[This document was scanned from a the original version. It has been carefully proofread but some transcription errors may remain. -- W. Lindley, Wednesday, October 31, 2000.]

ARIZONA RAIL

A REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM FOR ARIZONA

Prepared for the
Arizona Rail Passenger Association

March 1992

Arizona Rail Passenger Association
Standing Committee on Regional Rail Service

Ex Officio

Richard Malcolm, Ph. D.,
President, Arizona Rail Passenger Association.

Committee Members

George R. Loulan, Chairman
Robert H. Bohannan
W. Eugene Caywood
John J. Gale
Michael Margrave

PART 1. INTRODUCTION

Abstract

Rapidly increasing population, worsening urban air pollution and traffic congestion, and increasing costs of building entirely new transportation infrastructure are focusing the attention of planners and elected officials throughout the country on the importance of maximizing the usage of existing transportation facilities. One of the areas which has in the last few years been receiving increasing attention after a period of virtual dormancy is the use of existing railroad facilities for both intercity and commuter use.

"The future looks very bright for Intercity and commuter rail transportation in California.

"Ridership is increasing on State supported rail services; fare box recovery rates are generally healthy and increasing; the demand from the public for new rail services is growing; new legislative studies are examining the viability of adding even more routes to the existing system and a new, ambitious marketing program is getting the word out that rail travel is a preferred alternative for travel in many areas of California."

State of California, Department of Transportation, Rail Passenger Development Plan 1990-95 Fiscal Years, March 1990.

"The concept of mass transportation involves the servicing of an entire community, providing a necessary service to enhance the quality of life and a means by which business and the economy can function more smoothly."

Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, Annual Report Fiscal Year 1989/90

Throughout the nation--in Florida, Virginia, Michigan, and perhaps most importantly, California--transportation officials are turning to commuter and intercity rail service operating on existing railroad tracks to supplement existing highway, and in some cases, airway, systems.

Here in Arizona, the existing rail lines are ideally situated for intercity use, and in Maricopa County, for commuter use as well. These rail lines, if they pass through a city at all, are virtually guaranteed to pass through the city center, usually within two or three blocks of city hall and other government buildings. These rail lines pass adjacent to hospitals, airports, and major employment sites. These rail lines intersect major state highways and freeways, often right near the edge of the city, the perfect location for development of major intermodal stations.

The Arizona Rail Passenger Association believes that the opportunity now exists in Arizona to establish a fiscally sensible rail service that would provide a useful and convenient transportation option through the most heavily populated portion of the state and complement other transportation facilities. ARPA members are concerned that Arizona public policy for decades has resulted in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on highway projects--which have resulted in a lowering of the quality of life in Arizona's cities through increasing pollution, the urban heat island effect, and, currently, over 800 deaths in traffic accidents per year--but seems to have no interest in far more cost-effective, efficient, and safe transportation options which acknowledge the fact that in the final analysis, it is people who need mobility, not cars. This Regional RO system represents a practical and efficient transportation system with the potential to be used by thousands of Arizonans and visitors daily for commuting to work or school, catching flights throughout the country or the world, attending business meetings, shopping in old Mexico, attending a Suns or Cardinals game, or just sightseeing.

Why Rail?

Why should rail passenger service be considered for Arizona? Simply put, rail transportation is the safest, most energy efficient, and environmentally benign way of moving large numbers of people over medium intercity distances at a relatively high rate of speed. Furthermore, rail requires the least amount of capital investment to do this compared to highway and air modes, particularly when the basic railroad right-of-way and track structure are already in place.

An investment in a regional intercity passenger rail system and urban commuter system extends the life of existing highway and airport facilities.

A regional rail system benefits highway facilities by significantly increasing the people-moving capacity in a given corridor, delaying, and ideally eliminating, the need for costly highway widening or new, parallel highway construction. Rail service also fulfills the "trunk line" portion of the trip presently served by the freeway far more efficiently in terms of energy used on a per passenger basis.

A regional rail system benefits airports by replacing short-distance feeder flights and freeing up critical take- off/landing slots and gate space for more sensible, and profitable, long-distance flights.

Thus, each transportation mode has its own market niche which it fills best. A truly balanced and sensible transportation system uses each mode to the best advantage and to the complement of the others.

Opponents of rail systems in this country often cite the "lack of density" in American cities, compared to European and Asian cities that have extensive rail systems, as the reason why rail transportation "won't work" here. This "density argument" is seriously flawed for two basic reasons:

1. Due to their high densities, European and Asian systems operate a dense network of rail lines, generally with each served by a multi-layered system of local, limited, express, and long- distance express services, often with each operating on hourly--or considerably less--headways. No one is suggesting that such intense service be duplicated here. Service is tailored to the local conditions, be it in America, Asia, or Europe.
2. European and Asian systems generally receive a high percentage of "walk-in" patronage; a facet of operating in a high density environment. In American systems, the reduced availability of walk-in patrons due to lower densities is counteracted by the use of park-and-ride lots and feeder buses.

Far more important than high densities is the total available population base lying within the potential catchment area of the service. Furthermore, longer- distance, higher-speed services like Regional Rail have a much larger catchment area.

Southern Arizona's 3 million-plus population is more than enough for the proposed service. The large number of activity centers along the route (i.e. CBD'S, airports, hospitals, etc.) combined with large park-and-ride stations and feeder bus routes make population density along the route essentially irrelevant to a single line-haul type service such as this proposed system. The system ridership potential is further boosted by the large influx of winter visitors, as well as the year-round tourist market present in Southern Arizona.

Further, from the standpoint of urban rail services, opponents claim that "Phoenix doesn't have a single viable center to support such service ... it's spread out, with many centers of activity..." Indeed, a "polycentric" city with several higher-density activity clusters should be able to better support a viable line-haul transit service connecting these centers than an urban area with only one major center. Under this scenario, the viability of such a service is increased because commuting trips will be more evenly distributed by direction, and the system can attract more off-peak and non-commuting type trips. This increases economies of scale, ridership and revenue. [1,2]

Experience to date in other States supports the fact that rail service can work very well in the typical American urban/suburban environment when coupled with well planned parking facilities and feeder bus systems.

Background

In April of 1989, the Arizona Rail Passenger Association first proposed the use of existing railroad infrastructure to create a Regional Passenger Rail System to meet Arizona's growing transportation needs into the next century. In response to this effort, two important events occurred: UTDC Corporation, a builder of bilevel passenger rail cars, asked NHA, Inc., an Oceanside, California, transportation consulting firm, to prepare a "White Paper" to preliminarily study the feasibility of such a concept and develop a cost estimate; and second, ARPA was able to gain the support of the five counties which would have rail passenger service under the Regional Rail concept, in the form of resolutions passed by the Boards of Supervisors of each of these counties.

This proposed Regional Rail system, tentatively dubbed Arizona Rail, is based on similar systems that have been developed in Toronto Canada, and in South Florida, and the highly successful joint Caltrans/Amtrak San Diegan and San Joaquin operations in California. These systems have been in service for varying lengths of time and much has been learned from their successes as well as some of their early mistakes. At this time all can be considered as highly successful in attracting ridership, and indeed, the San Diegans are currently generating an operating profit.

It should be noted that this program is not intended to supplant the need for other transit improvements in the Phoenix and Tucson areas (or indeed anywhere else). Improved bus systems are needed and would in fact tic together excellently with this Regional Rail System. Other rail transit, probably in the form of light-rail, will also be needed in both the Phoenix and Tucson areas in corridors not served by the existing tracks to be used by this proposed system. This system would be an excellent feeder for the proposed central corridor trolley in Phoenix and would provide connections to the entire East valley from the early stages of implementation of such service.

Arizona Rail represents a systems approach to future travel needs. Unlike building "a freeway," or "a freeway interchange," or widening "a road,' which are band-aid attempts to address a larger problem, Arizona Rail provides a comprehensive travel network throughout five counties and the two major urban areas of the State. It brings together park-and-ride, bicycles, urban transit, and airports. It forms the basis of an efficient, sustainable, and easily expandable transportation system to carry Arizonans into the next century.

The purpose of this paper and its associated Technical Report is to further refine this Regional Passenger Rail concept and advance it to the point where serious discussions on potential funding and implementation strategies can begin.

Overview of Arizona Rail

The proposed system consists of approximately 430 route miles of service with 42 passenger stations in Yuma, Maricopa, Pinal, Pima and Santa Cruz counties. Each day, 4 trains would operate in the Wickenburg to Nogales corridor, providing 8 round-trips per day between Phoenix and Tucson; there would be one Yuma - Phoenix round trip connecting to the other trains at Phoenix. One Phoenix - Los Angeles round trip, providing a second Phoenix - Yuma trip, is also proposed to link smaller communities to Sky Harbor and Ontario International Airports. This service would be developed as a joint Amtrak 403(b) program with California (Yuma - Los Angeles mileage is not included in the above figure).

A "cross-valley' service across the Phoenix Metro Area would operate throughout the day, seven days per week; and, during weekday peak-hours, four additional trains would provide supplemental commuter service in the Phoenix area. Additional special services would operate on weekends, including service to Suns, Cardinals, and ASU games, and possible excursions to places such as the Grand Canyon.

In order to operate the system, improvements would need to be made to the existing railroad infrastructure, including: rebuilding tracks; adding passing sidings and sections of double track; and, improving the signaling system. Trains would operate at up to 90 MPH between Phoenix and Tucson, and up to 80 MPH elsewhere. Based on these proposed improvements, the estimated travel time between downtown Phoenix and downtown Tucson is 1 hour, 50 minutes.

Stations with adequate parking facilities would be constructed, including bicycle parking. Rental car facilities at stations are a definite possibility. And, of course, locomotives and passenger cars will have to be purchased (or leased) as well.

Figure 1 - Overview

ARIZONA RAIL

The cost of these improvements, including stations, maintenance facilities, and rolling stock, is estimated at a maximum of approximately $500 million to construct a very high quality system. This compares with $1.3 billion spent so far to construct about 16 miles of freeways in Maricopa County under the MAG Urban Freeway Plan, or about $800 million to construct the final 11 miles of Interstate 10 through downtown Phoenix. It should be noted that of the $1.3 billion spent on urban freeways, over 66% of the expenditures, or over $860 million, has been spent to purchase right-of-way alone, emphasizing the importance, and cost effectiveness, of making maximum use of existing rights-of-way.

This system will serve to tie southern Arizona closer together economically and politically. An example is the common perception that "everything outside Phoenix is out in the `provinces' and thus doesn't matter to those in Phoenix" which, while being rather facetious is at least partly the result of the very real spatial and temporal separation of Phoenix and places like Yuma and Tucson; it's just too far to drive conveniently, and all the hassle of airports for such a short flight is too much trouble as well. This is why, world-wide, rail service is considered the ideal transport mode for distances in this range.

This improved transportation network, for both passengers and freight, will reduce consumption of non- renewable resources, reduce air pollution, and reduce the country's dependence on imported oil (the source of 40% of our Trade Deficit). The system will also provide a highly effective alternative to commuting on congested freeways in the Phoenix urban area, particularly those serving the East Valley.

Some additional benefits of this Regional Passenger Rail System will include:

• Enhancement of the tourism industry in Arizona. Foreign tourists in particular would no longer be confined to one city or region of the State during their stay. Convenient day trips over a large area would now be possible.
• Eliminates the need for costly short-haul air service between Phoenix and Tucson while maintaining an efficient, attractive, feeder service to Sky Harbor Airport. At the same time it would begin to build such a feeder service for Tucson International Airport, enhancing the possibility for more long-distance direct flights out of Tucson in the future.
• Provides an excellent, low-cost opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of Maricopa County's truncated urban freeway program. For instance, the Santa Fe line which parallels Grand Avenue can be improved for intercity and commuter use for a much lower cost than converting Grand into a high-level expressway.
• Improved citizen access to government facilities, including the State Capitol Complex.

Further, the system will enhance the value of industrial properties in Arizona and improve Arizona's potential to benefit from the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and continued expansion of the Pacific Rim marketplace. Finally, while this system would require public funding just like every other passenger transport mode currently in operation, ARPA is not proposing that any new taxes be implemented specifically to fund this system. We are proposing a change in current transportation funding priorities. We are challenging the "status quo." ARPA is proposing that the implementation of this system be the first step toward developing an efficient, sustainable transportation network for the twenty-first century.

PART 2. THE ARIZONA RAIL NETWORK

What is a Regional Rail System?

Regional Rail is the term traditionally used to describe certain urban/suburban commuter rail systems.

Professor Vukan Vuchic, a leading authority in mass transit systems, defines commuter rail as a system which is intended to serve suburban travel markets with high peak and directional volumes and limited off-peak service. Stations are generally two or more miles apart and the primary access mode is the private automobile (park-and-ride).

Vuehic applies the term Regional Rail to commuter rail systems that continue through a CBD area into the "suburbs" on the other side. [3,4]

While Arizona Rail's proposed Phoenix urban area services fit this "conventional" definition of Regional Rail, ARPA is proposing a somewhat more comprehensive and general definition of Regional Rail which will apply to the entire system: a network of intercity and urban passenger rail services using conventional, commonly available locomotives and rolling stock, operating on upgraded--but already existing--railroad tracks, and fully integrated with other transportation modes.

In any form, Regional Rail is the easiest and least expensive form of rail transit to implement, and is capable of covering most--and under certain conditions, all--of its operating costs from farebox revenues.

Use of Existing Railroad Tracks

The proposed Arizona Rail system utilizes the existing railroad network which passes through the major cities and towns of Southern Arizona. The largest portion of the proposed network is on the tracks of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, including the portions of their transcontinental mainline from Yuma to Wellton, and from Picacho to Tucson. Also included is the entire Phoenix Line from Wellton to Picacho and its branches to Sun Lakes (Chandler Branch) and West Chandler (Tempe Branch). The Nogales Branch from Tucson to Nogales would be utilized to provide service to Tucson International Airport, Green Valley, and Nogales. These lines are well laid out with long, flat, tangent sections allowing high speeds to be reached and maintained.

Additionally, the tracks of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway would be used from Phoenix to Wickenburg, serving Glendale, Peoria, and the Sun Cities. This line also has long tangents for much of its length. For the use of their tracks, the two railroads would receive an initial trackage rights fee based on the mileage to be used. Each would benefit, as well, from the track structure improvements proposed for this system. The improvements, essential for the successful implementation of Arizona Rail and the joint, harmonious operation of the system with the existing freight services, will also facilitate implementation by these railroads of additional freight services as demand warrants.

The railroads will also receive an annual pro-rated contribution from the operating agency as reimbursement for the maintenance of their physical plant.

Service Description

The Arizona Rail Passenger Association has identified three distinct but complementary services which can be provided by an Arizona Rail system utilizing existing tracks. These are:

1. REGIONAL INTERCITY SERVICE.

The heart of this service, and indeed of the whole Arizona Rail system, would be a "spine-line" service linking the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas with up to 8 trains per day each way (every 2 or 3 hours). It is recommended that this service, at a minimum, extend from Green Valley, a retirement community just south of Tucson, to Sun City West, another retirement community which lies on the extreme northwest edge of the Phoenix urbanized area, in order to maximize the population base served.

In addition, several trains (at least 3 per day) would be extended north of Sun City West to Wickenburg, and south of Green Valley to Nogales. Two round trips per day west of Phoenix would serve West Valley communities, Wellton, and Yuma. one of these "West Line" service trains would be a joint Arizona - California 403(b) Amtrak service, serving the Imperial Valley, Indio, Palm Springs, the Inland Empire (including Ontario Airport) and Los Angeles. Arizona's only capital requirement would be a contribution of one set of equipment; two are required to operate a daily Phoenix - Los Angeles service, it is assumed that California will provide the second set. It is envisioned that both the Yuma - Phoenix service and any Phoenix - Los Angeles service would operate through to Sun Lakes on the Chandler Branch. This is the proposed location of the'Arizona Rail Central Maintenance Facility, and both trainsets could then be serviced there. In addition, a Phoenix - Los Angeles train could then be used to transfer cars and/or locomotives that require very heavy overhaul or repair to one of the many facilities available in the Los Angeles Basin without the necessity to incur freight charges that would otherwise be required to have them shipped in a freight train.

Operating through to Sun Lakes also allows for development of a "hub" operation at Phoenix Union station (with other Arizona Rail trains) which maximizes the available travel options for the public and thus ridership and revenue on the overall system. Why provide rail passenger service between Southern Arizona and Los Angeles? Given the existence of Interstate 10 and all the air service between Phoenix and Los Angeles, who will ride the train?

The fact is, some will ride the train; in fact, many already (to ride the existing overnight, triweekly service provided by Amtrak's Sunset Limited, mostly to connect to other Amtrak trains at Los Angeles. But providing service between Phoenix and Los Angeles isn't really the point. The point of this service is that a train between Phoenix and Los Angeles serves many intermediate markets; the places that have no air service, or that have poor air service. It will link them to Phoenix and Los Angeles and will link them to Sky Harbor International Airport and Ontario International Airport.

For Regional Intercity Service, four trainsets are required for Wickenburg - Phoenix - Tucson - Nogales service, two sets for one daily Yuma - Phoenix round trip plus one Phoenix - Los Angeles round trip.

2. REGIONAL CROSS-VALLEY SERVICE.

This is an urban service essentially from one side of the Phoenix urban area to the other, from Sun Lakes to Sun City West, but providing service all day, seven days per week.

Figure 3 shows how commuter/urban rail services using existing railroad tracks have been called for by many communities in the Phoenix urban area as part of the recent county-wide transit planning process. It should also be noted that virtually every community requested some type of "express" service to Sky Harbor Airport. This cross-valley service, along with the more conventional "commuter" type of service described below, will be able to provide this airport service to most of the Valley's cities.

This service requires two trainsets to be assigned and would provide approximately two-hour headways throughout the day.

3. REGIONAL URBAN SERVICE.

Additional peak hour "commuter" services in the Phoenix Metro Area would supplement the other services. The Phoenix "Commuter District" can generally be defined as extending to:

• Goodyear on the west, with possible limited extension to Buckeye.
• Sun City West to the Northwest, with possible extension to Wickenburg.
• Williams Field Road (Higley) to the east on the SP mainline.
• Sun Lakes on the Chandler Branch.
• All of the Tempe Branch to West Chandler.

Based on the experience of the Tri-Rail system in Florida (West Palm Beach to Miami Airport), services which operate in the peak-hours only do not attract the ridership or revenue that a "full-time" system can. When Tri-Rail implemented a single mid-day round trip to supplement what had previously been peak-hour only service, ridership soon doubled from just over 3000 passengers per day to about 6000 per day. And, when Saturday service was added, on approximately two-hour headways throughout the day from 6 a.m. to midnight, that service soon reached a ridership level of about 9000 passengers per day. Hence, in Arizona Rail, peak-hour only service is de-emphasized in favor of longer-distance, all-day services. However, these will be supplemented in the Metro Phoenix area during the peak-hours by additional trainsets working in a conventional "commuter" mode to adequately serve the peak passenger loads and attract additional riders off of already clogged streets and freeways with the increased service frequencies.

This conventional commuter service would also fulfill the traditional definition of Regional Rail in that most, if not all trains would not operate simply between the suburbs and downtown Phoenix, but would generally continue on through the CBD to the other side of the valley.

This urban peak-hour commuter service would use four trainsets. During off-peak hours, including weekends and holidays, these trainsets may be used for other revenue generating activities, such as special trips to Suns, Cardinals, and ASU games and events, charter service, or special weekend travel packages to destinations throughout Arizona, such as the Grand Canyon, or additional trips to places such as Nogales or Wickenburg.

All of these proposed services use tracks which are already in place and used daily for freight traffic. The only new track connection required outside of an existing right-of-way would be a short section near downtown Tucson that is needed to allow access to the Nogales Branch from the Tucson station.

Feeder Buses and Transit Interface

As shown by recent experience in California and Florida, a network of feeder buses dedicated to the rail service can greatly enhance ridership and revenue. Connections to existing transit systems are also extremely important and these can be created at many of the stations in the Phoenix and Tucson Metro areas.

One particularly obvious opportunity for feeder service is a network of buses to bring Cochise County residents into the system until such time as the extension of direct rail service to that area would be determined to be feasible. This type of service is patterned after the highly successful Amtrak "Thruway" bus system developed by Caltrans to serve the San Diegans, and in particular, the San Joaquins in California.

Connecting bus service at other locations is also a possibility, including urban feeders in the Tucson and Phoenix Metro areas and connections to cultural and recreational destinations such as the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Old Tucson, the Phoenix Zoo, and the Desert Botanical Gardens. Services such as this not only help the system attract riders who would be making these trips anyway, but generate new trips that would not have otherwise been taken.

Feeder bus operations such as these are typically contracted out to private operators, who are required to provide coaches which meet certain standards for comfort and cleanliness. it is these standards, and the fact that the buses operate exclusively for the benefit of connecting rail passengers, that have been so successful in attracting large numbers of people who would not otherwise consider using buses. This has been amply demonstrated in California. These services utilize the flexibility of the bus, with the speed and comfort of the train over the "trunk" portion of the trip, to create a surface transportation mobility network over a large area, enhancing travel opportunities, ridership, and revenue.

Rail/Air Interface

Both airside and landside congestion at major airports is becoming a critical issue, and Arizona's airports are not, and will not be, immune. Arizona Rail provides a way to address both of these problems now.

Sky Harbor International Airport and Tucson International Airport are both ideally situated along existing rail lines. Development of the full Arizona Rail system will create an efficient airport feeder network in southern Arizona with direct service to the city centers of the State's most populous cities, to retirement communities, the State Capitol complex, and the International Border at Nogales.

Airlines which serve Phoenix and/or Tucson may wish to use the rail system as a feeder, with through air/rail ticketing arrangements. Under this scenario, a traveler from, for instance, Germany, who was booked into a Wickenburg guest ranch, would be able to purchase a ticket which read from Frankfurt to Wickenburg, via Phoenix. Rail service also offers an additional benefit: The ability to obviate the need for additional flights between Phoenix and Tucson. Such short flights are extremely costly for airlines to operate (as well as fuel inefficient) hence the current extremely high fares for such service. Furthermore, aviation planners and airline executives are becoming increasingly aware of many of the other costs associated with such service, for example aircraft depreciation, which is related more to the number of take- off/landing cycles an aircraft undergoes than it is to total miles or hours flown.

Freeing up runway and gate slots in this manner also opens up possibilities for more long-distance direct flights, including international flights, at both airports and reduces the need for airport capital projects to expand gate and runway space.

Both airports will initially be linked to their respective rail stations by dedicated feeder buses. In the future, the Sky Harbor rail station can be linked directly to Barry M. Goldwater Terminal 4 by means of a pedestrian/baggage tunnel under the north runway. This tunnel would essentially be an extension of one of the Terminal 4 concourses and would incorporate a moving sidewalk and possibly a baggage conveyor belt. The rail station itself would act as an additional "gate" for the terminal.

Tucson International can, in the future, be served by a spur line from the railway directly to the airport terminal. A diesel railcar or railbus service could then shuttle between the mainline rail station and the terminal. These shuttles could also be extended to downtown Tucson and/or Green valley and Nogales, providing additional local service in the Tucson Nogales corridor, This spur could also eventually be used by electric light rail cars running directly from downtown Tucson on a separate right-of-way to access the airport terminal.

These airport/railway linkages will play a vital role in the success of Arizona Rail. Likewise, Arizona Rail can play a key role in the successful growth and development of these airports into efficient transportation centers to the future.

Arizona Rail and the proposed Regional Jetport

Arizona Rail can also serve the proposed Metro Regional Jetport (MRJ).

Based on the markets to be served, ARPA believes the best possible location for the proposed MRJ is the so-called Coolidge Site. This site consists of 80 square miles of state-owned land already set aside specifically for a regional airport, and located southeast of Coolidge and south of Florence.

A new rail line can be easily constructed across relatively flat terrain from a point south of Coolidge on the existing Phoenix Line, probably near Randolph, running east through the MRJ site and terminal then turning south to rejoin existing tracks on the Gila Line near Marana.

This would involve approximately 42-45 miles of new line. This line can also incorporate a right-of-way for a future high-speed (150 MPH +) line.

Arizona Rail can serve the MRJ from its earliest inception, at which time it is unlikely a high-speed rail line would prove to be feasible. Even at such time as the high- speed service becomes practical to serve the majority of MRJ travelers, the conventional Arizona Rail trains can continue to provide access to rural communities, local service along the Phoenix - Tucson route, and feeder services to the high-speed trains at Phoenix and Tucson, as well as continuing to provide urban rail services which will be impractical for the high-speed trains. The new track would also allow rail freight service to planned industrial and military activities on the MRJ site. Arizona Rail passenger service could also have additional station stops on the airport grounds, besides the main terminal, to serve these activities, something that a high-speed system could not do in a practical manner.

Arizona Rail would tie the MRJ together with the States' other two major airports and form an efficient ground transport net between them and the States' major population and business centers.

Economic Development Opportunities

Rail service stimulates economic development, bringing new opportunities as well as enhancing existing businesses. Efficiency of the transport network will be improved: workers commuting and managers traveling will be freed from congested highway networks; business travelers can leave unproductive time traveling by car behind and don't have to contend with out-of-the-way trips to the airport just to catch short, and often expensive, flights. As more passengers use the rail system, space on urban roads and freeways is freed up for distribution of goods by truck. The enhanced infrastructure will improve the movement of rail freight as well, benefiting many Arizona industries and attracting more in the future, reducing the number of damaging trucks on the roadways. Rail transport of freight, just like of people, is far more efficient and less polluting than highway modes.

Arizona Rail also has the potential to boost Arizona's position vis-a-vis the coming Free Trade Agreement with Mexico. Arizona has the best rail connections to Mexico and Arizona Rail will improve on that even further. The improved rail link to Southern California improves Arizona's connections to the rest of the Pacific Southwest, and thus the entire Pacific Rim, serving to attract industry. Those who think that adding a few international flights to Mexico and Pacific Rim countries will benefit Arizona economically would do well to consider the possibilities of improved rail intermodal service into Mexico and to Los Angeles area port facilities. Forty-foot containers of industrial products do not travel by air!

Additional economic development opportunities present themselves as well. For instance, with the rapid expansion of intercity, transit, and suburban commuter rail services presently occurring in California, the potential exists for the establishment of rail related industries such as rail car manufacturers in the Southwest. Development of a Regional Rail system in Arizona could present an opportunity to attract a rolling-stock manufacturer in order to serve both the Arizona and California markets, since if such a bi-state market were to develop, Arizona would be the ideal location for a manufacturing plant due to availability of land, and lower costs of land and labor. This could have an added benefit to the Arizona Rail system by eliminating the need for construction of a heavy maintenance and repair facility since direct factory service would be available.

There will be additional spin-off benefits to Arizona's communities as well. Although the system itself will create relatively few new positions--part of the reason for its cost effectiveness--it has the ability to create new opportunities for related industries, not just in terms of jobs, but offering, other benefits to Arizona communities as well. For instance, it can be expected that new or expanded taxi operations could be created in areas where little or no such service presently exists (i.e. rural areas), creating new employment opportunities and, as a spin-off, expanded local transportation options. Due to the airport links Arizona Rail offers, its station sites become the perfect locations for development of hotel/conference/resort facilities. Development of rental car services at these stations will help to decentralize facilities from crowded airport areas and allow creation of "European style" air/ rail/rental car (or just rail/rental car) travel packages which further enhance the attractiveness of Arizona Rail for both in-state and out-of-state travelers. In Europe, such all encompassing travel packages--which can also include hotels--are designed not only to attract the tourist, but the business traveler as well.

Train Equipment and Services

Locomotives and passenger cars used for the system will be proven designs currently in use with intercity and commuter operators throughout North America. Locomotives may be new, or quality rebuild equipment. Passenger coaches should be new.

Locomotives

Trains will be hauled by conventional diesel locomotives and will be capable of speeds of up to 90 MPH on intercity runs between Phoenix and Tucson, 80 MPH elsewhere except where reduced speeds for curves are necessary. In the future, 110-115 MPH speeds are possible with modest additional investment.

On urban commuter runs in the Phoenix area, speeds in the 60-70 MPH range will be possible. All trains will operate "push-pull" using cab-control cars to eliminate the time and expense of turning trainsets at the end of each run.

Schedule times herein are based on the use of a General Motors F59PH locomotive which is equipped with a 3000 HP prime mover, separate HEP generator set, and "standard" passenger gearing of 57:20. Use of more powerful locomotives is possible and would improve performance.

Coaches

Passenger cars are envisioned as being high-efficiency bilevel equipment. Use of bilevel coaches reduces train length and weight per passenger carried, resulting in more fuel efficient operation. Additionally, platforms can be shorter, resulting in reduced station cost. Bilevel coaches also have the benefit of a low floor height on the lower deck which, combined with double-doors, no "trap" to operate, and remote control door operation, mean that passenger flow on and off the trains is smoothed considerably, resulting in reduced station dwell times.

Coaches will be based on one standard design for both intercity and commuter service. The use of bilevel cars enables an adequate capacity to be provided on each car for commuter service while providing a slightly lower seating density than is normally found in commuter cars to provide a higher level of comfort on longer journeys. Using only one coach type makes the cars fully interchangeable between services and reduces the spare (and thus overall) equipment requirement. A snack bar will be provided in the cab-coach variant mentioned above to minimize the inventory of different car types.

All of this equipment is designed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, bilevel equipment is the easiest type of rail car to provide access to, due to its low floor height. The equipment will also be equipped with full retention toilet systems in compliance with recent federal law.

On-Board Services

Future upgrades to these trains once they are well established include such features as full dining car service with sit-down meal service; and, "custom-class" coach service offering a reservation in a larger "leg-rest" seat, with at-seat beverage service. Custom class service has been very popular on several Amtrak routes, particularly on the San Diegans, and is scheduled to be implemented soon on the San Joaquins. From the beginning, trains can include credit card operated cellular phones and possibly even fax machines. Checked baggage service is not planned initially, but could be added in the future at certain stations.

As mentioned previously, a total of 12 trainsets are required to operate the entire Arizona Rail system, including service to Los Angeles. Each trainset would consist of one locomotive, two coaches, and one cafe/cab control/coach. Each Cross-Valley and Urban Service set would have an additional coach to accommodate heavier ridership in the urban area. The total equipment requirement is shown in Figures 4A and 4B.

* Including one set for Phoenix - Los Angeles service

Figure 4A: ARIZONA RAIL In-Service Equipment Requirements

Figure 4B: ARIZONA RAIL Total Equipment Requirements

Figure 4B totals the above figures and adds the required spares ratio of 10 percent shop spares to allow for those units out of service for major overhaul or repairs. In addition, a 25 percent fleet spares allowance is made for expanded train consists during holiday/peak travel periods. It is a good idea to have the capability to operate not just expanded, but additional trains as well.

Stations and Ticketing

To provide convenient access to the system, additional stations will need to be provided above and beyond what is already presently in place and used by Amtrak. Attractive, functional stations with convenient auto and bicycle parking and access to local transit will serve to attract riders to the system. Arizona Rail stations are initially envisioned as modest, yet functional and convenient. Shelter from the sun and adequate parking for both autos and bicycles are primary concerns.

The local rail station can become an important civic focal point, and reflect the character and values of the community it serves. The proposed stations and type of service available at each are shown in Figure 5. Innovative methods are possible to improve existing stations and add new ones; local community efforts, civic organizations, and public-private partnerships can provide stations which are a source of pride for the local community. Some of the newest, nicest, and most functional stations currently on the Amtrak system are entirely the result of donations of time, labor, and money from the local community, which took an interest in rail service and a pride in the image of their community. Fine examples of such community efforts include the restoration of a station in Kissimmee, Florida, and construction of a new one in East Olympia, Washington.

In addition to the existing station structures in Phoenix and Tucson which are used by Amtrak as ticket offices, two additional structures currently exist, in Glendale and Wickenburg. These would make fine ticket offices, perhaps manned by private travel agents who would sell Arizona Rail tickets and travel packages, through airline and Amtrak connecting tickets, as well as provide the full range of travel agent services. Thus rather than expense centers, these stations would be profit centers, which Arizona Rail could lease or sub- lease to the travel agent (or they could be owned by another entity entirely).

The majority of Arizona Rail stations will be unstaffed and provided with ticket vending machines, although any community, or private developer, who wished to develop a full service station to operate in the manner described for Glendale and Wickenburg would be welcomed and encouraged to do so. This is one of the ways stations can be improved by public-private partnership, and the public sector cost of the system reduced.

Ticket vending machines are available which can dispense a large variety of ticket types and which can accept coins, bills (in any denomination from $1 to $20), and credit cards. These machines are vandal resistant and equipped with tamper alarms.

Tickets will also be able to be purchased on the Intercity Service trains outside of the Phoenix Commuter District. Within that area, due to the frequency of stops, purchase of tickets before boarding will be required and the primary method of checking tickets will be by roving Fare Inspectors. This leaves the train crew on all trains free to monitor boarding/deboarding passengers at these more heavily used stations to ensure safety and make stops as expeditiously as possible.

Tickets should also be available by phone and by mail, as well as through travel agents.All stations will have 500' long platforms, except those which will also be used by Amtrak, which need to be 800' platforms. All stations will also have some type of shelter, or several small shelters. Platforms and shelters will be lighted.

(Clickable map)

Santa Fe Line:
Wickenburg	I
Wittmann	I
Sun City West	I	C	U
Bell Road		C	U
Sun City	I	C	U
Peoria	I	C	U
Glendale	I	C	U
Indian School		C	U
Fairgrounds		C	U		S
State Capitol	I	C	U
West Line:
Yuma	I			A
Wellton	I
Buckeye	I		U	A
Goodyear-Avondale	I		U	A
Tolleson	I
Central Line:
Phoenix U.S.	I	C	U	A
Civic Plaza/Arena		C	U		S
Sky Harbor	I	C	U	A
Papago Park		C	U
Tempe	I	C	U	A
Tempe Branch:
Baseline Rd.			U
Elliot Rd.			U
Chandler Blvd.			U
Central Line:
McClintock Dr.		C	U
Mesa West		C	U
Mesa	I	C	U
McQueen (Superstition Park & Ride)		C	U
Chandler Branch:
Gilbert West		C	U
Chandler North		C	U
Chandler Town Center		C	U
Sun Lakes		C	U
Central Line:
Gilbert	I			A
Coolidge	I			A
Orange Grove Rd.	I			A
Tucson	I			A
Irvington Rd.	I
Tucson Intl.	I
Green Valley	I
Tubac	I
North Nogales	I
Nogales	I

Key-
I - Regional Intercity Service
C - Regional Cross-Valley Service
U - Regional Urban Service
A - Amtrak Intercity Service
S - Special Service Stop

Figure 5: Proposed ARIZONA RAIL Stations and Services

PART 3. RIDERSHIP

Predicting Ridership

Understanding the ridership potential is vital to the successful implementation of this system. A full scale ridership study is beyond the scope of this paper. However, some preliminary figures can be worked out to show the necessity of further, detailed study.

ARPA has identified the potentially most important markets which can be served by the Arizona Rail system. These are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Key Markets for ARIZONA RAIL

Several models are available which predict modal choice as a function of a ratio of total demand in a given corridor. Some studies typically try to predict ridership based solely on comparison to modal split in other "comparable" corridors. We believe that there are compelling reasons why the Phoenix - Tucson corridor is unique and such direct comparisons, based on low modal splits for rail, are not valid. Furthermore, the "induced trips" question is not adequately handled, if at all, by traditional methods, and again, we feel that a unique situation exists in Arizona with regards to this variable as well.

A Unique Corridor

Most intercity corridors of approximately this length (about 100 to 125 miles or so) are characterized by a rail route which is several miles longer than the parallel highway route and often hampered by speed limiting curvature. This is typically because the rail route was constructed well before the highway and could not benefit from the modern earth moving and bridge building techniques available to the highway builders. This has meant that it is difficult for trains to obtain auto- competitive speeds. However, the basin and range topography unique to Southern Arizona allowed railroad builders to lay out their railroads with long, flat, tangent sections from the very beginning.

The only severe curvature in the Tucson - Phoenix corridor is concentrated in the Phoenix Metro Area, where most of the station stops are located as well. This has significant benefits. For instance, the sharpest curve, the 10 degree 33', 25 MPH curve at Broadway and Center in Mesa is located adjacent to the Mesa station, thus combining the slow speed curve trackage with the acceleration/ deceleration approach to the station stop. The few curves in between the metro areas can be realigned within the existing right-of-way, allowing a high cruising speed to be maintained.

Furthermore, population distribution, and thus station location, also allows for many miles of 90 MPH cruising between the Phoenix and Tucson Metro Areas, with only one stop in between, at Coolidge. Thus a high average speed can be maintained, making Arizona Rail directly competitive with other modes.

Estimated Ridership - Phoenix - Tucson

As stated above, one way to estimate ridership is to compare this corridor to another corridor. This estimate will directly compare population and ridership on two other similar services--The San Diegans in California, and Tri- Rail in Florida--with the population of the Arizona Rail service area, then compare the physical characteristics of the corridors on the basis of the, principles in the previous section.

Assuming that ridership is related to population, Arizona Rail ridership would be in the same proportion to the comparable corridors' ridership that Arizona population is to that corridors population. These estimates are only for ridership between the Phoenix and Tucson urban areas (in other words, the number of passengers that would be passing a given point, or screenline, between Gilbert and Northwest Tucson on a daily basis) although they are assumed to include trips which originate or terminate beyond those areas, reflecting the effect of the full travel matrix. The importance of the full network that spans the Phoenix and Tucson urban areas must not be underestimated. This estimate also does not include local ridership in the Phoenix metro area on the intercity trains, namely between Gilbert and Phoenix, which likely will be quite high, particularly during peak hours.

1. Los Angeles - San Diego

The Los Angeles - San Diego (LOSSAN) corridor currently has eight trains per day in each direction and is approximately 129 miles in length, quite Similar to the Phoenix - Tucson corridor. Two trains per day are extended north of Los Angeles to Santa Barbara.

The population of the LOSSAN counties, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego, to be used is 13,360,400 [5] The population of the five Arizona Rail counties in 1990 was 3,069,700 [6], 23% of the LOSSAN counties population.

In 1990, ridership on the LOSSAN corridor averaged 4937 passengers per day. The high was 6474 per day during August. The low average daily ridership was 3900 during January, however, the figure for January 1991 is also available, and the number had increased to 4041 per day, surpassing the two lowest months of 1990, January and February (one of these is always the lowest month of the year), and tying the third lowest month of 1990, October.

Since Arizona Rail population is 23% of the LOSSAN population, ridership would be estimated at:

However, consider the physical characteristics of the two services, shown in Figure 7.

* Not all trains stop at San Clemente

Figure 7 Phoenix - Tucson and LOSSAN corridors compared

In particular, note the average speeds of the two services. The low average speed of the LOSSAN service occurs precisely because of the factors of curvature and station spacing mentioned in the previous section. Obviously Arizona Rail will offer a much more competitive service. Caltrans is currently undertaking a major program of curve, track and signal improvements to speed up the service, including a major track realignment in Soledad Canyon. These improvements will shave about 20 minutes off of the running time. In addition, it has been estimated that replacing the current `Amfleet" equipment with low-floor bi-level equipment could save another 10 minutes by reducing station dwell times.

"Capacity problems are the main issue restraining San Diegan ridership. Since there is currently not enough equipment to haul all potential travelers, Amtrak has apparently chosen to try to maximize

San Diego-Los Angeles fare yields, instead of going for volume. Once sufficient California cars are

available and Amtrak changes fares to maximize ridership, the rate of increase could be massive." "Intercity Corridor Growth," California Rail News, May 1991

Caltrans plans to add a ninth round trip on the route in April of 1992 and a tenth as soon as possible after that; further additional commuter rail service is planned for the Oceanside - San Diego segment in 1992 (4 peak direction trips, one off-peak direction trip during each weekday peak-hour). Improved equipment and additional trips are planned for the San Juan Capistrano - Los Angeles commuter route (and the route may be extended to Oceanside), and an additional route is planned (Riverside - Irvine) which will provide additional trips through the central part of Orange County between Fullerton and Irvine.

One important note is that while the LOSSAN counties have a larger population than the Arizona Rail service area, much of that population is actually quite some distance away from the service, i.e. since the overall population density isn't really that much higher, the population is simply more spread out, and farther away from the San Diegan service. Although there are two trains daily extended north of Los Angeles to Santa Barbara, the populations of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties are in fact quite low (645,100 and 347,000 respectively, and the trains actually do not even stop in the City of Ventura currently), further, the service characteristics for this portion of the route (i.e. average speed) are much lower than for the rest of the route shown above, and there is a 30- to 40-minute layover in Los Angeles for trains continuing through from one side of the route to the other.

Hence, it is clear that Arizona Rail can in fact provide a much more attractive and competitive transportation option within its service area than the current San Diegan service does within the LOSSAN corridor.

2. Tri-Rail (West Palm Beach - Miami)

Tri-Rail originally started as a commuter operation between West Palm Beach and Miami, Florida. The system has since expanded to include weekday midday service and Saturday service throughout the day, both of which have proven very popular and greatly boosted ridership. Tri-Rail currently offers 10 round-trips per day on weekdays and 9 round-trips on Saturdays. The population of Tri-Rail's service area is 4.2 niillion. [7] The Arizona Rail service area population is 73 percent of that. As of December 31, 1990, Tri-Rail had an average daily ridership of 6826. Tri-Rail has also experienced a high daily ridership level of over 11,000 during winter holiday periods.

This would suggest an Arizona Rail ridership of-

Again, consider the physical characteristics of the two lines, shown in Figure 8. However, in this case, Tri-Rail represents a strictly "commuter" type operation, although the system is hampered by the fact that its line is located west of the CBD's of the communities it serves.

One factor in particular that should be noted about Tri- Rail is that it is generally acknowledged that Tri-Rail ridership is severely constrained by a lack of adequate station parking.

Conclusion.

Nevertheless, the figures provided by the comparison to Tri-Rail are undoubtedly high; they would probably be more appropriate for the Phoenix urban area ridership. However, by the same token, the figure provided by the LOSSAN comparison is just as likely to be low, due to the great differentiation in corridor service characteristics. ARPA's preliminary estimate for Arizona Rail ridership between the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 8 Phoenix - Tucson and Tri-Rail corridors compared

Estimated Number of Daily Induced Trips:

TOTAL Estimated Daily Trips:

Notes:

Air-1

Persons who fly between Phoenix and Tucson only (local passengers).

Air-2

Persons connecting with another flight or continuing on to another destination, by air, at Phoenix.

Sources:

Bus

estimate based on 1980 Arizona Department of Transportation study;

Air

Tucson Airport Authority;

Auto

ADOT traffic counts.

Figure 9: Estimated Ridership for Phoenix - Tucson Corridor

These numbers represent daily person-trips and are based on the full, comprehensive network proposed. Assuming that most people, other than "Air-2" passengers, will be making same day round trips, this would indicate about 1,600 passengers riding daily between Phoenix and Tucson.

Included is an estimate of "induced trips." These are trips that would not otherwise have been taken if the rail service did not exist, either because no other transportation was available, or, even if it was available, it was not considered suitable for this particular trip.

An example of this latter case would be a retired couple living in East Mesa, They have heard about Wickenburg, and particularly the Desert Caballeros Western Museum, and would like to go there. They have a car, but in this case they have not been willing to undertake the drive because they dislike long drives, they dislike the idea of driving across Phoenix through the heavy traffic, and they know that part of the route is heavily congested two-lane highway. With Arizona Rail, a new option opens up, the trip is taken, and not only does the system benefit from additional riders, but the places where they have wanted to go benefit from new customers.

Alternatively, they may have driven to Wickenburg once a year, but not considered additional trips because of the impediments listed above, but now may make two or more trips per year. Additional examples abound: Sun City to Nogales, Tucson to the Desert Botanical Gardens, etc.

Induced trips will at first include "joy riding" as people try out the new system. The number of such trips will gradually decrease, but the other categories will increase in absolute numbers as population continues to grow.

As far as rail attracting passengers away from air, a good example would be the Caltrans 1975 San Diego - Los Angeles Corridor Study handling of the subject. This study was used by ADOT for its 1980 Phoenix - Tucson Passenger Rail Study for comparison purposes.

The Caltrans study made projections of modal split from 1975 to 1995. It concluded that the only significant change in the modal split for the corridor over the twenty-year period would be from auto to air. ADOT's study concluded that "there is every reason to believe that this will be the case for the Phoenix - Tucson Corridor as well."

Contrast these conclusions, which were made long before California began taking an interest in rail passenger service, with what actually occurred. The recently completed (July 1991) Southern California High Speed Rail Feasibility Study [8] had this to say about what actually occurred to the air/rail modal split relationship in the LOSSAN Corridor:

"The distance between Los Angeles and San Diego makes air travel less significant as an alternative mode of travel. Rail ridership is already the second largest mode between the regions, outnumbering air travel.

"Since the State of California began adding frequencies to the LOSSAN Corridor, the explosive growth has been on the rail mode." And since the LOSSAN service doesn't connect to any airports, unlike Arizona Rail, it doesn't even have the opportunity to pick up connecting passengers for long-distance flights. [9]

Revenues and Operating Costs

Some preliminary estimates will be made of train operating costs and potential revenues. ARPA believes that the intercity services have the potential to "break-even" on costs, and even potentially generate a profit to offset the costs of the urban services. Urban commuter services in this country, or indeed anywhere else, do not usually generate a profit or break-even, although they often have higher cost recovery ratios than other public transit services. Further, the social and environmental benefits of these services can easily outweigh straight-forward economic considerations.

REVENUES

Potential revenue sources are summarized below.

Fares. The revenue from selling transportation.

Concessions. Concessions on the trains are expected to be provided by a private contractor, and thus will be a source of revenue for the operation.

Advertising. Advertising revenues can come from sale of advertising on board the trains, in printed matter such as schedules, and at stations.

COSTS

Operating costs are summarized below, and estimated daily train operating costs between Phoenix and Tucson are shown in Figure 10. These costs are exclusive of Administrative overhead, insurance, maintenance and layover costs.

Train Costs

Trackage Rights. This is the "rent" that railroads charge for the use of their tracks. A flat rate charge of $4.00 per train mile for any train consisting of one locomotive and one to four cars is proposed. An additional charge for additional locomotives or cars would be charged if necessary, however, such operations are not planned as a part of normal operations.

Fuel. It is expected that the diesel fuel for the locomotives will be purchased wholesale with the State's regular fuel bid.

Maintenance of Way Surcharge. An additional charge is imposed by the railroads for wear and tear-on the track structure. $0.20 per train mile is in line with current practice.

Labor Costs

Crew. The train crew for intercity trains is expected to consist of an Engineer, Conductor, and Assistant Conductor.

The Engineer operates the train from the locomotive or the Cab Control Car.

The Conductor is responsible for overall operation of the train, collects (and, on intercity trains, sells) tickets, and provides information and assistance to passengers.

The Assistant Conductor assists the Conductor with ticket collection, provides information to passengers, and assists with train safety.

All Cross-Valley and Urban Service trains are expected to be operated with a two-person crew, with ticket checking duties carried out by Fare Inspectors.

The labor cost figures shown in Figure 10 are "wage equivalent" figures which include salary plus an hourly equivalent factor for fringe benefits.

Length of corridor is 119.6 miles.

Train Frequency is 16 trains per day (8 each way). Running Time is 1.833 hours.

Figure 10: Daily Train Operating Costs--Phoenix - Tucson

Fares

For the purposes of this paper, ticket prices of 15 cents/mile for inter-county trips and 10 cents/mile for intra-county trips are believed to be adequate and feasible. However, the final determination will need to be made at the time service begins. A balance needs to be made between the need to attract riders to the system and the need to try and cover all or as near as possible to all of the systems operating costs. Round-trip discount tickets, special "day-trip" tickets, and family fares are a highly effective means of attracting riders. Multi-ride tickets and passes for daily commuters need to be offered as well.

Figure 11 Example ARIZONA RAIL Fares

Fares are determined by multiplying the mileage by the fare per mile and rounding up to the next multiple of five cents, a common fare pricing procedure. The "Day Return Fare" is the one-way fare plus $3.00 for inter-county and $2. 00 for intra-county trips and require that the outbound and return trips be made on the day of purchase. The "Standard Return Fare" is one-way plus $7.00, and is good for a longer period for both initiating travel and returning, perhaps 30 days from date of sale. This ticket can thus be bought in advance.

Other types of tickets might include:

• Family fares. An example family fare, based on British Rail's family fare plan, would be implemented as follows. The requirement to purchase a family fare would be that there be a group of three to five traveling together (note that they don't actually have to be related) at least one of whom is an adult and one a child under 18. The fare is the regular fare for one person and each of the orders in the group pays only a flat fare of say, $3.00.
• Senior Citizen fares. Senior Citizen discounts of 50% are common on transit systems. They are offered on intercity carriers but not usually to the same extent, perhaps 10% at most. It is assumed that a similar system will be used on Arizona Rail, i.e. a deeper discount for local intra-county services, less of a discount on longer distance services.

Since the Phoenix - Los Angeles service will probably be operated under a standard Amtrak 403(b) contract, the fares will be standard Amtrak fares, which are typically higher than these Arizona Rail fares. However, the states (Arizona and California) may be able to negotiate certain special fares just for this service, as Caltrans has done with some of its Amtrak intercity services within California.

PART 4. IMPLEMENTATION

System Implementation Strategies

Several strategies for implementation of the Arizona Rail System are possible. Possibilities for a funding and operating authority include:

• A state agency (as in Florida)
• A multi-count Joint Powers Authority (as for the Southern California commuter rail system)

The operating authority woudl be responsible for assimilating all possible funding for, and the contracting for the construction and operation of the system (specific possible funding sources are dealt with in a subsequent section).

The initial implementation of the Arizona Rail System is envisioned as being a by "turnkey" company or consortium from which the State of Arizona (via the operating authority) would puchase the service, including necessary capital improvements.

Based on the experience of others, a Joint Powers Authority would seem to be the most effective way of implementing and operating Arizona Rail. Control of the system would be locally based where the service operates. The JPA would be responsible for selecting the builder/operator of the system, set fares based on desired ridership and performance goals, make service decisions, monitor the service performance of the contractor, and make up any operating deficit for the system.

A private contractor/consortium may be able to obtain private financing for a portion of the capital cost of the system based on a long-term operating contract. An important concept of the Arizona Rail plan is the inclusion of the two railroads whose tracks woudl be used, Santa Fe Railway and Southern Pacific Transportation Company, in the planning process.

The Key: Fast-Tracked Implementation

The need to limit capital investment and the necessity to place new transportation infrastructure into service quickly is now widely recognized, making development of existing rail facilities highly desirable. With Arizona Rail, a fast-tracked planning, engineering, construction and commissioning process can permit service to begin in two th thre years from notice-to-proceed, thus giving taxpayers, and beleagured commuters, tangible evidence of improvement after a short period of otime. At the same time, this short itme frame, essentialy prohibits the development of the large, cumbersome bureaucracies that inevitably arise around long-term (20-30 year) transportation development projects.

Initially, efforts will be focused on discussions with the railroads over trackage rights, improvements, lease or purchase of railroad land for stations, and liability, Once this process is completed, design work is finalized, and contractors choses, construction acan proceed relatively rapidly. High-production gangs can begin track reconstruction and rehabilitiation while other crews build stations. Locomitives ans passenger cars will be on order concurrently, and will take 12 to 18 months to deliver.

Upgrading of Existing Infrastructure

A railraod infrastructure which facilitates maintenance of existing levels of freight traffic, and allows as well for the railroads to make future increases in freight service as the market demands, is and must be of prime importance in the design and operation of the Arizona Rail system. The infrastructure must also allow for the saffe and comfortable operation of passenger trains. To this end, operation of a multi-frequency passenger operation at competitive speeds will require upgrading of the existing rail facilities.

TRACK

Track capacity will be increased by adding sidings, lengthening existing sidings, and adding sections of double track. Tracks will be surfaced and lined to provide a smooth ride, and certain tracks presently constructed of jointed rail will be replaced with Continuous Welded Rail, also to provide a smooth ride as well as reduce wear and tear on rolling stock and the track structure itself High-speed turnouts and crossovers, and improved yard leads and station tracks, will also expedite train movements.

CURVE REALIGNMENT

There are not many curves in the critical Phoenix - Tucson section compared to most rail corridors around the country; however, the few that there are should be further modified to allow trains to cruise at their top speed throughout the system.

It is believed that all curves can be modified within the existing railroad right-of-way. Generally, curves should be improved by "flattening" the curve rather than by increasing superelevation (banking), since freight trains will continue to use the line at lower speeds.

If a train traverses a highly superelevated curve at lower than design speed its wheel flanges will ride the lower (inside) rail of the curve, increasing wear on both the wheels and the rail.

Most curves in high-speed territory between Gilbert and Tucson will be improved by realigning the curve, either while maintaining existing superelevation or slightly increasing it. Certain sharp curves in the Phoenix area will be upgraded by minor realignment and/or slight increases in superelevation.

SIGNALS

Installation of a Centralized Traffic Control System will further increase capacity as well as smooth and speed operations. Automatic Block Signals will be added to all segments of track that (Io not now have them to provide for a high level of safety for all trains.

A secondary signaling system, utilizing an Automatic Cab Signals (ACS) or, alternatively, an Advanced Train Control System (ATCS), will also be in operation throughout the system. This will allow for 90 MPH operations in the Phoenix-to-Tucson corridor, as required by Federal regulations for train operations at 80 MPH or over. The remainder of the system will generally be operated at up to 80 MPH, but the secondary signal system will allow virtually uninterrupted operations during even the most adverse weather conditions, including blinding dust and rain storms which leave other modes at a standstill. An ACS or ATCS-based secondary signalling system allows a very high level of safety by enforcing speed and track occupancy restrictions.

Because railroad management systems are moving toward a comprehensive ATCS-based system (ATCS can include many other functions besides signaling), at a minimum, CTC and ACS installation will use ATCS compatible systems. Data Radio or fiber optic communications cables with ATCS compatible protocols will be used for CTC command transmissions. Existing signaling systems will be upgraded to interface reliably with the new systems.

Based on these track, curve, and signal improvements and a 90 MPH operating speed, a travel time of 1 hour and 50 minutes has been calculated between Phoenix Union Station and the Tucson Amtrak Station, with intermediate stops at Sky Harbor Airport, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert, Coolidge, and Orange Grove Road in northwest Tucson, successfully striking a balance between convenient accessibility to the system for a large population base while maintaining a market competitive speed.

MAINTENANCE FACILITIES

Existing railroad locomotive repair facilities appear to be inadequate to service a fleet of passenger rail locomotives, and are poorly located in any event. Existing railroad car facilities are of course devoted to freight car maintenance and repair.

It is proposed to construct a locomotive and coach maintenance facility on the Chandler Branch south of Chandler, since most trainsets will be based in the Phoenix area on a daily basis. In addition, two overnight layover facilities which have basic servicing facilities will be constructed; one near Sun City West, and the other probably near the Rio Rico South Industrial Park. These facilities will provide fuel, water, and cleaning facilities for trains, and storage tracks for overnight storage of trainsets at these locations which will reduce "deadhead" mileage. Trainsets can be scheduled to "rotate" their nightly layover locations so that they all pass through the main Chandler facility every third day or so.

Capital Costs and Funding

ARPA staff have carefully looked at existing railroad facilities, land use patterns adjacent to the railroads, and population distribution to develop a Regional Rail Implementation Plan which identifies needed rail infrastructure work, rolling stock needs, and potential station sites. The estimated cost of such improvements can be broken down as shown in Figure 12.

The unit costing method used generally provides an estimate that is higher than what would be obtained from a detailed analysis. Additional work which has been undertaken by the railroads as a part of routine maintenance or upgrading, or scheduled to occur soon can substantially reduce these costs. High-production Rail Changeout, Track Renewal, and Track Construction machines, if properly scheduled and utilized to their full potential, can reduce costs as well. These costs include 15% contingency and 3% for construction management, and in fact are in line with costs estimated for building entirely new high-speed passenger rail infrastructure.

Several funding possibilities exist. All should be thoroughly investigated. Establishing an effective, competitive service with the potential to cover substantially all of its own operating costs through the farebox and fulfill its market potential requires a commitment to provide the necessary level of capital funding: half-hearted and "experimental" attempts inevitably lead to failure. The minimum first phase, should phasing be desired, is an intercity service in the Wickenburg to Nogales corridor, followed by Cross-Valley service, urban commuter service, service to Yuma, and service to Los Angeles.

The importance of spanning the Phoenix and Tucson CBD's must not be underestimated. The other, complementary services Will have less of an effect on ridership in this corridor than simply spanning the Phoenix and Tucson markets with through trains and serving tourist destinations in Nogales and Wickenburg as well as the retirement communities of Sun City/Sun City West/ Youngtown and Green Valley/Continental. Possibilities for obtaining capital funding, in the form of loans and/or grants are shown in Figure 13.

While public funding would be needed to construct the system, it is not the intention of ARPA to propose the introduction of new taxes to implement the system. The only area where significant local contribution would be needed and could require a dedicated funding source would be within Maricopa County for the purpose of providing extensive urban services.

The use of existing state highway funding and gas tax revenues supplemented by flexible Federal funds could provide the needed capital funding for the system. Of course, the trade-off in using Federal funds is the increased time needed to obtain the funds, and the higher overhead costs to provide the documentation to support the request for the funds and to administer the expenditures.

Figure 13: Listing of possible capital funding sources for ARIZONA RAIL

Federal

• FTA: Stations, park and ride lots, transit interface, track and signal upgrades, rolling stock.
• FRA: Track and signal upgrades, grade-crossing improvements.
• FHWA: Grade-crossing improvements, grade separations.
• FAA: Airport interface.

State

• Convert Highway Trust Fund to a true Transportation Trust Fund, with monies available for railroad capital improvements and rolling stock.

Local

• Have local communities and counties contribute to the construction, operation, and maintenance of their own stations. Give them the option to improve stations beyond a basic baseline design.
• Industrial Development Authority Bonds (for use by private sector).
• Passenger Facility Charges (at airports).

Private Sector

• Railroad. Certain projects will lead to substantial improvements in the ability of the railroads to serve their customers; particularly those which correct deferred maintenance and inferior designs. The railroad companies can be expected to contribute to those projects, either through direct participation and funding or through consideration in the trackage charges Arizona Rail will pay
• Joint development/value capture. Aggressively pursuing joint development opportunities at station sites can substantially reduce station capital costs while creating stations which attract riders to the system.
• Industrial Development Authority Bonds to construct rail passenger facilities in conjunction with a larger commercial development.

PART 5. CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Passenger rail service has been making a tremendous comeback in the United States in the last few years; to paraphrase Mark Twain, "reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated." Ridership on Amtrak has been steadily increasing (even while subsidies have been dropping), although it is currently beginning to level off simply because capacity has been reached on most routes. Amtrak has recently ordered over 50 locomotives and 140 cars, and plans to order more soon, to help overcome this limitation. In fact, Amtrak currently carries more passengers than the freight railroads did on a much larger national system in 1970, when they still operated their own passenger trains.

There have been promising signs in Arizona as well. Tempe and Coolidge have constructed Amtrak station stops. Benson is planning to improve their stop in preparation for the opening of Karchner Caverns. Phoenix Union Station is currently undergoing renovation. Using the existing infrastructure of Southern Pacific Lines and Santa Fe Railway makes sense from a public policy and public interest perspective by allowing development of a new transportation option while avoiding the traditional problems of costly acquisition and construction of new rights-of-way. It makes sense for the railroads to participate by allowing their tracks to be used due to the promise of a steady income stream from trackage-rights charges on what, except for the Pieacho - Tucson and Wellton - Yuma segments, are relatively lightly used branch lines. Shippers will also benefit from the faster and safer railroad structure made available.

Arizona Rail offers tremendous environmental and economic benefits compared to highways which, when built, only serve to increase congestion, accidents, and pollution, while accelerating the rate of depletion of finite resources. An investment in a regional rail program will benefit present and future generations of Arizonans, and travelers of all kinds. Airlines, rental car firms, taxi companies, bus operators, travel agents and city transit systems all stand to benefit from increased business.

Now is the time to seize the opportunity to build a Regional Passenger Rail System to serve the mobility needs of people moving within and between our cities. If Arizona is to continue to prosper, we must begin to seriously address the problems of mobility, pollution, and fossil fuel dependence now, rather than when a crisis stage is reached.

Arizona Rail offers a unique and exciting way to do that.

Preliminary Recommendations

This proposal is meant to be a catalyst for action. ARPA believes that we have provided enough evidence to justify further, detailed study of this issue.

ACCORDINGLY, THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD:

1. Create an Arizona Rail Task Force/Blue Ribbon Committee to study this issue.
   • Members of this committee should include:
   • One Supervisor from each of the five counties.
   • Certain legislators or their representatives (staff).
   • A representative from each railroad.
   • Certain labor representatives (not necessarily just RR labor).
   • Representatives from Phoenix `fransit/RPTA and Sun Tran.
   • Business/Chamber of Commerce Representatives.
   • Representative from ADOT.
   • Two members of the Arizona Rail Passenger Association.
2. Conduct a final feasibility and ridership study.
   • Conducted by private firm, outside ADOT.
   • ARPA to participate in selection of firm.
   • Reports directly to Blue Ribbon Committee.
   • Length of study not to exceed six months.
3. Begin working to change current spending patterns, including amending the state constitution to allow gas tax revenues to be used for mass transit capital improvements, including intercity and commuter rail service.

CITIES AND COUNTIES SHOULD:

1. Work to prevent further encroachment on railroad rights-of way, including:
   • Prevent additional grade crossings from being constructed.
   • Aggressively seek funding for grade separations.
   • Work to eliminate unneeded grade crossings.
   • Find alternate access for private crossings.
   • Require further setbacks and/or require granting of easements for properties being developed adjacent to railroads.
   • Work to protect potential station sites.
2. Some specific, urgent needs are:
   • The City of Tucson needs to protect the needed connection to the Nogales Branch.
   • The proposed Orange Grove Station is an ideal location for a Northwest Tucson Transit Center. Pima County, City of Tucson, and Sun Tran should work toward a Transit Center/Amtrak Station for that location.

Implementation Recommendations

1. Create a Joint Powers Authority which is empowered to select a turnkey contractor to handle all construction, equipment acquisition, and ultimately, operation of the system on a "cost-plus" basis.
2. Implement the full system as quickly as possible to reduce construction overhead costs and maximize ridership and revenue.
3. Authorize the JPA to operate special services, such as bus services and excursion trains, outside of the five- county jurisdictional area. Implementation of full rail passenger service to those areas would require that the appropriate county join the JPA.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following references were reviewed in the preparation of this report:

Reports:

Listed alphabetically by publishing agency.

American Public Transit Association, Transportation Spending and Economic Growth - The Effects ofTransit and Highway Expenditures, Prepared by David Alan Aschauer, September 1991

Arizona Department of Transportation, Metro Regional Jetport Location Search, Final Report, ADOT Aeronautics Division, January 1988

Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix - Tucson Rail Passenger Service Study, Transportation Planning Division, March 1980

Association of American Railroads, Railroad Facts - 1991 Edition, AAR Economics and Finance Department.

California Department of Transportation, Rail Passenger Development Plan, Division of Mass Transportation, March 1990.

California Department of Transportation, Rail Passenger Developnient Plan, Division of Rail, July, 1991.

Florida Department of Transportation, Evolution of a Commuter Rail System in Souh Florida, James M.

Rankin, PE., July 1990.

High Speed Rail Compact, Regional Rail Passenger Development Program, HSRC Technical Committee, June 1989.

Interstate High Speed Rail Compact (same as HSRC above), Regional Rail Passenger System Plan and Improvement Projects Summary, HSRC, April 1990.

Maricopa Association of Governments, Systemwide Transit Planning Stitdy, Executive Summary, Prepared by Barton- Aschman Associates, March 1986.

Maricopa County Regional Public Transportation Authority, East Valley Rail Study, NJ Transit Rail Operations & RPTA Staff, July 1989.

Maricopa County Regional Public Transportation Authority, Regional Transit Commuter Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona, Regional Transit Citizens Advisory Committee, November 1990.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, The Energy Eficiency of the Intercity Passenger Train, Amtrak Public Relations Department, Undated.

Southern California Association of Governments, Railroad Right-Of-Way Evaluation Project, 2 volumes, August 1989.

Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California High Speed Rail Feasibility Study, July 1991.

Transportation Research Board, "Commuter, Regional, and Rail Transit - Research and Analysis," Transportation Research Record 1162, 1988.

Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, Annual Report - Fiscal Year 1989/90, TCRA, 1990.

Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, Financial Reco)@?nie)tdations - Phase II Strategic Plan, Jeffrey A. Parker, et al., July 1991.

UTDC Corp., Regional Rail For Arizona, A Rail Systems Approach to Arizona Transportation Needs, Prepared

by Byron Nordberg & NHA Inc., April 1990.

Papers:

Campaign for New Transportation Priorities, CNTP Policy Series, Number One, "Urban and Suburban Transportation - Programs and Policies for More Livable Cities." 1991.

Campaign for New Transportation Priorities, CNTP Policy Series, Number Two, "Transportation and Tax Policy - U.S. Tax Policy Favors Cars and Trucks over Energy- Efficient Alternatives." 1991.

Campaign for New Transportation Priorities, CNTP Policy Series, Number Three, "New Directions in Transportation Research and Development." 1991.

Campaign for New Transportation Priorities, CNTP Policy Series, Number Four, "Intercity Freight Transportation - The Multiple Threats of Bigger, Longer Trucks." 1991.

Campaign for New Transportation Priorities, CNTP Policy Series, Number Five, "Intercity Passenger Transportation - Neglect of Rail and Intermodal Facilities." August 1991.

Clark, Lloyd, "Most-Neglected Transportation Resource In The Valley Is Only One Block Away From The Newest

Mass Assembly Point," Presented at "Open Forum on the Environment," Phoenix, AZ, 1991 (This paper is reproduced in the Appendix of this report).

Cooper, Hal B. H., Jr., Ph.D., P. E., "Prepared Comments on the 1991 State of Washington Transportation Policy Plan," October 1990.

Cooper, Hal B. H., Jr., Ph.D., P. E., "Prepared Testimony on the Options Subcommittee Draft Recommendations of the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee for the Sea-Tac Airport Flight Plan Project," Seattle, WA, April 1991.

McClellan, Charles V., and Cooper, Hal B. H., Jr., Ph.D., P. E., "High Speed Ground Transportation in the State of Washington," Prepared for Journal of the Institutefor Transportation and the Environment, Seattle, WA, April 1991.

Sheck, Ronald C., Ph.D., "Amtrak 90: A Route to Success" - Executive Summary, Las Cruces, NM, 1982.

[reproduced on the ARPA web page http://www.azrail.org ]

Articles:

Allaby, Ian, "GO Transit Moves a City," Canadian Geographic, Vol. 108, No. 6, December 1988/January 1989.

Belden, Tom, "Lufthansa puts fliers off plane onto train," Frequent fliers column, Phoenix Gazette, November 2, 1991.

Black, Eric, "Unique funding formula pioneers Britain's light rail rebirth," Railway Gazette International, Vol. 147, No. November 1991.

Bowen, Douglas, "Sunny Days for Tri-Rail," Railway Age, Vol. 192, No. 4, March 1991. (This article is reprinted in the Appendix of this report).

"Commuter Rail Planners Guide," Railway Age, Vol. 189, No. 10, October 1988.

"Commuter Rail Planners Guide," Railivoy Age, Vol. 192, No. 11, November 1991.

"Florida's Tri-Rail proves itself," Progressive Railroading, Vol. 34, No. 4, April 1991.

"Intercity Corridor Growth," California Rail News, Vol. 7, No. 4, May 1991.

Wilkins, Van, "Amtrak takes to the road," Bus World, Vol 11, No. 4, Summer 1989.

Wolinsky, Julian, "The Buses of GO," Bus World, Vol. 12, No. 1, Fall 1989.

Trade Publications:

In addition to the above specific articles, there are numerous other articles of general interest dealing with rail passenger service, locomotive and passenger car developments, track structure, etc., in the following publications:

Modern Railroads
K-III Press, New York, NY (Modern Railroads has merged into Railway Age as of July 1991).

Passenger Train Journal
Interurban Press, Glendale, CA. [No longer published as of 1998 - wl]

Progressive Railroading

Murphy-Richter Publishing Co., Chicago, IL.

Railway Age

Simmons-Boardynan Publishing Corp., New York, NY.

Railway Gazette International

Reed Business Publishing, Sutton, Great Britain.

Railway Track and Structures

Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corp., New York, NY.

Trains

Kalmbach Publishing Co., Waukesha, WI

GLOSSARY OF RAILROAD TERMINOLOGY

Amtrak 403(b) Program

A provision of the Amtrak Law (section 403(b), hence the name) which allows states to share the cost of providing a new service with Amtrak.

Bilevel Car

A passenger car with two decks. Bilevel cars greatly increase train capacity. They also are the easiest to provide wheelchair access to, due to the low height of the lower deck.

Cab/Control Car

A coach which is equipped with a control cab which provides all the necessary controls to operate the locomotive at the other end of the train. The purpose of the cab/control car is to allow a train to operate "back and forth" along its route without the need to turn the train around so that the locomotive is always leading

Cab Signals

A device which repeats the display of the wayside block signals in the cab continuously, providing constant, real- time information and free from visibility problems. Federal regulations require the use of cab signals whenever trains are operated at speeds greater than 80 MPH.

Centralized Traffic Control

A system by which a dispatcher remotely controls certain switches and signals, and can monitor the progress of all trains at all times. The primary benefit of "CTC" is that trains do not have to stop to throw switches manually to meet and pass other trains, resulting in significant time savings.

High-Speed Rail

Generally clefined as systems which operate at speeds of 125 MPH or greater. Arizona Rail is not a High-Speed Rail system, but can be thought of as a necessary step towards the eventual provision of one.

Intermediate Speed Rail

Generally (refined as systems which operate in the 80 to 125 MPH range. The intercity portions of Arizona Rail are thus an intermediate Speed Rail system.

Trainset

Any combination of locomotives and cars which are assigned to a particular train.

Turnout

Commonly referred to as a "switch." The movable portion of a track which allows trains to move between different tracks.

The following article is taken from the March 1991 issue of Railway Age. This is the finest treatise we have seen on the history, current status, and future potential of the Tri-County Commuter Rail system in South Florida. ARPA greatly appreciates the permission granted us by Railaay Age Editor Luther S. Miller to reprint the article as an adjunct to this report.

SUNNY DAYS FOR TRI-RAIL

by Douglas Bowen, Associate Editor, Railway Age

With ridership up 60 percent last year, the Miami-West Palm Beach commuter line is moving into an expansion mode, with $85 million worth of improvements planned in the next five years.

For decades, commuter rail operations in North America were confined largely to Northern America - and to older cities. Postwar development patterns limited commuter rail application, many social and economic experts argued; the horizontal, light-density development of the Sunbelt made new commuter rail operations improbable.

Such assumptions were immediately applied to Florida's Tri-County Commuter Rail Service. In two years, Tri-Rail has proved the critics very wrong and delighted rail advocates nationwide. Florida's first commuter rail service has opened the door for other potential rail services, both within the state and throughout the Sunbelt.

Tri-Rail began operations on January 9, 1989, over 67 route-miles - the first commuter rail operation in the nation's Sunbelt, and the first new commuter rail start in North America since GO transit began serving Toronto in 1967. Many saw Tri-Rail as a temporary measure - an interim alternative to car traffic until the widening of parallel Interstate 95 was completed.

Gilbert M. Robert was not among the doubters. Robert began serving as Tri-Rail's executive director in June, 1989, and had no reservations about Tri-Rail's potential for success - or its necessity.

"We now have 4.2 million people along a 70-mile strip of land in the tri-county area, " he notes. "That's one of the largest population bases in the United States. By the year 2000, that base may hold six million people.

"And those residents will need to coexist with southern Florida's environmental mainstays: the Atlantic Ocean, the Everglades, and the aquifers which provide water. "It's an extremely fragile environment," Robert says. "It plays a major role here, and we have no more room for existing road infrastructure."

"Tri-Rail is the only transportation alternative for continued growth and a decent quality of life," he says. "It will develop into the main spine of transportation for south Florida."

State makes commitment.

Robert credits state officials with making a commitment to rail transportation matched by few other states. "The state is determined to address transportation, environmental, and growth management issues aggressively with an eye to the future. Florida won't be reacting to its problems as they develop," he says. "Tri-Rail serves a commerce base that benefits all of Florida, be it commercial, tourist, or residential."

"Florida purchased 81 miles of right-of-way from CSX Corp., including Tri-Rail's 67-mile service route, for $264 million. The state authorized $18 million for rail rehabilitation, including 11 passing sidings averaging 2.3 miles in length. Another $18 million helped establish 15 stations along Tri-Rail's service route. Five existing Amtrak stations eased the financial burden."

Equipment purchases totaled $23 million., Five F40- PHL-2s provide motive power; the "kitbashed" GP-40s were rebuilt by Morrison Kundsen's Rail Systems Group. Twelve UTDC bilevel coaches and six bilevel cab cars provide the equipment pool for 20 daily push-pull trains.

The UTDC coaches, familiar to Toronto commuters, "have performed exceptionally well," Robert says. "We're pleased with the low maintenance, and the acceptance by commuters has been phenomenal." The cars can seat 162 riders; the face-to-face seating is "commuter-friendly, suggesting a user-friendly system. We found it to be a real benefit," he ads.

Rider response.

Tri-Rail's growing ridership has justified the state's investment in rail transit; from an average of 3,000 daily riders through most of 1989, ridership rose 165 percent to an average 8,000 riders per day by February 1991.

Robert attributes the growth to improved operations performance. Tri-Rail's on-time percentage rose from 68 percent to 88 percent, in part due to a change in incentive policies which gave Tri-Rail trains priority scheduling over late Amtrak trains in peak rush-hour periods. An additional agreement with CSX resulted in improved dispatching for Tri-Rail operations, boosting reliability still further. (One rider recently revived the cliche - "I set my watch by it" - on a midday trip soutbbound to Miami, to Gil Robert's delight.)

And, significantly, Tri-Rail added one train in each direction at midday off-peak hours early in 1990, increasing the system's flexibility and appeal for non-commuter riders. Evening trains were also added, bringing late-hour Tri-Rail service to nearly hourly headways in each direction.

At present, 20 trains operate each weekday (10 in each direction). Tri-Rail began Saturday service last Dec. 8 with nine trains in each direction. Robert says Saturday service was "something riders emphatically called for."

"Fares are $2.00 each way, with $1.00 fares for senior citizens, students, children under 12, and the handicapped. Shuttle buses, county buses, and Miami's MetroRail and MetroMover operations are included in the purchase praise, bolstering transfer traffic and Tri-Rail's attractiveness. `I'ri- Rail employs the honor system, with Sheriffs deputies from the three counties inspecting tickets at random.

The law officials are just one example of duties performed for Tri-Rail under contract. CSX employees control dispatching, UTDC personnel oversee operations, and ATE/Ryder performs revenue collections. Bus connections are provided by one of the three county government served. In short, Tri-Rail farms out services when convenient and cost-effective. "We're running this as a business," says Robert. "It's the direction we've received from our policy board, and we stick with that.

Marketing a must.

Robert has made one major exception to contracting services: marketing. He notes that many tri- county Florida residents were (and are) unfamiliar with passenger rail transportation. Marketing, he believes, is the answer. Of the 32 people employed directly by Tri-Rail, half serve in a marketing capacity, Robert says.

Tii-Rail's stature as a new railroad frees Robert's staff to try new approaches. "We're trying to market a service in a non-traditional railroad way," he says.

After phasing out its contract agency, Robert hired personnel to handle Tri-Rail's marketing in-house. "The department is free - virtually unrestrained - to try any reasonable approach," he says. "Our brochures and reading materials are colorful, not just informative. That does cost money, but people are picking them up and reading.

"To Robert, the money spent is a sound investment. "We're establishing a new system for the region, and we have to educate our potential customers," he says.

Tri-Rail's marketing also has sought to broaden customer awareness "...and not focus solely on commuters," Robert says. "We're marketing our off-peak hour service to senior citizens, for example." Tri-Rail marketing's second priority is improved access. At present, only 983 parking spaces are available systemwide. "We should have ten times that," says Robert. The state plans to provide $5.4 million to improve and expand parking, possibly in conjunction with joint private/public development opportunities along the route.

Coordination and cooperation.

In addition, Tri-Rail has helped reroute existing county bus routes to serve as coordinated feeder bus services, and has included the services in its fee structure. Although each county served by Tri-Rail - Dade, Howard, and Palm Beach - still operates separate bus systems, Robert says the intermodal coordination is "the evolution of a regional system - new to the state of Florida."

The regional approach is critical, because planning and future commercial development are being viewed in similar fashion. At present, `.Pri-Rail lies west of major downtown locations, and west of most commercial development, as well; feeder/distribution links are critical to current business needs, and to help balance the inadequate parking now available.

Tri-Rail's ridership flow is remarkably balanced, "almost an even split," observes Robert. Roughly 60 percent of Tri-Rail's riders head southbounci each morning, with 40 percent headed north to West Palm Beach. Miami's MetroRail Station predictably handles the most traffic, but Tri-Rail's Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach stations also see good business.

Tri-Rail's system includes three airport stops - Miami International, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach - which are designed to enhance intermodal traffic. Some such traffic has materialized, though not to the extent Robert would like.

Some Tri-Rail riders travel from local stations to meet Amtrak in West Palm Beach, Deei field Beach, and fort Lauderdale stations, which Tri-Rail shares. Robert welcomes Tri-Rail's role as an Amtrak feeder/distributor link. He also notes that relations with Amtrak, formerly "shaky," are much improved. "Both railroads have taken a proactive approach to each other's operations, and the result is a win-win relationship.

Funding seems secure. Tri-Rail is one of the few commuter operations to begin without UMTA funding, Robert points out. Funding for start-up began with a $16 million long-term, low-interest loan from the FRA, along with $4 million per year from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during 1-95s reconstruction and expansion.

Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties each contributed $250,000 per year initially, as well. But in August 1989, Tri-Rail ended its role as a tri-county organization, upgrading its status to a state authority.

The change helps secure state funding and commitment for future years, but it also signifies Tri-Rail's unifying role within the region. "The people we serve think in terms of a region, not county by county," says Robert.

Indeed, the state has committed $70 million to Tri-Rail's operating budget over the next five years to address regional transit demand. Florida also has committed another $85 million from Florida's Transportation Trust Fund for capital improvements during the same period.

Robert gratefully acknowledges the state's operating and capital support, and notes that the state's commitment stretches over a considerable period. "Tri-Rail's strategic plans argued for a five-year allocation and commitment," he says.

The executive director hopes to garner additional funds from other sources. "We're looking at every source of funding - FHWA, FRA, UMTA. We're up in Washington, D. C., preaching the gospel of Tri-Rail's success. We also hope to maximize our own funds through agreements with the feds and the private sector," he says.

By law, Tri-Rail must establish a dedicated funding source by 1994. "That may be our toughest task," Robert says. "But if our successes are any indication, we should find an answer." Tri-Rail already covers 40 percent of its operating costs through the farebox, as mandated by the state.

Future plans.

Robert is enthusiastic about Florida's capital commitment to Tri-Rail, and Tri-Rail's expansion plans. More than $85 million in capital funds will help fuel Tri-Rail's growth during the next five years. All of it will be needed; indeed, Robert says he can identify $265 million in worthwhile capital improvements and expansions.

Tri-Rail expansion

Tri-Rail's expansion plans call for at least $85 million in capital spending during the next five years,

according to executive Director Gilbert M. Robert. The basic goal: to strengthen and expand a regional integration with existing services, not duplicate them, Robert says.

To enhance Tri-Rail's spine, current state capital funding plans include $44.2 million for expansions and for improvements in existing infrastructure. Some targeted improvements for that funding include:

• $15.3 million for additional bilevel coaches
• $5.4 million for parking expansion
• $5.0 million for enhanced feeder bus service
• $5.5 million for additional locomotives
• $1.35 million for planning support
• $3.0 million for locomotive overhauls
• $1.53 million for ticket vending machines
• $1.2 million or upgrading Tri-Rail's West Palm Beach facility to provide layover maintenance

The $85 million provided by the Transportation Trust Fund is buttressed by Florida Senate Bill 1316, passed last year (1990), "the most sweeping transportation legislation in Florida history," according to Fred Wise, chief of the rail bureau for the Florida Department of Transportation. "The legislation requires DOT's budget to assign 14.3 percent of transportation monies to public transportation," Wise says. Though other Florida locales will vie for funding Tri-Rail may have a leg up on funds allocated on an "as needed" basis.

Robert stresses that "any project we undertake must be consistent with the state's growth management plan." Tri-Rail hopes to "maximize the existing right-of-way within the state" to accomplish that.

Tri-Rail's list of expansion proposals include

• A southern extension closer to Miami International Airport, with a stop at 21^st Street. "The stop woul(i be directly adjacent to the airport, in the middle of a commercial hotel area," Robert says. Amtrak would be welcome should it wish to relocate here.
• A seven-mile east-west route linking Miami International Airport with Miami's seaport cruise traffic.
• A spur linking Tri-Rail's existing services to Joe Robbie Stadium in Miami.

Meanwhile, other capital needs must be addressed]. Tri- Rail has targeted $5.5 million for additional locomotive power, and $15.3 million for additional bilevel cars. Another $3 million would fund locomotive overhauls and begin a cyclical maintenance schedule, "so that all the equipment does not come due at once," explains Robert.

Improvement of existing facilities has not been forgotten. Robert foresees a new state-of-the-art signal system to bolster CSX-, current dispatching capabilities along Ti-i-Rail trackage. An additional 15 miles of double- tracked railroad would also assist such dispatching; Robert says such improvements would basically connect existing sidings and improve flexibility. Tri-Rail's Hialeah maintenance facility would be modernized, funds permitting.

Role model for others.

Tri-Rail's success in southern Florida has prompted others within the Sunshine State to attempt similar projects. Tri-Rail plans to sponsor a conference for members of the Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority, the Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority, and Jacksonville officials "to assist them in getting started," Robert says. "so they don't make the same mistakes we've made." The potential exists for intrastate service linking the cities together.

Success may also lie with diversity. Tri-Rail's right-of-way is multimodal - "a visionary purchase by FDOT which guarantees a future role for freight, Amtrak, high speed, and commuter rail operations," says Robert.

Indeed, Florida's $264 million purchase was made in large measure to accommodate high speed rail operations. Current efforts for a Miami-to-Tarnpa high speed link appear to be faltering, causing some critics within the state to question the state's purchase.

But Robert says the cost already has been justified. "Florida is not going to be reactive to [congestion] problems." He notes that 13 miles of 1-595, an east-west highway link completed last year, cost $1.3 billion - and little criticism has been heard. Tri-Rail capital investments to date for rolling stock, stations, track rehabilitation, as well as the state's purchase of the rail corridor equates to an average price of $14 million per mile, compared to $100 million per mile for I-595.

Robert believes high speed rail still has a future in Florida, and may come through a phased approach similar to many California rail improvement projects. "We see a market and a need for high speed service. But Tri-Rail, and other Florida commuting authorities, need the option of taking it step by step," he says.

The first steps have been successful, placing Tri-Rail among those regional railroads looking to a bright future.

"Most neglected transportation resource in the valley is only one block away from the newest mass assembly point"

By Lloyd Clark

Next year some 19,000 sports fans are expected to gather in the Salt River Valley's newest mass assembly point--the America West Arena. They will travel to that downtown Phoenix locale in private automobiles and buses.

If 2,000 of those patrons arrive via transit or chartered buses, that leaves 17,000 who will drive to the sports complex in private autos or taxis. Estimating an average of three persons per vehicle, that will cause 5,666 cars and vans to converge on the stadium in the 200 block of East Jefferson St. Suppose the average number of persons in each car is five. The count of personally-driven vehicles numbers even then is a whopping 3,400.

Ushering these passenger cars and buses to the sports arena's environs, providing for parking, and then moving them out of the area will impact heavily the city's traffic control resources. The idling of engines during entry and exit advances will increase significantly the neighborhood's air pollution.

A remedy is available. And it's only a block away from the new sports facility that's due to open next Spring. The rail line just south of the stadium offers the means by which patrons could be transported to and from that site.

Fans from Sun City West, Surprise, El Mirage, Youngtown, Sun City, Peoria, Glendale, and west Phoenix could have ready access to the Santa Fe Railway line by parking their autos at lots adjacent to the railroad's right- of-way. Those who would travel from Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe, and other parts of the East Valley to the sports arena could be transported by train over the Southern Pacific tracks.

This is to urge governmental and business community leaders to join in developing a corporate body that would put to use the most-neglected transportation resource in the Salt River Valley--those rail lines that traverse the metropolitan area from Sun City West to Gilbert.

In addition to serving the sports arena, these tracks could be utilized for operation of commuter trains that would serve persons going to and from the Arizona State Fairgrounds, the Capitol complex, downtown Phoenix and the Civic Center, Sky Harbor Airport, Greyhound Park, Salt River Project headquarters, Sun Devil Stadium, the Arizona State University campus, and Gaminage Auditorium.

As the ninth most populous city in the U.S., Phoenix has lagged behind other communities in developing an alternative mode of transportation to the rubber-tired, fossil-fueled vehicle. San Diego observed in July the tenth anniversary of its highly-successful trolley system.

Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, Portland, and Buffalo have since installed light-rail systems that are providing commuters (many of whom do not drive) with a means of moving about. These rail facilities in addition ease street and highway traffic, conserve fuel, and reduce air pollution. New rail systems are coming on line in Baltimore (1992), St. Louis (1993), and Dallas (1996). Meanwhile, Maricopa County taxpayers are still wondering where all of the freeway bond monies have gone.

Presented at the "Open Forum on the Environment" sponsored by United Nations Association, Arizona Women's Partnership Project for the 1990s, Phoenix Futures Forum, and ARIZONA BUSINESS GAZETTE, Tuesday evening, Oct. 1, 1991, at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Auditorium, 301 W. Jefferson St., Phoenix, Arizona.

Lloyd Clark is a long-time member of the Arizona Rail Passenger Association.