1 / 12

Silicon Valley Leadership Group – Transportation Policy Committee (March 5, 2014) David B. Kutrosky, Managing Direc

CAPITOL CORRIDOR: Service Expansion Plans to San Jose. Silicon Valley Leadership Group – Transportation Policy Committee (March 5, 2014) David B. Kutrosky, Managing Director Capitol Corridor (Sacramento-Oakland/San Francisco-San Jose). Capitol Corridor Service Area.

xue
Télécharger la présentation

Silicon Valley Leadership Group – Transportation Policy Committee (March 5, 2014) David B. Kutrosky, Managing Direc

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CAPITOL CORRIDOR: Service Expansion Plans to San Jose Silicon Valley Leadership Group – Transportation Policy Committee (March 5, 2014) David B. Kutrosky, Managing Director Capitol Corridor (Sacramento-Oakland/San Francisco-San Jose)

  2. Capitol Corridor Service Area • 170-mile route (~290 track miles) • 168 miles-UPRR • 2 miles-Caltrain (SF Peninsula) • 3 distinct service areas • Sacramento / Sierra Foothills • Oakland / S.F. Bay Area • San Jose/Silicon Valley • Extensive connections to local transit and communities • Operated by Amtrak under management of Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) • One of 3 successful CA IPR routes; 3rd busiest in Amtrak network

  3. CCJPA OBJECTIVES • Put the customer 1st • Know your product/service/markets • Identify goals for service’s success • Efficient and effective management team • Incentivize your partners – operators, owners and financiers • Controlcosts/improve performance • Guideexpansion via collaborative efforts

  4. CCJPA Structure FY14 BudgetBudgetDiff vs. FY13 Administration: $2.951M 0.0% Marketing: $1.174M 0.0% Service/Amtrak: $29.681M +2.0% Total: $33.806M +1.7%

  5. SOLANO (STA) 2 CONTRA COSTA (BART) 2 YOLO (YCTD) 2 SAN FRANCISCO (BART) 2 SACRA- MENTO (SAC RT) 2 ALAMEDA (BART) 2 CCJPA BOARD 16 MEMBERS, 8 COUNTIES (NO EMPLOYEES) PLACER (PCTPA) 2 SANTA CLARA (VTA) 2 CCJPA MEMBER AGENCY STAFF LOCAL COMMUNITIES STATIONS & PARKING CONTRACT FOR ALL CCJPA STAFF • SERVICE CONTRACT - AMTRAK • CREWS & STATIONS • MAINT. OF RAIL CARS/ LOCOMOTIVES • STATIONS CAPITOL CORRIDOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE BART 23 F/T, 2 P/T CONTRACTORS STATE FUNDS (OPERATIONS, CAPITAL) BT&H VIA CALTRANS RAIL ANNUAL OPERATIONS CONTRACT ANNUAL FUND CONTRACT CONTRACTS FOR ACCESS & TRACK IMPROVEMENTS FEDERAL FUNDS FRA - HSIPR CAPITALGRANTS - OTHER • BART SUPPORT • FINANCE • HUMAN RESOURCES • ACCOUNTING • LEGAL • JOINT MARKETING RAILROAD OWNER • HOST RR • UNION PACIFIC RR, CALTRAIN • NUMBER OF TRAINS • CAPACITY, SPEED, RELIABILITY

  6. (1999-2013)Performance Improvements

  7. Auburn Rocklin Current (March 2014) Service Levels Roseville Davis Sacramento 1 RT Suisun/Fairfield Martinez 15 RT Richmond Berkeley Emeryville Oakland JLS 1 round trip 7 round trips 11 round trips 15 round trips Oakland Coliseum Hayward 7 RT Fremont Great America/ Santa Clara Santa Clara University San Jose

  8. Auburn Rocklin 2 RT Roseville Short-Term (0-10 years) Service Levels Davis Sacramento Suisun/Fairfield 5-10 RT Martinez 15 RT Richmond Berkeley 1 round trip 7 round trips 11 round trips 15 round trips Extension (dashed green lines) Expansion (in red) Emeryville Oakland JLS Oakland Coliseum 11 RT Hayward 7 + 4 RT Fremont Great America/Santa Clara Santa Clara University San Jose 2 RT Morgan Hill Gilroy Pajaro Castroville Salinas

  9. Auburn Rocklin Roseville 2 RT Mid-Term (10-20 years) Service Levels Davis 2 RT Sacramento Suisun/Fairfield 5 + 5 RT 10 RT 15 RT Martinez Richmond 15 RT Font point size represents round trips 1 pt = 1 round trip 7 pt = 7 round trips 11 pt = 11 round trips 15 pt = 15 round trips Expansion (in red) Berkeley Emeryville Oakland JLS Oakland Coliseum 11 + 4 RT Hayward 15 RT Fremont Great America/Santa Clara Santa Clara University San Jose 6 RT Morgan Hill Gilroy Pajaro Castroville Salinas

  10. Oakland to San Jose Phase 2 Project Project Description: - Add 20 miles 2nd track (leaving only 5 miles single track Oak-San Jose segment) - Alternative analyses to re-route trains to reduce travel times to Silicon Valley - Evaluate routing options for UPRR freight trains between East Bay and Central Valley - Project Cost: $200M-$300M - Status: design/environmental to start in March 2014; Seeking funds for construction • Benefits: • - Increase to 22 daily trains (from 14) • Reduced travel time (up to 15 minutes) • Meet growing market to Silicon Valley • - Serve new ridership markets: San Jose (CAHST system) + Salinas extension Challenges: - Construction funding partners (Federal, CA) - Environmental review/resource agency coordination - Community support for proposed re-routing

  11. FY2014 Plans • Advance design plans/environmental review • Secured allocation from CTC in 2013 • Design/environmental review to begin in March 2014; complete by 2016 • Capital Funding Plan • Secured: • $48M programmed in Prop 1A HST Connectivity funds • $7M programmed in 2014 STIP – Interregional program • Proposed: • Alameda Co. next sales tax transport authorization [$40M] • Santa Clara Co. next sales tax transport authorization [$??M] • Cap and Trade for CA Rail Modernization Program {$???M] • Fed TIGER grants - tied to goods movement benefit [$??M]

  12. SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS • Service expansion to San Jose is vitally important to continued success of Capitol Corridor • Serve growing Silicon Valley market/extend to Salinas • Connect with CA HST at San Jose-Diridon • Construction 2017-2018; start new service in 2018 • Appreciate partnership with SVLG, counties • Help complete capital funding plan • Support continued state $$ for operations, state of good repair • Benefits of linking interregional needs with regional goals • Reduce traffic congestion – Meet state clean air goals • Sustainable, livable communities – Expand regional economy

More Related