Study Objectives

1
Commuter Rail Plan Update
Presentation To The
Commuter Rail Study Steering Committee
By
Transportation Engineers and Economists
Washington, DC and Tiburon, CA
In Association With
Columbia, SC and San Francisco, CA
August 16, 2007
2
Study Objectives

• Update ridership and cost information in GDOT
  1995 study and subsequent updates, so that
  results will be available to Transit Planning
  Board project prioritization effort.
• Determine optimum role for commuter rail assist
  regional transportation stakeholders in comparing
  commuter rail with all other transit modes.

3
Study Features

• Decision grade data for TPB prioritization
  process
• Consider passenger desires, including interface
  with other modes
• Recognize real-world freight considerations and
  future freight rail needs

4
Current Commuter Rail Study

• 7 lines, Atlanta to
• Athens (CSX)
• Lovejoy-Macon (NS)
• Gainesville (NS)
• Madison (CSX)
• Bremen (NS)
• Senoia (CSX)
• Canton (CSX)
• Capital costs 2.1 B
• Operating costs 30.4 MM/yr

The age of this information, coupled with
dramatic changes in rail freight volumes,
necessitates an update
5
Task 1 Existing Study Review/Peer Review

• Explore market on 7 commuter rail lines, Atlanta
  to
• Athens (CSX)
• Lovejoy-Macon (NS)
• Gainesville (NS)
• Madison (CSX)
• Bremen (NS)
• Senoia (CSX)
• Canton (CSX)

6
Task 1 Existing Study Review/Peer Review
(contd)

• Identify/evaluate peer cities
• Dallas
• Los Angeles
• Nashville
• Albuquerque
• Southern Florida (and Central Florida)
• Northern Virginia/Washington DC
• Contrast and compare peer cities with Atlanta
• Conditions needed for successful commuter rail
  service
• Develop decision-making framework

7
Existing Study Review

• 1995 Study
• Looked at 12 railroad corridors
• Found six feasible
• Athens (CSX)
• Senoia (CSX)
• Bremen (NS)
• Madison (CSX)
• Gainesville (NS)
• Canton (CSX and GNRR)
• Envisioned full implementation by 2010
• 3 morning and 3 evening peak period trains
• (Athens 5, Gainesville 4)

Atlanta-Macon line was not originally included
in the 1995 study
8
Existing Study Review (Contd)

• 2001 Study (Macon (NS))
• Norfolk Southern S Line
• 6 morning trains and 6 evening trains
• (4 originating in Griffin)
• 2003 Study (Athens (CSX))
• 9 morning trains and 9 evening trains
• (7 originating at Cedars Road)

9
Existing Study Review (Contd)

• The most important trends affecting this update
  
• regional demographic changes
• growth in freight railroad traffic

10
Peer City Review

• What is commuter rail?
• carries commuters
• over freight railroads

11
Peer City Review (contd)
12
Peer City Review (contd)
13
Peer Systems Ridership
14
Conditions Resulting in Success

• Demand
• Available Right-of-Way
• Funding

15
Peer Systems Ridership
16
What About Atlanta?
CSX NS
No. (No.) Average daily number of trains today
(expected number of daily trains 2020)
17
What About Atlanta? (Contd)

• On Three Downtown Atlanta Segments
• Daily trains today Daily trains 2020
• 80 136
• 72 122
• 72 122

18
An Important IssueThe Great Train Traffic
Tsunami
19
Joint Development Activity at Commuter Rail
Stations

• Metrolink Riverside downtown, La Sierra, North
  Main Corona
• VRE Rippon, Cherry Hill, Lorton, Prince William
• Tri-Rail half the stations have planned joint
  development

20
Decision-Making Framework

• Success factors from other systems
• Metrolink. Highway congestion, therefore demand.
  After some effort, got five counties working
  together. Likewise, obtained funding commitment.
• Trinity. Ownership of right of way. Overcoming
  of jurisdictional difficulties.
• Tri-Rail. There were a number of constraints.
  Many were overcome, and demand prevailed.
• VRE. The political will was assembled. Some
  constraints remain still.
• Evaluation and prioritization factors
• The data RLBA Team is developing will include the
  data for the TPB project priority list.

21
Operating Profiles for Tasks 2 3

• At least three inbound morning peak trains
• At least three outbound afternoon peak trains
• More, if the demand is there
• Mid-day service
• Free and ample parking
• Feeder bus service as needed

22
Task 2 Market Analysis

• Demographics
• Analyze potential market for commuter rail market
  out 80 miles
• (population, employment, existing transit usage)
• Inventory of currently-identified rail corridors
• Existing rail lines
• Railroad owners
• Freight rail movements
• Track conditions
• Speed limits
• Adjacent land uses

23
Socio-Economic Data Sources

• 1995 Commuter Rail Study1990 2010 (County
  level summary)
• Woods and Poole County forecast Version 2006
  (earlier versions were sources of the 2001
  Macon-Atlanta Rail study and the 2003
  Athens-Atlanta study)
• Governors Office of Planning and Budget Version
  December 2004 (Population only)
• Current ARC model socio-economic forecast (every
  5 years)

24
Comparison of Population
25
Comparison of Employment
26
Socio-Economic Data Recommendations

• Use ARC data for ARC 20 counties region
• Use Woods Poole for counties outside ARC region

27
Ridership Forecast Status

• Defined stations location
• Defined Catchments area around stations
• Gathered 2000 Census Journey to Work (JTW) data
  at census track level for entire area
• Obtained ARC model to summarize commuter trips
  within ARC 20 counties area (2000 and future
  years) at zone level

28
Ridership Forecast Next

• Convert JTW data (workers) outside ARC region to
  commuter trips
• Use socio-economic forecast to grow commuter
  trips (outside ARC region) for future year
• Using catchments areas within and outside ARC
  region, estimate total (all modes) station to
  station commuter trips
• Apply commuter rail diversion factors

29
Task 3 Feasibility Analysis

• Station Locations
• Interface with other modes
• Ridership/travel demand forecast
• Capital, operating and maintenance cost estimates
• Clearly identified track infrastructure
  requirements are critical
• Estimate approximate number of main tracks
  required in 2030
• Feasibility assessment
• Identify benefits and costs of improved corridors
• Compare ridership to other U.S. commuter rail
  systems
• Analysis of known limitations and issues
• Community
• Political leadership
• Railroad companies
• Identify the most promising commuter rail
  corridors

30
Station Locations

• Team visited proposed stations sites on all lines
• Determined whether each site is still viable
• If not viable, identified alternatives

31
Capital and OM Cost Estimates

• Estimate what freight railroads will require for
  access
• Start with freight railroads starting positions,
  allow for negotiated agreement

32
Task 4 Institutional and Jurisdictional Issues

• Shared use
• Ownership
• Insurance and indemnification

33
Shared Use Issues

• Association of American Railroads
• Freight railroads should be fully compensated for
  passenger train access capital, operating and
  other costs.
• Safety is paramount. Freight railroads insist on
  adequate liability protection
• Where there are capacity constraints, new
  capacity must be added.

34
Shared Use Issues (Contd)

• CSX Four Pillars
• Safety No compromise.
• Capacity passenger operations transparent,
  sufficient future capacity.
• Compensation for ROW capacity consumed, for
  access, maintenance, dispatching, etc.
• Liability no risk in carrying passengers.

35
Shared Use Issues (Concluded)

• Norfolk Southern Principles
• Until serious money is available, studies are
  hypothetical exercises.
• Additional capacity studies paid for by public
  agency.
• Fair compensation for access.
• Passenger train operation transparent sufficient
  infrastructure, including growth.
• Delay to freight trains is unacceptable.
• New passenger trains will pay higher usage fees
  than Amtrak.
• Liability a major issue. NS must have adequate
  liability protection.
• Cab signals above 79 mph.
• Dispatching will remain with NS.

36
Completion

• Study is to be completed by September 17, 2007

37
Ken Withers
R.L. Banks Associates, Inc
1717 K Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone [phone]
kenwithers_at_rlbadc.com