CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is the electrification of the entire Caltrain line from the current northern terminus at Fourth and King streets in the City of San Francisco to the southern terminus at the Gilroy station in downtown Gilroy, a distance of approximately 80 miles. The project location is shown in Figure 2-1; a project vicinity map showing each of the stations on the line is provided in Figure 1.2-1.

2.1 LOCATION AND LIMITS The Peninsula Joint Powers Board (JPB) owns and operates approximately 50 miles of primarily two-track mainline railroad right-of-way between the Fourth and King Station in San Francisco and the Tamien Station just south of San Jose in Santa Clara County. JPB purchased this right-of-way from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company in 1992. Between Tamien Station and the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy, the mainly single-track right-of-way is owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Caltrain has trackage rights under agreement with the UPRR to provide commuter service in this approximately 30-mile segment of UPRR’s right-of-way. Caltrain trains consist of diesel-hauled, bi-level “gallery” cars and currently provide approximately 15- to 30-minute peak period service in both northbound and southbound directions between San Jose and San Francisco, and 30-minute service during the middle of the day. A total of 76 daily trains currently operate over the JPB-owned, northern portion of the route between San Jose and San Francisco. Caltrain adjusted its peak-hour service and reduced the number of trains from 80 daily trains in August 2002 in response to declining ridership and a tightly constrained budget, due to declining Bay Area economic conditions beginning in 2001 and continuing through this writing. Included in the current 76-train total, Caltrain presently operates four trains for the northbound morning commute, and four trains for the southbound evening commute over the southern portion owned by UPRR and operated by Caltrain through a “commuter rail Trackage Rights Agreement.” These trains travel northward from Gilroy to San Francisco at roughly 30-minute intervals between 5:18 and 7:01 a.m. and southward from San Francisco to Gilroy at roughly 50-minute intervals between 3:07 and 5:25 p.m. In addition, between Santa Clara and San Francisco, UPRR operates approximately six daily freight trains through a “freight Trackage Rights Agreement” with Caltrain. From Santa Clara to San Jose, on a joint use corridor, UPRR operates approximately 12 to 20 daily freight trains. Passenger trains also operate in the joint use corridor from Santa Clara to San Jose, including the Capitol Corridor (12 daily trains), the Altamont Commuter Express (six daily trains) and the Amtrak Inter-city (two daily trains).

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-1 SAN FRANCISCO

San Mateo County

PROJECT LOCATION Alameda County

Santa Cruz County SAN JOSE

Santa Clara County

GILROY

Figure 2-1 PROJECT LOCATION CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Substantial service increases to 98 daily trains in the San Francisco to San Jose segment and eight daily trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment are planned to be implemented within the next six years, and daily operations of 132 trains in the San Francisco to San Jose segment and 20 daily trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment are planned by 2020. Additional track, signal, station and terminal capacity improvements will be necessary to provide for the increased levels of service. These facilities are not included in the scope of the environmental review within the present document. They are being addressed in separate environmental documents in accordance with the requirements of applicable environmental regulations and guidance and as such, are included within the No-Project Alternative in this environmental document. The facilities included in the Electrification Program Alternative will be designed and located to take into consideration future track, signal, station, bridge and other improvements and to preclude or minimize to the extent possible future modification or relocation of constructed electrification facilities. Modifications and relocations of constructed electrification facilities are, however, very likely to occur, given the extent of programmed changes to the infrastructure within Caltrain’s rail corridor over the next 20 years.

2.2 BACKGROUND In 1999, the JPB adopted the Caltrain Rapid Rail Plan. This plan envisioned a program of facility rehabilitation and enhancement and systemwide electrification improvements to enable increased frequency, capacity and reliability of Caltrain service and to reduce travel times. The Rapid Rail Plan also called for completion of the environmental studies to extend Caltrain from its current San Francisco terminus at Fourth and King streets into downtown San Francisco. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) for the Caltrain Downtown Extension, including electrification of the line from downtown San Francisco to Gilroy, was circulated for public review and comment in March of 1997, but the Final EIS/EIR was never completed. This project reinitiated environmental studies in February 2001, and an EIS/EIR for the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/Redevelopment Area is being prepared by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), JPB, the City and County of San Francisco, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (see Section 1.3, Related Projects). Many of the other facility rehabilitation and enhancement improvements envisioned in the Rapid Rail Plan are already in place or underway, and they are included here in the No-Project Alternative. The present environmental document focuses on the facilities and improvements required to achieve electrification of the entire Caltrain line from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy. Electrification of the portion of the line from Fourth and King streets northward into downtown San Francisco is being addressed in the environmental document for the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/ Redevelopment Area project. Previous studies include the October 1992 Feasibility Study: Electrifying the Caltrain/PCS Railroad; the March 1997 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-3 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Environmental Impact Report for the Caltrain Downtown San Francisco Extension; and the October 1998 Caltrain Rapid Rail Study.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES A range of different propulsion options was considered to meet the project purpose and need. Four alternatives were ultimately withdrawn from further consideration based on low cost- effectiveness, environmental effects, potential project delays, or other factors. These alternatives and the reasons why they were withdrawn are presented in Section 2.4, Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn. Alternatives evaluated in this EA/EIR consist of a No-Electrification (or No-Project) Alternative and the Electrification Program Alternative. The Electrification Program Alternative includes alternative rolling stock types.

2.3.1 THE NO-ELECTRIFICATION (NO-PROJECT) ALTERNATIVE The No-Electrification Alternative constitutes the No-Project Alternative for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The No-Electrification (or No-Project) Alternative incorporates a series of rehabilitation improvements, enhancements and additions to the existing system, not including electrification, that would provide an improved level of service. These improvements will generally be carried out within the existing JPB or UPRR owned railroad rights-of-way and environmental and other issues will be addressed separately in accordance with applicable environmental requirements. The No-Electrification Alternative assumes that the following Caltrain facilities will exist at the completion of the Caltrain Express (CTX) project (formerly known as the “Bonanza” and “Baby Bullet” projects), consistent with the Rapid Rail Program adopted by the JPB in 1999: • Rehabilitation of the Existing System – long-term repairs, reconstruction and modernization of the existing tracks, signals, bridges, stations, rolling stock and other systems. • Enhancements and Capacity Improvements – additions and betterments to the rail system including additional main and passing tracks to facilitate train meets and passes; enhanced signal and communications systems (centralized train control [CTC] that can accommodate an up-grade to automatic train control [ATC], and fiber optics); modernized stations; a new centralized equipment maintenance and operations facility (CEMOF) comprising shop, buildings and support facilities at the Lenzen site in San Jose; vehicular and pedestrian grade separations; and additional rolling stock. Also included in this category are grade crossing and station closures and consolidations. • New CTX service consisting of 10 express trains per day with projected 57-minute travel times between San Francisco and San Jose by early 2004. • A variety of passenger station improvements to permit simpler ticketing arrangements and create improved station amenities.

2-4 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Additional proposed increases in Caltrain's service level to provide 98 daily trains in the San Francisco to San Jose segment (including eight daily trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment) by the year 2008 and 132 daily trains (including 20 trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment) by the year 2020 are being studied and are also included in the No-Electrification Alternative. Fleet requirements under the No-Electrification Alternative are presented in Table 2.3-1.

Table 2.3-1: Fleet Requirements of the No-Electrification (No-Project) Alternative

Diesel Gallery Other Existing New Trailer Total Passenger Year Locomotives Cars Cars1 Cars Vehicles Year 2001 (80 trains/weekday) 25 93 19 112 Year 2008 (98 trains/weekday) 30 93 19 8 120 Year 2020 (132 trains/weekday) 35 93 14 43 150 1 Fourteen cars are owned by Caltrain; five are leased. No leased cars assumed in 2020. Source: PCJPB & Parsons

2.3.1.1 Trackwork Rehabilitation and Improvements Trackwork rehabilitation improvements in the No-Electrification Alternative consist of the following: • Replacing jointed rail track with continuous welded rail track, • Providing concrete ties, new ballast, and improved alignment to accommodate higher speeds, • Providing new CTC controlled interlockings with universal crossovers at strategic locations to increase operational flexibility and reliability, and accommodate express trains and higher speeds, • Grade crossing replacements, and • Drainage improvements. Trackwork modifications are also being implemented to provide a new at-grade crossing at Common Street in San Francisco to accommodate the San Francisco Mission Bay development. At Bayshore, trackwork improvements and station modifications will be installed to create a four-track arrangement south to Brisbane. Caltrain track and associated passenger platform improvements at the new Millbrae Intermodal Facility are also included in the No-Electrification Alternative. The recently constructed BART-to-San Francisco International Airport extension interfaces with Caltrain at the Millbrae Intermodal station.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-5 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

At Redwood Junction, a third and fourth track will be added to provide sidings for train meets and passes. Additionally, the double track main line from Fair Oaks Avenue to Bowers Avenue will be reconfigured to provide four main tracks. Between Tamien and Lick, a second main track will be added by VTA to the existing single-track line. No additional track improvements between the Tamien Station in San Jose and the terminus of the Caltrain system in downtown Gilroy are included in the No-Electrification Alternative; however, the Electrification Program Alternative addresses full electrification of the UPRR portion of the Caltrain service between these limits, as described in Section 2.3.2.

2.3.1.2 Bridge, Tunnel and Station Improvements Rehabilitation improvements included in the No-Electrification Alternative consist of tunnel rehabilitation, retrofit of existing structures to current seismic safety standards, new bridge decks, and new foundations where needed. Rehabilitation improvements at stations include the following: • Provision of 600-foot-long (or longer) side platforms, • Wide center platforms at selected locations, • Improved lighting, shelters, and communications facilities at station waiting areas, • Facilities to meet Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements, • Grade-separated underpasses for pedestrians, and • Inter-track fencing to keep passengers from attempting to cross the tracks.

2.3.1.3 Signal System Improvements Signal system modernization improvements in the No-Electrification Alternative include the new CTC system, omni-directional signals in tracks that will enable trains to travel in both directions under CTC control, additional train crossovers, and state-of-the-art active warning devices. The CTC will be operated from the new CEMOF at the Lenzen Maintenance Facility site, and the existing operations center near Diridon Station in San Jose will be phased out.

2-6 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.3.2 THE ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE The Electrification Program Alternative assumes all improvements described in the No-Build Alternative, plus electrification of the Caltrain system, as described below. The Electrification Program Alternative would provide for the conversion from diesel-hauled to electric-hauled trains and would require the installation of some 180 to 200 single-track miles of overhead contact system (OCS) for the distribution of electrical power to the electric rolling stock. Some limited diesel operations for certain passenger routes as well as for freight service would continue. Electric rolling stock would consist of locomotives or electric multiple unit (EMU) cars, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.5, Rolling Stock. The OCS would be powered from a 25 kilovolt (kV), 60 Hertz (Hz), single-phase, alternating current (AC) supply system consisting of traction power supply substations, switching stations, and paralleling stations, as described in the following paragraphs.

2.3.2.1 Overhead Contact System The overhead contact system (OCS) would provide power to the electric vehicles. To permit electric vehicles to run along a railroad track, two types of electrical power distribution system are in general use. The first type is a low-voltage direct current (DC), third rail system, as employed in the 1000-volt DC Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. The second type is an overhead contact wire system, used for both light and heavy rail transit. Light rail applications typically use low-voltage DC OCS systems, such as the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) at 600 volts or Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) at 750 volts. For high-speed, intercity passenger or commuter rail lines, the OCS is usually a high voltage AC system, as used by Amtrak, Maryland Regional Commute (MARC), Southern Pennsylvavia Transportation Authority (SEPTA), New Jersey Transit (NJT), and Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) at 11.5-12.5 kV and 25 kV on the Northeast Corridor and its associated commuter rail systems. For heavy-haul commuter rail systems, such as that operated by Caltrain, the voltage of choice today throughout Europe and the rest of the world is 25 kV at commercial frequencies (50-60 Hz), and this is the voltage proposed for the Caltrain Electrification Program. This power supply and distribution system and voltage are compatible with the requirements of high-speed rail and will accommodate future development of high-speed rail in the Caltrain corridor without any significant overhaul of the electrification system. A mainline OCS typically comprises two conductors above each track in what is known as a catenary configuration: a messenger wire that sags between support points (much like a utility transmission line), below which a near-level contact wire is suspended. Both main wires are energized and are part of the same circuit. The pantograph, mounted on top of the electric vehicles, slides under the contact wire and collects the traction current from it. The messenger wire is supported by means of cantilevered, hinged bracket arms that extend horizontally over the track from vertical steel poles mounted clear of the dynamic envelope of the vehicles. These poles must be placed within 10 to 12 feet of the centerline of the tracks they

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-7 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

serve. In complex areas, where there is limited clearance between tracks, multi-track support structures, such as multi-wire headspans attached to taller steel poles, are employed. The poles themselves are supported by cast-in-place concrete foundations or driven pile footings, which are typically set back about 10 to 12 feet from the track centerline. Depending upon the clearance requirements of particular sections of the route, the contact wire height would vary from about 17.5 feet to 23.5 feet. Pole heights range from 30 to 50 feet. Also, depending on along-track span length and other requirements, the messenger wire would be positioned between two feet and five feet directly above the contact wire. Clearances for maintenance and operation of the OCS will be designed to allow for existing freight railroad clearances and operations; the OCS, however, may have to be de-energized at some overhead bridge locations in order to operate certain freight trains over the JPB-owned portion of the right-of-way during non-passenger revenue hours. OCS installation on the segments of the UPRR-owned right-of-way would be designed to provide clearance parameters to permit American Association of Railroads (AAR) Plate H freight operations at all times under the energized conductors. (See Figures 2.3-1 through 2.3-3). On tangent, or straight, sections of track, the OCS supports can be spaced up to 230 feet apart, though they would typically be about 180 to 200 feet apart. On curved track sections, the span lengths between supports must be reduced. The Caltrain right-of-way has two small radius curves, one just south of the San Francisco terminus and one north of San Jose Diridon Station, where the support spacing would be reduced to about 75 feet. For the larger radius, or shallower, curves along the route, pole spacing would range from 120 to 150 feet. Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 show typical center and side cantilever bracket arms and poles for two-track sections. Figure 2.3-3 shows a typical headspan structure for multi-track sections. Figure 2.3-4 shows a portal arrangement, where the central wires are supported over multiple tracks by means of a solid steel beam and cantilever brackets. Although the portal arrangement has advantages for multi-track train operations, since the portal structure provides independent wire supports, it is not preferred for use in the Caltrain Electrification Program because of its visual effects. It will therefore be used only where required in particular locations. Visual impacts of the proposed OCS facilities and treatments in different corridor locations are evaluated in Section 3.1, Aesthetics. Power would be supplied to the OCS at each of the traction power facilities, either by means of non-insulated aerial connections or by insulated underground connections. Power would be delivered to the OCS usually through a pole-mounted disconnect switch, which permits energization or de-energization of a particular section of the OCS conductors. The overhead electrical system would include an integrated bonding and grounding system to protect the public during all system operations.

2-8 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.3.2.2 Auto-Transformer Power Feed Arrangement The auto-transformer power feed system arrangement would require the installation of only three supply substations (also referred to as primary substations), spaced between 29 and 37 miles apart. In addition, there would be two switching stations and eight paralleling stations at a spacing of three to eight miles. The paralleling stations provide additional power support to the power distribution system and permit increased spacing of the primary substations. Figures 2.3-5 to 2.3-20 show the proposed locations for these traction power facilities. Alternate sites are under consideration for several facilities and all are evaluated in the present document. In each case, JPB would first seek to purchase the site labeled as “A,” and would consider the alternative sites (labeled “B” and “C”) in order if the previous letter site could not be obtained. In addition to reducing the number of large primary substations – and thereby minimizing environmental impacts – another advantage of the auto-transformer feed arrangement for implementation along the Caltrain corridor is its potential to reduce electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electromagnetic interference (EMI) because it includes two parallel aerial feeders, one on each side of the alignment. The currents in the parallel feeders flow in the opposite direction to that in the main catenary conductors and this tends to cancel EMF/EMI effects created by current flow in the main OCS. See Section 4.6.2, Effects on Other Electrical Facilities, for the evaluation of the EMF/EMI effects of this power feed arrangement. Another advantage of the autotransformer feed arrangement is its flexibility in future "build-out" installations, which translates into reduced costs when compared with other electric power feed arrangements.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-9 Figure 2.3-1 OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM TWO-TRACK ARRANGEMENT WITH CENTER POLE CONSTRUCTION CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM Figure 2.3-2 OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM TWO-TRACK ARRANGEMENT WITH SIDE POLE CONSTRUCTION CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM Figure 2.3-3 OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM MULTI-TRACK ARRANGEMENT WITH HEADSPAN CONSTRUCTION CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM Figure 2.3-4 OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM TYPICAL PORTAL ARRANGEMENT CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM

CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.3.2.3 Substations, Switching Stations, and Paralleling Stations The primary substation units would be fitted with 30 to 60 MVA (million volt amperes, often termed Megawatts) oil-cooled transformers that will step down the power utility supplied voltage of 115 kV to the 25 kV distribution voltage. The source power utility would be requested to provide two incoming feeds, which would tap two phases of each three-phase transmission line. The substation compound would include circuit breakers and switching equipment that would feed power from the high voltage lines to each line section of track. The lineside equipment would be designed to provide for alternate feeding arrangements in the event of a substation equipment outage. A substation compound would be about 115 feet by 200 feet in size, as evidenced by the size of the facilities recently installed between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts for the 25 kV AC extension of the electrified services on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor. Figure 2.3-21 shows a typical substation installation. Figure 2.3-22 shows a typical 115 to 25kV primary transformer and Figure 2.3-23 a typical 10 MVA auto-transformer. At approximately the midpoint between substations, switching stations would be installed to provide additional flexibility for remote energization and de-energization of the power distribution system. In between the substations and switching stations, paralleling stations would be installed to permit increased spacing of the primary substations. The switching stations would be equipped with two 10 MVA oil-filled auto-transformer units and the paralleling stations with either one or two 10 MVA oil-filled auto-transformer units. These facilities would contain a variety of circuit breakers and switching equipment but would be considerably smaller than the substation facilities. Switching station and paralleling station compound dimensions are typically about 35 feet by 125 feet. Figure 2.3-24 shows a typical switching station compound. Substation facilities would be placed to take advantage of connections to existing power sources and away from residential and habitat areas. The smaller paralleling and switching station facilities would be located to minimize their impact on residential and habitat areas. 2.3.2.4 Overbridge Protection Structures In addition to the electrical facilities themselves, electrification of the Caltrain line would require the construction or enhancement of overbridge protection barriers on 53 roadway bridges that cross over the Caltrain alignment. These barriers prohibit access to the rail corridor and prevent objects from being thrown off the bridges in a manner that would damage or interfere with the electrical facilities. As indicated in Table 2.3-2, 17 of the existing bridges that cross over the Caltrain corridor already have such barriers on both the north and south bridge face, six bridges have a barrier on only one bridge face, and 30 have no overbridge protection barriers. Overbridge protection barriers would be 6.5 feet high, and placed along the parapet of the bridge at least 10 feet from the closest energized conductors crossing underneath. The existing barriers will be enhanced to meet these requirements.

2-30 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR Disconnect Switch HV Circuit Breaker

Transformer Incoming Service 25kV Switchgear House

Figure 2.3-21 TYPICAL SUBSTATION COMPOUND CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM Figure 2.3-22 115-25kV PRIMARY TRANSFORMER (30 MVA) CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM Figure 2.3-23 TYPICAL AUTO-TRANSFORMER (10MVA) AT PARALLELING OR SWITCHING STATION CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM AUTO-TRANSFORMERS WITH FIRE WALLS

CONTROL BUILDING AND AUTO-TRANSFORMER

Figure 2.3-24 TYPICAL SWITCHING STATION CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Table 2.3-2: Overhead Bridge Protection Barriers

Is There an Existing Barrier? Number Mile Post Bridge Location North Face South Face BRIDGES WITH BARRIERS ON BOTH SIDES – BARRIERS MAY BE ENHANCED 1 1.90 23rd Street, San Francisco yes yes 2 3.14 Oakdale Avenue, San Francisco yes yes 3 8.67 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco yes yes 4 9.22 Grand Avenue West Bound, South San Francisco yes yes 5 9.23 Grand Avenue East Bound, South San Francisco yes yes 6 13.63 Pedestrian Crossing (Millbrae Sta), Millbrae yes yes 7 13.70 Millbrae Avenue, Millbrae yes yes 8 35.60 Shoreline Boulevard, Mountain View yes yes 9 36.49 Stevens Creek Pedestrian Crossing, Mtn. View yes yes 10 39.32 Pedestrian Crossing, Sunnyvale yes yes 11 39.71 Wolfe Road, Sunnyvale yes yes 12 40.70 Pedestrian Crossing, Sunnyvale yes yes 13 40.75 Lawrence Expressway, Sunnyvale yes yes 14 43.65 Lafayette Pedestrian Crossing, Santa Clara yes yes 15 45.60 Hedding Avenue, San Jose yes yes 16 57.15 Route 85, San Jose yes yes 17 57.41 Bernal Road, San Jose yes yes BRIDGES WITH ONE BARRIER – CONSTRUCT ONE NEW BARRIER; EXISTING BARRIER MAY BE ENHANCED 1 1.72 22nd Street, San Francisco yes none 2 19.16 Highway 92 East Bound, San Mateo none yes 3 26.15 Woodside Road / Highway 84, Redwood City yes none 4 36.80 Whisman Road, Mountain View yes none 5 38.60 Mathilda Avenue, Sunnyvale none yes 6 42.90 Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara none yes

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-35 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Table 2.3-2: Overhead Bridge Protection Barriers

Is There an Existing Barrier? Number Mile Post Bridge Location North Face South Face BRIDGES WITH NO BARRIERS – CONSTRUCT TWO NEW BARRIERS 1 0.48 6th Street Off Ramp, San Francisco none none 2 0.85 I-280, San Francisco none none 3 1.27 Mariposa Street, San Francisco none none 4 2.10 I-280 South Bound, San Francisco none none 5 2.16 I-280 North Bound, San Francisco none none 6 2.70 Cesar Chavez Street Off Ramp, San Francisco none none 7 3.66 Williams Avenue, San Francisco none none 8 4.15 Paul Avenue, San Francisco none none 9 6.64 Tunnel Avenue, Brisbane none none 10 7.69 Highway 101, Brisbane none none 11 7.80 Sierra Point Parkway, Brisbane none none 12 9.40 Highway 101 North Bound, South San Francisco none none 13 9.41 Highway 101 South Bound, South San Francisco none none 14 10.82 Highway 380, San Bruno none none 15 19.12 Highway 92 West Bound, San Mateo none none 16 34.00 San Antonio Avenue, Palo Alto none none 17 36.50 Highway 85, Mountain View none none 18 37.10 Highway 237 West Bound, Mountain View none none 19 37.11 Highway 237 East Bound, Mountain View none none 20 39.31 Fair Oaks Avenue, Sunnyvale none none 21 42.50 San Tomas Expressway, Santa Clara none none 22 43.99 De La Cruz Boulevard, Santa Clara none none 23 45.30 Highway 880, San Jose none none 24 47.29 San Carlos Street, San Jose none none 25 50.10 Alamaden Expressway, San Jose none none 26 50.49 Curtner Avenue, San Jose none none 27 51.08 Private Road, San Jose none none 28 52.83 Capitol Expressway, San Jose none none 29 55.38 Blossom Hill North Bound, San Jose none none 30 55.41 Blossom Hill South Bound, San Jose none none TOTALS Total Bridges with Two Existing Barriers: Barriers May Be Enhanced 17 Total Bridges with One Existing Barrier: Construct One/May Enhance One 6 Total Bridges with No Existing Barriers: Construct Two New Barriers 30 TOTAL NUMBER OF BRIDGES 53 Source: Parsons, 2002.

2-36 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

For two-track segments, the length of the overbridge protection barrier would be about 35 to 40 feet. For three- and four-track segments, the overbridge protection barrier would be from 65 to 80 feet long. Overbridge protection barriers can be constructed from a variety of materials, including timber, sheet metal, small mesh wire fabric, and concrete. Figure 2.3-25 shows a typical overbridge protection barrier treatment. It is proposed to use a fine mesh wire fabric for the Caltrain Electrification Program; this provides safety protection and maintainability, but affords a measure of transparency for the motorist. See Section 3.1, Aesthetics, for visual simulations of the overbridge protection barrier type that would be used for the Caltrain Electrification Program and evaluation of its visual impacts. 2.3.2.5 Rolling Stock The Electrification Program Alternative includes three different rolling stock options, as follows: 1. The first option would replace the existing diesel locomotive fleet on a one-for-one basis and would result in electric locomotives hauling the existing fleet of gallery cars. Under this option, the train consists would remain essentially the same as today, with the exception that a single electric locomotive would be able to haul more passenger cars than a single diesel-electric locomotive. One of the major advantages of the electric locomotive option is that it does not require complete replacement of the entire fleet at commencement. Diesel locomotives would continue to haul freight trains over the route, and the ACE, Capitol Corridor and Amtrak passenger trains would also utilize diesels in the southern section, so compatibility of operations would have to be maintained after electrification. Under this option, Caltrain could operate a mixed fleet and replace their existing diesels on an incremental basis, particularly if funding issues limit the initial acquisition.

2. The second option would require replacement of the diesel locomotives and all of the gallery cars with electric multiple units (EMUs). With EMUs, each motor car has its own pantograph mounted on the roof, and separate electric motor drives to each axle of the trucks, using four motors (one per axle) or two motors (one per truck). EMUs can be operated in a variety of train consists, dependent upon the requirements of the rail system operator. Options include single motor cars (where each car is fitted with a driving cab at both ends) or paired cars (where there is a driving cab at only one end of each car). A pair can comprise two motor-cab cars, or a motor-cab plus a non-motored trailer-cab car. Another option would be a triplet formation, in which a single non-powered trailer car would be introduced between two motorized cab cars. Alternatively, the train could be configured as a quadruplet, comprising two motor-cab cars plus two trailer cars, or two trailer-cab cars plus two motor cars. 3. The third option would require replacement of the diesel locomotives and all of the gallery cars with electric locomotives hauling a completely new fleet of multi-level trailer cars.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-37 PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY WITH OVERBRIDGE PROTECTION BARRIER

BARRIER MATERIAL

Figure 2.3-25 TYPICAL OVERBRIDGE PROTECTION BARRIER CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Each of the options under consideration would retain a limited amount of diesel service for certain passenger routes such as the Dumbarton or Salinas routes and for railroad freight operations. All three options are being evaluated to produce recommendations that will cover Caltrain’s short- and long-term needs for rolling stock. A railroad operations analysis was undertaken separately from the Electrification Program to determine Caltrain requirements and to estimate the increases in service that would be supported by electrification of the system, as well as to determine fleet requirements. With any of the options, power for the electric vehicles will be drawn from the overhead contact system (OCS) through a roof-mounted pantograph. The pantograph is a hinged, mechanical device that can extend vertically to follow variations in the OCS contact wire height, with a typical extension from as low as 14 up to 24 or 25 feet. A typical pantograph is depicted in Figure 2.3-26. Electric Locomotives. Electric locomotives are currently in passenger service on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and by New Jersey Transit (NJT), SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) and MARC (Maryland Rail Commuter Service). These locomotives include the AEM-7 manufactured by ASEA and the Electric-Motive Division of General Motors; the ASEA ALP-44, the Bombardier high horsepower (HHP) locomotive; the older freight-based General Electric E-60; and the ADtranz ALP-46 locomotive. These locomotives are shown in Figure 2.3-27. The design locomotive for evaluation of the impacts of electrification in the present document is the ADtranz ALP-46. Electric Multiple Units. EMUs currently in use include the 1500-volt DC gallery cars now being operated by Metra in Chicago, but originally by the Illinois and Central Gulf Railroad (ICG). These cars closely resemble the Caltrain double-level gallery cars. Twenty five kV AC single-level EMUs are in service on the Deux Montagnes Commuter Railroad in Montreal. Typical modern European EMU vehicles are shown in Figure 2.3-28. In addition, Metro-North Railroad, NJT and SEPTA operate single-level EMUs powered from an 11.5–12.5 KV and 25 KV AC OCS. There is currently no prototype for the bi-directional EMU proposed for the Caltrain Electrification Program. The EMU vehicle that would be proposed for the Caltrain Electrification Program would be a multi-level car of comparable dimensions to the existing Caltrain gallery car. Currently, there is no production vehicle of this type that would satisfy the recently established FRA strength requirements. This vehicle would have to be specially procured and designed.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-39 Figure 2.3-26 TYPICAL PANTOGRAPH CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM AEM-7

BOMBARDIER ALP-46

Figure 2.3-27 TYPICAL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM SIEMENS EMU

TER-2N EMU

Figure 2.3-28 TYPICAL EMU VEHICLES CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.3.2.6 Caltrain Operating Scenario(s) Under Electrification The level of Caltrain operations and therefore fleet requirements under the Electrification Program Alternative would be the same as described under the No-Electrification Alternative, with 98 trains per day, including eight trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment, by 2008, and 132 trains per day, including 20 trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment, by 2020. As previously stated, Caltrain can achieve this level of service using vehicles powered by either diesel or electricity, but electrified trains accelerate and decelerate somewhat faster than diesel trains, making for slightly shorter trip times. Caltrain would continue to operate and maintain some diesel locomotives for the planned Dumbarton Rail service (see Section 1.3, Related Projects) and for the proposed Monterey – Salinas Rail service. It is estimated that about five diesel locomotives would be required to operate each service. Caltrain has recently purchased six new diesel locomotives for use in the Peninsula Corridor “Baby Bullet” – or CTX – service. It is assumed that these vehicles would be transferred to the Monterey-Salinas and Dumbarton services following electrification of the Peninsula Corridor service and that Caltrain would retain at least another five diesel locomotives for contingencies. Thus, diesel locomotives would remain available for use on the Peninsula Corridor service in the event of emergencies affecting equipment or electrical power supply. 2.3.2.7 Modification or Replacement of Signal System The Electrification Program has identified the requirement for the existing signal system equipment to be modified or replaced, as needed, to achieve electrification compatibility. This applies particularly to the grade crossing protection systems, where the "Constant Warning Time" equipment will have to be replaced with an electrification compatible system as part of the project. Caltrain has approximately 50 vehicular grade crossings between San Francisco and San Jose, plus another 39 vehicular grade crossings from San Jose to Gilroy. Additionally, Caltrain has 15 pedestrian grade crossings with active warning devices and “Constant Warning Time” predictors. The current Constant Warning Time systems suffer from electronic incompatibility with an electrified line. Continued use of the existing system with the current level of service would result in increased gate down time on the highway grade crossings, particularly at the locations where multiple grade crossings are in close proximity. Gate down time would become even greater with the projected future levels of rail service. Although other electrified services have electrification-compatible crossing systems, none is directly transferable to the Caltrain Electrification Program. The recently electrified Amtrak line between New Haven and Boston has six at-grade crossings, where the existing technology had to be modified for electrification compatibility, but these crossings do not have the same volume of either highway or rail traffic that is seen on the Caltrain route. SEPTA has one grade crossing on one of its Philadelphia commuter lines, and New Jersey Transit has several grade crossings on the North Jersey Coast commuter line, all of which have electrification-compatible crossing protection, using similar equipment. Again, though, none of these crossings experiences the

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-43 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

volume of highway or rail traffic that is seen by Caltrain. Recognizing the potential problems that extended gate down time could create, Caltrain is considering a pilot project to test new technology that incorporates the use of vital wayside radio equipment that will communicate with equipment on board the locomotives and cab cars. This technology will also permit reductions in the gate down time for the existing diesel service. This new equipment would be compatible with both diesel and electric operations. Two manufacturers have adopted the current technology and are now providing compatible warning systems for electrified rail lines. These manufacturers will be solicited, as the engineering progresses, for the development of Constant Warning Time Systems that would allow for electrified operation with equivalent or improved gate down times. 2.3.2.8 Other Improvements Included in the Electrification Program Alternative OCS infrastructure will be placed to facilitate proposed third and fourth track improvements in the corridor segment from Bayshore to Brisbane, in the vicinity of the new Millbrae Station, and in the areas designated as Redwood Junction Improvements and Lawrence-Santa Clara Improvements. Construction has begun for the new central equipment maintenance and operation facility (CEMOF) at the Lenzen Yard; completion is expected in 2006. The CEMOF has independent utility and purpose from the Electrification Program, as it would serve current and future system operations regardless of whether they are diesel or electrified. The CEMOF was the subject of a separate environmental document; a Finding of No Significant Impact was given by FTA in March 1999. The Electrification Program Alternative would provide the required OCS wiring of the shop and tracks within the CEMOF. Placement of the OCS poles and wires to accommodate future Caltrain facilities will require trimming of trees and mature vegetation that may result in some removal of trees. These impacts are addressed within the present document; refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Section 3.4, Biological Resources. One maintenance item that is unique to electric vehicles is the need to inspect the pantograph carbon collector strips for wear and damage. Carbon is a relatively soft material, even when mixed with copper particles to create “metallized” strips, and is designed to be the sacrificial element in the sliding current collection interface. High-level pantograph inspection platforms would be needed at the terminal locations in San Francisco, San Jose and Gilroy. Caltrain and the VTA are currently negotiating with UPRR for purchase of a right-of-way corridor from Lick to Gilroy. This corridor would permit construction of one or more dedicated Caltrain tracks. The present document does not address these options and the analysis contained herein is based on the assumption that the existing UPRR single and double track alignment, as it stands today, would be electrified. Detailed negotiations with UPRR will be required regarding the installation of electrification facilities on the UPRR-owned right-of-way from Tamien to Lick. The electrification system envisioned for the Gilroy to San Francisco corridor would be

2-44 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

configured in such a way that it would support the future operation of California high-speed rail. Twenty-five kV, 60 Hz single-phase AC electrification is likely to be the power supply system of choice for a steel-wheel-on-steel-rail high-speed train option. The OCS configuration and power supply arrangement envisioned for the Caltrain commuter rail system could support rail operations at speeds greater than 90 mph, if this were to be required for high-speed rail operations in this corridor. 2.3.2.9 Staging of Electrification Improvements The intent of the Electrification Program would be to wire the existing trackwork, together with that proposed under the North CTX and South CTX projects, from San Francisco to Gilroy. In practice, construction may occur in two phases: the first phase is likely to provide for construction from Tamien to San Francisco and the second phase from Tamien to Gilroy. The staging of electrification from Tamien to Gilroy is contingent upon negotiations with UPRR.

2.3.3 COSTS, FUNDING AND FEASIBILITY

2.3.3.1 Capital Costs Total capital costs for the Caltrain Electrification Program from Fourth and King to Gilroy would vary, depending upon the selected rolling stock option, from approximately $602 million to $866 million assuming electrified operations would begin in 2008. Costs are in constant year 2003 dollars and are net of the estimated revenues from the sale of surplus equipment. The lower estimate is for Option 1, which replaces the diesel locomotive fleet with electric locomotives and retains the existing passenger car fleet. New bilevel passenger cars would be acquired only to meet 2008 and other future year capacity requirements. The higher estimate is for Option 3, which replaces both the diesel locomotive and gallery car fleet with electric locomotives and bilevel trailer cars. Option 2, which would replace the entire fleet with EMUs except for the equipment required for the Dumbarton and Salinas services, is estimated to cost approximately $830 million to support initial year 2008 operations. Table 2.3-3 summarizes rolling stock procurement costs for the two future service levels currently contemplated by the JPB (98 and 132 trains per weekday), which correspond to the years 2008 and 2020. Costs are for the fleets identified in Table 2.3-4. Rolling stock required for year 2008 operations at 98 trains per weekday is estimated to cost approximately $145 million for Option 1, $374 million for Option 2, and $409 million for Option 3.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-45 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Table 2.3-3: Electrification System Costs (Million of 2003 Dollars) Rolling Stock by Year

Electrification Option/Year Electric New Trailer Locomotives EMUs Cars1 Total Year 2008 (98 trains/weekday) Opt. 1 (Replace Diesel Locomotives) $145.12 $145.12 Opt. 2 (EMUs) $373.71 $373.71 Opt.3 (Replace Diesel Locomotives & Passenger Cars) $145.12 $263.79 $408.91 Year 2020 (132 trains/weekday) Opt.1 (Replace Diesel Locomotives) $211.65 $211.65 Opt. 2 (EMUs) $467.16 $467.16 Opt. 3 (Replace Diesel Locomotives & Passenger Cars) $211.65 $344.07 $555.72 1 Passenger car costs are for vehicles acquired in addition to or to replace the No-Project fleet. Since Option 1 will use the same number and type of passenger cars required for the No-Project, no new car costs are shown. Source: Parsons

Table 2.3-4: Fleet Requirements of the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative

Electrification Diesel Electric EMUs Gallery Other Gallery & New Total Option/Year Locomotives Locomotives Cars Existing Other Exist. Trailer Passenger Cars1 Cars Cars Vehicles Year 2008 (98 trains/weekday) Opt. 1 (Replace Diesel 5 24 93 19 112 3 115 Locomotives) Opt. 2 (EMUs) 5 120 120 Opt.3 (Replace Diesel Locomotives 5 24 115 115 & Passenger Cars) Year 2020 (132 trains/weekday) Opt.1 (Replace Diesel 5 35 93 14 107 43 150 Locomotives) Opt. 2 (EMUs) 5 150 150 Opt. 3 (Replace Diesel Locomotives 5 35 150 150 & Passenger Cars) 1 Includes fourteen owned and five leased cars through 2008. No leased cars assumed in 2020. Source: Parsons; Caltrain Operating Plan, FY 2004-2026, PCJPB

In addition to rolling stock costs, there are the costs for electrification of the trackway itself plus related improvements. These non-rolling stock program costs are shown in Table 2.3-5 and include traction power supply and OCS delivery systems; signal systems; grade crossing, tunnel

2-46 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

and overcrossing improvements; utility modification and relocations; landscape improvements; retooling of the Lenzen Yard and training of maintenance personel; high-level catenary platforms; and insurance, administration, and other project development costs. Non-rolling stock program costs would not vary substantially regardless of which rolling stock option is selected. They also would not vary with level of service, but would be fully implemented for the first year of electrified Caltrain service. Non-rolling stock improvements are estimated to cost approximately $457 million.

Table 2.3-5: Electrification System Costs (Millions of 2003 Dollars) Non-Rolling Stock Program Costs

San Francisco San Jose Cost Category to San Jose to Gilroy Total Traction Power Supply System $62.18 $24.66 $86.84 Overhead Contact System (OCS) $147.61 $53.68 $201.29 Signal System & Grade Crossings $56.89 $18.27 $75.16 Tunnel and Overcrossing Clearance $24.34 – $24.34 Utilities, Landscape Improvements $14.77 $5.02 $19.80 OCS Equipment & Materials Storage $27.81 –- $27.81 Retooling of Lenzen Yard and Training $4.84 –- $4.84 High Level Catenary Platforms $0.89 –- $0.89 Liability Insurance, Financing, Other $13.91 $1.80 $15.71 Subtotal: $353.25 $103.44 $456.69 Source: Parsons

Both the rolling stock and other system improvement costs include design, development and construction oversight costs. Table 2.3-6 combines the costs for rolling and non-rolling stock elements into total program costs. Costs represent the procurement costs of new rolling stock and trackway improvements. All options assume five existing Caltrain diesel locomotives would be retained for emergency operations, in the event, for example, that electric power is unavailable for train propulsion. Excess diesel locomotives would be sold.1 It should be noted that program costs for 2020, like 2008, represent total system costs but include rolling stock to support a service level of 132 trains per weekday. The capital cost to attain 132-train service in 2020 is actually the incremental cost of rolling stock compared to 98-train service in 2008, and can be estimated by subtracting year 2008 from year 2020 costs.

1 The sale of excess diesel locomotives was assumed in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's calculation of the Electrification Program's funding.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-47 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Table 2.3-6: Electrification System Costs (Millions of 2003 Dollars) Rolling Stock and Non-Rolling Stock by Year

Electrification Option/Year Rolling Stock Non-Rolling Stock Electrification Total 1 Year 2008 (98 trains/weekday) Opt. 1 (Replace Diesel Locomotives) $145.12 $456.69 $601.81 Opt. 2 (EMUs) $373.71 $456.69 $830.40 Opt.3 (Replace Diesel Locomotives & Passenger $408.91 $456.69 $865.60 Cars) Year 2020 (132 trains/weekday) Opt.1 (Replace Diesel Locomotives) $211.65 $456.69 $668.34 Opt. 2 (EMUs) $467.16 $456.69 $923.85 Opt. 3 (Replace Diesel Locomotives & Passenger $555.72 $456.69 $1,012.41 Cars) 1 Estimated cost of new rolling stock and non-rolling stock. Source: Parsons Transportation Group

2.3.3.2 Funding Sources and Programming Capital costs of the Caltrain Electrification Program are proposed to be funded from county- based local sources, including county sales taxes; Regional and State Transportation Improvement and Congestion Management-Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; and regional discretionary sources, including Interregional Transportation Improvement Program; and State Air Resources Board/Assembly Bill 434 funds. The amounts are shown in Table 2.3-7.

Table 2.3-7: Funding Sources for Caltrain Electrification Program (Millions of Dollars) Source Amount County Sales Tax $3451 RTIP/STP/CMAQ $471 Other Local Sources $952 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program $65 California Air Resources Board $50 TOTAL $602 1Sales tax is $108 million in San Mateo Measure B and $237 million Santa Clara Measure A. RTIP/STP/CMAQ funding is the San Francisco share. 2 Includes funds from resale of excess diesel locomotives (approximately $22 million). Source: MTC, Regional Transit Expansion Policy: Program of Projects, November 9, 2001.

2-48 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Caltrain Electrification Program is included as one of the top funding priorities in the financially constrained portion (“Track 1”) of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional Transit Expansion Policy: Program of Projects (RTEP). The RTEP is the transit expansion element of the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2001 RTP, including the RTEP, was adopted by the MTC in December 2001. Therefore, the Caltrain Electrification Program is included in the financially constrained 2001 RTP.

2.3.3.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs A railroad operations analysis was performed for this study to estimate the service increases (increased train frequencies and/or train lengths) that would be supported by electrification of the system, and to determine fleet and other requirements. The JPB subsequently prepared a Caltrain Operating Plan, FY 2004-2026, in support of project documentation for the RTEP, which projected annual service levels and associated operating costs to 2026. The plan did not specifically assign a cost for electrified operations. These costs were initially identified in a technical report prepared as part of the preliminary engineering of electrification improvements (see Caltrain 25 kV, 60 Hz, AC Electrification Program, Overview of Preliminary Engineering Operating and Maintenance Costs, July 30, 2001), and were later updated to reflect refinements in fleet requirements and proposed train schedules. Table 2.3-8 lists the Caltrain operating parameters assumed in the operating and maintenance cost estimates, by year. Existing service parameters are shown for comparison with electrified operations in 2008 and 2020. All rolling stock options would have the same operating requirements. The major change in future service is the addition of CTX (or Baby Bullet) service over the next several years to offer 18 train trips in 2008 (both directions combined) and 34 train trips in 2020. During the morning peak in 2008, one CTX train would be provided each hour in both the southbound and northbound directions, increasing to two trains each hour in 2020. Thus, express train frequencies would increase from 60 to 30 minutes in each direction during the peak period. Baseline service would also operate, with three to four local or limited- stop trains per hour southbound and northbound during the peak period in 2008. Four trains per hour are equivalent to 15-minute service frequencies. By 2020, baseline service would increase up to four to six trains per hour during the peak period. Off-peak baseline service in both 2008 and 2020 would include two local or limited stop trains per hour per direction, equivalent to 30-minute service frequencies.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-49 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Table 2.3-8: Caltrain Operating Parameters

Electrified Service Existing Diesel Service (All Options) 2001 2008 2020 Weekday Train Trips 80 98 132 Base Service (Local & Limited) 80 80 98 A.M. Peak Period (6-9 a.m.) 20 19 26 A.M. Peak Hour, one-way 4 3-4 4-6 CTX NA 18 34 A.M. Peak Period (6-9 a.m.) NA 6 12 A.M. Peak, Per Hr., one-way NA 1 2 Cars/Train (Avg.) 4 to 5 5 5 or more Train Capacity (Passengers) 580 to 725 580 to 725 725 or more Source: Caltrain Operating Plan, FY 2004-2026; Caltrain Timetable, April 2001; WP 3 Appendix, Wilbur Smith Associates, 2002. Parsons Transportation Group, 2003.

Table 2.3-9 summarizes the estimated operating and maintenance costs for electrified Caltrain service, comparing future year with existing 2001 expenses. Total operating costs with electrification would vary somewhat depending upon the rolling stock option. Service by electric locomotives push-pulling existing gallery or new trailer cars (Options 1 and 3) would cost on the order of $86.9 million in 2008, increasing to $111.1 million in 2020. Service operated with EMUs (Option 2) would cost slightly less, on the order of $86.0 million in 2008 increasing to $109.9 million in 2020. The difference is due to the estimated lower costs of EMU propulsion and propulsion vehicle maintenance.

Table 2.3-9: Caltrain Operating and Maintenance Costs with Electrification (Millions of 2003 Dollars)

1 Operating Year 2008 2020 Base and Express Service $46.6 $107.7 Incremental Cost of Electrification $1.6 – 2.2 $2.2 - $3.4 Total O&M Expense2 $86.0 –86.9 $109.9 - $111.1 Estimated Operating Revenues (Fare and Other) $37.8 $52.9 Net O&M Expense/Subsidy 3 $48.3 – 49.2 $57.0 - $58.2 1 Figures are for fiscal year, July 1- June 30, and provide a reasonable approximation of calendar year performance. 2 Downtown extension not included in operating expense; estimated to add $7.1 m (2012) to $8.3 m (2020) annually, but would be offset by increased revenues. First figure in range is for Option 2 while second figure in range is for Option 1 & 3 (years 2008 & 2020). 3 The subsidy is split between San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties in an approximate 18-42-40 ratio, respectively. Source: Wilbur Smith Associates projections of Caltrain costs and revenues for FY2003 through FY2025. Incremental cost of electrification estimated by Parsons Transportation Group. Revenue based on ridership per Results Report: Caltrain Ridership Forecasts 2010-2020, Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., October 2003.

2-50 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The table identifies the incremental cost of electrification in both years. On the low end, in 2008, electrification would add approximately $1.6 million to Caltrain operating costs compared to the No-Electrification Alternative; on the high end, electrification would increase operating costs by approximately $2.2 million. In 2020, the added costs of electrification would be somewhat greater. The increased costs of electrification are primarily for labor and materials to maintain the overhead power delivery systems, costs not associated with the existing diesel locomotive service. The extra maintenance-of-way costs more than offset the lower power and propulsion vehicle maintenance costs associated with electric locomotives and EMUs. It should be noted that reductions in service of both SamTrans and Muni anticipated with the increases in projected Caltrain service would result in operating cost reductions for these transit operators. These reductions would be the same under both the Electrification Program Alternative and the No-Electrification Alternative, since both alternatives propose the same level of Caltrain service, 132 daily trains in the year 2020. Therefore, these cost savings are not factored into the estimates of operating and maintenance costs for the Electrification and No-Electrification alternatives. 2.3.3.4 Financial Feasibility The comparison of costs, revenues, and committed funding sources presented above indicates that the JPB can afford to build and operate the Electrification Program Alternative.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND WITHDRAWN In addition to electrification, four other propulsion alternatives were considered to meet the project purpose and need, and were ultimately withdrawn from further consideration based on their low cost-effectiveness, potential environmental impacts, potential project delays, operational constraints, or other criteria. Some of these alternatives were originally considered for the 1997 Caltrain Downtown Extension Draft EIS/EIR and reconsidered here. These alternatives and the reasons they were withdrawn from further consideration are described in the following sections.

2.4.1 PROPULSION USING CLEAN DIESEL OR LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FUELS "Clean" diesel and liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuels were the least expensive of the alternative train propulsion options considered. Similar to electrification, the conversion of locomotives to LNG fuel could substantially reduce pollutant emissions compared with continued diesel operations. These alternative fuel options did not address the basic project purpose to electrify the Caltrain line or meet the project purpose to realize Peninsula commuters’ vision of a modernized commuter railroad. Nor would they have accommodated future California high- speed rail implementation in the Caltrain corridor. For these reasons, propulsion using clean diesel or LNG was withdrawn from further consideration as an alternative to electrification.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-51 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.4.2 FUEL CELL VEHICLES AND LOCOMOTIVES Fuel cell technology has been evolving over the last eight to ten years but still has many limitations for commuter rail operations. One of the primary limitations is the weight of the fuel cell, which would add from 20 to 33 percent to the weight of the original vehicle. An electric locomotive of 6000 to 8000 horsepower (HP) and weighing approximately 200,000 pounds is required to pull six to eight 120- to 146-passenger coaches weighing approximately 125,000 pounds apiece. For a comparable fuel cell locomotive, the additional weight attributable to the fuel cell alone could increase the weight of the locomotive to over 300,000 pounds. Operating such heavy vehicles would require thorough review and potentially, modification of Caltrain track construction and maintenance standards. Also, fuel cell technology would require extensive testing. This year, SamTrans is preparing to purchase three fuel cell buses with an estimated delivery in 2008, at which time testing would commence and take several years before meaningful revenue service could begin. The fuel cell required to power a heavy locomotive pulling a six- to eight-passenger-car consist would be considerably larger and would require even more extensive testing prior to revenue service. This would delay the initiation of non-diesel Caltrain service for many years. Given the untested status of the fuel cells for use on Caltrain, the potential delays to the initiation of revenue service required for testing, the added research and development costs, and the unclear and unproven benefits of fuel cell operation in comparison with electricity, this propulsion option was withdrawn from further consideration.

2.4.3 DIRECT CENTER FEED POWER SYSTEM ARRANGEMENT A Direct Center Feed (DCF) power system was evaluated in comparison with an Auto-Transformer Feed (ATF) system to identify the advantages and disadvantages for Caltrain operations. Key considerations in the evaluation included the number and costs—including capital, operating, and maintenance costs—of system facilities and the electromagnetic field emissions and electromagnetic interference implications of the alternative arrangements. A DCF power system would require the installation of five primary substations, spaced between 13 and 19 miles apart, compared to three for the ATF system. In addition, a switching station would have to be located approximately halfway between the substations to provide separation between utility phases, which meant three DCF rather than two ATF switching stations. Moreover, pole-mounted 25 kV parallel feeders might be required at selected locations to keep system voltages from degrading below minimum operating levels. The DCF system would also require equipment for mitigation of EMF and EMI exposure and to alleviate increased rail-to-ground voltages. In addition, the DCF system would require two additional connections to the utility 115 kV transmission system and would create two additional metering demand locations. It would possibly also have required additional parallel feeders for three- and four- track configurations to maintain voltage levels for increased train service. These requirements were all greater than the equipment needs for an ATF arrangement, which— as noted in Section 2.3.2.2, Autotransformer Power Feed Arrangement—incorporates parallel

2-52 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

feeders that tend to neutralize EMF and EMI emissions. Finally, the DCF system has not been used in any recent commuter rail or high-speed rail electrification program in the United States or elsewhere around the world. In summary, the potential impacts and costs for additional facilities and mitigation measures made the DCF system appear less desirable than the ATF arrangement for the Caltrain Electrification Program, and the DCF arrangement was withdrawn from further consideration.

2.4.4 THIRD RAIL OR UNDERGROUND ELECTRIFICATION Another type of electrical power distribution system considered for the Caltrain Electrification Program is a low-voltage DC, third rail system, as used in the 1000 volt DC BART system. This type of electrification avoids an overhead power distribution and contact system by using an electrified third rail at grade level along the entire railroad corridor. There were two primary reasons why this type of power distribution system could not be used for the Caltrain Electrification Program. First, to ensure the safety of people, access to the rail corridor would have to be strictly controlled to prevent accidental contact with the electrified third rail. This would necessitate major reconfiguration of Caltrain facilities throughout the corridor and require that every crossing with local streets and other roadways be grade-separated to prevent contact of vehicles and pedestrians with the electrified third rail. This would add substantially to the costs of the Caltrain Electrification Program and potentially delay the project for many years. The second primary reason was that a third rail power distribution system would not be compatible with California high-speed rail implementation in the Caltrain corridor. Another reason why the low-voltage DC, third-rail system is less desirable is that it would require a utility connection to a 13.8 kV line every 1.5 to 2.0 miles for the DC traction power substations. This would increase costs as well as impacts to the surrounding communities. Another option for implementation of underground electrification would be to lower the entire rail corridor, as was recently accomplished for the Alameda Corridor in Southern California. This would require even more new construction, relocation of existing utilities, and grade separation of all of the cross streets than would be needed for an at-grade “third-rail” system. Such construction would have potentially severe business and residential right-of-way impacts at the new grade separations. The disruption resulting from a third rail construction program to the various cities and residential areas along the corridor—and potentially to cultural resources and natural areas as well—would likely threaten the viability of the electrification project. Such a project would take many years to construct. Grade-separating the entire line would also add substantially to the capital, operating, and maintenance costs of the project, with no commensurate improvement in train service. An electrified third rail system in the Caltrain corridor could cost on the order of several billions. The likelihood of obtaining federal funding in the foreseeable future to complete such a project is remote. In summary, the overhead electrification and contact system proposed for the Caltrain Electrification Program in the present study was deemed to be much more cost-effective and can be implemented much more rapidly with many fewer impacts. For these reasons, an electrified third rail or underground electric power arrangement was withdrawn from further consideration.

Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 2-53