Arizona Rail Passenger Association
Chronology:
Maps and ridership forecasts are on the Tucson Depot Gateway Vision pages
From the September 1993 TIMETABLE
Based on an interview with Sam Morse
August 18th saw the release of the Interim Progress Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Rail Transportation. Kimley-Horn & Associates made the presentation at the House Office Building, in association with Gannett Fleming Inc., LTK Engineering Services, and NuStats, Inc.
This interim report provides the findings as to the existing conditions on the rail lines to be used, including the branches from Nogales and Benson to Tucson; from Phoenix to Wickenburg and Flagstaff; and from Phoenix to Yuma.
Of the trackage on the proposed system, all received a FAIR rating except the Tempe-Ahwatukee segment which would probably require complete rebuilding. It was thus suggested that the Ahwatukee branch be phased in at a later date. The best conditions were on the SP mainline from Casa Grande to Tucson, though this segment would require the most coordination, as it currently sees around 40 freight trains daily.
Ridership surveys indicated especially strong interest in the Tucson to Nogales market. Telephone surveys were taken in the Phoenix, Tucson, Nogales, and several other metro areas.
As for costs, the metro areas would require about $4 to $5 million per mile, including equipment, signaling, rail, and other upgrades; rural miles (such as between Phoenix and Tucson) would run about $1 to $2 million per mile. However, not all of these expenses would be required for system startup. Basically, an increased level of improvements results in faster trip times and increased rider comfort.
If the system costs about the same to use as auto travel, the consultants indicated approximately a 40% ridership level. Naturally, if the system is more expensive or significantly slower than highway driving, this figure would be lower.
The next area the consultants will address is cost/benefit ratios. Once these are determined, it will be possible to determine the priority segments and services to be developed.
A presentation was also given by Michael Ongerth, Vice President of Strategic Development (San Francisco). He discussed Southern Pacific's position of support for this project. SP is quite willing to work with Arizona to develop a compatible relationship. Mr. Ongerth also examined several factors critical to the success of this project:
The latter involves making assurances that once a plan is developed, sufficient resources (e.g., monetary and other assets) are available for its implementation.
From the November 1993 TIMETABLE
Tucson, Oct. 27 - The Joint Legislative Study Committee on Rail Passenger Service convened today and received the consultant's report. This report was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in association with Gannett Fleming, Inc.; LTK Engineering Services; and NuStats, Inc.
Project goals were to increase statewide mobility; contribute to the conservation of Arizona's environment, natural resources, and historic heritage; stimulate Arizona's economy and tourism; and ensure the cost-effectiveness of a statewide rail passenger system.
"It is the general finding of this study that, in a limited number of locations in the state, new rail passenger service is feasible. Although other projects in other locations show promise," the report suggests first implementing a service plan with four integrated projects. These are:
Intercity
The Phoenix-Tucson intercity service ranks first among all considered options in overall ridership. While this is the most costly of the intercity options studied -- among other reasons, "significant new trackage" would have to be constructed to minimize effect on existing SP freight operations -- the report also states it is the most cost-effective.
An extension of intercity services to Nogales "is relatively inexpensive and generates a reasonable level of additional ridership."
The report includes two preliminary timetables for intercity trains. The first requires two trainsets to make 5 Phoenix-Tucson round trips per day. The second timetable uses three trainsets to cover the same 5 trips, but extending four of them to Nogales.
Commuter
As to commuter rail, "the most cost-effective option is connecting Glendale and Mesa" with benefits relative to congestion relief and air quality.
Though commuter rail is "less cost-effective" than intercity rail, combining both projects decreases the individual cost of either.
Comparisons are also made to existing commuter systems (such as Los Angeles, Washington DC, Miami, San Francisco, Boston) -- the important point being that offering midday service can result in large increases in ridership. On the Glendale-Mesa line, an increase from 2,500 to 4,000 would occur with even limited base service added to rush-hour trips.
Tourist
Weekend excursion service could be extended from Phoenix to Wickenburg initially, with possible extension to Grand Canyon. "The use of comfortable yet historically accurate trains would enhance the train's ability to attract riders." As an example, a photo titled "Candidate Tourist Rail Vehicles" shows a steam engine and an F-unit. However, the report cautions that this new tourist service "will need to be closely coordinated with the existing historic service between Williams and the Grand Canyon."
The report then goes on to rate how the proposed rail passenger systemwould accomplish the project goals and objectives.
As to increasing mobility (reducing dependence on the automobile, provision of transportation alternatives, provision of convenient transportation throughout the state), grades of Fair to Good are given to all four proposed projects.
The commuter services are given a Good probability of reducing energy consumption, improving air quality, and encouraging beneficial land use near stations. The Intercity services are all given a Good grade as to helping to promote tourism. Authority and Operation
Options regarding the authority to implement the plan are discussed. These include using an existing authority (e.g., ADOT, RPTA); a coalition of counties; or creating a new "rail passenger authority."
Also discussed are choice of a Service Operator (either direct operations or contracted out); and coordination with existing railroads (Santa Fe, Southern Pacific, Grand Canyon, Amtrak.)
Several possible options are listed for capital funding and operating costs, including: Sales and uuse taxes; Motor fuel taxes; Vehicle license tax; Federal funds; Local Funds; Private sector fees; Railroad cost-sharing; Volunteer labor; and Fares.
Gene Caywood submitted a motion to accept the report as presented with the exception that the commuter route be extended to Sun City West. However, after a comment and some discussion, it was voted to accept the report in its present form. The Committee will continue to review this and other points.
An additional motion was passed as to the forming of a Finance Committee. Members are to include Jay Myers of ARPA, and representatives from ADOT, MAG (Maricopa Ass'n of Governments), PAG (Pinal), the cities of Tucson and Phoenix, and Pinal County. Other issues raised concerned the consideration of legislative authorization for a permanent rail authority; and the continuation of a consultant's contract for additional studies (engineering, cost, equipment, and operation analyses).
[Interview, Sam Morse, Nov. 20, 1993]
ARPA continues to maintain the position that to gain maximum benefit from the Regional Rail system, the Phoenix--Tucson service should run through to Sun City West.
While there are several issues involved in extending the rail services through Phoenix (having to deal with more than one railroad -- both Southern Pacific and Santa Fe would be invoved; the Grand Avenue crossings; etc.), these issues should be discussed early in the planning stages.
Eliminating the need for downtown transfers makes for a simpler system, easier for passengers to understand and use. Congestion from passengers transferring from train to train, or train to bus, would be reduced. Additionally, fewer capital improvements -- platforms and other passenger-handling facilities -- would be required in the downtown stations.
If regional rail and commuter rail services are to become a reality in Arizona, an authority will need to be created to administer them. Because these services will cross city and county lines, this authority should be statewide in scope. ARPA has proposed that this authority be headed by a fifteen member board, with 50% of the members being from the private sector, and 50% from the public. Among the latter would be the Speakers of the state House and Senate.
As a broad outline, this authority would operate regional rail, commuter rail, and possibly light rail services.
From the February 1994 ARPA TIMETABLE
On January 18th, the House Committee chaired by Lela Steffey recommended passage of HB 2025 to the House of Representatives. This HB will extend until 1996 the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Rail Transportation. In December the Joint Legislative Committee's consultants delivered on time the Arizona Rail Passenger Feasibility Study. The Committee will continue to direct the activities of the consultants Kinley-Horn who will continue to refine the report with a special proposal for the best start-up route, specifics on finances, start-up costs, and potential ridership projections. This is a first procedural step to gain financial support.
Monday, January 10th, 1994 Lela Steffey sponsored HB 2346 which will be taken up by the House Transportation Committee later this month or early February. HB 2346 is a bill to authorize an Arizona Rail Authority that will continue the work of the Joint Legislative Committee. The Arizona Rail Authority will begin research for monies for rail planning, construction and operation from the federal levels of government. The federal dollars will be matched with local 50% sharing of finances to begin the rail operational process. The Joint Legislative Committee would disband once the Rail Authority has been established.
ARPA member Anthony Haswell, who helped write the Amtrak law, is a sponsor of HB 2346. ARPA would like to thank Mr. Haswell for his efforts on this Bill.
As this type of Authority will be new to Arizona, much of this Bill was modeled after the Illinois Regional Transporation Authority Act (ILRTA) as well as from existing Arizona acts creating the RPTA and the Joint Powers Airport Authority. Here are some highlights of the provisions of HB 2346:
From the March 1994 ARPA TIMETABLE
On January 18, 1994, the House Committee chaired by Lela Steffey recommended passage of HB 2025 to the House of Representatives. The bill was passed, and in March, signed into law by Governor Symington. This will extend until 1996 the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Rail Transportation. In December the JLSC's consultants delivered on time the Arizona Rail Passenger Feasibility study. The Committee will now continue to direct the activities of the consultants, Kimley-Horn, in refining the report. A special proposal for the best start-up route, specifics on finances, start-up costs, and potential ridership projections, will be created. This is a first procedural step to gaining financial support.
April: House Bill 2346, which would have created an Arizona Rail Authority, was not passed in this session of the State Senate.
From the October 1994 ARPA TIMETABLE
State Capitol, August 15, 1994
RPTA gave a report on the Superbowl 2-month rail demonstration project (details below.) A representative from the Federal Transit Administration outlined objectives for the project, and described how many of the steps must be phased, with some required before seeking Federal applications. Highlighted in this presentation also was how the state's Congressional delegation can be key to success in the Federal arena. The JLSC also heard from a private consultant who assembles financial packages for rail transit.
The next phase of the project will be to find a permanent funding source, while pursuing engineering studies and environmental analyses.
Lela Steffey, chairwoman, asked Harry Reed to head a subcommittee to find financial sources and options, and report back in early December. ARPA members Jay Myers and Gene Caywood will be members of this subcommittee. ARPA members noted that not only was the meeting well-attended, but that all present seemed genuinely interested and concerned in the progress of rail passenger transportation.
Four agencies have been pursuing the two month rail passenger demonstration during late 1995 and early 1996. These are RPTA (Regional Public Transit Authority), ADOT (Arizona Dept. of Transportation), MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments), and this organization, ARPA. The first phase of study has now been concluded. Things look good for operation of some sort of commuter railroad operation, assuming adequate revenue sources can be found.
"Structural" problems along Grand Avenue could cost $10 million for any rail passenger service to operate. Low speed limits, much freight switching, and required intersection work are some factors here. While interest is great, and ridership along this line would be high, the improvements required are beyond the scope of a two month service.
Because the benefits of rail transit are greatest when operated through the city center, a cross valley service of some sort is desirable. One possible option is to run from Chandler through to the Goodyear Airport. The Goodyear location is well suited, with a spur off the mainline convenient to public owned land upon which parking could be placed. Service levels west of the state Capitol would likely be hourly during peaks, compared to half-hourly in the east Valley.
Other action items include finding rolling stock and an operator. Amtrak, which could operate this service, will determine an "order of magnitude" estimate for a contract.