Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISTable 8-41Regional Transportation Program Constrained Projects ListRTP ID Agency Title/DescriptionConstrainedFunding 1 (2005$)MYC018 County Castroville Boulevard Bike Path Connection under Railroad $ 750,000MST042 MST Salinas Intermodal Center—Construct New ITC $ 8,138,000TAM006 TAMC Castroville Rail Station $11,150,000 2TAM007 TAMC Commuter Rail Operations (operating costs to run two round trips per day, to increase to $64,900,000 3four trips within 10 yearsTAM009 TAMC Commuter Rail Track Access/Track Improvements between Gilroy and Salinas $ 5,000,000TAM012 TAMC Gilroy Yard Improvements $ 3,170,000TAM016 TAMC Pajaro Rail Station $ 6,565,000TAM024 TAMC Salinas Station $31,577,000Source: Transportation Agency for Monterey County, Appendix D of the Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan, 2005b (Final)1 Funding occurs in present–2010 unless otherwise noted2 $5,250,000 in present–2010; $5,900,000 in 2011–20203 $5,900,000 in present–2010; $29,500,000 in 2011–2020; $29,500,000 in 2021–2030SELECTION OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVEBased on the array of technical information, evaluation findings and public input, a key outcome ofthe detailed Alternatives Analysis is the selection of a preferred long-term strategy for the corridor.The long-term strategy is defined as investments required to address the 2030 planning horizon. As asubcomponent of the locally preferred alternative, a reduced scope alternative is defined to addressnear term, opening year needs. This reduced scope alternative is known as the “minimum operatingsegment.”The minimum operating segment must address the purpose and need for the project within thecontext of near-term demographic and travel conditions. For the purpose of this study, the near-termminimum operating segment is defined for 2010 conditions.For the purpose of evaluating project worthiness, the Federal Transit Administration requires thatproject applicants for federal “New Starts” discretionary funding also provide comparative informationon a TSM or “best bus” alternative. For this reason, performance characteristics of a “baseline” alternativehave been included in this study along with those of the Caltrain Extension Alternative and theminimum operating segment of the Caltrain Extension Alternative.The results of this Alternatives Analysis study, ongoing from 2002 through 2007, indicate that theCaltrain Extension to Monterey County is the most cost effective alternative for serving intercountycommuters to Silicon Valley and providing access to educational and health careresources in the San Francisco Bay Area. Selection of this option will meet the purpose and needof the proposed investment by providing additional transportation capacity in the U.S. 101 travelcorridor. Further, selection of the Caltrain Extension modal option can increase capacity over andabove that defined for the Caltrain Extension Alternative by increasing the length of the trains (addingmore cars) and/or increasing the number of trains operated.There is strong local support for the proposed service extension due to the projected populationgrowth in the Monterey Bay Area and the increasing numbers of San Francisco Bay Area workerswho are making their homes in San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey counties. A multi-agency taskforce comprised of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Transportation Agency forparsons CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 213
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISMonterey County, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, MST, Caltrans, Santa CruzCounty Regional Transportation Commission, San Benito County, and the cities of Salinas andWatsonville has been meeting to discuss and plan the initial steps to creating this train serviceextension. This project is an outgrowth of their multi-agency coordination.Local and regional agencies representing the study area or portions thereof have conducted studiesthat serve as precursors or complements to this selection of a locally preferred alternative. Theproject has been coordinated with the Union Pacific Railroad, the Peninsula Corridor Joint PowersBoard, Caltrans, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the City of Salinas, the RedevelopmentAgency of Monterey County, Monterey–Salinas Transit, the City of Watsonville, the Santa CruzCounty Regional Transportation Commission, and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District.In 1992, Passenger Rail Feasibility Study No. 05D423 was prepared for Caltrans to address the feasibilityof passenger rail service between San Francisco, Monterey, Salinas, and Hollister. The studyindicated that commuter rail could feasibly serve the existing market for work trips between Salinasand the Silicon Valley.A locally preferred alternative was adopted in the 1994 Monterey County Regional TransportationPlan. This included the extension of one Caltrain commute train. The 2002 and 2005 Regional TransportationPlans cite growing traffic congestion between Monterey County and the San Francisco BayArea and the demand for commuter rail services in the U.S. 101 Corridor. The 2005 Regional TransportationPlan includes the extension of Caltrain to Salinas in its list of planned projects.In 1997, the City of Watsonville prepared a Draft Pajaro Valley Station Project Study Report, in cooperationwith Monterey County, TAMC and the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission.While not finalized, this Draft project study report identified a potential site location and set ofprogram requirements for this station.Between 1998 and 2000, these program requirements and opportunities for adjacent site developmentwere further refined and explored by the Monterey County sponsored Pajaro Railyards AreaFeasibility Study. This study, as well as the draft project study report, sited the Pajaro Valley stationadjacent to the former Southern Pacific Passenger Depot which is accessed from Salinas Road.In 2000, TAMC sponsored the preparation of the Extension of Caltrain Commuter Service toMonterey County Business Plan. The business plan considered, but did not thoroughly evaluate,alternative sites for stations at Pajaro and Castroville and a layover yard in Salinas.Caltrans’ Transportation Concept Report for U.S. 101 in Caltrans District 5 (2001) recommends thatdemand be reduced on U.S. 101 in Monterey and San Benito counties by encouraging and improvingalternative modes such as passenger rail, including the extension of Caltrain service from Gilroy toSalinas.With funding supplied by TAMC, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and others, UPRR hasundertaken a train simulation “capacity study” of potential freight and passenger rail operations innorthern California. Based on the results of this study, UPRR has identified track, switch, andsignaling improvements that may be required to implement additional passenger rail service toMonterey County. These have been documented by a "Term Sheet," dated June 26, 2003. Additionaltrack and signaling improvements have been identified in the California Passenger Rail System Five-Year Improvement Plan.parsons CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 214
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:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
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: 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?