DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL Network Integration Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL Network Integration Study FINAL Monterey Bay Area Network Integration Study July 29, 2021 FINAL Monterey Bay Area Network Integration Study July 29, 2021 This page intentionally left blank. 2 FINAL Monterey Bay Area Network Integration Study July 29, 2021 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ..................................................................... 11 1.1 Initial Service ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 Phased Service .................................................................................................................................................... 16 1.3 Vision Service ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 1.4 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................ 21 2. Introduction / Role of Rail in the Region.................................. 22 2.1 Study Purpose..................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Study Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 24 3. Public Outreach ............................................................................ 25 3.1 Outreach Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................................... 25 3.2 Stakeholder Engagement Plan ..................................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Network Advisory Committee ...................................................................................................................... 27 3.4 Briefings and Outreach Meetings ............................................................................................................... 28 3.5 Public Sentiment Survey ................................................................................................................................. 29 4. Existing and Future Conditions .................................................. 37 5. Future Service Vision Development .......................................... 39 5.1 Service Vision ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 5.2 Network Components ..................................................................................................................................... 45 5.2.1 Pulsed Services ................................................................................................................................ 46 5.2.2 Strategic Corridors and Hubs ..................................................................................................... 47 5.3 Service Design .................................................................................................................................................... 48 5.3.1 Operational Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 48 5.3.2 Fleet Strategies Analysis ............................................................................................................... 50 5.3.3 Infrastructure Needs ...................................................................................................................... 58 5.3.4 Coast Starlight / Coast Daylight Coordination .................................................................... 65 5.3.5 Freight Coordination ..................................................................................................................... 65 5.4 Governance and Operations Models ......................................................................................................... 67 1 FINAL Monterey Bay Area Network Integration Study July 29, 2021 5.4.1 Goals and Methodology .............................................................................................................. 67 5.4.2 Potential Future Governance Models ..................................................................................... 68 5.5 Funding and Financing Strategies .............................................................................................................. 78 5.5.1 Federal Funding Sources ............................................................................................................. 79 5.5.2 State Funding Sources .................................................................................................................. 82 5.5.3 Local Funding Sources .................................................................................................................. 86 6. Initial Service ................................................................................ 89 6.1 Services.................................................................................................................................................................. 89 6.2 Fleet Strategies ................................................................................................................................................... 90 6.3 Infrastructure and Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................... 91 6.4 Benefits Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 92 6.4.1 Transportation Benefits ................................................................................................................ 93 6.4.2 Environmental Benefits ............................................................................................................... 106 6.4.3 Economic Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 107 6.5 Governance and Operations Recommendations ................................................................................ 112 6.6 Operations and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................................................... 113 6.7 Funding and Financing Strategy ................................................................................................................ 114 7. Phased Service............................................................................ 115 7.1 Services................................................................................................................................................................ 115 7.2 Fleet Strategies ................................................................................................................................................. 116 7.3 Infrastructure and Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................. 117 7.4 Benefits Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 118 7.4.1 Transportation Benefits .............................................................................................................. 118 7.4.2 Environmental Benefits ............................................................................................................... 130 7.4.3 Economic Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 133 7.5 Governance and Operations Recommendations ................................................................................ 138 7.6 Operations and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................................................... 139 7.7 Funding and Financing Strategy ................................................................................................................ 140 8. Vision Service ............................................................................. 141 8.1 Services................................................................................................................................................................ 141 8.2 Fleet Strategies ................................................................................................................................................. 142 2 FINAL Monterey Bay Area Network Integration Study July 29, 2021 8.3 Infrastructure and Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................. 144 8.4 Benefits Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 145 8.4.1 Transportation Benefits .............................................................................................................. 145 8.4.2 Environmental Benefits ............................................................................................................... 159 8.4.3 Economic Benefits .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Commuter Rail System Study
    TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Commuter Rail System Study Transit Committee March 11, 2010 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Study Purpose Study Requested by MAG Regional Council in 2008 Commuter Rail Study Funding in 2004 RTP Study Feasibility of Commuter Rail Service in MAG Region Ridership Forecasting and Cost Effectiveness Capital and Operating Cost Estimates Vehicle Technology Recommendation Implementation Requirements Copyright © 2009 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Peer Regions ~ Commuter Rail Systems WHAT IS COMMUTER RAIL? Peak Period, Peak Direction Service. Traditionally caries less daily riders than light rail, but for longer distances. Similar market and characteristics with Bus Rapid Transit / Express. SOUNDER-Seattle CALTRAIN-San Francisco ALTAMONT COMMUTER EXPRESS – San Jose Can share ROW and track with freight railroads and can operate concurrently (does not require exclusive right-of-way) . Typically longer station spacing (every 3-7 miles on average) than light rail (1-2 miles) with emphasis on park-and-rides and traditional city CBDs. Locomotive technology (diesel or clean/green hybrid Genset). Passenger coaches (push-pull). Engines and cars meets federally mandated structural requirements for rolling stock crash resistance Larger, heavier profile than light rail vehicles. METROLINK – Los Angeles COASTER – San Diego FRONT RUNNER – Salt Lake City-Ogden Higher max.speed (79mph), slower acceleration and deceleration than light rail. Average speed approx 44mph. Lower capital cost per mile ($10-$20M) due to existing right of way use / reuse. Light
    [Show full text]
  • City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan
    City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan CONVENIENCE SAFETY RELIABILITY EFFICIENCY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FRIENDLY SERVICE EQUITY & ACCESS ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY JUNE 2017 Acknowledgements The City of Wilsonville would like to acknowledge the following for their dedication to the development of this Transit Master Plan. Their insight and outlook toward the future of this City helped create a comprehensive plan that represents the needs of employers, residents and visitors of Wilsonville. Transit Master Plan Task Force Planning Commission Julie Fitzgerald, Chair* Jerry Greenfield, Chair Kristin Akervall Eric Postma, Vice Chair Caroline Berry Al Levit Paul Diller Phyllis Millan Lynnda Hale Peter Hurley Barb Leisy Simon Springall Peter Rapley Kamran Mesbah Pat Rehberg Jean Tsokos City Staff Stephanie Yager Dwight Brashear, Transit Director Eric Loomis, Operations Manager City Council Scott Simonton, Fleet Manager Tim Knapp, Mayor Gregg Johansen, Transit Field Supervisor Scott Star, President Patrick Edwards, Transit Field Supervisor Kristin Akervall Nicole Hendrix, Transit Management Analyst Charlotte Lehan Michelle Marston, Transit Program Coordinator Susie Stevens Brad Dillingham, Transit Planning Intern Julie Fitzgerald* Chris Neamtzu, Planning Director Charlie Tso, Assistant Planner Consultants Susan Cole, Finance Director Jarrett Walker Keith Katko, Finance Operations Manager Michelle Poyourow Tami Bergeron, Planning Administration Assistant Christian L Watchie Amanda Guile-Hinman, Assistant City Attorney Ellen Teninty Stephan Lashbrook,
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project: Health Impact Assessment
    Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project: Health Impact Assessment Program Partner Metro Funders US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Network of Public Health Institutes Oregon Public Health Institute www.orphi.org Prepared by: Steve White, Sara Schooley, and Noelle Dobson, Oregon Public Health Institute For more information about this report contact: Steve White, [email protected] Acknowledgements: This project relied on the time and expertise of numerous groups and individuals. Metro staff members Kathryn Sofich, Jamie Snook, Brian Monberg, and Cliff Higgins served on the Project Team and provided documentation, data, and input for all phases of the HIA. They also helped create and sustain interest within Metro for participating in this project. Other Metro staff members also provided valuable comments and critiques at the five brown bags held at Metro to talk about this project and HIA more generally. Substantial input was also provided by the project’s Advisory Committee which provided input on scoping and assessment methodology, and reviewed drafts at various stages. AC members included: Julie Early-Alberts, State of Oregon Public Health Division Gerik Kransky, Bicycle Transportation Alliance Scott France, Clackamas County Community Health John MacArthur, Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium Mel Rader, Upstream Public Health Maya Bhat, MPH, Multnomah County Health Department Brendon Haggerty, Clark County Public Health Joe Recker, TriMet Amy Rose, Metro Daniel Kaempff, Metro Special thanks are also due to Aaron Wernham, project director for Pew Charitable Trust’s Health Impact Project, for providing valuable insight and advice at the project’s outset regarding the coordination of HIA and Environmental Impact Statements.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transit a History of Public Transit in Portland
    Hilary Pfeifer Meredith Dittmar PUBLIC TRANSIT A history of public transit in Portland Melody Owen Mark Richardson Smith Kristin Mitsu Shiga Chandra Bocci trimet.org/history Traveling through time Dear Reader, Transit plays a critical role in providing options for traveling throughout the region. It connects people to work, school, recreational destinations and essential services. It’s not just a commuter service. It’s a community asset. And the benefits extend far beyond those who ride. TriMet’s transit system is recognized as a national leader for its connection to land use. By linking land-use planning and transit, we have helped create livable communities, vibrant neighborhoods and provide alternatives to driving. Transit is also a catalyst for economic development. More than $10 billion in transit-oriented development has occurred within walking distance of MAX light rail stations since the decision to build in 1980. Developers like the permanence of rail when investing in projects. Transit is also valued by the community. Most of our riders— 81 percent—are choice riders. They have a car available or choose not to own one so they can ride TriMet. With more than 325,000 trips taken each weekday on our buses, MAX Light Rail and WES Commuter Rail, we eliminate 66 million annual car trips. That eases traffic congestion and helps keep our air clean. TriMet carries more people than any other U.S. transit system our size. Our many innovations have drawn the attention of government leaders, planners, transit providers and transit users from around the world. We didn’t start out that way.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail System
    Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System draft technical memorandum 3 prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TKDA, Inc. July 17, 2009 www.camsys.com technical memorandum 3 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 July 17, 2009 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Objective ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 2-1 3.0 Overview of Findings .................................................................................................. 3-1 4.0 Operating and Capacity Conditions and Existing Ridership Forecasts for Potential Passenger Rail Corridors ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1 CP: Rochester-Winona......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 CP: St. Paul-Red
    [Show full text]
  • MAG Regional Commuter Rail System Study Update Final Report
    2018 REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM STUDY UPDATE Maricopa Association of Governments | May 2018 APPENDICES MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM STUDY UPDATE Appendix A: Methodology for Cost Estimating May 2018 Page intentionally left blank. Table of contents 1.0 METHODOLOGY FOR COST ESTIMATING __________________________________ 1 1.1 Purpose __________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 General __________________________________________________________ 1 1.3 Cost Estimate Format _______________________________________________ 1 1.4 Capital Cost Estimates ______________________________________________ 2 1.5 O&M Cost Estimates ________________________________________________ 2 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND BASIS OF ESTIMATE _________________________________ 3 2.1 General __________________________________________________________ 3 i Page intentionally left blank. ii 1.0 METHODOLOGY FOR COST ESTIMATING 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this document is to present the methodology that will be used to estimate the capital and the annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the MAG System Study Update commuter rail corridors. The cost estimates will follow the methodology discussed below to the maximum extent practical given that no conceptual engineering has been completed to date. Where no detail for cost estimating is available, unit costs on a major level such as route track mile, complete station, or other lump sum will be utilized. 1.2 General The cost estimates for the MAG System Study Update are based upon: Conceptual level design or less. Recent costs experienced or estimated for the commuter rail and freight railroad industries. Costs experienced on recent commuter rail projects. Unit costs obtained from major vendors, as appropriate. Federal funding sources and will follow Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration procedures. In addition, the following will be included with the cost estimates: A comprehensive list of assumptions and all supporting documents supporting line item costs.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Guideway Status Report
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp 2015 Legislative Report Guideway Status November 2015 PREPARED BY The Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 Phone: 651-366-3000 Toll-Free: 1-800-657-3774 TTY, Voice or ASCII: 1-800-627-3529 In collaboration with the Metropolitan Council 390 Robert St. North St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 Phone: 651-602-1000 To request this document in an alternative format Please call 651-366-4718 or 1-800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota). You may also send an email to [email protected]. Cover Photos: Northstar commuter rail train Source: Metro Council Green Line LRT Source: Streets MN Red Line BRT Source: Metro Council 2 Guideway Status Report November 2015 Contents Contents ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Legislative Request........................................................................................................................................ 6 Statutory Requirement .................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Statewide Planning ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WSK Commuter Rail Study
    Oregon Department of Transportation – Rail Division Oregon Rail Study Appendix I Wilsonville to Salem Commuter Rail Assessment Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Team Parsons Brinckerhoff Simpson Consulting Sorin Garber Consulting Group Tangent Services Wilbur Smith and Associates April 2010 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3 WHAT IS COMMUTER RAIL? ................................................................................................... 3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS............................................................................................................ 3 STUDY AREA....................................................................................................................... 4 WES COMMUTER RAIL.......................................................................................................... 6 OTHER PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES IN THE CORRIDOR .................................................................. 6 OUTREACH WITH RAILROADS: PNWR AND BNSF .................................................................. 7 PORTLAND & WESTERN RAILROAD........................................................................................... 7 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY ..................................................................................................... 7 ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wilsonville's Transportation Vision
    Wilsonville Transportation System Plan Adopted by Council (Ord. 718) June 17, 2013 This page intentionally left blank. Wilsonville Transportation System Plan 2013 Acknowledgements This project was partially funded by a grant from the Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This TGM grant is financed, in part, by federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), local government, and State of Oregon funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon. This report was prepared through the collective effort of the following people: CITY OF WILSONVILLE TECHNICAL ADVISORY Chris Neamtzu COMMITTEE Katie Mangle Caleb Winter, Metro Nancy Kraushaar Clark Berry, Washington County Steve Adams Larry Conrad, Clackamas County Mike Ward Aquilla Hurd-Ravich, City of Tualatin Linda Straessle Julia Hajduk, City of Sherwood Mark Ottenad Dan Knoll PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Stark Ben Altman, Chair Eric Postma, Vice Chair SMART Al Levit, CCI Chair Stephan Lashbrook Marta McGuire, CCI Vice Chair Steve Allen Amy Dvorak Jen Massa Smith Peter Hurley Jeff Owen* Ray Phelps ODOT CITY COUNCIL Gail Curtis Tim Knapp, Mayor Doug Baumgartner Scott Starr, Council President Richard Goddard DKS ASSOCIATES Julie Fitzgerald Scott Mansur Susie Stevens Brad Coy Celia Núñez** Carl Springer Steve Hurst** Mat Dolata ANGELO PLANNING GROUP Darci Rudzinski ** Former City Councilor involved in the Shayna Rehberg process prior to adoption * Former Employee How to Use This Plan The Wilsonville TSP consists of RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CITY PLANS two parts: The Wilsonville Transportation System Plan (TSP) replaces the 2003 TSP in its entirety.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives Analysis Summary Report
    Alternatives Analysis Summary Report Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Minnesota May 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5 Alternatives Analysis Study 5 D2 Investigation 10 LPA Selection 13 NEXT STEPS 24 APPENDICES 24 BottineauTransitway Alternatives Analysis Summary Report INTRODUCTION WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT? FIGURE 1: TWIN CITIES REGIONAL TRANSITWAY SYSTEM This report summarizes the Alternatives Analysis (AA) evaluation process and recommendations for the Bot- Northstar Line continued tineau Transitway The report describes which transit Northstar Line modes, facilities, and alignments were studied and 94 why decisions were made to discontinue study of some alternatives and recommend further study of others It also describes the major steps in the decision process 94 35W 35E and who was involved 694 94 94 694 This report describes the steps leading to 694 the selection of a Locally Preferred Alter- 35W Proposed Bottineau 35E native (LPA) for the Bottineau Transitway. Minneapolis Transitway 694 The LPA is the transitway alternative that 394 Green Line St. Paul 94 the corridor’s cities, Hennepin County, 494 Blue Line (Central) and the Metropolitan Council recommend (Hiawatha) Green Line 494 for construction. (Southwest) The LPA responds to the five needs that prompted study of the Bottineau Transit- 494 way: growing travel demand, increasing traffic congestion, people who depend on 35W 35E 77 transit, limited transit service and reverse Line Orange (I-35W) commute opportunities, and regional
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of U.S. Commuter Rail
    AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. COMMUTER RAIL Timothy J. Brock, MA Reginald R. Souleyrette, PhD, PE KTC-13-18/UTCNURAIL1-12-1F This research was sponsored by: The NuRail Center National University Transportation Center and The Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky Cover Photo: Tri-Rail System in Miami, Florida By: Timothy J. Brock Date: April, 2011 Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. Ted Grossardt and Dr. Len O’Connell for their comments on earlier drafts. They would also like to thank the participants in the Cities, Transportation and Sustainability session at the Association of American Geographers annual meeting for the thoughtful discussion and comments on this research. Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Kentucky Transportation Center or of the NuRail Center. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. ii AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. COMMUTER RAIL Timothy J. Brock, M.A. Research Associate Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky and Reginald R. Souleyrette, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Transportation Engineering and Commonwealth Chair College of Engineering University of Kentucky FINAL REPORT May 2nd, 2013 © 2013 University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center Information may not be used, reproduced, or republished without our written consent. iii 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No KTC-13-18/UTCNURAIL1-12-1F 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date May 2013 AN OVERVIEW OF U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Evaluation Report Report to the Minnesota Legislature
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp 2019 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT REPORT TO THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE November 2020 The Council’s mission is to foster efficient and economic growth for a prosperous metropolitan region Metropolitan Council Members Charlie Zelle, Chair Raymond Zeran, District 9 Judy Johnson, District 1 Peter Lindstrom, District 10 Reva Chamblis, District 2 Susan Vento, District 11 Christopher Ferguson, District 3 Francisco J. Gonzalez, District 12 Deb Barber, District 4 Chai Lee, District 13 Molly Cummings, District 5 Kris Fredson, District 14 Lynnea Atlas-Ingebretson, District 6 Phillip Sterner, District 15 Robert Lilligren. District 7 Wendy Wulff, District 16 Abdirahman Muse, District 8 The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning organization for the seven-county Twin Cities area. The Council operates the regional bus and rail system, collects and treats wastewater, coordinates regional water resources, plans and helps fund regional parks, and administers federal funds that provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate- income individuals and families. The 17-member Council board is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the governor. On request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Call Metropolitan Council information at 651- 602-1140 or TTY 651-291-0904. Metropolitan Council 2019 Performance Evaluation Report About This Report The Metropolitan Council recognizes performance evaluation as a key tool to ensure that its functions meet their objectives in a timely and cost-effective manner.
    [Show full text]