Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISCompared with the Caltrain Extension Alternative, the Independent Train Service Alternative wouldbe more expensive, both from a capital and operating perspective. Insofar as capital costs, theIndependent Train Service Alternative would require the purchase of FRA-compliant rolling stock thatwould stand idle for all but five or six hours, 255 weekdays per year. From an operating costperspective, an independent train service would be more costly than the Caltrain ExtensionAlternative, as train crew productivity (vehicle hours of revenue service) would be approximately 50percent of crew paid time. To improve this productivity, Monterey County based trains could replaceor supplement Baby Bullet service throughout the midday.Tables 3-7 and 3-8 list the comparative capital and operating costs for independent train service toSan Francisco versus the extension of existing Caltrain service to Salinas.Table 3-7Capital Costs of Independent Train Service to San Francisco Alternative versusCaltrain Extension ($1,000 FY 2007)Independent Train ServiceCaltrain Extension AlternativeUPRR main line $35,000 $ 5,000Gilroy yard 4,124 4,124Pajaro station 17,030 17,030Castroville station 16,443 16,443Salinas station 19,856 19,856Salinas bus 9,827 9,827Salinas yard 11,742 11,742Rolling stock 48,000 8,800$162,022 $92,822Source: ParsonsNote: Capital costs exclude unallocated contingenciesTable 3-8Operating and Maintenance Costs of Independent Train Service to San Francisco Alternativeversus Caltrain Extension ($ FY 2007)*Independent Train ServiceCaltrain Extension AlternativeRail operator $ 9,870,000 $3,270,000Fuel 1,796,000 583,000Timetables and tickets 35,000 35,000Insurance 655,000 219,000Facilities and equipment 200,000 160,000Utilities 97,000 97,000UPRR track use charge 1,915,000 1,058,000UPRR slot fees 1,915,000 2,196,000JPB administrative expense — 1,097,000$19,071,000 $8,715,000Source: Parsons* Altamont Commuter Express FY 2006–2007 budget is $14 million.parsons CHAPTER 3: DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES 91
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISBus Rapid Transit ServiceBus rapid transit (BRT) has been defined as a rapid mode of transportation that can provide thequality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses. It is an integrated system of stations, equipment,services, running ways, and intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements having a strong imageand identity.The Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide 5 identifies the following components and features of busrapid transit systems.“The main features of bus rapid transit systems include:• Dedicated (bus-only) running ways (preferably physically separated from othertraffic)• Accessible, safe, secure, and attractive stations• Easy-to-board, attractive, and environmentally friendly vehicles• Efficient (i.e., off-vehicle) fare collection• ITS applications to provide real-time passenger information, signal priority, andservice command/control• Frequent, all-day service• Distinctive system identity“All BRT systems must have running ways, stations, and vehicles. Other major componentsinclude service design, the fare collection system, the application of ITS technology,and branding. Service design is the key to system design. The individual componentsmust be compatible and must support the service design.“The type of each component varies among systems. Running ways include special physicalfacilities such as busways, and operational treatments such as bus lanes, queuejumps/bypass lanes, and transit signal priority (TSP). Stations can range from smallerpassenger waiting areas with simple shelters to large-scale terminals with many passengeramenities. BRT vehicles typically are large-capacity, stylized vehicles with lowfloorboarding and different degrees of ITS integration, such as automatic vehicle location(AVL), next-stop annunciators, and driver-assist systems. Fare collection systemscan be located either on- or off-board vehicles and can integrate new electronic mediasuch as smart cards. Service design can range from BRT serving as a new line-haulservice with limited stops to BRT serving as a feeder service that extends the reach ofrail transit. Finally, branding the system creates a unique logo, color scheme, and/ormarketing strategy that distinguishes the BRT service from other transit services.”Compared to the Express Bus Alternative, a Bus Rapid Transit Alternative would add dedicated (busonly)running ways, or at least high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, along US 101 from Salinas toMorgan Hill; use advanced design, articulated, low-floor vehicles; and operate throughout the daywith frequencies of service of 15 minutes or less. Given these features, a Bus Rapid TransitAlternative would not be comparable to the Caltrain Extension Alternative, and would be far moreexpensive to construct and operate.Adding HOV lanes to US 101 from Main Street in Salinas to Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill, adistance of 38.6 miles would cost on the order of $500 million including necessary bridge and5Draft Report, TCRP Project A-23A, Kittleson & Associates, 2006.parsons CHAPTER 3: DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES 92
Page 4 and 5:
DRAFTCALTRAIN EXTENSIONTO MONTEREY
Page 6 and 7:
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
show all

Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?