Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISVehicle Operating CostsVehicle operating costs were calculated for the No Build and Caltrain Extension/Express Busalternatives using estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reported in Table 8-10.In lieu of calculating fuel consumption per gallon based on average link speeds and vehicle milestraveled per link, an average rate of vehicle fuel economy was used based on EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) laboratory data adjusted downward by about 15 percent to better representreal-world driving conditions. In its annual report released on July 17, 2006, the EPA said the industry-widefuel economy of 2006 model-year vehicles was 21 miles per gallon, the same as a yearago. 10The resulting average fuel consumption of 0.0476 gallons/mile corresponds reasonably well with theestimates of average fuel consumption for the Year 2000 obtained from the California Air ResourcesBoard’s Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory models. These rates, used in the California Life-CycleBenefit/Cost Analysis Model, are reported in Table 8-11.The price-per-gallon of regular grade gasoline was assumed to be $2.995 per gallon, based on pricesprevailing in Salinas, California in March 2007. 11 This cost was separated into tax and non-taxcomponents, using the tax portion to compute “revenue transfers.” The tax rate per gallon of gasolinewas assumed to be 18.4 cents federal, 18.0 cents state excise, 18.1 cents state sales, 3.8 centscounty sales, and 1.2 cents per gallon UST fee. These taxes total 59.5 cents per gallon.Non-fuel costs for vehicle maintenance and tire expense were assumed to be $0.061 per mile forautomobiles based on Center for Transportation Analysis, Department of Energy statistics for calendaryear 2004. This cost does not include mileage-based depreciation.The resulting vehicle operating cost benefits of the Caltrain Extension and Express Bus alternativeimprovements, computed for Year 2030 passenger volumes, are estimated to be $12 million annuallyas shown in Table 8-12. Revenue transfers and fuel taxes not collected as a result of these benefitsamount to $1.7 million annually in 2030.Transit User FeesThe transit user vehicle operating cost savings reported above must be offset by the fares users payto ride the proposed transit service. Table 6-13 lists the anticipated fare revenues for different levelsof ridership. For the 2010 and 2030 planning horizons, the anticipated revenue from passenger fares(user fees) are as follows, based on the Caltrain fare structure in place as of January 1, 2006.• Year 2010 annual passenger revenue = $3,310,612• Year 2030 annual passenger revenue = $6,320,79010Washingtonpost.com, “Gas Prices Are Up but Not Fuel Economy,” July 18, 2006.11www.fuelgaugereport.com for March 7, 2007.parsons CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 183
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISTable 8-102010 and 2030 Annual Passengers, Passenger Miles, and Vehicle Equivalents—Caltrain Extension to Salinas2010Egress/Access Pajaro Castroville Salinas TotalAnnual PassengersSanta Clara–Mid 48,960 10,200 89,250 148,410Santa Clara–North 106,590 22,440 193,290 322,320San Mateo 12,240 2,550 21,930 36,720San Francisco 5,610 1,020 10,200 16,830173,400 36,210 314,670 524,280Annual Vehicle Equivalents*Santa Clara–Mid 44,509 9,273 81,136 134,918Santa Clara–North 96,900 20,400 175,718 293,018San Mateo 11,127 2,318 19,936 33,381San Francisco 5,100 927 9,273 15,300157,636 32,918 286,063 476,617Vehicle Mile EquivalentsSanta Clara–Mid 44.7 53.8 57.4Santa Clara–North 60.4 69.5 73.1San Mateo 74.6 83.7 87.3San Francisco 92.2 101.3 104.92030Egress/Access Pajaro Castroville Salinas TotalAnnual PassengersSanta Clara–Mid 85,170 25,500 173,400 284,070Santa Clara–North 184,620 55,590 374,850 615,060San Mateo 20,910 6,120 42,840 69,870San Francisco 9,690 3,060 19,380 32,130300,390 90,270 610,470 1,001,130Annual Vehicle Equivalents*Santa Clara–Mid 77,427 23,182 157,636 258,245Santa Clara–North 167,836 50,536 340,773 559,145San Mateo 19,009 5,564 38,945 63,518San Francisco 8,809 2,782 117,618 29,209273,081 82,064 554,972 910,117Vehicle Mile EquivalentsSanta Clara–Mid 44.7 53.8 57.4Santa Clara–North 60.4 69.5 73.1San Mateo 74.6 83.7 87.3San Francisco 92.2 101.3 104.9Annual Vehicle Mile Equivalents**Santa Clara–Mid 1,989,552 498,887 4,657,206 7,145,645Santa Clara–North 5,852,760 1,417,800 12,844,985 20,115,545San Mateo 830,074 194,017 1,740,413 2,764,504San Francisco 470,220 93,905 972,738 1,536,8639,142,606 2,204,609 20,215,342 31,562,557*Assumes average auto occupancy of 1.10 for peak hour commuters.**Reflects highway travel distancesAnnual Vehicle Mile Equivalents**Santa Clara–Mid 3,460,987 1,247,192 9,048,306 13,756,485Santa Clara–North 10,137,294 3,512,252 24,910,506 38,560,052San Mateo 1,418,071 465,707 3,399,899 5,283,677San Francisco 812,190 281,817 1,848,128 2,942,13515,828,542 5,506,968 39,206,839 60,542,349*Assumes average auto occupancy of 1.10 for peak hour commuters.**Reflects highway travel distancesparsons CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 184
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:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
show all

Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?