Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISTable 3-4Coast Line Existing and Expanded Freight Service (San Jose to Salinas)TrainWeekly TripsSanJoseMorganHillGilroyWatsonvilleJunction Castroville SalinasExistingIBRLBR 1 ―――――――――――――――――――――――ILCOA 5 ――――――――――――IOALBR 7 ―――――――――――――――――――――――LRQ31 5 ―――――5 ―――――LRQ40 5 ―――――――5 ―――――――LRQ42R 5 ――――5 ――――LRQ53 6 ――――――――――――6 ――――――――――――LRQ81B 3 ――――――――3 ――――――――LRQ83 6 ――――――6 ――――――MMLRV 7 ―――――――――――――――――――――――MWCPT 7 ―――――――――――――――――――――――QRVML 7 ―――――――――――――――――――――――ExpansionAOAWF 7 ―――――――――――――――――――――――MWCoaEU 7 ―――――――――――――――――――――――MWCoaRV 7 ―――――――――――――――――――――――ZBRoaLC 7 ―――――――――――――――――――――――Weekly Trains 86 86–96 86–96 83 73Insofar as UPRR trackage rights or slot fees for Caltrain service between Gilroy and Salinas, theCaltrain Extension Alternative assumes that these fees would be in addition to and separate from theJPB purchase of service. TAMC or TAMC/JPB would negotiate these fees with UPRR. Trackagerights could take the form of an annualized “capital access fee,” similar to the San Joaquin RegionalRail Commission’s arrangement with UPRR; or a 10- to 15-year “slot fee” as negotiated by VTA forthe increase in service between Gilroy and San Jose.Capital InvestmentsA draft UPRR term sheet dated June 26, 2003 documents capital investments in track, switch, andsignaling which may be required to implement Caltrain service to Salinas. This term sheet reflects aparsons CHAPTER 3: DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES 61
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSIStwo-round trip scenario and will be finalized to reflect a four round trip train scenario.The Caltrain Extension Alternative assumes that the financial responsibility for undertaking these andother to be identified capital investments, south of Gilroy to Salinas, will be the responsibility ofTAMC. VTA may be requested to participate in funding the improvements identified at Gilroy inexchange for removing or significantly reducing VTA’s need for an expanded train layover facility inGilroy. Insofar as funding and delivering station improvements in Monterey County, the CaltrainExtension Alternative assumes these are the responsibilities of TAMC.ElectrificationAs part of its Caltrain Strategic Plan 2004–2023, JPB has been seeking funding to electrify theCaltrain line between San Francisco and San Jose, and possibly to Gilroy. Electrification will allowtrains to accelerate faster, thereby shortening run times, and allow for the extension of service todowntown San Francisco via an underground tunnel. As the price of diesel fuel has increased,interest in accelerating the implementation of electrifying the line has increased. An environmentaldocument is complete; however, a record of decision has not been provided by the Federal TransitAdministration (FTA) as local funding has not been secured. Design is at a conceptual level and isawaiting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Record of Decision and FTA’s approval toenter preliminary engineering.JPB has recently completed a cost benefit study of electrification options. The outcome of this studyis reflected within the Project 2025 report.Project 2025 assumes that funding will be secured to electrify the Caltrain line between downtownSan Francisco and downtown San Jose, and this electrification will be accomplished by 2014. Untilthe electrification project is complete, Caltrain will continue to operate trains with diesel-poweredlocomotives and will not be able to serve the downtown San Francisco extension.There are two electrification alternatives which are advanced by the Project 2025 report. Alternative Awould replace the diesel locomotives with electric locomotives and replace the gallery cares with bilevellow-floor cars as they reach the end of their service lives. Diesel equipment (Gilroy/Salinas andDumbarton passenger trains and freight trains) could still use the right-of-way by running “under thewire” once the electrification project is complete.Alternative B would require JPB to replace its entire fleet with rapid transit vehicles, specificallyelectric multiple units (EMU), and require an FRA waiver to operate non-compliant vehicles alongsideFRA-compliant vehicles. According to the Project 2025 report, the transition from current operationsto a rapid transit system would be complicated without provisions for mixed fleet (FRA-compliant andnon-compliant) operations in the corridor.No matter what option is ultimately selected for electrification and no matter what scheduleelectrification ultimately proceeds along, the JPB intends to operate diesel commuter rail equipmentinto the foreseeable future over at least a portion of its line. The Caltrain Extension Alternativetherefore assumes diesel fuel propulsion of trains operated between Salinas and San Jose (DiridonStation), or preferably to the Redwood City station or the Fourth and Townsend station in SanFrancisco.Monterey County RidershipThe Caltrain Extension Alternative physical facilities and service definition are based on the ridershipforecasts documented in Chapter 4. Weekday boardings at Monterey County stations (AM north-parsons CHAPTER 3: DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES 62
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: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
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?