California State Rail Plan 2007-08 to 2017-18

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2007-08 – 2017-18 California State Rail Planmitigation measures. Grade crossings can be improved with safety upgrades,traffic signal control measures, and road widening but several safety concernspotentially remain such as, vehicles queuing across tracks or driving around gates,false or inconsistent gate and warning system activation, and poor grade crossingand pedestrian conditions.The optimal safety improvement for an at-grade crossing is to build structures thatcompletely separate railroad tracks from the roadway. This will eliminatecollisions, reduce noise from train horns and automatic warning devices, and canimprove emergency response times. Because gate blocking is eliminated, idlingand vehicle hours of delay are significantly reduced, which improves rail andhighway operations and can provide air quality benefits through emissionreductions. Nevertheless, these structures are expensive to build and maintain.There are several funding sources commonly used for grade-separation projects.Caltrans distributes $15 million per year from the Section 190 Grade SeparationFund for grade crossing separation or alteration projects, according to a prioritylist generated by the PUC. Proposition 1B created the Highway-Rail CrossingSafety Account, with $250,000,000 available for completion of high-priority gradeseparation and crossing safety improvements (a one to one match is required).Federal programs include Projects of National and Regional Significance, theTransportation & Community & System Preservation Program (TCSP) and, attimes, Congressional earmarks. Other Federal programs that have the potential forfuture grade-separation project funding include the Surface TransportationProgram, the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement and the Section130 Railway-Highway Crossing Program.244
Chapter XVIII – FundingCHAPTER XVIIIFUNDINGSYSTEM CAPITAL NEEDSRailroads are extremely capital intensive. In general, they spend about five timesmore to maintain their systems and equipment than the average U.S. manufacturerspends on plants and equipment. In 2000 for example, Class 1 railroads spent17.8 percent of revenues on capital improvements compared to 3.7 percent for allmanufacturing industries in the nation. With such an expenditure required forcapital improvements, investors have been prudent in putting monies intorailroads. Consequently, the amount of funds for maintenance and expansion hasnot been as great as for many other industries. Nevertheless, railroads continue tofund the expansion of their systems.BNSF Railway for example, will expend $2.75 billion in capital expenditures in2007. A total of $750 million will be for track and facility expansion while$1.6 billion will go towards refreshing track, signal systems and structures.One recent project particularly relevant to California is the expansion of the2,200-mile Chicago-Los Angeles corridor; as of 2006 all but 51 miles has beendouble tracked. This capacity expansion will enable the railroad to increase trafficform 60 trains a day in 2000 to 100 trains a day in 2006 along this corridor.The Union Pacific Railroad will spend approximately $3.2 billion in 2007on capital improvements network wide. This includes double tracking of their760 mile Sunset Route from L.A. to El Paso, Texas. In California a total of$55 million will be spent on commercial facilities such as terminals and yards, and$222 million on track, and signal systems for this route.Stable and long term funding is critical to the preservation, maintenance andexpansion of California’s freight rail system.. The AASHTO Freight Rail BottomLine Report provides scenarios for funding needs at several levels. These include:• No Growth – where, with minimal investment the railroads could carryapproximately the same amount of traffic in 2020 that they carry today,thereby shifting large amounts of freight tonnage onto trucks.• Constrained Investment – under this scenario, railroads could affordimprovements paid for by revenues and borrowing – the railroads couldhandle additional traffic but not keep pace with increasing freight traffic.• Base Case - where, with a higher level of investment, the freight systemcould keep its current share of traffic and accommodate a greater share offorecasted increases. Funding would come from a combination of railroadinvestment and public sector participation.245
Page 1:
California State Rail Plan 2007-08
Page 4 and 5:
2007-08 - 2017-18 California State
Page 7 and 8:
Table of ContentsTable of Contents(
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Table of FiguresTable of FiguresFig
Page 15 and 16:
California State Rail Plan 2007-08
Page 17 and 18:
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2025
Page 19 and 20:
during evenings and weekends.• Cr
Page 21 and 22:
ArcataFortunaScotia• Improved Amt
Page 23 and 24:
SouthernCaliforniaCommuterRailChapt
Page 25 and 26:
NorthernCaliforniaCommuterRail• C
Page 27 and 28:
AUBURN-OAKLAND REGIONAL RAIL SERVIC
Page 29 and 30:
AMTRAK PLANNINGIn April 2005, Amtra
Page 31 and 32:
it is in the strategic interest of
Page 33 and 34:
INTRODUCTIONGovernment Code Section
Page 35 and 36:
PART IPASSENGER RAIL ELEMENT3
Page 37 and 38:
Chapter I - California’s Vision f
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Chapter II - Capital ProgramCHAPTER
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter II - Capital ProgramFigure
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Chapter II - Capital Programevaluat
Page 59 and 60:
Chapter II - Capital Programsignals
Page 61 and 62:
Chapter II - Capital ProgramThe Dep
Page 63 and 64:
Chapter II - Capital ProgramIn the
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter II - Capital Programsupplem
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter II - Capital ProgramA numbe
Page 71 and 72:
Chapter III - Operations ProgramCHA
Page 73 and 74:
Chapter III - Operations ProgramFig
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Chapter III - Operations ProgramADM
Page 81 and 82:
Chapter III - Operations Programcon
Page 83 and 84:
Chapter III - Operations ProgramSta
Page 85 and 86:
Chapter III - Operations Programres
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Chapter III - Operations ProgramPro
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Chapter III - Operations Program•
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Chapter IV - Marketing ProgramCHAPT
Page 101 and 102:
Chapter IV - Marketing Programprodu
Page 103 and 104:
Chapter IV - Marketing ProgramGROUP
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter IV - Marketing ProgramThe f
Page 107 and 108:
Chapter IV - Marketing ProgramBEYON
Page 109 and 110:
Chapter V - The California Passenge
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Chapter VI - Pacific Surfliner Rout
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227: 2007-08 - 2017-18 California State
Page 300: 2007-08 - 2017-18 California State
show all

California State Rail Plan 2007-08 to 2017-18

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?