Inland Empire Main Line Rail Study Interim Progress Report

1
Inland Empire Main Line Rail Study Interim
Progress Report

• Prepared for
• Southern California Association of Governments
• Leachman and Associates LLC
• January 19, 2005

2
Work Program

• May June, 2004
• Task 2 Document rail infrastructure, traffic
  forecasts
• Task 5A Required trackage for Status Quo
  routing of trains in 2010 and 2025
• July, 2004 January, 2006
• Develop alternative railroad operating strategies
• Costs and emission analysis of alternatives
• Ranking of alternatives
• Work with RRs and public agencies to define rail
  infrastructure program

3
Progress in current phase

• Operations alternatives formulated
• Simulation analysis 90 complete
• Rail infrastructure cost estimation 85 complete
• Emissions analysis in progress
• Ranking of alternatives and final report after
  that

4
Disclaimer

• All figures herein are preliminary and subject to
  change

5
The main line rail network
UP Palmdale Line
BNSF Cajon Line (UP trackage rights)
Metrolink Glendale Line
West Colton
Metrolink East Bank Line
UP Alhambra Line
Colton
Yuma Jct.
UP Yuma Line
El Monte
Pomona
City of Industry
Riverside
East LA
UP San Gabriel Line
Hobart
UP/BNSF Alameda Corridor
BNSF Line
Redondo (Metrolink Flyover)
Fullerton
Atwood
Metrolink lines
6
The main line rail network (cont.)
UP to Las Vegas
BNSF to Mojave
BNSF to Needles
UP to Palmdale
Daggett
Silverwood Connection
Barstow (Valley Jct.)
Hiland
Victorville
2.2 grade
Summit
1.6 grade
BNSF Cajon Line (UP trackage rights)
Cajon
3 grade
Keenbrook Connection
2.2 grade
UP Palmdale Line
Verdemont
Metrolink San Bernar- dino Line
San Bernardino
UP Yuma Line
Palm Springs (Garnet)
Indio
Apex
Colton
UP to Yuma
West Colton
1.8 grade
2.0 grade
7
Peak-Day Traffic Levels (Status Quo Routing)

• Line segment Type 2000 2010 2025
• BNSF Hobart Fullerton Psgr 46 96 106
• Frt 50 74 112
• BNSF Atwood Riverside Psgr 16 38 62
• Frt 57 82 121
• BNSF Riverside Colton Psgr 11 24 36
• Frt 92 132 194
• BNSF/UP Cajon Pass Psgr 2 6 8
• Frt 94 130 187
• Note A peak day experiences the 90th
  percentile of
• the distribution of daily train movements.

8
Peak- Day Traffic Levels (Status Quo Routing)

• Line segment Type 2000 2010 2025
• UP East LA Pomona Psgr 14 26 44
• Yuma Jct. Pomona Frt 55 78 117
• UP Pomona - Riverside Psgr 14 26 44
• Pomona West Colton Frt 59 83 122
• UP Yuma Line Psgr 2 4 8
• Frt 42 60 87

9
Planning Track Capacity

• Discrete-event computer simulations of main-line
  train operations were carried out.
• Statistics on transit times and delays were
  collected for 100 consecutive peak-days of train
  operations.
• Statistics for the Year 2000 Base-Case
  established the transit time goals to be achieved
  in 2010 and 2025 scenarios.
• Future scenarios were iteratively simulated with
  varying trackage configurations to determine
  required trackage.

10
Required Trackage - West of Colton (Status Quo
Routing)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• BNSF Hobart Fullerton 2-3 tracks 3 4
• BNSF Fullerton Atwood 2 2 3
• BNSF Atwood Riverside 2-3 3 3
• Riverside Jct. At-grade At-grade
  Flying
• BNSF Riverside Colton 2-3 3 4
• Colton Crossing At-grade At-grade
  Separated
• BNSF Colton San Berd. 3-4 3-4 3-4

11
Required Trackage West of Colton(Status Quo
Routing)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• UP East LA Pomona 1-2 tracks 2 2
• UP Pomona Riverside 1-2 tracks 2 2
• UP Yuma Jct. Pomona 1-2 1-2 2
• UP Pomona West Colton 1 1 1
• West Colton Jct. At-grade At-grade Flying
• UP West Colton Colton 2 2 2

12
Required Trackage East and North of
Colton(Status Quo Routing)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• UP Colton Fingal 2 tracks 2 2
• UP Fingal Salvia 1 2 2
• UP Salvia Indio 1 1 2
• UP West Colton
• Keenbrook 1 1 1

13
Required Trackage North of Colton(Status Quo
Alternative)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• BNSF San Berd. Verdemont 2 As-is (3) 4
• BNSF Verdemont - Keenbrook 2 3 4
• BNSF/UP Keenbrook Conn. As-is (1-way) As-is
  As-is
• BNSF/UP Keenbrook
• Silverwood 3 5 6
• BNSF Silverwood Barstow 2 3 4

14
Alternatives to Status Quo

• Goals Save money and improve performance by
• Reduce the train count through the worst
  bottlenecks (e.g., Riverside-Colton)
• Avoid the most costly line expansions (e.g., UP
  Pomona Riverside line)
• Separate Metrolink from heavy UP freight traffic
• Route the freights where most environmentally-frie
  ndly

15
UP routing alternatives
16
UP routing alternatives
17
Practical alternatives

• In 2025, alternatives 3 and 4 would put 105 UP
  trains on top of 121 BNSF and 36 passenger trains
  between Riverside and Colton.
• 262 trains on one line is not practical!
• At some point, UP would have to curtail
  operations via Riverside to make room for BNSF
  and Metrolink traffic
• So we made detailed capacity analysis only of the
  Status Quo and of Alternatives 1 and 2.

18
Alternatives for analysis

• Alt. 1 - concentrate UP freights on San Gabriel
  Line west of Pomona and on Alhambra Line east of
  Pomona
• Alt. 1a Metrolink Riverside trains status quo
  routing
• Alt. 1b Metrolink Riverside trains re-routed via
  Alhambra Line west of Pomona
• Alt. 2 concentrate UP freights on Alhambra Line
• Status Quo - roughly 2/3rds of UP freight trains
  via San Gabriel Line, 1/3rd via Alhambra Line

19
Alternatives to the Status Quo

• The alternatives to the Status Quo reduce the
  freight train counts through Riverside and San
  Bernardino as follows
• Riverside San Bernardino
• 2010 2025 2010 2025
• Status Quo 132 194 123 178
• Alt 1 or 2 91 132 96 139

20
Required Trackage - West of Colton (Alternative
1a)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• BNSF Colton Riverside 2-3 tracks 3 3
• Riverside Jct. At-grade At-grade
  At-grade
• UP Riverside - Pomona 1-2 tracks As-is
  As-is
• UP West Colton - Pomona 1 2 2
• Pomona Crossover At-grade At-grade
  Fly-over
• UP Pomona East LA 1-2 tracks 2 3
• UP Pomona Yuma Jct. 1-2 tracks As-is
  As-is

21
Required Trackage - West of Colton (Alternative
1b)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• BNSF Colton Riverside 2-3 tracks 3 3
• Riverside Jct. At-grade At-grade
  At-grade
• UP Riverside - Pomona 1-2 tracks As-is
  As-is
• UP West Colton - Pomona 1 2 2
• Pomona Crossover At-grade At-grade
  Fly-over
• UP Pomona East LA 1-2 tracks 2 2
• UP Pomona Yuma Jct. 1-2 tracks As-is
  As-is

22
Required Trackage - West of Colton (Alternative
2)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• BNSF Colton Riverside 2-3 tracks 3 3
• Riverside Jct. At-grade At-grade
  At-grade
• UP Riverside - Pomona 1-2 tracks As-is
  As-is
• UP West Colton - Pomona 1 2 2
• Pomona Crossover At-grade At-grade
  Fly-over
• UP Pomona East LA 1-2 tracks As-is 2
• UP Pomona Yuma Jct. 1-2 tracks 2 2

23
Required Trackage West of Colton(Alternative 2)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• UP East Bank Line
• Yuma Jct. Pasadena Jct. 1 track 2 2
• Pasadena Jct. At-grade At-grade
  Fly-over
• Pasadena Jct. 9th St. 2 tracks As-is 3
• 9th St. Redondo 1 track 2 2

24
Required Trackage North of Colton(Alternatives
1 or 2)

• Line segment 2000 2010 2025
• BNSF San Berd. - Verdemont 2 tracks 3 (as-is)
  4
• BNSF Verdemont - Keenbrook 2 3 (as-is) 4
• Keenbrook Connection One-way Both-ways
  Both-ways
• BNSF/UP Keenbrook
• Silverwood 3 4 5
• BNSF Silverwood Barstow 2 3 4
• UP West Colton Keenbrook 1 1 2

25
Rail Infrastructure Costs (M)

• 2010 2025
• Status Quo
• Already spent by Metrolink 49 --
• Already spent by BNSF 21 --
• Already spent by UP 18 --
• Left to spend 1,130 1,136

26
Rail Infrastructure Cost Savings (M)Relative to
Status Quo

• 2010 2025 Total
• Option 1a 111 34 145
• Option 1b 111 159 270
• Option 2 29 117 146

27
Criteria for ranking alternatives

• Total rail infrastructure costs
• Ability to accommodate further traffic growth
  (beyond 2025)
• Total vehicular delays at grade crossings
• Total pollution levels
• Total population exposure to nearby heavy freight
  rail operations