Going Green: How California is Reviving Passenger Rail. APTA/ AASHTO AASHTO 2008 State Public Transit Partnerships. August 7, 2008

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Going Green: How California is Reviving Passenger Rail. APTA/ AASHTO AASHTO 2008 State Public Transit Partnerships. August 7, 2008"

Lesley Wilkins
5 years ago
Views:

1 Going Green: How California is Reviving Passenger Rail APTA/ AASHTO AASHTO 2008 State Public Transit Partnerships August 7, 2008 Eugene K. Skoropowski, Managing Director Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Oakland, California G:Presentations: APTA/AASHTO 2008.Providence

2 California Passenger Rail Services Today IntraState Intercity Rail Service Capitol Corridor (1991) San Joaquin Route (1976) Pacific Surfliner Route State Corridors + Network of dedicated, connecting buses Plus Amtrak National Network Long Distance Trains Sunset 3 times per week Southwest Chief- daily California Zephyr- daily Coast Starlight- daily Plus locally supported regional rail -San Jose-San Francisco (Caltrain) -San Jose-Stockton (ACE) -Metro Los Angeles (Metrolink) -San Diego County (Coaster) National Connections Regional Commuter State-supported Rail and Bus network covers approximately 80% of population base of state

3 How did this happen in California? Capital funding Capital funding Capital funding Steady stream of operating funding Bi-partisan cooperation Political Leadership The Governator Funding for overhauls and capitalized maintenance Good working relationship with private railroads, Amtrak: (message: bring money to the table) Success generates riders,political & funding support (and good management helps a bit too)

4 How Green is the train service? Newest, cleanest most fuel efficient locos Auto shut-down to conserve fuel on layover (separate HEP units) EPA sponsored cleaner exhaust program 3 California rail routes keeps a half billion VMTs off of California highways, and growing Trains give people a choice to travel without their auto, and all the associated emissions Fuel prices: may prompt electrification

5 Where did the Green to build rail come from? Voter-initiated, voter-approved bonds (Prop.116) Propositions 108, 111, 116 approved Nov Bonds are general obligation of the state, BUT part of 4.75% sales tax on fuel amortizes bonds 100% state funding; no federal funds (again, there has been no federal capital program for intercity rail until this year s $30 million in the FRA/Amtrak budget) There is activity at the federal level States for Passenger Rail Coalition (S4PRC) and WE WANT TRAINS National Commission on Surface Transportation Policy & Revenue MORE TRAINS

6 How much has California invested during the past 17 years? Capital Investment in the program to date: $2.7 Billion, from all sources Pacific Surfliner $1.152 Billion San Joaquin Corridor $516 Million Capitol Corridor $269 million Plus $585 million for rolling stock; $146 million for maintenance facilities Direct State capital investment is $1.7 Billion (aver. $100 mm/yr, & voters approved $400 million more in Nov. 2006) Operating subsidies since 1976: $570 million Annual State operating subsidy: Now $80 mm (basically flat for last 7 years, even with growth in service)

7 Results Speak Volumes: of Amtrak s 6 busiest routes are now in California 20% of all Amtrak s riders are now in California (Intercity rail passenger trains in California kept 550,000,000 VMTs off of California s highways in 2006, and this number is growing each year) California s Amtrak ridership is 43% of entire NEC and 53% of NEC spine - Boston to Washington Partnerships have been proven with the local communities, riders, California Department of Transportation, Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway (OTP of California s corridors is better than NEC!)

8 Who pays for Northern California s intercity passenger rail service? Capital investments: Are 100% state funds: grant funding is mostly from voterapproved bonds (new FRA administered grant program for intercity passenger rail was established this year: $30 mm for the country, 50/50) Operating costs: A funding partnership between the state and the passengers Passenger fares & state subsidy each pay 50% +/- (Amtrak is a contract operator on the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins; no federal subsidy; 70% state/30% Amtrak split on Pacific Surfliners) This annual state subsidy should really be considered as the annual maintenance cost of protecting the state s initial rail capital investments, similar to annual road maintenance costs

9 Federal view to date on capital funding to states for intercity rail: Intercity Rail Funding?.sorry, my pockets are empty. And there is no established program Bikeways Airports Highways I know it s not enough, but I have some money for established programs US DOT Ports & Waterways Buses Light Rail Commuter Trains Busways, BRT Reality: We will only build the transport systems we are willing to fund

10 Meanwhile, back to reality. THE WAR: $300 billion annually +/- Imported Oil: 74% today, sending $700 billion annually, mostly to countries that hate us (Pickens: largest transfer of wealth in history of mankind) Global economy: we grow food for fuel, reducing food supply, increasing its demand, and driving up prices globally Poor countries must pay more for food, while a weak dollar increases our food prices at home Having no alternate system of transport makes us slaves to the auto and oil industries: no choices for Americans? There isn t $2 billion a year for Amtrak to serve OUR people? Britain just announced $60 billion for one HSR line

11 America, what are we doing to ourselves? No more self investment? Who will pay to fix crumbling infrastructure? Maybe a tooth fairy will pay? Global warming? A myth? Traffic congestion? More, longer, wider roads? Trains are no longer relevant in America? Our US DOT: a secret mobility/energy policy?

12 The answers lie in America s determination and belief in ourselves Will we make the tough decisions needed to preserve our nation and our way of life? Will we decide to allocate some of our wealth to reinvest in ourselves here at home? Will we change direction and establish more responsible policies for transport, air quality, quality of life and global warming?

13 12-Month Ridership Sum compared to Service Level and State Allocation to Capitol Corridor Service State Allocation CurrentYTD 12-Month Ridership Sum ,000 If you build it, will they come? Capitol Corridor Route Number of Passengers The Riders Have Paid for the Cost of Increased Service Frequency Annual State Operating Subsidy Allocation $15.96 $16.76 $17.96 $22.46 $20.74 $21.07 $19.04 $20.15 Train 4 RT 6 RT 7 RT 9 RT 10 RT 11 RT 12 RT 16 RT Frequency ,597, State Allocation ($ in millions)

14 How's Business? Ridership They will come! 14.19% Overall 12-Month Growth 10.14% Overall Prior 12-Month Growth Prior 12 Months Current 12 Months Ridership Last 12 Months=1,597,390 Ridership Prior 12 Months=1,398,829 % difference current to prior th 160, % 18.7% 11.0% 12.2% 13.0% 9.0% 11.2% 19.7% 16.8% 13.8% 11.0% 16.6% 150, , ,000 Ridership 120, , ,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 on-time 50,000 Jul % Aug % 85.9% 81.7% 86.9% 88.2% 87.8% 88.9% 84.2% 89.2% 90.7% 66.6% Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08

15 The Capitol Corridor with Amtrak on Union Pacific Railroad in Northern California Our riders and our trains

Thank you For the chance to tell the story of our State s rail success and how the partnerships built with Amtrak, the private railroads, and local communities have put passenger rail back on the

16 Thank you For the chance to tell the story of our State s rail success and how the partnerships built with Amtrak, the private railroads, and local communities have put passenger rail back on the transportation radar screen in California If auto-centric Californians are riding intercity passenger trains in droves, this can happen anywhere. I have Capitol Corridor 2007 Performance Reports and current Timetables they are free!

395 Express Lanes Extension

395 Express Lanes Extension January 2016 Building a network of Express Lanes Project overview Add capacity on I-395 with addition of a third HOV lane and active traffic management Generate guaranteed transit