Commuter Rail Extension Alternatives Analysis - Transportation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISbound trains) are forecast at 1,000 riders per day, based on Year 2000 commuting patterns. Thesecommuting patterns appear to hold true as of 2005/2006, and are assumed for 2010 opening yearconditions. Year 2030 boardings at Monterey County stations are forecast as 2,000 riders per day. Inthe afternoon, an equal number of riders would board at San Francisco Bay Area stations (PMsouthbound trains) and ride south to Monterey County.Of this ridership, 90 percent are forecast to ride to stations within Santa Clara County. Seven percentof the riders are forecast to travel to San Mateo County destinations and three percent to SanFrancisco.Vehicle RequirementsThe Caltrain Extension Alternative assumesthat existing JPB trainsets operatingto/from Gilroy would be utilized.No additional trainsets would berequired. Additional wear and tear ontrainset locomotives and rolling stockwill be addressed through the fullyallocated cost formula. Vehicle replacementswill be addressed by acapital recovery (mileage based) fee tobe determined through negotiationswith JPB.Trainsets operating to/from Gilroy haveresidual, unused capacity. As of theFebruary 2006 boarding count, nomore than 470 seats were occupied onthe three trains serving Gilroy south ofthe Tamien station; and approximately1,480 seats were vacant (for theportion of the train trip between SanJose Tamien and Gilroy). System-wide,the maximum load point for Caltrainhas historically been at or near theMillbrae station in San Mateo County,well north of most Monterey Countyresident forecast ridership.Actual Monterey County Caltrainridership patterns would be determinedthrough rider surveys and analysis ofCaltrain ticket (zone 8) sales. Thisdata, in conjunction with passengerload checks on trains serving MontereyCounty, would be used to accessMonterey County-generated rollingstock requirements.Caltrain Vehicle Technology OptionsThe issue of rolling stock availability and technology is complex, andremains under negotiation between JPB and TAMC. Project 2025 setsforth three rolling stock options.Under its Current Program—Diesel Locomotives scenario, JPB wouldcontinue to operate its 96 train weekday schedule, with slightly longertrain consists (up to six cars per train) where required to meet capacityrequirements. JPB currently operates 20 sets of rolling stock with oneset aside as a preventive maintenance spare. The current fleet totals110 cab/trailer cars and 29 diesel powered locomotives. These wouldbe replaced as lifecycle and maintenance requirements dictate.Project 2025 notes there is an immediate need to acquire eightadditional cars in the near-term to bolster spare ratios and provideadditional capacity in the form of longer train sets on those trainswhich are operating nearest to capacity. Without additional capacity,JPB has stated that they will be unable to extend service to Salinas,due to their spare vehicle shortfall, and preventive maintenancecycles.Under Alternative A: Electric Locomotives, JPB would replace themajority of its diesel locomotives with electric powered locomotives.JPB would also replace its gallery-style trailers and cab cars (73purchased in 1985 and 20 purchased in 2000) with bi-level, low-floorcars. The fleet would be expanded to provide additional service asdemand warrants. Diesel rolling stock would continue to operate onthe Gilroy extension, and could run “under the wire” as far north as theFourth and Townsend station in San Francisco (the line’s currentnorthern terminus).Under Alternative B: Rapid Transit Non-compliant EMUs, JPB wouldreplace its entire fleet of locomotives and passenger coaches withrapid transit vehicles, specifically electric multiple units (EMUs). AnFRA-compliant EMU to Caltrain specification does not yet exist;therefore, JPB assumes operation of non-compliant EMUs forALternative B operations. To allow for operation of mixed compliantand non-compliant fleets, a FRA waiver would be required. Givensuch a waiver, JPB could transition from diesel locomotive hauledequipment to EMUs over time, and could operate Dumbarton andGilroy/Salinas extension services, as well as freight service, “underthe wire.”parsons CHAPTER 3: DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES 63
CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUNTYALTERNATIVES ANALYSISAdditional trainset capacity (additions of coaches to consists) required to accommodate ridersboarding/deboarding in Monterey County are assumed to be addressed through Federal TransitAdministration grant requests, with TAMC providing the local funding match contribution. Acquisitionof rolling stock to accommodate the initial (two round trip) service plan for extending Caltrain toSalinas has not been identified as a near-term requirement by this Alternatives Analysis. At sometime in the future, TAMC anticipates the need to participate in JPB’s rolling stock acquisition program.For the purpose of the Alternatives Analysis Study, the Caltrain Extension Alternative assumes theacquisition of four bi-level passenger coaches, one for each of the trainsets operating to/from Salinas.This rolling stock may not be required to accommodate peak passenger loads. The capital cost of thisequipment is included as a risk element for comparison with the Express Bus Alternative.JPB/TAMC SubsidiesThe Caltrain Extension Alternative assumes no JPB subsidies of Caltrain extension service. It alsoassumes that there will be no TAMC subsidies of Caltrain service north of Gilroy. The purchase ofservice agreement between JPB and TAMC is assumed to be cost based, without profit.Core System Improvements/TAMC ParticipationThe Caltrain Extension to Monterey County enjoys widespread support by Bay Area and State policymakers. The Caltrain Extension Alternative assumes no “buy in” requirements (funding for capitalimprovements to the existing system), as none have been identified by JPB/VTA Board members orstaff in negotiations to date.Insofar as improvements needed to accommodate the extension of Caltrain service to MontereyCounty, the Caltrain Extension Alternative assumes that TAMC will (or could be required to)participate in funding these improvements. These include:• Additional trainset capacity (four bi-level passenger coaches assumed as a risk element)• Additional trainset layover capacity (in Salinas)—see pages 72 and 73• Gilroy station track extension to East Luchessa Avenue and mainline turnout—see pages 72and 74• South Terminal Improvements to address bottlenecks and multi-operator capacity demands(see Appendix A). These improvements are currently underway and are therefore notassumed—potential risk element.Physical Station, Yard and Track Components of the Caltrain Extension AlternativeThe physical components of the Caltrain Extension Alternative are described and detailed in theCaltrain Extension to Monterey County Project Study Report (PSR), dated February 21, 2006. ThisPSR documents program requirements, locational alternatives, design considerations, designexceptions, property acquisition and relocation plans, real estate cost studies, conceptual designplans, and detailed cost estimates, based on the 10 percent design plans. 4The PSR is a “Project Initiation Document” which provides sufficient project detail and cost estimatesto allow a project to be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program at the discretion ofthe California Transportation Commission. The Caltrain Extension to Monterey County PSR is4Station Program Requirements are identified in Appendix B-2 of the Caltrain Extension to Monterey County Project Study Report. Thisdocument is included as Appendix B of this report as it identifies station access, parking, and amenity requirements.parsons CHAPTER 3: DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES 64
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: CALTRAIN EXTENSION TO MONTEREY COUN
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?