Passenger Rail Feasibility Study – Draft Report an Analysis of Rail Transit Options on the 32-Mile Branch Rail Line in Santa Cruz County, CA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comments received May 21 – July 31, 2015 on the Passenger Rail Feasibility Study – Draft Report An analysis of rail transit options on the 32-mile Branch Rail Line in Santa Cruz County, CA Link to document and background information: http://www.sccrtc.org/projects/rail/ Lead Agency: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, www.sccrtc.org Grant Funding: California Department of Transportation’s Transit Planning Program Attachment: Comments Received on Draft Rail Passenger Rail Study Attachment-Caltrans Detailed Comments on the Passenger Rail Feasibility Study General Comments 1. Reconciling community preference and feasibility: The two scenarios that were identified as feasible do not include service to Watsonville. Following the release of the draft report, the community demonstrated preference for scenarios that connected to Watsonville. This includes the preference of community leadership, as discussed at the June RTC Board meeting, as well as the preference of many public workshop attendees. Since these meetings, we assume SCCRTC has been working with project consultants to investigate creative approaches to developing service scenarios that may be feasible and include Watsonville. However, it is unclear as to what the next steps will be if service to Watsonville is ultimately deemed infeasible from a construction and operations standpoint. Specific Comments Comment Page/Sheet Parag Section Comment No. No. raph 0.0 – Caltrans recommends deleting “commuter and/or intercity” from bullet Bullet 1 iii Purpose of #3. The study is primarily evaluating either rail transit or commuter #3 Study rail service, but not intercity rail service. Other Scenario E is clearly the highest scoring with three others tied around 2 xi evaluation Last 2nd; maybe the narrative shouldn’t group E with the two others as measures… scoring the highest. Caltrans recommends revising the fifth line to “the Coast Rail 3 4 1.2.1 3 Coordinating Council’s proposed new train service between Los Angeles and San Francisco…” This section should clarify that “the Coast Daylight is proposed by the Coast Rail Coordinating Council, led by SLOCOG, as a new state- 4 7 1.2.2.2 2 supported intercity rail service, which would extend the Pacific Surfliner service from San Luis Obispo to either San Jose or San Francisco.” 5 7 1.3 Last Santa Cruz County has the second smallest land area. This section could also explain why recommendations from the 6 12 1.4.1.1 1 previous studies were never implemented. Please identify the source of the rail definitions if one was used. Caltrans distinguishes between rail transit, intercity rail and excursion services in its rail plans, which reflects differences in how services are 7 23 2.0 1-2 funded and administered in California. Intercity rail includes commuter rail, conventional intercity passenger rail and high speed rail consistent with state and federal definitions. Please confirm/update the tiers for proposed Watsonville and Pajaro Figure 8 40 4.1.1 station stops (Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 are inconsistent). Numbering 4.1 the stations in Table 4.1 could be helpful. The composite evaluation scores show that service scenarios B, G, Xii-Xiii and Table 9 7.2 G1, S, and J all have similar scores (between 35 and 38). Yet only 127 7-1 one of those options (S) is recommended for further consideration. Many of the evaluation measures are somewhat subjective, making the composite evaluation scores a difficult measure for decision making. Caltrans recommends that some traditional evaluation measures be used that allow comparison across service scenarios, such as farebox revenue as the relationship of costs to revenues, not as a pre-determined farebox %; or total operating cost per passenger mile. Top 10 55 5.1.1.3 sente Is the cost difference per siding or total corridor? nce On Google it looks like there may be a couple private at-grade 11 57 5.1.2.2 2 crossings The state’s role in operating and administering rail service needs to be clarified in this section under Governance option #4. Caltrans has the authority under state law to contract with Amtrak for operating intercity and commuter passenger rail service in defined corridors (Government Code Section 14035), which includes a San Francisco- 12 142 9.3 4 San Jose-Monterey corridor. Caltrans suggests adding a sentence similar to: “Currently all commuter services in California are locally funded. Caltrans would not consider operating a primarily local rail transit service of the types recommended in this study as preferred alternatives.” Caltrans agrees that planned service in the Santa Cruz Branch line should be coordinated with proposed intercity rail services in the Coast Corridor to provide connections between services. The opportunity to connect services and support development of an 13 148 9.5.2 4 integrated intercity passenger rail system statewide is an important consideration in prioritizing state cap and trade fund allocations. Please consider a sentence at the end of the third paragraph in section 9.5.2 such as “Longer-term plans for this project should consider connections to the intercity rail network through bus or direct rail connections, enhancing the financial feasibility of the project, and furthering a state-wide integrated rail system.” We suggest that this language also be included in the Executive Summary. Caltrans has been working on their District System Management Plan 2015 TAMC provided us with a paragraph describing their efforts on extending the Capital Corridor rail service for the DSMP rail section. SCCRTC might want to incorporate it in their study. “In Monterey County, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) has been working cooperatively with the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority to extend the Capital Corridor rail service to Salinas. The service is planned to begin with two daily round trips from Salinas to San Jose and beyond to Sacramento, and will be increased to up to six round trips as demand warrants. The extension will include three new station stops in Monterey County, including: Pajaro/Watsonville, Castroville, and Salinas. The rail extension, in addition to connecting Salinas with San Jose and the jobs base of Silicon Valley, will also connect to other cities via connections to Caltrain, Altamont Corridor Express and planned High-Speed Rail service at stations in Gilroy and San Jose. The first phase of this extension project is fully funded through state funding, and the project has competed environmental review and preliminary engineering. The project is now in the final design and property acquisition phase.” 3&P&9PHIQ 0 "'&$0&1('022"'&'%%"11"'&%%019 %50"2"& "&0 012'2!11& 0"$1""$"2723702('02A "#&2038'3&2713(('0212!"2"'&'(11& 00"$104"2'2! '3&27C1%3$2"B%'$20&1('022"'&&25'0#A11& 00"$5'3$$$'5 ('($5!'31"#112!"0(0"%07%''204$2'62&2!"020"(19 %#"& "12&2(021'2!'3&2790 "'&&122%'011"$A "#&2038'3&270'%%&12!22!'$$'5"& "#B0"&$7('$""1 (32"&($"(11& 00"$104"%'41'050@ • "#1$$'5'&20"&195"2!1('0"#1"&$3"&20"&0 1" &F1"%"$02'2!"#01'&$20"&GA • %($"#(0#"& (0'4"20"$122"'&19"&$3"& 40"27'"# (0#"& '(2"'&1F"#0#19$'#019'40"#(0#"& GA •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inth Street Suite 223 Sacramento CA 95814-3516 TRAC E TER EXPRESS Train Riders Amtrak California (916) 557-1667 Association www.calrailnews.com of California [email protected] BY EMAIL July 13, 2015 Michael D. Setty Administrative Director Mr. George Dondero Officers Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1523 Pacific Ave Ronald Jones Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Interim President Madera County RE: TRAC’s Comments on SCCRTC’s Passenger Rail Feasibility Study Draft Report David Schonbrunn Dear Mr. Dondero: Vice President-Policy Marin County TRAC would like to commend SCCRTC for the wisdom to engage experienced and informed consultants who appear to actually understand small-scale passenger rail systems. For example, Gordon Osmundson Secretary-Treasurer the capital cost estimates for passenger rail are reasonable. Too often these kind of studies Alameda County propose additional capital improvements and other features that run up billings but are not actually needed for usable service. Board Members Second, the study is realistic about rail operating costs, developing transparent, understandable Art Brown estimates. The study is also notable for clearly documenting the large economies of operating Orange County diesel multiple units (DMUs) compared to locomotive-hauled trains (e.g., $12.00 per train mile Derek Casady savings). DMUs also match the relatively small scale of rail operations proposed. San Diego County However, it is not clear if fixed facilities maintenance expenses (e.g., track, signals, switches, John Deeter grade crossings, etc.) have been included in the operating expenses for various options (Section Sacramento County 6.2). Tables 6-3 through 6-10 inlcude line items for Operations, Vehicle Maintenance, General Tom Frankum Administration, and Contingency, but none for Track & Other Maintenance. San Diego County TRAC suggests that proposed initial rail service west of the Boardwalk be dropped, in favor of a Shelby Kaplan short 0.6 mile in-street extension to the existing Metro Center hub in downtown Santa Cruz (not to Los Angeles County preclude special services on the Davenport branch).