Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

FINAL REPORT COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY for STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION submitted by R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. Transportation Economists and Engineers in conjunction with JHK & Associates February 22, 1991 COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Table of Contents Paqe Executive Summary and Conclusions ............................... E- 1 Task I. RidershipIPatronage Estimate/Analysis ................ 1-1 Task 11 . Inventory of Available Routes ........................ 11-1 Task I11 . Commuter Rail Operations Planning .................... 111-1 Task IV. Commuter Service Cost Estimates ...................... IV-1 Task V . Coordination. Funding and Other Anci 1 lary Issues ..... V- 1 Tables Operating Cost. Ridership and Subsidy by Route ....... Capital Cost by Route ................................ Estimated AM Peak Period Ridership ................... Estimated Peak Period Ridership by Origin Zone ....... Estimated AM Peak Period Ridership by Destination Zone 1988 Zonal Demographic & Employment Data .......*..... Commuter Rail Station Zone Coverage .................. Vermont Commuter Rail Service Schedule ............... Vermont Commuter Rail Fare Schedule .................. Comm~~terRai 1 Market Segment ......................... Estimated AM Peak Period Revenue ..................... Operating Costs Summary .............................. Operating Cost Calculations .......................... Capital Cost Calculations ............................ R.L. BANKS &ASSOCIATES. INC. COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Table of Contents (Concluded) Paqe Fiqures 1-1. Zone System .......................................... 1-5 1-2 Network System ....................................... 1-6 11-1. Essex Junction and Vicinity, Central Vermont Railway . 11-6 111-1 Vermont Commuter Rail Service, Sample Schedule ....... 111-15 -ii- R.L. BANKS &ASSOCIATES, INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The feasibi 1 ity of commuter rai 1 service has been proposed for study on three routes serving Burl ington and neighboring communities: Montpelier Junction - Essex Junction - Burlington, St. Albans - Essex Junction - Burlington, and Middlebury - Burlington - Essex Junction. Determination of proposed commuter rai 1 service feasibi 1 ity is a four step process, incorporating the following successive assessments: Is the proposed service physically and operationally feasible? What patronage might the service attract? What would the service cost? Is the service sufficiently attractive to warrant the expenditure of pub1 ic funds from a cost-effectiveness standpoint or on the basis of community goals and objectives? This report addresses the first three of the four above assessments, leaving to the interested governmental and development entities the final decision as to whether investment and operation of such a service is warranted. Phvsical and Operational Feasibilitv The Central Vermont Railway (CV) 1 ine from Montpelier Junction to Essex Junction to St. Albans is in good condition, presently handles daily Anitrak passenger trains and needs only station and layover faci 1 ities to be ready to accommodate commuter service. R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. The CV Winooski Subdivision, between Burlington and Essex Junction, needs substantial improvements to sustain time-competitive commuter service. This segment would be used by trains serving each of the three proposed routes. Recommended rail and tie replacement, track surfacing and tunnel clearance improvements would cost an estimated $1.7 million. The Vermont Rai lway (VTR) 1 ine between Middlebury and Burl ington needs rail and tie replacement and track surfacing prior to initiation of commuter service. These projects are estimated to require an expenditure of $3.9 million. Commuter service would be feasible from an operational perspective on all of the routes and segments studied. Existing operations are of a volume and pattern which should present no obstacle to overlaying a commuter service of the scope contemplated. Officers of both CV and VTR expressed, informal ly, that they would cooperate or welcome commuter service which contributes its fair share to operating and maintenance expenses. Patronaqe and Service Cost Ridership estimates and estimated annual service costs, revenues and subsidies are summarized in Table E-1 at the conclusion of this summary. Likewise, capital costs are condensed in Table E-2. Ridership estimates were developed using a mode split model based upon state and local ly provided data and calibrated in the course of other commuter studies. Cost estimates are based upon upgrading the segments described above to R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Table E-1 t% 6 -r 4L -V)C 7.I- a, E'F - OWUO EarhL -aC,oa, a, w L IU- cn w w =a- C L't V) m'I- a, C r um Urn-l- -(Om - vlY-a a,L -L a ZOCIrnL C,clcua,r (Ow >O cc L EU 0 0 g.r" 2; EOa -m o-ua, m .C a, -3C,P C, V) C 5a,-0CIa, evlCOEC- .-cIUECZo P w o .r .- ~aa,u a* 0xuoCTm U w a- a, U n 0 ha m w a- - r> LE; vl a .r a, .I- U 0 U nCI .C L marV) 2.io w OL't am ul CIltrcU 0 .r -moo U L C .C u a, (OC -C ra, C, 'I- mo (0 V) U -E c-- I> ( O . a,'P--w C L m Cmw a 0 C, 5 C 0 Q) 'I- C s .r WYU 0 V LELQ) C aaaL m =I C EQ. C 0 w- a, .?- L aJ mum C, =LC X a- 5 0 3aaL w a, L U E: 0 lALE3, aJ -0 a, V)v)\ mcrrc LI a, a, Cmz= W 'r 0 3 L E= L -a Lwaaw 0 crr .- 7 a, V) C-r Q w-0 aJ a* E ca+u U 0 '-7 O) E .- E U UY 5 Y 7 atucm3+ .C .- a, 0 0 C,cl 0 X -0s E= E a a, 7 U -----V) V) 3'- U a zvlo or E E W CZ -\L 32m C c 3 0 0 Cl u U R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Table E-2 N >- I m W I- WV) 20 emu EOaJIV Q, Ere, Eovo eu a+- '7 0 o 310 v E-4 R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. support fast, comfortable service using proven commuter equipment, including new coaches and locomot ives remanuf actured for commuter service. Estimates are del i berately conservative, as is appropriate to the feasibi 1 ity evaluation process. Implementation planning may identify opportunities for expenses reduct ion, such as acquisition of used coaches or more favorable wage rates, but prudent feasibi 1 ity analysis cannot rest on assumptions that used or heretofore unproven equipment will be available or desirable or that labor arrangements more favorable than those hypothesized wi 11 be attainable. Conclusions Commuter service is feasible from engineering and operating perspectives, however, a1 though projected patronage is not insignificant, ridership levels are not sufficient to capitalize upon the potential efficiencies of commuter rai 1 service. The entire projected ridership would represent only one or two trainloads for many present commuter services. Operating one and two car trains for peak period service is expensive and inefficient. If the demand were present, passenger levels several times higher than projected could be accommodated at modest cost increments by adding coaches to the projected service, with a resu 1 tant dramatic improvement in system economic performance. Notwithstanding the project's technical feasibility, it is the consu 1 tant ' s opinion that the proposed service is not economical ly feasible. This conclusion is intuitively evident in the low ridership and low number of riders per train; in adddition, it is supported by R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. comparison of the estimated farebox recovery ratio (total passenger fares divided by total operating expenses) with that of existing coommuter rail services. Burlington service is projected to recover 15 percent of operating costs annually; in contrast, seven existing operations reported farebox recovery ratios ranging from 35.6 to 56.5 percent, with an overall 47.9 percent recovery (1990 Transit Operatinq and Financial Statistics, American Pub1 ic Transit Association). The required capital expenditure of $27 million calls for careful consideration in the light of the limited ridership and in the absence of compel1 ing considerations such as congestion or energy conservation. Next Steos Despite the consultant's opinion concerning economic feasibi 1 i ty, the decision as to whether to proceed with commuter rai 1 service development must be made in the context of local transportation and community priorities and with consideration of available alternatives; that decision must be made by the citizens and governmental entities affected. Although Burl ington service may not be as cost-effective as other commuter services, because of relatively low ridership, it still may compare favorably with transportation options not included in this analysis, such as highway improvements, other transit technologies, etc. If a decision is made not to proceed with service implementation at this time, the status of the involved rail lines should be monitored since future changes in employment and residential patterns and fuel costs could cause significant increased service demand. Most of the potential E-6 R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. commuter trackage has sufficient freight or intercity passenger traffic that neither abandonment nor significant downgrading appears likely at present, however, rationalization of railroad physical plant is a continuing process and few lines are absolutely immune. One segment which should receive particular attention is the link between CV and VTR in downtown Burlington. Neither railroad has indicated that this link is in jeopardy and it is the sole freight interchange point between the two carriers. Nonetheless, it should be monitored because of its key role in potential commuter service and the difficulty and expense of acquiring and restoring right-of-way in urban areas. E-7 R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Task I RIDERSHIP/PATRONAGE ESTIMATEfANALYSIS The patronage analysis estimated AM peak period ridership for the Vermont Commuter Rail System at 835 commuters. This estimate include 650 riders that are expected to walk from their station to their final destination. These trips are called "walk egress" trips. An additional 185 commuters are expected if feeder bus services are provided to major employment sites.

Load more