Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTY PASSENGER RAIL STATIONSALTERNATIVES ANALYSISTable 6-14 lists the operating parameters associated with Year 2030 conditions, with the express busfleet transporting just under 2000 passengers in the peak commute direction during the AM and PMpeak periods. This scenario is equivalent to the four-train Caltrain Extension scenario.Table 6-14Express Bus Alternative Operating Parameters (2030 Conditions)Origin–DestinationRevenueRound Trip Revenue Miles Revenue HoursFrequency Daily MaximumMiles Hours (Minutes) Trips Vehicles Daily Annual Daily AnnualAveragePassengerLoad/Vehicle†Pajaro–Santa Clara Mid 107 3.08 30 8 4 856 218,280 24.67 6,291 41.75Pajaro–Santa Clara North* 128 3.97 30 16 8 2,048 522,240 63.47 16,185 45.25Pajaro–San Mateo/San Francisco 205 6.17 60 4 2 820 209,100 24.67 6,291 30.0Marina/Castroville–Santa Clara Mid 125 3.67 60 4 2 500 127,500 14.67 3,741 25.0Marina/Castroville–Santa Clara North 146 4.55 30 8 4 1,168 297,840 36.40 9,282 27.25Marina/Castroville–San Mateo/San Francisco 223 6.75 60 4 2 892 227,460 27.00 6,885 9.5Salinas–Santa Clara Mid** 132 4.00 30 16 8 2,112 538,560 64.00 16,320 42.5Salinas–Santa Clara North* 153 4.88 15 32 16 4,896 1,248,480 156.27 39,849 45.94Salinas–San Mateo/San Francisco 230 7.08 30 8 4 1,840 469,200 56.67 14,450 30.50Totals 50 14,722 3,858,660 467.82 119,294 39.26*Includes two stop groups—Mountain View and San Antonio; California and Palo Alto**Includes two stop groups—Diridon and Santa Clara; Lawrence and Sunnyvale†Peak directionTable 6-15 indicates the anticipated O&M expense associated with MST operating variousincrements of express buses to/from Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties eachweekday, excluding holidays. None of MST’s vehicle operators work straight, eight-hour shifts bydesign of its Union contract. Therefore, round trips to/from the San Francisco Bay Area would be splitinto two work pieces, with separate drivers working the morning and afternoon shifts.Average round trip travel time between Monterey County park-and-ride lots and San Francisco BayArea sets of Caltrain stations is computed to be 5.31 hours per shift, comprised of driverreport/inspection times, revenue service, driver recovery, and deadhead to/from the operationscenter. Some driver shifts would be less, some more, depending on the station sets served by theexpress bus routes. Run time estimates are based on anticipated 2030 conditions. Year 2010 runtimes, and therefore O&M costs, would be less.The O&M expenses identified in Table 6-15 assume that express bus vehicles have a seatedcapacity of 45 passengers per vehicle, and operate with an average load of 39 passengers pervehicle, equal to 87 percent of their seated capacity. 8 Lower or higher utilization rates and fewer ormore average pay hours per shift would affect these cost estimates. A minimum floor of eight vehiclesoperated in maximum service is reflected in the table, representing two trips per peak periodoperating from each park-and-ride facility in Monterey County. Increasing ridership levels could bematched closely by capacity increases given the relatively small size of the express bus units (45passengers per vehicle versus 550 to 700 passengers per four- or five-car train.8Average load = 1963 passengers/50 trips = 39.26 passengers/bus in peak direction.parsons CHAPTER 6: ESTIMATION OF CAPITAL, OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, AND REVENUE 161
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTY PASSENGER RAIL STATIONSALTERNATIVES ANALYSISTable 6-15Express Bus Alternative Operating and Maintenance CostWeekday RidershipLevel (MontereyCounty Boardings)Vehicles OperatedinMaximum ServiceAnnual VehicleRevenueMilesAnnual VehicleRevenueHoursAnnualOperating Expense300 8 617,386 19,087 2,741,346500 13 1,003,252 31,016 4,454,6871,000 25 1,929,330 59,647 8,566,7071,250 32 2,469,542 76,348 10,965,3841,500 38 2,932,582 90,663 13,021,3931,750 44 3,395,621 104,979 15,077,4032,000 50 3,858,660 119,294 17,133,413PASSENGER REVENUESEstimated passenger revenues are based on the ridership forecasts reported in Chapter 4 and theJPB Caltrain fare structure effective as of January 1, 1996. Caltrain currently operates with a six zonefare system. The limits of the fare zones along with the proposed extension of Caltrain service (orexpress bus) to Salinas are illustrated on Figure 6-1. The Caltrain Extension Alternative and ExpressBus Alternative would expand the fare structure from six to eight zones. Zone 7 would be reserved forfuture (potential) service to Hollister, while Zone 8 would cover northern Monterey County. Table 6-16reports the existing fares as of January 1, 2006 with the inclusion of two additional zones to serveSan Benito (Hollister) and Monterey counties. Table 6-17 provides a comparison of the maximum ridedistances within and between Caltrain fare zones for reference.Based on the daily ridership estimated in Chapter 4 and the proposed eight zone fare structure,annual passenger revenue has been computed for various levels of ridership. These estimates ofpassenger revenue are reported in Table 6-18 and are based on all riders purchasing a monthly adultticket which is utilized for 40 one-way rides per month. Forecasts denoted as Year 2000 are nowviewed to be appropriate for the opening year, 2010 planning horizon 9 .9Chapter 2 of this Alternatives Analysis discusses commuting trends observed between 2000 and 2005 insofar as gateway traffic volumesand regional rail ridership. Based on this information, it appears that 2006 travel demand conditions are similar to Year 2000 traveldemand conditions with respect to long distance commutes from outlying counties to Silicon Valley employers. Thus, references to Year2000 demand and ridership projections are assumed to be now realized in 2010. Year 2020 ridership projections are assumed to be nowrealized in 2030.parsons CHAPTER 6: ESTIMATION OF CAPITAL, OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, AND REVENUE 162
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:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?