lifespans means that rail locomotives and cars have far more passenger miles on them compared to the vehicles that travel by other modes (Figure 27).

Examples of economic and environmental impacts range from on-time performance, and cost recovery to aggressively reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and expanding and electrifying HSR. Examples include the finding that Amtrak’s farebox recovery ratio of 79% in 2010 was significantly higher to the 57% recovery for Federal Aviation Administration and a similar percentage (<60%) for the highway system. With the transportation sector being the number one contributor of GHG emissions at 40%, rail emits significantly less GHG than air or auto. Amtrak continues to improve infrastructure and be a steward of economic and environmental resources.

Service Caltrans’ mission is also committed to promoting quality service through an excellent workforce. The Division of Rail’s marketing program has implemented new strategies to promote new services and recent improvements, developed strategic partnerships, and incorporated new online technologies to communicate with their customers more effectively and efficiently (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

This commitment extends to the provision of a quality customer-driven intercity passenger rail system in the US. Amtrak has been actively engaged in social media marketing, allowing Amtrak passengers to stay connected with Amtrak via Facebook, YouTube, Google+, and Whistle Stop. Amtrak has launched numerous marketing campaigns to introduce new onboard services and amenities (e.g., Wi-Fi, e-ticketing, and quiet cars). Amtrak has implemented various types of training to enhance workforce performance (Amtrak, 2012e) and seeks out and rewards employees who demonstrate excellent customer service (Amtrak, 2011b).

Market research suggests that most California travelers do not consider taking the train when making travel decisions. As a result, Caltrans has adopted and implemented various marketing strategies to increase awareness of Amtrak California rail travel as a viable mode of transportation, and to overall increase demand for rail service, ridership, and revenue (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). The marketing program has utilized a variety of advertising media, including TV, radio, the Internet, billboards, posters, newspapers, and magazines to attract customers. The “Rail 2 Rail” and “Rediscover California” projects are examples of successful branding in advertising for Amtrak California (California Department of Transportation, 2003b; 2008b).

4

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Amtrak California has been involved in several grass-root marketing projects focusing on the virtue of train travel. These projects have resulted in public awareness and interest for state-supported corridors, generated positive media coverage, and positioned Amtrak California as a feasible and progressive travel option across California. Exploratory research of FY10 Amtrak California Advertising found the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Travel Made Simpleâ&#x20AC;? campaign to be the most successful of the four out-of-home advertising campaigns tested. The WinterSpring FY11 Amtrak California campaign follow-up study (SRBI, 2011) found the Amtrak California brand awareness has increased as a result of the winter/ spring 2011 campaign that mainly focused on the amenities of train travel.

While seven percent (7%) of customers reported that the advertising campaign contributed to their decision to travel on Amtrak California, a comprehensive study to quantify the longitudinal effects (e.g., on ridership and revenue) of the aforementioned campaign needs to be conducted.

Summary In summary, this historical overview, although not exhaustive, reflects an amalgamation of both internal organization documents and external information. The synthesis of material generally supports Caltrans Division of Railâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision and strategic goals.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

5

Capitol Davis Corridor Martinez Oakland

San Jose

Antioch

Auburn Roseville Sacramento

Stockton

Turlock

Modesto

Merced Madera

San Joaquin

Fresno Hanford Corcoran

San Luis Obispo

Wasco

P Sur

Bak

Santa Barbara Oxnard

Los Angeles Fullerton Santa Ana San Juan Capistrano

Oceanside Solana Beach San Diego

6

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Table of Contents 1. Introduction.......................................................... 12 1.1. Amtrak and Caltrans Mission, Vision, Goals...............................................................................................................................................................12

2. History...................................................................... 14 2.1. Amtrak and Caltrans history...............................................................................................................................................................................................14 2.2. Legislation and Strategic Reform for Amtrak California.....................................................................................................................................15 2.3. Three Corridors............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 2.3.1. Pacific Surfliner........................................................................................................................................................................................................16 2.3.2. San Joaquin.............................................................................................................................................................................................................16 2.3.3. Capitol Corridor.......................................................................................................................................................................................................17 2.4. Passenger Rail Service and the California Department of Transportation.............................................................................................18 2.5. Legislation impacting passenger rail support.........................................................................................................................................................19 2.6. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Provide the safest transportation system in the nation for users and workers.

3. SAFETY:.......................................................................

20 3.1. Safety Statistics............................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 3.1.1. Fatalities.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 3.1.2. Train Accidents........................................................................................................................................................................................................23 3.1.3. Highway-Rail Incidents........................................................................................................................................................................................26 3.2. National and International...................................................................................................................................................................................................27 3.2.1. Miscellaneous Issues.............................................................................................................................................................................................27 3.2.2. Derailments & Collisions......................................................................................................................................................................................27 3.2.3. Missing Persons.......................................................................................................................................................................................................27 3.2.4. Safety Improvements............................................................................................................................................................................................28 3.3. California.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29 3.4. Summary........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

7

Maximize transportation system performance and accessibility.

4. MOBILITY:....................................................................

30 4.1. National and International...................................................................................................................................................................................................30 4.1.1. High Speed Rail (HSR)...........................................................................................................................................................................................32 4.1.2. Long Distance Trains.............................................................................................................................................................................................36 4.1.3. State Supported and Other Short-Distance Routes................................................................................................................................36 4.2. California.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37 4.2.1. Ridership.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................37 4.2.2. High Speed Rail (HSR)...........................................................................................................................................................................................41 4.2.3. Feeder Bus Lines......................................................................................................................................................................................................43 4.2.4. Commuter Trains....................................................................................................................................................................................................43 4.3. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................43 Efficiently deliver quality transportation projects and services.

5. DELIVERY:...................................................................

44 5.1. National and International...................................................................................................................................................................................................44 5.1.1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)..........................................................................................................................................44 5.1.2. High Speed Rail (HSR)...........................................................................................................................................................................................44 5.1.3. Capital Projects Investments.............................................................................................................................................................................44 5.2. California.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................48 5.2.1. Capital Projects FY08 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FY18..............................................................................................................................................................................48 5.2.2. Capital Projects by Funding...............................................................................................................................................................................54 5.3. Summary........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57 Preserve and enhance Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources and assets.

6. Stewardship:..........................................................

58 6.1. Economics and Alternative Modes of Transportation........................................................................................................................................58 6.1.1. Relative Level of Subsidies by Mode................................................................................................................................................................58 6.1.2. Funding......................................................................................................................................................................................................................65 6.1.3. Trains and Equipment..........................................................................................................................................................................................66 6.1.4. Food and Beverage................................................................................................................................................................................................66 6.1.5. Congestion................................................................................................................................................................................................................66

8

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

6.2. Environmental.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................68 6.2.1. Pollution.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 6.2.2. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)......................................................................................................................................70 6.2.3. Energy Consumption............................................................................................................................................................................................74 6.3. Mitigation Strategies...............................................................................................................................................................................................................77 6.4. Summary........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................77 Promote quality service through an excellent workforce.

7. Service:.....................................................................

78 7.1. International/National Marketing....................................................................................................................................................................................78 7.1.1. Customer Satisfaction..........................................................................................................................................................................................79 7.1.2. Services and Amenities........................................................................................................................................................................................80 7.1.3. Workforce...................................................................................................................................................................................................................80 7.2. California.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................80 7.2.1. Marketing..................................................................................................................................................................................................................80 7.2.2. Partnerships..............................................................................................................................................................................................................84 7.2.3. Services and Amenities........................................................................................................................................................................................85 7.3. Summary........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................85

8. Summary and Conclusions............................... 86 8.1. Summary........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................86 8.1.1. History.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................86 8.1.2. Safety...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................87 8.1.3. Mobility.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................87 8.1.4. Delivery.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................87 8.1.5. Stewardship..............................................................................................................................................................................................................87 8.1.6. Service.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................87 8.2. Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................................................................................................................88

9. References........................................................... 89 Amtrak California: Market Research Project FY06-FY13 10. Appendix A:.................................................................

99

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

9

Table of Tables Table 1. Amtrak Capital Programs Budget Summary (FY12)..................................................................................................................................45 Table 2. Summary of FY12 Capital Program Budget by Department (millions).........................................................................................45 Table 3. Overview of Sample Amtrak Capital Projects Completed in FY11..................................................................................................46 Table 4. Unconstrained Ten-Year Intercity Rail Capital Program Project Costs (FY08 - FY18) ($ in millions).............................48 Table 5. Constrained Ten-Year Intercity Rail Capital Program Project Costs (FY08 - FY18)...................................................................48 Table 6. Unconstrained Capital Program Projects: Pacific Surfliner Route (FY08 - FY18)......................................................................49 Table 7. Unconstrained Capital Program Projects: Capitol Corridor (FY08-FY18)......................................................................................51 Table 8. Unconstrained Capital Program Projects: San Joaquin Route (FY07-FY08)................................................................................52 Table 9. San Joaquin Capital Projects 1993-2012............................................................................................................................................................53 Table 10. San Joaquin Capital Projects Currently Under Construction (FY12).............................................................................................53 Table 11. Summary of Projects by Project Types (July 1976-December 2005) ($ in millions).............................................................55 Table 12. Summary of Projects by Funding Source (July 1976-December 2005) ($ in millions)......................................................55 Table 13. Comparison of Federal Support for Different Modalities.....................................................................................................................62 Table 14. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Mode, 1990 and 2012 (Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent).........71 Table 15. Total Life-Cycle Inventory and Operational Results (per PMT)..........................................................................................................72 Table 16. Analysis Components.................................................................................................................................................................................................73 Table 17. Return on Investment Modal Utilization Assumptions and Results..............................................................................................74

10

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Table of Figures Figure 1. Total Accidents/Incidents.........................................................................................................................................................................................20 Figure 2. Total California Accidents/Incidents Adjusted for Ridership...............................................................................................................21 Figure 3. Fatalities...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 4. Employees on Duty Fatalities.................................................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 5. Train Accidents................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Figure 6. US: Causes of Train Accidents.................................................................................................................................................................................24 Figure 7. California: Causes of Train Accidents..................................................................................................................................................................25 Figure 8. Highway-Rail Incidents...............................................................................................................................................................................................26 Figure 9. Number of Stations Served by Amtrak.............................................................................................................................................................30 Figure 10. Number of Stations Amtrak Uses by State, FY11.....................................................................................................................................31 Figure 11. Rolling Stock in Service...........................................................................................................................................................................................31 Figure 12. NEC......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 13. Washington-New York Air-Rail Market...........................................................................................................................................................33 Figure 14. Daily Petrol Consumption by Mode................................................................................................................................................................34 Figure 15. Daily Petrol Consumption, Freight vs. Passenger Rail...........................................................................................................................34 Figure 16. Average Trip Fare Comparison by Mode......................................................................................................................................................37 Figure 17. Pacific Surfliner: Ridership......................................................................................................................................................................................38 Figure 18. Capitol Corridor: Ridership....................................................................................................................................................................................39 Figure 19. San Joaquin: Ridership.............................................................................................................................................................................................39 Figure 20. Average Passenger Train Trip Length..............................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 21. Passenger Miles per Mode....................................................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 22. San Joaquin Corridor: Modeled/Proposed Projects.............................................................................................................................54 Figure 23. Comparison of Federal Subsidies in Different Transportation Modalities...............................................................................59 Figure 24. Number of Vehicles (Thousands)......................................................................................................................................................................60 Figure 25. Average Mile per Vehicle........................................................................................................................................................................................60 Figure 26. Load Factor.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................61 Figure 27. Average Passengers Miles per Vehicle...........................................................................................................................................................61 Figure 28. Federal Direct Subsidies by Mode....................................................................................................................................................................63 Figure 29. Pacific Surfliner: Farebox Ratio............................................................................................................................................................................63 Figure 30. San Joaquin: Farebox Ratio...................................................................................................................................................................................64 Figure 31. Capitol Corridor: Farebox Ratio..........................................................................................................................................................................64 Figure 32. Total US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector in 2011..............................................................................................70 Figure 33. Passenger Rail Energy Consumption..............................................................................................................................................................74 Figure 34. BTU by Mode.................................................................................................................................................................................................................75 Figure 35. BTU per Vehicle Mile, Modal Comparison....................................................................................................................................................75 Figure 36. BTU per Passenger Mile, Modal Comparison.............................................................................................................................................76

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

11

1.

Introduction

This report fulfills milestone one and two as presented in the FY13 contract with SF State, Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism. The purpose of this report is to provide a historical overview of Amtrak and Caltrans from 1976 to current, and to review relevant internal documents, scholarly research, popular literature, and other existing data on Amtrak California, comparable modes of transportation, and rail corridors. Findings from this report identify emerging themes, information gaps, and future areas for research. After an introduction and brief history, the report uses Caltrans’ strategic goals as a framework and will be divided into the following sections: (1) Introduction, (2) History, (3) Safety, (4) Mobility, (5) Delivery, (6) Stewardship, and (7) Service.

1.1. Amtrak and Caltrans Mission, Vision, Goals Amtrak is a federally chartered corporation operating as a for-profit company with the federal government being the main stakeholder – creating a quasi-public organization. Amtrak’s Board of Directors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). The Board of Directors is charged with corporate policy establishment and management oversight. Prior to 2008, the Board of Directors was made up of 7 voting members (Amtrak, 2011b; Federal Railroad Administration, 2012); however, under the provision of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), Amtrak’s Board of Directors was reorganized and expanded to nine members (Amtrak, 2012c).

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) administers federal grants to Amtrak for both operations and capital improvements. To facilitate the increasing demand for Amtrak services, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) charged Amtrak “to provide efficient and effective intercity passenger rail mobility consisting of high quality service that is trip-time competitive with other intercity travel option.” This mission describes a vision of Amtrak as efficient and effective.

Although Amtrak has classically provided both long-distance and intra-city rail services, its mission is focused on

12

inter-city passenger rail service. Finally, the mission recognizes that there are other modalities of transportation that customers could choose (e.g., road and air), and that rail should provide a “competitive” service.

Amtrak has five goals it intends to implement by 2015 that focus the organization’s efforts towards safety and security, mobility and connectivity, organizational excellence, environmental sustainability, and customer service (Amtrak, 2012c).

• Safety and security: “Become North America’s safest, most secure railroad by creating a collaborative, team-oriented workplace culture that minimizes risks and maximizes passenger and employee safety” • Mobility and connectivity: “Improve national mobility and connectivity by growing Amtrak’s business through new partnerships, routes and frequencies to increase ridership system wide” • Organizational excellence: “Attain a standard of organizational excellence by aligning our products, services, processes and culture with stakeholder expectations to improve financial performance and overall business results”

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

• Environmental sustainability: “Contribute to the nation’s environmental health by attracting automobile and air travelers to trains, while improving Amtrak’s efficiency and reducing transportationrelated carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption” • Customer service: “Advance customer service quality by responding to the wants, needs and expectations of our customers in order to improve their experience and maximize passenger and partner satisfaction” In addition, PRIIA requires states to prepare comprehensive rail plans.

California Government Code Section 14036 requires a 10-year state rail plan. This plan takes into account and complements the other modal plans, initiatives, and legislation [e.g., Governor’s strategic Growth Plan (SGP), Global Warming Solutions Act (A32), California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2040, California Interregional Blueprint, California State Rail Plan (CSRP)] (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Vision/Mission is “Caltrans improves mobility across California,” and has the following strategic goals: • Safety: Provide the safest transportation system in the nation for users and workers

• Mobility: Maximize transportation system performance and accessibility • Delivery: Efficiently deliver quality transportation projects and services • Stewardship: Preserve and enhance California’s resources and assets • Service: Promote quality service through an excellent workforce Aligned with the Caltrans Vision and Mission is the Intercity Passenger Rail Vision, which broadens the Caltrans strategic goals. Specifically, the Division of Rail aims to: • Provide a rail transportation alternative to other travel modes • Provide relief to highway and air transportation congestion. Improve air quality, conserve fuel, and contribute to efficient and environmentally superior land use (California Department of Transportation, 2008a, p. 8) The departments of capital, operations, and marketing programs have developed and implemented strategic goals to collectively address the Division of Rail’s vision. This report will provide a literature review using the above strategic goals of Caltrans as a framework.

Amtrak, a quasi-public organization, has many constituents to answer to with the federal government being the main stakeholder. Both PRIIA and the state of California require comprehensive rail plans, which are produced in concert with other modal plans, initiatives and legislation. The capital, operations, and marketing departments have developed and implemented strategic goals to collectively address Caltrans’ five strategic goals, and although vision and mission statements, and strategic goals are similar among plans (e.g., Caltrans, Intercity Passenger Rail, California Transportation Plan), there are enough differences to warrant a comparative analysis to determine priorities and potential conflicts between plans.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

13

2.

history

To gain a better understanding of the current status and future direction of passenger rail, section two will provide a brief overview of Amtrak and Caltrans history including the formation of the three corridors (i.e., Capitol, Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin). Section two will also provide key legislation that influenced the purpose and direction of passenger rail in the United States and within California.

2.1. Amtrak and Caltrans history From our modern perspective, it is difficult to understand how revolutionary the train was to civilization. The trailer for the 2013 Disney remaking of the classic, The Lone Ranger, captures some of the radical shifts that this new form of mass transportation promised for Americans. “From the time of Alexander the Great, no man could travel faster than the horse that carried him. Not anymore. Imagine, time and space, under the mastery of man. Power that makes emperors and kings look like fools” (Disney, 2012). Before rail, the easiest cross continental route was taking a boat around the tip of South America.

Passenger rail shifted the paradigm of mass transportation away from being just about boats. Rail offered the first form of mass land transportation the world had ever known (Nice, 1998). The Golden Spike that symbolically and practically tied the two sides of the USA together with a transcontinental railroad was driven in 1869 in Promontory, Utah (Wheaton, 2011).

Since that time, the fortunes of passenger rail have risen and fallen.

With only a small break in the pattern during World War II, passenger rail saw consistent decreases in popularity during the 20th century. From the 1920s to the 1970s, passenger rail miles in America dropped nearly 80% (Nice, 1998). Nice (1998) also noted that a substantial number of rail passengers chose alternative forms of transportation with a significant increase in automobile ownership and use throughout the 20th century. Although they required a much higher initial investment and were less safe, Americans appreciated the flexibility and convenience of taking their 14

" Established by the 1970 Rail Passenger Service Act enacted by Congress, Amtrak’s purpose was to release private railroads from the financial obligation of providing rail passenger services." cars and trucks wherever and whenever they wanted to. If an individual/family could not afford a personal vehicle, buses offered a form of mass transit that took advantage of the developing highway system. Moreover, flying in commercial airplanes offered an alternative that was often faster and cheaper than rail for longdistance travelers (Nice, 1998).

This decrease in the number of passengers was a primary factor leading to consistent financial losses for those companies that continued to offer passenger rail services.

By the 1960s, most passenger rail services were not profitable (Nice, 1998). This led to a request by rail companies to discontinue the congressionally mandated passenger rail, and shift entirely to the still profitable business of freight. Congress reacted to this move by creating Amtrak – a quasi-public organization to manage passenger rail in America. Originally founded as Railpax, Amtrak was founded in October 1970, as a for-profit government-owned corporation (California Department of Transportation, 1980; 1983b). Nationwide Amtrak began service on May 1, 1971. It served 43 states with a total of 21 routes (Amtrak, 2012c).

Amtrak’s purpose was to release private railroads from the financial obligation

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

of providing rail passenger services, an expense of over $400 million per year at that time (California Department of Transportation, 1980; 1983b). Amtrak was authorized to operate intercity rail passenger service beyond the basic system services when requested by a regional or local agency, state, or group of states (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). Eighteen railroads joined Amtrak, while only two long-haul rail carriers declined (California Department of Transportation, 1986).

In 1975, Amtrak began re-equipping its trains, and by 1981, its entire fleet was replaced with new Superliner equipment or rehabilitated equipment (California Department of Transportation, 1984).

At the same time, Amtrak assumed responsibility for intercity passenger service in the State of California (California Department of Transportation, 1983b).

Amtrak’s charge to provide intercity rail passenger transportation may not seem that controversial. However, from the beginning of Amtrak, there were conflicting visions about what the role of a fledgling company should be. On one side of the debate, interests felt that Amtrak should be a revival of passenger rail service in America. On the other side, supporters

saw Amtrak as a short-term transition to ease the move to the inevitable discontinuance of passenger rail in America (Nice, 1998). These opposing views about the role of Amtrak led to acrimonious debates about whether Amtrak should be managed to make a profit by eliminating unprofitable lines, or whether it should maintain routes in order to support the resilience of the domestic passenger transportation infrastructure (Nice, 1998).

The ability of Amtrak to make a profit was hampered by the old age of the rolling stock (engines and cars) and other infrastructure (rail and stations) it inherited from the private sector. Private companies had not been updating passenger rail infrastructure and equipment. The equipment and infrastructure was allowed to age by the private companies, because there was no profit incentive to upgrade. In the early years, the poor state of infrastructure coupled with a lack of managerial control of the rail hobbled Amtrak’s ability to be a for-profit company (Nice, 1998). More recently, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the only consistently profitable corridor.

California has a long history of passenger train service. An early twentieth century example is the Mendocino Railroad, which provided 40 miles of passenger train service from Willits to Fort Bragg (California Department of Transportation, 1980).

Most rail lines in California are owned and operated by private freight railroad companies: Burlington Northern and Santa

Fe, formally Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe; and Union Pacific, formally Southern Pacific (California Department of Transportation, 1980). Amtrak contracts with these freight companies to provide rail passenger service on their lines.

Amtrak California includes three passenger rail corridors: Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Capitol. The San Joaquin trains were operated through Section 403(b) of the 1970 Rail Passenger Service Act. When founded in 1974, the San Joaquin Corridor traveled 312 miles in California with two daily round-trips between Oakland and Bakersfield. It later expanded to 363 miles with six daily round-trips (4 Oakland-Bakersfield and 2 SacramentoBakersfield). The trains used the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe tracks, and coordinated bus connections between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, and Sacramento and Stockton (California Department of Transportation, 1980). The Department of Transportation administers the Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin trains. Since 1998, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority has administered the Capitol Corridor under an inter-agency transfer agreement with the State of California (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation authorizing a transfer of Pacific Surfliner management to the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Joint Powers Authority (LOSSAN JPA) (Progressive Railroading, 2012a). NonAmtrak rail services remain subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California

Public Utilities Commission and/or the Interstate Commerce Commission.

There are multiple long-distance trains that operate in California. The California Zephyr’s route from Emeryville (San Francisco) to Chicago includes 220 miles in California. This corridor has been connected to Amtrak since the company’s early planning stages. The OaklandSacramento portion of the Zephyr was identified as a possible corridor for future growth and development as part of an 11-corridor study conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak (California Department of Transportation, 1980; 1988). The Southwest Chief, formally Southwest Limited and Super Chief, travels on a 2256-mile route with 308 miles in California. The corridor transports passengers from Los Angeles to Chicago and was part of the original Amtrak system.

The Sunset Limited corridor includes 250 miles in California and was also one of Amtrak’s original train services. Another early service was the Coast Starlight, traveling from Los Angeles to Seattle (California Department of Transportation, 1980; 1988). The Desert Wind runs from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City (275 miles in California). The Desert Wind was established as a new Amtrak service in 1979. The line uses Union Pacific and Santa Fe tracks, and its conventional equipment was replaced by Superliner equipment in June 1980. The Zephyr started operating through trains on the Desert Wind route in 1980 (California Department of Transportation, 1980; 1988).

2.2. Legislation and Strategic Reform for Amtrak California Amtrak faced a severe funding cutback in 1979, resulting in the proposed elimination of 42% of its national route structure, including the San Joaquin Corridor (California Department of Transportation, 2003b). However, a second round-trip was added to the San Joaquin service in 1980 (California Department of Transportation, 1980), and a decade later, voters passed California Propositions 108, 111, and 116 resulting in nearly a $3

billion rail capital projects investment over a 10-year period (California Department of Transportation, 2003b).

Proposition 108, the Clean Air Bond Act, allocated $1 billion in rail bonds, including $225 million for intercity rail capital projects. Proposition 116, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act, supplied a one-time $1.99 billion for rail and transit projects, including $382 million for intercity

rail passenger capital projects (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Prior to 1981, states paid 20% of the losses derived from Amtrak passenger train costs in their first year of operation, 35% in the second year, and 50% thereafter for state supported [e.g., 403(b)] trains. A 1981 amendment changed the Amtrak financial losses covered by states to 45% in the first year, and 65% thereafter.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

15

2.3. Three Corridors There are currently three state-supported rail corridors in California: Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, and the Capitol Corridors. Although they are currently three of the busiest state-supported corridors in the country, the level of service in these three corridors has not been consistent.

2.3.1. Pacific Surfliner The Pacific Surfliner has consistently been the 2nd busiest route in the nation (FY12). Running on 351 miles of track between San Luis Obispo and San Diego, the Pacific Surfliner has 24 intermediate stops and by 2020 is projected to increase service frequency of:

Three of the busiest state-

• 12 daily round-trips between San Diego and Los Angeles • 6 daily round-trips between Los Angeles and Goleta (2 trips continuing from Goleta to San Luis Obispo) (California Department of Transportation, 2013) This projection mirrors the increase in the demand for passenger rail service in the area.

When Amtrak took over the San Diegans in 1971, service was decreased to two trains a day. With funding assistance from Caltrans, San Diegan service gradually increased and later grew to six trains due to the need for more frequent service.

In the 1980s, the demand for increased Amtrak service grew more prominent as population increased causing highways to become more congested (Nice, 1998).

To facilitate the increasing demand for Amtrak services, a seventh and eighth San Diegan train were added, a roundtrip extension to Santa Barbara was introduced, and a number of feeder buses were added to make the San Diegans more accessible to riders north of Los Angeles. Specifically, in 1981, Caltrans requested a second train to link Los Angeles and Sacramento (California Department of Transportation, 1990).

In 1988, service was extended north to Santa Barbara with San Luis Obispo being added in 1995 (California Department of Transportation, 2005). In 2000, Amtrak replaced the San Diegan name with the Pacific Surfliner (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

16

2.3.2. San Joaquin Passenger travel between Sacramento and Los Angeles (LA) has not had the easiest history. With a low population density in the more rural areas, ridership levels have not been high enough to maintain regular service. The San Joaquin route is evidence of the up and down life cycle of a valley passenger train service.

The San Joaquin was created in 1865 as the Southern Pacific Railroad. The original route acted as California’s passenger rail service connecting San Francisco to San Diego and was extended to Bakersfield in 1874 and LA in 1876. As the population in Northern and Southern California increased, and greater travel innovations came along, the demand for San Joaquin service decreased. When Amtrak took over in 1971, the San Joaquin was discontinued and reinstated a number of times throughout the 70s. Amtrak was not able to fund the failing route and it was decided in 1980 that the State would have to support the train if it were to continue service (California Department of Transportation, 2013).

The new plan for the San Joaquin was to institute a number of feeder buses connecting to the San Diegan (Pacific Surfliner) route. Between 2001 and

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

2002, over 65 percent of all San Joaquin passengers used at least one connecting bus at the beginning or the end of their trip, making this network an important element of San Joaquin service (California Department of Transportation, 2003b).

New state-supported trains were offered to increase rider options. According to the 1982 Passenger Rail Development Plan, a second 403(b) train was added and ridership increased dramatically. Caltrans quickly saw the need for the San Joaquin route and over the next two years lobbied for more trains to be added. However, the 1983 budget crisis resulted in the San Joaquin being granted an extension of one year. With each passing year, an extension was granted and by 1989, a third train from Oakland to Bakersfield was added to the service. In the decade to follow, two more round trips were added to the route making it a total of five. The San Joaquin continued to grow steadily and the sixth train was added in the year 2002. Today, there are six daily round trips to Oakland and four to Sacramento – a significant increase from a decade earlier (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). The San Joaquin is now a 363mile corridor connecting BakersfieldOakland-Sacramento (Amtrak, 2012c).

Capitol Corridor

Davis

Auburn Roseville Sacramento

Martinez Antioch Stockton

Oakland

San Jose

Turlock

Modesto

Merced Madera

San Joaquin

supported corridors in the country.

Fresno Hanford Corcoran

San Luis Obispo

Wasco

P Sur

Bak

Santa Barbara Oxnard

Los Angeles Fullerton Santa Ana San Juan Capistrano

Oceanside Solana Beach San Diego

2.3.3. Capitol Corridor Capitol Corridor runs on 170 miles of track from San Jose to Auburn. The corridor was founded in 1991 and has been funded by Caltrans. However, administration was passed to the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) in 1998. The CCJPA is made up of a board of directors with representatives from different transportation agencies.

Since its inception, the Capitol Corridor has been steadily growing. In 1998 and 1999, the fifth and sixth trains were added to the service between Oakland and Sacramento. In 2000, a fourth train between Oakland and San Jose was placed in service as well as a seventh train on the Oakland to Sacramento line (Amtrak, 2000).

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

17

2.4. Passenger Rail Service and the California Department of Transportation In 1978, the Rail Freight Branch and staff of the California Department of Transportation was shifted to the Division of Mass Transportation in Rail Projects Branch of the Office of Rail Services. The Office of Rail Services administers rail passenger and freight rail programs in the Department. This consolidation of programs improved coordination of all rail activities and integration of intermodal planning (California Department of Transportation, 1980).

The California Department of Transportation is responsible for assessing light-density rail lines in California, and recommending federal assistance for

18

abandoned lines and non-abandoned light-density lines. By 1980, the focus had shifted from the 1978 Act to the pre-abandonment provision of Section Five. The California Department of Transportation determined that assisting rail lines before they became abandoned would maximize public benefit and costeffectiveness of federal funds (California Department of Transportation, 1980).

The California Department of Transportation introduced capital grants for transportation for people with disabilities in 1980, offering non-profit organizations the opportunity to apply for grants from the Department to purchase

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

buses or other vehicles and equipment to provide transportation for people with disabilities. The grants were funded by the Urban Mass Transportation Agency, and 20% was required from local sources (California Department of Transportation, 1980).

In 1982, Caltrans requested Amtrak to provide ridership, revenue, cost, and loss estimates for two additional service options: joining the California-Arizona interstate train between Los Angeles and Tucson, and joining the California interstate train between Los Angeles and Calexico (California Department of Transportation, 1982).

2.5. Legislation impacting passenger rail support The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak” or the “Company”) is incorporated under the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act (D.C. Code section 29-301 et seq.) in accordance with the provisions of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-518, Section 101). In the Rail Passenger Service Act (1970), national leaders decided that maintaining a “modern, efficient, intercity rail passenger service was a necessary part of a balanced transportation system” (p. 1328). Under the provisions of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) (P.L. 110-432; 49 USC. Section 24301), Amtrak’s Board of Directors was reorganized and expanded to nine members (Federal Railroad Administration, 2009). Currently, there are several important acts of legislation impacting Amtrak operations.

Perhaps the most important recent piece of legislation was the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 (PRIIA H.R. 6003). PRIIA passed the US Senate in June 2008. In addition to focusing on Amtrak’s longdistance routes, the Northeast Corridor (NEC), state-sponsored corridors, and development of high-speed rail (HSR), PRIIA also addresses intercity passenger rail service.

PRIIA (2008) authorizes three new federal intercity rail capital assistance programs: • Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Capital Assistance Program • HSR Corridor Development • Congestion Relief (Federal Railroad Administration, 2009) PRIIA also provides opportunities for private sector interests to operate and improve intercity passenger rail service (e.g., Additional HSR Projects, Alternative Passenger Rail Service Pilot Program, Special Passenger Trains and Restructure

of Amtrak’s Board of Directors) (Federal Railroad Administration, 2009).

Additionally, PRIIA (2008) addresses Positive Train Control Systems. Positive Train Control (PTC) systems are designed to automatically prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position (Federal Railroad Administration, 2013). The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012, a provision relevant to Positive Train Control (PTC), would extend the deadline for PTC implementation on passenger rail lines from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2020, and could extend the deadline for PTC on rail lines that transport toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials to sometime after 2020 (Office of Governmental Affairs, 2012).

The 2012 Act would eliminate transit system funding from federal gasoline taxes; capital grants programs for short line and regional railroads; grants to states and Amtrak for funding of facilities, infrastructure, and equipment for high priority rail corridor projects; and eliminate the funding of California’s HSR Project (Office of Governmental Affairs, 2012). The Office of Governmental Affairs also stated that the bill would also cut $380 million for highway safety grants to the States; reduce federal highway funding and the mitigation of environmental impacts; limit environmental review and public participation for Highway/Rail Projects; broaden categorical exclusions to National Environmental Policy Act; remove dedicated, user-financed transit funding from the Highway Trust Funds; privatize 20% or more of fixed-route bus service; change new rules for hours of service for truck drivers; and remove some safety and health protections from hazardous materials safety laws.

2.6. Summary Due to alternative modes of transportation (i.e., auto and air), passenger rail miles decreased nearly 80% from the 1920s to the 1970s.

Mandated passenger rail services led to financial losses for private railroad companies. Congress responded by establishing Amtrak in 1971 to release the financial obligations of private railroads. With an outdated rolling stock, Amtrak struggled to be a for-profit company. In addition, Amtrak assumed responsibility for intercity passenger rail in California, which also resulted in difficulty maintaining ridership and profit.

Both the Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin Corridors suffered discontinued service on several occasions. Through reorganization, state-supported trains, and legislation, Amtrak regained ridership with a recent increase of 49% between 2000 and 2012. In addition, three of the top five routes are California corridors (i.e., Capitol, Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin).

In 2008, Congress passed PRIIA, which strengthened the US passenger rail network by tasking Amtrak and other stakeholders (e.g., California, Federal Railroad Administration) to improve service, operations, and facilities. The Act focuses on intercity passenger rail and authorizes the appropriation of funds to the US Department of Transportation for fiscal years 20092013 to award grants to Amtrak covering operating costs, capital investments, and partial repayment of long-term debt. Legislation (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, National Environmental Policy Act) has also directed Amtrak to focus on the several other issues including safety.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

19

3.

SAFETY:

Provide the safest transportation system in the nation for users and workers.

Safety is a key aspect of the passenger rail mission in the US and California. This section provides key statistics about safety issues in California, examples of safety incidents, and a discussion about passenger rail safety enhancement measures.

3.1. Safety Statistics The total number of passenger rail (Amtrak & commuter railroads) accidents or incidents rose in the last 10 years in California and in the US as a whole. There were 378 incidents or accidents reported in California in 2012 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Total Accidents/Incidents

Total Accidents/ Incidents Amtrak & Commuter Railroads Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

400

4,500

350

4,000

300

3,500

200 150 100 50 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CA 285 257 270 279 305 296 289 292 300 378 US 3,17 3,09 2,93 3,12 3,51 3,41 3,41 3,87 3,78 3,65

20

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 -

US

CA

250

Although, the total number of accidents/incidents in California appears to be on the rise, if the number of accidents/incidents in California is adjusted for ridership increases, then the accidents/incidents per million riders in California decreased 22% from 2003 to 20111 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Total California Accidents/Incidents Adjusted for Ridership

Total Accidents/Incidents, California Adjusted for Ridership Amtrak & Commuter Railroads

CA

400

80

350

70

300

60

250

50

200

40

150

30

100

20

50

10

0

0

CA/Million CA Riders

CA

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 285 257 270 279 305 296 289 292 300 378

CA adjusted 69.4 60.4 59.5 58.9 61.4 53.4 56.4 56.4 53.9 This adjusted figure is shown to illustrate a trend and is approximate. The total number of accidents/incidents was divided by the ridership for the three state supported trains in California divided by one million. Therefore, this figure illustrates a trend of decreasing accidents/incidents compared to ridership. In order for this to be a more true number, the total ridership would need to be compared for all Amtrak and commuter railroads.

1

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

21

3.1.1. Fatalities In contrast to total accidents/incidents, the number of fatalities in the US was steady and the number of fatalities in California was lower in the second half of the decade (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Fatalities

Fatalities Amtrak & Commuter Railroads Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

70

250

60

200

40

150

30

100

US

CA

50

20 50

10 0

-

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CA 48 42 54 58 64 66 38 35 41 46 US 158 177 178 158 190 206 184 187 167 188 Fatalities of employees on duty are rare. Two employees died on duty in California on Amtrak and Commuter Railroads during the ten-year period (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Employees on Duty Fatalities

Employees on Duty Fatalities Amtrak & Commuter Railroads Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

5

5

4.5

4

4

4

CA

3 2.5 2

1.5

3 2 2

1

1

0.5

1

0

-

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CA 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 US 2 3 2 1 4 4 2 1 2 2 22

3

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

US

3.5

3.1.2. Train Accidents The total annual number of train accidents for Amtrak and Commuter Railroads decreased over the last decade in the US (Figure 5). This trend was roughly paralleled in California.

Figure 5. Train Accidents

Train Accidents Amtrak & Commuter Railroads Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

20

250

18 16

200

14 150

US

CA

12 10 8

100

6 4

50

2 0

-

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CA 7 15 18 7 14 10 9 10 6 4 US 208 214 188 183 179 165 159 155 155 109

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

23

In the last ten years, the US and California had slightly different patterns in train accident causation (Figures 6 & 7). In the US, the number one source of accidents was obstructions and other types of causes (1,034). This cause was much larger than the next three; derailments (601), track caused (504), and human factors (501) (Figure 6).

Figure 6. US: Causes of Train Accidents

US: Causes of Train Accidents Amtrak & Commuter Railroads Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 > Other types, e.g., obstructions

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

127

105

110

91

99

99

97

52

129

125

> Derailments

70

76

53

66

58

67

56

48

52

55

> Track caused

64

53

56

67

42

44

51

45

48

34

> Human factor caused

54

63

47

52

56

57

49

41

41

41

> Motive power/equipment caused

58

63

39

37

40

38

27

32

23

12

> Miscellaneous caused

30

35

44

25

36

25

31

37

42

22

> Collisions

9

13

8

12

11

7

4

8

6

2

> Signal caused, all track types

2

-

2

2

5

1

1

-

1

-

In California,

24

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

In California, the top cause for train accidents was derailments (51). The next three most frequent causes were human factors (45), obstructions and other types of causes (42), and miscellaneous causes (40) (Figure 7).

It is interesting to note that signals (US 14, CA 0) & collisions (US 80, CA 7) caused relatively few accidents.

Figure 7. California: Causes of Train Accidents

CA: Causes of Train Accidents Amtrak & Commuter Railroads Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

> Derailments

3

9

9

4

6

5

5

5

2

3

> Other types, e.g., obstructions

3

4

9

3

8

3

4

4

3

1

> Miscellaneous caused

2

5

9

2

8

2

3

4

4

1

> Track caused

2

4

1

1

3

1

1

0

0

1

> Collisions

1

2

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

0

> Motive power/equipment caused

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

> Human factor caused

3

5

8

4

3

7

5

6

2

2

> Signal caused, all track types

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

the top cause for train accidents was derailments.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

25

3.1.3. Highway-Rail Incidents Highway-rail incidents are sources of much news, policy, and funding.

United States Code Title 23, section 130 focuses on reducing the number, severity, and potential hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians from rail collisions through improved signage, pavement markings, active warning devices, elimination of hazards, and crossing closures. The Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans,

California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), railroad companies, and local agencies collaborate to implement section 130. The PUC prioritizes grade crossing projects with the input of all partners and data from the Federal Railroad Administration. Caltrans then facilitates the funding and contracting of these projects. Federal Section 1103(f ) is a similar program that focuses on HSR corridors.

At the state level, section 190 allocates approximately $15 million annually towards eradicating at-grade railroad crossings. The state also provides one to two million dollars towards eradicating at-grade railroad crossings through the Automatic Grade Crossing Warning Device Maintenance Fund.

Unfortunately, highway-rail incidents did not significantly change in the last ten years (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Highway-Rail Incidents

Highway-Rail Incidents Amtrak & Commuter Railroads Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

70 60

250 200

40

150

30

100

US

CA

50

20 10

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CA 44 43 39 62 57 54 46 39 40 41 US 201 212 179 203 195 196 204 199 188 152

26

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

50

-

3.2. National and International Although statistics give a good summary of safety issues, they can be fairly sterile.

This section gives some of the stories behind the statistics.

3.2.1. Miscellaneous Issues Some of the safety issues are minor. Although benign issues, such as power outages (Associated Press, 2012g) or scheduling conflicts with freight trains (Davidson, 2012) can cause delays, it is often safety related delays (e.g., track fires or weather) that are notable enough to be reported on (Associated Press, 2012e; Bender, 2012).

In contrast, passenger misbehavior can be a minor or quite severe issue. In some cases, passengers were trafficking illegal drugs (Cheung, 2012; Register Mail, 2012).

In another case, a passenger annoyed other passengers and it made the news because the passenger had multiple identities in her possession (M. Smith, 2012). The press often highlights the rare case of murder on trains or at stations (Lee, 2012).

3.2.2. Derailments & Collisions Perhaps the safety incidents most likely to cause harm and garner safety related funding are high-speed derailments and collisions. Derailments can be exceedingly dangerous at high speeds.

An example of this is the 2011 highspeed rail (HSR) derailment in China that killed 40 people and injured another 192 people (Scribner, 2012). In contrast to this incident that was caused by corruption and poor construction practices, newsworthy derailments of passenger trains associated with California appear be due primarily to collisions (Associated Press, 2012a-e).

As illustrated in the earlier chart showing the causes of train accidents, collisions are novel and are spectacular enough to be newsworthy. Although there are minor collisions with personal vehicles (Associated Press, 2012c; Fresno Bee, 2012a, 2012b), collisions with semi-trucks have the most impact. Cases of collisions with multiple fatalities that are litigated tend to stay in the news for the longest time (Reno Gazette, 2012). A case of a

2011 collision between a semi-truck carrying gravel and the California Zephyr that resulted in the death of the truck driver and five people on the train (one employee and four passengers) is one such case that resulted in litigation (KTNV, 2012). Amtrak claimed that the driver, Valli, was negligent and ran through the crossing in spite of multiple warnings.

The trucking company counter-sued stating that the video evidence of Valli ignoring the warning was deceptive (Trucking Info, 2012).

Closer to home, a train moving at about 80 mph between Oakland and Bakersfield (north of Kings City) collided with a semitruck carrying cotton trash (Associated Press, 2012b; T. Jones, 2012; Wozniacka, 2012). Reports indicated that 30 to 50 of the 169 passengers were injured when the last two or three cars of the train derailed after the truck ran into the back of the train (Associated Press, 2012d; Fox News, 2012; Reuters, 2012; Sentinel Staff, 2012; Winter, 2012). The truck driver himself, Medina, was not hurt in the crash and couldn’t explain how it happened (Castellon, 2012; Guy & Sheehan, 2012).

The driver was not impaired, “the crossing gate was down, lights were flashing and bell were ringing when the collision occurred” (Associated Press, 2012e; Guy & Sheehan, 2012).

Kings County Supervisor, Richard Valle, took the opportunity to suggest that these kinds of accidents were likely to happen during the peak of the agricultural region’s harvest season.

Moreover, Valle suggested that the results would likely be much more serious if it were a high-speed train2 (Stone, 2012).

These comments are based on the reality that this was not the first time that a truck had hit a train at this particular intersection in Kings County. In 2008, a truck hauling lemons collided with a train. The collision resulted in injuries to 33 train passengers (Guy & Sheehan,

2012). In 2007, a train hit a car at the same intersection (Guy & Sheehan, 2012).

Moreover, at the same time that the 2012 collision was being investigated, a collision between a freight train and a truck was being investigated about 10 miles away (China Post, 2012).

There are also collisions between trains and people on tracks (CBS 5, 2012). Some of these deaths are intentional suicides and tend to be horrific (Fagan, 2012; Sklar, 2012). “The impact of a 400-ton train on a human body is so enormous there are seldom more than pieces to recover” (Fagan, 2012).

3.2.3. Missing Persons Although fatalities often make the news, it is missing person cases that generate the most number of sustained stories.

Two examples of missing person cases in the last six months are Charlie Dowd and Robin Putnam.

Charlie Dowd was a 69 year old retired San Francisco firefighter (C. Jones, 2012). He boarded the California Zephyr in Emeryville, CA, and headed towards Montreal to visit his son and grandchildren (C. Jones, 2012).

Dowd went missing at some point in the night. It was unclear when, and more importantly where, Dowd egressed from the train. This increased the search area to a nearly unmanageable radius and prolonged the search time (Associated Press, 2012f ). Although it was possible that Mr. Dowd could have left the train at one of the stops, there was concern that he may have been confused and exited the train while it was still moving (NBC News, 2012). Eventually, Nebraska rail employees found Mr. Dowd’s body between Fort Morgan, Colorado and McCook, Nebraska (WQUAD, 2012).

See chapter four on mobility for more information about Kings County concerns about HSR.

2

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

27

In contrast to Charlie Dowd’s story, the disappearance of the 25-year old student, Robin Putnam, has no definitive conclusion (Falk, 2012). Putnam was an art student that wandered off of the train traveling from Emeryville, CA, to his parent’s home in Telluride, CO. Like Dowd, Putnam may have been suffering a mental condition that led him to wander off the train (Associated Press, 2012a). In this case, Putnam was prone to anxiety attacks that led to difficulties in work and school. Moreover, some of his favorite books (e.g., books by Kerouac and Hesse) told tales of youths giving up their possessions and hitting the road. It is unclear whether Putnam left the train due to an altered state, or if he intentionally chose a different life for himself. As of January 2013, Putnam was still missing (ABC 7 News, 2013).

Dowd and Putnam’s cases are not unique, but they are rare. Mr. Dowd was one of over 40 people that walked off or fell off moving Amtrak trains since 1972 (Matlock, 2012). Some of these individuals were likely drunk or mentally incapacitated, others may have committed suicide. Regardless, there were some reported concerns about the safety of the external doors on Amtrak trains (Matlock, 2012). Although every death is a tragedy, this rate of death (i.e., 1 death per year for train walk-off fatalities) seems relatively small compared to 150 to 200 passenger rail related deaths or the 54,589 deaths that occurred on the US highways in the single year of 1972 (Safe Roads, 2004). Although derailments and other passenger train deaths are likely to make the news, missing person cases are sensational enough to continue to be news for at least six months.

3.2.4. Safety Improvements Amtrak addressed the need for revamped Safety and Security in the 2011-2015 strategic plan. Amtrak’s Goal 1 (Safety and Security) is to “become North America’s safest, most secure railroad by creating a collaborative, team-oriented workplace culture that minimizes risks and maximizes passenger and employee safety” (Amtrak, 2012c).

There are three federal agencies that contribute to the safety of passenger rail in America (Amtrak, 2012a). The Federal Railroad Authority’s Office of Railroad 28

Although every death is a tragedy, this rate of death (i.e., 1 death on average per year for train walk-off fatalities) seems relatively small compared to 150 to 200 passenger rail related deaths or the 54,589 deaths that occurred on the US highways in the single year of 1972.

Safety conducts inspections and collects and analyzes accident/incident data. The National Transportation Safety Board investigates transportation accidents and promotes rail safety. The Transportation Security Administration is the branch of the Department of Homeland Security that reviews passenger rail for possible security threats. The Transportation Security Administration took part in improving rail safety and security by providing $1.8 million to the Pacific Surfliner route (California Department of Transportation, 2008b) and $2.4 million to the San Joaquin route for safety and security projects (California Department of Transportation, 2008d).

Two relatively new systems, Safe-2-Safer and Positive Train Control, help address safety and security. The Safe-2-Safer initiative intends to “strengthen and emphasize both safety and security within every aspect of Amtrak’s corporate culture” (Amtrak, 2012c).

Amtrak intends to implement the Safe-2-Safer system through “training, coaching, and greater accountability from management, along with broad employee engagement through peer-topeer feedback” (Amtrak, 2012c).

Positive Train Control (PTC) is a technological solution that complements the human-based Safe-2-Safer system.

PTC was mandated by the Rail Safety

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Improvement Act of 2008 as a response to the collision of a Metrolink passenger train with a Union Pacific Railroad freight train near Chatsworth, CA, that took the lives of 25 passengers and seriously injured 130 others (California Department of Transportation, 2013; National Transportation Safety Board, 2008). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave Amtrak $67 million dollars to expand PTC across the entire system. On January 15, 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration required “all Class I railroads and each railroad hosting intercity or commuter rail passenger service to have a PTC system installed and operating by December 31, 2015” (Amtrak, 2012c). PTC is intended to improve upon traditional collision prevention measures, and adds an entirely new layer of automated protection by enforcing permanent and temporary speed restrictions.

As previously mentioned, the goal of PTC is to avoid train to train collisions, over speed derailments, incursions into work zones, and undesirable movements of trains due to switches being left in the incorrect position (California Department of Transportation, 2013). PTC systems include: the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) I & II; the Incremental Train Control System (ITCS); and the Electronic Train Management System (ETMS). ACSES was installed on

portions of the NEC in FY00 concurrent with the startup of Acela Express services in the NEC, and ITCS was used on the 95-mile Michigan Line. Amtrak is seeking an ITCS certification from FRA in order to operate at 110 mph. When completed, ACSES will encompass the entire NEC and its tributary routes to Harrisburg, PA, and Springfield, MA. In addition, Amtrak worked with federal, state, and local authorities and commuter and freight railroads to ensure that Amtrak trains will be compliant with the ETMS PTC systems adopted for use by host railroads.

Installation of ETMS and adherence to the December 31, 2015 deadline has required significant planning efforts, including designs and plans to add ETMS to the portions of the NEC, where freight or commuter trains equipped with ETMS operate, and in Chicago Union Terminal and New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal.

3.3. California

Beyond PTC and Safe-2-Safer, Amtrak has also increased traditional safety measures.

Extra patrol officers were added in FY11.

Explosive-detection K-9 teams were also added to respond to stations and trains during heightened local and national level security situations (Amtrak, 2012a).

In addition to the federal agencies, there are three more agencies that contribute to the safety of rail in California (California Department of Transportation, 2013). The California Public Utilities Commission provides regulatory and safety oversight for intercity, commuter, light and heavy rail transit, freight, and highway rail crossings.

The Commission is the local agency that works with the National Transportation Safety Board to conduct investigations of rail accidents/incidents. Caltrans Division of Rail helps enforce safety regulation compliance. Caltrans accomplished this through contract oversight, inspections, improvement projects, and education.

The last state agency is the California Emergency Management Agency.

Although their primary focus is on preparedness for and response to disasters, they also administer the California Transit Security Grant Program.

Amtrak’s acknowledgment and actions to properly address safety and security for passengers and all related parties appear to be on the right track. Evidently, this is an ongoing process; therefore, only time will tell if Amtrak continues to prioritize its goal to “become North America’s safest, most secure railroad” (Amtrak, 2012a).

In 2012, California had 98 passenger related fatalities (Department of Transportation: United States of America, 2012). This was approximately 15% of the 664 passenger rail related fatalities in the US. A review of the earlier Figures 2 and 3 show the trends for passenger train related fatalities in the US dropped slightly

after 2008 (Department of Transportation: United States of America, 2012).

In order to increase rail safety awareness among youth in California, educational programs were developed and incorporated in school curriculum. In fall 2004, Amtrak partnered with schools to provide the “The A to Z Project”. The project focused on reducing rail-related youth fatalities. The program included a 36-page booklet on train safety and a CD that included 2 rail safety films. The booklet and CD were sent to middle and high schools for introduction into the fall 2004 curriculum. This rail safety program continued into 2005-2006 as part of school curricula. The Department made a point of targeting schools in areas where accidents had previously occurred. The Department also spent money on media advertising and public education events (California Department of Transportation, 2005b). More recently, Caltrans partnered with Amtrak to continue rail safety education with “Operation Lifesaver” (California Department of Transportation, 2013). The website offers interactive Facebook applications, links to events, and educational safety videos.

3.4. Summary There are safety issues in California and the US; however, it appears that Amtrak is graining traction on its goal of becoming a safer railroad, both in California and nationwide. The total number of passenger rail accidents/ incidents in the US and California has seen a slight increase over time (Figure 1). However, when adjusted

for the ridership on Amtrak California state supported trains (Figure 2), the number of accidents/incidents compared to number of riders is decreasing. After 2008, the number of train-related fatalities fell in California (Figure 3) and the death of on-duty employees is extremely rare (Figure 4).

In contrast to accidents/incidents as

a whole, the number of train accidents (Figure 5) and highway-rail incidents is decreasing (Figure 8). Stories about collisions, derailments, and fatalities help to illustrate some of these safety-related statistics. A brief overview of selected passenger rail safety-related measures provides some insight into passenger rail improving safety trends in California.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

29

4.

Mobility:

Maximize transportation system performance and accessibility.

Passenger rail provides mobility to millions of passengers every year in America. This section details issues of mobility at the national and state level. Given the recent focus on high speed rail (HSR), both the national and state sections provide a summary of information about the developing passenger rail option.

4.1. National and International

30

Number of Stations Served by Amtrak Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

550 540 530 520 510 500 490 480 470 460

10 20

08 20

06 20

20 04

20 02

20 00

98 19

96 19

94 19

92 19

90 19

19 88

19 86

450 19 84

Amtrak experienced a large cutback of rail miles in 1979 (Nice, 1998).

Today, Amtrak-owned property includes 363 miles of the 457-mile Northeast Corridor (NEC), a 60.5mile track segment between New Haven (CT) and Springfield (MA), 104 miles of track between Philadelphia and Harrisburg (PA), and a 96-mile segment in Michigan and Indiana (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012).

Amtrak also owns and maintains 17 tunnels (29.7 track miles), 1,186 bridges (42.5 track miles) (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012), and 105 station facilities throughout the United States and is responsible for the maintenance of an additional 181 stations (Amtrak, 2012c). The number of stations served by Amtrak has changed over time (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Number of Stations Served by Amtrak

Number of Stations

Amtrak operates a national intercity passenger rail network of more than 21,200 miles of routes, utilizing 305 daily trains (Boardman, 2011) to serve more than 500 destinations in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and three Canadian provinces (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). Amtrak is the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only high-speed intercity passenger rail provider with trains operating at speeds equal to or exceeding 150 mph (241 kph).

Amtrak serves an average of 82,000 passengers daily (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012) and employs 19,000 people (Stout, 2012). Currently, Amtrak does not serve the following states: Alaska, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming (Boardman, 2011).

Fiscal Year

Amtrak serves an average of 82,000 passengers daily.

As of FY11, Amtrak served 524 stations (Figure 10) (Amtrak, 2012c), including 74 stations in California - almost two and a half times as many as the state with next most stations, 30, Illinois.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Number of Stations Amtrak Uses by State, FY11 Source: Amtrak Figure 10. Number of Stations Amtrak Uses by State, FY11

CA

Number of Stations Amtrak Uses by State, FY11 Source: Amtrak

CA

IL

NY PA MI VA

WA NC TX FL IL

NY

MT CT MO VT IN MA MS SC CO WV

PA MI VA

WA NC TX FL

AZ WI LA ND NM OH OR IA KS MD MN NJ OK AR GA KY NE ME NH UT AL NV RI DE TN DC ID

MT CT MO VT IN MA MS SC CO WV

In addition to operating intercity passenger rail, Amtrak performs rail services for other rail operators, operates and/or maintains commuter railroads, and/or provides infrastructure access to commuter agencies and freight railroads under contracts with various local or regional agencies. Amtrak is also responsible for management and lease of commercial real estate (Amtrak, 2012c).

Figure 11. Rolling Stock in Service

Rolling Stock (Locomotives and Cars) Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

Locomotives in service

Passenger Cars in Service

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 19 72 19 74 19 76 19 78 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10

Amtrakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fleet is relatively old, with Amtrak trains reaching their highest average age in FY10 (Boardman, 2011).

The Amtrak car fleet is between 7 and 60+ years old, with eighty-three percent (83%) of passenger car fleet between the age of 20 and 64 years. Specific to California, the 78 cars currently utilized are between 17 and 18 years old (Amtrak, 2012b). The aging Amtrak equipment is a result of several historical events. Originally, rail companies were unwilling to invest in passenger rail due to lack of profitability (Nice, 1998).

Later, at the formation of Amtrak, there was a reluctance to invest if Amtrak was a short-term project whose intent was only to phase out rail passenger service. In recent years, outdated equipment is a reflection of lack of funding (Nice, 1998).

In FY12, Amtrak owned 1,988 cars and 442 locomotives (Amtrak, 2012b). Sixtyseven percent (1,326) of cars and 74% (328) of locomotives were available for Amtrakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use (not in storage, wrecked, leased, or undergoing maintenance).

Figure 11 shows rolling stock variation over time. In 2011, regular periodic maintenance was performed on 18 locomotives and 83 passenger cars utilized in California (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012).

Number of Units in Ser vice

The majority (72%) of the total miles

by Amtrak trains are traveled on tracks owned by other railroads, referred to as host railroads. Amtrak pays host railroads for their track use and other resources needed to operate Amtrak trains. The largest six host railroads in terms of miles traveled include Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, Union Pacific Railroad, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern Railway, Canadian National Railway, and Metro North Railroad (Amtrak, 2013a).

AZ WI LA ND NM OH OR IA KS MD MN NJ OK AR GA KY NE ME NH UT AL NV RI DE TN DC ID

Year

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

31

4.1.1 High Speed Rail (HSR)

4.1.1.1. Northeast Corridor (NEC)

4.1.1.2. HSR Benefits

Although there is some push in the US to consider 110 mph being fast enough, there is a general consensus that in order to be considered “high speed”, passenger rail must travel at least 150 mph (Black, 2012; Landis, 2012). Since the 1960s, Japan’s shinkansen has accelerated up to 186 mph and the French TGV has operated to almost 200 mph (Quain, 2007). Currently, 16 countries operate HSR rails lines that operate over 155 mph (250 kph): Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States (UIC, 2012). Companies and sovereign wealth funds from countries such as China see the US as the “largest untapped market for high-speed rail in the world” (Barkan as cited in Siegel, 2012). Although more than half of Amtrak’s trains operate at speeds of 100 mph or greater (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012), the Northeast Corridor (NEC) is America’s only route that reaches 150 mph (Boardman, 2011).

Amtrak CEO, Joseph Boardman, called the NEC the “the centerpiece of the Amtrak system” (Boardman, 2011). The corridor is an example of a successful multi-year partnership of Amtrak, federal and state governments, and commuter railroads (Amtrak, 2012c).

Many researchers have touted the potential benefits of HSR. Some of the benefits in the literature include: • Increased economic productivity (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 2012): increased employment, revitalization of local economies

The corridor is the busiest rail corridor in North America. Ridership is expected to climb to 43.5 million riders a year by 2040 (Nixon, 2012). The NEC serves more than 825,000 riders who generate more than 4.9 million passenger miles every weekday (Amtrak, 2012c). More than 2,200 trains operate over some portion of the Washington to Boston route every day. Specifically, the Boston-New YorkWashington portion of the Northeast Corridor carried almost 11 million (10,899,889) passengers in FY11 (Nixon, 2012).

• Decreased congestion of roadways and airspace (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 2012): reduced travel times (Chester & Horvath, 2012) • Enhanced national security (Quain, 2007): flexible use of alternative power sources, ability to draw power from electricity grid (using primarily domestically produced sources of energy) • Improved environment (Quain, 2007): lack of direct emissions, decreased energy consumption (i.e., trains require about 1/3 as much energy per passenger mile as automobiles)

Figure 12. NEC

NY

MA

Boston Route 128 Providence

Hartford Waterbury Danbury

CT

RI

New Rochelle

PA

New York Newark Newark Airport Trenton

Philadelphia Philadelphia Airport

NJ

Wilmington

Baltimore BWI Airport

Washington, D.C.

MD DE

VA 32

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Figure 12. NEC. Adapted from Annual Report Fiscal Rear 2011 (pp. 28-33), by Amtrak, 2012, Washington, DC: Amtrak. Copyright 2012 by Amtrak. Adapted with permission.

Figure 13. Washington-New York air-rail market. Adapted from Amtrak: America’s Railroad (p. 2), by Amtrak, 2011, Washington, DC: Amtrak. Copyright 2011 by Amtrak. Adapted with permission

100%

Air Rail

90%

61%

51%

55%

60%

50%

45%

50%

Reflecting on the growth of the highway system, the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration stated:

70%

56%

63%

69%

80%

50%

4.1.1.2.2.

Part of a Transportation Network

Figure 13. Washington-New York Air-Rail Market

56%

The NEC is the only Amtrak corridor that has no operating losses (Keane, 2012) and accounts for 52% of all Amtrak ticket revenues (Amtrak, 2012b). However, the trains are nearing full capacity, and many rail lines, tunnels and stations need to be upgraded or replaced (Nixon, 2012). To offset deferred maintenance and almost full capacity (Boardman, 2011), Amtrak has begun a $151 billion expansion that includes a major revamping of Union Station in Washington, as well as the upgrading of its hubs in New York and Boston (Nixon, 2012). Amtrak is also preparing for the next-generation 220 mph HSR service along the NEC, and is beginning to implement a fleet renewal program to meet anticipated future service expansion (Amtrak, 2012c). Amtrak is currently considering private investments funds for the NEC upgrades (Keane, 2012).

According to Amtrak, the HSR route expansion has the potential to quadruple ridership in the NEC (Keane, 2012).

Air-Rail Market Share

4.1.1.2.1. Economic

The relative speed of HSR may make it a more integrated part of the public transportation network than passenger rail has classically been in the US since before WWII (FRA, 2012b). The NEC has been increasingly taking market share of commuter traffic away from airlines. On each of the major legs (NYC-DC, NYC-Boston) of the NEC, there are more passengers carried than in all of the airlines serving these routes. Specifically, Amtrak serves seventy-five percent (75%) of the air-rail passenger traffic along the Northeast Corridor, an increase from approximately 37% in 2000 (Nixon, 2012).

40%

37%

" Today, we’re looking at challenges like how to move 100 million additional people and 4 billion more tons of freight over the next three decades. And for that, we need a modern, efficient transportation system – one with all modes working at full strength ” (Szabo, 2013).

30%

20%

10%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YTD

Fiscal Year Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

33

The popularity of the corridor is related to both the economic activity and population of the region. The geographical area served by the NEC accounts for approximately 20% of US GDP, equaling approximately $2.6 trillion (Boardman, 2011; Siegel, 2012). The NEC is also the second most populous mega-region in the world. The NEC has a population density greater than successful HSR corridors in France and Spain and is expected to reach 20 million by 2040 (Siegel, 2012).

Figure 14. Daily Petrol Consumption by Mode

Daily Petrol Consumption by Mode, 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

4.1.1.2.3. Congestion A report from the Mineta Transportation Institute suggests that a reduction of the travel times may be the largest benefit from HSR in the United States (Ashiabor & Wei, 2012). The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that congestion costs each American commuter an average of $800 annually (Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012b). That adds up to $120 billion annually. Congestion is one reason that the public is likely seeing HSR as an alternative to highways and airlines.

A 2010 APTA-commissioned survey of more than 24,000 Americans found that 62% reported that they would definitely or probably use HSR service for leisure or business travel if it were an option (Clayton, 2012).

HSR offers an alternative that can reduce the burden on airlines and highways.

Traditionally, the US has enjoyed relatively reliable air and highway transportation; however, these systems are reaching capacity. Texas A&Mâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transportation institute reported that other than the Washington DC area, the most congested large urban areas in the US are the LA and San Francisco regions. People in these areas average about 61 hours being stuck in traffic each year (Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012a).

Moreover, corridors in the LA and San Francisco regions are 9 of the 10 most congested corridors in the United States (Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012b). At the same time, air travel is becoming increasingly more congested as time spent waiting in security lines or waiting on the tarmac may likely continue to increase in the US (Flamisch, 2013; Quain, 2007).

Other than wasted time, congestion also wastes expensive fuel. Americans waste 34

Rail 2%

Highway (cars, trucks, etc.)

86%

Water 4% Air 8%

Figure 15. Daily Petrol Consumption, Freight vs. Passenger Rail

Daily Petrol Consumption, Freight vs. Passenger, 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

Freight (Class I) 96%

about 1.9 billion gallons of fuel costing over $100 billion each year (Stoller, 2012).

Most of the transportation fuel in the US is consumed by cars and trucks (Figure 14) and a majority of the fuel consumed by rail

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Passenger 4%

is consumed by freight (Figure 15). As the direct cost of fuel has been steadily rising, it creates incentives for consumers to switch to forms of transportation, such as HSR, that can use alternative forms of energy.

4.1.1.2.4. National Security HSR has the potential to reduce American dependence on foreign oil and decreases the economic incentives to engage in military conflicts in energy rich regions or be beholden to demands from foreign dictators in such areas (Quain, 2007). Trains that run on electricity can draw power from the grid. As far as the array of electricity, generating power plants are flexible enough to switch to other sources of power.

4.1.1.2.5. Environmental HSR has the potential to reduce passenger transportation impacts to people and the environment. The exact impact of HSR depends on a number of factors. Train size impacts the level of electricity consumption, the need for frequency of service and potential ridership. The impact of infrastructure construction depends on the use of alternative materials and practices (e.g., fly ash or ground granulated blast furnace slag, and cement kilns with catalytic converters) (Chester & Horvath, 2012).

Please see the stewardship section for more information.

4.1.1.3 Funding The title of the US Government Accountability Office’s 2009 report on HSR emphasizes the challenge that funding poses to the development of HSR in the US, “High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role” (US Government Accountability Office, 2009).

Even though the benefits of HSR are enticing, the sizeable start-up costs of HSR have made some states balk even when federal funding is offered (Advertiser Tribune, 2012; Quain, 2007).

In June 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) created and launched the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant program to make “strategic investments in an efficient network of passenger rail corridors that connect communities across the country” (Boardman, 2011). To date, sections 301, 302, and 501 of PRIIA provided more than $10 billion in grant funding under the HSIPR program (investment of $8 billion funded by the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 and $2.1 billion

funded through Congress appropriation for FY 2009 and 2010) (Amtrak, 2012c).

However, applications submitted from 39 States and the District of Columbia requested amounts in excess of available funding (FRA, 2012a).

The HSIPR grant program represents a significant shift in national transportation policy. The federal government subsidizes 90% of highway construction costs. Comparatively, little investment is allocated for rail compared to highway and air (Boardman, 2011).

Currently, the public expectations are high (transformational) but funding is incremental. Such incremental funding will likely lead to public frustration and an overall increase in the price of projects (Boardman, 2011).

Critics of HSR call for a national strategy to focus on HSR investment since the existing HSR network is fragmented and the current grants give Amtrak little ability to build a coordinated system (Smith, 2012). It has been suggested to select corridors based on the availability of and connectivity to well-developed local transit, current and projected total population and population density, and employment and economic activity.

Amtrak’s role as a coordinator and facilitator of the partnerships between all the parties (i.e., Amtrak, FRA, state governments, and host railroads) is crucial for development of protocols concerning design and construction standards, and system connections (Boardman, 2011).

In support of its goal to improve national mobility and connectivity (as stated in the strategic plan 2011-2015), Amtrak committed to the development of new high speed systems outside of the NEC, including planned systems in California

and Florida, through partnerships with public and private entities (Amtrak, 2012c). Preliminary studies have been conducted to support more frequent and faster HSR service and improve the reliability of current service between New York and Washington. Improvement goals include increased: reliability, speeds (to improve trip time), and capacity utilization on one of the most heavily trafficked sections of the NEC (Amtrak, 2011b).

Recently, Amtrak proposed a renovation of Washington DC’s Union Station that would cost at least $6.5 billion and published a $151 billion, 3-decade plan for bringing 220-miles-per-hour service to its busiest route, between Washington and Boston. President Barack Obama’s HSR funding proposal was not passed by the Congress in 2011 (Plungis, 2012); however, the Congress did not expend most of the $10 billion allotted under the 2009 economic stimulus act for HSR and “higher performance” rail (with trains that travel 90 to 110 mph). The currently undergoing 153 projects have been allotted $9.6 billion (Clayton, 2012).

It is important to note that in 2011, Republican governors in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin rejected federal dollars for HSR in their states. They defended this move by citing their expectations of cost overruns and insufficient ridership (Advertiser Tribune, 2012; Clayton, 2012).

Then, in November 2011, Congress denied the White House’s 6-year, $53 billion budget request for HSR. This was a big step backward from the original White House plan for 13 HSR corridors in 31 states. At the recent 8th World Congress on HSR, held July 10-13, 2012 at Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania Convention Center, attendees lamented the reduction of funds available for HSR in the US (Cotey, 2012).

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

35

4.1.2. Long Distance Trains In 2008, PRIIA identified long-distance passenger rail to be a vital and essential part of the US national transportation and economy (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). Long-distance trains are cited as being politically important to muster the collective political will to support passenger rail service. On the other

side of the coin, Amtrak loses money on long-distance services and would be financially less reliant on subsidies if these long-distance routes were eliminated. It is a political question whether the long distance trains’ ability to complement the short distance routes and provide additional service frequency to local destinations (Amtrak, 2012c) is worth the financial cost.

4.1.3. State Supported and Other Short-Distance Routes Transportation is one of the four major areas of government budgets (Nice, 1998). States are more likely to subsidize passenger rail if the state is heavily populated, politically liberal, potentially wealthy and innovative, and tourism is an important segment of the state economy (Nice, 1998). Since its establishment in 1971, Amtrak has contracted with states to provide additional financial operating support for existing passenger rail service or additional number of trips on routes already operated by Amtrak (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). The state-supported trains were originally called “403b trains” as indicated in the Rail Passenger Service Act (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). Most of the operating costs for services that are not covered by farebox revenue are paid by state support.

Moreover, states often provide funds for infrastructure and/or capital improvements (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012).

36

PRIIA Section 209 required Amtrak and states to develop standardized cost sharing method across all corridors less than 750 miles to ensure fair treatment of all states (Boardman, 2011). The costsharing methodology was approved for implementation by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in March 2012 (Amtrak, 2012c).

State supported corridors are the fastest growing portion of the Amtrak system (Boardman, 2011). State supported trains carry half (50%) of Amtrak’s annual riders (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). Twenty of the 27 state services set annual ridership records in FY11 (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). The 21 state-supported routes that Amtrak currently operates include (Amtrak, 2012c):

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

• California: Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin Corridor • Maine: Downeaster • Illinois: Lincoln, Illini and Saluki, Illinois Zephyr, and Carl Sandburg • Michigan: Blue Water and Pere Marquette • Missouri: Missouri River Runner • New York: Adirondack • North Carolina: Carolinian and Piedmont • Oklahoma & Texas: Heartland Flyer • Oregon & Washington: Amtrak Cascades • Pennsylvania: Keystones • Vermont: Ethan Allen Express and Vermonter • Virginia: Northeast Regional Lynchburg and Richmond • Wisconsin: Hiawatha

The Illinois Zephyr has been operating since November 14, 1971 making it the longest continuously operated statesupported train (Amtrak Media Relations, 2012). Illinois is second only to California in the extent of its passenger rail system.

Amtrak runs 56 trains in Illinois and 17 in border states employing about 2,500 employees (Stout, 2012).

4.2. California

4.2.1. Ridership

Caltrans funds three of the five busiest intercity passenger rail routes in the Amtrak system, the Pacific Surfliner (ranked second), Capitol Corridor (ranked third), and San Joaquin (ranked fifth). During late summer months, the Pacific Surfliner often carries more passengers than the trains in the NEC (Amtrak, 2012c). The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority manages the Capitol Corridor, and the Pacific Surfliner is transitioning to be managed by the Los Angeles-San DiegoSan Luis Obispo Joint Powers Authority (LOSSAN JPA) (California Department of Transportation, 2013). Â

Passenger wealth, the price of alternative modes of transportation (especially prices at the gas pump), quality of the service (e.g., the average age of rolling stock) and the price of train tickets all affect ridership (Nice, 1998). The fare for riding rail has increased, but so has the cost for other forms of passenger transportation (Figure 16). Therefore, it is unclear how the price change has impacted ridership.

In FY12, Amtrak had a record number of passengers, 31.2 million (Snider & Everett, 2012). This was a 3.5% increase in ridership and an associated 6.8% increase in ticket revenue. California has also experienced positive increases in ridership.

Figure 16. Average Trip Fare Comparison by Mode

Average Trip Fare Comparison by Mode, 1960-2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

Air carrier, domestic, scheduled service

Class I bus, intercity

Commuter rail

Intercity rail / Amtrak

$140 $120

$80 $60 $40 $20

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

1965

$0 1960

2010 $USD

$100

Year

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

37

Capitol Corridor As seen on the subsequent charts (Figures 17, 18 & 19) exhibiting ridership on the three state-supported corridors in California (i.e., Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin), the ridership increased in every corridor over the previous decade. Moreover, ridership as a percentage of the state population went up in each corridor during the last decade. If increases in ridership were due to only population growth, then ridership per capita would be flat, but, in contrast, the charts show the ridership adjusted for population increasing in all three corridors. This is partly due to increases in capacity, but may also be due to more individuals considering passenger rail as a viable transportation option.

Davis

Auburn Roseville Sacramento

Martinez Antioch Stockton

Oakland

San Jose

Turlock

Modesto

Merced Madera

San Joaquin

Fresno

The population-adjusted ridership is approximate. The ridership for a given state fiscal year was divided by the California state resident population for that calendar year. This slight discrepancy between the time period of the ridership data and the population is probably not that problematic given that population does not vary much during this period. What is clear is that the comparison shows that ridership is increasing, even when adjusted for increases in state population.

Hanford Corcoran

San Luis Obispo

Wasco

P Sur

Bak

Santa Barbara Oxnard

Los Angeles

Figure 17. Pacific Surfliner: Ridership

Fullerton Santa Ana San Juan Capistrano

Pacific Surfliner: Ridership

Sources: 2013 California State Rail Plan, California Department of Finance Ridership

Ridership/CA Population

3,000,000

0.0900

Oceanside Solana Beach San Diego

0.0800 2,500,000 0.0700

Ridership

0.0500 1,500,000 0.0400

0.0300

1,000,000

0.0200 500,000 0.0100

1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

0

State Fiscal Year

38

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Ridership/CA Population

0.0600

2,000,000

Figure 18. Capitol Corridor: Ridership

Capitol Corridor: Ridership

Sources: 2013 California State Rail Plan, California Department of Finance

0.05

1,800,000

0.045

1,600,000

0.04

1,400,000

0.035

1,200,000

0.03

1,000,000

0.025

800,000

0.02

600,000

0.015

400,000

0.01

200,000

0.005

Ridership/CA Population

Ridership/CA Population

2,000,000

0 1993-94

1992-93

1991-92

1990-91

1989-90

1988-89

1987-88

1986-87

1985-86

1984-85

1983-84

1982-83

1981-82

1980-81

1979-80

1978-79

1977-78

1976-77

1975-76

1974-75

1973-74

0

State Fiscal Year

Figure 19. San Joaquin: Ridership

San Joaquin: Ridership

Sources: 2013 California State Rail Plan, California Department of Finance Ridership

Ridership/CA Population

1,200,000

0.035

0.03

1,000,000

0.025

0.02 600,000 0.015 400,000

Ridership/CA Population

800,000

0.01

200,000

0.005

0

0 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Ridership

Ridership

Ridership

State Fiscal Year

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

39

Figure 21. Passenger Miles per Mode Another interesting piece of the ridership puzzle is looking at the average number of miles per passenger. It could be that the number of passengers is increasing, but the number of miles that they travel is decreasing. In contrast to this postulation, Figure 20 shows that the average passenger trip length went up in the early 1990s and appears to now be plateauing out at the levels seen in the 1970s and 1980s. However, the total number of rail passenger miles continues to be lower than highways and air travel (Figure 21).

Passenger Miles (Millions), 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

Buses , 21,172 Rail , 35,874

Personal Road (cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, demand response <on call> vechicles), 4,128,834

Air, 555,653

Figure 20. Average Passenger Train Trip Length

Average Passenger Train Trip length Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012 300

250

Miles

200

150

100

50

80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10

19

78

19

76

19

74

19

19

72

0

Year

40

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

4.2.2. High Speed Rail (HSR)

4.2.2.1. History

Although the Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the only current example of high speed rail (HSR) in the US, California is getting on track to develop a similar high speed system on the West coast. In his January 24, 2013 State of the State address, Governor Brown reasserted his dedication to developing HSR in California (Brown, 2013). As increasing gas prices and gridlocked highways have created transportation efficiency problems in California, state officials have looked to HSR for possible relief. Construction is expected to begin in 2013 on the middle section in the Central Valley (Merced to Fresno) of the California HSR corridor linking Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego (Nidever, 2012).

This ambitious plan is expected to take 15 years to complete (Plumer, 2012). When completed, this HSR corridor will be faster and potentially serve more passengers living in the metropolitan areas than the amount of passengers currently served by the NEC (Turner, 2012).

HSR has been under consideration in California for at least 30 years. In 1981, engineering and marketing studies were initiated by Amtrak to see if the San Diego-LA corridor would be suitable for HSR. Subsequently in December 1983, the USDOT approved a 1.25 million dollar grant to conduct an additional in-depth feasibility study of HSR service between LA and Las Vegas (California Department of Transportation, 1985).

Although the study positively evaluated the potential for a LA-Las Vegas route, Amtrak held off on developing the route to enable a start-up company, the American HSR Corporation, to take on the project (Amtrak, 1989). Despite this assistance, by 1984 the American HSR Corporation could not raise the needed funds and the rail project was terminated (California Department of Transportation, 1989). More than a decade later in the late 1990s, serious investors started reconsidering the LA-Las Vegas HSR project as an affordable, adults-only, party train for high rollers to quickly get to and from Las Vegas casinos (Jones, 2012; Progressive Railroading, 2012b). Currently, the Desert Express project is seeking $6.5

billion in government secured loans so that the party train can begin on New Year’s Eve 2013 (Keane, 2012).

Among the 10 potential HSR corridors identified by the Obama administration for development in 2009, the NEC and California are the only corridors making progress (Wall Street Journal, 2012).

However, Illinois and Texas have recently been accelerating towards developing their own HSR systems (Hilkevitch, 2012; Mineta National Transportation Research Consortium, 2012). California received the largest share of the federal funding for HSR (Goldmark, 2012; Keane, 2012).

One of the ways that California is trying to reduce costs is to collaborate with Amtrak to make bulk purchases of HSR rolling stock (electric multiple unit sets) (Freking, 2013; Maccioli, 2013). The Chief Executive Officer of the California HSR Authority explained the collaboration by stating, “It’s like going to Costco: If you buy it in bulk, you can lower your price” (Morales as cited in Doyle, 2013). This collaboration was facilitated through the Federal Railroad Administration (Szabo, 2013).

In contrast to the previous focus on private funding, the north-south HSR route initially going from San Francisco to LA has primarily been a public effort. In 1996, the California HSR Act established the California HSR Authority to create an intercity HSR service. By 2000, the business plan was complete.

A final environmental impact report and environmental impact study identified a HSR system as a preferred alternative to meet the State’s future intercity travel demands. This service would be on shared tracks with other passenger rail services. The plan would locate stations close to major airports with connections to major transit hubs. Between 2006 and 2007, the State budget provided $14.2 million to begin implementation, which would include developing a financial plan, management activities, critical rights-of-way acquisitions, initiation of a detailed project design, and comprehensive environmental studies (California Department of Transportation, 2007a).

4.2.2.2. Funding The entire corridor is expected to cost $68 billion dollars to construct (Plumer, 2012). In 2008, CA authorized $9.95 billion dollars in bonds for a 1200 km system (Chester & Horvath, 2012). On July 18, 2012 Governor Brown signed the bill to fund the initial 130-mile piece of railway connecting the middle section of the California HSR corridor from Merced to Fresno (Slosson, 2012).

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

41

4.2.2.3 Opposition There is resistance to HSR in California due to concerns about financing, quality control, and land use (Miranda, 2013; Sheyner, 2013; Slosson, 2012; Williams, 2013). Many feel that the project is too expensive and the return is not great enough or will not come fast enough to balance out the burden. With cities around California filing for bankruptcy, critics are wary of the gaps between current funding and the expected costs.

It is reported that by accepting money for the HSR project, California has become the most indebted state in the nation (Keane, 2012). Moreover, while the costs

42

of constructing HSR are immediate, the benefits may only start to be realized when the entire system is completed (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 2012).

There is also some opposition to the claim that HSR will stimulate local economies.

Kings County supervisors voted against the Amtrak reorganization bill (AB 1779) saying that the California HSR Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan will disrupt the economy and cover over productive farmland with tracks, facilities, and urban sprawl (Nidever, 2012; Slosson, 2012). The counterargument

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

is that two railroad tracks can carry as many passengers as 16 highways lanes of highway (Szabo, 2013), but the reality is that neither are currently there and some rural residents want to prevent this type of development for as long as possible.

An analysis of Japanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s HSR in the 1960s supports the Kings County supervisors fear that faster commuting would likely cause urban workers to seek lower price bedroom communities leading to increased housing development in rural areas along the HSR corridor (Johnson, 2012).

Finally, a more nuanced argument is that the money dedicated to HSR would be better spent elsewhere in the passenger rail system. The critics charge that new signal systems, track alignments, and improved station design would help make the rail passenger experience more efficient and reliable for a greater number of people than investing in the expensive boondoggle of HSR (Wall Street Journal, 2012).

4.2.2.4. Supporters

When it comes to mobility, California is the of the Amtrak system.

Backers of the HSR project primarily use economic and environmental arguments to support the plan and state that it is the type of bold thinking that has made America great (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 2012). Governor Brown has proclaimed that HSR will promote job growth and offer a desirable alternative for passenger transportation in California. As can be seen in the NEC and HSR in Japan and Europe, increasing the speed of passenger rail makes it a better option than road or air for trips ranging from approximately 90 to 500 miles (Invensys Rail, 2012; Wall Street Journal, 2012). The 380 miles from San Francisco to LA is perfectly situated within this ideal zone for HSR. Moreover, NEC shows that the increased speed and amenities of HSR in California will likely attract a greater share of the trips in the San Francisco to LA corridor. Governor Brown as well as former Governor Schwarzenegger â&#x20AC;&#x153;both argued that although (a HSR project) is expensive, the roadway and airport expansion alternatives would cost even moreâ&#x20AC;? (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 2012).

4.2.3. Feeder Bus Lines The first dedicated connecting bus route was inaugurated in 1980, connecting riders from Stockton to Sacramento to Chico (California Department of Transportation, 1989). Amtrak feeder buses operate in conjunction with the train system. Only train passengers can get passage on Amtrak buses for a portion of their trip.

Government code 14035.2 states that Amtrak buses must be assessed for their cost-effectiveness. In 1988, ridership analysis showed that feeder bus riders make longer than average trips and therefore produce higher revenues per trip. If not for feeder buses, an estimated $4.8 million would have been lost in 1988 (California Department of Transportation, 1989). Buses are used to reach markets not served by trains and to guarantee connections (California Department of Transportation, 2005b).

giant

In 2005, Greyhound cancelled service to specific areas to emphasize their service to metropolitan areas. As a result, the Department evaluated replacing former Greyhound routes with Amtrak bus routes (California Department of Transportation, 2005b). By 2006, feeder buses serviced all cities within the state with a population over 200,000 that are not directly served by a train. The buses also serve some places outside the state, including Medford and Ashland in Oregon; and Reno, Carson City, and Las Vegas in Nevada (California Department of Transportation, 2006a).

4.2.4. Commuter Trains Commuter services are short-haul rail passenger services operated in metropolitan and suburban areas, characterized by reduced fare, multiple-ride, with morning and evening peak period operations (California Department of Transportation, 1988). Commuter trains are run on Amtrak lines; however, the services are often managed by outside companies.

In 2011, more than 830,000 people depended on commuter rail services owned or maintained/operated by Amtrak during weekdays (Amtrak, 2013a).

In California, four commuter rails exist along the Amtrak lines: Caltrain (connecting San Francisco, San Jose, and Gilroy), the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) (connecting Stockton, Livermore, Fremont, and San Jose), Metrolink (connecting LA, San Diego, and Ventura), and the Coaster (connecting Oceanside and San Diego).

Due to skyrocketing fuel prices, bus lines that were previously marginally profitable may not be profitable in the future. A committee was appointed in 2008 to work on planning bus routes that accommodate increases in fuel prices, and assess which routes are really important to maintain (California Department of Transportation, 2008b).

4.3. Summary When it comes to mobility, California is the giant of the Amtrak system with three of the five busiest state-supported corridors in the country. Amtrak picks up and drops off passengers at more stations in California than in any other state in the nation (Figure 9). The number of passengers in the state supported Amtrak corridors increased over the last decade,

even when accounting for increases in California state population (Figures 12, 13, & 14). Long distance trains, commuter trains, and feeder buses all contribute to the mobility of Americans.

Although the NEC is currently the only example of HSR in the US, California is developing a HSR system that may eventually eclipse the NEC.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

43

5.

Delivery:

Efficiently deliver quality transportation projects and services.

Caltrans is committed to efficient delivery of quality transportation and services in order to improve the movement of people, goods, and service across California. The Division of Rail’s capital program has developed and implemented strategies to facilitate the delivery of Amtrak California related projects on time and on budget (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

5.1. National and International Amtrak continues to fund capital projects designed to rebuild, upgrade and modernize existing infrastructure (e.g., tracks, bridges, stations) across the US and to build new infrastructure along the NEC. Between FY11 and FY12, the capital projects conducted reflected increased interest in High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSR) and the need to advance compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (Amtrak, 2012c).

5.1.1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) In FY09, Amtrak implemented Accessible Stations Development Program aimed at improving accessibility on 582 projects or subprojects at 309 stations. Since then, Amtrak has, for example, installed lifts to enable mobility impaired passengers to get on and off the train safely, created accessible parking spaces, eliminated uneven surfaces, and installed signs.

Between FY09 and FY12, Amtrak spent or awarded contracts that totaled approximately $169.2 million in ADArelated projects ($0.1 million in FY09, $57.1 million in FY10, and $112.0 million in FY11). In FY12, $50 million were programmed for project to further increase compliance with ADA (Amtrak, 2012c).

44

5.1.2. High Speed Rail (HSR) In FY11, Amtrak conducted preliminary studies to upgrade the current rail infrastructure and improve the reliability of service between New York and Washington. Amtrak received $450.0 million from the DOT in HSR funding to begin the first phase (i.e., route between New Brunswick and Trenton, New Jersey) of this effort by the end of FY17. The NEC Gateway Project started in 2011 to provide additional rail capacity into and through midtown Manhattan, and to later facilitate the start-up of Amtrak’s Next Generation HSR service in the NEC (Amtrak, 2012c). The approximately 12year $1.3 billion project, Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel Replacement Project, continued during the FY11-12, mainly focusing on replacing a 140-year old speed inefficient tunnel on the NEC Main Line, South of Baltimore Penn Station (Amtrak, 2012c). In FY12, $15 million of the $1,086.4 million FY12 Capital Budget were programmed for preliminary engineering for the NEC Gateway Project (Amtrak, 2012e).

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

5.1.3. Capital Projects Investments Amtrak’s ability to carry out quality capital projects on time is dependent on continuing support from the public sector and investments from strategic partners. These investments are crucial for Amtrak’s infrastructure, systems, rolling stock and station maintenance, as well as the NEC improvements (Amtrak, 2011b).

The FY12 Amtrak’s capital projects budget (not including debt service) totaled $1,086.4 million. This budget included $686.6 million from general federal appropriations after an estimated $9.5 million deduction for FRA oversight, $41.1 million from Department of Homeland Security grants, and $127.5 million from state and local agencies and other sources (Amtrak, 2012e).

Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of Amtrak’s FY12 capital projects budget and funding by departments. Table 3 provides an overview of sample Amtrak capital projects completed in FY11 (Amtrak, 2012e).

Table 1. Amtrak Capital Programs Budget Summary (FY12) Capital Programs Funds

FY2010 Actual

FY11 Actual

FY12 Budget

FY12 Variance to FY11

Federal General Capital

$591.3

$658.41

$646.1

($12.3)

ADA Compliance Projects

$18.6

$50.0

$50.0 $37.7

â&#x20AC;˘ Subtotal General Capital

$609.8

$658.4

$696.1

â&#x20AC;˘ Less FRA General Oversight Section 212 Funds

($10.0)

($9.5)

($9.5)

Net Capital to Amtrak

$599.8

$648.9

$686.6

$37.7

$5.5

$134.0

$94.6

($39.4)

Total Federal General & Internal Funds

$605.3

$782.9

$781.2

($1.7)

RRIF

$98.1

$97.9

$119.6

$21.7

$224.0

$176.3

($67.7)

Internally Generated Funds

State, Local, Other Total Capital Program Funding before Stimulus

$703.4

$1124.8

$1077.1

($47.7)

Economic Stimulus

$73.9

$568.5

$9.4

($559.1)

$1435.3

$163.3

$1086.4

($606.8)

Grand Total Capital Programs

$99.9 million of federal capital carried forward from the FY10 grant was spent on ADA projects in FY11 (amount included in the State, Local, and Other FY11 total)

1

Note. Amtrak capital programs budget summary (FY12). Adapted from Fiscal Year 2012 Budget and Comprehensive Plan (p. 23), by Amtrak, 2012, Washington, DC: Amtrak.

Copyright 2012 by Amtrak. Adapted with permission.

Table 2. Summary of FY12 Capital Program Budget by Department (millions) Department Engineering

General Federal Capital

RRIF Loan

$7.7

Internal Amtrak Funds

State, Local, Others

Total Capital

$2.1

$114.3

$416.4

$1.9

$9.6

$50.0

ARRA High Speed Rail Mechanical

Homeland Security Grants

$300.0

V-ETMS Interoperability on the NEC ADA Compliance

Other Federal Grants

$50.0 $7.3

$7.3

$250.0

Rolling Stock Acquisitions

$119.6

2009 ARRA TSGP Operations

$0.6

$2.6

$253.2

$72.2

$2.4

$194.2

$2.1

$2.1

Package Amtrak Police Department

$41.1

Chief Financial Officer

$2.4

$43.5

$0.4

$0.4

Chief Operating Officer $3.8

$3.8

Information Technology

Environmental $30.3

$5.5

$35.8

Marketing and Product

$20.2

$3.0

$23.2

$6.5

$2.7

Management Policy & Dev/NEC IID

$8.2

$17.4

Procurement Real Estate

$17.0

$17.0

Transportation

$12.7

$12.7

Total Capital Programs

$686.6

$17.1

$41.1

$119.6

$94.6

$127.5

$1086.4

Note. Summary of FY12 capital program budget by department. Adapted from Fiscal Year 2012 Budget and Comprehensive Plan (p. 23), by Amtrak, 2012, Washington, DC: Amtrak. Copyright 2012 by Amtrak. Adapted with permission.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

45

Table 3. Overview of Sample Amtrak Capital Projects Completed in FY11 Projects FY11

Description

Cost (in million)

Track Replaced 64,700 concrete ties on the Hell Gate Line between New Rochelle and Harold Interlocking Replaced 37,000 concrete ties in Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Southwest Corridor as well as 13,600 concrete ties between Hebronville and Lawn on the Shore Line Replaced Union Interlocking Cleaned 59 track miles of shoulder ballast Purchased or rebuilt five tie cars; 15 pieces of on-track machinery; 15 rubber-tired machines and 3 junior tampers Completely replaced 3,800 feet of track 2 in the North River tunnel Completed the installation of over 20 new switches Completed the total track replacement of 3,600 feet of East and Westbound tracks in Union, NJ Completed the installation of over 13,000 wood ties between Elmora, NJ and Union, NJ Retired 12 switches and converted 2,800 feet of wood track to concrete at Old Park interlocking on the Harrisburg, PA line Track Projects Total

$192.1

Structure Started construction on a new bridge across the Niantic River in East Lyme, CT (scheduled for completion in FY14) Started preliminary design of the Baltimore & Potomac River Tunnel replacement in Baltimore Replaced the pinion machinery at the Trail Creek movable bridge in Michigan Replaced 912 bridge ties on 19 undergrade bridges Made improvements to 21 stations including platform renovations, upgraded or replaced elevators, escalators and stairs to make stations more easily accessible for people with disabilities Upgraded all areas of the Seattle Maintenance Facility Structure Projects Total

$150.7

Communications and Signals Installed new control system at K Tower in Washington, D.C. Installed 11.5 miles of signal cable Continued the installation of Base Radio Station upgrades to meet new Federal Communications Commission requirements Placed in service Leaman interlocking in PA and Union interlocking in NJ Installed Automatic Block Signaling at Leaman and Park, PA Communications and Signals Projects Total

46

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

$13.1

Table 3 (contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d). Overview of Sample Amtrak Capital Projects Completed in FY11 Projects FY11

Cost (in million)

Description

Fire and Life Continued the installation of a new ventilation shaft for the First Avenue tunnels in New York.

Continued installation upgrades to the Centralized Electrification and Traffic Control Center at New York Penn Station Fire and Life Projects Total

$35.5

Electrical Traction Renewed 26.2 miles of catenary hardware Improved 18 substations with new transformers, breakers or switches Replaced 288 power modules in Jericho Park in Bowie, MD Installed new power cables and duct banks between the Metuchen, NJ converter station and the NEC, a distance of 1.5 miles Started design implementation for ways to increase the electrical power available from the Metuchen, NJ converter station Upgraded Metuchen, NJ frequency converter equipment Electrical Traction Projects Total

$30.2

Construction Continued to replace and modernize the overhead catenary wires and other electrical equipment along the Hell Gate Line on Continued improvement and upgrades to the Seattle maintenance faciliility (scheduled for completition in FY13) Installed track on the Springfield Line between Berlin and Newington, CT Continued to replace and modernize the First Avenue ventilation shaft Construction Projects Total

$54.8

Note. Overview of sample Amtrak capital projects completed in FY11. Adapted from Annual Report Fiscal Year 2011 (pp. 28-33), by Amtrak, 2012, Washington, DC: Amtrak.

Copyright 2012 by Amtrak. Adapted with permission.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

47

5.2. California The Division of Rail is committed to efficient and quality capital projects delivery to improve the existing intercity rail system in California. Specifically, these projects are intended to improve safety of intercity rail services, equipment, stations, facilities and multi-modal connectivity; increase reliability and on-time performance (OTP) on existing routes; and develop new cost effective routes (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

The 2007-2012 California State Rail Plan provides a breakdown of ten-year unconstrained and constrained capital programs for the three state-supported routes to be delivered between FY08 and FY18. Based on project needs, the Division of Rail has set the goal to deliver $4.03 billion in unconstrained projects funded by the State or other public entity (not including projects funded by a railroad) by the end on FY18. Specifically, nearly $2.3 billion in projects will be delivered on the Pacific Surfliner route, $592.2 million on the San Joaquin route, and $550.3 million on the Capitol Corridor (Table 4) (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

5.2.1. Capital Projects FY08 – FY18 Based on state funding, the Division Department has developed a $700 million constrained capital program. It is estimated that $467.5 million will be spent on Pacific Surfliner route, $120.5 million on San Joaquin route, and $112 million on the Capitol Corridor between FY08 and FY18 (Table 5) (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

The Pacific Surfliner long-term capital projects are based on the 2007 LOSSAN North Corridor Strategic Plan and 2003 LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan. The corridor’s strategic plans are aimed at continuous improvement of the LOSSAN corridor (routes between Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo) in order to meet the projected increase in travel demand

on the LOSSAN corridor while reducing travel time and increasing safety and accessibility of the rail service (California Department of Transportation, 2003a; California Department of Transportation, 2007a). The 2008 San Joaquin Route Strategic Business Plan details the projects on the corridor. The strategic business plan’s overall goal is to further develop the route in order to relieve increasing highway and air congestion, while promoting environmentally sustainable land use. Tables 6, 7 and 8 provide a list of the proposed unconstrained capital programs for statesupported corridors to be completed

by FY18 (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Table 5. Constrained Ten-Year Intercity Rail Capital Program Project Costs (FY08 - FY18) Route

Estimated Amount to be Spent on Each Route ($ in millions)

Pacific Surfliner – North

$133.5

Pacific Surfliner – South

$334.0

San Joaquin

$120.5

Capitol Corridor

$112.0

Total

$700.0

Note. Constrained ten-year intercity rail capital program project costs (FY08 - FY18). Adapted from California State Rail Plan FY08 - FY18 (p. 27), Caltrans, 2008, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2008 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

Table 4. Unconstrained Ten-Year Intercity Rail Capital Program Project Costs (FY08 - FY18) ($ in millions) Track and Signal

Stations

Grade Crossings

Rolling Stock and Maintenance Facilities

Total Cost

Pacific Surfliner – North

$ 599.0

$57.3

$-

(1)

$656.3

Pacific Surfliner – South

$1000.2

$151.5

$365.0

$125.0

$1641.7

San Joaquin

$ 472.9

$36.3

$-

$83.0

$592.2

Capitol Corridor

$286.6

$114.7

$67.0

$82.0

$550.3

Subtotal

$2358.7

$359.8

$432.0

$29.0

$3440.5

$495.9

$10.3

$14.0

$70.0

$590.2

$2854.6

$370.1

$446.0

$360.0

$4030.7

Route Existing Routes

Proposed Routes (2) Coast Total

(1) Included in Pacific Surfliner – South (2) Based on Amtrak’s California Passenger Rail 20–Year Improvement Plan Capital Costs for other proposed routes (Reno and Redding) were not studied in the Amtrak Plan, and current comparable cost estimates are not available Note. Unconstrained ten-year intercity rail capital program project costs (FY08 - FY18). Adapted from California State Rail Plan FY08 - FY18 (p. 19), by Caltrans, 2008, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2008 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

48

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Table 6. Unconstrained Capital Program Projects: Pacific Surfliner Route (FY08 - FY18) Pacific Surfliner Route - North Project

Description

Cost ($000)

Station Improvements

Multiple Stations

$11,725

Oxnard Station Parking

Additional Parking

$1,100

Camarillo Station Pedestrian Crossing

Provides pedestrian safety

$1,000

Van Nuys Station

2 platform and track work

$25,600

Goleta Station Improvements

Platform Improvements

$700

Camarillo Station Improvements

Platform Improvements

$10,200

Simi Valley Station Improvements

Platform Improvements

$6,000

Moorpark Station Imps

Platform Improvements

$1,000

Station Projects

nd

Subtotal of Station Projects

$57,325

Track and Signal Projects Waldorf Siding Extension

Provides for additional capacity, improves OTP

$15,000

Tangair Siding Extension

Provides for additional capacity, improves OTP

$22,000

Ortega Siding

Increases capacity and OTP

$30,000

Seacliff Siding Realignment

Realign curved trackage – increases speed

$35,000

Moorpark to Simi Valley Rail Replacement

Replace track for comfort and safety

$24,000

Simi Valley to CP Strathern Second Main Track

Provides for additional capacity and efficiency

$37,000

Burbank Jct. Track Realignment

Increases OTP

$8,500

CP Raymer to CP DeSoto Second Main Track

Provides for additional capacity

$50,000

Burbank Siding Extension

Allows more efficient service

$8,500

San Luis Obispo – Santa Barbara Signal Upgrades

Increases capacity and improve efficiency

$250,000

Moorpark-Burbank Track and Signal Imps

Increases capacity and improve efficiency

$1,500

Leesdale Siding Extension

Allows more capacity

$15,000

Narlon, Honda, Concepcion Island CTC

Decreases running times

$30,000

Capiton Siding and CTC

Decreases running times

$10,000

Goleta Service Track Extension

Improves maintenance ability

$10,000

Sandyland Siding

Permits increased capacity

$15,000

Santa Clara River Curve Alignment

Permits higher speeds

$6,000

Montalvo Curve Alignment

Permits higher speeds

$2,000

CP West Camarillo Curve Realignments

Permits higher speeds

$5,000

Strathearn Siding Curve Realignment

Permits higher speed

$1,000

Selected Corridor Improvements

Security and Communications upgrades

$20,100

Capitalized Maintenance

Periodic minor maintenance of infrastructure

$3,350

Subtotal of Track and Signal Projects

$598,950

Subtotal Pacific Surfliner Route – North

$656,275

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

49

Table 6 (cont’d). Unconstrained Capital Program Projects: Pacific Surfliner Route (FY08 - FY18) Pacific Surfliner Route – South Project

Description

Cost ($000)

Station Projects Station Improvements

Multiple Stations

$23,275

Solana Beach Station

Parking Structure

$18,000

LA Storage Track

Permits efficient use of equipment

$38,100

Fullerton Station Parking Structure

Increase parking capacity

$25,200

Multiple Stations Ticket Vending Machines

Expedite passenger ticketing

$10,400

Multiple Stations Electronic Passenger Information Systems

Improves passenger communication

$1,500

LA Union Station

Station tracks and platforms

$35,000

Subtotal of Station Projects

$151,475

Track and Signal Projects Oceanside Double Track

1.2 miles of double track

$13,603

Del Mar Bluff Stabilizations

Stabilize Bluff area

$12,735

San Dieguito River Bridge

Construct double track concrete bridge

$34,428

Sorrento – Miramar Double Track

Allows increased capacity

$27,600

Carlsbad

Double track project increases capacity

$17,700

Double Track – San Diego County

Various locations – decreases running times

$80,000

Replace wooden trestle and bridges and construct second span

Various locations in San Diego County to increase OTP

$100,000

LA Union station Run Through Tracks

Reduces running times and terminal congestion

$500,000

LA – Fullerton Triple Tracks

Increases capacity and on-time performance

$100,000

Santa Margarita Bridge

Replace bridge-construct double track

$39,200

CP Pulgas to MP 423 Second Main Track

Increases Capacity

$28,400

Selected Corridor Improvements

Security and Communications upgrades

$39,900

Capitalized Maintenance

Periodic minor infrastructure and maintenance

$6,650

Subtotal of Track and Signal Projects

$1,000,216

Grade Separation Projects City of Encinitas Grade Separation

4 Pedestrian grade separations

$20,000

Leucadia Grade Separation

Grade separation San Diego County

$50,000

LA-Fullerton Grade Separation

6 Grade separations

$300,000

Subtotal Grade Separation Projects

$370,000

Maintenance facilities and Equipment Projects San Diego Layover Facility

Permits better use of Equipment

$50,000

Equipment

3 Train Sets

$75,000

Subtotal Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Projects

$125,000

Subtotal Pacific Surfliner – South

$1,646,691

GRAND TOTAL – Pacific Surfliner Route

$2,302,966

Note. Unconstrained capital program projects: Pacific Surfliner Route (FY08 - FY18). Adapted from California State Rail Plan FY08 - FY18 (pp. 20-21), by Caltrans, 2008, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2008 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

50

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Table 7. Unconstrained Capital Program Projects: Capitol Corridor (FY08 - FY18) Capitol Corridor Project

Description

Cost ($000)

Fairfield – Vacaville

Construct new station

$ 38,000

Hercules

Construct new station

$ 31,000

Emeryville – Station and Track Improvements

Allows increased Capacity

$10,000

Sacramento – Track Improvements

Allows increased Capacity

$ 23,000

Ticketing, Passenger Info

Increases efficiency and passenger information

$12, 700

Station Projects

Subtotal of Station Projects

$114,700

Track and Signal Projects Sacramento – Martinez Track Improvements

Increase Capacity and OTP

$38,000

Yolo Causeway Crossover

High Speed crossover, increases speed

$7000

Hayward Double Track

Allows increased capacity

$22,000

Travel Time Reliability

Increases OTP

$22,000

San Jose 4th Track

Allows increased capacity

$20,600

Oakland – Embarcadero

Reduces passenger rail-freight rail conflicts

$27,000

Solano – Yolo Track Improvements

Increases capacity and efficiency

$19,000

Dumbarton Passenger Rail

Reduces travel times, increases efficiency

$34,000

Santa Clara to Alviso Double Track

Increases Capacity

$27,000

Sacramento – Roseville 3 Track

Increases Capacity

$60,000

Annualized maintenance

Periodic routine infrastructure maintenance

$10,000

rd

Subtotal of Track and Signal Projects

$286,600

Grade Separation Projects Grade Separation Projects

Improves safety

Subtotal of Grade Separation Projects

$67,000 $67,000

Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Projects Rolling Stock

Permits increased service

$82,000

Subtotal of Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Projects

$82,000

GRAND TOTAL – Capitol Corridor

$550,300

Note. Unconstrained capital program projects: Capitol Corridor (FY08 - FY18). Adapted from California State Rail Plan FY08 - FY18 (p. 23), by Caltrans, 2008, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2008 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

51

Table 8. Unconstrained Capital Program Projects: San Joaquin Route (FY08-FY18) Project

Description

Cost ($000)

Construct 8” above top of rail platform with shelter and lighting for the new station

$ 800

Stockton ACE Station

Renovate former SP station for use by ACE and San Joaquin Route trains, upgrading platforms and station tracks

$4400

Richmond Station

Complete design and construction of station

$4900

Richmond Station

Design and construct 800 space parking garage

$5200

Martinez Station

Acquire land for additional parking and construct parking structure

$11000

Stockton BNSF Station

Design environmental documentation for new station, purchase ROW and construct new station

$7500

Madera Station

Construct Station

$2543

Station Elk Grove Station

Subtotal of Station Projects

$36,343

Track and Signal Sacramento – Stockton Track Infrastructure projects

Improve infrastructure including bridges

$100,000

Port Chicago to Oakley Double Track -Phase I

Environmental, engineering and design for 17.6 miles of double track; install CTC

$33, 900

Port Chicago to Oakley Double Track - Phase II

Increases efficiency and OTP

$75,000

Stockton Northwest Quadrant Track Connections

Construction of track connection – would connect services at Stockton

$1500

Merced Crossover

Construct crossover – increases efficiency

$5000

Wheat to Avena – San Joaquin County

Increases capacity

$40,000

Escalon to Avena – San Joaquin County

Increases capacity and OTP

$30,000

Hanford to Shirley

Increases capacity and OTP

$10,000

Guernsey to Hanford

Construction of double track

$36,000

Gregg Double Track – Fresno County

Increases OTP and efficiency

$22,500

Merced to Le Grand

Increases OTP and efficiency

$69,000

Shafter to Jastro – Kern County

Increases OTP and efficiency

$40,000

San Joaquin Route Capitalized Maintenance

Routine infrastructure maintenance

$10,000

Kings Park

Increases OTP and efficiency

$18,500

Subtotal of Track and Signal Projects

$491,400

Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Equipment

2 sets equipment (6cars – 1 locomotive)

$50,000

Fresno Layover Facility

Design and construct layover facility

$15,000

Sacramento Layover Facility

Design and construct layover facility

$30,000

Subtotal of Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Projects

$95,000

GRAND TOTAL – SAN JOAQUIN ROUTE

$622,743

Note. Unconstrained capital program projects: San Joaquin Route (FY08 - FY18). Adapted from California State Rail Plan FY08 - FY18 (p. 22), by Caltrans, 2008, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2008 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

52

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Table 9. San Joaquin Capital Projects 1993-2012 In partnership with Caltrans, BNSF, UPRR, Amtrak, and the San Joaquin Valley Community, Caltrans has invested $240 million in San Joaquin’s track improvements in past 20 years constructing over 80 miles of new second main track. Tables 9 and 10 provide an overview of San Joaquin Capital Projects completed in the last 20 years and projects currently under construction (California Department of Transportation, 2012a).

Project

Cost

Track Miles

Benefits

4 to 6 Train

$53.8

21.5

Two Round Trips

Oakley to Pt Chicago CTC

$21.5

2

Capacity, OTP

Shirley to Hanford

$22

5

Capacity, OTP

Kings Park Dbl Track

$18.5

4.5

Capacity, OTP

Calwa to Bowles

$26.7

8.5

Capacity, OTP

Stockton Dbl Track

$10

6

Capacity, OTP

Empire

$11

8.2

Capacity, OTP

Keddie Xover

$0.8

-

Capacity, OTP

The 1991 RTC Modeling developed the “4 to 6 Train” growth scenario, which became the foundation of current San Joaquin Corridor. Supported by $53.8 million investment from 1990 Rail Bonds, 8 projects were constructed throughout the Corridor (21.5 miles of second mainline, two major bridges, and major signal upgrade) and resulted in two additional round trips. Caltrans 2010 modeling proposed additional 8 round trips at 90 mph (see figure 22) (California Department of Transportation, 2012a).

Escalon Siding Ext

$10

2.5

Capacity, OTP

Merced Xover

$2.1

-

Capacity, OTP

Sac – Stockton Upgrade

$39

16.6

Two Trains Sac to eStock

Mococco Upgrade

$9.0

6.2

2 Trains Oak to PC

Cap Maintenance

$1.7

-

Ride Quality, OTP

Design and Engineering

$14.4

Total

$240.5

Eng, Modeling, Environmental 81

Note. San Joaquin capital projects 1993-2012. Adapted from Caltrans Division of Rail Corridor Investment on San Joaquin Corridor: Past, Present and Future, by Caltrans, 2012, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2012 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

Table 10. San Joaquin Capital Projects Currently Under Construction (FY12) Project

Cost

Track Miles

Benefits

Oakley to Pt. Chicago Segment 3

$26.5

3.5

Capacity

Stockton to Escalon Segment 1

$8.4

2.5

Capacity

San Joaquin PTC

$10

Corridor

Capacity, Safety

Capitalized Maint

$1.0

Corridor

Ride Quality, OTP

Total

$44.9

6

Note. San Joaquin capital projects currently under construction. Adapted from Caltrans Division of Rail Corridor Investment on San Joaquin Corridor: Past, Present and Future, by Caltrans, 2012, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.

Copyright 2012 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

53

Figure 22. San Joaquin Corridor: Modeled/Proposed Projects

Oakley to Port Chicago 3 Miles of Double Track Stockton to Escalon 5.5 Miles of Double Track Roseville Sacramento

Martinez Antioch Stockton Turlock

Gregg Siding 5 Miles of Double Track

Modesto

Merced Madera

Merced to Le Grand 17 Miles of Double Track

Jastro to Shafter 13 miles of double track

San Joaquin

Fresno Hanford Corcoran

Wasco Bak

5.2.2 Capital Projects by Funding Between 1976 and 2005, the intercity rail capital program has received over $2.8 billion of funds (Table 11) from various local, state, and federal sources; Amtrak and private railroad funds; as well as funds supported by numerous pieces of legislation including the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act (Proposition 108), the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 (Proposition 116), Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF), and State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) (Table 12).

Figure 22. San Joaquin Corridor: modeled/proposed projects. Adapted from Caltrans Division of Rail Corridor Investment on San Joaquin Corridor: Past, Present and Future,

by Caltrans, 2012, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2012 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

54

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Table 11. Summary of Projects by Project Types (July 1976-December 2005) ($ in millions) Project Type

Route

Stations

Maintenance and Layover Facilities

Track and Signal

Total

Rolling Stock

Pacific Sufliner – North

$103.8

$240.6

$344.4

Pacific Surfliner – South

$143.9

$666.1

$810.0

Total Pacific Surfliner

$247.7

$906.7

$1154.4

San Joaquin

$150.5

$392.7

$543.2

Capital Corridor

$100.0

$196.9

$296.9

Other Routes

$44.3

$24.4

$68.7

Maintenance and Layover Facilities

$143.8

$143.8

Rolling Stock Grand Total

$542.5

$1520.7

$143.8

$609.6

$609.6

$609.6

$2816.6

Note. Summary of projects by project types (July 1976-December 2005). Adapted from California State Rail Plan FY08 - FY18 (p. 29), by Caltrans, 2008, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2008 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

Table 12. Summary of Projects by Funding Source (July 1976-December 2005) ($ in millions) Route

Funding Source State

Local

Federal

Amtrak

Railroad

Pacific Sufliner – North

$229.5

$85.4

$25.1

$3.1

$1.3

Pacific Surfliner – South

$516.2

$104.9

$153.3

$16.1

$7.1

Other

Total $344.4

$12.4

$810

Total Pacific Surfliner

$745.7

$190.3

$178.4

$19.2

$8.4

$12.4

$1154.4

San Joaquin

$395.3

$33.1

$32.7

$2.0

$78.4

$1.7

$543.2

Capital Corridor

$198.6

$51.4

$31.1

$1.2

$14.5

$0.1

$296.9

$21.4

$3.0

$6.2

Other Routes

$30.3

$7.8

Maintenance and Layover Facilities

$80.8

$0.5

Rolling Stock

$306.3

Grand Total

$1757.0

$283.1

$68.7

$62.5 $0.5

$296.5

$264.1

$384.4

$143.8

$107.5

$6.3

$609.6

$20.5

$2816.6

Note. Summary of projects by funding source (July 1976-December 2005). Adapted from California State Rail Plan FY08 - FY18 (p. 29), by Caltrans, 2008, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2008 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

The 2013 California Strategic Rail Plan (CSRP) provides a framework for future plans to improve California’s rail system and develop a statewide rail system that would integrate the HSR with the existing intercity and commuter rail services. The statewide integrated rail network will provide an opportunity for integrated planning and coordinated infrastructure investments using state, regional, and federal funds for capital projects and service delivery and “blended” system of services, which are expected to improve ridership across all participating services. The integrated rail system will also address transportation related environmental challenges and promote regional economic development.

Associated with the development of the integrated rail service is the proposed expansion of statesupported intercity rail routes.

Specifically, the 2013 CSRP proposed an addition of the following services: • Pacific Surfliner: −− one more daily roundtrip from San Diego to LA −− one more daily roundtrip from LA to Goleta

• Capitol Corridor: −− one additional weekday roundtrip from Sacramento to Oakland −− four additional weekday roundtrips from San Jose to Oakland The expansion of state-supported intercity services is aimed at addressing increased travel demand, traffic congestion, and increase in GHG emissions (California Department of Transportation, 2013).

• San Joaquin: −− seven to eleven daily roundtrips −− three to six daily roundtrips on the BNSF Railway line

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

55

Amtrakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to efficiently deliver quality capital projects depends on continuing support from the public and private sector.

56

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

5.3. Summary Amtrak’s ability to efficiently deliver quality capital projects depends on continuing support from the public (i.e., state and local entities and Federal appropriations) and private sector. These investments are crucial for Amtrak’s infrastructure, systems, rolling stock and station maintenance, as well as the NEC improvements (Amtrak, 2011b).

The FY12 Amtrak’s capital projects budget (not including debt service) totaled $1,086.4 million (including $686.6 million from general federal appropriations after an estimated $9.5 million deduction for FRA oversight). Capital projects funds are utilized to rebuild, upgrade, and modernize existing infrastructure (e.g., tracks, bridges, stations)

across the US and to build new infrastructure along the NEC. Between FY11 and FY12, the capital projects conducted reflected increased interest in High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSR) and the need to advance compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (Amtrak, 2012c).

Specifically, Amtrak capital projects focused on improving the NEC services and building a two-track, HSR alignment between Boston and Washington to serve the fastgrowing intercity rail market known as “NextGen HSR” system and making Amtrak rail stations accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities (Amtrak, 2012e).

Capital projects in California have mainly focused on increasing reliability, ontime performance (OTP), and improving safety on existing routes. As outlined in the 2013 California State Rail Plan draft, future capital projects will focus on the development of integrated rail service and expansion of statesupported intercity rail routes to improve mobility across California and to address various challenges associated with population growth in California (California Department of Transportation, 2013).

Efficient delivery of quality capital projects will dependent of Amtrak’s continuing support from the public sector as well as investments from strategic partners.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

57

6.

stewardship:

The Caltrans goal of stewardship reflects the California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2025 vision, which defines quality of life as a “prosperous economy,” “quality environment,” and “social equity,” and identifies the transportation system as an “enhanced, ecologically healthy environment, and is developed with appropriate safeguards to protect open space, agricultural and sensitive lands, critical habitats, wildlife, and water and air quality; to minimize noise and visual impacts; and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases” (California Department of Transportation, 2006b).

Preserve and enhance California’s resources and assets.

This section will provide an overview of resources and assets in the context of economics and the environment. The section begins by comparing modes of transportation and ends with mitigation strategies and evaluating economic and environmental impacts.

6.1. Economics & Alternative Modes of Transportation The perceived value of rail in comparison to other forms of domestic passenger transportation is highly political and controversial (Cervero & Guerra, 2011; United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011). On one side, passenger rail promoters laud it as an energy efficient, land efficient, relatively safe, environmentally friendly, underfunded, increasingly popular, socially just form of transportation that reduces dependence on foreign oil and reduces costs related to congestion. Conversely, detractors posit that passenger rail in general, and Amtrak specifically, is an economically

inefficient boondoggle that costs American taxpayers too much money and suppresses private competition. It is often difficult to directly compare different modalities of transportation. Research and statistics are used to support both sides of the argument.

Passenger rail saw passenger miles decrease nearly 80 percent between the 1920s and 1970s (Nice, 1998).

Passenger train travel decreased, at least partially, because of the relative costs of automobile and the air travel.

Automobiles were perceived as providing

increased independence, convenience, flexibility, and sometimes even overall lower costs per trip (Nice, 1998). Airplanes offered reduced travel times, especially for long-distance travelers. Early air travel also offered a relatively elite service.

Moreover, long-distance travel by plane is often less expensive and more time efficient than travel by rail. These cheaper and faster modes of transportation led to decreasing passenger rail ridership, profits, and investments, which resulted in a reduced passenger rail experience causing a further reduction in the number of passengers.

6.1.1 Relative Level of Subsidies by Mode Amtrak receives about 7% of the level of subsidies that air receives and 3% of what highways receive (Figure 23) (Amtrak, 2010; United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011).

However, it may be more appropriate to compare modalities based on passenger 58

number, or passenger miles each mode is responsible for since there are far more cars and trucks on the road than locomotives and cars on rails (Figure 24), even though passenger rail vehicles experience far more miles per vehicle (Figure 25). Moreover, the capacity of rail vehicles is second only to air (Figures 26).

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

This high capacity coupled with longer lifespans means that rail locomotives and cars have far more passenger miles on them compared to the vehicles that travel by other modes (Figure 27).

Figures 24 through 27 help explain how passenger transportation modalities differ. These differences are important when analyzing subsidies each form of transportation receives. The blog Greater Greater Washington compared subsidies received by rail and road modalities (C., 2011). Passenger rail gets a much higher

direct public subsidy per passenger mile (ppm) than road travel (24¢ ppm vs. 2¢ ppm). However, this estimate does not include external costs. For example, automobile drivers are only burdened by a small portion of air pollution costs they create. Although auto drivers derive the benefit of driving, other individuals are

exposed to the automobile exhaust. In contrast, passenger rail and air external costs (e.g., pollution and congestion) have a relatively small ppm (Delucchi & McCubbin, 2010). Therefore, people other than automobile drivers who are breathing polluted air from automobile exhaust help subsidize automobile travel.

Figure 23. Comparison of Federal Subsidies in Different Transportation Modalities

Federal Investment in Transportation, 1949-2008 (2009 Constact Dollars Time Axis Not to Scale) 70

Highway

Intercity Passenger Rail

Air

60

50

$ Billions

40

30

20

10

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

1979

1977

1975

1973

1971

1969

1967

1965

1963

1961

1959

1957

1955

1953

1951

1949

0

Fiscal Year Figure 23. Comparison of federal subsidies in different transportation modalities. Adapted from Amtrak: America’s Railroad (p. 2), by Amtrak, 2011, Washington, DC: Amtrak. Copyright 2011 by Amtrak. Adapted with permission.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

59

Figure 24. Number of Vehicles (Thousands)

Number of Vehicles (Thousands), 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

Number of Vehicles (thousands)

250,000

229,984

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

21

223

2,037

13,393

Rail

Air

Buses

Recreational boats

Personal Road (cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, demand response <on call> vehicles)

Figure 25. Average Mile per Vehicle

Average Miles per Vehicle, 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012 80,000

67,308 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000

24,615

30,000 20,000

10,853 10,000

1,191 Buses

Personal Road (cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, demand response <on call> vehicles)

60

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Air

Rail

Figure 26. Load Factor

Load Factor (Passengers/Vehicle), 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

120

Average Passengers per Vehicle

101 100 80 60 40

26 20

9

6 Personal Road

Buses

Rail

Air

(cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, demand response <on call> vehicles)

Figure 27. Average Passengers Miles per Vehicle

Average Passenger Miles per Vehicle, 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

Average Passenger Miles per Vehicle

3,000,000.00

2,487,256.04 2,500,000.00

1,724,711.54 2,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,000,000.00 500,000.00

10,394.23

17,952.74

Buses

Personal Road

Rail

Air

(cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, demand response <on call> vehicles)

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

61

Table 13. Comparison of Federal Support for Different Modalities Overview of Selected DOT Organizations and Trust Funds All data FY10

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Budget

$15.99 billion

$42.79 billion

$4.35 billion (includes $1.6 billion for Amtrak)

Staff

48,159

2,923

895

Trust Fund Outlays

$12.8 billion

$21.8 billion

None

Total U.S. DOT budget for FY 2010: $74.5 billion Note. Comparison of federal support for different modalities. Adapted from Amtrak: America’s Railroad (p. 2), by Amtrak, 2011, Washington, DC: Amtrak. Copyright 2011 by Amtrak. Adapted with permission.

Once external costs are internalized, the Greater Greater Washington analysis finds that the total subsidy for passenger rail is slightly lower for rail than road passenger mile (44¢ ppm versus 45¢ ppm). Moreover, this is using a conservative estimate for the externalized cost of automobile parking. For example, Cervero and Guerra (2011) reported that 25% to 35% of the most expensive real estate in America, land in American cities, is dedicated to roads and parking. An alternative estimate of parking puts the ppm cost of road transport 27% higher than passenger rail (56¢ ppm vs. 44¢ ppm for passenger rail). Therefore, residents and businesses subsidize automobile transportation by paying relatively higher costs for real estate.

The level of subsidies is partially dependent on scale. Similar to most forms of mass transit, rail is likely to be most efficient (i.e., the ppm subsidy is at its lowest) when capacity is maximized (Nice, 1998). This is due to passenger rail’s relatively low ratio or variable costs to fixed costs. Therefore, it is important to consider whether there are enough passengers in a given route to lower the route’s ppm subsidy. The NEC has the largest number of commuters using passenger rail. Passenger rail on the NEC route commands a relatively high portion of the commuters on the route.

The relative portion of commuters using passenger rail versus air flopped in the NEC from 37% going by rail in 2001 to 75% using passenger rail ten years later (Figure 13) (Nixon, 2012). A comparison of intra-city services in different urban areas found that, “rail carries a disproportionate share of passengers 62

compared to the amount of service it consumes . . . for every hour of service operated, rail attracts four to 10 times as many passenger boardings as express bus service. Rail is clearly more productive” (Brown & Thompson, 2009, p. 53).

One of Amtrak’s strategic goals is to attain a standard of organizational excellence by aligning products, services, processes, and culture with stakeholder expectations to improve financial performance and overall business results (Amtrak, 2011b).

In 2011, Amtrak earned approximately $2.71 billion in revenue and incurred $3.95 billion in expenses ($1.24 billion variance). Even though the relative level of subsidies passenger rail receives is less than those received by highway and air travel, the amount of public subsidies received by Amtrak is often a topic of public debate.

Although all forms of transportation are subsidized to one degree or another, subsidies for Amtrak may be more evident because they are directly made to a single organization (Amtrak) rather than

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

indirectly to all of the different functions that Amtrak provides (e.g., directing safety, security and safety, rail maintenance, rolling stock maintenance, lighting, parking, vegetation management) (Amtrak 2011a; Chester & Horvath, 2012; Nice, 1988).

In 2010, Amtrak’s farebox recovery rate was 79% (Amtrak, 2012f; Boardman, 2011). In California the farebox ratio was between 47-58% in FY12 (Figures 29, 30, & 31). In contrast, air travelers paid about 57% of the Federal Aviation Administration budget and fuel taxes and user fees covered less than 60% of highway system costs. In 2011, Senator Kerry compared the amount of public subsidies for the different modalities in 2002 (Figure 28). Senator Kerry stated that Amtrak received $1 billion in subsidies, air travel received $15 billion, and highways received $32 billion in public funds (United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011). Another comparison of public funding for different public modalities can be found in Table 13.

25% to 35% of some of the most expensive real estate in America, land in American cities, is dedicated to roads and parking.

Figure 28. Federal Direct Subsidies by Mode

Federal Direct Subsidies by Mode 2002 Source: United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011

35 30 Billlions USD$

25 20 15 10 5 0 Passenger rail

Air Travel

Highways

Figure 29. Pacific Surfliner: Farebox Ratio

Pacific Surfliner: Farebox Ratio Revenue/Operating Expenses Sources: 2013 California State Rail Plan Farebox Ratio

Revenue

Expenses

120.0%

$80,000,000

$70,000,000 100.0% $60,000,000

60.0%

$40,000,000

$30,000,000 40.0% $20,000,000 20.0% $10,000,000

$-

0.0%

1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Farebox Ratio

$50,000,000

Revenue & Expenses

80.0%

State Fiscal Year Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

63

Figure 30. San Joaquin: Farebox Ratio

San Joaquin: Farebox Ratio Revenue/Operating Expenses Sources: 2013 California State Rail Plan Farebox Ratio

Revenue

Expenses

120.00%

$80,000,000

$70,000,000 100.00% $60,000,000

Farebox Ratio

$50,000,000

60.00%

$40,000,000

$30,000,000 40.00% $20,000,000 20.00% $10,000,000

$-

2010-11

2011-12

2008-09

2009-10

2006-07

2007-08

2004-05

2005-06

2002-03

2003-04

2000-01

2001-02

1998-99

1999-00

1996-97

1997-98

1994-95

1995-96

1992-93

1993-94

1990-91

1991-92

1988-89

1989-90

1986-87

1987-88

1985-86

1983-84

1984-85

1981-82

1982-83

1979-80

1980-81

0.00%

State Fiscal Year

Figure 31. Capitol Corridor: Farebox Ratio

Capitol Corridor: Farebox Ratio Revenue/Operating Expenses Source: 2013 California State Rail Plan Revenue

Expenses

120.00%

$70,000,000

100.00%

$60,000,000 $50,000,000

80.00%

$40,000,000 60.00% $30,000,000 40.00%

$20,000,000

20.00%

$10,000,000

0.00%

1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

$-

State Fiscal Year 64

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Revenue & Expenses

Farebox Ratio

Farebox Ratio

Revenue & Expenses

80.00%

Recent studies suggest that current subsidies for transit systems are warranted on efficiency grounds (Parry & Small, 2009); however, lawmakers in Washington are often critical of Amtrak subsidies.

When Mitt Romney ran for president in 2012, the republican candidate adopted the Republican platform promise to eliminate funding for Amtrak (Lederman, 2012; Stein, 2012). In 2012, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL), continually characterized Amtrak as an inefficient organization that should be either severely reduced or eliminated in order to promote a competitive market (Keane, 2012; Wolfe, 2012). An indication of this inefficiency for Mica is the $84.5 million that Amtrak lost on food and beverages in 2011 (Keane, 2012).

Conversely, President Obama presents the view that money dedicated to Amtrak is an infrastructure investment necessary for long-term economic growth (Lederman, 2012). Perhaps the reality is somewhere in between; Amtrak has some areas where it can become more efficient, but it also can be a key part of the infrastructure necessary for a vibrant national economy.

6.1.2. Funding Funding for passenger rail has recently taken many forms. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dedicated $1.3 billion in funding (Boardman, 2011). Half of this was dedicated to the NEC. This funding is expected to result in 2,844 full-time equivalent jobs (FTEs) (Amtrak, 20101a).

Projects funded by this Act include the rehabilitation of 15 locomotives and 81 cars that were stored or wreck damaged.

In the NEC, funds were dedicated to improvements in electric traction and bridges. Finally, money was dedicated to

mandatory upgrades for ADA compliance (Amtrak, 2011a).

(Boardman, 2011). By 2011, the debt was reduced to $2.0 billion (Boardman, 2011).

The FY13 appropriations bill passed by the House included $1.8 billion in funding (Plungis, 2012). This is an increase from the previous year’s $1.4 billion appropriation, but less than the $2.5 billion proposed in the President’s budget. About one-third of Amtrak’s funding is dedicated to operations, with the majority given to capital and debt service (Plungis, 2012). FY02 marked the zenith of Amtrak’s debt of $3.9 billion

The operating budget includes administration, labor, and maintenance costs. Similar to cars and planes, as locomotives and cars age, the expected maintenance costs increase. The average monthly maintenance cost (not including overhauls) is about $3,500 per locomotive.

Overhaul costs are about $700,000 for an electric locomotive and $102,000 for a diesel locomotive (Amtrak, 2012b).

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

65

6.1.3. Trains and Equipment In contrast to the highway system where the customers primarily own or rent their own vehicles and the state owns the roads, Amtrak owns the rolling stock (locomotives and cars) while the rails are most often under private ownership.

Older equipment tends to lead to reductions of on-time performance (OTP) and reduced customer satisfaction (Nice, 1998). Ever since Amtrak inherited an out-of-date set of equipment, it has been a challenge for the organization to maintain a modern fleet. Recently, the average age of the fleet has increased to over 30 years (PRIIA Section 222).

The other way to improve performance of the existing fleet is to improve the system of detecting and responding to equipment failure. Amtrak uses a mixture of visual and electronic systems to identify issues. Subsequently, they use handheld mobile devices to directly report issues to maintenance crews. Moreover, there is an on-board troubleshooting guide to enable onboard staff to rapidly respond to minor issues.

Beyond the trains simply operating in the intended manner, customers are also sensitive to the cleanliness of the trains. Amtrak has a plan to more effectively deal with janitorial issues (PRIIA Section 222). These special efforts focus on areas where Amtrak has received multiple complaints (e.g., food services, restrooms, and window clarity).

6.1.4. Food and Beverage The provision of food and beverages has been an area of controversy for Amtrak. Over the last decade, Amtrak lost approximately $800 million on food and beverage services (Nixon, 2012).

Most of these losses occurred on longdistance trains. Part of this is caused by the service provision cost. For example, it is estimated that a drink that sells for $2 actually costs Amtrak $3.40. Similarly, it costs Amtrak $16 to provide a hamburger, but Amtrak only receives $9.50 at point of sale. This issue is exacerbated by a lack of oversight leading to employee theft and waste. Amtrak has taken multiple steps to increase oversight. This includes greater use of technology at the point of sale and elsewhere in the inventory process (PRIIA, 2008, Section 222). The shift away from cash has the twin benefits of reducing employee theft and reducing accounting and cash handling costs (Nixon, 2012).

66

6.1.5. Congestion The California Intercity Passenger Rail vision is to provide a rail transportation alternative to other travel modes and provide relief to highway/airway congestion (California Department of Transportation, 2005). Congestion causes the increased consumption of fuel and wasted time.

California has some of the worst traffic in the US. Unreliable and slow commute times are caused by congestion issues.

A study conducted by Parry and Small (2009) states that congestion significantly impacts the external cost of driving automobiles from peak time to off peak time due to congestion. For example, the peak time marginal cost for driving one mile is $0.25 in Washington DC and $0.31 in LA. However, the off-peak time, 1-mile marginal cost is less than $0.10 for both cities (Parry & Small, 2009).

Variables related to highway congestion include but are not limited to highway maintenance, construction projects, weather, seasonality, commuter influx during peak hours, and accidents in general. By all accounts, â&#x20AC;&#x153;congestion is recognized by economists to be the greatest external cost of auto travelâ&#x20AC;?

(Guerra, 2010).

Highway congestion is mirrored by increases in congestion for air travel.

Variables that contribute to air travel congestion include: increased security at airports, unreliable boarding and disembarking times, undersized parking

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

structures and limited parking, delayed flights, cancelled flights, and tarmac congestion (Delucchi & McCubbin, 2010).

In light of air and highway related congestion, passenger rail is increasingly recognized as an alternative mode of transportation. Even as early as 1981, 55% of San Diegans reported that they would have traveled by car if the train was not available (California Department of Transportation, 1985). On the East coast, the increasing shift of the commuters to passenger rail in NEC is one indication of commuters shifting to rail as congestion costs increase. The rail passengers may have a better traffic experience, but it also benefits automobile commuters by reducing the number of cars on the road.

Although passenger rail can reduce air and highway congestion, trains can also become congested. The largest number of passengers use train travel during commute hours. Stations are crowded and trains may run out of seats. High volumes of passengers may also lead to broken equipment, dirty facilities, and poor on-time performance.

Amtrak has recognized rail congestion and its consequences as an issue and addressed it in the California Passenger Rail System Five-Year Improvement Plan Summary Report with additional tracks, infrastructure improvements, and faster maintenance turnaround times (Amtrak, 2000). Suggested projects included:

• A second main track, with over 11 miles of additional track in San Diego County, would be constructed to reduce single track from 41% to 17%. Phase 2 of the Orange County Second Passenger Main Track would mean an additional fourth track between LA and Fullerton.

• In Ventura County, the new, second, main line track would relieve checkpoints and realign curves to increase speed and reduce trip times.

• San Luis Obispo County improvements were to include track and signal upgrades and one siding extension to increase reliability and capacity.

Additional flyovers and track realignments would support

segregation of freight and passenger traffic between Los Angeles and Fullerton. Increasing speeds beyond 90 mph was proposed to decrease congestion and travel times, and safety and mobility enhancements at roadway and rail intersection improvements would improve crossing safety while reducing traffic congestion.

• Over 23 miles of a new second main track would be constructed in Orange and San Diego Counties to reduce conflicts between freight and passenger operations (Amtrak, 2000)

services; enhancing coordination with urban transit; improving Amtrak Thruway service; reducing travel times; and increasing annual ridership and service frequency (California Department of Transportation, 2005c). Service expansions for the San Joaquin railway include a pursuit of options to originate some trains in Fresno. To accomplish this, it will be necessary to study options to extend rail service from Bakersfield to LA (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). The vision incorporates a need to provide relief to highway and airway congestion (California Department of Transportation, 2007b).

San Joaquin 2005-06 to 2015-16 route objectives include improving OTP, passenger comfort, convenience, and Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

67

6.2. Environmental Train travel has many environmental benefits. Specifically, impacts associated with transportation have been linked to climate change, energy consumption, pollution, and land use (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2009). Visions for future improvements now include environmental factors such as air quality, efficient land use, and recycling. California Environmental goals to be met by 2016 include: congestion relief (cut annual vehicle miles by 433 million), air quality (decrease in pollution & hydrocarbons & carbon monoxide, keep emissions below state and federal maximum levels), and save California 11 million gallons of gas annually (California Department of Transportation, 2005a). The implementation of these projects will help train travel further reduce the environmental impact of passenger transportation.

68

With the ability to move mass quantities of people at once (Figure 26), trains relieve highway congestion and minimize the amount of pollution that is released by taking potential cars off the road.

Historically, the primary environmental consideration Amtrak discussed in its literature was the reduction of the number of people on the roads.

However, since the year 2000, additional environmental issues have received a greater share of the rhetoric. This change has been partly due to legislation. For example, in November 2006, Proposition 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act were enacted. The bond included $400 million dollars specifically for intercity rail to use for improvements to meet environmental standards (California Department of

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Transportation, 2008a). Environmental considerations were embedded in the Governor’s 2007 Strategic Growth Plan (SGP), which highlights environmental quality as a key component of the State’s quality of life. The SGP includes policies and actions that directly impact the State’s freight rail. It is in the strategic interest of the State to maintain, preserve, and improve CA’s passenger rail system by implementing a long-range, sustainable system planning program to identify passenger rail system needs and projects which could increase mobility and enhance the natural environment.

One part of the plan includes the Goods Movement Action Plan, an initiative for economic growth, enhanced security, and improved quality of life (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

6.2.1. Pollution Transportation is also a major contributor to the pollution of our environment.

Transportation air pollution includes criteria air pollutants including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, and particulate matter emissions (Davis, Diegel, & Boundy 2012). This pollution negatively affects human health. Air pollutants are associated with increased rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and neurological diseases (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2009). For example, carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen absorbed into the bloodstream and nitrogen oxide reduces lung functions. When sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide are combined in the clouds, they create acid rain which has detrimental impacts on agriculture, forests, and the built environment (e.g., rapidly deteriorate stone statues and building facades). Air pollution also reduces natural visibility, overall decreasing residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; quality of life as well as the quality of visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experiences (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2009). In 2011, transportation in the US accounted for 61.8% of CO, 50.9% of NOx, 29.8% of VOC, 4.2% of PM-2.5, 2.7% of PM-10, and 2.1% of SO2 (Davis, Diegel, & Boundy 2012). California issued mandates for emission reduction, air quality, and emission characteristics resulting in air quality districts/public agencies regulating stationary sources of air pollution, developing emission reduction strategies, and implementing environmental justice aspects of air quality.

friction, less need for braking) all have the potential to mitigate passenger rail related noise pollution effects (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). Soil erosion often occurs in coastal communities and can be caused by shipping activities in these areas.

Construction of highways and airports often results in a loss of fertile and productive soils, as well as deforestation further causing

species extinction, loss or displacement of habitat, and a change of feeding patterns (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2009).

The rail industry tends to have an advantage when addressing pollution management. Compared to other transportation modalities, the rail industry is set up for the easiest transition to a fully electric mode of operation (Nice, 1998).

Transportation is also a

major contributor to the pollution of our environment.

Transportation also contributes to water, noise, and soil pollution. Water quality is affected by fuel, chemicals, and other hazardous particulates discarded by various modes of transportation (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2009). Noise associated with movement of vehicles and operations at transportation hubs (e.g., airports, shipyards, rail yards) not only affects human health (e.g., causing cardiovascular disease), but also contributes to decreases in land values (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2009).

Electrification, community greening, station upgrades, and advancements in train movement (e.g., reduced track Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

69

6.2.2. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger set aggressive GHG reduction targets for California in his Executive Order S-3-05, calling to reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) passed in 2006 made Executive Order S-3-05 binding (Yang, McCollum, McCarthy, & Leighty, 2009).

The Division of Rail supported the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), requiring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. By increasing the numbers of passengers per train, the intercity passenger rail is able to operate more efficiently. The department is working to reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency for locomotives (California Department of Transportation, 2008d). The Division of Rail Department’s strategies to reduce GHG emissions include making transportation systems more efficient through operational improvements, and integrating emission reduction measures into the planning, development, operations, and maintenance of transportation elements.

Transportation is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases). GHGs are known to trap heat in the atmosphere and have been linked to a climate change (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013a). In 2011, transportation generated 28% of GHG emissions in the US (Figure 32). The transportation sector was the second largest contributor of GHG emissions in the US after the electricity sector (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013b).

Given that transportation is the largest contributor to GHG emissions (40% of California State’s total in 2006) (California Air Resources Board, 2008 as cited in Yang, McCollum, McCarthy, & Leighty, 2009), a study was conducted to explore options for reducing emissions in the transportation sector by 80% by 2050. Considering all transportation subsectors, a ‘scenario approach’ was used and included travel demand reduction, efficiency improvement, 70

Figure 32.

Total US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector in 2011

Commercial & Residential 11% Agriculture 8% Industry 20%

Electricity 33%

Transportation 28%

Note: Total Emissions in 2011 = 6,702 Million Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent Figure 32. Total US greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector in 2011. Adapted from Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emission, In USEPA, n.d., Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/transportation.html. Copyright 2013 by USEPA.

and advanced technologies with alternative fuel strategies. According to the study findings, the 2050 target could be achieved by implementing multiple strategies that mainly focus on technology development and reduction of travel demand and travel intensity. In the case of technology not being as successful as expected or not being available for all subsectors of transportation, social and travel behavior change were emphasized as a valuable mitigation option to achieve the 2050 GHG emissions reduction target in California (Yang, McCollum, McCarthy, & Leighty, 2009).

Carbon dioxide emissions represent the majority of GHG emissions from transportation and primarily come from combustion of petroleum-based products

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

(e.g., gasoline). Cars and light-duty trucks (i.e., sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans) account for more than fifty percent of the emissions from the transportation sector (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b).

In 2010, highway transportation (cars, lights trucks, motorcycles, medium and heavy trucks, buses) contributed 1482.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 4.2 million metric tons of methane (carbon dioxide equivalent) and 40.4 million metric tons of nitrous oxide (carbon dioxide equivalent). In contrast, rail transportation contributed 43.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 0.1 million metric tons of methane (carbon dioxide equivalent) and 0.3 million metric tons of nitrous oxide (carbon dioxide equivalent) (Table 14) (Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012).

Table 14.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Mode, 1990 and 2012 (Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) Mode

CO2 1990

CO2 2010

% change CH4 1990-2012 1990

CH4 2010

Nitrous % change oxide 1990-2012 1990

Nitrous oxide 2010

% change 1990-2012

Highway

1,190.5

1,482.5

24.5

4.2

1.4

-66.7

40.4

16.6

-58.9

Water

44.5

42.6

-4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.6

0.0

Air

179.3

142.4

-20.6

0.2

0.1

-50.0

1.7

1.3

-23.5

Rail

38.5

43.5

13.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

Pipeline

36.0

38.8

7.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Note. Greenhouse gas emissions by mode, 1990 and 2012. Adapted from Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 31 (p. 11-8), by S. C. Davis, S. W. Diegel, and R. G. Boundy, 2012, Washington, DC: US Department of Energy. Copyright 2012 by US Department of Energy.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

71

Although most measures of GHG consider operations only, Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) includes all of the environmental impacts from creation to disposal (e.g., production of vehicle, fuel, materials, infrastructure provision, and the disposal of vehicles, parts and infrastructure) (Chester & Horvath, 2009; Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2009).

“ LCA is a systematic method in pollution prevention and life-cycle engineering to analyze the environmental implications associated with products, processes, and services through the different stages of the life-cycle: design, material and energy acquisition, transportation, manufacturing, construction, use and operations, maintenance, repair/ renovation/retrofit and endof-life treatment (reuse, recycling, incineration, landfilling)” (Horvath & Chester, 2007, pp. 6-7).

LCA was developed and promoted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Chester & Horvath, 2007).

transportation examined. The study further evaluated California corridor emissions between San Francisco and LA for heavy rail (i.e., Amtrak), HSR (i.e., CA HSR), and air (Boeing 737). The Caltrain life-cycle inventory was applied as an approximation for Amtrak’s LCA. The findings suggest that approximately 50% of the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions resulted from the non-operational phases due to large infrastructure components.

Additionally, Criteria Air Pollutant (CAP) emissions were the highest for Amtrak and occurred closest to human settlements. When non-operation components are considered, the overall energy consumption and GHG emissions increased 2.1 times for heavy rail, 1.4 times for HSR, and 1.3 times for air, and the CAP increased up to 29 times for heavy rail, 1.4 times for HSR, and 9 times for air (Horvath & Chester, 2007).

Utilizing the hybrid LCA model, Horvath and Chester (2007) developed a comprehensive life-cycle assessment model to quantify the energy inputs and emission from rail and air transportation in the US associated with the life-cycle components of the rail and air transportation related vehicles, infrastructure, and fuel. Energy inputs, GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) and criteria air pollutants emissions (sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and lead) were quantified and the results were adjusted based on passenger-miles traveled (PMT). To assess rail, Caltrain and the proposed California HSR were examined. The Embraer 145, Boeing 737, and Boeing 747 were analyzed to model the commercial passenger fleet for the air LCA assessment.

Building on the previous research, Chester and Horvath (2009) conducted a comprehensive, life-cycle energy, GHG emissions, and selected CAP emissions inventory for automobiles, buses, trains, and airplanes in the US. Table 16 provides an overview of the 79 operational and non-operational components evaluated across the modes of transportation.

Energy inputs and emission were determined for each component and evaluated independently for each system.

Caltrain was found to have greater nonoperational effects than operational (unlike CA HSR) (Table 15). The majority of criteria air pollutants were produced during non-operation phases involved in these systems for all modes of

Table 15. Total Life-Cycle Inventory and Operational Results (per PMT3) Caltrain Life-cycle

CA HSR

Operational

Life-cycle

Operational

Energy (MJ)

2.2

1.1

.59

.43

GGE (g CO2e)

160

74

37

32

SO2 (mg)

310

11

220

170

CO (mg)

420

83

22

16

NOx (mg)

1600

1400

17

12

VOC (mg)

200

59

4.7

3.7

Pb (µg)

160

--

.57

.22

PM10 (mg)

170

38

2.3

1.8

Note. Total life-cycle inventory and operational results. Adapted from Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Passenger Transportation: An Energy, Greenhouse Gas, and Criteria Pollutant Inventory of Rail and Air Transportation (p. 16), by A. Horvath and M. Chester, 2007, Berkeley, CA. Copyright 2007 by the University of California Transportation Center. Adapted with permission.

3

72

Passenger Miles Traveled

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Table 16. Analysis Components Grouping

Automobile/buses

Rail

Air

Vehicles Operational components Active operations

• •

Running Cold start

•

Running

• • • • •

Take off Climb out Cruise Approach Landing

Inactive operations

•

Idling

• •

Idling Auxiliaries (HVAC and lighting)

• • • •

Auxiliary power unit operation Startup Taxi out Taxi in

Non-operational components Manufacturing (facility construction excluded)

• •

Vehicle manufacturing Engine manufacturing

• •

Train manufacturing • Propulsion system manufacturing •

Aircraft manufacturing Engine manufacturing

Maintenance

• •

Vehicle maintenance Tire replacement

• • •

Train maintenance Train cleaning Flooring replacement

• •

Aircraft maintenance Engine maintenance

Insurance

•

Vehicle liability

• •

Crew heath and benefits Train liability

• •

Crew health and benefits Aircraft liability

Construction

•

Roadway construction

• •

Station construction Track construction

• •

Airport construction Runway/taxiway/tarmac construction

Operation

• • •

Roadway lighting Herbicide spraying Roadway salting

• • • • •

Station lighting Escalators Train control Station parking lighting Station miscellaneous (e.g., other electrical equipment)

• • •

Runway lighting Deicing fluid production Ground support equipment operation

Maintenance

•

Roadway maintenance

• •

Station maintenance Station cleaning

•

Airport maintenance

Parking

•

Roadside, surface, lot, parking garage parking

•

Station parking

•

Airport parking

•

Non-crew health insurance and benefits Infrastructure liability insurance

• •

Non-crew health and benefits Infrastructure liability

Train electricity generation Train diesel fuel refining and distribution (Caltrain) Train electricity transmission and distribution losses Infrastructure electricity production Infrastructure electricity transmission and distribution losses

•

Jet fuel refining and distribution

Infrastructure

Insurance

• Fuels Production

•

Gasoline and diesel fuel refining and distribution (includes through fuel truck delivery stopping at fuel station. Service station construction and operation is excluded)

• • • • •

Note. Analysis components. Adapted from “Environmental Assessment of Passenger Transportation Should Include Infrastructure and Supply Chains,” by M. Chester and A. Horvath, 2009, Environmental Research Letters, 4, p. 3. Copyright 2009 by the IOP Science Publishing. Adapted with permission.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

73

To improve rail environmental performance, the authors recommended replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon electricity (e.g., hydro energy); reducing construction energy use (i.e., reduction in concrete use) by switching to lower energy and GHG intense materials, reducing infrastructure operation energy consumption, and operation CAP emissions (Chester & Horvath, 2009).

Similarly, a study examining transportation impacts in three US metropolitan areas (i.e., Chicago, New York, and San Francisco) found lifecycle processes for automobiles, diesel rail, electric rail, and ferry service to significantly increase transportation emissions (up to 20 times larger than vehicle operation). Specifically, life-cycle energy consumption and GHG, NOx, and

emissions were higher than for other transportation modes because HSR is powered by electricity. Increased SO2 emissions result in environmental acidification and direct human health issues. HSR related CO, NOx, VOC, and PM10 emissions were dominated by infrastructure construction (Chester & Horvath, 2010).

VOC emissions were found to be 50% higher than consumption and emissions associated with vehicle operation. In terms of electricity consumption and emissions, the most significant nonoperational components are vehicle manufacturing and maintenance, infrastructure construction and operations, and fuel production (Chester, Horvath & Madanat, 2010). The results validated existing studies concerning transportation life-cycle energy and emissions footprints.

The energy and GHG tradeoffs for HSR in California depend on the utilization of the competing transportation modes in the California corridors. Including lifecycle components (i.e., operational and non-operational), a time until return on investment (ROI) (assuming cars capture 75% of passenger kilometers traveled [PKT], HRS 1% of PKT, and air 24% of PKT) was determined to be from 8 to 6 years to never, depending on levels of occupancy (Table 17) (Chester & Horvath, 2010).

The life-cycle energy and emissions performance for HSR was found to be similar to other modes for vehicle manufacturing and maintenance, infrastructure construction and maintenance, and fuel production (Chester & Horvath, 2010). HSR SO2

Table 17.

Return on Investment Modal Utilization Assumptions and Results (loading denotes the percentage of seat filled) Occupancy Auto/HRT/Air (low) CAHSR (high)

Auto/HRT/Air (low) CAHSR (low)

CAHSR loading

75%

25%

50%

Auto passengers

2

2.5

2.25

HRP loading

25%

75%

40%

Air loading

50%

90%

85%

CAHSR energy ROI

8 years

never

28 years

CAHSR GHG ROI

6 years

never

71 years

Auto/HRT/Air (low) CAHSR (mid)

Note. Return on investment modal utilization assumptions and results. Adapted from â&#x20AC;&#x153;Life-Cycle Assessment of High-Speed Rail: The Case of California,â&#x20AC;? by M. Chester and A. Horvath, 2010, Environmental Research Letters, 5, p. 7. Copyright 2010 by the IOP Science Publishing. Adapted with permission.

Figure 33. Passenger Rail Energy Consumption

Energy Consumption

The trend of passenger rail energy consumption appears to have decreased since 2000 after an earlier increase in consumption (Figure 33).

74

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

3,500

16.0

3,000

14.0 12.0

2,500

10.0

2,000

8.0

1,500

6.0

1,000

4.0

Year

2009

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1991

1989

1987

1985

0

1983

0.0

1981

500

1979

2.0

Average Energy Use (BTU per revenue passenger miles)

4,000

18.0

1977

However, due to the larger load capacity of trains and planes (Figure 26), rail actually has the lowest levels of BTUs produced per passenger mile (PMT) (Figure 36).

Energy intensity (BTU per revenue passenger-mile)

20.0

1975

Davis, Diegel, and Boundy (2012) found that, per vehicle mile, passenger rail creates more BTUs than personal road vehicles or buses (but less than airplanes) (Figure 35).

Energy use (Trillion BTU)

Total Energy Use (Tr illion BTU)

However, it may be more appropriate to compare the energy consumption of passenger rail to other modes. That comparison shows that passenger rail uses less energy than other modes of transportation (Figure 34).

Energy use for 1994 on is not directly comparable to earlier years.

Some commuter rail energy use may have been inadvertently included in earlier years.

Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

1973

6.2.3 Energy Consumption

Figure 34. BTU by Mode

BTU by Mode (Trillions), 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012 16,000

14,912

14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000

1,741

2,000 -

93

190

Rail

Buses

Air

Personal Road (cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, demand response <on call> vehicles)

Figure 35. BTU per Vehicle Mile, Modal Comparison

BTU per Vehicle Mile, 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

300,000

276,329

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

66,378 50,000

35,953

30,415

Personal Road

Buses

Rail

Air

(cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, demand response <on call> vehicles)

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

75

Figure 36. BTU per Passenger Mile, Modal Comparison

BTU per Passenger Mile, 2010 Source: Davis, Diegel, & Boundy, 2012

30,000

25,424 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

4,118 2,590

2,735

Rail

Air

Buses

Personal Road (cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, demand response <on call> vehicles)

76

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

6.3. Mitigation Strategies To address the transportation related environmental impacts, Amtrak, in 2011, set forth a strategic goal that specifically addresses Amtrak’s commitment to “improving Amtrak’s efficiency and reducing transportation-related carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption” (Amtrak, 2012a, p. 12). Some of the key steps undertaken by Amtrak include an environmental audit of Amtrak’s maintenance of its fifteen largest facilities and stations, improved handling procedure of diesel and electric powered trains (i.e., the use of simulators and 3-D track simulation software), continued reduction in diesel fuel consumption (i.e., usage of regenerative braking for electric

locomotive operations, acquisition of Gen Set diesel switcher locomotives, increased use of ground power at many end point or layover locations, biodiesel fuel trial, usage of solar power) (Amtrak, 2012a), recycling programs (i.e., onboard and industrial recycling); climate initiatives (i.e., GHG inventory, partnering with carbonfund.org, and joining the Chicago Climate Exchange and Climate Counts) (Amtrak, 2012b). Additionally, Union Pacific Railroad announced plans to invest $20 million to test new technologies in California that are designed to reduce locomotive diesel emissions. The investment is part of Class I efforts to further reduce emissions and move

closer to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Tier 4 emission standards for new locomotives that take effect in 2015.

One locomotive based in Roseville, CA, will test the combined use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), diesel oxidation catalyst and diesel particulate filtering.

UP officials declared that the combined benefits of the three technologies on one locomotive is the closest an ElectroMotive Diesel unit has come to achieving Tier 4 standards. The Class I and California Air Resources Board will jointly analyze the locomotive’s emissions reductions capability for the next 18 months (Progressive Railroading, 2012b).

6.4. Summary In summary, this section provided an overview of resources and assets in an economic, environmental, and social context. When considering different modes of transportation, the perceived value of rail in comparison to other forms of domestic passenger transportation is highly political and controversial (Cevero & Guerra, 2011; United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011). On one side, passenger rail is lauded as an energy efficient, land efficient, relatively safe, environmentally friendly, underfunded, increasingly popular, socially just form of transportation that reduces dependence on foreign oil and reduces costs related to congestion. Conversely, detractors posit that passenger rail in general, and Amtrak specifically, is an economically inefficient boondoggle that costs American taxpayers too much money and suppresses private competition.

A review of the literature shows the complexity of directly comparing different modalities of transportation. There are measurement issues, inconsistent variables, and a paucity of third party analyses. However, the available technical literature favors the current subsidization of passenger rail when compared to other modes. This level of subsidization may be especially warranted considering congestion costs and relative environmental costs of pollution, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, and energy consumption. There are plans for passenger rail to continue to improve; however, it appears that relative to other modes of transportation, passenger rail rates highly for the stewardship of public economic and environmental resources.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

77

7.

Service:

Promote quality service through an excellent workforce.

Caltrans is committed to promoting quality service through an excellent workforce. The Division of Rail’s marketing program has implemented new strategies to promote new services and recent improvements, developed strategic partnerships, and incorporated new online technologies to communicate with their customers more effectively and efficiently (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

7.1. International/National Marketing As part of the Amtrak Strategic Plan for FY11-15, Amtrak emphasized agency’s increased emphasis on customer focus and committed to provision of a quality customer service by continuously enhancing their products and services, while improving working environment for their employees (Amtrak, 2012c).

Marketing is a vital function of Amtrak that initiates a portion of consumers’ purchase of Amtrak’s products and service. Marketing drives Amtrak ridership, ticket revenue, and maintains or expands their existing market share of passenger travel. Amtrak is currently engaged in social media marketing, allowing Amtrak passengers to stay connected with Amtrak via Facebook to join the Amtrak fan conversation; YouTube to watch Amtrak videos; Twitter to learn about special deals, upcoming events; Google+ to share videos and chat; and Whistle Stop to share personal thoughts and/or photos.

Amtrak’s future marketing goals focus on enhancing electronic direct-to-customer communications and integrated brand marketing campaigns delivered digitally, through print, and various marketing venues (e.g., entertainment, events, sports) (Amtrak, 2012e). Amtrak’s current promotional “deal” strategies include: • SmartFares (i.e., weekly rail deals) (Associated Press, 2012e) • Passenger discounts (i.e., discount train fares for children, seniors, AAA members, military, NARP members, 78

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

CUSTOMER SERVICE

QUALITY

students <Student Advantage, ISIC>, veterans, and groups <groups of 20 or more>) (Amtrak, 2013i)

• Regional Rail Tour Packages (e.g., Reno Fun Train & Snow Train, Ski Tours – Colorado & Montana, Yosemite By Train) (Amtrak, 2013b)

• Rail Passes (i.e., USA Rail Pass, California Rail Pass) (Amtrak, 2013h)

• Amtrak Vacations (i.e., escorted and independent rail journeys, rail getaways, special programs) (Amtrak, 2013k)

• Multi-Ride Tickets (i.e., monthly tickets, ten-ride ticket, six-ride college pass, two-ride flex pass) (Amtrak, 2013j)

essential partnerships with American Automobile Association (AAA), Allianz Global Assistance, United Airlines, Greyhound, iSeatz, eBags (Amtrak, 2013l), and Brand USA (i.e., a private-public entity, Corporation for Travel Promotion, formed in 2010 to promote the US on a national level) (Brand USA, 2013).

To further enhance Amtrak customers’ experience, Amtrak has developed

Marketing drives Amtrak ridership, ticket revenue, and maintains or expands their existing market share of passenger travel.

7.1.1. Customer Satisfaction Amtrak aims to increase customer satisfaction by examining and responding to customers’ wants, needs, and expectations (Amtrak, 2012c). Amtrak uses six metrics to assess on-board service (PRIIA Section 222).

• Overall service • Amtrak personnel • Information given • On-board comfort • On-board cleanliness • On-board food service Amtrak uses a business intelligence system called Customer Service Performance Metrics Integrator (CSPMI) to monitor customer satisfaction. This system integrates databases that track train equipment and crew assignments in order to better identify the roots of changes in customer satisfaction (PRIIA Section 222). Using a customer satisfaction index as a performance measure, passenger satisfaction dropped one percent from 82 in FY10 to 81 in FY11. On the other hand, there was an 8 percent increase in employee safety satisfaction from 40 in FY10 to 48 in FY11 using a partner satisfaction index as a performance measure (Amtrak, 2012c).

Amtrak’s goal is to achieve a score of at least 90 in all of the categories by 2014 (PRIIA Section 222).

Media anecdotal reports often focus on customer satisfaction issues; late trains, variable quality food, lackluster Internet connectivity, dirty toilets, and negative interactions with other passengers (Anderson, 2012; Associated Press, 2012a; Owen, 2012). On the other hand, news sources talk about the wonderful opportunities to work, relax, or socialize rather than drive; the lack of stressful security checks; beautiful views of the country; relative comfort of train seats over plane seats; no baggage fees; and the relative safety of train travel (Anders, 2012; Owen, 2012).

Amtrak’s effort to improve passenger satisfaction by enhancing customer service quality continued through FY11 and FY12. The Customer Experience Management Program introduced e-Ticketing (i.e., electronic ticketing system) which improved ticketing process productivity and efficiency, overall leading to cost savings (Amtrak, 2012e).

The e-ticketing program, which allows passengers to print their ticket whenever and wherever, or use their smart phones to present their e-Ticket to the conductor on-board, as well as make changes to their reservations, was introduced to all trains within Amtrak’s national network (i.e., the NEC, state-supported routes, and long-distance services) in FY12. Between FY11 and FY12, Amtrak enhanced Amtrak.com to allow customers to log into Amtrak.com with a “single signon” platform (p. 18); launched a mobile

application “Rider”; extended on-board Wi-Fi access to the entire eastern corridor and on all California services; continued implementation of Point of Sale (POS) System (i.e., automated food and beverage operations); launched automated Warehouse Inventory Management System; and continued Route Performance Improvement Program (RPI) to improve current product and service quality (Amtrak, 2012c).

Amtrak’s future customer service related enhancements include: • Building in-path push notification platform allowing subscribing customers to receive trip status notifications • Fixing train cancelation to provide accurate information about train status • Creating e-Coupon technology to enable Amtrak to offer single use promotion • Enhancing mapping functionality providing additional information on local attractions and hospitality services • Continuing implementation of POS • Installing Human Emulation Technology (HET) software application to improve customer service (Amtrak, 2012e)

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

79

7.1.2. Services and Amenities

• Insurance services

• Quiet cars

Amtrak currently offers a wide variety of services and amenities, including:

• Baggage services

• Wi-Fi

• Online schedules and timetables

• Vacation packages

• Online ticket reservations and purchasing

• Onboard meals and dining

• Accessible travel services (e.g., station accessibility, wheeled mobility device services, use of oxygen equipment, meal services for passengers with disabilities) (Amtrak, 2013c)

• e-Ticketing; e-Vouchers • Hotel and car rental services

• Sleeping accommodations • Route podcasts • Bicycle services

• Amtrak Agent Support (i.e., a site providing support and product information for travel partners) (Amtrak, 2013f )

7.1.3. Workforce To achieve organizational goals and maximize business performance, Amtrak’s Human Capital Department has been working towards creating a working environment “that supports workforce inclusion, employee satisfaction and productivity” (Amtrak, 2012e). To enhance Amtrak workforce performance, the Human Capital Department has implemented various strategies including employee testing and evaluation, new hire training, supervisory and leadership training, diversity outreach, career management, employee recognition and

relations, and health related programs (Amtrak, 2012e).

7.2. California

7.2.1. Marketing

The Division of Rail is committed to implementing various marketing strategies to promote the existing intercity rail service (including feeder bus service) and recent service improvements to existing customers and potential target markets. To achieve an excellent workforce, the Division monitors Amtrak California employees’ performance on board trains (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Examples of most recent Amtrak employee training include training on ADA compliance and e-Ticketing.

In FY11, Amtrak provided in-person ADA compliance training for frontline employees (including engineers, conductors, on-board service employees, and station personnel) in 17 locations across the Amtrak system. To facilitate an effective transition into the e-Ticketing system, in FY12 Amtrak committed to

Market research suggests that most California travelers do not consider taking the train when making travel decisions.

As a result, Caltrans has adopted and implemented various marketing strategies to increase awareness of Amtrak California rail travel as a viable mode of transportation, and to overall increase demand for rail service, and thus increase ridership and revenue (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Caltrans intercity rail marketing program budget includes funds from the State and Amtrak. Historically, Caltrans has been focusing on the promotion of specific projects, including rail corridor improvements and route features to attract customers. Examples of successful marketing which have resulted in increased ridership include promotion of new and expanded train services (e.g., the addition of the 8th train and the Santa Barbara extension, the 100th anniversary

80

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

provide a full day training course to 2,000 conductors/assistant conductors throughout Amtrak’s system (Amtrak, 2012e). In FY12, Amtrak provided free flu vaccinations for approximately 3,000 employees (Amtrak, 2012e).

Amtrak publishes a monthly publication “Ink” (available online and in a printed version mailed to all Amtrak employees) which provides employees with an update on the company in general as well as new Amtrak services and amenities (Amtrak, 2013g).

of Orange County and completion of the Santa Fe to San Diego Line) (California Department of Transportation, 1988) and feeder bus services (e.g., the addition of Amtrak bus connections from Merced to the Eastern Sierras and a new route, from Bakersfield to Los Angeles) (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Recent implementation of new amenities on Amtrak California corridors (e.g., Wi-Fi) advertised through online campaigns and billboards has contributed to increased Amtrak California ridership (Miner, 2011).

In addition, both online campaigns and billboards highlight the benefits of riding a train over traveling by car or via airplane.

The State’s intercity marketing program has several components including advertising, public relations/outreach, group travel, rail safety, market research, and rail ridership/ revenue forecasting model (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

7.2.1.1. Advertising The marketing program has utilized a variety of advertising media, including TV, radio, the Internet, billboards, posters, newspapers, and magazines to attract customers.

Historically, Caltrans and Amtrak used various advertising, research-driven strategies to reach out to diverse market segments of existing and potential customers. For example, in 2008 and 2009, advertising was directed towards families, senior citizens, and the Hispanic community (California Department of Transportation, 2008b). Amtrak also advertised specific programs and concepts to reach their market segments.

Branding has proven to be a successful way to market Amtrak projects. The “Rail 2 Rail” project was heavily branded and advertised on the Pacific Surfliner route throughout the 2000s. Various advertising media were used including brochures and billboards (California Department of Transportation, 2008b).

“Rediscover California” was another successful branding in advertising for Amtrak. The Department of Tourism partnered with Amtrak to market trains as a fun and safe way to travel after the 9/11 attack so people would still be interested in experiencing tourism, maybe just closer to home. The concept, “Rediscover California” emphasized many classic California destinations, all accessible by train, to encourage people to utilize Amtrak’s services (California Department of Transportation, 2003b).

In recent years, advertising has been focusing “on the virtues of train travel” (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). In 2008, Glass-McClure Advertising agency developed Amtrak California’s new campaign themed “Travel Made Simple” (Communications Art, 2008) utilizing various slogans to highlight the benefits of train travel. The “Travel Made Simple” theme highlights the emotional element of train travel in combination with “price and destination messages” (California Department of Transportation, 2008a), successfully delivering a message of enjoying beautiful scenery and a relaxing onboard train experience via engaging visuals of a coffee cup, book, and landscape (Wilke,

2010). Exploratory research of FY10 Amtrak California Advertising found the “Travel Made Simple” campaign to be the most successful of the four out-of-home advertising campaigns tested: • “Travel Made Simple” (images conveying leisure travel) • “Straight Forward” (images portraying the message of speed and productivity) • “Train of Thoughts” (images portraying the downsides of driving) • “That’s Training” (images portraying the Amtrak as a relaxing and enjoyable mode of travel) An exploratory study conducted by Shugoll Research (2010) found customers and prospects to be specifically responsive to the dramatic California scenery and opportunity to relax, read a book, or enjoy a cup of coffee; activities they cannot enjoy if they were driving” (p. 1). This suggests the marketing strategy helped to successfully position Amtrak as an alternative to driving. The advertising concept “travel made simple” has been modified to address different target segments in California (California

Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Examples of the most recent Amtrak California campaigns include the following ads (Glass Agency, 2013; California Department of Transportation, 2012b).

• “You’re in California. Time to surf. Free Wi-Fi on every train” (billboards, TV advertising) • “Amtrak California is the least polluting – and most awesome – way to travel” (billboards, TV advertising) • “Jam past the traffic jams” (billboards, TV advertising) • “Include the environment in your travel plans” (billboards) • “What better way to remind people of all of Amtrak California’s wonderful destinations than when they’re checking the weather?” (mobile video) • “Amenity Match” (game on Facebook) • “Just a few reasons to enjoy traveling on Amtrak California” (Twitter) • “175 CA destinations. No airline does that” (billboards)

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

81

• “The only time you’ll see us stuck on the 405” (billboards) • “Celebrating 175 wonderful destinations” (billboards, TV advertising) • “Seats made for comfort not floatation” (billboards) • “California is not a ‘flyover’ state”(billboards) • “Recharges laptops and laptops owners” (billboards) • “You’re not a sardine” (billboards) • “Set your phone to ‘train mode’ “ (billboards) The Winter-Spring FY11 Amtrak California campaign follow-up study (SRBI, 2011), found the Amtrak California brand awareness has increased as a result of winter/spring 2011 campaign mainly focused on the amenities of train travel. While seven percent (7%) of customers reported that the advertising campaign contributed to their decision to travel on Amtrak California, a comprehensive study to quantify the longitudinal effects (e.g., on ridership and revenue) of the aforementioned campaign needs to be conducted.

82

7.2.1.1.1. Target market

7.2.1.2. Public Relations/Outreach

In collaboration with Amtrak, the Division of Rail has developed and implemented various strategies aimed at different market segments. The 2002 and 2003 San Joaquin advertising plan included major efforts directed at target groups including Hispanics, senior citizens, families, and students (California Department of Transportation, 2003b). A winter promotion in February and March of 2002 and 2003 advertised a major fare reduction of 50 percent using print, English and Spanish radio, traffic sponsorships, and online advertising to reach seniors and Hispanic market segments (California Department of Transportation, 2003b). In 2008 and 2009, advertising was directed towards families, senior citizens, and the Hispanic community (California Department of Transportation, 2008b). To attract the Hispanic demographic, Amtrak provided bilingual staff for information booths at the 2008 La Raza Conference in San Diego (California Department of Transportation, 2008d).

Along with advertising, public relations have also worked to market various aspects of Amtrak’s services. Public relations programs are responsible for community outreach, media relations, printed materials, and special events (California Department of Transportation, 2005a). The FY02-03 public relations plan worked in conjunction with the advertising plan to improve ridership and revenue by offering promotional programs and special events, such as press conferences, train station grand opening events, and service inauguration celebrations (California Department of Transportation, 2003b). Public Relations for FY05-06 included celebrations recognizing milestones, outreach to local college campuses, partnerships involving destinations, and printing “Making Tracks” quarterly (California Department of Transportation, 2005b). In FY07-08, the fifth anniversary of “Rail 2 Rail” program was celebrated, and several specials events were organized to promote tourist

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

destinations such as Hearst Castle, San Diego, Solvang, and Santa Barbara (California Department of Transportation, 2007).

In accordance with the state law, Caltrans has used various marketing strategies to promote Amtrak California for the past 20 years. Due to lack of state funding, the State recently suspended Caltrans intercity rail marketing program for a period of time. In the beginning of 2013, the State of California awarded Caltrans a three-year $9 million contract for public outreach and social marketing of Amtrak California. This public relations contract is expected to promote ridership and increase revenue for state-supported intercity rail as well as increase the number of Amtrak California Facebook fans and Twitter followers. At Caltrans request, the Sacramento-based TMD Group Incorporated will coordinate and promote a themed event (e.g., Mardi Gras Masquerade Party Train or New Year’s Eve Train) to increase Amtrak California’s public awareness and design a statewide rail safety program “Be Track Smart” (Cadelogo, 2013).

7.2.1.3. Group Travel In conjunction with Amtrak, the Division of Rail has developed specific programs to expose different market segments to train travel. “Kids ‘n’ Trains” program was developed to encourage teachers to educate students about trains and take them on a field trip to ride on a train.

“Kids ‘n’ Trains” was continued in 2006 and 2007 on the San Joaquin Route (California Department of Transportation, 2006), and also in 2008 and 2009 on the Pacific Surfliner Route (California Department of Transportation, 2008b). A “Senior Travel Program” was developed and marketed through multimedia outreach 2004-2007 (California Department of Transportation, 2005b; 2006). Currently, as part of the national student discount program, the Student Advantage Card, Amtrak offers cardholders a 15% discount on the best available adult rail fare (Amtrak, 2013i).

In addition, Amtrak California customers have an opportunity to explore unique California destinations (e.g., Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks, Hearst Castle, Monterey) with Regional Rail Tour Package Programs offered through Amtrak (Amtrak, 2013b).

7.2.1.4. Rail Safety In recent years, the department’s rail safety program has focused on educating the public about safe behavior along the railroad rights of ways and railroad crossings. In collaboration with Operation Lifesaver, Incorporated (a national nonprofit safety education organization), the Department has coordinated rail safety activities focusing on eliminating death and injuries (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

As aforementioned (please refer to safety section of this report for more information on rail related incidents), California has a high number of pedestrian-train fatalities and injuries. In response to the increasing trend of incidents, a “Common Sense” public awareness campaign aimed at reducing train-related casualties and injuries (sponsored by Amtrak California and Operation Lifesaver, and supported

by Caltrans, CCJPA, and Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway) was launched in California in 2010 (Operation Lifesaver, 2010).

marketing

7.2.1.5. Market Research The Amtrak California’s Marketing Department works with Amtrak to contract market research services. In order to better serve existing consumers, various market research firms (e.g., Abt SRBI, AECOM, Shugoll Research, Greener Group), have been contracted to examine customers’ demographics, travel behavior, attitudes, preferences, perceptions, needs, awareness and usage of, brand and promotion awareness, and reaction to advertising. To attract new customers and expand current market share, market research firms have recently conducted multiple studies examining prospects’ perceptions of advertising campaigns, reaction to general market advertising (e.g., impressions, strengths, weaknesses, feelings), perception of Amtrak and Amtrak California (Market Research Summary Reports, 2012).

Market research utilizes a variety of data collection methods including onboard surveys, focus groups, computer-assisted telephone (CAT) interviews (California Department of Transportation, 2008a) and secondary data (e.g., Amtrak Closed-Month Ridership and Revenue

Data Warehouse [RRDQ], Amtrak True Origin-Destination Data Warehouse [TOD]) (AECOM, 2011), to guide intercity rail advertising and rail ridership and revenue forecasting models (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Please refer to Appendix A for more specific market research studies conducted between FY06 and FY13.

7.2.1.6. Rail Ridership/Revenue Model The Division of Rail contracts with Amtrak to develop the Rail Ridership/Revenue Forecasting model used to estimate the ridership and revenue impacts related to main service changes (e.g., new services, route extensions, fare changes), and to project future ridership and revenue. Travel characteristics (i.e., travel time, travel cost, time of day), the key independent variables, are generated through the intercity highway geographic information system network, published timetable, Marketing Department, and Amtrak (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Please refer to mobility section of this report for more information on ridership.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

83

7.2.2. Partnerships The most general type of partnership has been established among the State, Amtrak, and member agencies (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). Amtrak and Caltrans have jointly developed overall marketing goals and strategies and campaigns to reach these marketing goals (California Department of Transportation, 1989). Strategic partnerships with the air quality district, transit agencies, and private sectors have helped leverage scarce media funds needed to support Amtrak California’s marketing efforts (California Department of Transportation, 2008a).

Throughout the history, the Amtrak California’s Marketing Department has developed marketing programs with a variety of agencies such as: • Lowe Marschalk, Inc.

84

• Glass-McClure • San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee • Metrolink • Disneyland Resort • Sea World • Universal Studios • Santa Barbara Car-Free • Lodi Convention and Visitors Bureau • Castle Air Museum • City of Stockton Chamber of Commerce • Hearst Castle • City of Santa Barbara

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

• Los Angeles Clippers (California Department of Transportation, 1989, 2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2008a, 2008b) • San Diego Natural History Museum (California Department of Transportation, 2007a) • San Francisco Travel (San Francisco Travel Association, 2013) In FY12, Visit California utilized Amtrak California for 4 individual press trips with media representatives from Germany, Italy, and Japan yielding 38 placements in German newspapers such as BZ News Aus Berlin, Spiegel Online, Oberhessische Zeitung that reached an audience of 897 million. The value of these placements was estimated to be equivalent to $792,000 in paid advertising. Visit California plans to further utilize Amtrak California for FAM trips with the upcoming Brand USA FAM trip planned for May 2013 (Visit California, 2013).

7.2.3. Services and Amenities Amtrak California has followed the technological trends by making many upgrades to services offered. Most recent services and features implemented on Amtrak California corridors include Wi-Fi, electric outlets, e-Ticketing, and e-Vouchers.

The state-supported corridors current onboard services include reservation for coaches, café, baggage services, Wi-Fi, bicycle service. E-ticketing has been available on Amtrak California since July 30, 2012, and will be enabled on the California Thruway bus connection in FY13 (Amtrak, 2013d). In addition to these services and amenities, Amtrak California regularly implements overall rail car upgrades, electronic security projects, and other efforts to improve safety through the use of electronic systems (California Department of Transportation, 2008c).

The current California Rail Pass gives customers an opportunity to explore

California using Capital Corridor, San Joaquin, Pacific Surfliner routes, and Coast Starlight (between LA and Dunsmuir) on any seven days within a consecutive 21-day period (Amtrak, 2013h). Amtrak California riders can also ride multiple times within a set amount of time within California (i.e., Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, Amtrak Cascades) and out-of-state Amtrak service when they purchase multi-ride tickets (Amtrak, 2013j).

To enhance customers’ experience, Amtrak California has undertaken several community outreach and research initiatives. For example, the community and stakeholder outreach program, “Let’s Talk Train Travel”, conducted in 2006 and 2007, provided a foundation for rail improvements in the upcoming years. For example, riders expressed the need for improved communication (e.g., information about connecting with other transits) and safety. Riders’ stated safety

preferences included secure, low-cost, nearby, well-lit, long-term parking and shuttle service. Other recommendations included increased frequency of trains and a number of stations and stops (California Department of Transportation, 2008c). The Caltrans Menu Exploratory study results suggested that customers found Café menu items appealing and appreciated the effort to add ethnically diverse foods; however, they expressed a concern regarding breakfast, lunch and dinner entrées and lack of consistency in food preparation (Greener Group, 2007). Improvements recommended by current San Joaquin route riders included increased cleanliness of trains, food service addition to the lower train levels, more staff providing services, and food/beverage services availability at stations (California Department of Transportation, 2008c).

7.3. Summary Amtrak is committed to provision of a quality customer-driven intercity passenger rail system in the US. In FY12, the Customer Experience Management Program introduced e-Ticketing to all trains within Amtrak’s national network (i.e., the NEC, state-supported corridors, and longdistance trains) providing passengers with the convenience to print their tickets whenever and wherever (or use their smartphones to present their e-Ticket) (Amtrak, 2012e). Next, Amtrak has enhanced Amtrak.com by allowing customers to log into Amtrak. com with a “single sign-on” platform, launched a mobile application “Rider”, extended on-board Wi-Fi access to the entire eastern corridor and all California services, continued implementation of Point of Sale System (POS), launched automated Warehouse Inventory Management System, and continued Route

Performance Improvement Program (RPI) (Amtrak, 2012c).

Amtrak uses six metrics (i.e., overall service, Amtrak personnel, information given, on-board comfort, on-board cleanliness, and on-board food service to assess on-board service (PRIIA Section 222). To further enhance customers’ experience, Amtrak has developed essential partnerships with various public and private entities (Amtrak, 2013l) and launched numerous marketing campaigns to introduce new onboard services and amenities (e.g., Wi-Fi, e-ticketing, and quiet cars). Amtrak California has specifically been involved in grass-roots marketing projects that promote the virtue of train travel positioning Amtrak California as a feasible and progressive travel option across California.

Amtrak’s current promotional “deal”

strategies include: SmartFares (Associated Press, 2012e), passenger discounts (Amtrak, 2013i), rail passes (Amtrak, 2013h), multi-ride tickets (Amtrak, 2013j), regional rail tour packages (Amtrak, 2013b), and Amtrak vacations (Amtrak, 2013k).

Additionally, Amtrak is actively engaged in social media marketing (e.g., Facebook YouTube, Google+, and Whistle Stop) to enhance communication with customers.

To increase Amtrak workforce performance and overall customer service satisfaction, Amtrak has implemented various types of training (Amtrak, 2012e), and seeks out and rewards employees who demonstrate excellent customer service (Amtrak, 2011b). In the future, Amtrak plans to install Human Emulation Technology (HET) software application, which is expected to further improve customer service (Amtrak, 2012e).

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

85

8.

SummAry

and Conclusions

This report provided a brief overview of a wide breadth of passenger rail related topics organized around Caltrans strategic goals. This last section provides a brief summary of the previous parts of the report and offers suggestions for areas of future investigation.

8.1. Summary This report provided a brief history of Amtrak and Caltrans followed by a review of literature based on Caltransâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; five strategic goals: safety, mobility, delivery, stewardship, and service.

8.1.1. History The first section provided a brief overview of passenger rail history and then focused on the three state-supported passenger rail corridors in California; Capitol, Pacific Surfliner, and San Joaquin. The perceived value of passenger rail has fluctuated over time and has been at the heart of political debates over the role of Amtrak for the last four decades (Cervero & Guerra, 2011; United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011).

In the fifty years leading to the founding of Amtrak, passenger rail miles decreased nearly 80% (Nice, 1998). Amtrak took over a passenger rail industry that needed major investments in order to be upgraded to a modern service.

However, there were sharp paradigmatic differences about whether Amtrak should facilitate the elimination of passenger rail in America, or whether it should promote and develop passenger rail on the continent. History has shown that Amtrak has taken on the latter role, but not without a fight that some would argue has led to chronic underfunding of this mode of transportation (United States Senate 108th Congress, 2011).

States stepped in to the funding gap to support some desired passenger rail

86

services in their states. In California, the fortunes of the state-supported routes (i.e., Capitol, Pacific Surfliner, and San Joaquin) vacillated with the political climate, even as they grew to be some of the busiest state-supported corridors

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

in America. Along with increases in ridership, the passage of legislation (e.g., PRIIA), and the initiation of high-speed rail (HSR) in California suggest that passenger rail is experiencing a relatively prosperous period.

8.1.2. Safety

8.1.5. Stewardship

8.1.6. Service

Safety is the first of Caltrans’ strategic goals. It is also a key Amtrak goal.

Safety issues are sensational; however, the trends appear to indicate that the number of safety incidents is decreasing in California and the US. The population adjusted number of overall passenger rail accidents/incidents, fatalities, and highway-rail incidents are all decreasing.

Reported instances of safety incidents will likely continue, but it seems that passenger rail safety trends are moving in the right direction.

As passenger rail provides mobility, Caltrans and Amtrak must steward the Nation’s natural environment and economic development. The development of transportation must be balanced against the need for preserving open space, agricultural lands, habitat, wildlife, and water and air quality. Given the competing demands for limited public funds, the amount of money that is spent on passenger rail must be balanced against subsides given to highway and air passenger transportation, as well as other funding priorities. A review of the technical literature shows that passenger rail is a relatively advantageous transportation mode for stewarding the economic and environmental resources of California and the US.

Passenger rail is reliant on riders choosing to travel by rail. Therefore, passenger rail needs to attract riders and provide pleasant experiences. The Caltrans Division of Rail is collaborating with Amtrak to promote passenger rail services and amenities, develop strategic partnerships, and utilize social media and other modes to help Californians and visitors understand the benefits of passenger rail (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). Online media efforts have included Facebook, YouTube, Google+, and Whistle Stop. New amenities include the provision of Wi-Fi, e-Ticketing, and quiet cars. Moreover, Amtrak continues to train and incent employees to provide excellent customer service (Amtrak, 2011b).

8.1.3. Mobility Providing a piece of the passenger transportation system is a key part of the Amtrak mission. California is a major part of Amtrak’s move to provide mobility to Americans. Given the increasing number of riders and the development of HSR in California, it is likely that the share of passengers served by passenger rail in California will likely continue to rise.

8.1.4. Delivery In order to provide mobility, Amtrak must efficiently deliver quality transportation and services through the contracting and completion of services and projects in a timely manner (California Department of Transportation, 2008a). Given the political nature of passenger rail, Amtrak’s ability to efficiently deliver projects depends on support and cooperation from both the public and private sectors. The passenger rail system requires infrastructure, longterm equipment, and maintenance (Amtrak, 2011b). Although there are many additional needs, Amtrak’s FY12 capital projects budget was over a billion dollars. This money was spent on rebuilding, upgrading, and modernizing existing infrastructure and building new infrastructure along the NEC. Along with spending money on traditional rail projects, there is money also being invested in HSR within California and a few other states. Moreover, money must be spent to make Amtrak stations compliant with ADA regulations (Amtrak, 2012c).

All of these projects are designed to increase passenger rail riders’ satisfaction through increased OTP, access, aesthetics, safety, and greater integration of rail with other modes of transportation (California Department of Transportation, 2013).

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

87

8.2. Recommendations for Future Research This report provided a brief overview of a wide breadth of passenger rail related topics organized by Caltrans’ five strategic goals.

While there is quite a bit of breadth in this report, the nature of the report may lead to more questions than answers. Additional areas for investigation include:

History • How does the evolution of passenger rail in California compare to the NEC or other major systems (e.g., Illinois system)?

Safety • How do Californian passenger rail safety incidents relate to levels of ridership, time, place, and economic factors (e.g., agricultural production, unemployment) in the state?

Mobility • How do ridership patterns differ across state-supported rail corridors?

• Given historical patterns of ridership and other variables (e.g., state population, levels of tourism, economic growth), how will levels of demand for passenger rail change in the future?

These are just a few of the questions that could be explored. Ultimately, further research will depend on how passenger rail can continue to safely provide mobility to people in California in an efficient manner that considers the natural environment, social equity, and the economy.

88

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Delivery • How do patterns of timeliness and quality differ across different contract variables (e.g., contract type, time, provider, project/ service type)?

Stewardship • What are the public perceptions about the level of funding for passenger rail in California compared to other modes of funding? How does this compare to reality?

• How do public perceptions of the environmental costs and benefits of passenger rail compare to measured costs and benefits?

Service • How effective are particular efforts at attracting riders?

• How do changes in particular aspects of passenger rail service impact levels of customer satisfaction?

9. References ABC 7 News. (2013, January 21). Colorado man, Robin Putnam, steps off train in Salt Lake City disappears. Retrieved from http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/ colorado-man-robin-putnam-steps-off-train-in-salt-lake-city-disappears Advertiser Tribune. (2012, July 20). Full steam ahead for bailout for California rail line project. Retrieved from http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/page/content.detail/ id/548062/Full-steam-ahead-for-bailout-for-California-rail-line-project.html?nav=5006 AECOM. (2011). California bus-rail market study.

Amtrak. (2000). California passenger rail system five-year improvement plan summary report.

Amtrak. (2011a). Amtrak: Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s railroad. Retrieved March 10, 2013. http://www. amtrak.com/ccurl/19/450/systemstats_achievements_201105.pdf Amtrak (2011b). Amtrak strategic plan: FY2011-2015. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/30/12/Strategic-Plan-2011-2015.pdf Amtrak. (2012a). 2011 environmental health and safety report. Retrieved October 10, 2013 from http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/294/246/Environmental-Health-Safety-AnnualReport-2011.pdf Amtrak. (2012b). Amtrak fleet strategy: Building a sustainable fleet for the future of Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intercity and high-speed passenger railroad. Retrieved January 10, 2012 from http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/36/921/2012-Amtrak-Fleet-Strategy-v3.1-%2003-29-12.pdf Amtrak. (2012c). Annual report: FY2011. Retrieved January 10, 2012 from http://www. amtrak.com/ccurl/677/158/2011-Amtrak-Annual-Report-Final.pdf Amtrak. (2012d). What is a carbon footprint? Retrieved January 10, 2012 from http:// www.amtrak.com/whistle-stop/what-is-a-carbon-footprint Amtrak. (2012e). Budget and comprehensive business plan, operating, capital programs, and debt service expense budget: FY2012. Retrieved January 10, 2012 from http://www. amtrak.com/ccurl/963/948/AmtrakFY12ComprehensiveBusinessPlan-FINAL-wAppx.pdf Amtrak. (2012f ). Amtrak fact sheet FY2011: State of California. Retrieved August 17, 2012 from http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/CALIFORNIA11.pdf Amtrak. (2013a). Amtrak national facts. Retrieved February 3, 2013 from http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246 Amtrak. (2013b). Regional rail tour packages. Retrieved February 5, 2013 from http:// www.amtrak.com/rail-passes Amtrak. (2013c). Plan. Retrieved February 25, 2013 from http://www.amtrak.com/traintravel-plan Amtrak. (2013d). eTicketing avaiable on all train routes: Your ride is just a barcode away.

Retrieved February 23, 2013 from http://www.amtrak.com/eticketing-your-ride-is-just-abarcode-away Amtrak. (2013e). San Joaquin schedule. Retrieved February 5, 2013 from http://www. amtrak.com/ccurl/619/580/San-Joaquin-Schedule-011413.pdf

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

89

Amtrak. (2013f ). Welcome: Amtrak agent support. Retrieved February 20, 2013 from http://www.amtrakagentsupport.com/index.htm Amtrak. (2013g). Amtrak ink, 2013. Retrieved February 25, 2012 from http://www.amtrak. com/ccurl/997/274/Amtrak-Ink-Dec-Jan-2013.pdf Amtrak. (2013h). Amtrak rail passes. Retrieved February 25, 2012 from http://www. amtrak.com/rail-passes Amtrak. (2013i). Discount train fares for passengers: Kids, seniors, military, students and more. Retrieved February 24, 2013 from http://www.amtrak.com/discount-train-fares-forkids-seniors-military-students-and-more Amtrak. (2013j). Monthly-ride tickets. Retrieved February 24, 2013 from http://www. amtrak.com/multi-ride-tickets Amtrak. (2013k). Amtrak vacations. Retrieved February 24, 2013 from http://www.amtrak. com/all-inclusive-train-vacation-packages Amtrak. (2013l). Patners & alliance. Retrieved February 24, 2013 from http://www.amtrak. com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669154 Amtrak Media Relations. (2012). National fact sheet. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/358/145/Amtrak-National-Fact-Sheet-FY11-Final-v2.pdf Anders, H. (2012, August 25). When you roll through the Rockies on a train, everybody gets to look. Statesman. Retrieved from http://www.statesman.com/life/travel/when-youroll-through-the-rockies-on-a-2442162.html Anderson, M. (2012, July 19). Amtrakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Route 21 bus transports locals to San Francisco smoothly and speedily. Monterey County Weekly. Retrieved from http://www. montereycountyweekly.com/ Ashiabor, S., & Wei, W. (2012). Advancing HSR policy in the United States. #CAMTI-12-2905.

Associated Press (2012a August 23). Parents fear for son missing from Amtrak SLC. Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21383893/parents-fear-sonmissing-from-amtrak-slc Associated Press. (2012b, October 1). California train crash injures 20 as Amtrak train hits big rig. Retrieved from http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/california-train-crashinjures-20-as-amtrak-train-hits-big-rig-1.4062711 Associated Press. (2012c, July 28). Amtrak train hits pickup at Tenino, 3 injured. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/28/4670010/amtrak-train-hits-pickup-at-tenino. html Associated Press. (2012d, October 3). Trucker unable to explain crash into Amtrak train Retrieved from http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21688329/truckerunable-explain-crash-into-amtrak-train Associated Press. (2012e, October 2). Amtrak: Crossing gate down in California crash.

Retrieved from http://www.kolotv.com/news/californianews/headlines/Amtrak-CrossingGate-Down-in-CA-Crash-172389771.html Associated Press. (2012f, September 17). Family focuses on Nebraska in search for man missing from Amtrak train. Retrieved from http://journalstar.com/news/local/familyfocuses-on-nebraska-in-search-for-man-missing-from/article_9f272870-f805-5aaf-ac4538f360067935.html

90

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Associated Press. (2012g, October 9). Amtrak service works again from DC to Delaware.

Retrieved from http://www.wrex.com/story/19774989/amtrak-service-disrupted-fromdc-to-delaware Bender, K. J. (2012, July 12). Fire in wheel well delays Amtrak train in Berkeley. Oakland Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21064386/firetrain-while-delays-amtrak-train-berkeley Black, D. (2012, October 10). All aboard for fast rail ride to the future-including in the Gulf.

The National. Retrieved from http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industryinsights/economics/all-aboard-for-fast-rail-ride-to-the-future-including-in-the-gulf Boardman, J. H. (2011). Amtrak’s President and CEO’s letter introducing Amtrak’s FY12 general and legislative annual report. Washington D.C. Brand USA. (2013). About us, 2013. Retrieved March 13, 2013 from http://www. thebrandusa.com/ Brown, J. (2013). State of the state of California address Retrieved February 14, 2013 from http://www.californiascapitol.com/2013/01/jerry-brown-on-the-viability-of-high-speed-rail/ Brown, J. R., & Thompson, G. L. (2009). Express bus versus rail transit: How a marriage of mode and mision affects transit performance. Transportation Research Record, 2110(1), 45-54.

C., D. (2011). Funding Amtrak is more cost-effective than subsidizing roads. Greater Greater Washington. Retrieved February 10, 2013, from http://greatergreaterwashington. org/post/12208/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-effective-than-subsidizing-roads/ Cadelago, C. (2013, March 1). State to spend $9M on Amtrak PR. U-T San Diego. Retrieved from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/01/state-to-spend-9m-on-amtrakpr/?page=1 California Department of Transportation. (1980). California state rail plan. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (1982). Rail passenger development planupdate 1982-87. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (1983). Status report on California rail passenger services. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (1985). Rail passenger development plan: FY1985-1990. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (1986). Rail passenger development plan: FY1986-91. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (1988). Rail passenger development plan: FY1988-1993. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (1989). Rail passenger development plan: FY1989-1994. Sacramento.

California Department of Transportation. (1990). Rail passenger development plan: FY1990-1995. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2002b). San Joaquin route business plan: FY2002:2003. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2003a). LOSSAN corridor strategic plan.

Sacramento, CA. Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

91

California Department of Transportation. (2003b). San Joaquin route business plan: FY2003-2004. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2005a). California state rail plan 2005-06 to 2015-16: Executive summary. Sacramento, CA California Department of Transportation. (2005b). Pacific Surfliner route business plan: FY2005-2006. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2005c). San Joaquin route FFY 2005-06 business plan. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2006a). San Joaquin route business plan: FY2005-2006. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2006b). California transportation plan 2025.

Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2007a). LOSSAN north corridor strategic plan.

Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2007b). San Joaquin route business plan: FY2005-2006. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2008a). California state rail plan 2007-08 to 2017-18. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2008b). Pacific Surfliner route business plan: FY2008-2009. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2008c). San Joaquin corridor strategic plan: Executive summary. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2008d). San Joaquin route business plan: FY2008-2009. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2012a). Caltrans Division of Rail corridor investments on San Joaquin Corridor: Past, present and future. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation (2012b). Market research summary reports: 2007-2012. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2013a). California Operation Lifesaver. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from http://www.caol.us/ California Department of Transportation. (2013b). Draft: California state rail plan: FY2013.

Sacramento, CA. Castellon, D. (2012, October 3). Amtrak crash near Hanford under investigation. Retrieved from http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20121003/NEWS01/310030007/Amtrakcrash-near-Hanford-under-investigation?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage CBS 5. (2012, July 25). Mesa County deputies investigating train death Retrieved from http://www.kgwn.tv/story/19108640/mesa-county-deputies-investigating-train-death Cervero, R., & Guerra, E. (2011). To T or not to T: A ballpark assessment of the costs and benefits of urban rail transportation. Public Works Management & Policy, 16(2), 111-128.

Chester, M. V., & Horvath, A. (2009). Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2).

92

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Chester, M. V, & Horvath, A. (2010). Life-cycle assessment of high-speed rail: The case of California. Environmental Research Letters, 5(1).

Chester, M. V, & Horvath, A. (2012). HSR with emerging automobiles and aircraft can reduce environmental impacts in Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3).

Chester, M. V., Horvath, A., & Madanat, S. (2010). Comparison of life-cycle energy and emissions footprints of passenger transportation in metropolitan regions. Atmospheric Environment, 44(8), 1071-1079.

Cheung, A. (2012, November 15). California man admits to making numerous train trips to distribute pot. Galesburg.com. Retrieved from http://www.galesburg.com/news/ x1582303833/California-man-admits-to-making-numerous-train-trips-to-distribute-pot China Post. (2012, October 3). California crash injuries at least. China Post. Retrieved from http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2012/10/03/356391/Californiacrash.htm Clayton, M. (2012, Austust 21). Obama plan for HSR, after hitting a bump, chugs forward again. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0821/ Obama-plan-for-high-speed-rail-after-hitting-a-bump-chugs-forward-again Communications Art. (2008). Travel made simple.

Cotey, A. (2012, July). US HSR likely to be built incrementally, consultants say at 8th world congress. Progressive Railroading. Retrieved from http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ high_speed_rail/article/US-highspeed-rail-likely-to-be-built-incrementally-consultantssay-at-8th-world-congress--31708 Davidson, L. (2012, July 12). Long Amtrak delays out of SLC? Study blames freight rails.

The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54477080-78/ amtrak-delays-freight-railroads.html.csp Davis, S., Diegel, S. W., & Boundy, R. G. (2012). Transportation energy data book. US Department of Energy. Retrieved July 31, 2012 from http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml Delucchi, M., & McCubbin, D. (2012). External costs of transport. US Handbook of Transport Economics.

US Department of Transportation. (2012). Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis, 2012. Retrieved October 10, 2012 from http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/stchart.aspx Doyle, M. (2013, January 17). Amtrak, California join to push throttle on HSR. Tri-city Hearald. Retrieved from http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2013/01/17/2240387/amtrakcalifornia-join-to-push.html Fagan, K. (2012, November 21). Caltrain track patrols help halt suicides. SF Gate.

Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Caltrain-track-patrols-help-haltsuicides-4055610.php#photo-3770008 Falk, A. (2012, September 15). Colorado family still searching for missing son. Salt Lake City Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54888464-78/putnam-cindyrobin-missing.html.csp Federal Railroad Administration. 2009. Overview, highlights and summary of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA).

Federal Railroad Administration. 2013. Positive Train Control. Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0358

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

93

Federal Railroad Administration. 2012a. Amtrak. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0052 Federal Railroad Administration. 2012b. Amtrak. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0134 Flamisch, S. (2013, February 21). Federal budget cuts could mean long lines at the airport.

Fox 23. Retrieved from http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/Federal-budgetcuts-could-mean-long-lines-at-the/W4cwr1sJCkqSe3Rh8gm8ZQ.cspx Fox News. (2012, October 2). Crossing gate down in California train crash, Amtrak official says. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/02/crossing-gatedown-in-california-train-crash-amtrak-official-says/ Freking, K. (2013, January 17). Amtrak, California teaming up on HSR. Washington Times.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/17/team-up-boostshigh-speed-rail-amtrak-california-t/ Fresno Bee. (2012a, July 28). Amtrak train collides with unoccupied car in Fresno.

Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/28/4670010/amtraktrain-hits-pickup-at-tenino.html Fresno Bee. (2012b, October 16). Amtrak train hits vehicle near Madera. Fresno Bee. Retrieved from http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/10/16/3031852/amtrak-train-hitsvehicle-near.html Glass Agency. (2013). Portfolio. Retrieved February 21, 2013 from http://adage. glassagency.com/amtrak.html Goldmark, A. (2012, September 19). US DOT gives $74 million to Virginia for 11-mile HSR construction. Transportation Nation. Retrieved from http://transportationnation.org/2012/09/19/ u-s-dot-gives-74-million-to-virginia-for-11-mile-high-speed-rail-construction/ Greener Group. (2007). Caltrans menu exploratory.

Guerra, E. (2010). Valuing rail transit: Comparing capital and operating costs to consumer benefits. Retrieved September 10, 2012, from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/ item/5qd9g94r Guy, J., & Sheehan, T. (2012, October 3). Big-rig driver canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t explain how Amtrak crash happened. Morris Daily Herald. Retrieved from http://www.morrisdailyherald. com/2012/10/03/big-rig-driver-cant-explain-how-amtrak-crash-happened/alx8vzm/ Hilkevitch, J. (2012, October 19). Wooo! Amtrak train briefly hits 111 mph in test run.

Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ chi-test-run-amtrak-passenger-train-to-hit-110-mph-20121019,0,1781261.story Horvath, A., & Chester, M. V. (2007). Environmental life-cycle assessment of passenger transportation: An energy, greenhouse gas, and criteria pollutant inventory of rail and air transportation. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from http://www.uctc.net/papers/844.pdf Invensys Rail. (2012). The benefits of HSR in comparative perpsective. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from http://www.invensysrail.com/whitepapers/hsh-research-report.pdf Johnson, F. (2012, July 16). HSR in California. National Journal: Transportation Experts Blog.

Retrieved from http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/highspeed-rail-incalifornia.php Jones, C. (2012). San Mateo man missing along Amtrak route. San Francisco Gate.

Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Mateo-man-missing-alongAmtrak-route-3869951.php 94

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Jones, J. (2012, November 27). Is the adults-only party train from O.C. to Vegas on a fast track? LA Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-adults-partytrain-oc-vegas-20121126,0,7115914.story Jones, T. (2012, September 29). No injuries after Amtrak train collides with big rig truck, north of King City. Central Coast News.Retrieved from http://www.kionrightnow.com/ story/19676010/no-injuries-after-amtrak-train-collides-with-big-rig-truck-north-of-king-city Kapustka, P. (2012, August 16). Wi-FI on buses and trains: Better service ahead. PC World.

Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/260976/wifi_on_buses_and_trains_ better_service_ahead.html Keane, A. G. (2012, July 12). Amtrak relying on US funding to attract bullet-train investors.

Bloomberg News. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201207-12/amtrak-relying-on-u-s-funding-to-attract-bullet-train-investors.html KTNV. (2012, September 21). NTSB releases records on deadly Amtrak-truck crash.

Retrieved from http://www.ktvn.com/story/19607432/ntsb-releases-records-on-deadlyamtrak-truck-crash Landis, T. (2012, October 19). Illinois sees promise in HSR service. Gatehouse News.

Retrieved from http://www.pjstar.com/news/x470407736/Illinois-Amtrak-train-hits-110mph-in-test-run Lederman, J. (2012, September 10). Amtrak funding in crosshairs in presidential race.

KNOE.com. Retrieved from http://www.knoe.com/story/19503575/amtrak-funding-incrosshairs-inLee, H. K. (2012, October 19). Train-station killing conviction upheld. San Francisco Gate.

Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Train-station-killing-convictionupheld-3964025.php Matlock, S. (2012, October 21). Unlocked Amtrak doors linked to series of deaths.

Santa Fe New Mexican. Retrieved from http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20 News/102112Amtrak-readyhh#.UIVgqXnheCc Miner. C. (2011, June 15). There is no backseat driver when there is no backseat.

Transportation Nation. Retrieved from http://transportationnation.org/2011/06/15/ amtrak-california-ridership-up-after-marketing-blitz/amtrak-3/ Miranda, N. (2013, January 28). California high speed rail stil needs to acquire land in Central Valley. ABC Local. Retrieved from http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/ story?section=news/state&id=8971766 National Transportation Safety Board. (2008). Collision of Metrolink train 111 with Union Pacific Freight train LOF65-12.

NBC News. (2012, September 19). Missing man may have fallen from Amtrak train Retrieved from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/19/13967596-missingman-may-have-fallen-from-amtrak-train?lite Nice, D. C. (1998). Amtrak: The history and politics of a national railroad. Boulder, CO.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Nidever, S. (2012, August 29). County opposes Amtrak JPA bill. The Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/county-opposes-amtrak-jpa-bill/ article_b34fff04-f20fNixon, R. (2012, July 25). Amtrak plan for upgrades in bid to push faster system. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/politics/amtrak-tounveil-plans-for-union-station-revamp.html?_r=0 Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

95

H.R. 7 (Mica) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; American energy and infrastructure jobs act of 201 (provision relevant to positive train control) [Memorandum] (2012).

Owen, R. (2012, September 9). Amtrak Coast Starlight delivers stunning vistas. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/life/travel/amtrakcoast-starlight-delivers-stunning-vistas-652499/ Parry, I. W., & Small, K. A. (2009). Should urban transit subsidies be reduced? The American Economic Review, 99(3), 700-724.

Plumer, B. (2012, July 10). Who will get HSR first: California or the Northeast? The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/ wp/2012/07/10/who-will-get-high-speed-rail-first-california-or-the-northeast/ Plungis, J. (2012, July 31). Amtrak shifts strategy from begging for money to thinking big.

Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0731/amtrak-shifts-strategy-from-begging-for-money-to-thinking-big Progressive Railroading. (2012a, October 9). California creates local authority to oversee Pacific Surfliner service. Retrieved from http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/ article/California-creates-local-authority-to-oversee-Pacific-Surfliner-service--32884# Progressive Railroading. (2012b, August 14). Union Pacific to test locomotive emissionreducing technologies in California, help establish grain facility in Kansas. Retrieved from http://www.progressiverailroading.com/union_pacific/news/Union-Pacific-to-testlocomotive-emissionreducing-technologies-in-California-help-establish-grain-facility-inKansas--32092 Quain, J. (2007). Super trains: Plans to fix US rail could end road & sky gridlock. Popular mechanics.

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, Pub L. No. 91-518, Title 1, Section 101 (1970).

Retrieved January 23, 2013 from https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-518/00005088.pdf Register Mail. (2012, October 7). Woman arrested with pot and plant. Galesburg.com.

Retrieved from http://www.galesburg.com/news/x21086748/Woman-arrested-with-potand-plant Reuters. (2012, October 1). Amtrak train derails in central California, 30 injured.

Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/01/us-usa-train-derailidUSBRE8901DA20121001 Rodrigue, J. P., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2009). The geography of transport systems. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Geography_of_ Transport_Systems.html?id=afRodkxRoCsC Safe Roads. (2004). Motor vehicle traffic fatalities & fatality rate: 1899-2003.

Retrieved February 19, 2013, from http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/ TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf San Francisco Travel Association. (2013). Partners. Retrieved February 20, 2013 from http://www.sanfrancisco.travel/partners/amtrak.html Scribner, M. (2012, October 17). Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s HSR disaster is not a model for the US. Open Market. Retrieved from http://www.openmarket.org/2012/10/17/chinas-high-speed-raildisaster-is-not-a-model-for-the-u-s/ Sentinel Staff. (2012, October 3). Serious changes unlikely for train crash truck driver.

Hanford Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/serious-chargesmay-be-unlikely-for-train-crash-truck-driver/article_d142e54c-0d87-11e2-bd1b0019bb2963f4.html

96

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

Shugoll Research. (2010). FY10 Amtrak Cailfornia advertising exploratory research.

Siegel, J. (2012, October 1). HSR investing: Is this California’s bridge to nowhere? Seeking Alpha. Retrieved from http://seekingalpha.com/article/897841-high-speed-rail-investingis-this-california-s-bridge-to-nowhere Slosson, M. (2012, July 18). California governor signs landmark HSR bill. Reuters.

Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/us-usa-california-railidUSBRE86H16J20120718 Smith, M. (2012, October 18). California woman arrested on Amtrak train. Cleburne Times Review. Retrieved from http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/local/x1400183140/ California-woman-arrested-on-Amtrak-train Smith, S. (2012, November 13). Obama’s new cabinet can make trains run on time.

Bloomberg News. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-13/obamas-new-cabinet-can-make-trains-run-on-time.html Snider, A., & Everett, B. (2012, October 10). Romney’s transpo brain trust - Minnesota race all about T&I - Amtrak sets another ridership record - Metro unveils new car...a mile from a station. Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/morningtransportation/1012/ morningtransportation246.html?hp=l6_b Snyder, T. (2011, June 15). House plan to privatize Northeast Corridor retains public ownership. DC Streets Blog. Retrieved from http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/06/15/houseplan-to-privatize-northeast-corridor-more-moderate-than-expected/ Soguel, N. (1995). Costing the traffic barrier effect: A contingent Valuation Survey (pp. 23).

SRBI, A. (2011). Amtrak California advertising campaign follow-up research: Winter-Spring FY11.

Stoller, G. (2013, February 16). Road congestion wastes 1.9 billion gallons of gas. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/ story/2012-03-25/wasted-fuel-report/53776164/1 Stone, S. (2012, October 10). Trains are up and running after Amtrak derailment. ABC Local. Retrieved from http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8833136 Stout, P. (2012, August 23). Amtrak Leader briefs regional transportation summit. pjstar. com. Retrieved from http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1718133894/Amtrak-leader-briefsregional-transportation-summit Szabo, J. C. (2013). US HSR Association High Speed summit. Federal Rail Administration.

Retrieved February 18, 2013, from http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04296 Texas A&M Transportation Institute. (2012a). Table 1: What congestion means to you, 2011.

Texas A&M Transportation Institute. (2012b). Table 2: Congestion leaders. Retrieved February 14, 2013 from http://mobility.tamu.edu/files/2011/11/ccr-all-table-rankings.pdf#page=3 Trucking Info. (2012, October 23). Legal claims, counterclaims continue from 2011: Amtrak-truck crash. Retrieved from http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=77800 Turner, D. (2012, August 16). Acela defies California’s bullet-train naysayers. The Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/16/news/la-ol-bullet-train-acela-20120815 US Government Accountability Office. (2009). High speed passenger rail: Future development will depend on addressing fiancial and other challenges and establishing a clear federal role.

Retrieved February 10, 2013, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

97

UIC (2012, July 1). High speed lines in the world. International Union of Railways. Retrived from http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article573 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Coastal areas impacts & adaption.

Retreived from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/coasts.html United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013a). Greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved from May 10, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ ghgemissions/sources/transportation.html United States Senate 108th Congress, F. S. (2011). Future of intercity passenger rail service and Amtrak: Hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Washington D.C. Visit California. (2013). Correspondence received January 13, 2013.

Verbinski, G. (Writer). (2013). The Lone Ranger. In J. Bruckheimer (Producer).

Wall Street Journal. (2012, September 24). Would funds for HSR be better spent on improving existing intercity rail service? Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1 0000872396390444709004577649421549941652.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (2012).â&#x20AC;?HSRways: Worth their hefty price tag? Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved August 1, 2013 from http://knowledge. wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3062 Wheaton, J. K. (2011). The first transcontinental railroad: A history of the building of the Pacific Railroad. Hustonville, KY: Golgatha Press.

Wilke (2010). [Market Research and Analysis Department, Amtrak].

Williams, J. (2013, January 21). California engineers question HSR oversight. Mercury News.

Retrieved from http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_22418649/ california-engineers-question-high-speed-rail-oversight Winter, M. (2012, October 1). Big rig hits, derails California Amtrak: 42 minor injuries. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/ondeadline/2012/10/01/amtrakderailed-california-big-rig/1606941/ Wozniacka, G. (2012, October 1). At least 20 injured in California train crash. ABC6. Retrieved from http://www.abc6.com/story/19687896/at-least-20-injured-in-california-train-crash WQUAD. (2012, September 21). Body of missing man, Charlie Dowd, reportedly found.

WQAD. Retrieved from http://wqad.com/2012/09/21/missing-mans-body-found/ Yang, C., McCollum, McCarthy, R., & Leighty, W. (2009). Meeting 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2050: A case study in California Transportation Research Part D.

98

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

10. Appendix A. Amtrak California: Market Research Projects FY06-FY13 FY13 Market Research Projects Customer Profiles

2012 Ridership Profiles of Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin (Summer 2012) Onboard survey that provides demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers.

Customer Profiles

2013 Ridership Profiles of Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin (Winter 2013, Results Pending) Onboard survey that provides demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers.

Food Service

2012 Amtrak California Food & Beverage Research (Summer 2012) As part of the Summer 2012 Ridership Profiles, this report identifies Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers’ perceptions and usage of Café car service.

Food Service

2013 Amtrak California Food & Beverage Research (Winter 2013, Results Pending) As part of the Winter 2013 Ridership Profiles, this report identifies Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers’ perceptions and usage of Café car service.

FY12 Market Research Projects Advertising Performance

Winter/Spring FY12 Amtrak California Advertising Campaign Follow-up Research Telephone survey measuring customers’ and prospects’ awareness and ROI of this campaign.

Customer Profiles

2012 Ridership Profiles of Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin (Winter 2012 Results) Onboard survey that provides demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers.

Food Service

2012 Amtrak California Food & Beverage Research (Winter 2012 Results) As part of the Winter 2012 Ridership Profiles, this report identifies Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers’ perceptions and usage of Café car service.

Promotions

2012 Amtrak California College Market Exploratory Research Focus group research evaluating the appeal of Amtrak California’s 20% student discount among college students attending select California universities.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

99

FY11 Market Research Projects Advertising Performance

Winter/Spring FY11 Amtrak California Advertising Campaign Follow-up Research Telephone survey measuring customers’ and prospects’ awareness and ROI of this campaign.

Brand Performance

FY11 Perceptions of the Amtrak California Brand and Reasons/Barriers for Usage.

As part of the Winter/Spring FY11 Amtrak California Advertising Campaign Follow-up Research, this report assesses imagery of the Amtrak California brand, and key motivators/barriers to using the service.

Customer Profiles

2011 Ridership Profiles of Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin (Summer 2011 Results) Telephone survey that provides demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers.

Food Service

2011 Amtrak California Food & Beverage Research (Summer 2011 Results) As part of the Summer 2011 Ridership Profiles, this report identifies Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers’ perceptions and usage of Café car service.

Product Development

FY11 Amtrak California Web Site Exploratory Research Focus group research exploring the appeal and functionality of the Amtrak California brand website among Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin customers.

Product Development

FY11 Amtrak Capitol Corridor & Amtrak California Web Site Exploratory Research Focus group research exploring the appeal and functionality of the Amtrak California as well as the Capitol Corridor brand websites among Capitol Corridor customers.

FY10 Market Research Projects Advertising Development

FY10 Amtrak California Advertising Exploratory Research Focus group research evaluating customers’ and prospects’ perceptions of proposed Amtrak California campaigns.

Advertising Performance

Winter/Spring FY10 Amtrak California Advertising Campaign Follow-up Research Telephone survey measuring customers’ and prospects’ awareness and ROI of this campaign.

Product Development

FY10 Pacific Surfliner Business Class Overhead Video Monitors Customer Research Telephone survey measuring Pacific Surfliner customers’ perceptions of onboard video screens, and the appeal of existing and potential video content.

Travel Market Study, Segmentation

FY10 Amtrak California Intra-state Travel Market Study Telephone survey tracking travel behavior and awareness and perceptions of the Amtrak California brand relative to other transportation modes among customers and California intra-state travelers. This research also includes a segmentation analysis.

Travel Market Study

FY10 Amtrak California Intra-state Travel Market Study: Non-customer Analysis As part of the Amtrak California Travel Market Study, an additional sub-analysis was created to assess awareness and perceptions of the Amtrak brand among “non-customers” and to identify their key decisions for choosing other modes vs. Amtrak California.

100 Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review

FY09 Market Research Projects Advertising Development

FY09 Amtrak California Advertising Exploratory Research Focus group research evaluating customers’ and prospects’ perceptions of proposed Amtrak California campaigns.

Product Development

FY09 Amtrak Timetable Exploratory Research Focus group research to explore perceptions, uses, and relevance of Amtrak and Amtrak California timetables and panel cards.

Travel Market Study

FY09 Amtrak California Hispanic Travel Exploratory Research Mini-focus group research among Hispanic travelers and customers to explore their attitudes, behavior, and perceptions surrounding travel, and to identify opportunities and barriers in the California Hispanic travel market.

Travel Market Study

FY09 Amtrak California Intra-state Hispanic Travel Study Telephone survey estimating the size of California Hispanic intra-state travel market, and measuring awareness, perceptions, and usage of Amtrak California among Hispanic travelers and Hispanic customers.

FY08 Market Research Projects Advertising Performance

Winter/Spring FY08 Amtrak California Advertising Campaign Follow-up Research Telephone survey measuring customers’ and prospects’ awareness and ROI of this campaign.

Customer Profiles

2008 Ridership Profiles of Capitol Corridor Onboard survey that provides demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of Capitol Corridor customers.

Customer Profiles

2008 Ridership Profiles of Pacific Surfliner Onboard survey that provides demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of Pacific Surfliner customers.

Customer Profiles

2008 Ridership Profiles of San Joaquin Onboard survey that provides demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of San Joaquin customers.

Food Service

FY08 California Corridor Customers’ Food/Beverage Purchasing Behaviors As part of the 2008 Ridership Profiles of the Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, this report identifies customers’ perceptions and usage of Café car service.

FY07 Market Research Projects Advertising Development

FY07 Caltrans Advertising Exploratory Research Focus group research evaluating customers’ and prospects’ perceptions of proposed Caltrans campaigns.

Food Service

FY07 Caltrans Menu Exploratory Research Focus group research among general market, Hispanic, parent, and lapsed/light Café car customers to explore customer’s perceptions of the San Joaquin current menu as well as explore new ideas for the future.

Product Development

FY07 Caltrans OTP Exploratory Research Focus group research to understand customers’ experiences with delays and perceptions of how the delays were handled by Amtrak.

FY06 Market Research Projects Advertising Development

FY06 Caltrans Ad Campaign Follow-up Research Telephone survey measuring customers’ and prospects’ awareness and ROI of the Caltrans advertising campaign.

Customer Profiles

2006 Ridership Profiles of Pacific Surfliner Onboard survey that provides demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of Pacific Surfliner customers.

Food Service

FY06 New Long Distance Dining Service Exploratory Research Focus group research to explore customers’ reactions to the new long distance dining service implemented in April 2006, as well as to identify Empire Builder amenities that could be eliminated.

Note. Amtrak California: market research projects FY06-FY13, by Caltrans, 2013, Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. Copyright 2013 by Caltrans. Adapted with permission.

Amtrak California Passenger Rail Literature Review 101