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