DOCSLIB.ORG

Performance Report FY19 Rider Profile CAPITOL Corridorticket JOINT Type POWERS AUTHORITY WORK/ BUSINESS 67%

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Performance Report FY19 Rider Profile CAPITOL Corridorticket JOINT Type POWERS AUTHORITY WORK/ BUSINESS 67% Performance Report FY19 Rider Profile CAPITOL CORRIDORTicket JOINT Type POWERS AUTHORITY WORK/ BUSINESS 67% Ticket WithWelcome FY2019, the Capitol Corridor Aboard! celebrated five straight years of Type record-breaking ridership and revenue, with a new all-time high of 10-RIDE 1,777,136 riders and $38.03 million in revenue. ThisWORK/ growth is reflected 18% FAMILY/ BUSINESS OTHER 1% 67% REC/in the FareboxFRIENDS Ratio, which reached a previously unattained 60%. SCHOOL 3% LEISURE 15% 12% ROUND-TRIP/ To build upon this success, and to ensure the Capitol Corridor’s place as ONE-WAY a premier travel choice, the CCJPA is making progress on infrastructure 50% improvements, safety upgrades, customer service enhancements, MONTHLY and service expansion projects. These efforts aim to maintain Capitol 32% Corridor as a quality, convenient,OTHER 1% cost-effective, and flexibleFAMILY/ option for REC/ FRIENDS years to come. SCHOOL 3% LEISURE 15% Rider Profile Ticket Type 12% SHOP/VACATION 2% WORK/ BUSINESS 21 Years of Improvement* 67% SERVICE REVENUE-TO- LEVEL RIDERSHIP REVENUE COST RATIO +275% +284% +508% +100% Rider Customer Satisfaction Profile 10-RIDE WORK/ 18% FAMILY/ BUSINESS OTHER 1% 67% FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 REC/ FYFRIENDS 2019 30 DAILY 1,777,136SCHOOL 3% $38.03MLEISURE 60%15% TRAINS 12% ROUND-TRIP/ ONE-WAY 50% MONTHLY 90% 87% 90% 91% 89% 89% 87% 89% 88% 85% 90% 32% OTHER 1% FAMILY/ FY 1998 REC/ FRIENDS 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SCHOOL 3% 2018 2019 (PRE-CCJPA) FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 LEISURE 15% 8 DAILY (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) SHOP/VACATION 2% 12% TRAINS 463,000 $6.25M 30% *CCJPA assumed management of the service in 1998. Customer Satisfaction 90% 87% 90% 91% 89% 89% 87% 89% 88% 85% Travel-to-Station 90% MODE FY18 FY192009 2010 % CHANGE2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 90% 87% 90% 91% 89% 89% 87% 89% 88% 85% 90% Drive 29% 28% -1 Drop off/Pick up 25% 24% -1 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Transit 17% 16% -1 2018 2019 Bike 10% 9% -1 Walk 15% 14% -1 Carpool 2% 1% -1 Taxi/TNC 9% 8% -1 Other 0% 0% — 90% 87% 90% 91% 89% 89% 87% 89% 88% 85% Operating and Marketing Budgets 90% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 FISCAL SERVICE ALLOCATED ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT YEAR LEVEL BUDGET COSTS REINVESTMENT OPERATING BUDGET (MILLIONS) FY 17-18 30 weekday $31.7 $2.49 3.4m note on excel said it’s not 22 weekedy included in performance FY 18-19 30 weekday $28.7 $0a $0a 22 weekday reports MARKETING BUDGET (MILLIONS) FY 17-18 $1.1 $1.1 n/a FY 18-19 $1.1 $1.1 n/a a. Projected DRIVE 26% DROP/PICKUP 32% BIKE 10% TRANSIT 17% OTHER 1% WALK 14% Performance Report 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Ridership (IN MILLIONS) 1.8M 1.7M M M 1.6M M 1.5M 1.47 1.42 1.40 M M 1.4M M M 1.3M 1.56 1.60 1.70 1.77 FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue (IN MILLIONS) $40M $30M M M M M M $10M M M $10M $29.20 $29.18 $30.09 $32.18 $33.97 $36.22 $38.03 FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Farebox 60% 55% 50% STATE STANDARD 50% 45% Ratio (%) 40% % Revenue to Cost 35% 57 51% 50% 52% 55% 59% 60% FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 On-Time Performance 100% 95% 90% 90% OTP STANDARD 85% 80% 75% 95.2% 91.0% 89.0% 90.0% 95.0% 93.1% 94.0% FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Overall Satisfaction AMTRAK CUSTOMER SERVICE INDEX (CSI) CSI SCORE 4.5 100% 4.0 95% 90% 89% 89% 89% 88% 3.5 87% 90% 85% 3.0 85% 2.5 80% 2.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 75% FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 = AVERAGE ANNUAL SCORE BASED ON BIANNUAL CCJPA ON-BOARD SURVEYS 1,707 1,706 1,561 1,607 1,474 2019 9 1,41 2018 2017 2017 2016 2015 1,404 2014 1,410 2013 2013 1,441 2012 2011 SERVICE REVENUE-TO- 3xLEVEL RIDERSHIP REVENUE COST RATIO +275%AVERAGE CAPITOL+284% CORRIDOR+508% +100% PASSENGER RIDES 3 TIMES A WEEK FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 30 DAILY 1,777,136 $38.03MPerformance Report60% 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority TRAINS “IeLov the conductors, % the lack of traffic, the FY 1998 INTERNET & (PRE-CCJPA) 77MOBILE FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) location of stations.” 8 DAILYTicket (PRE-CCJPA) TRAINS 463,000 $6.25M 30% 20% Purchases AT STATION Capitol Corridor has Xx more mobile 3% OTHER app ticket purchases than any other route in $38.03M the Amtrak system 2019 Annual Revenue in FY2019 +? vs. FY2018 Travel-to-Station Milestones MODE FY18 FY19 % CHANGEHighest Ridership in our 28-year History Drive 29% 28% -1 Drop off/Pick up 25% 24% -1 M Transit 17% 16% -1 Average89% Ridership+284% Annual$38.03 Revenue Bike 10% 9% -1 On-Time increase since +5.1% compared Walk 15% 14% -1 *CCJPA assumed management of the service in 1998. Carpool 2% 1% -1 Performance FY1998* to FY2018 Taxi/TNC 9% 8% -1 Other 0% 0% — SHOP/VACATION OTHER 1% Customer High-Ranking Ridership SCHOOL 3% TICKET PURCHASES Satisfaction Capitol Corridor is ranked number two in the nation for Rider Profile ridership amongstBusiest the state-supportedTrains routes. Together, with Customer Satisfaction Operating and Marketing Budgets 2019 90% the Pacific Surfliner and the San Joaquins, the ridership of California’s2009 #three523 90 intercity% # rail525 routes# represent538 almost 20% of FISCAL SERVICE ALLOCATED ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT Amtrak’s national ridership. YEAR LEVEL BUDGET COSTS 2018REINVESTMEN 85% T LEISURE INTERNET% & REC/ 77 OPERATING BUDGET (MILLIONS) 2010 87% 12% Busiest Trains MOBILE EMY SAC BUSINESS FY 17-18 30 weekday $31.7 $2.49 3.4m WORK/ 2017 88% note on excel said it’s not 67% 22 weekedy TOP4 SAC EMY #523 AVERAGE OTP included in performance 89%FY 18-19 30 weekday $28.7 $0a $0a Origi2011n& 90% FOR FY2019 SAC RIC #525 FRIENDS reports FAMILY/ 22 weekday 2016 89% Destination 20% 15% MARKETING BUDGET (MILLIONS) Pairs OKJ SAC #538 AT STATION 2012 91% FY 17-18 $1.1 $1.1 n/a 2015 87% 3% OTHER FY 18-19 $1.1 $1.1 n/a a. Projected “It’s my2013 preferred 89% way to travel for work, and I get to take my bicycle2014 with 89% me on the train.” DRIVE 26% DROP/PICKUP 32% Ticket Type 2015 87% BIKE 10% TRANSIT 17% 2016 89% OTHER 1%MONTHLY 10-RIDE 32% WALK 1418% % 2017 88% Modes of Travel 2018 85% ROUND-TRIP/ ONE-WAY to Station 50.0% 2019 90% Performance Report 2019 Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Customer Experience Initiatives Stride on Board Capitol In FY19 the Capitol Corridor introduced the Stride On Board Corridor San Francisco program for college students. The program features a new to Emeryville 6-ride ticket, promotion of the existing 15% everyday discount, Connecting Bus Information as well as a rewards program. View Current Schedules www.CapitolCorridor.org Use the camera on your smartphone Service alerts, train status and to scan the QR code below! current discounts and promos. Or call 877-974-3322. PURCHASING TICKETS IN ADVANCE: • CapitolCorridor.org • Ticket Kiosks • S ed Stations • Amtrak App TICKETS: A valid government-issued photo ID is required to purchase tickets. For passengers boarding a bus without a ticket, the driver will hold your ID and present it to the ticket agent at the next sta ed station. Passengers can retrieve their ID at the time of the ticket purchase. BICYCLES: Bikes welcome on fi rst come, fi rst served basis and must be www.capitolcorridor.org/sanfrancisco stowed in luggage compartment or bus front-end. LUGGAGE: No checked baggage service. Limit 2 pieces, no more than 50 lbs. and cannot exceed 28” x 22” x 14” HOLIDAYS (Weekend schedule applies): New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. FREE TRANSIT TRANSFERS: Capitol Corridor passengers may ask conductors for two (2) transfers and ride free: AC Transit, The County Connection, Davis Unitrans, eTran, Fairfi eld and Suisun Transit (FAST), Sacramento Regional Transit, Tri-Delta Transit, VTA, WestCat, and YoloBus. SERVICE ALERTS: Visit www.capitolcorridor.org/news-alerts to sign up for service alerts. Route Map CONNECTIONS: For information about connections to/from the San Joaquins, the Coast Starlight, and the California Zephyr, please visit Train Stations and Bus Connections www.amtrak.com or call 1-800-USA-RAIL. Reference Notes To Eureka & Arcata To Redding TRUCKEE Sta ed station SANTA ROSA MARYSVILLE COLFAX Unsta ed station T ROHNERT PARK Rocklin To Reno, NV Transfer station Auburn Sports & entertainment stadium NAPA Hannigan- Amusement park PETALUMA Fairfield- Roseville Airport connection Vacaville Davis T VALLEJO Sacramento (SAC RT) Bus connection Ferry connection Richmond SOUTH Suisun-Fairfield LAKE TAHOE (BART) T APPROXIMATE TRAIN TRAVEL TIMES FROM EMERYVILLE TO: SAN Martinez PLACERVILLE To Stateline, NV FRANCISCO Westbound Berkeley OKJ Oakland Jack London – 8 mins Emeryville Connecting Bus to San Francisco OAC Oakland Coliseum-BART – 17 mins HAY Hayward – 27 mins SFO Oakland Jack London Emeryville (via BART) FMT Fremont – 42 mins T Oakland Coliseum (BART) GAC Great America-Santa Clara – 58 mins SCC Santa Clara-University – 1 hr 5 mins Hayward SJC San Jose – 1 hr 21 mins Eastbound Fremont-Centerville SAN FRANCISCO Transbay BKY Berkeley – 5 mins T Temporary Santa Clara-Great America Terminal (SFC) RIC Richmond- BART – 12 mins Levi’s® Stadium (VTA) EAST BAY Financial MTZ Martinez – 37 mins Santa Clara-University District (SFF) SUI Suisun-Fairfi eld – 55 mins SANTA CRUZ T San Jose-Diridon (CALTRAIN) Fisherman’s FFV Hannigan-Fairfi eld-Vacaville – 1 hr 1 mins Wharf–Pier 39 (SFW) DAV Davis – 1 hr 22 mins Downtown MORGAN HILL Shopping SAC Sacramento – 1 hr 47 mins Center (SFS) RSV Roseville – 2 hrs 17 mins (via SAC bus connection) RLN Rocklin – 2 hrs 32 mins (via SAC bus connection) To Salinas, Monterey, GILROY San Luis Obispo & Santa Barbara ARN Auburn – 2 hrs 57 mins (via SAC bus connection) Connect @capitolcorridor: PLEASE NOTE: Fares, routes, schedules and policies are subject to change without notice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Corridor Service Performance
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE PERFORMANCE In July 2016, the Capitol Corridor had one of its best months in the history of the service. Ridership was the highest ever, with a total of 128,655 passengers, a 1.7% year‐over‐year (YOY) increase. Revenue was up 4.6% compared to July 2015. Compared to June 2016, On‐ Time Performance (OTP) slipped slightly from 96% to 95%, yet was still above the FY16 standard of 90%. The Year‐To‐Date (YTD) results continue to be in positive territory. Compared to FY15, FYTD16 ridership and revenue are up 5.5%, with the System Operating Ratio at 55%, five percentage points above the 50% standard. YTD OTP is 94%, which keeps the Capitol Corridor in the #1 spot for service reliability in the national Amtrak intercity passenger rail network. The FYTD16 customer satisfaction scores (through June 2016) are at 89% “Highly Satisfied”, one point above the FY16 standard of 88%. The following are ridership highlights for July 2016: Average weekend ridership for July was down 7% versus July 2015. To address these continued decreases in weekend ridership, the CCJPA is modifying the weekend/holiday train schedule effective August 22, 2016, to slot trains at times that align with typical weekend travel patterns. Average July weekday ridership yielded a 9% increase thanks to continued growth on the trains serving San Jose/Silicon Valley and Placer County stations. Amtrak has sent detailed performance results (see attached) for June 2016 and provided below is a summary of the attached tables: OTP: June 2016 system end‐point OTP was a stellar 96% compared to 93% for May 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Surfliner-San Luis Obispo-San Diego-October282019
    PACIFIC SURFLINER® PACIFIC SURFLINER® SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO Effective October 28, 2019 Effective October 28, 2019 ® ® SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA VENTURA - LOS ANGELES VENTURA - LOS ANGELES ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO and intermediate stations and intermediate stations Including Including CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES connecting connecting NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Amtrak.com Amtrak.com Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. page 2 PACIFIC SURFLINER - Southbound Train Number u 5804 5818 562 1564 564 1566 566 768 572 1572 774 Normal Days of Operation u Daily Daily Daily SaSuHo Mo-Fr SaSuHo Mo-Fr Daily Mo-Fr SaSuHo Daily 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Also Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Not Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y On Board Service u låO låO låO låO låO l å O l å O l å O l å O Mile Symbol q SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA –Cal Poly 0 >v Dp b3 45A –Amtrak Station mC ∑w- b4 00A l6 55A Grover Beach, CA 12 >w- b4 25A 7 15A Santa Maria, CA–IHOP® 24 >w b4 40A Guadalupe-Santa Maria, CA 25 >w- 7 31A Lompoc-Surf Station, CA 51 > 8 05A Lompoc, CA–Visitors Center 67 >w Solvang, CA 68 >w b5 15A Buellton, CA–Opp.
    [Show full text]
  • 40Thanniv Ersary
    Spring 2011 • $7 95 FSharing tihe exr periencste of Fastest railways past and present & rsary nive 40th An Things Were Not the Same after May 1, 1971 by George E. Kanary D-Day for Amtrak 5We certainly did not see Turboliners in regular service in Chicago before Amtrak. This train is In mid April, 1971, I was returning from headed for St. Louis in August 1977. —All photos by the author except as noted Seattle, Washington on my favorite train to the Pacific Northwest, the NORTH back into freight service or retire. The what I considered to be an inauspicious COAST LIMITED. For nearly 70 years, friendly stewardess-nurses would find other beginning to the new service. Even the the flagship train of the Northern Pacific employment. The locomotives and cars new name, AMTRAK, was a disappoint - RR, one of the oldest named trains in the would go into the AMTRAK fleet and be ment to me, since I preferred the classier country, had closely followed the route of dispersed country wide, some even winding sounding RAILPAX, which was eliminat - the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804, up running on the other side of the river on ed at nearly the last moment. and was definitely the super scenic way to the Milwaukee Road to the Twin Cities. In addition, wasn’t AMTRAK really Seattle and Portland. My first association That was only one example of the serv - being brought into existence to eliminate with the North Coast Limited dated to ices that would be lost with the advent of the passenger train in America? Didn’t 1948, when I took my first long distance AMTRAK on May 1, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • 20210419 Amtrak Metrics Reporting
    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 30th Street Station Philadelphia, PA 19104 April 12, 2021 Mr. Michael Lestingi Director, Office of Policy and Planning Federal Railroad Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Lestingi: In accordance with the Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service final rule published on November 16, 2020 (the “Final Rule”), this letter serves as Amtrak’s report to the Federal Railroad Administration that, as of April 10, 2021, Amtrak has provided the 29 host railroads over which Amtrak currently operates (listed in Appendix A) with ridership data for the prior month consistent with the Final Rule. The following data was provided to each host railroad: . the total number of passengers, by train and by day; . the station-specific number of detraining passengers, reported by host railroad whose railroad right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day; and . the station-specific number of on-time passengers reported by host railroad whose railroad right- of-way serves the station, by train, and by day. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Blair Sr. Director, Host Railroads Amtrak cc: Dennis Newman Amtrak Jason Maga Amtrak Christopher Zappi Amtrak Yoel Weiss Amtrak Kristin Ferriter Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Michael Lestingi April 12, 2021 Page 2 Appendix A Host Railroads Provided with Amtrak Ridership Data Host Railroad1 Belt Railway Company of Chicago BNSF Railway Buckingham Branch Railroad
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Corridor Performance Report
    Capito l Co rr idor Performance Rep ort THE CAPITO L CORRIDO R JOIN T POWER S AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2009 was a year of mixed results for the Capitol Corridor. The challenging economic climate affected all sectors of the travel and transportation industry, including intercity passenger rail. Although our performance in FY 2009 was not as strong as FY 2008 – when high gas prices and a stronger economy drove record ridership – we continued the positive growth trend from FY 2007 and years past, and reinforced our record of prudently managing public funds to deliver a high- quality passenger rail service. In FY 2009: • Overall ridership fell 5.5%, revenue was flat, and our revenue-to-cost ratio fell to 47% primarily due to increased labor expenses and revenues that were below projections. • On-time performance reached an all-time high of 93% thanks to our capitalized maintenance program (now unfunded) and improved Union Pacific Railroad dispatching. This makes the Capitol Corridor the most reliable multi-frequency train service in the Amtrak national system. • Customer satisfaction scores continued to improve, despite poor economic conditions and extensive job losses. Over the past 11 years under CCJPA management, the Capitol Corridor’s service frequency has quadrupled, ridership and revenue have more than tripled, and our revenue-to-cost ratio improved by 56%. The CCJPA achieved these gains with very modest increases in State subsidy by constantly improving efficiency and reinvesting cost savings and revenues back into the service. Although ridership declined due to the slow economy we have continued to improve our service delivery, reliability, and customer satisfaction, which consistently tops the rankings of all Amtrak-operated services.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Williams' Presentation California Zephyr
    Three Railroads 2532 Miles Of Gorgeous Scenery Five Vista Domes The Most Talked About Train In America... Silver Thread to The West The History of the California Zephyr March 20, 1949 -March 20, 1970 Beginnings 1934 Pioneer Zephyr Streamlined Ralph Budd (CBQ) meets Edward Budd (Budd Corp.) Stainless steel and shotwelding Wildly successful = willing to take risks Beginnings Exposition Flyer – 1939 First through car train for CB&Q/DRGW/WP “Scheduling for Scenery” Dotsero Cutoff / Moffat Tunnel Traded time & distance for scenic beauty CZ Fun Fact #1 Beginnings 1940 Joint Meeting 1943 Informal Discussions Post-war RR's Awash With $ October 1945 Joint Contract First orders to Budd 1945 Revisions in 1946 & 1947 First deliveries 1948 Beginnings 1944 Cyrus Osborn's (General manager of EMD) grand idea 1944 trip Glenwood Canyon The Dome Car is born by rebuilding a standard Budd chair car (originally Silvery Alchemy) CZ Fun Fact #2 Dividing The Cost And Costs were dividedProfits by percentage of CZ route mileage (the Exposition Flyer route) CB&Q = 41% DRGW = 22% WP = 37% Profits were divided by percentage of short line route (the Overland Route), which cost WP 10% compared to CB&Q and DRGW share Dividing The Cost And Profits CB&Q owned 27 cars DRGW owned 15 cars WP owned 24 cars PRR leased 1 car Planning Menus Timing Governed by need to have the train in the Rockies and Feather River Canyon during daylight Layover time for through car was a casualty Staffing The Zephyrettes CZ Fun Fact #3 The Zephyrettes Planning
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, Chapter 7
    7.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION & Fig. 7 Resolution 3434 EVALUATION — STEP-BY-STEP Step One: Base Network Healdsburg Sonoma Recognizing that Resolution 3434 represents County 8 MTC’s regional rail investment over the next 25 Santa years as adopted first in the 2001 Regional Trans- Rosa Napa portation Plan and reaffirmed in the subsequent County Vacaville 9 plan update, Resolution 3434 is included as part Napa of the “base case” network. Therefore, the study Petaluma Solano effort focuses on defining options for rail improve- County ments and expansions beyond Resolution 3434. Vallejo Resolution 3434 rail projects include: Marin County 8 9 Pittsburg 1. BART/East Contra Costa Rail (eBART) San Antioch 1 Rafael Concord Richmond 2. ACE/Increased Services Walnut Berkeley Creek MTC Resolution 3434 Contra Costa 3. BART/I-580 Rail Right-of-Way Preservation County Rail Projects Oakland 4. Dumbarton Bridge Rail Service San 1 BART: East Contra Costa Extension Francisco 10 6 3 2 ACE: Increased Service 5. BART/Fremont-Warm Springs to San Jose Daly City 2 Pleasanton Livermore 3 South Extension BART: Rail Right-of-Way Preservation San Francisco Hayward Union City 4 Dumbarton Rail Alameda 6. Caltrain/Rapid Rail/Electrification & Extension San Mateo Fremont County 5 BART: Fremont/Warm Springs 4 to Downtown San Francisco/Transbay Transit to San Jose Extension 7 Redwood City 5 Center 6 & Extension to Downtown SF/ Mountain Milpitas Transbay Transit Center View Palo Alto 7. Caltrain/Express Service 7 Caltrain: Express Service Sunnyvale Santa Clara San San Santa Clara 8 Jose 8. SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) Mateo Cupertino County 9 County 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Host Railroad Report Card &
    Host Railroad Report Card & FAQ 1) What is a “host railroad”? Most of Amtrak’s network is on tracks owned, maintained, and dispatched by highly-profitable freight railroads, known as “host” railroads where Amtrak uses their tracks. Most of the trains on these rail lines are the freight railroads’ own freight trains. Because the freight railroads make all dispatching decisions about which trains have priority in using the rail line, the freight railroads have a tremendous amount of influence over Amtrak’s operations on their lines. Prior to Amtrak’s creation in 1971, the privately-owned railroads had a common carrier obligation to operate passenger trains themselves – an obligation that dated back to when the railroads were built in the 1800s. Because the railroads were losing money on their passenger trains, Congress created Amtrak and relieved the private railroads of their obligation to operate passenger trains. A very important part of the deal was that Amtrak would still have access to the railroads’ lines in order to operate passenger trains. Every year Amtrak pays host railroads $142 million for using their tracks and other resources needed to operate Amtrak trains. 2) What distinguishes hosts with good Amtrak performance? Hosts typically achieve good Amtrak performance through a combination of: a) Commitment to providing quality service for Amtrak’s passengers, b) An active partnership with Amtrak, where both sides work cooperatively and the hosts respect Federal law which protects the rights of our nation’s passengers, and c) A well-disciplined operation that benefits both Amtrak and freight customers alike. 3) What does “Delays per 10,000 train miles” mean? It is a measure of how much delay each host railroad causes to Amtrak trains.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR ROSTER of CARS (All Car Names Carry the Prefix "Silver", Which Has Been Omitted Here) VISTA DOME
    CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR ROSTER OF CARS CAR NAME OWNER NUMBER CURRENT DISPOSITION 10 ROOMETTE 6 DOUBLE BEDROOM SLEEPER (All car names carry the prefix "Silver", which has been omitted here) Point CB&Q 423 Scrapped 1977? Shore CB&Q 424 Rail Passenger Services, Inc. CAll IWm OWRER NUMBER CUllREKT DISPOSInON Butte CB&Q 425 ? Bchgrv. ,IN Cliff CB&Q 426 Canadian Pacific RR - Canada VISTA DOME CHAIR CARS Falls CB&Q 427 Bridle CB&Q 4716 Alaska RR? - Alaska Valley CB&Q 428 AMTRAK Lodge CB&Q 4717 Alaska RR - Alaska Crag CB&Q 429 AMTRAK Lariat CB&Q 4718 C. Burt Herme y - Chatsworth, CA Chasm CB&Q 430 AMTRAK Ranch CB&Q 4719 Salt Lake G&W Pass D&RGW 1130 Mexico Rifle CB&Q 4720 Project 2472 - San Francisco, CA Summit D&RGW 1131 Mexico Saddle CB&Q 4721 Scrapped Gorge D&RGW 1132 Mexico Stirrup CB&Q 4722 Alaska RR - Alaska Creek D&RGW 1133 Mexico Bronco D&RGW ll05 D&RGW - Denver Glacier D&RGW 1134 Mexico Colt D&RGW 1106 Alaska RR - Alaska Rapids PRR 8449 Dave Goodhart Mus tang D&RGW 1107 Alaska RR - Alaska Arroyo WP 861 Mexico Pony D&RGW 1108 Alaska RR - Alaska Canyon WP 862 Southern Pacific - Oakland, CA Dollar WP (Ill Anbel Corp. - Brownsv ille, TX Mountain WP 863 Mexico Feather WP ~12 Jim Stephenson, Houston, TX Palisade WP 864 Mexico Palace WP 813 Merle Haggard - Palo Cedro, CA Range WP 865 Mexico Sage WP 814 ?Ronald Buhro - Walbridge, Ohio Bay WP 866 Mexico Schooner WP 815 Surf WP 867 Mexico Scout' WP 816 Wilson Engineering - Cleburne, TX Thistle WP 817 Ralph Orlandella - Sacramento, CA 16 SECTION SLEEPER (Converted to chair cars 1963-64) Maple CB&Q 400 AMTRAK VISTA-DOME DORMITORY-BUFFET-LOUNGE Larch CB&Q 401 AMTRAK CA Cedar CB&Q 402 AMTRAK Club ' CB&Q 250 Wil lia~ Barmore - Rancho Palos Verd~, Lounge CB&Q 251 Charles Barenfanger - Vandalia, IL Aspen D&RGW 1120 Fantasia Trains, Colorado Roundup CB&Q 252 Wrecked 1970 Pine D&RGW 1121 C&NW ? Shop D&RGW 1140 D&RGW - Denver, CO Palm WP 871 ? - Florida Chalet WP 831 Dave Rushenburg - St.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014
    Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 What is a Multi-State Rail Plan? ................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Why the Southwest?.................................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Geographic Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Study Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................. 10 1.6 Guiding Principles for Southwest Multi-State Rail Network Planning ..................................................... 11 Chapter 2. Planning Context ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Overview of the Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Population and Travel Demand ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sb 1225 (Padilla) Pacific Surfliner Intercity Rail Corridor-Local Authority
    Attachment 2 SB 1225 (PADILLA) PACIFIC SURFLINER INTERCITY RAIL CORRIDOR‐LOCAL AUTHORITY Modeled after the success of the Capitol Corridor, SB 1225 will establish local authority for the Pacific Surfliner Service: Permissiveness: Authorizes that a local authority may be formed for the Purpose: LOSSAN member purposes of local control agencies have engaged in Cost Effectiveness: extensive discussions Requires the Secretary of Business, regarding the establishment Transportation and Housing to make a of a local authority to determination that a local authority oversee the state‐supported would result in administrative or intercity service. Using the operating cost reductions successful Capitol Corridor as Authorizes Caltrans to enter into an Interagency Transfer Agreement (ITA) a model, these agencies have to transfer those administrative reached a consensus on the functions importance of locally Requires the ITA between Caltrans governed management which and the local authority to detail the will enhance the success of terms and transfer the Pacific Surfliner service, improve the customer Timing: Requires that the ITA be experience, and create executed on or before June 30, 2014, for synergy among all the an initial period of five years transportation providers in the region. Continued State Operations Funding: Requires the state to continue to provide funding to operate intercity passenger rail service by the local authority on an annual basis Minimum Levels of Service: Requires that the level of service funded by the state shall in
    [Show full text]