Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISThis analysis includes estimates of user benefits including travel time savings, reductions in out-ofpockettravel expenses, and reduced accident costs. Estimates of revenue transfers (reduced publictax revenue collections) are included in the analysis. The economic analysis also measures externalcosts such as the health cost of motor vehicle emissions and accident costs which are not perceivedby users.The Caltrain Extension and Express Bus alternatives are assumed to be implemented by 2010, withthe initiation of service occurring in 2011. An analysis of life-cycle benefits and costs indicates thatthe Caltrain Extension Alternative will have a higher benefit-cost ratio than the Express Bus Alternativeover a 20-year, 2011 to 2030 payback period, as indicated in Table 9-4. Higher operating costsand the need to replace express bus vehicles more frequently result in less favorable performance forthe Express Bus Alternative compared to the Caltrain Extension Alternative. The payback period isthe amount of time measured in years to recover the life cycle investments (capital and net publicoperating costs). The table shows that public investment in the Express Bus Alternative will never bepaid back.Table 9-4Summary of Benefit Cost Analysis ResultsCaltrain ExtensionExpress BusLife cycle benefits/total costs ratio $203 M/$102 M = 1.99 $21 M/$116 M = 0.18Net present value of benefits/costs at 7% discount rate $77 M/$88 M = 0.88 $7 M/$84 M = 0.08Payback period at 7% discount rate 23.5 years Not paid back*The payback period is the amount of time measured in years to recover the life cycle investments (capital and net public operatingcosts). The table shows that public investment in the Express Bus Alternative will never be paid back.Selection of a locally preferred alternative is seldom based on cost/benefit information alone. For thisreason, social or societal performance indicators have been included to address key issues of projectfeasibility.FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS1. Will the fixed guideway investment attract sufficient ridership to be worthy of theinvestment?The Caltrain Extension Alternative and Express Bus Alternative are forecast to attract approximately1,028 riders each direction (2,056 riders per day) as of 2010, and twice this number by2030. Spread over a two-hour commute window, this ridership would be equivalent to approximatelyone-quarter of one freeway lane times 74.2 miles (equal to 18.5 lane miles) in 2010,and one-half of one freeway lane times 74.2 miles (equal to 37 lane miles) in 2030. Bothtransit alternatives would be capable of carrying additional riders as demand warrants, and couldtherefore provide additional freeway equivalent capacity to the U.S. 101 Corridor over and abovethese levels. When compared to the cost of constructing equivalent freeway capacity (at $5million per lane mile for freeway construction), the proposed transit fixed guidewayinvestment will pay for itself in one year.When compared to other transit investments, the Monterey County Caltrain Extension/ExpressBus Alternatives perform very well from a passenger miles traveled perspective. Table 9-5indicates that Monterey County’s 2,056 daily riders (2010 ridership), for example, is equivalent tomore than 12,000 BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) riders.parsons CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY 225
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISTable 9-5Daily Caltrain Extension Transit Rider Equivalents Based on Trip Length (2004)Average Trip Trip Length Daily RiderMode/ServiceLength (miles) Ratio* Equivalent†Monterey County Caltrain Extension/Express Bus (2010) 74.2 1 2,056NationalCommuter rail 23.5 3.16 6,497Heavy rail 5.2 14.27 29,339Light rail 4.5 16.49 33,903Bus 3.7 20.05 41,223San Francisco Bay AreaCaltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) 20.07 3.70 7,607Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 47.92 1.55 3,187Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 12.59 5.89 12,110Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 4.42 16.79 34,520Source: 2004 National Transit Database, Parsons*Trip Length Ratio = Monterey County Average Trip Length ÷ Average Trip Length†Daily Rider Equivalent = Trip Length Ratio × Monterey County Daily Rider Equivalent2. Is the proposed fixed guideway investment cost effective?The benefit-cost analysis summarized above indicates that the Caltrain Extension Alternative iscost effective and yields life cycle benefits which nearly equal costs. The Express Bus Alternativeis one-tenth as cost effective. Table 9-6 compares ridership with annualized capital costs,operations and maintenance costs, and net public (subsidy) costs. Relative to other (national)transit fixed guideway investments, both the Caltrain Extension and Express Bus alternativesare cost effective ($10.29 to $24.03 of public investment per rider).Table 9-6Capital and Operating Costs per Rider and per Passenger MileCaltrain Extension AlternativeExpress Bus AlternativeParameter 2010 2030 2010 2030Annual ridership 524,280 1,001,130 524,280 1,001,130Annual passenger miles 38,903,565 74,642,682 38,903,565 74,642,682Annualized capital cost ($ 2007) $7,150,000 $7,905,137 $7,337,476 $9,226,006Annualized capital cost per rider $13.64 $7.90 $14.00 $9.22Annualized capital cost per passenger mile $0.184 $0.106 $0.189 $0.124Annual O&M cost ($ 2007) $4,485,680 $8,714,409 $8,566,7071 $17,133,413O&M cost per rider $8.56 $8.70 $16.34 $17.11O&M cost per passenger mile $0.115 $0.117 $0.220 $0.230Annual fare revenue $3,310,612 $6,320,790 $3,310,612 $6,320,790Annual net public operating cost $1,175,068 $2,393,619 $5,256,095 $10,812,623Net public operating cost per rider $2.24 $2.39 $10.03 $10.80Net public operating cost per passenger mile $0.030 $0.032 $0.135 $0.1453. Will the proposed fixed guideway investment equitably serve Monterey County residents?The proposed Caltrain Extension and the Express Bus alternatives will provide Monterey Countyresidents with public transportation access to relatively high paying jobs, colleges and universi-parsons CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY 226
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:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209: 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?