Loading...
10 October 5, 2005 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study74422 AGENDA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Rail Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting October 5, 2005, 9:00am—11:00am RCTC Offices, 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d F oor, Riverside, Conference Room A 1. Welcoming Remarks Hideo Sugita, RCTC 2. Self -Introductions All 3. Purpose of Today's Meeting Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC 4. Overview of Commuter Rail Study Results Charles Banks, R.L. Banks & Assoc. • Background Charles Banks, R.L. Banks & Assoc. • Goals and Objectives Charles Banks, R.L. Banks & Assoc. • Alternative Service Scenarios Charles Banks, R.L. Banks & Assoc. • Evaluation Criteria Charles Banks, R.L. Banks & Assoc. -Low Income Household Access Sheldon Peterson, RCTC • Ridership Assumptions and Res Its Justin Fox, WSA • Key Findings Charles Banks, R.L. Banks & Assoc. • . Recommendation Charles Banks, R.L. Banks & Assoc. 5. Discussion of Results TAC Input Carl Schiermeyer, SCS Consulting 6. Next Steps: Charles Banks, R.L. Banks & Assoc. - Forward Final Report and Recommendation to Commission EE.32.18 ATTENDANCE ROSTER RAIL FEASIBILITY TAC MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2005, 9:00 A.M. NAME aAilkuLai - G,/-l;2L... cfElE/2I16% I� \okA- - IC A � &I-i) 04ke M Chili LI AO C-A t�`S t L>� J�E(Ei �o,J ET605A✓ h6tio» e, ff2--h4s Sato-ta 3� e &ccrc.fc-. $gtTrw1t,soA) 6u.fiV ti)(t ofv-) y�/if/695,y TicklykrA- Crary `s t"C 2v1 REPRESENTING 4e-re__ , c- va6 Pew a�-� ci, 15c(..4-di4 m)s<5.8, 61 co 0 ✓ 4„ , (co_Af \,I-T,J ._.F- AwNi,Cs ge c-14-ram e c-r C r t. kco- `j- CTL sa46 ,c..4__ 111041440 8010 TNOrftA eT� 021b Ar'S Pc-U4 CG1A-C"4ns Dis'', g s TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL capeki @scrru.aet 7 5-7 7 7 b;),en�insS,6v �je,tiCIR,36V 740. 31H - tJ A7 G wsG ✓n 11 asi C-14.2.09 ell 1- 73 ro� p2�S VsezNS e-T %co2ra;4 MCA, i7s C1 1/ N2'1..7 Zh 1 LM 1 wr--; ®cam ?- -2e7- 79P5/ q si- 787- 7928 i* tee' 6MY xe21(c' j�i&�lbtu- Cs)� 20 7,6 a yap arci a -n 3 veri av4, 4 ,4 (g51)7ss -sao� 6151-7]t31---) crD I !/J 101 3$3 51zG Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) l Executive Summary Introduction R.L. Banks and Associates was retained by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to conduct a Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. RCTC is Riverside County's primary transportation agency charged by state law with the responsibility of planning and funding transportation improvements. The primary purpose of the study is to compare and contrast the feasibility of introducing eight, alternative, prospective passenger rail service extensions, each of which would operate to or through the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink station in the City of Riverside. The service alternative scenarios are characterized and distinguished on the basis of three elements: 1) the route(s)/right(s)-of-way or alignment(s) which would host the prospective services; 2) the endpoint city from which trains would depart in the a.m. peak direction; and 3) the type of service frequency, "commuter rail" or "intracounty rail." The extensions/service alternatives evaluated in this Study are as follows: • Commuter Rail from Banning and Beaumont to Riverside and Los Angeles; • Commuter Rail from Indio (Coachella Valley) to Riverside to Los Angeles; • Commuter Rail or Intracounty Rail from South Perris to Winchester, Hemet, and San Jacinto; • Commuter Rail or Intracounty Rail from South Perris to Temecula via Winchester Road; and • Commuter Rail or Intracounty Rail from South Perris to Murrieta & Temecula via the 1-215 corridor. This study examines the operations, ridership, and costs to determine the feasibility of implementation of the services listed above, including the physical, operational, and financial feasibility of each major capital investment and its operating subsidy projections. Background Commuter rail service has been a growing success in Riverside County since its inception in 1993 with the Riverside Line to Los Angeles. In 1995, the Inland Empire - Orange County (IEOC) Line began providing service to Orange County, followed most recently by the start of peak -period service on the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles (91) Line in 2002. Also in 1993, the Commission acquired the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) with the eventual goal of providing passenger rail service. Upon completion of a commuter rail feasibility study in 2000, t e Commission authorized staff to develop commuter rail service on the SJBL to Pe Os, known as the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Project. Currently, the PVL Project is in th environmental review phase awaiting FTA approval to advance to preliminary engineering once acceptable modeling forecasts are produced. Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 2 As part of a Southern California regional effort, RCTC is participating in the development of three separate five -county strategic efforts that will impact passenger and freight rail capacity in our region: • Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment A 30-year commuter rail strategic plan for current service and planned extensions with a timeline for completion by December 2005. The Riverside County geographic scope is the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines with the planned PVL extension; • Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan A 30-year plan that reflects regional agreement on a phased strategy to maintain mobility for freight movement to, from, and within Southern California, and determine how best to minimize the impacts of freight movement (truck, train, airport) on local communities, the existing transportation system, and the environment. The timeline for completion is Fall 2006. The Rivers'de County geographic scope includes, at a minimum, the following freeways — 1-10, 1-15, SR60, SR91, SR86, and corresponding freight rail lines and related cargo airports; and • Five -County Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Joint Venture A joint advocacy effort with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) railroads to develop new short-term federal funding and long-term public - private financing mechanisms for port -generated rail and truck capacity improvements in the SCAG region. The Riverside County geographic scope includes Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects and rail capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP main lines that parallel the SR91 and 1-10 freeways. These activities in the Southern California basin will result in an assessment of passenger and freight rail capacity requirements that may require some form of public investment. In response to these activities, Ithe Feasibility Study allows the Commission to determine if additional extensions, beyond the PVL Project, should be assessed in these regional study efforts. Goals and Objectives of the Study The goals of the Feasibility Study are to answer the following major policy questions for each geographic area: • Is a commuter rail extension viable and effective, as part of a multi -modal transportation system to maintain or enhance mobility and contribute to improving the quality of life? If viable, o Are the railroads willing to share their corridor? If so, what are their requirements? O What service levels are appropriate to meet forecasted demand? Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 3 o How much will it cost (capital and operating) to provide potential rail service levels? Service Alternative Scenarios A total of five commuter rail and three intra evaluated in this Study: ounty rail service altemative scenarios are • Scenario 1 envisions commuter rail service between Banning and Riverside via UP and BNSF railroad tracks, continuing westward on one of the existing Metrolink lines serving Riverside; • Scenario 2 envisions commuter rail service between Indio and Riverside via the UP and BNSF railroad tracks, continuing westward on one of the existing Metrolink lines serving Riverside; • Scenario 3 envisions commuter Penis via the RCTC-owned SJ currently planned to terminate a rail service between San Jacinto and South BL, extending the Metrolink 91 Line (PVL), South Perris; • Scenario 4 envisions intracounty rail service between San Jacinto and Riverside via the SJBL, connecting with the assumed to be upgraded PVL line at South Perris; • Scenario 5 envisions commute rail service between Temecula and South Perris via SJBL and an alignment paralleling Winchester Road, extending the Metrolink 91 Line (PVL), currently planned to terminate at South Penis; Scenario 6 envisions intracounty rail service between Temecula and South Perris via SJBL and an alignment paralleling Winchester Road, connecting with the assumed upgraded PVL line at South Perris; • Scenario 7 envisions commute rail service between Temecula and South Perris via the 1-215 corridor, extending the Metrolink 91 Line (PVL), currently planned to terminate at South 'Perris; and • Scenario 8 envisions intracounty rail service between Temecula and South Perris via the 1-215 corridor, connecting with the upgraded PVL line at South Perris. A graphic depiction of the service alternative scenarios appears as Map ES-1 (Executive Summary-1) on the following page. I Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 4 Map ES-1 un Un,e . aril Graf zo:L4n§ SEWC, E ALTTf;tVh t Qr inut9r Rad (.10,, 'Fn zsufs t©eanning s me tei ♦iadi UPRFE 44 Indio 3, Q©Yr#navf¢f Rall, !Sit-, Perri E C+ asrFJadinty a MtFa**13ail..P.Vt,illy slaciOto., 9 Commuier Rall Vilriai €i t . Taz,=O,iidi1(a- . 6 l*O ui Raul,.40iftWO,F,l,:.!Mside4076,0ecula 7 t§omniutsiAail 1-21,3; #4.* 1t0,T4pti460, :;1Intra*O Raft.1;21a;iirr9r}9ddtoT000a,. Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) $ There are two key differences between the commuter rail and the intracounty service scenarios examined: 1) the level of service assumed and 2) the eastemmost station assumed to be served: • All five commuter rail service scenarios reflect the assumption of six peak -period, peak -period direction trains in the morning and an identical volume and pattern of trains in the reverse direction in the afternoon and evening, along with two off- peak trains in each direction. Trains in the a.m. peak direction would operate between stations east or south of the Riverside Downtown station, through that station, terminating west, south or north of that location, as if current Metrolink service were extended to originate at points deeper into Riverside County. • In contrast, all three intracountv rail service scenarios are assumed to run at thirty -minute intervals in both directions between 6am and 10pm and are assumed to operate to and from the Downtown Riverside station, with Riverside being the farthest west the service would reach though efficient transfers to some Metrolink trains would be possible at Riverside. Intracounty rail service has more in common with excellent bus service than commuter rail service insofar as it would operate bothi frequently and throughout the day, not just during peak periods. However, such a leivel of service necessarily would require a substantial amount of both right-of-way and infrastructure investment to create the capacity needed to accommodate the higher service levels/greater number of trains. Therefore, the decision was made that intracounty service scenarios are only examined in corridors where the public sector owns the right-of-way which would have to host all assumed service scenario trains. To the extent that intracounty rail service scenarios are examined in the same three corridors as commuter rail service scenarios, a comparison of their respective performance results can be viewed as helping to answer the question as to whether the higher serlvice levels assumed to be provided in the intracounty scenarios attracted enough incremental ridership and revenue to justify the additional capital and operating costs necessary to attract the incremental ridership. Evaluation Criteria Each service alternative scenario is evaluated based upon eight criteria that measure the feasibility of each scenario to satisfy the goals of the study. The matrix (see ES-2 and ES-3) developed to score each alternative and compare alternatives to one another, is based upon the following approved evaluation criteria: • Ridership • Farebox Recovery Ratio • Right -of -Way Issues • Mobility Improvements — General • Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households • Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile • Capital Cost (Track, Stations and Equipment) and • Capital Cost Per Passenger. Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 6 As appropriate to a process of developing an objective assessment of the eight scenarios, and RCTC's interest in developing a process that results in a clear explanation of Study recommendations, the criteria were proposed, discussed and agreed upon before any results were developed. KEY RIDERSHIP ASSUMPTIONS The ridership forecasting methodology reflects the assumption that people are drawn to commuter rail if they must make longer trips, especially if there are frequent trains available to encourage and support convenient trip -making. In other words, the longer the trip and the more frequent the headways, the more riders find commuter rail an attractive option. Metrolink mode splits are assumed for the commuter rail scenarios. Ridership forecasts were adjusted upward where forecasted worsening congestion on parallel highway systems was assumed to lengthen auto commutes. The last input triggered an adjustment to the calculation of total weekday ridership, reflecting the operation of off- peak trains in addition to peak -period trains As an example, Metrolink's off-peak trains generate about ten percent of total weekday ridership. That percent is used to forecast total peak and off-peak train ridership in all commuter rail scenarios. The intracounty rail forecast methodology shares many of the same elements with the commuter rail forecast approach. But rather than employing the Metrolink experience to predict mode split, this forecast draws on the experience of Caltrain, the commuter rail service on the San Francisco Peninsula, which is characterized by bi-directional service every 30 minutes. For both the commuter rail scenarios and the intracounty rail scenarios, the ridership forecasts of this study measure the incremental weekday ridership over and above the commuter ridership assumed to be generated by extension of 99 Line service to South Perris. To improve clarity of the ridership forecasts, a column labeled "Passenger Trips per Train (Daily)" shown in both Table ES-2 and ES-3 is added to measure the average number of riders on all trains. The "Passenger Trips per Train (Daily)" figures may well be a more meaningful metric because there is a large discrepancy between the sixteen daily commuter trains in each commuter rai scenario and the 64 daily intracounty trains in each intracounty rail scenario. Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 7 KEY FINDINGS Scenario 1: Union Pacific/Banning/Commuter Rail As shown in Table ES-2, this option generates a total weekday rail ridership of 768, the lowest of all scenarios. Of this amount, 344 are a.m. peak -period riders, who return in the evening. Major destinations of riders inc ude Riverside, Loma Linda (including Loma Linda University and Medical Center), East Ontario and Los Angeles. The largest origin is Beaumont. Despite the relatively high ranking for Access to Low Income Households, the low Ridership results in the lowest ranking for Capital Costs per Passenger, and places the Scenario among the lowest in Mobility Improvements (Daily Trip Time Savings). Scenario 2: Union Pacific/Indio/Commuter Rail As shown in ES-2, this option generates a total weekday rail ridership of 2,174. Of this amount, 982 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in equal numbers in the evening. Major destinations include Loma Linda, Riverside, Banning, Los Angeles and East Ontario. The largest origin is Beaumont. One relevant issue encountered in the development of this forecast is with regard to special destinations such as casinos at Cabazon, Agua Caliente and Indio. The hours and directions of the trains in this scenario are not really attractive to casino patrons on a day trip, as the traveler would most likely 1?ave to spend the night. While such a trip is possible, the inherent travel time limitations likely would dissuade many riders. Thus, this forecast conservatively assumes that special destination traffic would not materially enhance total ridership on the line and that this scenario experiences the same percent of off-peak riders to total riders as the other four commuter rail options. Due to the significant amount of congestioh experienced by UP on their corridor, it is believed that construction of a third main track adjacent to existing UP main tracks would be required by UP were commuter passenger service to be extended beyond Colton on the UP main track. Consequently, to address capacity issues in Scenarios 1 and 2, large capital expenditures will be required, which are significantly higher than the remaining commuter rail scenarios. In add tion, the significant UP corridor issues also result in the lowest rankings for Scenarios 1 and 2 under the Right -of -Way Issues criterion. Scenario 3: Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Commuter Rail As shown in ES-2, this option generates a total weekday rail ridership of 1,338. Of this amount, 612 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to retum in the evening. Major destinations include Alessandro Boulevard, Riverside, Spruce Street and. Ramona Expressway. The largest origin is Hemet Airport. Scenario 3 garners the highest ranking under the Right -of -Way Issues criterion because the rail right-of-way is owned by RCTC, there is limited freight service, and a shared use Riverside County Transportation Commission Commute Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) agreement exists governing the freight operation. Correspondingly, this Scenario also receives the highest ranking for Capital Costs and Capital Cost per Passenger since j right-of-way is currently available. The Operating Costs per Passenger Mile and Farebox Recovery Ratio are also among the highest. Scenario 4: Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail As shown in ES-3, this option generates a total weekday rail ridership of 2,162. Of this amount, 823 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening. The largest a.m. destination station is Van Buren Boulevard. The largest a.m. origin sites are San Jacinto, Florida Avenue in downtown Hemet and Sanderson Avenue in West Hemet. To the extent that the SCAG data includes trips to the casino, some of those trips are reflected in the forecast. However, this forecast conservatively excludes any induced ridership which might be generated by marketing from the casino. While the ridership for this Scenario is among the highest, the Farebox Recovery Ratio and Operating Cost per Passenger Mile are among the lowest in ranking due to the high frequency of trains. Scenario 5: Perris Valley Line - Winchester Road/Temecula/ Commuter Rail As shown in ES-2, this option generates a total weekday rail ridership of 1,292. Of this amount, 591 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening. The largest destination is Alessandro Boulevard, followed by South Perris, Riverside, Los Angeles and Ramona Expressway. The largest origin stations are Winchester Road in Temecula and Winchester Road at Benton Road. The forecast reflects the assumption that, for the most part, work trips bound to destinations west of Corona would be made by commuter rail according to the same mode splits observed elsewhere, even though trips by car via 1-15 may be shorter. The reason is that 2030 congestion on 1-15, Highway 91 and Highway 60 may be so bad as to render more attractive a longer distance but faster commuter rail trip. While the Farebox Recovery Ratio is among the highest and the Operating Costs per Passenger Mile ranks among the best, this Scenario ranks as moderately feasible in the rest of the evaluation criteria. Scenario 6: Perris Valley Line - Winchester Road/Temecula/ Intracounty Rail As shown in ES-3, this option generates a iota' weekday rail ridership of 2,093. Of this amount, 791 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening. The largest a.m. destination stations are Winchester Avenue in Temecula and Van Buren. The largest a.m. origination stations are Winchester Avenue in Temecula and Winchester Avenue at Benton Road. To the extent SCAG data includes trips to existing or planned casinos in Temecula and Winchester, some of those trips are reflected in this forecast. Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 9 While the Ridership forecast is among the highest, the Scenario ranks the lowest in the following criteria: Daily Passenger Trips per Train, Farebox Recovery Ratio, and Operating Costs per Passenger Mile primari y due to the high frequency of trains. Scenario 7: Perris Valley Line/I-215/Temecula Commuter Rail As shown in ES-2, this option generates a total weekday rail ridership of 2,166. Of this amount, 988 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to retum in the evening. The largest destination is Alessandro Boulevard. As in Scenario 5, this forecast excludes trips made by Temecula commuters to Corona. This Scenario ranks the highest in terms of Farebox Recovery Ratio, Mobility Improvement (Daily Trip Time Savings), and Operating Cost per Passenger Mile. Scenario 8: Perris Valley Line/1-215/Temecula Intracounty Rail As shown in ES-3, this option generates a total weekday rail ridership of 3,532, the highest of all scenarios. Of this amount, 1,363 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to retum in the evening. The largest a.m. destination stations are Winchester Avenue in Temecula, Clinton Keith Road/I-215 and Newport Road/I-215. The largest a.m. origin stations are Temecula and Van Buren. To the extent SCAG data included trips to a casino in Temecula, some of those trips are reflected in this forecast. While the Capital Cost per Passenger is among the lowest, the Farebox Recovery Ratio and the Passenger Trips per Train are also among the lowest. Stakeholder Involvement As part of the study development process a Rail Feasibility Technical Advisory Committee (RFTAC) was established to receive information from the consultant team and provide input on the evaluation criteria, data collection, and ranking of the service alternative scenarios. The RFTAC is comprised of more than 30 members representing local governments, transit agencies, Native American tribes, and social service groups. Recommendation Strong indicators of Feasible Passenger Ra'1 Service include the following: • High Mobility (Daily Trip Time Savings) • High Farebox Recovery Ratio • Low Right -of -Way Issues The analysis supports advancing two scenarios for inclusion in the next RTP update: Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (I- 215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal rouges for future study since they gamer the greatest number of feasible findings. Tkis recommendation will be presented and reviewed by the RFTAC prior to submission and consideration by the RCTC Board. Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 10 P 1, Table ES-2 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service >, _ O 2 Union Pacific Railroad /Commuter/ I-- Indio 3co Perris -Valley Line � /Commuter/ c San Jacinto N � c 5' N6 Winchester Road /Commuter/ a> Temecula 1-215 E /Commuter/ o Temecula U Union Pacific Railroad /Commuter/ Banning -Beaumont 34.5 768 0 55 0 0 176 hours 43.96% 0 • $0.68 0 $299.9 0 $390,495 0 76.5 2,174 • 155 • 22% O 124 hours 42.96% $0.63 0 • $544.4 0 $250,230 0 16.5 1,338 96 61% 518 hours 44.32% $0.24 $111.5 $83,333 • • ® • • • • 20.5 1,292 92 53% • 486 hours 37.76% $0.25 ® ® • $203.6 $157,585 16.5 2,166 155 109% • 932 hours 37.23% $0.12 • ® • $249.4 $115,143 Table Key Feasible • Moderately Feasible Less Feasible 0 *Incremental route miles east or south of South Perris, assuming Metrolink's 91 Line service is extended to South Perris. Source: RLBA, WSA and WRCOG data and calculations. Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 11 Table Key Perris Valley Line !Intracounty/ San Jacinto Winchester Road /Intracounty/ Temecula 1-215 /Intracounty/ Temecula Feasible • Table ES-3 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria-Intracounty Service Moderately Feasible � Less Feasible O 226 hours "Incremental route miles east or south of South Perris, assuming Metrolink's 91 Line service is extended to South Perris. Source: RLBA, WSA and WRCOG data and calculations. 37.26% $1.92 $287.0 $81,257 •