Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISFigure 2-9Existing and Proposed Regional Passenger Rail Network645188AA-010parsons CHAPTER 2: EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS 35
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISThe JPB has operated the Caltrain service via a contract with the National Railroad PassengerCorporation, commonly known as Amtrak, since 1992. Service frequencies have been increased andservice was extended to Gilroy. Ridership has increased to near-World War II peak levels with acount of 35,609 passengers recorded in February 2001. The JPB is committed to further service improvementsand has developed a 20-year strategic plan to guide its initiatives. The proposed serviceextension to Salinas is intended to complement and support JPB’s vision for upgrading Caltrainduring the 21st century.Caltrain rail service currently spans 77 miles and includes 30 stations in San Francisco, San Mateo,and Santa Clara counties. The Gilroy station represents both the end of the line for current railservice and the stepping-off point for further travel south utilizing connecting bus services and privatevehicles. Passengers wishing to continue their travel to Monterey County and Santa Cruz County(Watsonville) currently must do so via private automobile.The proposed Caltrain extension to Salinas would utilize a 38-mile portion of Union Pacific Railroad’s(UPRR) Coast main line track running between San Jose and Los Angeles. This track is owned andmaintained by UPRR. In general, the track is in good condition and is reputed to have a good ridequality.Ridership PatternsTable 2-6 lists Caltrain weekday passenger boardings by station, with year-by-year detail provided for1992 through 2006. The table shows that boardings at the Gilroy station grew by 408 percentbetween 1992 and 2001, more than at any other station. Total Caltrain boardings grew 81 percentduring this 10-year period.During 2002 through 2005, boardings at almost every station declined as overall Caltrain ridershipfell. (Stations served by "Baby Bullet" trains, i.e., Diridon, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Hillsdale,Millbrae, experienced increased ridership.) This diminished ridership can be attributed to theconcurrent regional economic downturn and is therefore projected to be short-lived. Table 2-4indicates that 2006 ridership has recovered to 2000 levels, in part due to increased service. JPB nowoperates 96 weekday trains between San Jose Diridon Station and downtown San Francisco.While overall Caltrain ridership declined from 2001 to 2005 and has since recovered to Year 2000levels, ridership boarding at stations in southern Santa Clara County has continued to lose ridership.Figure 2-10 illustrates the sharp rise and fall of the number of passengers boarding at the fivesouthernmost stations, i.e., Capitol to Gilroy. The reasons for this ridership decline are well known, asfollows.1. Overall Caltrain ridership declined from 2000 to 2005 in direct proportion to total industryemployment in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties.2. Caltrain ridership boarding at south Santa Clara County stations declined from 2000 to 2003in slightly greater than direct proportion to total industry employment in Santa Clara County.3. U.S. 101 was widened from four lanes to eight lanes between Morgan Hill and South SanJose for a distance of 11 miles. The widening alleviated northbound AM and southbound PMcongestion and slow speeds on U.S. 101. The project was completed in June 2003 andresulted in the 33 percent loss of Caltrain ridership boarding at south county stations between2003 and 2004.parsons CHAPTER 2: EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS 36
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: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
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:
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?