Successfully planning and implementing railroad infrastructure projects that require major service disruptions - A case study examination

Transcription

1 Successfully planning and implementing railroad infrastructure projects that require major service disruptions - A case study examination ABSTRACT: Thomas C. Cornillie, AICP Thomas Cornillie Independent Scholar Independent Consultant Alameda, California Publications@ThomasCornillie.com John P. Eschenbach Sr. Project Manager J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc. 725 Town & Country Rd. Suite 300 Orange, CA (714) JEschenbach@JLPatterson.com (Word count: 4,314) The renewed relevance of railways in addressing local, regional, and national transportation challenges has brought to the fore a need to augment capacity while remaining within right-of-way envelopes established more than a century ago. The construction of new interlockings, main tracks, and bridges in addition to the out of face renewal of existing infrastructure has both increased the capacity of existing lines and facilitated the development of new services. Taking track out of service to allow for construction activities, a practice variously referred to as an absolute work window outage or engineering possession, has always been a priority for project managers. Work window outages represent a focal point for projects; minimizing them requires that equipment and material staging, as well as environmental mitigation and permit requirements, be integrated into the project s overall critical path. The demand for new infrastructure has brought with it increased scrutiny of outages required for new services. In the United States, the per-hour revenue potential that private freight railroads assign to a main line often exceeds $1 million. Moreover, for lines hosting passenger services, service outages can result adversely affect ridership. Together, these two factors have raised the visibility of service outage planning and increased the external attention given to engineers and project developers. This paper examines capacity improvements undertaken in Southern California as case studies. Each case details the strategies used to address and overcome context-specific challenges, specific actions taken, and the results that were produced. Together, they AREMA

2 underscore the importance of capable project planning and management in striking a balance between minimizing service outages and facilitating the critical path of complex projects. KEY WORDS Absolute Work Window (AWW) Construction Management Commuter Rail Engineering Possession Infrastructure Intercity Passenger Rail LOSSAN Corridor Project Management Service Outage Strategic Planning INTRODUCTION In the United States, railroad service has regained visibility as an indispensable part of the nation s transportation system. Globalization, shifts in energy production, and the overall expansion of the nation s population and economy have placed new demands on the nation s railroad system. The railroad industry has risen to meet this challenge by bringing forth technologies and operating practices that have made it possible to obtain greater productivity from existing infrastructure. However, new operations and operating patterns have made it necessary to add capacity to existing lines. Adding capacity under traffic has presented both opportunities and challenges to the industry. Sustained increases in freight traffic, passenger ridership, and increasing congestion provides added confidence capital projects to expand capacity will be used to their full potential throughout their design life. Conversely, new traffic has also increased the value placed on capacity raising the opportunity cost of taking infrastructure out of service for maintenance or capacity improvements (1). This paper examines, as case studies, three infrastructure projects in Southern California completed as part of a program of infrastructure designed to add capacity to a rail corridor to accommodate increased passenger service while maintaining the quality of freight service. These case studies bring forward the coordination between railroad operations, engineering requirements, regulations, and multiple public and private stakeholders that are necessary to successfully deliver a project. A Note on Terminology Halting service for capital improvements is called by a variety of names. In Britain, the term engineering possession is the standard term of art. In North America, the terms curfew, outage, or service interruption are frequently used. For the context of this paper, the term absolute work window (AWW) will be used. 362 AREMA 2013

3 AWWs are a focal point in project plans requiring project managers to consider a broad range of issues before deciding on a plan of action. While the goal is to minimize the length of any service impacts, this must be balanced against engineering necessity, project budget, and the environment in which projects are situated. CORRIDOR OVERVIEW Each of the case studies examined in this paper are located on LOSSAN corridor in Southern California. The name LOSSAN is an acronym representing the joint powers authority of the major cities served by the corridor. (Los Angeles San Diego San Luis Obispo). The three case studies in this paper are located on the Los Angeles San Diego portion of the LOSSAN corridor where 84-percent of railroad infrastructure is owned by four governmental entities and administered by two agencies operating commuter rail services (Metrolink and the North [San Diego] County Transit District respectively.) The remaining railroad infrastructure is owned by the BNSF Railway. Historically, the entirety of the corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego was owned by Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (AT&SF). Trackage from Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo is owned by the Union Pacific Railroad, successor to the Southern Pacific Railroad. The majority of commuter, intercity passenger, and freight service is located between Los Angeles and San Diego. The development and completion of projects on the LOSSAN corridor as a whole, and in the segment between Los Angeles and San Diego in particular, has been facilitated by sustained planning activities. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has led planning activities and provided for the coordinating of funding for capital projects on the LOSSAN corridor. The creation of long range plans and the advance completion of environmental clearance has provided a basis to engage multiple stakeholders in a discussion over how to accommodate growing intercity and commuter passenger service in conjunction with freight service. This advanced organization and consensus building provided a platform for future progress as funding becomes available from regional, state, and federal sources. Major Planning Accomplishments in this corridor include: 2007 SANDAG 2030 Regional Transportation Plan 2007 Program Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement (Los Angeles to San Diego) 2009 San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project Prioritization Analysis The 2009, San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project Prioritization Analysis examined and ranked 40 individual infrastructure projects including double tracking, bridge replacements, and station improvements prioritized into near-term, mid-term & long-term projects as part of a wider study of regional transportation needs (2). A cost benefit analysis using input from multiple stakeholders and a capacity analysis carried out using AREMA

4 Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) software was used to assign a ranking to each project. Of the 40 projects the Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project was ranked 6 th. The Oceanside Passing Track and Bridge Replacement project was completed in 2009 and was not ranked by this study. The San Mateo Bridge Replacement at Trestles Beach also was not ranked as it is not classified as a capacity improvement. Standards for Planning Absolute Work Windows The AWWs used for the case studies described in this paper were arranged under the following guidelines: As a matter of policy, the North [San Diego] County Transit District (NCTD) requires 30 days advance notice to provide information to passengers on its Coaster commuter trains of service disruption. Additionally NCTD, as the property owner and holder of trackage rights agreements, provides notice to the other entities operating over its trackage as well as to its forces operating the NCTD Coaster commuter rail service. BNSF Railway allows AWWs provided that an advance request of 72 hours is given by NCTD in order to accommodate changes to its freight service. Amtrak requires a minimum of 30 days advance notice from NCTD in order to incorporate the service disruption notice into its reservation system. This process has been revised with the adoption of Board Policy #23 by NCTD in October, A key element of the revised policy includes the use of a master schedule of available work windows that reflecting peak passenger traffic demand periods on the corridor. Profile of Freight and Passenger Traffic: Intercity and Commuter Rail Service Amtrak Amtrak operates 22 Pacific Surfliner trains per day on weekdays and 24 per day on weekends. Trains run from San Diego northward to Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo a distance of 351 miles. This is the busiest corridor in the state of California and has the highest ridership of any intercity passenger rail corridor outside of the Northeast. At the time these projects were undertaken the service was managed by Caltrans, with guidance provided by the LOSSAN joint powers authority with its membership representing the geographic areas covered by the service. North County Transit District (San Diego Oceanside commuter rail operated under the Coaster service mark) NCTD s Coaster serves 8 stations located between Oceanside and San Diego. The service provided 22 Coaster trains per day, Monday through Friday, with additional service to coincide with Padres baseball games in San Diego on Friday nights from April through September. Eight trains are scheduled to operate on Saturday. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Los Angeles regional railroad service operating under the service Metrolink.) 364 AREMA 2013

5 Metrolink operates 12 trains per day, Monday through Friday, from Oceanside to points north, including Anaheim and Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal. No weekend service is provided Freight Service BNSF Railway The BNSF Railway has rights to freight traffic over the entire Los Angeles San Diego portion of the LOSSAN corridor, which it retained when the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway sold portions of the corridor to public interests in the early 1990s. 4 to 6 freight trains per day are operated 7 days per week. Pacific Sun Railway The Pacific Sun Railway (a subsidiary of the Watco companies) provides local freight service between Stuart Mesa and Escondido, serving shippers on the former AT&SF Escondido branch which now serves as the route of the NCTD Sprinter diesel light-rail service. CASE STUDY I - OCEANSIDE PASSING TRACK Description of project scope: Project Dates: September 17, 2007 February 15, 2009 Value: $13.2 million. (including $1.0 million for design) Principal Elements. o 1.4 miles of track, connecting to an existing siding to create 2.5 miles of two main tracks. o #11 crossover, #24 turnout, relocated interlocking, o Replacement of an existing 87-year old wood trestle with two 5- span concrete bridges, in length that would accommodate the existing main track and a new second main track. The design and engineering of this project is covered in detail in a 2009 paper by John P. Eschenbach and Mitchell A. Alderman (3). The information here provides additional insight into project planning and execution that was not included in that paper. Project Context This project was situated at Oceanside, which is the terminus for the NCTD s Coaster commuter rail service to San Diego, and Metrolink s Orange County Line to Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal. NCTD s trains deadhead from this point north to their shops and yard located at Stuart Mesa, adjacent to the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Oceanside became a bottleneck on this segment of the corridor following the inauguration of the Metrolink and Coaster commuter services. Terminating two commuter rail services at a station without stub tracks posed a challenge for dispatchers who also had to accommodate Amtrak Surfliner trains stopping at the station as well as the periodic passage of freight trains. This project would provide for additional capacity AREMA

6 and flexibility in managing traffic at this location. Additionally, this project was being completed in advance of the Sprinter diesel light rail service that would connect Oceanside with Escondido and would require dedicated trackage into the Oceanside station. The replacement of the twin timber trestles crossing Loma Alta creek brought with it significant regulatory scrutiny. This is a tidal creek, providing habitat to several species subject to attention by state and federal regulatory agencies. Ultimately concerns about the potential environmental impact of this project required that project managers provide specific details about the work to be carried out in the creek-bed for approval prior to construction. Additionally, the creek was subject to flash flooding during winter storm events. Project Management The funding and project management structure of this project provides insight into the complexity of intercity passenger rail in California. At this time NCTD owned the trackage through its subsidiary, San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR). Amtrak, in addition to being the operator of the Pacific Surfliner service, had a contract with NCTD to provide on-call engineering services. Under this contract, Amtrak provided a comprehensive suite of professional services that included procurement, contract administration, project management, and construction management for the Oceanside Passing Track project. Funding was provided by Caltrans and administered through its Division of Rail headquartered in Sacramento. Design services were provided by J. L. Patterson and Associates, Inc and construction services were provided by Kiewit Infrastructure West. Actions The majority of tasks for this project were carried out under Form B protection detailed in the General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR), allowing work to proceed during daytime hours without service disruption. However, replacing two in-service bridges posed planning challenge. This was resolved with a phasing plan that constructed the second main track and used it as a shoo-fly along with a new #24 crossover (at the new CP Longboard) and a new #11 crossover. 3 AWWs were used to accomplish these tasks. The first AWW was used to install the No. 24 (left hand) turnout at CP Longboard. The second AWW was coordinated with a weekend-long AWW was used to install a No. 11 crossover at CP Escondido Jct. NCTD scheduled this AWW to simultaneously complete a bridge deck replacement over the San Luis Rey River (1.5 miles from CP Escondido Jct.). The final AWW was used to create the shoofly over the first new bridge. For each AWW, bus bridges were established between the Irvine station and points south during to accommodate passengers on Amtrak s Pacific Surfliner service. 366 AREMA 2013

7 Results Two unforeseen events arose in the course of this project. First, the temporary crossing of the creek proved to be unsuitable for meeting the intense creek flows resulting from heavy rain events in winter. Subsequent disruptions were prevented by closely monitoring weather forecasts and suspending the use of the temporary creek crossing when rain was forecast. Another event occurred during pile driving for the bridge serving Main Track 1, which occurred after the opening of the bridge for Main Track 2. The pile driving caused a pier to shift creating a horizontal deviation in track alignment. However, service continued under a 30 mph slow-order, until repairs were undertaken. Despite these unexpected challenges, this project was completed ahead of schedule, within budget, with no injuries or accidents. Effective management of construction forces and communications with the operating entities over the line prevented significant disruption to railroad operations or the construction timeline. CASE STUDY II CARLSBAD DOUBLE TRACK AND BRIDGE PROJECT Description of project scope: Project Dates: October, 2010 January 2012 Value: $18.9 million total (including reimbursable elements and design) Principal Elements: o Aqua Hedionda Bridge: from back to back of new abutment, center span directly over the lagoon itself. o 1.9 miles of new main track (combined with previously created projects, this created a 5.1 mile segment of double track mainline by connecting two existing control points(cp). o The project also installed one new control point, and modified an existing control point by installing four No. 24 turnouts to create a universal crossover. o Installation of two grade crossings for minor-arterial streets and a private grade crossing for a San Diego Gas & Electric power plant that was adjacent to the project site. The design and engineering of this project was covered in detail in a paper for the 2012 AREMA annual conference by John P. Eschenbach and Michael Albanese (4). The project development process was covered in a paper by Thomas C. Cornillie held at the same conference (5). The information here provides additional insight into project planning and execution that was not included in those works. Project Context The project is situated on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, spanning Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. The project would construct a second bridge carrying a new main track spanning the Lagoon s connection to the ocean. AREMA

8 Project Management The project was constructed by Amtrak on trackage owned by NCTD. Amtrak would take financial responsibility for the project and provided its own staff to manage construction activities and procurement. Construction services were provided by Kiewit Infrastructure West with J. L. Patterson and Associates, Inc. providing design services and assistance with utility accommodation and cutovers. Actions This project was constructed in two concurrent phases, which reflected limitations on the funding attached to the project. The first phase of the project lasted from October 4, 2010 to December 30, 2010, with the second phase beginning on January 1, Most work would be carried out under GCOR Form B protection which allowed the majority of tasks to be completed during daylight hours under traffic with flag protection and work limits. However, AWWs would be needed for project elements that needed to be cut-over into the existing mainline and train control system. These would be planned in January, 2010 and incorporated into bid plans and project instructions. The AWW schedule was developed in coordination with other projects occurring on the corridor. Pre-existing relationships between project managers, and the entities providing freight and passenger service allowed for the scheduling of service outages with the greatest possible lead time. This gave adequate time for communications with passengers and for planning substitute bus services. Three AWWs were scheduled for nighttime, outside of the time that Coaster and Amtrak services were scheduled to operate. The AWW schedule also included multiple work elements in order to use each window to its greatest effectiveness. The first AWW was used to set the main (100 ) bridge spans and install a #24 Turnout for the new CP Carl. Other AWWs were used for installing grade crossings in order to minimizing disruptions to local traffic. The last major construction element involved the cut-over of the new turnouts and main track into the train control system. Collaboration between two other projects on the corridor managed by Metrolink and SANDAG made it possible to create a maintenance blitz. This single 54-hour AWW, between 11:00PM Friday on January 6 and 5:00 AM Monday January 9, 2012 accommodated three projects: a rail transposition on the single track portion of Miramar hill and the replacement of 2 single span timber trestles and one timber box culvert in southern Orange County. Results Delays in obtaining permits and securing agreements could have pushed the project timeline outside the limits attached to its funding sources, which could have resulted in a cancellation of the entire project. In this case, challenges presented by delays in pre- 368 AREMA 2013

9 construction activities were overcome through close cooperation between Amtrak s field engineering staff and the project developer (who was based in Oakland, CA). Most of the project s construction was carried out with the line operating under traffic. However, ensuring that all staff on site adhered to RWP and GCOR rules was key in preventing any unplanned incursions onto active track. The work was scheduled to take place during winter, when Southern California typically experiences heavy rainfall events. Steps taken to mitigate soil erosion allowed work to proceed without delay and prevented disruption to sensitive environmental areas. This project opened to traffic on the morning of Monday, January nearly two months ahead of schedule. It would ultimately be closed-out under budget. CASE STUDY III SAN MATEO BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT TRESTLES BEACH Description of project scope: Project Dates: Sep 2010 to Feb Work was not carried on continuously because of environmental mitigation efforts Context Value: $8 million Principal Elements: Replace a 532 single-track wood trestle located on a curve The bridge replaced in this project has served as the gateway to and appellation for an area of San Clemente State Beach that is renowned for consistent wave patterns that are ideal for surfing. Trestles, as this beach is known, is regarded as one of the birthplaces of surfing as a sport and it continues to draw surfers from around the world. The beach attracts approximately 2 million visitors each year, two-thirds of which visit between late May and early October. This project would replace 532 of a 1,012 bridge. The remaining portions of the bridge, are through plate girder spans, a span wood trestle, and a span concrete trestle that would not be affected by this project. The location of the bridge, at milepost 207.6, is near the San Diego / Orange County boundary. This boundary also serves as the boundary between trackage owned by NCTD and that owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority and administered by Metrolink. The project site is on the northern boundary of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton occupies the largest area of undeveloped coastline in Southern California. This lack of development provides the LOSSAN corridor with the longest stretch of mainline running without a stop (21 miles), providing trains an opportunity to sustain running at the maximum track speed of 90 MPH. Because the project site is on a single track portion of the corridor, any AWW that would stray outside its schedule would interrupt all rail service. AREMA

10 Project Management This project was led by SANDAG which has had a leading role in planning and developing infrastructure projects on the portion of the LOSSAN corridor in San Diego County. Through SANDAG s procurement, HDR was selected to provide design services, Flatiron/Herzong JV for construction services. J. L. Patterson and Associates, Inc. provided bridge installation oversight on behalf of NCTD as required by 49 CFR 237 (which is administered by the FRA). Amtrak, through its on-call engineering services contract with NCTD, provided support services including AWW management, track inspection, railroad flagging, jobsite safety management, and coordination of Form B protection. Actions The project plan was crafted to work within a series of constraints. This project, as with the other sites discussed in this paper, is situated amidst plant and animal species that are regarded as significant to the local ecosystem by regulatory agencies. The environmentally sensitive areas around the site necessitated establishing a 100 corridor (50 from the track center on each side of the ROW). All construction activities were prohibited between February and the end of August so as to not interfere with the nesting season of the California Gnatcatcher. A barrier would also be erected along the San Mateo creek to prevent and a species of toads from entering the worksite. The measures protecting these species were specified in the projects environmental permits. Finally, pedestrian access to the beach would need to be maintained during all phases of the project. Project Plan The first phase of work consisted of site preparation and the erection of cast-in-drilledhole (CIDH) piles with caps beneath the existing structure. 19 CIDH piles and bent caps would be constructed in total. Their positions were offset from the 38 existing 6-pile wood bents that supported 14 wood spans. This work was carried out during daylight hours with Form B protection securing crews from passing trains. The next phase of work would use AWWs to demolish the existing wood structure and install precast and prestressed box girders to support the track structure. The resulting plan divided work in to three parts, each of which would occur within 3 54-hour work windows carried out over 3 consecutive weekends. In total, the project would consist of the removal of 38 existing timber bridge spans in their entirety (including deck timbers, stringers, pile caps, and piles to 3 feet below existing ground line), walkways, handrails, track ballast, and other hardware. This would be replaced with 28-foot pre-cast and pre-stressed concrete box girder spans supported by cast-in-place concrete bent caps on a cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) foundation. Pre-cast concrete components were used for the abutment back-wall and wing-walls. The bridge deck would be accompanied with new metal walkways and 370 AREMA 2013

11 handrails. Existing rail, ties, and other track material would be replaced with new stock. Work on each AWW was divided as follows. Replacement and Removal of 12 timber trestle bents, spans, and one timber abutment with concrete components, for a total of 168, was carried out during the first AWW. 18 timber trestle bents and spans, for a total of 252, were removed and replaced with the second AWW. Eight timber trestle bents and spans, for a total of 112, were removed and replaced during the final AWW. In terms of the distribution of activity across the each AWW work was divided approximately with 1/3 rd of the time devoted of the existing track and bridge structure, 1/3 rd for constructing the new bridge structure, and 1/3 rd for building new track. The work plan included specific notes on the identification of environmentally sensitive areas that were off limits. Advance planning for demolition, lifting, and loading of bridge components to be removed helped to prevent incursions into environmentally sensitive areas caused by crane swing and outrigger extensions while providing for maximum efficiency in force deployment. Plans for vehicle staging and materials loading was pre-determined and included in the overall project plan in order to work within the tight spatial envelope and to prevent delays that might otherwise result from vehicle congestion. Results Each AWW was completed on schedule, without incident, reportable injury, or incursions into environmentally sensitive areas. The new structure, with the name T-R-E-S-T-L-E-S spelled out across the center end of the bent caps, provides a dramatic new gateway to this iconic location. Moreover, the greater distance between each of the piles facilitates pedestrian movement providing a further encouragement against pedestrian trespassing at this location. CONCLUSION The three projects examined in this paper are but a small sample of those that have been completed in the LOSSAN corridor to sustain its viability as a critical component in Southern California s transportation network. While these projects are located on the same corridor, and are located less than 100 miles from each other, each presents its own set of challenges that requires an individualized approach. The successful outcomes reflect a comprehensive understanding of the overall context that each project existed in. If there is a broader lesson that can be applied from these case studies, it is that successful project development and management requires communication across disciplines (engineering, strategic planning, environmental oversight) to ensure that both opportunities and restrictions are recognized and appropriately incorporated into the work plan. AREMA

12 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is grateful to the assistance provided by the following individuals in researching this paper: Michael Albanese Steve McDowell Amtrak Amtrak REFERENCES 1. Cornillie, Thomas C. and Eschenbach, John P. Successfully Planning and Implementing Railroad Infrastructure Projects That Require Major Service Disruptions (P ). Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (Washington, DC January 13-17, 2013). Available online at: Accessed June 1, Cambridge Systematics, and Ecco Consulting. San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project Prioritization Analysis. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. July, Eschenbach, John P. and Alderman, Mitchell A. The Oceanside Passing Track and Bridge Replacement Project. Proceedings of the AREMA 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition (Chicago, IL - September 20-23, 2009). Available online at: e_passing_track_and_bridge_replacement_project.pdf. Accessed June 1, Eschenbach, John P. and Albanese, Michael A. Constructing the Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project. Proceedings of the AREMA 2012 Annual Conference & Exposition (Chicago, IL - September 16-19, 2012). Available online at: Carlsbad_Double_Track_and_Bridge_Project.pdf. Accessed June 1, Cornillie, Thomas C. Planning, Developing, and Completing the Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project. Proceedings of the AREMA 2012 Annual Conference & Exposition (Chicago, IL - September 16-19, 2012). Available online at: Developing-Completing_Carlsbad_Double_Track_and_Bridge_Project.pdf. Accessed June 1, AREMA 2013

13 Planning and Executing Work Windows for Major Projects Strategies for Successful Outcomes Thomas C. Cornillie, AICP John P. Eschenbach J.L Patterson & Associates, Inc. AREMA

14 Introduction Scheduled service interruptions are known by many terms: Absolute work windows, service outages, or engineering possessions. Absolute work windows are necessary for the safety of workers, railroad users, and to complete certain tasks in the most efficient way possible. Managing absolute work windows is a universal issue confronting railroad managers. Renewing existing infrastructure and adding capacity with new projects is necessary. However, service outages also may result in service disruptions. This is of particular importance in the United States, where there Company is increased interest and funding for developing intercity passenger and commuter rail services on freight railroads. Objectives for This Presentation Examine the underlying factors that make the management of absolute work windows a challenging issue. Use case studies as a means to show how managers identify and overcome specific challenges. Discuss, in context, the essential skills and institutional capabilities that are needed to execute projects successfully. Corridor Overview The projects in this presentation are located on the 351-mile LOSSAN corridor (Los Angeles San Diego San Luis Obispo). This corridor is served by Amtrak s Pacific Surfliner service - the second busiest intercity corridor service in the nation. Traffic Profile San Diego County Service Operator Weekday Service Frequency Projected Long-Term Increase Intercity Passenger Amtrak 22 64% Commuter Rail Coaster % Commuter Rail Metrolink % Freight BNSF % Corridor Planning for Additional Capacity In the Los Angeles San Diego portion of the LOSSAN corridor, 84 percent of trackage is publicly owned by four entities that operate commuter rail services. The remainder is owned by the BNSF Railway. Company Corridor Planning for Additional Capacity Major Planning Accomplishments: 2007 SANDAG 2030 Regional Transportation Plan 2007 Program EIR/EIS (Los Angeles to San Diego) 2009 San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project Prioritization Analysis: 40 individual projects: double tracking, bridge replacements & station improvements prioritized into nearterm, mid-term & long-term Company projects 374 AREMA 2013

15 Corridor Planning for Additional Capacity The planning and environmental clearance process for the LOSSAN corridor engaged multiple stakeholders in a discussion regarding how to accommodate growing intercity and commuter passenger service in conjunction with freight service. This organization and consensus building, carried out well in advance of project activities, continues to facilitate projects as funding becomes available from regional, state, and federal Company sources. Case Study I Oceanside Passing Track Description of project scope: Project Dates: September 17, 2007 February 15, 2009 Value: $13.2 million. ($1.0 million for design) Case Study I Oceanside Passing Track Principal Elements. 1.4 miles of track, connecting to an existing siding to create 2.5 miles of two main tracks. #11 crossover, #24 turnout, relocated interlocking, Replacement of an existing 87- year old wood trestle with two 5- span concrete bridges, in length that would accommodate the existing main track and a new second main track. Company Company Company AREMA

16 Case Study II Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project Description of project scope: Project Dates: October, 2010 January 2012 Value: $18.9 million total (including reimbursable elements and design) Company Company Case Study II Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project Principal Elements: Aqua Hedionda Bridge: center span directly over the lagoon itself. 1.9 miles of new main track (combined with previously created projects, this created a 5.1 mile segment of double track mainline by connecting two existing control points. The project also installed one new Company control point, and modified an existing control point by installing four No. 24 turnouts to create a universal crossover. Company Company 376 AREMA 2013

17 Company The last major construction element involved integrating the new turnouts and main track into the corridor s train control system. Collaboration between project managers of multiple projects made it possible to create a maintenance blitz where a single absolute work window was used to accomplish multiple projects. Company Maintenance Blitz 11:30pm Friday January 6-5:00am Monday January 9, 2012 Bus Bridge Results The Carlsbad Double Track and Bridge Project opened to traffic on the morning of Monday, January nearly two months ahead of schedule. The completion of this project ahead of schedule and under budget was a significant accomplishment that reflects excellent Company engineering and construction management. Maintenance Blitz 11:30pm Friday January 6-5:00am Monday January 9, 2012 Bus Bridge Case Study III San Mateo Bridge Replacement at Trestles Beach Description of project scope: Project Dates: Sep 2010 to Feb Work was not carried on continuously because of environmental mitigation efforts Value: $8 million Principal Elements: - Replace a 532 single-track wood trestle located on a 1 Company curve Company Company AREMA

18 Conclusions In the projects discussed in this presentation, project managers had the flexibility to tailor processes to suit the challenges at hand. Company This flexibility comes with a tradeoff. Adapting a process to project needs can offer tremendous savings in time and administrative costs. However, this flexibility places multiple responsibilities on those Company who are actually carrying out the work especially in lean organizations. Conclusions Successful project leaders need to be able to build consensus among the many railroad departments that are involved in a project. Leaders need to be able to communicate to external stakeholders the necessity of using absolute work windows and the factors that affect a project s scope and schedule. Being able to effectively connect engineering with the broader legal, environmental, government relations environment that projects exist in is crucial. This is rare combination of skills that can be gained only through experience. 378 AREMA 2013