Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12201994 - TC3 _ _. r.C. 3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE .� s 's Costa DATE: DECEMBER 19, 1994 �•.• COUrIt� oorTq cd'un�J SUBJECT: REPORT ON COMMUTE RAIL OPERATING PLAN PREPARED BY THE GREATER EAST BAY RAIL OPPORTUNITIES COALITION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept status report on Commute Rail Operating Plan prepared by the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition. 2. Review and consider, without Transportation Committee recommendation, conceptual support of Assemblyman Tom Hannigan's legislative proposal to create a corridor passenger rail committee to oversee development of both intercity and commuter rail services in the Capitol Corridor. Direct Transportation Committee to report back to Board of Supervisors on Assemblyman Hannigan's legislative proposal when introduced as a bill in the 1995 session for possible Board support. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS A joint meeting of the ACR-132 (Capitol Corridor) Policy Advisory Committee and the Greater East Bay Rail Opportunities Coalition was conducted on December 12, 1994. The primary purpose of this joint meeting was to review a legislative proposal from Assemblyman Tom Hannigan (8th District, Fairfield) to improve the planning and implementation of passenger rail service in the Capitol Corridor. Assemblyman Hannigan's concept involves re-structuring the ACR-132 Policy Advisory Committee into a corridor passenger rail planning committee (corridor committee) to plan and oversee development of an integrated passenger rail program in the Capitol Corridor ( that addresses the needs of both intercity and commuter travellers ) . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : Supervi r Gayle Bi op Supervisor Tom Torl.akson ACTION OF BOARD ON 20 9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER /un r!;: —T77'- VOTE OF SUPERVISORS .e.. a.G� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Patrick Roche, CDD (510/646-2835) ATTESTED 2sZ !g2�/ cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF M. Shiu, Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Assemblyman Tom Hannigan AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR D.J. Smith Assoc. J. Spering, MTC Commissioner (via MTC) BY (�f , DEPUTY PR(GEBROC):CROP.bo Report om Commute Rail Operating Plan Prepared by the GEBROC December 19, 1994 Page Two BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This legislative proposal would subsume the commuter rail planning activities of GEBROC into the corridor committee and the remaining balance of Contra Costa County's PVEA grant funds would be transferred to MTC in order support the corridor committee's planning efforts. Attached as Exhibit "A" is an outline of Assemblyman Hannigan's legislative proposal. The other reason for this joint meeting was to share with the ACR- 132 Committee the final version of a Commute Rail Operating Plan prepared by GEBROC which details an operations plan for commuter services along the same Southern Pacific tracks used by the Capitol intercity service. Attached as Exhibit "B" is an executive summary of the GEBROC Commute Rail Operating Plan (copies of the full report are available upon request) . Following the joint meeting, it was hoped that GEBROC would briefly reconvene to a regular session to adopt the final version of this report, but, due to a lack of quorum, this action was deferred. With the completion of the Commute Rail Operating Plan, GEBROC has completed most of its original mission resulting in a body of knowledge that indicates a commuter rail service using the Southern Pacific's tracks parallel to Interstate 80 between Dixon, CA and West Oakland (Capitol Corridor) could provide commuters with a viable public transit option. As of today, however, there are no state or local funds available to implement a commuter rail project in the I-80 corridor, and attempts to secure federal funds for a demonstration project have been unsuccessful. In addition, the worsening statewide transportation funding crisis has made it impossible to predict if future funding for a project of this kind would be available any time soon. Given these fiscal realities there is an open question about GEBROC's future direction and purpose. Should it continue to pursue planning for a new, dedicated commuter rail service in the I-80 corridor (regardless of fiscal realities) ? Or, should the members of GEBROC instead collectively focus their efforts on improving the existing Capitol intercity rail service with the objective of providing some level of commuter service in the future? The Transportation Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors accept the final version of the GEBROC Commute Rail Operating Plan. The Transportation Committee was divided on the matter of endorsing Assemblyman Hannigan's legislative proposal (as described in Exhibit A) . It is noted that Assemblyman Hannigan's legislative proposal would dissolve the GEBROC Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and also transfer the County's remaining balance of approximately $240, 000 in PVEA grant funds to support the planning activities of the new corridor committee. One committee member was ready to conceptually endorse the proposal and the other member wanted to wait until Assemblyman Hannigan introduces a bill in the upcoming legislative session to consider this matter. However, both agreed that this issue should be reviewed by the full Board. The Transportation Committee will report back to the Board of Supervisors in early 1995 with a recommendation on the Hannigan legislative proposal and the County's future involvement in GEBROC. PR(GEBROC):CROP.bo r . EX Mff "A" Suggestions for Reinvigorating the ACR-132 PAC (or as it will be called Capitol Corn or Committee) 1. Committee Pu=se To advance the causes of passenger rail planning and implementation of service improvements in the Capitol Corridor in a manner that: • fulfills the ACR-132 and HR-14 mandates; • continues the process started by GEBROC of evaluating the potential for commuter rail service in the Corridor and planning for its implementation when feasible;and • promotes cooperation and consensus building among all concerned parties. 2. Committee Composition a) One elected representative from each of the following counties (appointed by county CMA): Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa,Alameda, and Santa Clara(Total 7). b) One representative from each of the following agencies (appointed by Agency) (Total 5). - MTC - SACOG - Amtrak - SP - Caltrans c) One State representative appointed by the Governor. d) At the discretion of the Policy Committee, additional membership may be solicited from other concerned parties (consideration will be given to the appointment of a private citizen with interest in and knowledge of passenger rail service in the Corridor, and to representatives from local transit operators). 3. Staffing • MTC will continue to provide staff support to the Committee. Additional revenues (e.g., Petroleum Violation Escrow Account funds) may be used to employ consultants to undertake Committee directed studies and technical work. • The Committee will be supported by a TAC, consisting of staff representatives from jurisdictions and agencies, including local transit operators, in the Corridor. • Technical work and negotiations among providers of passenger rail service in the Corridor will continue to be the responsibility of Caltrans, working with its partners (SP, Amtrak, local transit operators,etc.). • The Committee may undertake studies or analyses as required and as funding permits. These studies/analyses would be undertaken with the cooperation and participation of Caltrans, SP, Amtrak, and other affected agencies. 4. Funding • Near-term funding for the Committee and its activities will be provided by $225,000 in Petroleum Violations Escrow Account monies from Contra Costa County. f , 5. Committee Responsibilities a) Committee will report to the CTC Legislature every six months on the status of passenger rail planning and implementation in the Capitol Corridor. b) All presentations and recommendations made by Caltrans to the CTC shall first be reviewed by the Committee. c) Committee reserves the right to make presentations to the CTC on the Capitol Corridor's rail service, independent of Caltrans. d) Committee will have authority to direct Caltrans in the undertaking of assignments germane to Corridor rail planning subject to the limitations of law,CTC concurrence, and appropriate staff and funding arrangements. e) Committee will oversee implementation of 10 daily intercity passenger rail round trips in the Corridor by assisting in the: • initiation of programs and projects to advance the service; • resolution of disputes among Caltrans, Amtrak, SP, and other concerned parties, that may delay service implementation; • refinement of fares and schedules; • coordination of local transit services with intercity passenger rail service; • development and implementation of plans for new stations, and the upgrade of existing stations, with an emphasis on the provision of convenient intermodal transfers; • development and implementation of marketing strategies to increase ridership; • identification of strategies (fares, schedules, etc.) that would improve the Capitol's ability to meet the needs of Corridor commuters without jeopardizing its performance as an intercity service; • development of advocacy strategies to obtain the necessary federal, state, and local funds to fully implement passenger rail programs; and • other appropriate activities f) Committee will begin the process of planning for the introduction of commuter rail service when patronage levels and funding make such service viable. Specific tasks would include: • developing a list of issues associated with the introduction of commuter service, and a strategy for addressing them. Suggested issues: - acquisition of right-of-way - infrastructure upgrade (tracks. signals, equipment,etc.) passenger service/freight service conflicts - fares and schedules - other appropriate issues • evaluating alternatives for providing an institutional framework for administering the planning and operation of commuter service and recommending a preferred alternative. J%I:rbp:D.k 3:Suggestion for new ACR-132 December 9.199419:03 AM 1 EXHIBIT "B" GREATEREASTBAYRAILOPPORTUNITIESCOALITION LU p De some 4pm LU p D D e D ���kv offm sulk December 12, 1994 tSIMEN \\\PA Ir SMITH ASSOCIATES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VM INTRODUCTION This report describes an operating plan for commute rail service parallel to Interstate 80 and State Route 4 in Solano,Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The initial phase of commuter rail service under consideration by GEBROC would operate between Solano County and the Bay Area over trackage known popularly as the "Capitol Corridor." Rail passenger service currently operated in the corridor includes both long-distance passenger trains that are part of the Amtrak national network and short-haul corridor trains (also operated by Amtrak) which are subsidized in part by the State of California. The Amtrak intercity service is not easily adaptable to fulfilling commuter service needs for a variety of financial,institutional and service-related factors. Commuter service on the Capitol Route is best provided in the long run as a separate service from intercity,with its own equipment, schedule pattern, stopping pattern and its own institutional and funding arrangements. Over the short term, the Amtrak service could serve the commuter market in a limited way,with perhaps one round trip scheduled at peak commuter travel times. SERVICE PLAN Demonstration service could begin with two daily round trip trains operating between Dixon and West Oakland. Two trains would leave Dixon in the morning,with arrival times in West Oakland set to match start-of-work times in San Francisco and Downtown Oakland. As funds become available, two additional train sets could be added to the service, in order to provide four trips during the commute period.. Four daily round trips could also be provided between Brentwood and Oakland,though this should only be considered for later stage implementation since the BART West Contra Costa Extension may reduce the need for this service. COMMUTER RAIL MARKETS Estimates of commuter rail ridership were prepared by Korve Engineering as part of their work for GEBROC under a separate contract from this evaluation. These estimates were used as the basis for the current evaluation, and assume 4 daily round trips to and from Dixon, plus 4 daily round trips to and from Brentwood. The forecast year is 2000, and the transportation network assumes that the HOV lanes will be completed on I-80. It is estimated that 3,350 persons would board the trains in the morning period. In customary transportation planning terminology,the service has a projected daily ridership of 6,700. Ridership forecasts were also developed for two-train demonstration service in the 1-80 corridor. Compared to the two route, four train scenario, the c GEBROC COMMUTE RAIL OPERATING PLAN Page ES- 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY demonstration service would provide only half the trains on the Dixon-Martinez segment,and only one fourth the trains on the Martinez-West Oakland segment. Ridership can be expected to be lower by roughly the same proportions. CONNECTING SERVICES FOR COMMUTER RAIL Commuter rail service in the GEBROC corridors would be oriented towards serving trips with work destinations in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco. Connecting transit service is necessary to complete the work trip. The Richmond BART connection provides the shortest aggregate travel time for workers destined for Berkeley and Downtown Oakland. The West Oakland BART connection provides the shortest aggregate time to San Francisco. ROLLING STOCK There are two main options for rolling stock: new equipment similar to that purchased by SCRRA for Metrolink service (and demonstrated in East Bay service by the Southern Pacific), and older, previously-used but rehabilitated equipment. Estimated rolling stock needs are five locomotives and eighteen cars for the four round-trip service to Dixon. Leased equipment might be suitable over the short term, particularly for demonstration service. STATION FACILITIES There are several options available for making the connection between commuter rail trains and BART in the West Oakland area. The simplest and least expensive option is a plain asphalt platform at"Kirkham Street"along the SP main line where passengers walk or take the shuttle bus two blocks south to the West Oakland BART Station. A peoplemover would make the connection between the Kirkham Street platform and the BART station faster, more attractive, and more secure. Another option that would achieve the same goals of convenience and security involves constructing a wye track leading from the SP mainline, under the freeway, and into the existing parking lot of the BART station. Yet another option is constructing a new joint BART-rail station where the BART tracks cross the SP tracks in West Oakland. GEBROC COMMUTE RAIL OPERATING PLAN Page ES-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Station stops could be provided at a number of locations in this segment. Potential sites include: Common to I.80 and Brentwood Brentwood Service I-80 Service Only Service Only West Oakland Benicia Pittsburg Emeryville Suisun/Fairfield Antioch Berkeley Fairfield/Vacaville Brentwood Richmond Dixon Pinole/Hercules Crockett Martinez MAINTENANCE FACILITIES A layover facility will be required at Dixon(and Brentwood,if applicable)to provide storage for the train sets. Since equipment will lay over in Oakland during the day,this appears to be the logical point for such servicing activity. Ultimately,it is planned that Amtrak will relocate its maintenance operation to San Jose,where it would share a new facility with the Peninsula Commute trains. It will offer the best location for conducting heavy maintenance. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS A major advantage for implementation of rail commuter service along the I-80 Corridor is the fact that it will share trackage with an existing intercity rail passenger service. This service is currently being expanded and improved as part of a Caltrans investment program totalling over$100 million. The cost of stations for the demonstration service would be $3.0 million, and the cost for the full ' service two route scenario would be $23.4 million. The small layover facility at Dixon would cost about $500,000. The full service scenario would require a more extensive facility at Dixon, and a similar facility at Brentwood which would cost about$10 million. The Cost for cars and locomotives required for a four-train service on one and two routes is respectively$36,300,000 and$68,850,000. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Table ES-1 shows operating assistance needs together with anticipated O&M costs for the proposed two-year demonstration service. GEBROC COMMUTE RAIL OPERATING PLAN Page ES-3 1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1 ESTIMATED DEMONSTRATION SERVICE OPERATING ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENT 1Year 1 $765,000 $3,831,000 $3,066,000 Y9ar2 1,020,000 4,159,000 3,139,000 Table ES-2 shows the requirements for a four daily round trip service between Dixon and Oakland, together with four daily round trips to Brentwood. Table ES-2 OPERATING ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOUR TRAINS OAKLAND-DIXON AND FOUR TRAINS OAKLAND-BRENTWOOD _... .. __ _ _ _... ._. _. .... ............................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................. x. ea :ager 7 ral ile Estimated Revenues $4,271,250 $17.16 Estimated O&M Costs 12,444,000 50.00 Operating Assistance__T 8,172,750 32.84 These figures yield a 34 percent farebox recovery,a figure consistent with other,similar operations in the United States. INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES The following conclusions can be drawn about the implementation structure for service in the GEBROC corridors: 1. The objective to maintain local control suggests that a Joint Powers Authority(JPA)may be the best policy making entity. 2. The relatively small scale of the GEBROC service suggests that creating a new entity to administer and/or operate the service may not be efficient. 3. The specialized nature of passenger rail operations suggests that the operation function be provided by an entity with previous railroad operating experience. 4. Though conflicts are possible when one entity performs two functions,this possibility is not great enough to rule out any particular arrangement at this time. GEBROC COMMUTE RAIL OPERATING PLAN Page ES-4 f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The following steps are necessary to initiate commuter rail service: 1. Secure capital funding, 2. Develop a mechanism to fund the operating deficit; 3. Set up the policy making entity; 4. Negotiate with the owner for use of the track; 5. Select and/or set up the contract administration entity; 6. Request proposals, 'select, and/or set up the operating entity; _ 7. Acquire rolling stock; 8. Make fixed facility (track and station) improvements needed to begin operation; and 9. Initiate service. Of all these tasks, securing capital funding and covering the operating deficit will be the most challenging. Unless new revenue sources are found,implementation of any new commuter service will be limited to available transportation funding, which is almost wholly committed to ongoing projects. If new transportation revenues are not available in the near term, GEBROC should advocate that the proposed expansion of Capitol route intercity service from three to six daily round trips be accomplished in a manner which meets, at least in part,the demand for commute travel in _the corridor. This would require that GEBROC,the ACR-132 Policy Advisory Committee,Caltrans Division of Rail, Amtrak and Southern Pacific work closely together to resolve certain financial, institutional and service-related factors. r GEBROC COMMUTE RAIL OPERATING PLAN Page ES-5 1 GEBROC COMMUTE RAIL OPERATING PLAN To Auburn&Colfax V A. Roseville YOLO CO, Sacramento Davis Davis SRN PACIFIC NAPA.CO Dixon � •� � SACRAMENTO CO, Suisun FairfieldNacaville t' . —� sONO A CO. Fairfield SOLANO CO. j' % ------ - r 4 � l : :.::::.:::..::.:::.. Benicia Port Chica ... #i :>>.. Crockett Pittsburg >» PMartinez AntiOakley yinole/ och . 1. 5.4;>"< Hercules �� ? MA t `'> > Richmond CONTRA 1 Brentwood ^FE COSTA Stockton To Bakersfield C�. .. ..:.'`><<:' '' s ,-%,•. � l> > 1»» >> Berkeley CO. ills To Tracy c.y SAN ;;>> : Oakland 16th&Wood i ». W West Oakland BART C Oakland-Jack London Square >it»»> »»>>:>:.. S;Ft € Coliseum I co, j I ............... Hayward i > ' ?: i ALAMEDA CO, i I i Union City Fremont I i SAN MATEO Ci3, ;>s .-----•-------•----------- ( %STAANWLAUS LEGEND: Great America- C�3. Santa Clara SANTA Existing Stations CL,ARA � O Potential or �� San Jose CO. i Planned Stations Tamien \\ To Los Angeles `N�flow Figure 1-1 CURRENT & POTENTIAL PASSENGER RAIL ROUTES WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Daily trip and mileage data are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 DAILY COMMUTE TRIPS AND MILEAGE Two Train Eight Train Demonstration Service Full Service Low High Low High Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond AM inbound Passengers 620 800 2,550 3,350 Total Daily Passengers 1,240 1,600 5,100 6,700 NO TRAIN Drive Trips 916 1,079 3,622 4,349 Drive Vehicle Miles 35,055 37,854 128,078 140,514 Transit Trips 233 413 1,116 1,916 Transit Passenger Miles 6,726 9,804 32,921 46,601 TRAIN Home End Drive Trips 1,000 1,164 4,100 Home End Drive Miles 2,818 3,309 11,573 13,755 Home End Transit Trips 140 320 590 1,390 Home End Transit Miles 280 640 1,180 2,780 Work End Transit Trips 144 180 590 750 Work End Transit Miles 258 330 1,060 1,380 Commute Train Operating Miles 274 274 1,027 1,027 Note:Transit trips and miles reflect bus transit only. BART transfers at Richmond or West Oakland are excluded.