The Future Scenarios

Transcription

1 The Future Scenarios Developing the Scenarios Once the policy approach for each scenario was defined, the financial, service, and capital assumptions were developed further and are detailed in three supporting plans: the Finance, Service, and Capital Plans. The three plans are currently being finalized and will be presented to the Joint Powers Board for adoption in Fall/Winter of The following are descriptions and objectives of each supporting plan. FINANCE PLAN OBJECTIVES The Finance Plan details the funding assumptions and funding strategies for each scenario. Specifically, the Finance Plan objectives are to: Identify available funding over the next 20 years Maximize the availability of federal and state revenues in cooperation with the member agencies Identify discretionary sources that are not being utilized Develop an inventory of potential innovative finance programs Match available funding with eligible capital and service programs Project funding shortfalls and develop strategies to deliver future programs SERVICE PLAN OBJECTIVES The Service Plan outlines the service goals for each of the scenarios as well as a 20 year plan to deliver them. Its main objectives are to: Determine future level of service (Trains per day/per hour) Design a flexible mix of service (Express/Limited/Local) Identify the triggers (productivity or other performance measures) for changes in service Identify the efforts needed to increase market share As stated in the Guiding Principles, understanding market demand is the key to retaining existing riders and attracting new riders. It will influence the mix and 28

2 THE FUTURE SCENARIOS scheduling of Caltrain service, the nature and timing of capital improvements that support service and operations, and the overall passenger experience on Caltrain. Meeting market demand requires: Creating a flexible mix of service local, limited, express Optimizing service levels and reducing overall trip times Improving connections between Caltrain and other systems Providing better access to stations (pedestrian, ADA, transit, bicycle and vehicular access) Providing amenities to enhance the passenger experience Universal Design Elements. Market research in the Caltrain service area reveals that many service improvements to transit will have broad appeal to existing and potential riders and will substantially increase ridership. These universal design elements address key traveler attitudes and desires, forming the core of the Caltrain brand identity: Privacy and Comfort is important to all of the service population in varying degrees. Travelers desire comfortable, stress-free travel and privacy from other travelers. Lower cost strategies include training and enforcement policies to control noisy or unruly passengers. Higher cost efforts include providing spacious seating on all trains and interiors with some separation from other travelers. Personal Safety is perceived as very important to the vast majority of our service population while accessing or riding the system. Strategies to address the need for personal safety include zero tolerance policies for aggressive behavior and well-lighted, graffiti-free shelters with 911 emergency phones. Addressing Flexibility, or the need to travel to many locations at times that vary from day to day, is a challenge for transit. Successful strategies include mid-day shuttle services at major business parks, station cars and other personal transport rentals, and improved land use to increase access to retail and commercial services. 29

3 THE FUTURE SCENARIOS Reliability of service is a key attribute that addresses passengers desire to minimize unexpected delay. Improving stations to eliminate hold-out delays, providing for faster boarding of passengers needing assistance, and increasing Caltrain track capacity will all contribute to increased service reliability. Also important are reliable connections to other rail services, buses, and shuttles. Increasing the Ease of Transit Use is possible through service improvements such as universal fare media or including transfer costs in a single fare, providing easy access to transit information, and implementing real-time information. In addition to making transit more user-friendly, the increasing hassle and cost of auto use external factors often associated with parking and traffic congestion make transit a more attractive option for travelers. CAPITAL PLAN OBJECTIVES The Capital Improvement Plan consists of a wide array of improvements, categorized by Replacement and Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Support programs. Regional extensions are categorized as third-party projects. The Capital Plan supports the Service Plan by including improvements that are necessary to implement the service goals of each scenario. The main objectives of the Capital Plan are to: Identify the magnitude of system rehabilitation and replacement Identify the improvements required to realize the service goals Develop conceptual cost estimates of proposed capital programs Develop techniques for implementing cost-effective capital improvement programs Replacement and Rehabilitation projects include improvements needed to bring the railroad into a good state of repair and to continue scheduled replacement of infrastructure and rolling stock. The major projects in this category are bridge rehabilitation, rolling stock overhaul and replacement, and track rehabilitation, which comprise two-thirds of the approximate $900 million Replacement and Rehabilitation program (in 2003 dollars). Also included is the reconstruction of stations to eliminate the hold-out rule at most stations. The replacement and rehabilitation needs are generally consistent between scenarios. Any variations are due to reconstruction projects that occur under the enhancement program and defer the need for replacement. Enhancement projects include upgrades to the system, new construction, and amenities. The major projects 30

4 THE FUTURE SCENARIOS TABLE 2: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION ADA Station & Rolling Stock Upgrades Bridge Rehabilitation Capitalized Maintenance Communication Equipment Fare Equipment Replacement Fencing Replacement Grade Crossing Rehabilitation Operational Facilities & Equipment Parking Rehabilitation Rolling Stock Overhaul & Replacement Seismic Retrofit Evaluation Station Improvements (Access) Station Improvements (Hold-out rule) Track Rehabilitation* Tunnel Rehabilitation ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Automatic Train Control Bicycle Facilities Bridge Construction Construction/Maintenance/Equipment Contractor Operator Support Electrification Fare Equipment Fencing Fiber Optic Communications Grade Separations* Integrated Messaging Intelligent Transportation Systems Parking Expansion Right-of-Way Access Control Security Signal Construction* Station Improvements Track Construction* Transit-0riented/Joint Development Tunnel Construction SUPPORT PROGRAM Capital Program Support, Development Project Development REGIONAL EXTENSIONS (THIRD PARTY PROJECTS) Downtown San Francisco Extension Dumbarton Rail Corridor Monterey/Salinas Extension * Indicates improvements typically included in capacity expansion projects. in this category include electrification and improvements related to capacity expansion, such as grade separations and track construction. Capacity expansion projects can include track rehabilitation as well as new construction and are necessary to increase express service in the peak periods. The capacity expansion projects are typically packaged together because it is more cost-effective to implement them simultaneously. 31

5 THE FUTURE SCENARIOS The cost of the Enhancement program varies widely between the scenarios and depends primarily on the inclusion of electrification and the extent of capacity expansion along the corridor. Due to inflation, the timing of projects will also affect costs; however, only constant dollars (2003) are shown in the Strategic Plan. In the case of electrification, the timing and coordination with other improvements is also critical. Estimates show that electrifying the railroad prior to the construction of a grade separation can increase capital costs (of electrification and the grade separation) in the vicinity of the grade separation project by 65 percent. The Support program includes capital program development and project development. Regional Extensions include the extension to Downtown San Francisco to a rebuilt Transbay Terminal, the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, and the extension to Monterey/Salinas. These extensions are considered to be third-party projects, and their capital costs are not included in the Caltrain Capital Improvement Plan. Additional operating costs associated with the extension to Downtown San Francisco have been included in the Enhanced Scenario beginning in 2010 and Build-Out Scenario beginning in Operating costs that would be incurred by the Joint Powers Board for the Dumbarton and Monterey/Salinas projects have not been determined. The financial, service, and capital characteristics of the scenarios are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 (pages 33 and 34) and are described further on the following pages, followed by a comparison and evaluation of all three scenarios. All costs and revenues are shown in 2003 dollars and shortfalls do not include potential revenue from innovative funding sources. 32

6 THE FUTURE SCENARIOS TABLE 3: SCENARIO CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY STATUS QUO AND MODERATE GROWTH FINANCE (IN 2003 $) STATUS QUO MODERATE GROWTH Operations Farebox Revenue Historical Some Growth Member Contributions Stabilized* Stabilized* or Decrease Capital Federal/State/Local Historical Historical San Francisco Sales Tax Through 2034 Through 2034 San Mateo Sales Tax Through 2008 Through 2008 Santa Clara Sales Tax Through 2036 Through 2036 High-Speed Rail Bonds None None Innovative Techniques None None SERVICE BY 2023 STATUS QUO MODERATE GROWTH Express Service Goal 10 trains/weekday 20 trains/weekday one-hour headways one-hour headways Weekday Total Trains Saturday/Sunday Trains 32/30 32/30 Shuttle Buses (station access) Customer Amenities Low Low Average Weekday Ridership 43,700 59,600 Annual Ridership 14,369,000 19,484,000 Annual Operating Cost Avg./Total $83M / $1.67B $90M / $1.81B Annual Member Contrb. Avg./Total $44M / $873M $44M / $872M CAPITAL (IN 2003 $) STATUS QUO MODERATE GROWTH Replacement & Rehabilitation Same Rehabilitation needs in all scenarios Capacity Expansion North quadrant North and (partial) (SM County grade South quadrants separations) by 2011 Electrification (Revenue Service) None 2018 Regional Extensions (Third-Party Projects) Downtown San Francisco No No Dumbarton No No Salinas/Monterey No No Calif. High-Speed Rail No No Total Capital Program Cost $1.151 Billion $2.000 Billion (Shortfall) without innovative sources $0M Assumes ($217M) Assumes and HSR bonds $159M local match $164M local match Note: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized. *Member contributions that are stabilized are constant year-to-year with the exception of increases due to inflation. 33

7 THE FUTURE SCENARIOS TABLE 4: SCENARIO CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY ENHANCED AND BUILD-OUT FINANCE (IN 2003 $) ENHANCED BUILD-OUT Operations Farebox Revenue Growth Growth Member Contributions Growth Growth Capital Federal/State/Local Additional Additional Plus San Francisco Sales Tax Through 2034 Through 2034 San Mateo Sales Tax Through 2029 Through 2029 Santa Clara Sales Tax Through 2036 Through 2036 High-Speed Rail Bonds None Passes in 2006 or 2008 Innovative Techniques Yes Yes SERVICE BY 2023 ENHANCED BUILD-OUT Express Service Goal 36 trains/weekday 36 trains/weekday half-hour headways half-hour headways Weekday Total Trains Saturday/Sunday Trains 32/32 32/32 Shuttle Buses (station access) Customer Amenities Medium-High High Average Weekday Ridership 69,400 72,100 Annual Ridership 22,750,000 23,626,000 Annual Operating Cost Avg./Total $109M / $ 2.18B $105M / $2.09B Annual Member Contrb. Avg./Total $57M / $1.13B $53M / $1.06B CAPITAL (IN 2003 $) ENHANCED BUILD-OUT Replacement & Rehabilitation Same Rehabilitation needs in all scenarios Capacity Expansion North, Central, and South Entire route four-tracked quadrants by 2013 and grade separated by 2016 Electrification (Revenue Service) or earlier Regional Extensions (Third-Party Projects) Downtown San Francisco 2010 By 2014 Dumbarton Yes Yes Salinas/Monterey Yes Yes Calif. High-Speed Rail No By 2016 Total Capital Program Cost $2.490 Billion $4.972 Billion (Shortfall) without innovative ($629M) Assumes ($3B) Assumes approx. sources and HSR bonds $181M local match $180M local match Note: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized. 34

8 THE FUTURE SCENARIOS TABLE 5: STATUS QUO SCENARIO CHARACTERISTICS SERVICE Weekday Express Trains Weekday Limited Trains Weekday Local Weekday Total Trains Saturday/Sunday Trains 0 32/30 32/30 32/30 32/30 32/30 Shuttle Buses (station access) Average Weekday Ridership 28,000 29,300 33,100 37,300 41,200 43,700 Annual Ridership (Caltrain) 7,362,000 14,369,000 OPERATIONS (MILLION 2003 $) TOTAL TOTAL Operating Costs A ,670.5 Operating Revenue Farebox Other Member Contributions (all) TOTAL Operating Revenue ,670.5 Avg. Annual Member Contributions (all) CAPITAL (MILLION 2003 $) TOTAL Maintenance Facility (Committed Project) Replacement & Rehabilitation Enhancements Support TOTAL Capital Costs ,151.3 Average Annual Cost Capital Funding Federal State Local Match (Member Agencies) Other B TOTAL Capital Revenue ,151.3 Surplus/(Shortfall) Note: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized. A Operating costs in the first five-year period are lower because the first year includes service levels of 76 trains per day (no express service). Operating costs include electrification and extension to Downtown San Francisco starting in B Other Capitol Funding consists of San Mateo Measure A funds remaining minus San Mateo local matching funds. 35

9 A FUTURE SCENARIO A The Status Quo Scenario OBJECTIVE Keep the railroad operating at current levels of service and limit investment in improvements other than normalized rehabilitation and replacement. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Status Quo Scenario is the most fiscally conservative of the four scenarios. It assumes that current levels of funding will support 86-train weekday service planned for 2004, normalized infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement, and some capacity expansion in San Mateo County. It does not include the extension to downtown San Francisco, extensions across the Dumbarton Bridge or to Salinas/ Monterey, or High-Speed Rail in California. Details of the Staus Quo Scenario characteristics in five-year increments are shown in Table 5 (page 35). SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS The primary service goal is to maintain existing (2004) levels of service 1, including initial Caltrain Express or Baby Bullet service, through the 20-year period. The Status Quo level-of-service on a typical weekday is capped at 86 trains per day, which includes 10 express trains. A flexible mix of local, limited, and express trains would have to be scheduled to optimize service with existing infrastructure. Weekend and Gilroy service would not change. Up to 45 shuttle bus routes would provide station access services. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The capital improvements in the Status Quo Scenario consist primarily of scheduled replacement and rehabilitation projects, some station and platform improvements to remove the hold-out rule 2, programmed capacity expansion projects (grade separations in San Mateo County), and construction of the Caltrain Maintenance Facility. These are projects with committed or programmed funds. There would be no High- Speed Rail system along the Caltrain corridor in the Status Quo Scenario. In this scenario, Capacity Expansion projects including track rehabilitation, grade separations, signal construction, and track construction, comprise approximately $259 million (in 2003 dollars) of the total expenditures. These improvements, with the exception of track rehabilitation, are funded by existing San Mateo County Measure A sales tax revenue. 1 Caltrain Express or Baby Bullet is a limited stop service which serves key stations along the Caltrain route. Express service offers travel times of less than one hour between San Jose and San Francisco, compared to the one-and-a-half hour travel time on local trains. 2 The hold-out rule is a safety measure that prevents a train from entering a station while another train is at the station boarding or unloading passengers. The hold-out rule is enforced at stations where passengers must cross active tracks to access a train, and can result in delays. Improvements associated with the Caltrain Express project will remove the hold-out rule at four stations leaving a total of 12 hold-out stations by June

10 FINANCIAL RESOURCES The capital program in the Status Quo Scenario assumes only current levels of funding would be available through the 20-year period. Federal, State, and local match funds for capital improvements are assumed to remain at historic levels. Remaining funds from existing San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara county sales tax measures would remain through 2008 and 2036, respectively. Funds from the reauthorization of the sales tax measure in San Mateo County are not included in the Status Quo assumptions. Operating funds consist primarily of contributions from the member agencies and farebox revenues. In the Status Quo Scenario, projected ridership and farebox revenues would experience some growth, primarily as a result of population and job growth in the area, since the level-of-service on Caltrain would not change. Member agency contributions would remain constant or decrease as ridership and farebox revenues increase. PASSENGER EXPERIENCE Caltrain Express, included in all scenarios, will improve travel times for passengers using this service. Passengers using the local service will experience no service increases over time. In the Status Quo Scenario, most of the capital program would consist of rehabilitation and replacement, which would not make a noticeable difference to the passenger experience. KEY FINDINGS The Status Quo Scenario will result in an increase in annual ridership and revenues. Ridership is projected to increase by approximately 100 percent over the 20-year period and operating costs will stabilize. Member subsidies will stabilize or gradually decrease in the future if farebox revenues increase. Most of the $1 billion capital program would support rehabilitation and replacement to keep the railroad in a good state of repair and avoid a system of deferred maintenance. Suggested triggers for switching from the Status Quo to the Moderate Growth Scenario would include the availability of additional funding resources, increased demand as measured by productivity criteria (load factors), or demand for improved service that require additional capacity expansion. The member agencies would have to agree on the level of service and associated operating costs and capital investment required to provide this service. 37

11 B FUTURE SCENARIO B The Moderate Growth Scenario OBJECTIVE Optimize the operating and capital programs with limited increases to funding resources, service, and capital improvements. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Moderate Growth Scenario is a steady growth scenario. It assumes that committed and programmed funding will allow for normalized infrastructure rehabilitation, some capacity expansion projects to improve the reliability of Caltrain Express, a nominal increase in service, and electrification of the Caltrain line. 3 It does not include the extensions to downtown San Francisco, across the Dumbarton Bridge or to Salinas/Monterey; or High-Speed Rail in California. A summary of the Moderate Growth Scenario characteristics are shown in Table 6 (page 40). SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS The primary service goal is to deliver reliable express service at one-hour headways, primarily in the peak periods. The Moderate Growth level-of-service by 2023 on a typical weekday is capped at 100 trains per day, which includes 20 express trains. A flexible mix of local, limited, and express trains would have to be scheduled to optimize service with existing and planned capacity expansion. Gilroy service will increase gradually over time, with trains added to the peak-direction, to the reversedirection, and possibly one train in the mid-day, for a total of ten trains in each direction by Up to 59 shuttle bus routes would provide station access services. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The capital improvements in the Moderate Growth Scenario include critical replacement and rehabilitation projects, station and platform improvements to remove the hold-out rule, and capacity expansion projects to meet the one-hour headway and service reliability goals. Also included in the capital program are enhancements, such as construction of grade separations in key locations to improve safety, accommodate Caltrain Express, and accomodate increases in Gilroy service; electrification of the line and replacement of rolling stock; ADA compliance through station improvements; replacement and installation of fencing in select locations along the rail corridor; and moderate improvements to communications and station access for all modes. It is anticipated that electrification would come on line later in the Moderate Growth Scenario than in other scenarios due to the time required to accumulate adequate funding. Parking expansion would be limited, and it is anticipated that an aggressive parking management plan would be necessary to address the high demand for parking at specific stations. In this scenario, Capacity Expansion projects including track rehabilitation, grade separations, signal construction, and track construction, comprise approximately $298 million (in 2003 dollars) of the total expenditures The electrification project would convert Caltrain from a diesel engine-powered rail system to an electrified system.

12 FINANCIAL RESOURCES The capital program in the Moderate Growth Scenario assumes a pay-as-yougo approach. Federal, State, and local match funds for capital improvements are assumed to remain at historic levels for the 20-year period. Remaining funds from existing San Mateo and Santa Clara county sales tax measures are assumed to remain, as well as the new sales tax measure in San Francisco. However, the reauthorization of the sales tax measure in San Mateo County is not included in the Moderate Growth assumptions. The electrification project is included in Track 1 of MTC s Regional Transportation Plan and has a funding plan under MTC s Regional Transit Expansion Policy, Resolution The timing of the availability of electrification funds varies among the member agencies, therefore, in this scenario it is assumed that funding for the project from MTC and the member agencies will not be available until PASSENGER EXPERIENCE Caltrain Express, included in all scenarios, will improve travel times for passengers using this service. Passengers using the local service will experience nominal service increases over time. Programmed capital improvements are designed to reduce delays and improve travel time for all passengers. These projects will require up to ten years to complete, therefore, time-savings related to these improvements will be realized gradually. Passengers could benefit from a combination of local, limited, and express service once these improvements are in place. KEY FINDINGS In the Moderate Growth Scenario, ridership is projected to increase by nearly 165 percent between 2004 and The additional increase over the Status Quo ridership is primarily due to the increase in peak period express service, in addition to more Gilroy service and better station access via shuttle buses. While operating costs will increase over time, it is estimated that average annual operating subsidies will eventually decrease due to growth in farebox revenues. The $2 billion capital program will result in an estimated $217 million shortfall. The potential triggers for shifting from the Moderate Growth to the Enhanced Scenario include availability of additional funding sources, increased demand as measured by productivity criteria (load factors), or demand for improved service that requires additional capacity expansion and customer amenities. 39

13 TABLE 6: MODERATE GROWTH SCENARIO CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY SERVICE Weekday Express Trains Weekday Limited Trains Weekday Local Weekday Total Trains Saturday/Sunday Trains 0 32/30 32/30 32/30 32/30 32/30 Shuttle Buses (station access) Average Weekday Ridership 28,000 30,600 38,300 46,600 54,500 59,600 Annual Ridership 7,362,000 19,483,700 OPERATIONS (MILLION 2003 $) TOTAL TOTAL Operating Costs A ,807.2 Operating Revenue Farebox Other Member Contributions (all) TOTAL Operating Revenue ,807.2 Avg Annual Member Contributions (all) CAPITAL (MILLION 2003 $) TOTAL Maintenance Facility (Committed Project) Replacement & Rehabilitation Enhancements ,018.5 Support TOTAL Capital Costs ,999.5 Average Annual Cost Capital Funding Federal State Local Match (Member Agencies) Other B TOTAL Capital Revenue ,782.7 Surplus/(Shortfall) 0 (92.6) (65.4) (58.8) (216.8) Notes: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized. A Operating costs in the first five-year period are lower because the first year includes service levels of 76 trains per day (no express service). Operating costs include electrification starting in B Other Capital Funding consists of funds from and remaining San Mateo Measure A minus local matching funds and VTA 2000 Measure A funds. It also includes funds from CARB/AB434 and Salvage Value for diesel locomotives replaced with electric locomotives. 40

14 TABLE 7: ENHANCED SCENARIO CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY SERVICE Weekday Express Trains Weekday Limited Trains Weekday Local Weekday Total Trains Saturday/Sunday Trains 0 32/30 32/32 32/32 32/32 32/32 Shuttle Buses (station access) Average Weekday Ridership 28,000 30,900 41,300 52,700 63,500 69,400 Annual Ridership 7,362,000 22,749,700 OPERATIONS (MILLION 2003 $) TOTAL TOTAL Operating Costs A ,175.1 Operating Revenue Farebox Other Member Contributions (all) ,134.2 TOTAL Operating Revenue ,175.1 Avg Annual Member Contributions (all) CAPITAL (MILLION 2003 $) TOTAL Maintenance Facility (Committed Project) Rehabilitation & Replacement Enhancements ,588.2 Support TOTAL Capital Costs 1, ,543.0 Average Annual Cost Capital Funding Federal State Local Match (Member Agencies) Other B TOTAL Capital Revenue ,913.8 Surplus/(Shortfall) (608.4) (363.4) (87.9) (629.2) Note: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized. A Operating costs in the first five-year period are lower because the first year includes service levels of 76 trains per day (no express service). Operating costs include electrification starting in 2008 and extension to Downtown San Francisco in B Other Capital Funding consists of funds from remaining San Mateo Measure A minus local matching funds, San Mateo Reauthorization, and VTA 2000 Measure A funds. It also includes funds from CARB/AB434 and Salvage Value for diesel locomotives replaced with electric locomotives. 41

15 C FUTURE SCENARIO C The Enhanced Scenario OBJECTIVE Capture latent market demand by providing optimal levels of service, improve station access and regional connectivity, and invest in key system improvements and amenities that will attract passengers and build ridership. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Enhanced Scenario embodies the vision of Caltrain by encompassing most of the improvements and passenger amenities that would begin to transform Caltrain into a world-class railroad. It includes major improvement projects that will improve service and the passenger experience. It assumes that route extensions to downtown San Francisco, across the Dumbarton Bridge to the East Bay, and to Salinas/Monterey will be constructed. Table 7 (page 41) details the characteristics of the Enhanced Scenario. SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS The service goal in the Enhanced Scenario is to improve express train service by providing half-hour headways (from one-hour headways in the Status Quo and Moderate Growth Scenarios) primarily in the peak periods and part of the off-peak periods. The Enhanced Scenario would also include improvements in connectivity and passenger amenities that will build ridership. A flexible combination of local, limited, and express service will be provided to meet a variety of travel needs. Target increases in service will include an average of two additional weekday trains each year, with a goal of 136 weekday trains by 2023, and additional Gilroy service. Up to 78 shuttle bus routes would provide station access services. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The Enhanced Scenario includes all of the capital improvements in the Moderate Growth Scenario, as well as access improvements, enhanced passenger amenities, and route extensions. In conjunction with the electrification project, both the passenger cars and diesel locomotives would be replaced, giving Caltrain an entirely different look and feel, as well as a new image. Route extensions to downtown San Francisco, across the Dumbarton Bridge to the East Bay, and to Salinas/Monterey would improve regional connectivity. This scenario assumes there would be no high-speed rail in California in the 20-year timeframe. In this scenario, Capacity Expansion projects comprise approximately $610 million (in 2003 dollars) of the total expenditures. 42

16 FINANCIAL RESOURCES The Enhanced Scenario assumes there will be enhanced levels of funding from Federal, State, and local sources, as well as innovative financing techniques, to fund and implement capital improvements. San Mateo County will introduce a measure to add to/reauthorize the half-cent countywide sales tax on its 2004 ballots. In the Enhanced Scenario, it is assumed that this ballot measure will pass 4. The sales tax expenditure plans for the measures will specify the amounts available for Caltrain improvements. All three route extensions would be funded by third parties. Additional funding advocacy would be required to pursue accelerated implementation of all the capital projects in the Enhanced Scenario. The feasibility of various state and federal innovative financing techniques will require further investigation. Revenues from potential innovative sources are not included in the estimates of capital shortfalls. PASSENGER EXPERIENCE Once the Enhanced Caltrain is operational, there will be frequent express service every half-hour in the peak periods as well as some service in the off-peak. Passengers will be riding sleek, modern trains that are more comfortable, quieter, faster, and reliable. Many of the stations would be rehabilitated or reconstructed to facilitate rapid boarding, include passenger amenities, improve station access, and expand parking at selected locations. Passengers will be able to travel further on Caltrain with route extensions to downtown San Francisco, the East Bay via the Dumbarton corridor, and Salinas/ Monterey. Important connections with other transit operators will be available at a new northern terminus at the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco (AC Transit, BART, Muni, Golden Gate, and intercity bus), at the Dumbarton Terminus in Union City (ACE, AC Transit, BART, Capitol Corridor), at the Santa Clara station (BART), and Diridon Stations (ACE, Amtrak, BART, Capitol Corridor, VTA). KEY FINDINGS Ridership is projected to increase by about 200 percent over the 20-year period. Operating costs will increase over time as well as member subsidies. In the Enhanced Scenario, the electrification project has a completion date of Due to an inconsistency in programming of electrification funds by the member agencies, funding for the electrification project will not be available until A plan to fund electrification in the near-term will need to be devised. The total capital program cost is nearly $2.5 billion with an estimated shortfall of approximately $629 million. This does not include potential resources from innovative financing techniques. These innovative sources will take time to establish. The potential trigger to shift from the Enhanced to the Build-out Scenario is the passage of the statewide high-speed rail bond measure in November The San Francisco Measure passed in November

17 D FUTURE SCENARIO D The Build-out Scenario OBJECTIVE Capture a significant market share of trips by providing enhanced world class service, complemented by the intra-state connectivity and amenities offered by the connection to High-Speed Rail. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Build-Out Scenario is the ultimate future scenario for Caltrain and assumes that High-Speed Rail (HSR) would operate on the Caltrain right-of-way. It includes all the characteristics and amenities of the Enhanced Scenario and rail connectivity with all the major metropolitan areas in California via HSR. The Build-Out Scenario includes improvements that will allow HSR to operate on the Caltrain right-of-way and assumes major funding resources for these improvements would be made available through high-speed rail bonds and other innovative financing techniques. The characteristics of the Build-Out Scenario are summarized in Table 8 (page 46). SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS The Build-Out Scenario is very similar to the Enhanced Scenario in many ways in terms of Caltrain service. One of the added service benefits would be that the HSR system would be accessible through two or more Caltrain stations, making statewide intercity rail travel available to Caltrain passengers as early as Caltrain would function as a feeder system for HSR passengers as well, with transfers taking place between HSR and Caltrain. Additional work must be performed to optimize the integration of HSR and Caltrain. Up to 78 shuttle bus routes would provide station access services. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The Build-Out Scenario includes several major infrastructure modifications that would allow HSR and Caltrain to operate on the same line. The Build-Out Scenario includes a fully grade-separated alignment and widening of the entire route to accommodate four tracks. Some stations would have to be relocated or reconstructed. Platform configurations would have to be optimized to accommodate HSR and Caltrain. A new signal and communications systems would also be required. The electrification project and extension to Downtown San Francisco begin operation by 2014 at the latest but could be accelerated depending on the coordination with other projects such as grade separations and track capacity improvements related to HSR. In this scenario, capacity expansion projects including track rehabilitation, bridge construction, grade separations, signal construction, station improvements, track construction and tunnel construction comprise approximately $3 billion (in 2003 dollars) of the total expenditures. 44

18 FINANCIAL RESOURCES The Build-Out Scenario includes the enhanced levels of funding in the Enhanced Scenario plus new sources of funding, primarily from the proposed high-speed rail bond measure scheduled for voter consideration in November While the high-speed rail bonds would not supplant other innovative financing techniques, they would guarantee a significant portion of funds for major Caltrain improvements. Revenues from high-speed rail bonds or potential innovative sources are not included in the estimates of capital shortfalls. PASSENGER EXPERIENCE The total number of system improvements included in the Build-Out Scenario would be greater than in the other scenarios. In addition to the passenger experience benefits of electrification and service extensions, the Build-Out includes extensive grade separations, track capacity improvements, and station reconstruction that will dramatically affect the passenger experience. A grade-separated route will increase service reliability, reduce delays, improve safety, improve local pedestrian and traffic circulation, and reduce noise. Additional track capacity provided by four-tracking will allow the flexibility required for high levels of express service. With statewide High-Speed Rail service available in 2016, it is anticipated that regional and intrastate connectivity will be greatly improved. KEY FINDINGS In the absence of constructability issues, funding for High-Speed Rail could accelerate the timing of many improvements along the Caltrain route. It is projected that ridership and farebox revenues will grow, however, the full potential of this growth would probably be realized outside of the 20-year time horizon of this plan. Ridership is projected to increase by over 220 percent between 2004 and 2023, which does not include potential ridership gains from transfers between HSR and Caltrain. Operating costs and member agencies contributions are expected to increase, but will depend ultimately on how the systems are operated and coordinated. The capital program totals approximately $5 billion and will result in a $3 billion shortfall. The shortfall does not include the potential revenues from high-speed rail bonds or other innovative financing techniques. 45

19 TABLE 8: BUILD-OUT SCENARIO CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY SERVICE Weekday Express Trains Weekday Limited Trains Weekday Local Weekday Total Trains Saturday/Sunday Trains 0 32/30 32/32 32/32 32/32 32/32 Shuttle Buses (station access) Average Weekday Ridership 28,000 30,900 40,900 50,700 64,100 72,100 Annual Ridership (Caltrain) 7,362,000 23,626,200 OPERATIONS (MILLION 2003 $) TOTAL TOTAL Operating Costs A ,093.6 Operating Revenue Farebox Other Member Contributions (all) ,056.1 TOTAL Operating Revenue ,093.6 Avg. Annual Member Contributions (all) CAPITAL (MILLION 2003 $) TOTAL Maintenance Facility (Committed Project) Replacement & Rehabilitation Enhancements , ,010.4 Support TOTAL Capital Costs , , ,972.0 Average Annual Cost Capital Funding Federal State Local Match (Member Agencies) Other A TOTAL Capital Revenue ,929.1 Surplus/(Shortfall) (1.3) (752.4) (2,247.5) (41.7) (3,042.9) Note: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized. A Operating costs in the first five-year period are lower because the first year includes service levels of 76 trains per day (no express service). Operating costs include electrification and extension to Downtown San Francisco starting in B Other Capital Funding consists of funds from remaining San Mateo Measure A minus local matching funds, San Mateo Reauthorization, and VTA 2000 Measure A funds. It also includes funds from CARB/AB434 and Salvage Value for diesel locomotives replaced with electric locomotives. 46

20 Evaluating the Scenarios There are several ways in which the scenarios can be evaluated: by how well they promote the vision or follow the five guiding principles, by return-oninvestment or by customer satisfaction. Vision & Guiding Principles. Each scenario is different in its effectiveness to meet the Vision for Caltrain to become the preferred mode of travel along the Peninsula. The Vision has three components at the individual, local and regional levels which are to (1) provide passengers with a world-class travel experience; (2) act as a major catalyst for redevelopment and economic activity in communities along its route; and (3) play a key role in mobility management along the Peninsula Corridor and in the Bay Area region as a whole. The Enhanced and Build-Out Scenarios will be the most effective in promoting the Vision because of the marketdriven investments in service and capital improvements and customer amenities, in station access and joint development, and in support of regional connections with other transit systems. When evaluating the potential performance of each scenario according to the five guiding principles, the Enhanced and Build-Out Scenarios are the most effective in meeting the objectives of the first and third principles to satisfy passengers and build ridership and promote regional connectivity. In terms of the second principle, invest wisely in system improvements, the Status Quo Scenario has the lowest total operating and capital costs, but is the least effective in attracting new riders to the system. This is because over the 20-year period and beyond, the Status Quo has the lowest investment in system improvements which build ridership. While the Build-Out Scenario does not appear to do as well in the arena of cost effectiveness, as presented in the next section, it has the greatest potential for inducing ridership growth well beyond the 20-year horizon. The scenarios were not evaluated by the fourth and fifth guiding principle because these are principles that should apply to the way Caltrain does business on a daily basis. Regardless of which scenario or continuum of scenarios that Caltrain pursues developing strong community and business relationships, supporting environmental stewardship and promoting safety along the railroad are paramount. Likewise, Caltrain must pursue a secure financial future by building a foundation of long-term sustainability so that the Caltrain Vision can become a reality. 47

21 TABLE 9: OPERATING COSTS AND MEMBER SUBSIDY BY SCENARIO OPERATIONS (A) SERVICE LEVEL (B) ANNUAL (C) OPERATING (D) MEMBER IN 2023 RIDERSHIP COST (AVERAGE SUBSIDY (WEEKDAY, EXPRESS IN ANNUAL, (AVERAGE ANNUAL, HEADWAYS) 2023 TOTAL) TOTAL) Status Quo 86 trains 14,369,000 $83 Million $44 Million 1 hr $1.67 Billion $873 Million Moderate Growth 100 trains 19,483,700 $90 Million $44 Million 1 hr $1.81 Billion $872 Million Enhanced 136 trains 22,749,700 $109 Million $57 Million Ω hour $2.18 Billion $1.13 Billion Build-Out 138 trains 23,626,200 $105 Million $53 Million Ω hour $2.09 Billion $1.06 Billion Note: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized. Return on Investment and Ridership. The figures in the following tables were calculated using projected expenses and revenue sources which are based on ridership projections and traditional funding formulas. These do not include potential revenue from innovative financing resources. All dollar figures are in 2003$. As shown above in Table 9, 20-year operating costs are lowest in the Status Quo Scenario. Even though the total operating costs in the Moderate Growth Scenario are slightly higher, projected ridership and thus farebox revenues increase over time, offsetting a greater portion of operating costs and resulting in a similar level of member subsidies as the Status Quo Scenario. Although average operating costs in the Build-Out Scenario are lower than the Enhanced Scenario, they are greater then the Enhanced Scenario in the outer years. As shown in Table 10 (opposite, above), the Status Quo Scenario is the only alternative that does not result in a shortfall over the 20-year period of the capital program. These amounts were calculated based on the assumption that the local match amounts shown in column (B) would be available. The local match required is lowest in the Status Quo Scenario, but caps out around $180 million as evident in the other scenarios. Although the shortfalls are significantly greater in the Enhanced and Build-Out Scenarios, these figures do not include potential revenues that might become available from innovative finance techniques or high-speed rail bonds. Table 11 (opposite, below) compares the scenarios by cost per passenger trip and cost-per-new-passenger trip gained. Column (C) presents the average annual cost-per-passenger trip, based on a 20-48

22 TABLE 10: CAPITAL COSTS, LOCAL MATCH, AND SHORTFALL BY SCENARIO CAPITAL (A) CAPITAL COSTS (B) LOCAL MATCH ALL (C) SURPLUS/ [AVERAGE ANNUAL, MEMBER AGENCIES (SHORTFALL) TOTAL] [AVERAGE ANNUAL, TOTAL] Status Quo $57.6 Million $8 Million $0 Million $1.151 Billion $159 Million Moderate Growth $100 Million $8.2 Million ($217 Million) $2.000 Billion $164 Million Enhanced $127 Million $9 Million ($629 Million) $2.543 Billion $181 Million Build-Out $249 Million ($9 Million) ($3 Billion) $4.972 Billion ($180 Million) Note: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized year average of operating plus capital costs and ridership, and shows that the Status Quo Scenario is most costeffective using this evaluation criterion. However, when comparing total cost per new passenger gained over the 20-year period in column (B), the Status Quo Scenario is the least effective in attracting new passengers to the system. The Enhanced Scenario is the most costeffective scenario using this performance measure as shown in Column (D). The ridership projections for the Build- Out Scenario do not include potential transfers between high-speed system and Caltrain, and over time, could surpass the Enhanced Scenario in ridership gains. In comparison with the Status Quo, the Enhanced Scenario is 1.7 times the cost, but yields almost twice as many new riders over the 20-year period than the Status Quo. TABLE 11: COST PER PASSENGER TRIP BY SCENARIO (A) OPERATING (B) 20-YEAR (C) AVERAGE (D) COST + CAPITAL [RIDERSHIP ANNUAL COST-PER- PER-NEW- COST PER COSTS [AVG. AVG., NEW PASSENGER PASSENGER PASSENGER ANNUAL, TOTAL] PASSENGERS*] TRIP TRIP GAINED Status Quo $141 Million 11,816,000 $11.94 $31.68 $2.82 Billion 89,085,000 Moderate Growth $190 Million 14,425,000 $13.19 $26.95 $3.81 Billion 141,260,000 Enhanced $236.0 Million 16,155,000 $14.60 $26.83 $4.72 Billion 175,860,000 Build-Out $353 Million 16,096,000 $21.95 $40.45 $7.1 Billion 174,670,000 Based on estimated 2003 ridership of 7,362,000 passengers per year. Note: Some figures may be revised once the Service and Capital Plans are finalized. 49