San Bernardino Line Infrastructure Improvement Study

San Gabriel Valley COG Transportation CommitteeAugust 21, 2014

1

What is Metro Regional Rail

> Manage more than 165 miles of R/W in L.A. County

> Develop capital improvement projects and programs.

> Coordinate with Metrolink, Amtrak, CHSRA, and freight.

Los Angeles Union Station

To Bakersfield

High Desert Corridor

San Bernardino Line

Antelope Valley Line

LOSSAN Corridor

2

Regional Rail in L.A. County

> We are taking a strong role in the region and the state regarding passenger rail.

> Working with Metrolink to define needs in L.A. County.> Working with local municipalities to identify needs in L.A.

County.> Developing a Regional Rail program.> Programming projects to advance regional rail.> Working with the LOSSAN JPA on strategic needs.

3

San Bernardino Line

Los Angeles Union Station

San Bernardino Line

4

> Busiest line in the Metrolink system, 13,000 daily riders.

> Twenty minute peak period headways.

> Shared passenger and freight service.

> 55 Miles, 33 in L.A. County> 38 Miles single track with

sidings.> 13 Stations, 8 in L. A.

County

Weekday Boardings By Station

5

Study Goals

> Identify cost effective infrastructure improvements that lead to the following outcomes:> Increased average train

speed.> Reduced travel times.> Enhanced overall

capacity.> Safety enhancements.> Model the system for the

future

6

Items Studied

> Safety Enhancements:> Fencing> Grade crossings

> Examine Stations> Parking> Platforms

> Utilities> Culverts> Fiber optics> Electrical

> Right-of- way> Constraints> Impact on capacity

improvements7

Challenges

> 70% of the corridor is single track.

> Limited ability for peak hour trains to pass.

> Right of way constraints> I-10 Freeway.> Narrow right-of-way.

> 68 At-grade crossings in L.A. County

8

Study Goals

9

Capital Cost Assessment

10

Double Track Corridors

I-10

Cor

rido

r

CP

Am

ar (M

P 16

.6)

to C

P Ir

win

(MP

20.4

)

CP

Barr

anca

(MP

23.4

) to

CP

Whi

te (M

P 30

.4)

Lone

Hill

Ave

(MP

26.5

5)

to C

P W

hite

(MP

30.4

) (A

LT)

CP

Cen

tral

(MP

34.6

) to

CP

Arc

hiba

ld (M

P 40

.2)

CP

Lila

c (M

P 52

.4)

to C

P R

anch

o (M

P 55

.3)

Cost

Right of Way Impacts

Qualitative Rating Cost Range ($M) Right of Way Impacts (Miles of Potential ROW Acquisition)

High - > $110 M > 1.75

Medium - $80 M - $110 M 0.25 1.75

Low - < $80 M < 0.25

Legend

Modeling

> Different scenarios were modeled for the strategic placement of improvements.

> Modeling took into account present and planned growth of the system.

> Several double track locations were examined for effectiveness.

> Some were excluded due to feasibility:> High cost> Right of way limitations> I-10 freeway

11

Modeling TablesBase Case

12

Alternative Base

Delay (%) 6.99Delay minutes per 100 train miles (min)

4.14

On time performance (%)

93.27

Alternative Base CP Central -CP

Archibald

Lone HillAve. - CP

White

CP Lilac -CP Rancho

Delay (%) 4.90 3.92 4.81 4.38Delay minutes per 100 train miles (min)

2.82 2.22 2.78 2.52

On time performance (%) 95.24 97.42 93.80 94.57

Scenario 2 Base case with independent potential double track projects

Modeling TablesScenario 3 Scenario 2 with an additional round trip with a 44 train daily schedule

13

Alternative Lone Hill Ave.

- CP White +CP Central -

CP Archibald

CP Central - CP

Archibald + CP

Lilac - CP Rancho

Lone Hill Ave. -

CP White +CP Lilac -

CPRancho

Delay (%) 4.81 4.40 4.73Delay minutes per 100 train miles (min)

3.35 3.06 3.33

On time performance (%) 93.02 92.08 88.64

> Scenario 4 2020: Each combination modeled with a 48 train daily schedule

Alternative Lone HillAve. - CP

White

CP Central CP

Archibald

CP Lilac -CP Rancho

Delay (%) 5.31 5.15 5.06Delay minutes per 100 train miles (min)

3.65 3.51 3.45

On time performance (%) 88.85 88.40 87.81

Modeling Tables

14

Alternative Lone Hill Ave.

- CP White +CP Central -

CP Archibald

CP Central - CP

Archibald + CP

Lilac - CP Rancho

Lone Hill Ave. -

CP White +CP Lilac -

CPRancho

Delay (%) 5.65 4.51 5.82Delay minutes per 100 train miles (min)

4.58 3.65 4.76

On time performance (%) 94.12 93.51 90.44

> Scenario 5 2035: Each combination modeled with a 56 train daily schedule

Modeling Results

> A segment of single track between Lone Hill Ave. and CP White was a strong candidate.

> This double track segment will provide capacity for:> Second Express round trip trains.> Allow an increase in daily trains from 42 to 44.

> An accompanying project in San Bernardino in tandem will allow an increase from 42 to 48 trains a day in the near term.

> The two double track projects will allow 56 daily trains in 2036.

> The largest factor affected is on-time performance.

15

16

StationThe Study made several recommendations for station improvements that need further study

17

Station Improvements for Further Study

Cal State L.A. Additional Parking (100 spaces), Lengthen platforms

El Monte Consider relocation of station to be adjacent to the El Monte Transit Center. Would include an elevated second track and access to bus station. TOD potential

Baldwin Park Additional Parking (100 spaces), Lengthen platforms, TOD potential

Covina Additional Parking (200 spaces), Lengthen platforms, pedestrian overpass

Pomona North Additional Parking (200 spaces), TOD potential

Claremont Pedestrian overpass, lengthen platforms, TOD potential

Ridership

> Ridership modeling is being developed with SCAG> Looking at the impacts of the proposed

improvements to ridership.> Examining a limited skip/stop service:

> Some trains will serve a group of stations while others will serve the rest.

> Operational modeling determined that some trains could stop at four stations only and maintain OTP.

> Modeling will assess the impacts to ridership.

18

Lone Hill to CP White

> Double Track> Env. and PE> 3.8 Miles in length> Eliminate an existing

bottleneck> Provide additional

capacity - up to 44 trains in the near term.

> RFP expected Fall/Winter 2014

19

Project Area

Lone Hill to CP White Costs

20

Task Duration 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Preliminary Engineering

March 2015 March 2016 1.9 - - - - - 1.9

Final Design March 2016 - March 2017 - 1.7 2.0 - - - 3.7

Construction July 2017 - Dec 2018 - - - 43.8 22.6 - 66.4

Total $1.9 $1.7 $2.0 $43.8 $22.6 - $71.9

Lone Hill Avenue to CP White, Project Cost by Year (in millions, YOE $)

Summary of Potential Funding Sources

21

Programming Agency/Source Availability Estimated RangeMetroMeasure R 3% $20+M annually until FY 2039, PTC first priority.

Proposition C 10% $7M-18M annually CMAQ $10M-15M annually after FY 30

State Transit Assistance (STA)

Conclusions

> The study of potential double track projects in L.A. County showed that the Lone Hill to CP White was the most beneficial.

> Further studies need to be conducted regarding stations.

> Grade crossings should be further evaluated.> Advance corridor fencing and right of way security

measures.> Look at opportunities for funding projects.> Work with the cities to advance projects.

> Station work> Grade crossings

22