A White Paper prepared for UTDC Corp., Detroit, Michigan by UTDC Corp. Rail Marketing Representative Byron A. Nordberg. The views expressed are those of the author as a function of marketing Bi-level rail passenger cars and operational systems on behalf of UTDC. This document is not a proposal but a basis for continuing rail systems discussions with authorities in Arizona at a variety of levels. Research for this paper has been accomplished by NHA, Inc., Surface Transportation Systems Consultants, Oceanside, California 92054 under contract to UTDC, Corp.
During the 1980's, the State of Arizona and its local jurisdictions have been experiencing dramatic changes in population densities and confronting major changes in transportation systems requirements. The escalating population has been concentrated for the most part in five southern counties with particular growth in the Phoenix Metroplex and the Tucson Metropolitan Area.
Arizona has enjoyed excellent freeways and other state highways for many years. Indeed, the arterial streets of Phoenix are a remarkable example of substantive planning for capacity growth within an urban area. Unfortunately, the urban area freeway systems surrounding Phoenix and Tucson respectively are beginning to experience increasing delays as population growth and automobile ownership and use continue. Even the Phoenix arterial system does not function as freely as in years past during crush periods. Indeed, even during the noon hour, traffic impacts on several of the major arterials is heavy.
Recognizing the problem, planners in Arizona have surfaced a variety of proposals for addressing future transportation needs on a timely basis. The growing transportation infrastructure deficit has resulted in specific legislation resulting in some shift in emphasis to new transit options, added revenues for freeway and highway additions and improvements as well as modest changes in institutional structures addressing transportation systems. A growing recognition that highways cannot be built to accommodate all the travelers that wish to use them all the time has emerged. Fortunately, the interest in public transportation systems as a supplement for the automobile (and with respect to rail systems as a supplement to air transportation as well) continues its emergence, as demonstrated by growing public use of bus transit in Phoenix and Tucson and the latent but persistent interest in using rail.
During 1989, a major rail transit proposal, including a commuter rail component, was advanced by the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) in Phoenix. The ValTrans rapid transit proposal which eventually appeared as a ballot proposition would have eventually served much of metropolitan Phoenix. The commuter component addressed in the 'East Valley Commuter Rail Study' prepared during July 1989 by the RPTA Staff was only a small portion of the proposed plan. It was the portion that could be implemented relatively quickly and at rather low cost. Over 3000 trips per day were forecast for a minimal system.
The ValTrans rapid transit element would have served a large part of the Phoenix Metroplex, though by no means all of it. The cost was estimated to be at or greater than $10 billion. Its time frame for implementation was over a thirty year period with an initial line constructed and operational in a short time. Critical to the construction of the rapid transit system proposed was the acguisition of rights-of-way where public easements were not available, and considerable work to adapt and change neighborhood infrastructures to accommodate the system. Among other things, a considerable amount of disruption to selected thoroughfares could be forecast during construction. Finally, the additional tax levy required was not agreeable to many residents, despite the best efforts of local elected representatives, staff personnel at RPTA and others who supported the rapid transit concept and program.
The ValTrans proposal did emphasize the need for coordinated bus, rail and auto capabilities. The rail proposal did cover the core area of the Phoenix Metroplex. It would have integrated with local bus transit operations. And, it did project substantial use of rail provided there were adequate parking lots at the various stations. The East Valley Commuter ridership estimate was even probably conservative. Since the service model was limited to a Phoenix, Chandler and Gilbert orientation, its ability to attract a wider ridership was limited. By extending commuter or regional services to other communities, it appears that a much greater ridership can be forecast for local rail services. Based on the data available from the RPTA study and a review of other demographic information commonly available, it appears that a local ridership component of an Arizona Regional Rail System using the available rail routes as shown on Annexes A and B would attract between 4000 and 6000 riders daily (Monday through Friday) with a different pattern of use emerging on weekends and holidays.
In addition to the local component, an additional 3000-5000 daily trips using a broadly based regional approach could be attracted. This is especially true if the service is linked to Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport and the Tucson International Airports. At Sky Harbor, a 'gate' associated with Terminal Four could be constructed at the railroad tracks near 40th Street. At Tucson, a direct airport connection could be built with little or no disruption to the local community.
The great strength of the East Valley Commuter Rail proposal as well as a critical component of this document is the development of a cost effective rail system utilizing existing rights of way on a shared basis with freight services. The public provision of rail transportation services could most likely be accomplished in a 'landlord - tenant' relationship on a railroad improved for passenger carrying purposes.
Elsewhere, the experience of regional and intercity rail is one of growth and demand exceeding supply. In California, regional rail services provided by Amtrak are creating a demand for added frequencies and additional equipment. The business community is finding Amtrak particularly advantageous. The San Diegan trains, linking San Diego, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara are now approaching the two million rider per year threshold with every indication that 1990 will see that level of utilization achieved. Farebox recovery is at or over 100% of operating costs according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). That level of productivity is expected to rise even further as additional services are extended to Santa Barbara. Recently, a third train frequency was added to the San Joaquin Valley services, immediately raising ridership by more than 50% and rapidly consuming the limited additional capacity gained by a few extra cars and one frequency.
Commuter rail in Toronto, Ontario, Canada has grown enormously during the 1980's. Toronto has placed its fifth order for UTDC Bi-level cars to accommodate the growth. Toronto has also added frequencies on several routes, will be adding more on other routes and has even lengthened its trains at crush periods. The longer trains have twelve cars each and are carrying well over 2000 commuters per trip. Chicago is experiencing similar demands for increased service on routes that exist while seeking authority to operate over additional routes. San Francisco to San Jose Commuter services have been increased as well and a first route extension is about to be implemented.
The most recent new regional rail start is Miami to West Palm Beach, Florida. Using UTDC Bi-levels similar to those that have contributed to the success of regional rail in Toronto, a ridership level of over 5000 per day has been achieved. A total of nine daily round trips are operated, concentrated in the morning and evening crush periods as well as providing one round-trip during the critical mid-day period. The mid-day service has been successful in creating a new market for the initial service and is illustrative of how regional rail is useful throughout the day instead of being limited to crush periods only. Growth continues on the Miami Tri-Rail system despite limitations on parking at many of its stations. The Tri-Rail System is operated under contract by UTDC. UTDC built the cars and commissioned the system as well.
Each area that supports regional rail has variable circumstances that are exploited in the public interest. In like fashion, capital costs and operating support requirements are variable. The trend today is toward increasing operating efficiencies that suggest a 90-100% goal for operating cost recovery is reasonable after a period of time during which patronage is built up. The farebox recovery ratio experience is variable from about 40% to nearly over 80% on commuter systems while exceeding 100% on regional applications such as the San Diegans. The need to limit capital investment and the necessity to build systems more quickly is also widely recognized, thus making rail development on existing rights-of-way a highly attractive process. Capital costs continue to be a function of government for the most part. But, there is an increasing amount of private sector cooperation in and around station sites, generating revenues to support the rail system, capital for some parts of stations and significant returns to private developers sharing in station site processes.
An overview of available data suggests that development of a Regional Rail System in Arizona, separate from but coordinated with current and possible added Amtrak service would be feasible, affordable and an effective long term strategy to supplement the freeway, state highway system and related arterials. The following data are relevant.
In summary, a regional rail system for Arizona appears to be achievable at relatively low cost (less than 10% of the ValTrans proposal) and in a short period of time. The system could become part of a strategy to manage scarce transportation resources. And it could become a partner with private enterprises for development astride the rail route as well as a function of added airline services in the region.
The balance of this paper summarizes information contained in the attached Annexes.
The service concept underlying this analysis is:
The objective of this service is:
The rail market potential in Arizona is estimated to be modest at the outset, with growing use coming quickly. The use of rail will be a function of where the stops are - the matrix; what the frequencies are; fare levels; parking lot size and security and air coordination.
The markets examined and considered viable are:
Capital investment and what it purchases are noted in Annexes C and D. These costs are forecast on a conservative basis. The key to shaping the extant railroad into a much more capable part of the regional transportation infrastructure is development based on not having to purchase critical rights-of-way and compensate for massive neighborhood disruptions. A further advantage is the relatively short time it takes to rebuild and modify a railroad that already exists and is in fairly good condition.
Equipment is available that provides high capacity with very high customer satisfaction. In fact to both customers - the purchaser and the passenger. The UTDC Bilevel coaches are attracting more and more riders in Miami and have generated extremely high demand for commuter rail in Toronto and its environs.
Passenger facilities are envisioned as simple yet gracious. Passengers need shade facilities at all stops. Some locations are easily satisfied with simple bus shelter facilities. Others will require more sophisticated approaches depending on the type(s) of services provided. In any case, the major consideration is to provide sufficient, safe and otherwise acceptable parking facilities, included covered parking in some circumstances.
A critical component of any capital investment program is to gain participation of the private sector at station sites and in support of the system as it serves employment and commercial interests. It may be useful to work with the private sector to establish improvement districts around stations to encourage concentrations of activity.
Operations have been detailed above and further depicted in Annexes A and B. In summary, three kinds of operation are possible simultaneously. These are:
Annex I depicts funding possibilities. A thorough analysis of funding sources and options is required. However denominated, it appears that the State of Arizona must take a lead role in orchestrating a Regional Rail System, including financing.
As a broad generalization, funding sources are:
UTDC Corporation as a major manufacturer and operator of regional rail systems is capable of assembling a team to provide a 'turn-key' project approach to building and operating regional rail in Arizona.
To the