HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12171991 - TC.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contranr,�}tra
FROM: „ Transportation Committee `.� (�JJIa
.�.,
DATE: December 9, 1991nty
r C!...
SUBJECT Report on the Alameda - Contra Costa. Rail Corridor
Consolidation Study
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND
JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) -Accept findings of "Fatal Flaw" Analysis for the Alameda -
Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study (see Exhibit
A) , . and approve continuation of the next study phase.
2) Direct the Director of Public Works to submit the required
work program to the appropriate agencies so that Petroleum
Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) funds, in an amount not to
exceed $30, 000, can be used to complete the remaining phase of
the• Rail Corridor Consolidation Study.
3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to disburse, (upon
approval of work program by appropriate agencies) , in an
amount not to exceed $30, 000 in County, PVEA funds, to the
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for the purpose of
.completing the remaining phase of the Alameda - Contra Costa
Rail Corridor Consolidation Study .
FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no impact on the County's General Fund. Petroleum
Violation -Escrow Account (PVEA) funds, in an amount not to exceed
$30, 000, will be used.
BACKGROUND�REASONS `FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In conjunction with Alameda County and the Port of Oakland, Contra
Costa County initiated a consultant study to evaluate the
feasibility of using existing rail infrastructure of the Atchison
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway and the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company, and possibly other rail lines, to establish a consolidated
rail corridor from Stockton to Richmond and the Port of Oakland.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR x RECOMMENDATIO OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) : Tom Torlakson bert Schroder
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 17, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED Y OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �f TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED December 17, 1991
cc: Public Works Department . PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Alameda County CMA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Port of Oakland D: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
continued
The study's main focus has been to determine the economic,
environmental, and operational opportunities and constraints of
using a single rail line to carry commercial shipments for both
railways to the Port of Oakland. The overall goal of the study is
threefold: 1) increase the Port of Oakland' s competitive advantage
by increasing the number of rail carriers with direct access to the
Port; 2) reduce congestion and improve air quality on I-80 by
reducing truck . and automobile traffic; and 3) free up and/or
identify additional rail capacity for commuter rail service in the
I-80 corridor.
The study has reached a key juncture in which a- "fatal flaw"
analysis has been completed. The purpose of this analysis was to
determine if there were any issues or conditions that might halt
the continuation of the study. The study has not found any fatal
flaws. Preliminary study findings are. as .follows:
Commuter Rail
1) There is more than adequate capacity on the Southern Pacific
line between Oakland/Martinez/Port Chicago to provide rail
passenger service, including both commuter service and/or
intercity service, so long as total freight density east of
Richmond does not grow too much beyond 'current forecast
levels;
2) There are no inherent operating or engineering reasons why the
Southern Pacific right-of-way between Oakland, Richmond, and
Martinez cannot be adapted . for expanded rail passenger
service;
3) A joint use scenario for rail freight on the Southern Pacific
right-of-way between Emeryville and Richmond by both Southern
Pacific and Santa Fe is feasible even with .substantially
increased rail passenger train traffic.
Port Access
4) There are no overwhelming physical, operational, or
institutional barriers to bringing Santa Fe into the' Port of
Oakland. Southern Pacific is willing to allow Santa Fe track
use rights to get into the Port. Their willingness to allow
Santa Fe use of their tracks is conditioned on development of
a common . use facility, such as an Intermodal Container
Transfer Facility (ICTF) ,• that would give all -rail carriers
equal access to the Port. All rail carriers would terminate at
the ICTF where ship cargo would be trucked back and forth to
the docks.
Franklin Canyon
5) Passenger service on the Santa Fe line between Richmond and
Port . Chicago was ruled out because it is physically
constrained through Franklin Canyon and because it does not
directlyserve employment/population centers.
It is proposed ,that the remaining phase of this study develop
various operating scenarios for commuter rail service and a concept
plan for an ICTF. This analysis would demonstrate how commuter rail
service in this corridor could be configured and outline a concept
plan for the Port of Oakland on how the ICTF facility might
operate. This phase of the study closely parallels the
recommendations from the Contra Costa Rail Opportunities Study
(Sept. 1991) to develop a commuter rail concept for the I-80
corridor. The Transportation Committee recommends that up to
$30, 000 from the County's Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA)
fund be used to complete this remaining phase of the Alameda -
Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study. This action would
require that a work program for this remaining study phase be
submitted to Caltrans, California Energy Commission, and U.S.
Department .of Energy for their approval. Once approved, these funds
would then be disbursed to the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency which is serving as project manager for the Rail Corridor
Consolidation -Study.
t
xh�b�+
FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study
Deliverable #4
Prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates
October 15, 1991
". itSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineers-Planners
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
Task 4 Fatal Flaw Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. 1
Subtask 4a - Acceptability of Identified Alternatives to the Railroad . . . . . . . 2
Southern Pacific Transportation Company . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 2
Santa Fe Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .
Subtask 4b - Acceptability of Identified Alternatives
to the Port of Oakland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Subtask 4c - Cypress Structure Replacement . . . . . . . . . 8
Subtask 4e - Compatibility with Expanded Intercity
and Commuter Rail Passenger Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .
D-4C/340
r
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineers-Planners
TASK 4 - FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS
The analysis in this deliverable consists of six sections as follows:
Subtask 4a - Analyze Acceptability of Identified Alternatives to the Railroads
Subtask 4b - Analyze Acceptability of Identified Alternatives to the Port of Oakland
Subtask 4c - Analyze Impact of Cypress Structure Replacement
Subtask 4d - Analyze Anticipated Impact on Truck Traffic
Subtask 4e - Analyze Compatibility with Expanded Intercity and Commuter Rail Passenger
Service
Summary - Evaluation Matrix
The Fatal Flaw Analysis has been conducted following discussions with senior representatives of both
Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP) and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (Santa
Fe). In addition, the consultants have met with the representatives of the Port of Oakland sitting on the
Steering Committee of the present study to determine the Port's position on rail freight access issues.
Information regarding the Cypress Structure replacement has been obtained from sources at SP and
through the Caltrans draft EIR.
In the previous work done for this study, the consultant team and the Steering Committee jointly arrived
at the conclusion that the following issues should become the focus of the Fatal Flew Analysis.
n . o Assess expanded use of the SP line between Oakland Martinez/Port Chicago for
joint passenger and SP freight service. The passenger service could include
commute service and/or ACR-132 intercity service; capacity appears to exist to
support both types of passenger service, so long as total freight density east of
Richmond does not grow too much beyond forecast levels.
o ' Assess expanding use of the SP right-of-way between Emeryville and Richmond
to accommodate joint use by Santa Fe as well as SP freight trains, even with a
substantially increased number of passenger trains.
o Rule out the Santa Fe between Richmond and Port Chicago as a passenger line
because it is physically constrained, and because it does not directly serve
downtown Martinez. Assess continued option of Santa Fe freight trains via this
line: little is gained by transferring the Santa Fe freight to SP east of Richmond,
and the presence of Santa Fe freight on the SP line would simply hamper SP
freight and public sector passenger operations.
D-4/340 Page 1 of 12
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineers-Pianriers
o Assess any physical limitations on track capacity between Emeryville and
Oakland stemming from the 1-880 relocation project. Limits on the amount of
available land for railroad trackage could impose some .capacity constraints
affecting joint use scenarios near the Oakland terminal
These issues and options,then, are the ones that have been discussed with the railroad representatives,
with the Port, and then evaluated in light of the planning currently underway for the 1-880 Cypress
roadway replacement. d
Each of the identified options will, therefore, be discussed in its railroad, Port and Cypress context.
Subtask 4a Acceptability of Identified Alternatives to the Railroads
The identified alternatives listed previously have been discussed separately with SP and Santa Fe. We
will summarize their positions, comments and evaluations in two subsections, one for each carrier.
Southern Pacific Transportation Company
SP's response to the issues raised in this study can be divided into two 'subsets' - one related'to
passenger service, and the other related to freight service. We will outline SP's posture with respect to
each.
Passenger-Related Issues -SP agrees that there are no inherent operating or engineering reasons why
the SP right-of-way between Oakland, Richmond and Martinez cannot.. be adapted for expanded
passenger service. In addition, SP has indicated a willingness to enter discussions with responsible
public agencies for possible use of the Mococo Line east of Martinez if the public sector transportation
planning process determines that a need exists for short-haul passenger service to and from places such
as Brentwood, Byron and/or Tracy. SP's officers feel capacity currently exists even with the'present
'conventional' double-track, Automatic Block Signal-equipped rail line to implement a limited short-haul
passenger service without adversely affecting their freight service.
At higher passenger train densities, or if joint freight use by Santa Fe were to be considered practical, SP
agrees with the Consultant's assessment that capacity enhancements might be needed. these
enhancement would probably come first in the form of,improved signalling.(i.e. CTC) and only later in the
form of additional main track. In this respect, the SP's judgment coincides with that of the consultants,
and we,therefore, conclude that there are no inherent'fatal flaws'lo the prospect of expanded passenger
use of the SP line.
Freight-Related Issues-SP has indicated that it has no objection from an operating or engineering point-
of-view to sharing its Oakland-Richmond rail line with expanded use by Santa Fe freight trains. As
previously indicated in our Identification of Alternatives (Deliverable #3) and in our preceding discussion
of passenger-related issues, the joint assessment of SP and the Consultants is that capacity either exists,
(or could exist, if needed) to handle the combined demand of SP and Santa Fe freight trains, plus local
and intercity passenger trains, between Oakland and Richmond, within the limits of the existing SP right-
of-way. Thus, we conclude that purely in physical terms, there is no 'Fatal Flaw', from the SP point-of-
view, to contemplating a more direct rail access to Oakland for Santa Fe freight trains.
D-41340 Page 2 of 12
WSA
Alameda-Contra.Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation-Study - - Engineefs-Planners .
The real issues to be addressed are commercial. SP makes it very clear that they regard the Santa Fe
as a strong, able, competitor, and that as a business issue it makes little sense for SP to agree to
enhance Santa fe's competitive position at the expense of SP's own interests. Therefore, the question
of Santa Fe"rights,to points beyond Wood Street needs to be addressed-in larger terms than the merely
engineering-related issues so far identified.
We believe SP would be more receptive to expanded joint freight use of their line if the ultimate goal were
defined as enhanced service to a new, larger'common-user'ICTF that would also include Union Pacific.
From a railroad point of view, such an approach creates a•level playing field':in this context, in particular,
it avoids the sensitive issue of improving any one carrier's access to the Outer Harbor at the expense of
another's, and it also avoids the even more sensitive issue of direct rail service to 'on-dock' container
transfer points in the Outer Harbor.t
For reasons which we will discuss in the following sub-section regarding the Santa Fe position on these
issues, we conclude that there is what we will call an 'area of potential agreement' regarding expanded
joint freight use of the SP line between Oakland and Richmond, but it involves all parties subscribing to
a common facility, somewhere at the west end of West Oakland yard, and it involves finding ways to solve
such problems as internal drayage between the railhead and dockside,the location of sufficient switching
and storage trackage, questions about the operation of such a facility, and numerous other difficult policy
and procedural issues.
There is an additional point that we as the consultants feel is pertinent in light of SP's stated position on
the freight access issues; namely, the problem of what to do with the old Interurban Electric (now Oakland
Terminal) trestle.between Wood Street and Knight Yard. Our assessment is that there is probably no
great harm done if the trestle survives the 1-880 relocation, but that.it makes very little sense to spend
large amounts of public money to rebuild it. As it is, the access provided by the trestle is of limited
commercial and operating value — it cannot readily take solid container trains, it is useful only for special
cars (overweights, etc.), it could be substantially improved only at great expense and by using land
probably best used for other purposes, and if it were improved there is no guarantee that Santa Fe would
or could exploit the access without a broader agreement with SP on access rights and costs, and such
an agreement seems unlikely.
An alternative especially if common freight access to a facility near Seventh Street were a desirable goal
— would be for all carriers (including UP) to access the Outer Harbor from that direction, providing
improved trackage from the west side of relocated 1-880 for the purpose. Such an approach reduces
pressure on the available land closer to the 1-80/1-580 interchange, and it allows railcars to and from the
Outer Harbor and/or the Army Base to be handled to and from the trains of the three line-haul carriers
directly at a.major facility.
As consultants, we are NOT prepared to say that all of this is practical or do-able; to assert that would
require analysis beyond the scope of this study. However, we do believe that these concepts bear
discussion, given the position of the rail carriers, CalTrans,and the cities interested in development and/or
redevelopment.
We recognize immediately that this, in turn, creates problems for the Port and its customers-see discussion in Subtask
4b.
D41340 Page 3 of 12
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineeks-Planners
Santa Fe Railway
In addition to the alternatives described in Deliverable No. 3,the Santa Fe was asked to evaluate the Port
of Oakland alternatives - in effect, those broached to the study team by the Port itself. These consist of
a railroad-operated facility which might require interchange from Santa Fe's-existing limits of trackage
rights in Oakland, or a direct access facility, operated by the Port itself, and open to all railroads.
The Santa,Fe indicated that it has already made public its desire for an all-rail route to the Port of
Oakland. A route using its existing trackage rights over SP to Oakland, and thence direct access to a
Port-operated facility might be satisfactory. However, if substantial volumes of intermodal traffic are to be
operated directly to the port, it is unlikely that the present access to SP Sacramento Line trackage near
Stege Interlocking will be satisfactory. This route involves a lengthy movement through Santa Fe's
Richmond yard, then over an industrial yard lead, and traverses many highway crossings, all over slow-
speed trackage.
During the Santa Fe-Southern Pacific merger planning, consideration was given to establishing a new
connection where Santa Fe passes over the SP main line east of Richmond or using the Port Chicago
connection which was built for Amtrak trains. Both alternatives were rejected in favor of a connection near
Rheem, some 2,5 miles east of Richmond, where the Santa Fe Stockton Subdivision and the Southern
Pacific main line are parallel, adjacent, and at the same level. Preliminary feasibility engineering was
performed and such a connection is possible.
Should any type of arrangement be made to operate intermodal traffic over the SP to Oakland, Santa Fe
believes such service would not completely supplant the Richmond yard operation. Based on available
data, sufficient port-bound intermodal traffic exists on Santa Fe for at least one through train daily. But
the difficulty of consolidating such traffic, from diverse origins, at a point such as Barstow, might have a
negative effect on service quality.,Indeed, even if one train was comprised of solid port traffic,there would
likely be blocks and individual cars on other trains which would be destined for the port, necessitating an
ongoing sorting and forwarding process at Richmond or some other designated terminal.
Santa. Fe indicated clearly that it has no desire to eliminate either the Stockton Subdivision or the
Richmond Yard. The continuing necessity of forwarding containers or blocks to the port from Richmond
will provide a substantial 'raison d'etre' for that yard, apart from its major role for local service. Further,
since several westbound trains set out piggyback trailers for United Parcel Service at North Bay, any
rerouting of such trains would have to take into account alternative provisions.
Based on information developed from Santa Fe, we therefore conclude that:
o Providing access to the Port of Oakland by any reasonable route, and/or
rerouting Santa Fe trains over the Southern Pacific would not harm Santa Fe's
position, providing a reasonable trackage rights agreement could be obtained.
Pricing freedom would be unaffected.
D41340 Page 4 of 12
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineers-Planners
o Santa Fe would judge operating costs and reliability on a case-specific basis, but
Santa Fe feels the costs would not necessarily be a Fatal Flaw if currently
planned labor agreements could be implemented on any reroute, and if neither
the trackage rights agreements nor congestion strictures were burdensome.
0. Physical impediments to connections in the Richmond area lead the Santa Fe to
opt for a Rheem connection, if conditions are unchanged since merger studies,
and if traffic patterns can be accommodated.
o Capital costs of new connections, or improved signalling or other capacity
improvements to SP, would have to be justified by potentially rewarding service
improvements which might be afforded Santa Fe by such changes.
o Changes involving direct access to the Port of Oakland would fit in well with
Santa Fe plans; other changes would have to be examined individually; major
changes beyond direct port access, such as rerouting all traffic over SP, would
fit less comfortably. For reasons already stated, we agree with Santa Fe that it
makes little sense to reroute their freight trains over SP tracks east of Richmond.
o Direct port access would be a potent incentive to acceptance of other changes.
Whether this includes a readiness to accept changes at Wood Street is not
completely clear. Santa Fe sees no great advantage to any party in operating
either intercity or commuter trains over the Stockton Subdivision west of Port
Chicago. Likewise, Santa Fe sees no advantage to putting Santa Fe freight trains
on the SP west of Port Chicago, nor in putting SP San Joaquin Valley freight on
Santa Fe west of Port Chicago.
Subtask 4b - Acceptability of Identified Alternatives to the Port of Oakland
To assess potential.'fatal flaws'from the Port's point of view in the Corridor alternatives that have survived
to this point,,-we have proposed the following criteria:
o Do the alternatives harm the Port's ability to compete effectively against the other
Pacific Coast ports, or, do the alternatives reduce Oakland's ability to continue
its preeminent role among Bay Area ports?
o Do the alternatives impose costs upon the Port (capital or operating) which it is
likely to find unacceptable, or incompatible with its mission?
o Do the alternatives require land for rail and highway purposes that the Port will
likely want to see reserved for maritime uses?
o Do the alternatives restrict physical access to the Port in ways which the Port will
find objectionable, or contrary to the foreseeable strategy:
0-4/340 Page 5 of 12
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineers-Planners
These criteria seem to us to remain the correct ones by which to evaluate the corridor alternatives
identified so far. As with our discussion of the SP position, we will divide our discussion into passenger
and freight-related issues.
In general, our assessment of the proposed passenger uses of the SP line indicates that they will not
adversely affect the Port's rail freight interests unless the SP line is allowed to become capacity
constrained. As already discussed, this is unlikely in the near term and unnecessary if proper planning
is undertaken. Adequate main line rail capacity can exist even if passenger operations are expanded and
If the Santa Fe's Port-related freight trains use the line too. Furthermore, any passenger station facilities
in the Oakland area can doubtless be located so as to minimize or avoid interference with Port-related
rail freight traffic.
To the extent that the Port's commercial land development,objectives stimulate an interest in the location
of a passenger rail station, we believe the issues are more complex and more difficult to solve.
In the first place, our general sense is that developing local passenger. service on the SP will be more
likely to require a transfer point to BART somewhere in the vicinity of the West Oakland BART station.
Locations further east (including Jack London Square)do not provide this access; nor do locations further
north (i.e., Emeryville), although they serve inter-city passenger needs well.
Station sites between Magnolia Tower and Fifth are an operating headache for trains originating and
terminating at Oakland. While intercity service might run through to San Jose, it is unlikely that all
commute trains would--the schedule'slots'that would logically be used by.commute trains between the
north and Oakland would result in schedule patterns outside of commute hours between Oakland and
San Jose.
We do not think that the passenger station problem is necessarily a fatal flaw, from the Port's point of
view; to a productive Port participation in an,expanded.passenger system on the SP. In fact,'the Port,
along with other constituencies, benefits from the proposed realignment of the SP main tracks through
the Oakland terminal complex that is occasioned by the 1-880 replacement program.
However, we also feel that there are cost, safety, and track capacity issues that adversely affect local
passenger train use of any station site in Jack London Square unless automobile traffic on First Street is
restricted, the existing third track is adapted to provide extra capacity, and a suitable layover or storage
facility is.identified, either near Magnolia Tower or at Fifth Street (East Oakland)..
It may well be beneficial to the Port's commercial objectives to have a local passenger service, if one is
implemented, serve both a site near West Oakland BART and a site at Jack London Square. Intercity
passenger trains need not stop everywhere local trains do, and at higher intercity densities, the option
always exists to have some intercity trains stop only at certain stations. In any case, the proposed
realignment of the SP line between Emeryville and Magnolia increases track speeds sufficiently that overall
trip times will still be an improvement over those in effect today, even if an intermediate stop is added.
With respect to freight-related issues,the'consolidation'scenario proposed by the rail carriers(principally .
the SP) has both positive and negative implications for the Port's strategic objectives.
D-4/340 Page 6 of 12
WSA-
Alame. da-Contra.Costa_Rail.Corridor..Consolidation,Study__.
_-. Engineers Plariners
The Port's principal concern ought to be driven-by the nature of the rail freight facility or facilities that are—
used
reused at Oakland. If the 'railroad' view is adopted, then a consolidated common-user ICTF rail facility,
probably on 'Port' land and possibly run, as a 'neutral' terminal by the Port, .becomes the strategy to
equalize all rail carriers`access:
The problem, of course, is that this is generally not what the Port's client steamship carriers want. They
would preferthat'their'rail carriers serve on-dock or near-dock transfer facilities that are dedicated to the
needs of the particular carrier. Since other West Coast ports, particularly Long-Beach and Seattle, are
responding to steamship carriers' preferences for these individual terminals, the Port of Oakland's
competitive posture is affected by this facility 'marketplace'.-
There may be a way for the Port of Oakland to engineer a rail/water transfer facility acceptable to the
steamship carriers,supported by a system of internal roadways free of normal highway weight restrictions,
and with operating costs and customer responsiveness similar to that the steamship carriers.seek in their
single-user near-dock facilities. If such a strategy can be developed, our sense is that all three railroads
could eventually be convinced to participate, and that steel-wheel access,via SP lines both north and east
of the West Oakland rail terminal facilities, is a realistic possibility.
In the absence of such a strategy, it seems likely tows that fret tit consolidation is a long way off. From
Santa Fe's point of view, the drayage to and from Richmond is not so onerous that the railroad must rid
itself of the burden. The Richmond facility must remain in any case, and the volume of truck traffic is not
so great that it is the crucial factor in congestion on 1-80. From SP's point of view, no strategy that
improves Santa Fe's commercial position is likely to be acceptable. from the Port's point of view, the
question is less likely to be what satisfies the railroads than what satisfies the steamship carriers, and the
steamship carriers.are more likely to hold out for facility arrangements that maximize their control over
their business than they are to be willing participants in a Port-designed script for a common-user facility.
In sum, then, our assessment is that freight consolidation of Southern Pacific and Santa Fe operations
between Richmond and Oakland is�feasible if the Port and its customers are interested in all carriers
serving a modern, common-user ICTF in West Oakland.
If the Port follows this course, developing such a facility will impose costs upon the Port that it does not
now pay. In terms of the evaluation criteria used in this study, these costs are not incompatible with the
Port's maritime mission, but they are an economic factor to be considered, liven the Port's competitive
stance, and given the public benefits of the proposed freight consolidation.
Creating a rail facility on terms that would induce the carriers to participate collectively would certainly
require land that is not presently used for rail purposes. This land could probably be provided without
detriment to the Port's dockside maritime activities —the Miller Study suggests the Naval Supply parcel,
for example, as backland for a.rail ICTF. Concentrating the rail freight activities may actually save
dockside land for maritime uses that might otherwise be diverted to support rail and/or trucking activity,
so there could be land use benefits to the Port from a consolidated freight scheme.
2 These benefits are not large. See discussion in Subtask 4d.
0-4/340 Page 7 of 12
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineers-Planners
Finally, creating a new rail facility probably would restrict rail access to certain areas of the Port in the
sense that fewer physical routes would remain.*This would particularly be true if the Interurban Electric
trestle were eliminated in the Cypress replacement work,and not replaced. But access,in the commercial
sense, would not be encumbered — all carriers could have joint access to the Outer Harbor via Seventh
Street, over common trackage.
Thus, we find that there are few physical impediments to creation of a Port-related facilities plan that
promotes rail consolidation, and that the carriers might eventually find acceptable. The real issues are
related to the Port's commercial.strategy, and to the extent this strategy is incompatible with a new,
common-user rail facility, then the freight consolidation scenario postulated in this analysis is unlikely to
happen.
Subtask 4c - Cypress Structure Replacement
The previous work performed in this study developed a schematic layout of the rail trackage that is likely
to remain if the 1-880 highway is placed through portions of SP's Desert and West.Oakland yards as
proposed in Caltrans' draft EIR.
This reconfiguration of 1-880 has important implications for the rail issues addressed in this study. Again,
the impacts are of two kinds — those that affect expanded passenger service, and those that affect
expanded freight use of the SP tracks.
Passenger Impacts The proposed new alignment for the SP main tracks between Emeryville and
Magnolia Tower will improve track speeds for passenger trains. The present railroad curve at Seventh
and Bay Streets would be eased and speeds would increase from 10 MPH to 50 MPH. In addition, as
previously discussed, the opportunity would be created to set aside land for a passenger station in the
vicinity of the west end of Third Street, near the West Oakland BART station.
Our assessment of the track and signal system proposed for the realigned SP right-of-way is that
improvements to both will increase the overall capacity'of the main tracks, and make them more attractive
for expanded passenger use.
Freight Impacts -The biggest impact the Cypress replacement will have on the freight system is that the
SP will lose most of its Oakland yard trackage. With the decline in *boxcar' business, and the reduction
in switching activity at the Oakland yard in recent years, the loss of conventional yard trackage poses.
relatively few operating problems, although SP proposes to create several long lead tracks on the west
side of the relocated main lines, and these lead tracks will be in the way both of any potential access to
the Outer Harbor from the vicinity of the 1-80/1-580 interchange, and in the way of a potential passenger
facility near the interchange in Emeryville.
The loss of yard capacity constrains any freight consolidation scenario, because there is now less land
to use to store the railcars once unloaded while they await reloading. Thus, the Cypress relocation does
adversely affect the Port's land resources, should the Port wish to develop an ICTF along the lines of the
plan discussed in the Miller Study, and alluded to in Subtask 4b, above.
D-4/340 Page 8 of 12
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study _ _Englnecrs 6 ners
Our initial assessment is that the land constraints imposed by the 1-880 relocation are not a'fatal flaw' in
a freight consolidation scheme. The Cypress replacement makes the problem more difficult, but not
impossible, to solve.
The Santa Fe facility at Wood Street is spared by the Cypress plan in its present form. However, the
relocation project leaves the operation there in an awkward place, rather cut off.from the logical origin and
destination of the Santa Fe freight cars thatare handled there. It isn't necessary to move the activity, and
finding suitable replacement trackage would be difficult in any case, so it will probably stay where it is.
But it is difficult to see why Santa Fe would object to the activity moving elsewhere if suitable
arrangements could be agreed to that would not increase the carrier's costs. Southern Pacific can be
expected to oppose any-Cypress-related changes at Wood Street that would improve Santa Fe's
competitive arrangements.
Subtask 4d - Anticipated Impact on Truck Traffic
About 60 percent of the Port's container business currently moves to and from points that are within
'trucking distance': Compared to this volume,the number_ of containers being drayed to and from Santa
Fe's Richmond facility is verysmall. In:addition, the total volume of trucks using 1-80 between Oakland
and Richmond is much larger still, since it includes.all the non-Port-related private and common carrier
trucking activity,not simply the Port-related trucking.
Thus our conclusion is that even if the Santa Fe's.Port of Oakland intermodal business were completely
diverted to an all-rail handling between Richmond and Oakland,the benefits to.the highway system would
be negligible — measurable, perhaps, but inconsequential in terms of regional traffic abatement or air
quality improvement efforts.
The impact of using the SP rail line for commuter service would probably have greater public benefits, in
terms of reducing vehicle use, than would creating,a consolidated-freight operation. At this point, we
cannot quantify the trade-offs, but it may be worth pointing out that any rail passenger service that would
logically be implemented on the SP would serve areas well east of Richmond. Consequently, the
passenger service would take a larger number of vehicles per day off 1-80 than the freight consolidation
would take off trucks (although truck emissions are significantly higher than automobiles), and the
passenger service would reduce vehicle miles by a much greater number, because the average
passenger trip length would be much longer.
This is not to rule out freight consolidation in favor of passenger use. We have already said that capacity
could exist to do both. However, we do believe that the costs of freight consolidation cannot be justified
solely by calculating the public benefits of reduced truck traffic on 1-80.
Subtask 4e - Compatibility with Expanded Intercity and Commuter Rail Passenger Service
As we have already indicated in our discussion of Southern Pacific's attitude toward passenger use of
their line, we do not perceive that there are any fatal flaws to the public sector considering potential uses
for the SP line, provided that such planning provides for adequate capital investment when train densities
dictate it, and providing that any proposed use of the SP adequately compensate the railroad for the use
of their plant..
D-4/340 Page 9 of 12
- f
.. T.VA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineers-Planners
There are, in SP's judgment,several passenger-related issues in addition to those connected to the 1-880
relocation,- and to the proposed rebuilding of SP trackage between Emeryville and Oakland.
In connection with the expansion of the Capitol Corridor (ACR-132) passenger service, Caltrans and
Amtrak have begun a search for a station site north of Oakland to replace Oakland's.16th Street Station.
One such hypothetical location is in Emeryville, near Powell Street and the new commercial development
in that area.. Such a site expedites the travel time of intercity passengers destined to•or from San
Francisco via the Oakland-Bay Bridge, but the physical location of a station at that site, or one nearby,
adversely affects SP's plans to construct several long lead tracks on the,west side of the existing main
lines. These lead tracks are required to replace yard tracks in Desert Yard which-will be lost to the
Cypress replacement, if Caltrans' plan moves forward as presently proposed.
Our assessment is that this problem is not a Fatal Flaw in planning for passenger use of the SP route.
We would agree in principle that the intercity service would benefit from a transfer point north of Oakland;
it may also be that any local service will also benefit from providing access to development planned for
and by the City of Emeryville. After all, this is an area with considerable job-generation potential that is
not served by BART..
We are not prepared to recommend a *solution* to passenger needs at Emeryville, but we would agree
with SP's assessment that any solution needs to recognize the requirements of the freight service,which
will be much more radically affected by.the Cypress replacement, as described in our .Subtask 4c
discussion.
Besides Southern Pacific, the consultants also interviewed Amtrak and Caltrans.as part of the Subtask
4e work, with the following results:
Amtrak - Amtrak's views reflected reasonable contentment with the status quo, and 'benign disinterest
in improvements to rail access to the Port of Oakland (apart from a.position generally favoring rail
improvements).
Amtrak indicated that the first setof three additional round trips to be placed in service under ACR-132
should appear in the near future, operating over the SP between Sacramento`and Oakland, with
continuation to San Jose. Current capacity on this line is sufficient to handle these trains absent major
capital investment.
The second set of three additional round.trips proposed is believed to be a year or two behind the first,
and Amtrak states that while existing capacity might be sufficient for these trains as well as the first
increment, this issue has certainly not been resolved with SP. The likely improvements needed at the time
that capacity saturation of the existing double track, ABS signalled route, is reached, would be installation
of CTC and a major rail relay program. Amtrak speculates that this may cost between$10 and S15 million
for passenger-related improvements, although Amtrak stressed that this was an uneducated guess which
might well be low. .
Amtrak was concerned about the earlier alternative considered in this study in which all Santa Fe freight
trains would operate over the Sacramento line between Martinez (From Port Chicago) and Richmond, as
this might absorb capacity before any of the ACR-132 trains were added. Apart from the addition of ACR-
D-4/340 Page 10 of 12
I'
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor.Consolidation StudyEngineers-planners
132 trains, however,Amtrak's existing service would not likely be affected by any of the alternatives which
left Amtrak trains on their present route.
Amtrak sees no advantage in moving the San Joaquin trains to the Santa Fe Stockton Subdivision
between Port Chicago and Richmond, and the loss of Martinez as a station stop (especially important for
connections) was seen as a distinct disadvantage.
Amtrak expressed no opinion regarding the addition of commute service to either the Santa Fe or the
Southern Pacific but did indicate that the frequency of local services on the SP route once the ACR-132
trains are in operation would be such that they would in effect be providing a long distance commute
service,with stops.at Oakland Berkeley, Richmond, Martinez(and possibly elsewhere)within this corridor.
No mention was made of scheduling or pricing incentives to commuter travel on these trains.
Reviewing the fatal flaw criteria, the following was developed from our discussions with Amtrak:
o Amtrak sees no potential harm to their business in any alternative except that
which would saturate the SP with freight traffic to the possible detriment of
passenger trains.
o Reliability might be affected as indicated above, but no change in operating costs
is expected under any alternatives.
o Amtrak sees no physical impediments to any alternatives which leave passenger
trains on their present routing; a change for San Joaquin trains to the Santa Fe
Stockton Subdivision would leave Martinez station unserved, and any change
requiring ACR-132 trains to use the Stockton Subdivision would be clearly
infeasible due to the lack of a suitable route for construction between the Suisun
Straits bridge and-the Santa Fe line.
o Amtrak does not envisage burdensome capital costs for any feasible alternative.
Future costs to upgrade the SP would likely be advanced to an earlier time
should greater freight traffic be added, due to both added traffic and increased.
rate.of rail wear.
0 Amtrak sees no difficulties in managing any of the alternatives which would be
considered feasible. .
o Joint facility use.involving Amtrak is hardly ever seen as a problem by Amtrak
it is often the freight carriers which are concerned about the quality of service
they perform when on a route used by numerous Amtrak trains. However, it is
likely that a partnership of Amtrak, State and railroads, with carefully crafted
benefits to all, would be acceptable to all.
Caltrans - Caltrans indicated that there might be as many as ten round trips added in the near term to
the Capitol Corridor, along with the possibility of a total of four or five San Joaquin rounds trips per day
if present plans are consummated.
04/340 Page 11 of 12
WSA
Alameda-Contra Costa Rail Corridor Consolidation Study Engineers-Planners
Caftrans' overriding consideration in any Alameda-Contra Costa corridor consolidation is to preserve
passenger capacity on routes required by their long-term plans. Freight considerations are said to be
primarily linked with revisions to the Cypress Corridor in Oakland. In effect, Caltrans' role as.a highway
department, in rebuilding the Cypress corridor, will dictate its stance on the rail freight access to the Port
of Oakland. Division of Rail believes that a Cypress alignment has already been locked in,which, in tum,
will determine to a targe extent the character of possible improvements to port rail access from the north
via Southern Pacific (see our previous discussion).
Caltrans has no stance on the Santa Fe Stockton Subdivision west of Port Chicago. Its position on the
SP line is roughly analogous to that of Amtrak.. Most of its current planning and negotiations revolve .
around improvements between Oakland and San Jose, and long-term improvements to the SP are in the
discussion stage. No firm plans have yet been made for reverse signalling or track improvements, largely
because of the uncertainty of the scheduling of ACR-132 train additions (and the likelihood that large
scale traffic increases are still several years away).
Caltrans had no position on commuter service over either the SP or Santa Fe routes west of Port Chicago.
Caltrans has gone on record that commuter services are within the purview of local entities, and that it
will play no role.
We therefore conclude that Caltrans' position is:
o An officially impartial position on competitive aspects of potential changes. While
much of Caltrans is concerned with highway improvements, the Division of Rail,
of course, performs an ombudsman role for the rail mode.
o It has no views on operating costs or reliability of the various alternatives.
o Physical attributes were not discussed by Caltrans except insofar as the changes
_to the Cypress corridor would affect yard and track alignment in the Oakland
area, and since these changes are not being imposed by the Division of Rail, no .
comments were made.
o Capital costs for improvements to expedite the flow of increased traffic on the SP
are clearly within the purview of Caltrans, and will likely be addressed in coming
years, as details of proposed traffic increases come more sharply into focus. No
improvements are contemplated to the Santa Fe Stockton Subdivision.
o Caltrans would take an active role in seeking to make changes more palatable
to all carriers if it perceived that greater passenger capacity, within budget,would
result.
D-4/340 Page 12 of 12