Meeting Report and Commentary

Transportation Agency of Monterey County

6 February 2006

Reported by Chris Flescher, Associate Director, RailPAC

The status of the service to the Monterey Peninsula is that there still might be 2 trains a day running in 2009. The project is under environmental review and TAMC is examining alternatives. TAMC will be applying for FTA new starts money soon.

Earlier that day (Feb 6), some TAMC staff met with the UP railroad. The first reaction of UP officials was that UP doesn't want even one train a day without some track improvements. There are 3 projects that UP is studying (Caltrain to Salinas, tourist train to Monterey, Coast Daylight) that will affect their operations in Monterey County. UP feels that the first (Caltrain to Salinas) will require the smallest amount of improvements.

TAMC staff said that signaling improvements and double tracking near Aromas are two things that UP is not pushing really hard for. Signal improvements tend to be very expensive compared to projects like a small amount of double tracking. UP is very interested in a layover yard in Salinas, and Amtrak may want it too. This could be expensive and slow to build, and has a strong potential of delaying the entire project.

It appears that the full yard project would cost around $10 million, but a temporary one could be built for $1 million.

There are similar questions about constructing stations. It would cost about $50 million to build / fix-up all the stations that TAMC eventually wants to see, but that much money would be hard to get. Creating basic or temporary station infrastructure would allow trains to run soon and better ones could be built later.

There are issues with a Castroville station. The preferred location is north of highway 156, but building one there could take 7-8 years because it requires approval of the Coastal Commission, Castroville Redevelopment Agency, and it depends of a plan for future growth in Castroville being completed. Building just to the south of the city could occur quickly but it is not a good long-term location for a station.

Christina Watson of TAMC recently met with someone from FTA who deals with New Starts funding. He didn't think that a demonstation project (like one train a day, with temporary stations) would hurt TAMC getting funding for a "permanent project." Christine wants to meet with FTA regional officials (in San Francisco) to ask their opinion and wants to have TAMC staff study the issue more carefully.

Apex Strategies (a consulting firm) is prepared to work on 3 major issues. 1: negotiation with UP for infrastructure improvements. 2: negotiation with Caltrain JPB and Amtrak for (I believe) working together on scheduling south of San Jose. 3: determining what all the capital needs are and how TAMC could get money for them.

TAMC officials want to hire APEX to do each one, but as a separate work order.

One question was this: if the negotations are still going on in June, will that affect the sales tax referendum (county-wide, for transportation) ? It doesn't seem likely to be a problem, according to someone on TAMC staff.

One project to work on right now is creating new diagrams for a simpler Salinas layover facility. The current design appears to be very expensive (and unaffordable).

The rail policy subcommittee (the group at the meeting) approved asking the full TAMC board for money to have a meeting with UP.

One thing that will make meetings more expensive is that TAMC will probably have to commute to the UP offices in Roseville.

An issue that is likely to cause problems or delays in the future is dealing with the environmental issues around Elkhorn Slough. The tracks pass through the wetlands and making changes will require approval from different agencies.

Meeting Report and Commentary

Coast Rail Coordinating Committee

20 January 2006

Reported by Bruce Jenkins, RailPAC Director

This writer was arm twisted, cajoled and dragged feet first by Art Lloyd to the CRCC Policy Luncheon mtg at Mission Bay Inn in Pebble Beach. The mtg room was oriented so that we were "forced" to observe the 7th green, with a backdrop of the white breakers and blue water of the Pacific Ocean (needless to say, my limited attention span was further impaired).

Overall, this was one of the better mtgs of this group, obviated by the "upbeat mood" of chair Pete Rodgers. Reason: there could be funding on the horizon.

Highlights:

A resolution will go out to the legislaters for the Coast Daylight to be in the '07 budget.
A chicken/egg paradox exists because we can't get state fund for RR improvements till we have an operating train in place. UP will not allow another passenger train to operate till rail improvements have been made. Solving this dilemma is first priority. These improvements are between SLO and SJC and include lengthening sidings, adding switches and signals.
Interagency transfer passes are in the works for Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties (Amtrak/Local agencies).
With 96 trains per day Caltrain slots are full up. The Daylight will have to take a "Baby Bullet" slot.
Liz O'Donoghue of Amtrak reported on the Amtrak operations (already covered by Russ Jackson's report on SJVRC). There is $125m for new cars (36) and Locomotives (6). This order may be combined with several other state agencies to leverage a better price . Basic design is similar to Surfliner (Cal Car 2). Our design inputs are requested.
Tom Mulligan of the UP reported that the "slow orders" between Moorpark and SLO are now lifted.


RailPAC Contacts Publications Issues Meeting Reports 2006 Reports 2006/12 Canadian 2006/11 Capitol 2006/11 San Joaquin 2006/11 TAMC 2006/11 Psgr Trains 2006-10-28 2006-11 Chief 2006-10 RailPAC 2006-10 Capitol 2006-10 Coast 2006-10 San Joaquin 2006-09 Capitol 2006-08 ACE 2006-07 Trip 1/2 2006-07 Trip 2/2 2006-07 Daylight 2006-07-13 San Joaquin 2006-06 Coast Rail 2006-06 Capitol 2006-06 TAMC 2006-06 Palm Springs 2006-06 Special 2006-05-11 San Joaquin 2006-05-10 LOSSAN 2006-05 TAMC 2006-04 Coast Rail 2006-04 SCAG Maglev 2006-03-09 San Joaquin 2006-02-15 Capitol 2006-02 Coast and TAMC 2006 Annual Meeting 2006-01-12 San Joaquin Membership Links	Meeting Report and Commentary Transportation Agency of Monterey County 6 February 2006 Reported by Chris Flescher, Associate Director, RailPAC The status of the service to the Monterey Peninsula is that there still might be 2 trains a day running in 2009. The project is under environmental review and TAMC is examining alternatives. TAMC will be applying for FTA new starts money soon. Earlier that day (Feb 6), some TAMC staff met with the UP railroad. The first reaction of UP officials was that UP doesn't want even one train a day without some track improvements. There are 3 projects that UP is studying (Caltrain to Salinas, tourist train to Monterey, Coast Daylight) that will affect their operations in Monterey County. UP feels that the first (Caltrain to Salinas) will require the smallest amount of improvements. TAMC staff said that signaling improvements and double tracking near Aromas are two things that UP is not pushing really hard for. Signal improvements tend to be very expensive compared to projects like a small amount of double tracking. UP is very interested in a layover yard in Salinas, and Amtrak may want it too. This could be expensive and slow to build, and has a strong potential of delaying the entire project. It appears that the full yard project would cost around $10 million, but a temporary one could be built for $1 million. There are similar questions about constructing stations. It would cost about $50 million to build / fix-up all the stations that TAMC eventually wants to see, but that much money would be hard to get. Creating basic or temporary station infrastructure would allow trains to run soon and better ones could be built later. There are issues with a Castroville station. The preferred location is north of highway 156, but building one there could take 7-8 years because it requires approval of the Coastal Commission, Castroville Redevelopment Agency, and it depends of a plan for future growth in Castroville being completed. Building just to the south of the city could occur quickly but it is not a good long-term location for a station. Christina Watson of TAMC recently met with someone from FTA who deals with New Starts funding. He didn't think that a demonstation project (like one train a day, with temporary stations) would hurt TAMC getting funding for a "permanent project." Christine wants to meet with FTA regional officials (in San Francisco) to ask their opinion and wants to have TAMC staff study the issue more carefully. Apex Strategies (a consulting firm) is prepared to work on 3 major issues. 1: negotiation with UP for infrastructure improvements. 2: negotiation with Caltrain JPB and Amtrak for (I believe) working together on scheduling south of San Jose. 3: determining what all the capital needs are and how TAMC could get money for them. TAMC officials want to hire APEX to do each one, but as a separate work order. One question was this: if the negotations are still going on in June, will that affect the sales tax referendum (county-wide, for transportation) ? It doesn't seem likely to be a problem, according to someone on TAMC staff. One project to work on right now is creating new diagrams for a simpler Salinas layover facility. The current design appears to be very expensive (and unaffordable). The rail policy subcommittee (the group at the meeting) approved asking the full TAMC board for money to have a meeting with UP. One thing that will make meetings more expensive is that TAMC will probably have to commute to the UP offices in Roseville. An issue that is likely to cause problems or delays in the future is dealing with the environmental issues around Elkhorn Slough. The tracks pass through the wetlands and making changes will require approval from different agencies. Meeting Report and Commentary Coast Rail Coordinating Committee 20 January 2006 Reported by Bruce Jenkins, RailPAC Director This writer was arm twisted, cajoled and dragged feet first by Art Lloyd to the CRCC Policy Luncheon mtg at Mission Bay Inn in Pebble Beach. The mtg room was oriented so that we were "forced" to observe the 7th green, with a backdrop of the white breakers and blue water of the Pacific Ocean (needless to say, my limited attention span was further impaired). Overall, this was one of the better mtgs of this group, obviated by the "upbeat mood" of chair Pete Rodgers. Reason: there could be funding on the horizon. Highlights: A resolution will go out to the legislaters for the Coast Daylight to be in the '07 budget. A chicken/egg paradox exists because we can't get state fund for RR improvements till we have an operating train in place. UP will not allow another passenger train to operate till rail improvements have been made. Solving this dilemma is first priority. These improvements are between SLO and SJC and include lengthening sidings, adding switches and signals. Interagency transfer passes are in the works for Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties (Amtrak/Local agencies). With 96 trains per day Caltrain slots are full up. The Daylight will have to take a "Baby Bullet" slot. Liz O'Donoghue of Amtrak reported on the Amtrak operations (already covered by Russ Jackson's report on SJVRC). There is $125m for new cars (36) and Locomotives (6). This order may be combined with several other state agencies to leverage a better price . Basic design is similar to Surfliner (Cal Car 2). Our design inputs are requested. Tom Mulligan of the UP reported that the "slow orders" between Moorpark and SLO are now lifted.
	Photos and copy on this site are the property of RailPAC. Reproduction of anything on this site requires the permission of RailPAC. Copyright © 2007, Citizens For Rail California, Inc.