August 2006 www. camsys. com
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership
and Revenue Forecasting Study
Levels- of- Service Assumptions and Forecast Alternatives
prepared for
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
California High- Speed Rail Authority
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
with
SYSTRA Consulting, Inc.
Citilabs
final
report
final report
Bay Area/ California High- Speed
Rail Ridership and Revenue
Forecasting Study
Levels- of- Service Assumptions and Forecast
Alternatives
prepared for
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
California High Speed Rail Authority
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, California 94607
with
SYSTRA Consulting, Inc.
Citilabs
date
August 2006
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i
7530.006
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1- 1
1.1 Purpose of the Report ................................................................................ 1- 1
1.2 Data Sources ................................................................................................ 1- 1
1.3 Contents of This Report ............................................................................. 1- 2
2.0 Level- of- Service Assumptions.......................................................................... 2- 1
2.1 Cost Assumptions....................................................................................... 2- 1
Auto Operating Costs ................................................................................ 2- 1
Bridge Tolls.................................................................................................. 2- 3
Line- Haul Fares........................................................................................... 2- 3
Air............................................................................................................. 2- 3
High- Speed Rail ..................................................................................... 2- 6
Conventional Rail................................................................................... 2- 6
Access- Egress Costs.................................................................................. 2- 16
2.2 Travel Times .............................................................................................. 2- 17
Line- Haul Times ....................................................................................... 2- 18
Auto........................................................................................................ 2- 18
Air........................................................................................................... 2- 19
High- Speed Rail ................................................................................... 2- 19
Conventional Rail................................................................................. 2- 19
Frequencies ................................................................................................ 2- 28
Air........................................................................................................... 2- 28
High- Speed Rail ................................................................................... 2- 28
Conventional Rail................................................................................. 2- 33
Access- Egress Times................................................................................. 2- 33
Wait Times................................................................................................. 2- 33
Air........................................................................................................... 2- 34
Rail.......................................................................................................... 2- 34
Terminal Times ......................................................................................... 2- 35
Air and Rail ........................................................................................... 2- 35
Auto........................................................................................................ 2- 36
Transfer Times........................................................................................... 2- 36
Examples of Door- to- Door Travel Time Calculations ......................... 2- 37
2.3 Reliability................................................................................................... 2- 37
Table of Contents, continued
ii Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
7530.006
Auto Travel................................................................................................ 2- 39
Air ............................................................................................................... 2- 41
Conventional Rail ..................................................................................... 2- 41
High- Speed Rail ........................................................................................ 2- 44
3.0 Future Baseline Network................................................................................... 3- 1
3.1 Project List ................................................................................................... 3- 1
4.0 Forecast Alternatives .......................................................................................... 4- 1
4.1 Station Locations......................................................................................... 4- 1
4.2 High- Speed Rail Train Service Patterns .................................................. 4- 4
4.3 Project Alternatives .................................................................................... 4- 5
4.4 Sensitivity Tests........................................................................................... 4- 6
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Automobile Operating Cost in California ( in 2005 Dollars)................ 2- 2
Table 2.2 Year 2000 Air Fares ( One- Way Fares) In 2005 Dollars .......................... 2- 4
Table 2.3 Year 2005 Air Fares ( One- Way Fares) In 2005 Dollars .......................... 2- 5
Table 2.4 Initial Average High- Speed Rail Fares ( One- Way Fares) ( in 2005
Dollars) for Pacheco Pass ......................................................................... 2- 7
Table 2.5 Initial Average High- Speed Rail Fares ( One- Way Fares) ( in 2005
Dollars) for Altamont Pass....................................................................... 2- 9
Table 2.6 Altamont Commuter Express ( ACE) Fares ( in 2005 Dollars)............ 2- 11
Table 2.7 San Joaquin Line Fares ( in 2005 Dollars).............................................. 2- 12
Table 2.8 Capitol Corridor Fares ( in 2005 Dollars) .............................................. 2- 13
Table 2.9 Pacific Surfliner Fares ( in 2005 Dollars) ............................................... 2- 14
Table 2.10 Metrolink Orange County Line Fares ( in 2005 Dollars)..................... 2- 15
Table 2.11 Airport Parking Charges ( in 2005 Dollars) .......................................... 2- 16
Table 2.12 Initial High- Speed Rail Daily Parking Charges ( in 2005 Dollars) .... 2- 17
Table 2.13 Auto Travel Times between Selected City Pairs Year 2000................ 2- 18
Table 2.14 Year 2000 and 2005 Airport Line- Haul Times..................................... 2- 20
Note: Line- haul times for outbound and return flights have been
averaged to produce a single run time for both directions of
travel. This includes direct and connecting service for intrastate
flights where demand in 2005 is greater than one trip per day ( 400
annual trips). ............................................................................................ 2- 20
Table 2.15 High- Speed Rail Travel Times ( in Minutes) for Pacheco Pass.......... 2- 21
Table 2.16 High- Speed Rail Travel Times ( in Minutes) for Altamont Pass ....... 2- 22
Table 2.17 Altamont Commuter Express Line- Haul Travel Times ( in
Minutes) .................................................................................................... 2- 23
Table 2.18 San Joaquin Line- Haul Travel Times ( in Minutes) ............................. 2- 24
Table 2.19 Capitol Corridor Line- Haul Travel Times ( in Minutes)..................... 2- 25
Table 2.20 Pacific Surfliner Year 2000 Line- Haul Travel Times ( in Minutes).... 2- 26
Table 2.21 Metrolink Orange County Line Year 2000 Line- Haul Times ............ 2- 27
Table 2.22 Year 2000 Daily Airport Headways In Minutes.................................. 2- 29
List of Tables, continued
iv Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.23 Year 2005 Peak- Period Airport Headways In Minutes...................... 2- 30
Table 2.24 Interregional Conventional Rail Frequencies ( in Minutes) .............. 2- 33
Table 2.25 Auto Terminal Times in Minutes.......................................................... 2- 36
Table 2.26 Selected Detailed Door- to- Door Travel Times by Interregional
Mode and Trip Purpose ( in Minutes) ................................................... 2- 38
Table 2.27 Airline Reliability .................................................................................... 2- 42
Table 3.1 San Francisco Bay Area Transit Improvements 2000 Through 2005 ... 3- 2
Table 3.2 San Francisco Bay Area Highway Improvements Differences
Between Year 2000 and 2006....................................................................... 3- 3
Table 3.3 Sacramento Region Highway and Transit Improvements, 2000 to
2030.............................................................................................................. 3- 5
Table 3.4 SCAG Highway and Transit Improvements 2000 to 2030................... 3- 6
Table 3.5 San Diego Region Transportation Improvements 2000 to 2030.......... 3- 8
Table 4.1 Draft High Speed Rail Alternatives Definitions.................................... 4- 5
Table 4.2 Potential Sensitivity Tests ........................................................................ 4- 6
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Generalized High- Speed Rail Peak Headways ( in Minutes)
Southern Alignment Initial Alternative .................................................... 2- 31
Figure 2.2 Generalized High- Speed Rail Peak Headways ( in Minutes)
Northern Alignment Initial Alternative.................................................... 2- 32
Figure 4.1 Proposed Northern California High- Speed Rail Stations and
Alignments ................................................................................................. 4- 2
Figure 4.2 Proposed Southern California High- Speed Rail Stations and
Alignments ................................................................................................. 4- 3
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1- 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report examines levels- of- service ( LOS) assumptions and future alternatives
for the Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail ( HSR) Ridership and Revenue
Forecasting Study. LOS assumptions include costs ( i. e., operating costs and fare
prices), service frequencies, travel and access/ egress times, terminal times, and
reliability measures for each of the interregional travel modes under
consideration – auto, air, conventional rail ( CR), and high- speed rail.
The initial draft of this report was presented to the peer review panel on June 2,
2006. In most cases, peer review panel comments and suggestions have been
incorporated into this updated report. Instances where peer review panel
recommendations have not been used are described in the text.
This report also examines future rail alternatives. This project calls for testing in
at least 72 alternatives. This report will identify station locations for the
proposed high- speed rail system, as well as transit connections in the Bay Area,
train patterns, and the background future transit networks.
1.2 DATA SOURCES
Data comes from a variety of sources. Much of the information has been pre-determined
from earlier bodies of work. For example, assumptions about the
future background highway and transit networks generally come from existing
regional and metropolitan transportation plans. As appropriate, this report
identifies data sources for each assumption. Some other data were newly
researched. The consultant team has compiled data on air travel times and fares
between California airport pairs. This report contains three sets of data for
comparison:
1. Observed travel data for the year 2000 base year,
2. Year 2005 existing conditions, and
3. Previously- developed California High- Speed Rail Authority ( CHSRA)
network assumptions.
All costs and incomes are reported in year 2005 dollars, unless otherwise noted.
This study also includes an extensive new data collection effort of interregional
revealed- and stated- preference travel patterns. New data collection comprises
3,172 revealed and stated- preference surveys of California interregional air, auto,
and rail passengers. These surveys provide a rich source of data on areas, such
as access/ egress times and costs, and airport terminal times.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
1- 2
Information on the network alternatives has been developed specifically for this
study, and in cooperation with the Regional Rail Study. For the purposes of this
study the initial forecast assumptions will be established to match the previous
work done by the CHSRA so that a direct comparison can be made. Following
this initial comparison, forecast assumptions may be modified based on new
information and subjected to sensitivity analyses of key variables.
1.3 CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT
There are four sections in this report: 1) the introduction, 2) a presentation of the
level- of- service assumptions, 3) a description of the future baseline network, and
4) a summary of the future alternatives. Level- of- service assumptions include
cost, travel times, and reliability. The description of the future alternatives
includes station locations, high- speed rail service patterns, project alternatives,
and sensitivity tests.
This report builds on two other reports developed in earlier states of this project:
1. High- Speed Rail Study Survey Documentation, prepared for Cambridge
Systematics and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) by
Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research, December 2005; and
2. Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Socioeconomic Data, Transportation Supply, and Base Year Travel Patterns Data,
Cambridge Systematics, December 2005.
These reports are available upon request.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 1
2.0 Level- of- Service Assumptions
Level- of- service ( LOS) assumptions have been developed for the four
interregional travel modes: auto, conventional rail, high- speed rail, and air. These
assumptions cover three broad categories: costs, times and reliability, and taken
together are called travel skims. Costs include line- haul fares, as well as access
and egress charges. Times include line- haul times, frequencies ( which define
wait times), access/ egress time, terminal times, and transfer times.
Reliability is a newly developed measure for the new statewide model system.
Reliability was included in the stated- preference ( SP) survey choice experiment
options, along with the more traditional time and cost variables.
The travel skims have been developed using the new Cube program Public
Transport ( PT). PT varies from previous transit network/ assignment modules in
development of paths. PT is a significant enhancement over past transit path-building
and assignment modules, because the transit path finding algorithm
finds all possible transit paths for the zone pairs with the specified parameters
( maximum travel time, access time, number of transfers, etc.); and assigns them
to each route based on probability. PT reports average skims; whereas, earlier
modules used an “ all- or- nothing” process to assign all trips to the best path.
2.1 COST ASSUMPTIONS
Cost assumptions include auto operating costs, as well as fares for conventional
and high- speed rail and air travel. Cost assumptions also include access and
egress costs, such as parking charges at airports. All cost assumptions are in
2005 constant dollars, unless otherwise specified.
Auto Operating Costs
The consultant team prepared the auto operating costs with data that MTC has
compiled on an ongoing basis ( up to April 2006). The auto operating costs are
comprised of gasoline and non- gasoline operating costs. Gasoline operating
costs are calculated on a per- mile basis from the price of average retail gasoline
divided by the average fuel economy. MTC obtains monthly retail gasoline costs
from the California Energy Commission ( CEC). A constant average fuel
economy of 21.9 miles per gallon has been assumed.
Non- gas operating costs include maintenance and repair, motor oil, parts, and
accessories. The California Department of Energy used to track the non- gas
operating costs, but more recently MTC has assumed that non- gas operating
costs are fixed to 60 percent that of gasoline operating costs.
The year 2000 model system will use year 2000 automobile operating costs, while
the 2005 model runs will use the 2005 value shown in Table 2.1. For the future
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
year model runs ( years 2020, 2030, and 2050), April 2006 auto operating costs will
be used for the model runs. The April 2006 auto operating costs account for a
large part of the recent run- up in gas prices.
Table 2.1 Automobile Operating Cost in California
( in 2005 Dollars)
Year
Retail Gas
Price
( Current $)
Annual
Inflation Gas Price
Gasoline
Operating
Cost ( Cent/
Mile)
Non- Gas
Operating
Cost ( Cent/
Mile)
Total Auto
Operating
Cost ( Cent/
Mile)
1990 $ 1.241 $ 1.904 8.70 3.05 11.75
1991 $ 1.197 4.4% $ 1.759 8.03 3.43 11.46
1992 $ 1.302 3.3% $ 1.852 8.46 3.57 12.03
1993 $ 1.299 2.7% $ 1.800 8.22 3.70 11.92
1994 $ 1.275 1.6% $ 1.738 7.94 3.45 11.39
1995 $ 1.286 2.0% $ 1.719 7.85 3.57 11.42
1996 $ 1.434 2.3% $ 1.874 8.56 3.47 12.03
1997 $ 1.448 3.4% $ 1.830 8.36 5.57 13.93
1998 $ 1.304 3.2% $ 1.597 7.29 4.86 12.15
1999 $ 1.514 4.2% $ 1.779 8.12 5.42 13.54
2000 $ 1.832 4.5% $ 2.061 9.41 6.27 15.68
2001 $ 1.800 5.4% $ 1.921 8.77 5.85 14.62
2002 $ 1.599 1.6% $ 1.679 7.67 5.11 12.78
2003 $ 1.933 1.8% $ 1.995 9.11 6.07 15.18
2004 $ 2.165 1.2% $ 2.207 10.0 6.72 16.80
2005 $ 2.522 2.0% $ 2.522 11.5 7.68 19.19
April 06 $ 2.933 2.3% $ 2.868 13.11 8.73 21.83
Source: MTC 2005 Regional Transportation Plan Assumptions, Table 3, Historical and
Projected Regional Auto Operating Costs, 1990 to 2030.
Auto operating costs were assumed to be $ 0.10 and $ 0.05 per person per mile for
business and non- business travel, respectively ( in 1995 dollars) in the previous
CHSRA modeling effort. The 1999 CRA report indicated that the same per
person/ per mile auto travel costs from the 1996 model was used again with costs
inflated to 1999 dollars. This translates to $ 0.15 and $ 0.12 per mile ( assuming
1.42 persons per vehicle according to the California Department of
Transportation ( Caltrans) Statewide Model1), which is lower overall than the
1 California Department of Transportation and Dowling Association, Caltrans Statewide
Model Description, Table 13, January 20, 2004.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 3
$ 0.19 per mile assumed by the MTC analysis for all trips. This lower estimate is
likely due to the recent high prices in gasoline not foreseen back in 1995.
An important assumption will be future gas prices for the purposes of
alternatives evaluation for 2020, 2030, and 2050 forecasts. Gasoline prices are
notoriously volatile, and we assume a constant cost of gasoline ( with respect to
inflation), rather than a real annual increase in auto operating costs. In addition,
we will test the sensitivity of ridership forecasts to changes in gas prices by
increasing the cost of gasoline.
Bridge Tolls
Tolls are charged on seven California bridges – all of them in the San Francisco
Bay Area. Current tolls are $ 3 on all seven bridges, except the Golden Gate,
which is $ 5 in year 2000 and $ 4 on all seven bridges beginning in 2007. The other
six bridges include the Dumbarton, San Mateo- Hayward, San Francisco Bay,
Carquinez, Benicia- Martinez, and Antioch. There are two bridge facilities that no
longer charge tolls. These are the Gerald Desmond Bridge ( serving the Ports of
Long Beach and Los Angeles) and the Coronado Bridge ( serving Coronado
Island in San Diego).
Line- Haul Fares
Air
Line- haul air fares were obtained the Federal Aviation Administration and
supplemented with data from several web sites over several months to obtain
data on air fares for origin- destination pairs in California. Year 2000 and 2005 air
fares are shown in Tables 2.2 and 2.3, respectively. The fares were obtained
directly for year 2000 and 2005 from the 10 percent ticket sample maintained by
the FAA. Business and non- business fares were queried and summarized
separately, but there was no significant difference overall in these markets
between business and non- business fares, so they were averaged for the
purposes of this table.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.2 Year 2000 Air Fares ( One- Way Fares)
In 2005 Dollars
SAN SNA LGB LAX ONT BUR SJC SFO OAK SMF PSP OXR SBA BFL FAT MRY ACV
San Diego SAN
Santa Ana SNA
Long Beach LGB
Los Angeles LAX $ 127
Ontario ONT
Burbank BUR
San Jose SJC $ 86 $ 73 $ 77 $ 85 $ 91
San Francisco SFO $ 105 $ 112 $ 98 $ 87 $ 109
Oakland OAK $ 91 $ 61 $ 68 $ 65 $ 82 $ 89
Sacramento SMF $ 73 $ 85 $ 75 $ 74 $ 85 $ 84 $ 127
Palm Springs PSP $ 100 $ 86 $ 97 $ 81 $ 118
Oxnard OXR $ 134 $ 78 $ 82
Santa Barbara SBA $ 130 $ 94 $ 94 $ 104 $ 140 $ 94
Bakersfield BFL $ 114 $ 120
Fresno FAT $ 137 $ 100 $ 120
Monterey MRY $ 113 $ 151 $ 116 $ 159
Arcata/ Eureka ACV $ 91 $ 105 $ 100 $ 98 $ 99 $ 96 $ 157
Modesto MOD $ 171 $ 139 $ 143
Source: Federal Aviation Administration data from the 10 percent ticket sample, supplemented with internet queries conducted between March
and December 2005.
Note: In some cases where growth rates between 2000 and 2005 quoted in the FAA data were unreasonable, a 20 percent average growth
rate was used. This includes direct and connecting service for intrastate flights where demand in 2005 is greater than one trip per day
( 400 annual trips).
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 5
Table 2.3 Year 2005 Air Fares ( One- Way Fares)
In 2005 Dollars
SAN SNA LGB LAX ONT BUR SJC SFO OAK SMF PSP OXR SBA BFL FAT MRY ACV
San Diego SAN
Santa Ana SNA
Long Beach LGB
Los Angeles LAX $ 166
Ontario ONT
Burbank BUR
San Jose SJC $ 97 $ 92 $ 96 $ 93 $ 102
San Francisco SFO $ 144 $ 156 $ 139 $ 126 $ 133
Oakland OAK $ 103 $ 79 $ 81 $ 85 $ 95 $ 104
Sacramento SMF $ 93 $ 102 $ 90 $ 89 $ 92 $ 98 $ 152
Palm Springs PSP $ 171 $ 117 $ 119 $ 97 $ 168
Oxnard OXR $ 152 $ 133 $ 142
Santa Barbara SBA $ 200 $ 145 $ 113 $ 139 $ 168 $ 113
Bakersfield BFL $ 137 $ 132
Fresno FAT $ 166 $ 120 $ 175
Monterey MRY $ 139 $ 181 $ 140 $ 171
Arcata/ Eureka ACV $ 163 $ 169 $ 120 $ 186 $ 172 $ 148 $ 188
Modesto MOD $ 205 $ 170 $ 153
Source: Federal Aviation Administration data from the 10 percent ticket sample.
Note: In some cases where growth rates between 2000 and 2005 quoted in the FAA data were unreasonable, a 20 percent average growth
rate was used. This includes direct and connecting service for intrastate flights where demand in 2005 is greater than one trip per day
( 400 annual trips).
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 6
High- Speed Rail
An important part of this project will be to evaluate different high- speed rail
fare policies in order to maximize benefits. As such, the study team and peer
review panel has agreed that, as a starting point, fare assumptions similar to
those developed by Charles Rivers Associates ( CRA) for the previous high-speed
rail model will be employed here. CRA’s base fare structure for
interregional trips was based on 50 percent of the average 1995 Los Angeles-
Bay Area airfare of $ 58 ( in 1995 dollars). This structure included a boarding
charge of $ 20.00 and a distance charge of $ 0.10 per mile ( assuming an
approximate high- speed rail distance of 379 miles between Los Angeles
Union Station ( LAUS) and Transbay Terminal). Using the average airfare of
$ 99 ( in 2005 dollars) in our current model, the high- speed rail fare would
equate to a boarding charge of $ 15.00 and a distance charge of $ 0.09 per mile.
For intraregional commuter travel, CRA assumed a $ 5.00 boarding charge,
and a $ 0.06 per mile distance charge ( in 1999 dollars). Intraregional high-speed
rail fares were assumed to be 50 percent higher, on average, than
corresponding conventional rail fares, with a $ 7.00 boarding fare and a per-mile
charge of $ 0.06 cents. Both the inter- and intraregional per- mile high-speed
rail charges were applied to the driving distance between stations in
order to avoid different fare structures for Altamont and Pacheco high- speed
rail routings. The initial high- speed rail fare assumptions are presented in
Tables 2.4 and 2.5 for Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass, respectively. The
increase in the intraregional boarding charge and decrease in interregional
boarding charge relative to CRA assumptions, were designed to reduce the
large increase in fares between intra- and interregional fares at the borders of
the regions.
Conventional Rail
Interregional conventional rail ( CVR) fares for the San Joaquin, Altamont
Commuter Express ( ACE), Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, and Metrolink
( Oceanside line) lines are shown in Tables 2.6 through 2.10, respectively.
Real conventional rail fares will be held constant for all forecast years ( 2000,
2005, 2020, 2030, and 2050), based on these 2005 fares.
Station- to- station conventional rail fares have been determined by taking the
per- ride cost of a multiride ticket ( typically 10 to 20 ride tickets), where
offered. Exceptions are the Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin routes, where
one- way ticket costs are used. The other three conventional rail lines offer
three types of tickets: one- way ( or round- trip), multiride and monthly
passes. Both the multiride ticket and monthly passes offer significant
discounts over single- ride tickets. Multiride fares are used because they
represent the mid- cost fare, recognizing many riders are regular users. The
type of fare instrument used is noted in the title of each of table.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 7
Table 2.4 Initial Average High- Speed Rail Fares ( One- Way Fares) ( in 2005 Dollars) for Pacheco Pass
SF TWN MLB RDC PA WO7 COL UNC WSP SJ MH GIL SAC STK MOD MER
San Francisico N/ A $ 7 $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 10 $ 11 $ 12 $ 40 $ 37 $ 34 $ 30
Townsend St $ 7 N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 10 $ 11 $ 11 $ 40 $ 36 $ 34 $ 30
Millbrae $ 8 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 10 $ 11 $ 39 $ 35 $ 32 $ 29
Redwood City $ 9 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 7 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 38 $ 34 $ 31 $ 28
Palo Alto $ 9 $ 9 $ 8 $ 7 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 38 $ 34 $ 31 $ 28
West Oakland / 7th N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 7 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 11 $ 11 $ 40 $ 36 $ 33 $ 30
Oakland Coliseum N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 7 N/ A $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 11 $ 39 $ 35 $ 33 $ 29
Union City N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 38 $ 34 $ 31 $ 28
Warm Springs N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 8 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 37 $ 33 $ 30 $ 27
San Jose $ 10 $ 10 $ 9 $ 8 $ 8 $ 10 $ 9 $ 8 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 36 $ 32 $ 29 $ 26
Morgan Hill $ 11 $ 11 $ 10 $ 9 $ 9 $ 11 $ 10 $ 9 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 34 $ 30 $ 28 $ 24
Gilroy $ 12 $ 11 $ 11 $ 10 $ 10 $ 11 $ 11 $ 10 $ 10 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 33 $ 30 $ 27 $ 23
Sacramento $ 40 $ 40 $ 39 $ 38 $ 38 $ 40 $ 39 $ 38 $ 37 $ 36 $ 34 $ 33 N/ A $ 19 $ 22 $ 25
Stockton $ 37 $ 36 $ 35 $ 34 $ 34 $ 36 $ 35 $ 34 $ 33 $ 32 $ 30 $ 30 $ 19 N/ A $ 18 $ 21
Modesto ( Briggsmore) $ 34 $ 34 $ 32 $ 31 $ 31 $ 33 $ 33 $ 31 $ 30 $ 29 $ 28 $ 27 $ 22 $ 18 N/ A $ 18
Merced ( SP Downtown) $ 30 $ 30 $ 29 $ 28 $ 28 $ 30 $ 29 $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 $ 24 $ 23 $ 25 $ 21 $ 18 N/ A
Fresno $ 32 $ 32 $ 31 $ 30 $ 30 $ 32 $ 31 $ 30 $ 29 $ 28 $ 26 $ 25 $ 30 $ 26 $ 23 $ 20
Bakersfield $ 42 $ 42 $ 41 $ 40 $ 40 $ 42 $ 41 $ 40 $ 39 $ 38 $ 36 $ 35 $ 40 $ 36 $ 33 $ 30
Palmdale Airport ( PMD) $ 50 $ 50 $ 49 $ 48 $ 47 $ 50 $ 49 $ 48 $ 47 $ 46 $ 44 $ 43 $ 48 $ 44 $ 41 $ 38
Sylmar $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 51 $ 51 $ 53 $ 52 $ 51 $ 50 $ 49 $ 47 $ 47 $ 51 $ 47 $ 44 $ 41
Burbank $ 55 $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 52 $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 51 $ 50 $ 48 $ 47 $ 52 $ 48 $ 45 $ 42
Los Angeles $ 55 $ 55 $ 54 $ 53 $ 53 $ 55 $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 51 $ 49 $ 48 $ 53 $ 49 $ 46 $ 43
Norwalk $ 57 $ 57 $ 55 $ 54 $ 54 $ 56 $ 56 $ 54 $ 54 $ 52 $ 51 $ 50 $ 54 $ 51 $ 48 $ 44
Anaheim $ 58 $ 58 $ 57 $ 56 $ 55 $ 58 $ 57 $ 56 $ 55 $ 54 $ 52 $ 51 $ 56 $ 52 $ 49 $ 46
Irvine $ 59 $ 59 $ 58 $ 57 $ 57 $ 59 $ 58 $ 57 $ 56 $ 55 $ 53 $ 52 $ 57 $ 53 $ 50 $ 47
City of Industry $ 58 $ 58 $ 56 $ 55 $ 55 $ 57 $ 57 $ 55 $ 55 $ 53 $ 52 $ 51 $ 55 $ 52 $ 49 $ 45
Ontario Airport ( ONT) $ 59 $ 59 $ 58 $ 57 $ 56 $ 59 $ 58 $ 57 $ 56 $ 55 $ 53 $ 52 $ 57 $ 53 $ 50 $ 47
Riverside $ 61 $ 61 $ 60 $ 59 $ 58 $ 61 $ 60 $ 59 $ 58 $ 57 $ 55 $ 54 $ 59 $ 55 $ 52 $ 49
Murrieta / Temecula $ 64 $ 64 $ 63 $ 61 $ 61 $ 63 $ 63 $ 61 $ 61 $ 60 $ 58 $ 57 $ 62 $ 58 $ 55 $ 51
Escondido $ 67 $ 67 $ 65 $ 64 $ 64 $ 66 $ 66 $ 64 $ 63 $ 62 $ 61 $ 60 $ 64 $ 60 $ 57 $ 54
University City $ 69 $ 69 $ 67 $ 66 $ 66 $ 68 $ 68 $ 66 $ 66 $ 64 $ 63 $ 62 $ 66 $ 62 $ 60 $ 56
San Diego $ 70 $ 70 $ 69 $ 68 $ 67 $ 69 $ 69 $ 67 $ 67 $ 66 $ 64 $ 63 $ 68 $ 64 $ 61 $ 58
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.4 Initial High- Speed Rail Fares ( One- Way Fares) ( in 2005 Dollars) for Pacheco Pass ( continued)
FRS BKR PMD SYL BUR LA NWK ANA IRV IND ONT RVR TEM ESC UNI SD
San Francisico $ 32 $ 42 $ 50 $ 54 $ 55 $ 55 $ 57 $ 58 $ 59 $ 58 $ 59 $ 61 $ 64 $ 67 $ 69 $ 70
Townsend St $ 32 $ 42 $ 50 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 57 $ 58 $ 59 $ 58 $ 59 $ 61 $ 64 $ 67 $ 69 $ 70
Millbrae $ 31 $ 41 $ 49 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 57 $ 58 $ 56 $ 58 $ 60 $ 63 $ 65 $ 67 $ 69
Redwood City $ 30 $ 40 $ 48 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 56 $ 57 $ 55 $ 57 $ 59 $ 61 $ 64 $ 66 $ 68
Palo Alto $ 30 $ 40 $ 47 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 57 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 61 $ 64 $ 66 $ 67
West Oakland / 7th $ 32 $ 42 $ 50 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 59 $ 57 $ 59 $ 61 $ 63 $ 66 $ 68 $ 69
Oakland Coliseum $ 31 $ 41 $ 49 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 56 $ 57 $ 58 $ 57 $ 58 $ 60 $ 63 $ 66 $ 68 $ 69
Union City $ 30 $ 40 $ 48 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 56 $ 57 $ 55 $ 57 $ 59 $ 61 $ 64 $ 66 $ 67
Warm Springs $ 29 $ 39 $ 47 $ 50 $ 51 $ 52 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 61 $ 63 $ 66 $ 67
San Jose $ 28 $ 38 $ 46 $ 49 $ 50 $ 51 $ 52 $ 54 $ 55 $ 53 $ 55 $ 57 $ 60 $ 62 $ 64 $ 66
Morgan Hill $ 26 $ 36 $ 44 $ 47 $ 48 $ 49 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 52 $ 53 $ 55 $ 58 $ 61 $ 63 $ 64
Gilroy $ 25 $ 35 $ 43 $ 47 $ 47 $ 48 $ 50 $ 51 $ 52 $ 51 $ 52 $ 54 $ 57 $ 60 $ 62 $ 63
Sacramento $ 30 $ 40 $ 48 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 56 $ 57 $ 55 $ 57 $ 59 $ 62 $ 64 $ 66 $ 68
Stockton $ 26 $ 36 $ 44 $ 47 $ 48 $ 49 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 52 $ 53 $ 55 $ 58 $ 60 $ 62 $ 64
Modesto ( Briggsmore) $ 23 $ 33 $ 41 $ 44 $ 45 $ 46 $ 48 $ 49 $ 50 $ 49 $ 50 $ 52 $ 55 $ 57 $ 60 $ 61
Merced ( SP Downtown) $ 20 $ 30 $ 38 $ 41 $ 42 $ 43 $ 44 $ 46 $ 47 $ 45 $ 47 $ 49 $ 51 $ 54 $ 56 $ 58
Fresno N/ A $ 25 $ 33 $ 36 $ 37 $ 38 $ 39 $ 41 $ 42 $ 40 $ 42 $ 44 $ 47 $ 49 $ 51 $ 53
Bakersfield $ 25 N/ A $ 23 $ 26 $ 27 $ 28 $ 29 $ 31 $ 32 $ 30 $ 32 $ 34 $ 36 $ 39 $ 41 $ 43
Palmdale Airport ( PMD) $ 33 $ 23 N/ A $ 9 $ 10 $ 10 $ 22 $ 23 $ 24 $ 23 $ 24 $ 26 $ 29 $ 32 $ 34 $ 35
Sylmar $ 36 $ 26 $ 9 N/ A $ 8 $ 8 $ 18 $ 20 $ 21 $ 19 $ 21 $ 23 $ 25 $ 28 $ 30 $ 31
Burbank $ 37 $ 27 $ 10 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 17 $ 19 $ 20 $ 18 $ 20 $ 22 $ 24 $ 27 $ 29 $ 30
Los Angeles $ 38 $ 28 $ 10 $ 8 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 9 $ 9 $ 11 $ 12 $ 26 $ 28 $ 30
Norwalk $ 39 $ 29 $ 22 $ 18 $ 17 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A
Anaheim $ 41 $ 31 $ 23 $ 20 $ 19 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A
Irvine $ 42 $ 32 $ 24 $ 21 $ 20 $ 10 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A
City of Industry $ 40 $ 30 $ 23 $ 19 $ 18 $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 11 $ 24 $ 26 $ 27
Ontario Airport ( ONT) $ 42 $ 32 $ 24 $ 21 $ 20 $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 10 $ 22 $ 25 $ 26
Riverside $ 44 $ 34 $ 26 $ 23 $ 22 $ 11 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 9 $ 21 $ 23 $ 24
Murrieta / Temecula $ 47 $ 36 $ 29 $ 25 $ 24 $ 12 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 11 $ 10 $ 9 N/ A $ 9 $ 10 $ 11
Escondido $ 49 $ 39 $ 32 $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 24 $ 22 $ 21 $ 9 N/ A $ 8 $ 9
University City $ 51 $ 41 $ 34 $ 30 $ 29 $ 28 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 26 $ 25 $ 23 $ 10 $ 8 N/ A $ 8
San Diego $ 53 $ 43 $ 35 $ 31 $ 30 $ 30 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 27 $ 26 $ 24 $ 11 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A
Note: Shaded cells show the intraregional fares; unshaded cells show the interregional fares.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 9
Table 2.5 Initial Average High- Speed Rail Fares ( One- Way Fares) ( in 2005 Dollars) for Altamont Pass
SF WO7 COL UNC TWN MLB RDC SHN SJ WSP BRN LVR TCY SACa SAC STK MOD
San Fransico N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 7 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 N/ A N/ A $ 10 $ 10 $ 12 $ 29 $ 28 $ 24 $ 25
West Oakland / 7th N/ A N/ A $ 7 $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 9 $ 11 $ 27 $ 27 $ 22 $ 23
Oakland Coliseum N/ A $ 7 N/ A $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 9 $ 10 $ 27 $ 26 $ 22 $ 23
Union City N/ A $ 8 $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 25 $ 25 $ 20 $ 21
Townsend Street $ 7 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 N/ A N/ A $ 10 $ 10 $ 11 $ 29 $ 28 $ 24 $ 25
Millbrae $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 9 N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 9 $ 11 $ 27 $ 27 $ 23 $ 23
Redwood City $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 26 $ 26 $ 22 $ 22
Shinn $ 10 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 25 $ 25 $ 20 $ 21
San Jose N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 $ 10 $ 26 $ 26 $ 22 $ 22
Warm Springs N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 25 $ 25 $ 20 $ 21
Bernel / I- 680 $ 10 $ 9 $ 9 $ 8 $ 10 $ 9 $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 7 $ 9 $ 24 $ 24 $ 19 $ 20
Livermore ( S) $ 10 $ 9 $ 9 $ 8 $ 10 $ 9 $ 9 $ 8 $ 9 $ 8 $ 7 N/ A $ 8 $ 24 $ 23 $ 19 $ 20
Tracy ( N) $ 12 $ 11 $ 10 $ 9 $ 11 $ 11 $ 10 $ 9 $ 10 $ 9 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 22 $ 21 $ 17 $ 18
Sacramento ( Alt) $ 29 $ 27 $ 27 $ 25 $ 29 $ 27 $ 26 $ 25 $ 26 $ 25 $ 24 $ 24 $ 22 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 22
Sacramento $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 $ 25 $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 $ 25 $ 26 $ 25 $ 24 $ 23 $ 21 N/ A N/ A $ 19 $ 22
Stockton $ 24 $ 22 $ 22 $ 20 $ 24 $ 23 $ 22 $ 20 $ 22 $ 20 $ 19 $ 19 $ 17 N/ A $ 19 N/ A $ 18
Modesto ( SP Downtown) $ 25 $ 23 $ 23 $ 21 $ 25 $ 23 $ 22 $ 21 $ 22 $ 21 $ 20 $ 20 $ 18 $ 22 $ 22 $ 18 N/ A
Merced ( SP Downtown) $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 $ 25 $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 $ 24 $ 26 $ 25 $ 24 $ 23 $ 21 $ 25 $ 26 $ 21 $ 18
Fresno $ 33 $ 32 $ 31 $ 30 $ 33 $ 32 $ 31 $ 29 $ 31 $ 30 $ 28 $ 28 $ 26 $ 30 $ 31 $ 26 $ 23
Bakersfield $ 43 $ 42 $ 41 $ 40 $ 43 $ 42 $ 41 $ 39 $ 41 $ 40 $ 39 $ 38 $ 36 $ 40 $ 41 $ 36 $ 33
Palmdale Airport ( PMD) $ 51 $ 49 $ 49 $ 47 $ 51 $ 49 $ 48 $ 47 $ 48 $ 47 $ 46 $ 46 $ 44 $ 48 $ 48 $ 44 $ 41
Sylmar $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 51 $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 50 $ 52 $ 51 $ 50 $ 49 $ 47 $ 51 $ 52 $ 47 $ 45
Burbank $ 55 $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 55 $ 54 $ 53 $ 51 $ 53 $ 52 $ 51 $ 50 $ 48 $ 52 $ 53 $ 48 $ 46
Los Angeles $ 56 $ 55 $ 54 $ 53 $ 56 $ 55 $ 54 $ 52 $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 51 $ 49 $ 53 $ 54 $ 49 $ 46
Norwalk $ 58 $ 56 $ 55 $ 54 $ 57 $ 56 $ 55 $ 54 $ 55 $ 54 $ 53 $ 52 $ 50 $ 55 $ 55 $ 51 $ 48
Anaheim $ 59 $ 57 $ 57 $ 55 $ 59 $ 58 $ 56 $ 55 $ 57 $ 55 $ 54 $ 54 $ 52 $ 56 $ 56 $ 52 $ 49
Irvine $ 60 $ 59 $ 58 $ 57 $ 60 $ 59 $ 58 $ 56 $ 58 $ 57 $ 56 $ 55 $ 53 $ 57 $ 58 $ 53 $ 50
City of Industry $ 58 $ 57 $ 56 $ 55 $ 58 $ 57 $ 56 $ 55 $ 56 $ 55 $ 54 $ 53 $ 51 $ 56 $ 56 $ 52 $ 49
Ontario Airport ( ONT) $ 60 $ 58 $ 58 $ 56 $ 60 $ 59 $ 58 $ 56 $ 58 $ 56 $ 55 $ 55 $ 53 $ 57 $ 57 $ 53 $ 50
Riverside $ 62 $ 60 $ 60 $ 58 $ 62 $ 61 $ 59 $ 58 $ 60 $ 58 $ 57 $ 57 $ 55 $ 59 $ 59 $ 55 $ 52
Murrieta / Temecula $ 65 $ 63 $ 62 $ 61 $ 64 $ 63 $ 62 $ 61 $ 62 $ 61 $ 60 $ 59 $ 58 $ 62 $ 62 $ 58 $ 55
Escondido $ 67 $ 66 $ 65 $ 64 $ 67 $ 66 $ 65 $ 64 $ 65 $ 64 $ 63 $ 62 $ 60 $ 64 $ 65 $ 60 $ 58
University City $ 69 $ 68 $ 67 $ 66 $ 69 $ 68 $ 67 $ 66 $ 67 $ 66 $ 65 $ 64 $ 62 $ 67 $ 67 $ 63 $ 60
San Diego $ 71 $ 69 $ 68 $ 67 $ 70 $ 69 $ 68 $ 67 $ 68 $ 67 $ 66 $ 65 $ 64 $ 68 $ 68 $ 64 $ 61
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.5 Initial High- Speed Rail Fares ( One- Way Fares) ( in 2005 Dollars) for Altamont Pass ( continued)
MER FRS BKR PMD SYL BUR LA NWK ANA IRV IND ONT RVR TEM ESC UNI SD
San Fransico $ 28 $ 33 $ 43 $ 51 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 59 $ 60 $ 58 $ 60 $ 62 $ 65 $ 67 $ 69 $ 71
West Oakland / 7th $ 27 $ 32 $ 42 $ 49 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 57 $ 59 $ 57 $ 58 $ 60 $ 63 $ 66 $ 68 $ 69
Oakland Coliseum $ 26 $ 31 $ 41 $ 49 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 57 $ 58 $ 56 $ 58 $ 60 $ 62 $ 65 $ 67 $ 68
Union City $ 25 $ 30 $ 40 $ 47 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 57 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 61 $ 64 $ 66 $ 67
Townsend Street $ 28 $ 33 $ 43 $ 51 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 57 $ 59 $ 60 $ 58 $ 60 $ 62 $ 64 $ 67 $ 69 $ 70
Millbrae $ 27 $ 32 $ 42 $ 49 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 59 $ 57 $ 59 $ 61 $ 63 $ 66 $ 68 $ 69
Redwood City $ 26 $ 31 $ 41 $ 48 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 56 $ 58 $ 59 $ 62 $ 65 $ 67 $ 68
Shinn $ 24 $ 29 $ 39 $ 47 $ 50 $ 51 $ 52 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 61 $ 64 $ 66 $ 67
San Jose $ 26 $ 31 $ 41 $ 48 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 57 $ 58 $ 56 $ 58 $ 60 $ 62 $ 65 $ 67 $ 68
Warm Springs $ 25 $ 30 $ 40 $ 47 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 57 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 61 $ 64 $ 66 $ 67
Bernel / I- 680 $ 24 $ 28 $ 39 $ 46 $ 50 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 56 $ 54 $ 55 $ 57 $ 60 $ 63 $ 65 $ 66
Livermore ( S) $ 23 $ 28 $ 38 $ 46 $ 49 $ 50 $ 51 $ 52 $ 54 $ 55 $ 53 $ 55 $ 57 $ 59 $ 62 $ 64 $ 65
Tracy ( N) $ 21 $ 26 $ 36 $ 44 $ 47 $ 48 $ 49 $ 50 $ 52 $ 53 $ 51 $ 53 $ 55 $ 58 $ 60 $ 62 $ 64
Sacramento ( Alt) $ 25 $ 30 $ 40 $ 48 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 55 $ 56 $ 57 $ 56 $ 57 $ 59 $ 62 $ 64 $ 67 $ 68
Sacramento $ 26 $ 31 $ 41 $ 48 $ 52 $ 53 $ 54 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 $ 56 $ 57 $ 59 $ 62 $ 65 $ 67 $ 68
Stockton $ 21 $ 26 $ 36 $ 44 $ 47 $ 48 $ 49 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 52 $ 53 $ 55 $ 58 $ 60 $ 63 $ 64
Modesto ( SP Downtown) $ 18 $ 23 $ 33 $ 41 $ 45 $ 46 $ 46 $ 48 $ 49 $ 50 $ 49 $ 50 $ 52 $ 55 $ 58 $ 60 $ 61
Merced ( SP Downtown) N/ A $ 20 $ 30 $ 38 $ 41 $ 42 $ 43 $ 44 $ 46 $ 47 $ 45 $ 47 $ 49 $ 51 $ 54 $ 56 $ 57
Fresno $ 20 N/ A $ 25 $ 33 $ 36 $ 37 $ 38 $ 39 $ 41 $ 42 $ 40 $ 42 $ 44 $ 47 $ 49 $ 51 $ 53
Bakersfield $ 30 $ 25 N/ A $ 23 $ 26 $ 27 $ 28 $ 29 $ 31 $ 32 $ 30 $ 32 $ 34 $ 36 $ 39 $ 41 $ 43
Palmdale Airport ( PMD) $ 38 $ 33 $ 23 N/ A $ 9 $ 10 $ 10 $ 22 $ 23 $ 24 $ 23 $ 24 $ 26 $ 29 $ 32 $ 34 $ 35
Sylmar $ 41 $ 36 $ 26 $ 9 N/ A $ 8 $ 8 $ 18 $ 20 $ 21 $ 19 $ 21 $ 23 $ 25 $ 28 $ 30 $ 31
Burbank $ 42 $ 37 $ 27 $ 10 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 17 $ 19 $ 20 $ 18 $ 20 $ 22 $ 24 $ 27 $ 29 $ 30
Los Angeles $ 43 $ 38 $ 28 $ 10 $ 8 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 9 $ 9 $ 11 $ 12 $ 26 $ 28 $ 30
Norwalk $ 44 $ 39 $ 29 $ 22 $ 18 $ 17 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A
Anaheim $ 46 $ 41 $ 31 $ 23 $ 20 $ 19 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A
Irvine $ 47 $ 42 $ 32 $ 24 $ 21 $ 20 $ 10 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A
City of Industry $ 45 $ 40 $ 30 $ 23 $ 19 $ 18 $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 $ 9 $ 11 $ 24 $ 26 $ 27
Ontario Airport ( ONT) $ 47 $ 42 $ 32 $ 24 $ 21 $ 20 $ 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 8 N/ A $ 8 $ 10 $ 22 $ 25 $ 26
Riverside $ 49 $ 44 $ 34 $ 26 $ 23 $ 22 $ 11 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 9 $ 8 N/ A $ 9 $ 21 $ 23 $ 24
Murrieta /
Temecula
$ 51 $ 47 $ 36 $ 29 $ 25 $ 24 $ 12 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 11 $ 10 $ 9 N/ A $ 9 $ 10 $ 11
Escondido $ 54 $ 49 $ 39 $ 32 $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 24 $ 22 $ 21 $ 9 N/ A $ 8 $ 9
University City $ 56 $ 51 $ 41 $ 34 $ 30 $ 29 $ 28 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 26 $ 25 $ 23 $ 10 $ 8 N/ A $ 8
San Diego $ 57 $ 53 $ 43 $ 35 $ 31 $ 30 $ 30 N/ A N/ A N/ A $ 27 $ 26 $ 24 $ 11 $ 9 $ 8 N/ A
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 11
Table 2.6 Altamont Commuter Express ( ACE) Fares ( in 2005 Dollars)
Stckton Lathrop Tracy Vasco Livermore Pleasanton Fremont
Great
America
Santa
Clara San Jose
Stockton $ –
Lathrop $ 1.91 $ –
Tracy $ 3.39 $ 3.33 $ –
Vasco $ 4.80 $ 4.80 $ 4.73 $ –
Livermore $ 4.80 $ 4.80 $ 4.73 $ 1.88 $ –
Pleasanton $ 4.80 $ 4.80 $ 4.73 $ 1.88 $ 1.88 $ –
Fremont $ 6.23 $ 6.23 $ 6.23 $ 2.80 $ 2.80 $ 2.80 $ –
Great America $ 7.69 $ 7.58 $ 6.13 $ 4.73 $ 4.73 $ 4.73 $ 3.10 $ –
Santa Clara $ 7.69 $ 7.58 $ 6.13 $ 4.73 $ 4.73 $ 4.73 $ 3.10 $ 1.75 $ -
San Jose $ 7.69 $ 7.58 $ 6.13 $ 4.73 $ 4.73 $ 4.73 $ 3.10 $ 1.75 $- $ –
Note: Fares based on single- ride cost of 20- trip book.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.7 San Joaquin Line Fares ( in 2005 Dollars)
JLS EMY RIC MTZ ANT SAC LOD STK MOD TUR MER MAD FSN HAN COR WAS BAK
Oakland JLS $ –
Emeryville EMY $ 7 $ –
Richmond RIC $ 7 $ 7 $ –
Martinez MTZ $ 11 $ 11 $ 9.50 $ –
Antioch ANT $ 11 $ 11 $ 9.50 $ 7.50 $ –
Sacramento SAC $ 22 $ 22 $ 22 $ 22.50 $ 22.50 $ -
Lodi LOD $ 14.50 $ 14.50 $ 14.50 $ 15 $ 15 $ 7.50 $ -
Stockton STK $ 11 $ 11 $ 9 $ 7.50 $ 5 $ 15 $ 7.50 $ -
Modesto MOD $ 22 $ 22 $ 22 $ 17 $ 16 $ 18 $ 13 $ 12 $ -
Turlock TUR $ 26 $ 26 $ 22 $ 21 $ 20 $ 21 $ 16 $ 12 $ 6.50 $ -
Merced MER $ 29 $ 28 $ 27 $ 24 $ 23 $ 25 $ 20 $ 17 $ 12 $ 9 $ -
Madera MAD $ 33 $ 33 $ 30 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 23 $ 22 $ 17 $ 16 $ 12 $ -
Fresno FSN $ 37 $ 37 $ 34 $ 32 $ 28 $ 31 $ 28 $ 26 $ 22 $ 19 $ 15 $ 8.50 $ -
Hanford HAN $ 39 $ 39 $ 36 $ 34 $ 33 $ 36 $ 30 $ 28 $ 26 $ 24 $ 20 $ 13 $ 6 $ -
Corcoran COR $ 45 $ 45 $ 42 $ 40 $ 36 $ 39 $ 33 $ 30 $ 28 $ 26 $ 22 $ 15 $ 15 $ 9 $ -
Wasco WAS $ 52 $ 52 $ 49 $ 47 $ 43 $ 45 $ 40 $ 37 $ 32 $ 29 $ 28 $ 22 $ 20 $ 15 $ 12 $ -
Bakersfield BAK $ 55 $ 55 $ 52 $ 51 $ 47 $ 51 $ 45 $ 42 $ 37 $ 34 $ 30 $ 27 $ 24 $ 19 $ 17 $ 4.50 $ -
Note: Fares based on one- way ticket cost.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 13
Table 2.8 Capitol Corridor Fares ( in 2005 Dollars)
SJC GRA FMT HAY JLS EMY BRK RCH MTZ SUI DAV SAC RSV RCK AUB
San Jose SJC $ –
Great America GRA $ 3.10 $ –
Fremont FMT $ 4.00 $ 4.00 $ –
Hayward HAY $ 6.20 $ 5.70 $ 3.30 $-
Jack London Sq. JLS $ 7.10 $ 6.20 $ 5.30 $ 3.50 $ –
Emeryville EMY $ 7.10 $ 6.60 $ 5.30 $ 4.20 $ 3.70 $ –
Berkeley BRK $ 7.10 $ 7.10 $ 5.70 $ 5.30 $ 3.70 $ 3.70 $ –
Richmond RCH $ 7.50 $ 7.10 $ 6.60 $ 5.30 $ 3.70 $ 3.70 $ 2.60 $ –
Martinez MTZ $ 10.50 $ 10.50 $ 9.50 $ 8.40 $ 6.80 $ 6.80 $ 6.30 $ 5.80 $ –
Suisun City SUI $ 13.10 $ 12.10 $ 10.50 $ 10.00 $ 8.40 $ 8.40 $ 8.40 $ 7.70 $ 5.30 $ –
Davis DAV $ 15.20 $ 14.70 $ 13.10 $ 13.10 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 10.00 $ 8.40 $ 6.80 $ –
Sacramento SAC $ 15.80 $ 15.80 $ 14.70 $ 13.70 $ 12.10 $ 12.10 $ 12.10 $ 10.50 $ 9.50 $ 8.40 $ 4.20 $ –
Roseville RSV $ 17.30 $ 17.30 $ 16.80 $ 15.20 $ 13.10 $ 13.10 $ 13.10 $ 13.10 $ 10.50 $ 9.50 $ 5.10 $ 4.70 $ –
Rocklin RCK $ 17.30 $ 17.30 $ 17.30 $ 15.20 $ 14.70 $ 14.70 $ 14.70 $ 13.50 $ 11.60 $ 8.20 $ 5.80 $ 4.70 $ 4.30 $ –
Auburn AUB $ 18.40 $ 18.40 $ 17.30 $ 17.30 $ 15.20 $ 15.20 $ 15.20 $ 14.70 $ 12.60 $ 8.20 $ 7.00 $ 5.80 $ 4.70 $ 3.30 $ –
Note: Fares based on single ride cost of 10- trip book.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.9 Pacific Surfliner Fares ( in 2005 Dollars)
SLO
GRV
GUA
SUR
SBA
CAR
VEN
OXN
CAM
SMV
CHA
VNY
BUR
GLN
LAU
FUL
ANA
SNA
MSV
SJC
OCN
SOL
SDE
Grover Beach $ 7 $ –
Guadalupe $ 12 $ 7 $ –
Surf $ 17 $ 17 $ 7 $ –
Santa Barbara $ 28 $ 25 $ 24 $ 10 $ –
Carpentaria $ 29 $ 29 $ 26 $ 14 $ 7 $ –
Ventura $ 30 $ 30 $ 27 $ 17 $ 12 $ 7 $ –
Oxnard $ 30 $ 30 $ 27 $ 18 $ 14 $ 10 $ 5 $ –
Camarillo $ 30 $ 30 $ 28 $ 20 $ 15 $ 12 $ 10 $ 5 $ –
Simi Valley $ 31 $ 31 $ 28 $ 23 $ 17 $ 14 $ 12 $ 10 $ 5 $ –
Chatsworth $ 31 $ 31 $ 29 $ 25 $ 19 $ 17 $ 16 $ 12 $ 10 $ 5 $ –
Van Nuys $ 31 $ 31 $ 29 $ 25 $ 21 $ 18 $ 16 $ 14 $ 12 $ 8 $ 5 $ –
Burbank $ 32 $ 32 $ 30 $ 25 $ 22 $ 20 $ 18 $ 16 $ 14 $ 10 $ 8 $ 5 $ –
Glendale $ 33 $ 32 $ 30 $ 27 $ 23 $ 21 $ 19 $ 17 $ 15 $ 12 $ 10 $ 7 $ 4 $ –
Los Angeles $ 34 $ 32 $ 31 $ 27 $ 24 $ 22 $ 20 $ 18 $ 16 $ 14 $ 12 $ 10 $ 8 $ 4 $ –
Fullerton $ 36 $ 36 $ 32 $ 30 $ 26 $ 24 $ 23 $ 20 $ 21 $ 17 $ 17 $ 14 $ 14 $ 10 $ 5 $ –
Anaheim $ 38 $ 37 $ 35 $ 32 $ 28 $ 26 $ 25 $ 24 $ 23 $ 19 $ 18 $ 17 $ 15 $ 12 $ 8 $ 5 $ –
Santa Ana $ 40 $ 38 $ 36 $ 33 $ 30 $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 $ 24 $ 21 $ 19 $ 19 $ 16 $ 14 $ 12 $ 8 $ 5 $ –
Mission Viejo $ 42 $ 42 $ 37 $ 34 $ 32 $ 30 $ 29 $ 27 $ 26 $ 23 $ 22 $ 20 $ 18 $ 17 $ 15 $ 12 $ 8 $ 5 $ –
San Juan
Capis.
$ 44 $ 42 $ 38 $ 36 $ 34 $ 32 $ 30 $ 29 $ 27 $ 25 $ 24 $ 22 $ 20 $ 18 $ 16 $ 14 $ 12 $ 10 $ 5 $ –
Oceanside $ 46 $ 43 $ 39 $ 35 $ 31 $ 31 $ 30 $ 30 $ 29 $ 29 $ 27 $ 25 $ 24 $ 23 $ 21 $ 17 $ 15 $ 14 $ 10 $ 9 $ –
Solana Beach $ 48 $ 44 $ 40 $ 36 $ 33 $ 33 $ 32 $ 32 $ 31 $ 31 $ 30 $ 28 $ 26 $ 25 $ 25 $ 23 $ 21 $ 19 $ 17 $ 15 $ 10 $ –
San Diego $ 51 $ 46 $ 42 $ 38 $ 35 $ 35 $ 34 $ 34 $ 33 $ 33 $ 32 $ 30 $ 28 $ 27 $ 26 $ 25 $ 23 $ 21 $ 19 $ 17 $ 14 $ 10 $ –
Note: Fares based on one- way ticket cost.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 15
Table 2.10 Metrolink Orange County Line Fares ( in 2005 Dollars)
Fare LAUS Comm. Norwalk Fullertn Anahm Orange
Santa
Ana Tustin Irvine
Laguna
Nigel
S. Juan
Capis.
San
Clmnte Ocnsde
LA Union Statn $ –
Commerce $ 3.76 $ –
Norwalk $ 4.45 $ 3.56 $ –
Fullerton $ 5.44 $ 4.65 $ 3.86 $ –
Anaheim $ 5.63 $ 5.34 $ 4.65 $ 3.66 $ –
Orange $ 6.52 $ 5.63 $ 4.94 $ 3.96 $ 3.17 $ –
Santa Ana $ 6.18 $ 5.93 $ 5.24 $ 4.25 $ 3.46 $ 3.17 $ –
Tustin $ 6.42 $ 5.83 $ 5.73 $ 4.75 $ 3.96 $ 3.76 $ 3.46 $ –
Irvine $ 7.21 $ 6.32 $ 5.63 $ 4.94 $ 4.45 $ 4.15 $ 3.86 $ 3.46 $ –
Laguna Nigel $ 7.90 $ 7.01 $ 6.72 $ 5.73 $ 5.34 $ 5.04 $ 4.94 $ 4.35 $ 3.76 $ –
San Juan Capis. $ 8.20 $ 7.41 $ 6.82 $ 6.22 $ 6.03 $ 5.73 $ 5.44 $ 4.84 $ 4.25 $ 3.37 $ –
San Clemente $ 8.79 $ 8.10 $ 7.80 $ 6.82 $ 6.62 $ 6.32 $ 6.03 $ 5.44 $ 4.84 $ 3.96 $ 3.46 $ –
Oceanside $ 11.05 $ 10.27 $ 9.67 $ 9.38 $ 8.59 $ 8.29 $ 8.29 $ 7.70 $ 7.11 $ 6.22 $ 5.73 $ 5.14 $ –
Note: Fares based on single ride cost of 10- trip book.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Access- Egress Costs
Airport hourly and daily on- and off- site parking charges are shown in
Table 2.11. Parking charges data were collected by MTC staff for San Francisco
and Oakland and by Cambridge Systematics staff for Los Angeles and Ontario
airports as part of a recent study. Parking rates for all other airports were
collected from an Internet search.
Table 2.11 Airport Parking Charges ( in 2005 Dollars)
Airport Hourly Daily On- Site Daily Off- Site
San Diego SAN $ 18.00
Santa Ana SNA $ 1.00 $ 17.00
Long Beach LGB $ 6.00-$ 15.00
Los Angeles LAX $ 3.00 $ 8.00-$ 30.00 $ 12.00
Ontario ONT $ 10.00 $ 8.50
Burbank BUR $ 2.00 $ 7.00-$ 30.00
San Jose SJC $ 15.00-$ 30.00
San Francisco SFO $ 5.00 $ 13.00-$ 38.00 $ 8.00-$ 15.00
Oakland OAK $ 4.00 $ 19.00-$ 32.00 $ 9.00-$ 13.00
Sacramento SMF $ 2.00 $ 7.00-$ 12.00
Palm Springs PSP $ 8.00
Oxnard OXR $ 6.00
Santa Barbara SBA $ 8.00-$ 16.00
Bakersfield BFL $ 6.50-$ 8.50
Fresno FAT $ 8.00-$ 12.00
Monterey MRY $ 6.00
Arcata/ Eureka ACV $ 6.00
Note: The mid- range of daily parking charges will be assumed for business
and commute trips; the hourly will be assumed for recreational and
other trips.
Conventional rail parking charges are typically free with some exceptions.
Parking charges apply at the Sacramento depot ( serving Capitol Corridor and
selected San Joaquin line trains), and at Oakland’s Jack London Square ( served
by Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin lines); however, the lot only contains
75 parking spaces and is generally half- filled each day. In Southern California,
parking at Los Angeles Union Station is $ 6.00 per day ( served by Metrolink and
Surfliner Routes).
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 17
High- speed rail is assumed to have ample market rate parking at all stations. For
initial forecasts, interregional parking charges at high- speed rail stations will be
set to a minimum rate of $ 3.00, except for areas where parking is already charged
( Table 2.12).
Table 2.12 Initial High- Speed Rail Daily Parking Charges ( in
2005 Dollars)
HSR Station
Daily Parking
Charges HSR Station
Daily Parking
Charges
San Francisco $ 25.00 Palmdale $ 3.00
Millbrae $ 3.00 Sylmar $ 3.00
Palo Alto $ 3.00 Burbank $ 3.00
San Jose $ 3.00 Los Angeles $ 6.00
Gilroy $ 3.00 Norwalk $ 3.00
Oakland $ 6.00 Anaheim $ 3.00
Oakland Airport $ 3.00 Irvine $ 3.00
Union City $ 3.00 E. San Gabriel Vly. $ 3.00
Pleasanton $ 3.00 Ontario $ 3.00
Sacramento $ 6.00 Riverside $ 3.00
Tracy $ 3.00 Temecula $ 3.00
Stockton $ 3.00 Escondido $ 3.00
Modesto $ 3.00 University City $ 3.00
Merced $ 3.00 San Diego $ 12.00
Fresno $ 3.00
Bakersfield $ 3.00
2.2 TRAVEL TIMES
Travel times for interregional travel modes are broken down into detailed
components; line- haul times ( the time spent in an airplane, high- speed, or
conventional train or automobile); access and egress times; terminal times; wait
times; and transfer times. Each of these components are defined and discussed
below.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Line- Haul Times
Auto
Auto travel times are derived by summing the travel time ( based on distance and
speed) in the highway network. These are available for the off- peak or free- flow
condition, but peak ( congested) auto travel times will not be available until the
model system has been completed. As a result, only the free- flow auto travel
times for the year 2000 are presented in this report in Table 2.13. Forecast year
auto travel times will also be available after the forecast models are run, as these
are produced by the model rather than input.
Table 2.13 Auto Travel Times between Selected City Pairs
Year 2000
Distance
( Miles)
Auto Free-
Flow Times
( Minutes)
Average
Speed
( Mile Per Hour)
Fresno- Oakland 181 170 64
Fresno- San Francisco 192 184 62
San Diego- Bakersfield 232 212 66
San Diego- San Francisco 501 450 67
San Diego- Oakland 491 436 68
Los Angeles- San Francisco 381 349 65
Los Angeles- Oakland 370 335 66
San Diego- Sacramento 504 446 68
San Francisco- Sacramento 87 83 63
Oakland – Sacramento 82 82 60
San Francisco- San Jose 50 56 54
Los Angeles- Palmdale 61 60 61
Los Angeles- Anaheim 31 30 62
Oakland- San Jose 43 44 59
Oakland- Fresno 181 175 62
San Francisco- Fresno 192 185 62
Bakersfield- San Diego 232 215 65
San Francisco- San Diego 501 453 66
Oakland- San Diego 491 435 68
San Francisco- Los Angeles 381 351 65
Oakland- Los Angeles 370 343 65
Sacramento- San Diego 504 443 68
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 19
Table 2.13 Auto Travel Times between Selected City Pairs
( continued)
Year 2000
Distance
( Miles)
Auto Free-
Flow Times
( Minutes)
Average
Speed
( Mile Per Hour)
Sacramento- San Francisco 87 85 61
Sacramento- Oakland 82 80 62
San Jose- San Francisco 50 57 53
Palmdale- Los Angeles 61 60 61
Anaheim- Los Angeles 31 30 62
San Jose- Oakland 43 45 57
Air
Intra- California airport to airport line- haul times are shown in Table 2.14.
Airport pairs without direct ( non- stop) service show line haul times with transfer
times included, since the air network represents all direct service. Travel times
were estimated for both 2000 and 2005 and there were small differences in these
travel times, but they were within the margin of error and there were many
unexplainable anomalies, so travel times for both 2000 and 2005 were set equal.
High- Speed Rail
High- speed rail line- haul times are shown in Table 2.15 and 2.16 for Pacheco Pass
and Altamont Pass, respectively. The high- speed rail times have been developed
by CHSRA’s rail operations consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff.
Conventional Rail
Conventional rail times are shown in Tables 2.17 through 2.21. Conventional rail
line travel times include Altamont Commuter Express, Capitol Corridor, San
Joaquin, Pacific Surfliner, and Metrolink – Orange County Route.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 20 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.14 Year 2000 and 2005 Airport Line- Haul Times
SAN SNA LGB LAX ONT BUR SJC SFO OAK SMF PSP OXR SBA BFL FAT MRY ACV MOD
San Diego SAN –
Santa Ana SNA – –
Long Beach LGB – – –
Los Angeles LAX 51 – – –
Ontario ONT – – – – –
Burbank BUR – – – – – –
San Jose SJC 81 76 – 73 66 68 –
San Francisco SFO 87 88 – 80 77 74 – –
Oakland OAK 89 83 85 79 72 70 – – –
Sacramento SMF 89 83 85 83 76 73 – 45 – –
Palm Springs PSP – – – 51 – – 197 178 234 220 –
Oxnard OXR – – – – – – – 175 208 223 – –
Santa Barbara SBA 202 – – 46 – – 63 74 237 209 – – –
Bakersfield BFL – – – – – – – 123 – 241 – – – –
Fresno FAT 223 209 – 66 – – – – – – – – – – –
Monterey MRY 242 215 – 85 – – – – – – 253 – – – – –
Arcata/ Eureka ACV 267 274 – 259 262 243 – 74 – – 330 – – – – – –
Modesto MOD 227 239 – 223 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Source: Federal Aviation Administration data from the 10 percent ticket sample.
Note: Line- haul times for outbound and return flights have been averaged to produce a single run time for both directions of travel. This
includes direct and connecting service for intrastate flights where demand in 2005 is greater than one trip per day ( 400 annual trips).
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 21
Table 2.15 High- Speed Rail Travel Times ( in Minutes) for Pacheco Pass
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Pacheco Pass 1 350 kph Travel Times. pdf, dated October 9, 2006
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 22 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.16 High- Speed Rail Travel Times ( in Minutes) for Altamont Pass
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Alttamont Pass 2 350 kph Travel Times. pdf, dated October 9, 2006
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 23
Table 2.17 Altamont Commuter Express Line- Haul Travel Times ( in Minutes)
Stcktn Lathrp Tracy Vasco Livrmr Plsntn Frmnt
Great
Amrca
Santa
Clara San Jose
Lathrop 19 –
Tracy 33 14 –
Vasco 63 44 30 –
Livermore 68 49 35 5 –
Pleasanton 76 57 43 13 8 –
Fremont 98 79 65 35 30 22 –
Great America 117 98 84 54 49 41 19 –
Santa Clara 126 112 98 68 63 55 33 14 –
San Jose 131 107 93 63 58 50 28 9 5 –
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 24 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.18 San Joaquin Line- Haul Travel Times ( in Minutes)
JLS EMY RIC MTZ ANT SAC LOD STK MOD TUR MER MAD FSN HAN COR WAS BAK
Oakland JLS –
Emeryville EMY 10 –
Richmond RIC 20 10 –
Martinez MTZ 53 43 33 –
Antioch ANT 72 62 52 19 –
Sacramento SAC 158 148 138 105 86 –
Lodi LOD 118 108 98 65 46 40 –
Stockton STK 103 93 83 50 31 55 15 –
Modesto MOD 136 126 116 83 64 88 48 33 –
Turlock TUR 150 140 130 97 78 102 62 47 14 –
Merced MER 173 163 153 120 101 125 85 70 37 23 –
Madera MAD 209 199 189 156 137 161 121 106 73 59 36 –
Fresno FSN 241 231 221 188 169 193 153 138 105 91 68 32 –
Hanford HAN 274 264 254 221 202 226 186 171 138 124 101 65 33 –
Corcoran COR 290 280 270 237 218 242 202 187 154 140 117 81 49 9 –
Wasco WAS 362 352 342 309 290 314 274 259 226 212 189 153 121 - 22 31 –
Bakersfield BAK 403 393 383 350 331 355 315 300 267 253 230 194 162 19 72 41 –
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 25
Table 2.19 Capitol Corridor Line- Haul Travel Times ( in Minutes)
SJC GRA FMT HAY JLS EMY BRK RCH MTZ SUI DAV SAC RSV RCK AUB
San Jose SJC –
Great America GRA 16 –
Fremont FMT 35 19 –
Hayward HAY 51 35 16 –
Jack London Sq. JLS 72 56 37 21 –
Emeryville EMY 86 70 51 35 14 –
Berkeley BRK 94 78 59 43 22 8 –
Richmond RCH 101 85 66 50 29 15 7 –
Martinez MTZ 128 112 93 77 56 42 34 27 –
Suisun City SUI 150 134 115 99 78 64 56 49 22 –
Davis DAV 175 159 140 124 103 89 81 74 47 25 –
Sacramento SAC 197 181 162 146 125 111 103 96 69 47 22 –
Roseville RSV 226 210 191 175 154 140 132 125 98 76 51 29 –
Rocklin RCK 236 220 201 185 164 150 142 135 108 86 61 39 10 –
Auburn AUB 259 243 224 208 187 173 165 158 131 109 84 62 33 23 –
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 26 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.20 Pacific Surfliner Year 2000 Line- Haul Travel Times ( in Minutes)
SLO
GRV
GUA
SUR
SBA
CAR
VEN
OXN
CAM
SMV
CHA
VNY
BUR
GLN
LAU
FUL
ANA
SNA
MSV
SJC
OCN
SOL
SDE
Grover Beach 27 -
Guadalupe 50 32 -
Surf 99 80 53 -
Santa Barbara 144 125 99 57 -
Carpentaria 163 144 117 76 21 -
Ventura 183 165 138 97 42 23 -
Oxnard 197 179 152 111 56 37 16 -
Camarillo 212 193 167 125 70 51 30 16 -
Simi Valley 241 223 196 155 100 80 59 45 38 -
Chatsworth 253 235 208 167 112 93 72 58 50 19 -
Van Nuys 265 247 220 179 124 105 83 69 62 31 15 -
Burbank 274 256 229 188 133 114 92 79 71 40 24 10 -
Glendale 285 267 240 199 144 124 103 89 82 51 35 21 14 -
Los Angeles 301 283 256 214 160 140 119 105 98 67 51 37 30 13 -
Fullerton 334 315 288 247 192 173 152 138 130 99 84 69 63 49 33 -
Anaheim 342 324 297 256 201 182 160 147 139 108 93 78 71 58 42 11 -
Santa Ana 351 332 305 264 209 190 169 155 147 117 101 87 80 67 50 19 10 -
Mission Viejo 366 348 321 280 225 206 184 171 163 132 117 102 95 82 66 35 25 16 -
San Juan Capis. 378 359 333 291 236 217 196 182 174 144 128 114 107 94 78 46 37 27 21 -
Oceanside 411 393 366 325 270 251 230 216 208 177 162 147 140 127 111 80 71 61 55 38 -
Solana Beach 426 408 381 340 285 266 244 230 223 192 176 162 155 142 126 94 85 76 69 53 16 -
San Diego 470 451 424 383 328 309 288 274 266 235 220 205 199 185 169 138 129 119 113 96 60 44 -
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 27
Table 2.21 Metrolink Orange County Line Year 2000 Line- Haul Times
Fare LAUS Comm. Norwalk Fullertn Anahm Orange
Santa
Ana Tustin Irvine
Laguna
Nigel
S Juan
Cpstrno
San
Clmnte Ocnsde
LAUS –
Commerce 13 –
Norwalk 24 11 –
Fullerton 35 22 11 –
Anaheim 43 30 19 8 –
Orange 47 34 23 12 4 –
Santa Ana 52 39 28 17 9 5 –
Tustin 59 46 35 24 16 12 7 –
Irvine 67 54 43 32 24 20 15 8 –
Laguna Nigel 77 64 53 42 34 30 25 18 10 –
San Juan Capis. 84 71 60 49 41 37 32 25 17 7 –
San Clemente 97 84 73 62 54 50 45 38 30 20 13 –
Oceanside 120 107 96 85 77 73 68 61 53 43 36 23 –
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 28
Frequencies
Air
Observed air travel frequencies were obtained from FAA reports. These
frequencies represent only direct service within California. They were
developed for both peak and off- peak conditions. Tables 2.22 and 2.23
present daily air travel frequencies for selected airport pairs that will be used
in the high- speed rail study for year 2000 and 2005, respectively.
High- Speed Rail
Generalized peak period high- speed rail frequencies are shown in Figures 2.1
and 2.2 for the initial northern and southern alignment alternatives.
( Section 4.0 examines study alternatives in more detail.) These frequencies
are assumed as an initial starting point for forecasting purposes and may be
adjusted to test official operating scenarios. Testing of altenrative service
scenarios will be done in an iterative process. These figures show only the
junction stations or stations with express service. For example, LAUS is the
junction for the two Southern California lines ( Irvine and San Diego).
High- speed rail schedules are a fairly complex mix of local, express, regional,
semi- express, and suburban express trains. The headways shown in the
following two figures distinguish all trains versus express trains. For
example, there are projected to be four peak- period trains per hour that
operate between San Francisco/ San Jose to Los Angeles – split roughly
equally between express and non- express services. Local and semi- express
trains will stop at intermediate stations not shown in the following figures,
while express trains ( represented by dashed lines) run non- stop between
displayed station pairs.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 29
Table 2.22 Year 2000 Daily Airport Headways In Minutes
SAN
SNA
( 1)
LGB
( 1)
LAX
( 1)
ONT
( 1)
BUR
( 1) SJC SFO OAK SMF PSP OXR SBA BFL FAT MRY ACV MOD
San Diego SAN – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Santa Ana SNA – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Long Beach LGB – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Los Angeles LAX 23 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Ontario ONT – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Burbank BUR – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
San Jose ( 1) SJC 35 54 – 20 131 125 – – – – – – – – – – – –
San Francisco
( 1)
SFO 18 31 – 11 50 36 – – – – – – – – – – – –
Oakland ( 1) OAK 37 46 160 18 65 67 – – – – – – – – – – – –
Sacramento SMF 28 76 120 26 59 52 – 70 – – – – – – – – – –
Palm Springs ( 1) PSP – – – 47 – – 120 54 93 96 – – – – – – – –
Oxnard ( 1) OXR – – – – – – – 144 206 144 – – – – – – – –
Santa Barbara SBA 48 – – 50 – – 131 76 46 111 – – – – – – – –
Bakersfield BFL – – – – – – – 96 – 160 – – – – – – – –
Fresno FAT 59 47 – 37 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Monterey MRY 60 93 – 43 – – – – – – 137 – – – – – – –
Arcata ACV 120 160 – 111 144 80 – 152 – – 480 – – – – – – –
Modesto MOD 160 160 – 103 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Source: Federal Aviation Administration data from the 10 percent ticket sample, supplemented with internet queries in August, 2006. This includes
direct and connecting service for intra- state flights where demand in 2005 is greater than one trip per day ( 400 annual trips).
Note ( 1) Headways from San Francisco to Los Angeles region airports were assumed to be half the quoted headway because most travelers have
more than one airport choice and therefore have twice as many air trips to choose from.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 30 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.23 Year 2005 Peak- Period Airport Headways In Minutes
SAN
SNA
( 1)
LGB
( 1)
LAX
( 1)
ONT
( 1)
BUR
( 1) SJC SFO OAK SMF PSP OXR SBA BFL FAT MRY ACV MOD
San Diego SAN – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Santa Ana SNA – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Long Beach LGB – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Los Angeles LAX 42 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Ontario ONT – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Burbank BUR – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
San Jose ( 1) SJC 29 65 – 43 144 144 – – – – – – – – – – – –
San Francisco
( 1)
SFO 29 65 – 18 360 90 – – – – – – – – – – – –
Oakland ( 1) OAK 41 45 180 51 111 85 – – – – – – – – – – – –
Sacramento SMF 23 115 120 85 59 59 – 85 – – – – – – – – – –
Palm Springs ( 1) PSP – – – 169 – – 411 111 240 262 – – – – – – – –
Oxnard ( 1) OXR – – – – – – – 262 360 262 – – – – – – – –
Santa Barbara SBA 33 – – 65 – – 169 63 360 78 – – – – – – – –
Bakersfield BFL – – – – – – – 125 – 288 – – – – – – – –
Fresno FAT 131 65 – 45 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Monterey MRY 111 64 – 111 – – – – – – 131 – – – – – – –
Arcata ACV 36 411 – 40 180 76 – 103 – – 720 – – – – – – –
Modesto MOD 288 288 – 152 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Source: Federal Aviation Administration data from the 10 percent ticket sample, supplemented with internet queries in August, 2006. This includes
direct and connecting service for intra- state flights where demand in 2005 is greater than 1 trip per day ( 400 annual trips).
Note ( 1) Headways from San Francisco to Los Angeles region airports were assumed to be half the quoted headway because most travelers have
more than one airport choice and therefore have twice as many air trips to choose from.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 31
Figure 2.1 Generalized High- Speed Rail Peak Headways
( in Minutes)
Southern Alignment Initial Alternative
60
Local trains ( stops at intermediate stations)
All trains, including express
60
75
Fresno
12
25
15
30
Merced
San Diego
San Francisco 60
San Jose
Sacramento
Gilroy
45 45
30
Los Angeles
Irvine
15
Note: Only high- speed rail junction and express train stations shown.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 32 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 2.2 Generalized High- Speed Rail Peak Headways
( in Minutes)
Northern Alignment Initial Alternative
60
Local trains ( stops at intermediate stations)
All trains, including express
45
Modesto
12
25
15
30
Stockton
San Diego
San Francisco 60
San Jose
Sacramento
Tracy
45
30
Los Angeles
Irvine
15
75
60 30
Note: Only high- speed rail junction and express train stations shown.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 33
Conventional Rail
Conventional rail frequencies are not as complex as air or high- speed rail
services. Headways for the five conventional rail lines have been coded as
shown in Table 2.24 ( services are in both directions).
Table 2.24 Interregional Conventional Rail Frequencies
( in Minutes)
Year 2000 Year 2005
Line AM Peak Off- Peak AM Peak Off- Peak
San Joaquin – Oakland 180 360 180 360
San Joaquin – Sacramento – – 360 360
Capitol Corridor – Auburn 120 180 90 150
Capitol Corridor – Sacramento 120 180 90 150
Altamont Commuter Express 60 – 60 –
Pacific Surfliner – San Luis Obispo 180 – 180 360
Pacific Surfliner – Santa Barbara 75 120 75 90
Metrolink – Orange County Line 60 120 60 120
Access- Egress Times
Access and egress times are compiled for all mass transportation modes – air
travel, and conventional and high- speed rail. There are no access- egress times
for auto modes; out- of- vehicle time for auto is identified as terminal time and
this is covered in a separate section below. Access- egress times cover the time
required to travel from home ( or activity location, such as from a workplace) to
the curb of the train station/ airport terminal. Times inside the stations/
terminals include both terminal and wait times, and are covered in the next two
subsections.
The choice of mode to and from airports, conventional rail stations, and high-speed
rail stations includes drive and park, picked- up/ dropped off, rental car,
taxi, transit, and walk. The auto- based modes ( drive and park/ picked- up/
dropped off, rental car and taxi) will all use highway network travel times for
peak or off- peak travel. The walk network is based on the highway network,
with freeways and expressways removed, and walk speeds are set to 3 miles per
hour on all remaining arterial and collector links.
Wait Times
Wait time refers to the time between arriving at the airline gate or train platform,
and closing of the airplane or train door after everyone has boarded. The time
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 34 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
spent prior to arriving at the airline gate or train platform is the terminal time,
and is discussed further below.
Air
For air travel, the wait time includes both the time spent waiting at the gate for
the plane to arrive; the actual boarding time; and the time up until the plane,
loaded with passengers, leaves the gate area. Once the plane leaves the gate,
line- haul time begins.
An initial review of wait times for air travelers in the surveys collected for this
project revealed no significant difference between wait times for business and
non- business travelers. In addition, we believe that air traveler wait times are
not a function of the air service frequencies, as recommended by the peer review
panel. The rationale for using set wait times is each seat must be reserved in
advance, so the presence of more or less frequent service between airport pairs
does not influence the wait times. As a result, air wait times for air passengers
will be set based on a review of the surveys reported wait times at 55 minutes.
The air wait times are derived from self- reported data on arrival time before
departure in the air passenger travel surveys collected for this study, which
includes both wait and terminal times.
Rail
For rail travel, the wait times are lower than air for a number of reasons. First,
trains will have numerous doors, making boarding a train a much faster
proposition than boarding an airplane. In addition, the hassle and time variance
of getting a boarding pass, checking luggage, and getting through security
requires arrival at the airport earlier than at a train station without security
checkpoints. It is explicitly assumed that high- speed rail will not have the
elaborate security check- in procedures, boarding passes will not be required to
wait for a train, seats are not assigned, and that luggage is typically self- carried
on the train.
High- speed and conventional rail wait times were discussed during the peer
review panel meeting. The Peer Review Panel recommended interregional rail
travel wait times in the range of 10 to 20 minutes, with higher values for non-business
travel. The air passenger surveys, however, did not support separate
wait times for business and non- business travelers; therefore, we propose to use
a single wait time value for rail passengers as well. The rail wait time is set at
15 minutes for both high- speed and conventional rail travelers.
All of these factors combine to make train wait times much shorter than for air
travel. There are currently no plans for airport security measures at high- speed
rail stations, but sensitivity tests may be conducted to test the impact of
additional wait times.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 35
Terminal Times
Terminal time is the amount of time it takes someone to travel between their
access mode and the airport boarding area or train platform. It also includes the
time it takes an auto traveler to walk from their car to their destination. Terminal
times are defined for both access and egress ends. At the origin/ access end of a
trip, terminal time includes the following:
· Time to walk ( or ride a shuttle) between the parking area and terminal;
· Time to receive a ticket or boarding pass;
· Time to check luggage;
· Time to clear security; and
· Time to walk from security to the boarding area or platform.
Destination/ egress end of a trip, terminal time includes:
· Time to de- board the airplane or train;
· Time to walk from the plane/ train to baggage claim;
· Time to pick up baggage; and
· Time to walk ( or ride a shuttle) between the terminal and parking area, or to
other ground transportation modes.
Air and Rail
Terminal times were determined from a combination of peer review
recommendations and subsequent refinements made by Cambridge Systematics.
The following terminal times will be used:
· 12 minutes for downtown/ terminal high- speed rail stations in San Diego,
Irvine, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Oakland. ( These are the
larger proposed high- speed rail stations, with more distant parking and
longer walk times to local ground transportation.)
· 8 minutes for other high- speed rail stations;
· 24 minutes for non- business/ commute trips at Los Angeles and San
Francisco Airports;
· 20 minutes for non- business/ commute trips at other airports;
· 22 minutes for business/ commute trips at Los Angeles and San Francisco
airports; and
· 18 minutes for business/ commute trips at other airports.
These values average out to the 10- minute high- speed rail and 20- minute air
terminal time recommendations of the peer group, but provide more
differentiation that travelers generally encounter at larger airports and
( presumably) high- speed rail stations.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 36 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Conventional rail terminal times are split, depending on whether high- speed rail
service is also included. In the case of a station serving both conventional and
high- speed rail, terminal times will be set to 10 minutes for interregional
conventional rail service. In other cases, where only conventional rail service is
provided, terminal times will be set to 3 minutes.
Auto
Terminal times are added to represent the average time to access one’s vehicle at
each end of the trip. The Caltrans Statewide Model assumes an average terminal
time at the production ( home) end of trips and at the trip attraction based on the
area type of the zone, as demonstrated in Table 2.25. The longer terminal times
in central urban areas are assumed because of the extra time involved in finding
parking and walking between a parking space and the final destination.
Table 2.25 Auto Terminal Times in Minutes
Area Type
Production/
Origin Zone
Attraction/
Destination Zone
Central Urban 2 5
Urban 1 2
Small Urban 1 1
Rural 1 1
Source: California Department of Transportation and Dowling Association,
Caltrans Statewide Model Description, Table 10, January 20, 2004.
Transfer Times
Transfer times apply when connecting from one mass transportation mode to
another. In typical urban travel models, transfer wait times are defined as half
the headway of the connecting modes. For interregional travel, transfer times are
somewhat more complicated because local transit access/ egress to/ from the
high- speed rail modes is part of the access/ egress time.
Because the interregional travel mode will be the primary mode of travel, it is
assumed the traveler will know the schedule of the interregional mode, and will
plan their trip accordingly. As a result, no time will be assessed for trips that
include using local transit to access the interregional mode.
For example, consider a traveler living in San Francisco and traveling to
Southern California. This traveler will take Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) to
San Francisco Airport, followed by a flight to a Southern California airport. The
notion of assessing a transfer time of half the airline headway ( or some similar
such measure) does not make sense since the traveler will obviously take a BART
train that gets him/ her to the airport on time for their flight. In this case, all of
the relevant access travel time components are applied – a walk to the BART
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 37
station, a wait for the BART train to arrive, and the actual BART ride. From
there, the traveler will walk from the BART platform to the San Francisco Airport
entrance. The times, in total, comprise the access time. This traveler will have
the airport terminal and wait times, as well as the airline flight time, for their
trip, so an assessment of a transfer time for this trip would be redundant and
unrealistic.
Nevertheless, the egress mode for the return trip would assess the typical
transfer time – for the airline to BART connection. In this case, the traveler will
have flown back to San Francisco Airport and will need to transfer to BART.
Coming off a relatively long flight and egress terminal time, the traveler will
likely to have to wait half the BART headway. The peer review panel suggested
that the transfer egress time be capped at 15 minutes, and that recommendation
has been implemented.
Examples of Door- to- Door Travel Time Calculations
The descriptions above of the travel time components are complex and detailed.
To help illustrate the components of travel time – as well as to compare air and
high- speed rail, three selected interregional trips are examined in Table 2.26. For
each of these three trips, the door- to- door travel times are presented by access/
egress times, terminal times, wait times, and line- haul times. The sections above
provide detailed explanations of each of these travel time components.
2.3 RELIABILITY
Reliability is a new measure that is included directly into the interregional mode
choice models currently under development. Information collected was from
correspondences with conventional rail system planners, FAA data, and
previous high- speed rail environmental documentation ( 2003).
The stated- preference surveys collected for this study included the following
reliability options across modes as part of the overall choice experiments. The
reliability question was posed for each of four modes as the percent variations in
the frequency of encountered delays.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 38 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.26 Selected Detailed Door- to- Door Travel Times by Interregional
Mode and Trip Purpose ( in Minutes)
Time Component Description Air HSR
Auto @
60 mph
Cupertino to Downtown Los Angeles
Access From origin to station/ airport curb 20 20
Terminal Curb to waiting area 18 8 1
Wait Wait for plane/ train; board vehicle 55 15
Line- haul Train ride/ flight; in- vehicle 65 125 350
Terminal Seat to curb 22 12 5
Egress Station/ airport curb to destination 30 10
Total door- to- door travel times 210 190 356
San Diego ( Gas Lamp Quarter) to West Hollywood
Access From origin to station/ airport curb 10 10
Terminal Curb to waiting area 18 8 2
Wait Wait for plane/ train; board vehicle 55 15
Line- haul Train ride/ flight; in- vehicle 34 62 162
Terminal Seat to curb 22 12 2
Egress Station/ airport curb to destination 30 30
Total door- to- door travel times 169 137 166
Clovis to Downtown San Francisco
Access From origin to station/ airport curb 10 20
Terminal Curb to waiting area 18 8 1
Wait Wait for plane/ train; board vehicle 55 15
Line- haul Train ride/ flight; in- vehicle 46 79 185
Terminal Seat to curb 22 12 5
Egress Station/ airport curb to destination 30 10
Total door- to- door travel times 181 144 191
Note: Auto is shown here as an example of auto times at 60 miles per hour, but the model travel
times will be based on congested conditions.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 39
· Travel by auto – percent of the time there are no extra delays of more than
15 minutes;
· Travel by air – percent of flights that arrive within 15 minutes of schedule;
· Travel by conventional rail – percent of trains that arrive within 15 minutes
of schedule; and
· Travel by high- speed rail – percent of trains that arrive within 5 minutes of
schedule.
These data did not result in a significant parameter in the mode choice models.
In conjunction with the peer review panel, we hypothesized that this was
because the survey questions on reliability were too narrow ( i. e., percent of
flights or trains that arrive within 15 minutes), making it difficult for travelers to
distinguish between the modes for longer interregional travel decisions. As a
result, Cambridge Systematics modified the definition of the reliability measure
to reflect the percent of flights or trains that arrive within 60 minutes, which will
increase the impact this reliability has on a person’s modal choice. In turn, the
consultant team, in consultation with MTC and other study participants, has
constrained the reliability measure in the mode choice models to reflect this
change. The remainder of this section describes the development of the
reliability measures for model application.
Auto Travel
Highways tend to be the least reliable of the four modes on a day- in, day- out
basis. Reliability on highways is highly susceptible to incidents, weather,
volume variation, and inadequate base capacity. On two of these factors
( construction and special events), auto is more susceptible than the other modes.
It is only when considering the influence of vehicle availability and routing that
highways have a lower susceptibility than all other modes.
The measure of reliability that has been used on a series of studies by Cambridge
Systematics is the freeway vehicle hours of delay. This measure indicates that as
delay on the freeway increases, the overall reliability of the system would tend to
decrease. The probability, expressed in decimal terms, of an auto traveler
arriving within 60 minutes of the congested travel time can be found with the
following function:
( )
    


    


 

 
+  -
= +
TO
TC TO
TC
TC
P
* 60 *
0.18
( / 1)
0.0073*
60
0.117647 5.2695
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 40 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Where:
TO = Free- flow travel time in minutes; and
TC = Congested travel time in minutes.
The prior equation uses the concept of “ travel time index,” and essentially looks
at the likelihood that someone’s trip will be delayed by 60 minutes or more by
non- recurring incident delay. The probability is referenced against congested
travel time, since auto travelers presumably already account for the effects of
recurring congestion in their mode choice decisions. The portion of the equation
shown in bold represents the estimate of incident delay, measured in minutes.
There are a number of major simplifications and limitations with the preceding
equation including, but not limited to, the following:
· The equation uses the freeway volume delay function for all origin-destination
pairs. This function says that:
TC = TO ( 1+ 0.18( Volume/ Capacity) 8.5.
· Travel distance is estimated using free- flow travel time and an assumed free-flow
speed of 60 mph for all origin- destination pairs.
· The equation uses an incident delay function development for the Federal
Highway Administration ( FHWA) ITS Deployment Analysis System ( IDAS)
software package for 6- lane freeways ( 3 lanes per direction). Linear
regression was used to approximate a continuous function from the discrete
look- up table in the IDAS User’s Manual2. The IDAS “ rates for off- peak or
daily” reliability were used, with an additional assumption that the “ 1- hour
level of service capacity” was equal to 1/ 14th of the link capacities in the high-speed
rail model.
· The equation estimates incident delay uses average volume- to- capacity
( V/ C) ratio over the entire length of the trip. This is a limitation, as IDAS
estimates incident delay from the V/ C ratio on each individual link, but the
equation has been scaled to account for this.
This auto reliability measure relies on existing research to define the function for
determining auto reliability, but is applied on an origin- destination basis, rather
than a link basis for the purposes of this study. The resulting percent reliability
estimates for a trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco are in the range of 67 to
92 percent, depending on the specific details of a trip. Trips with no congestion
will have 100 percent reliability.
2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., ITS Deployment Analysis System ( IDAS) © User’s Manual
v. 23, prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, July 2003.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 41
Air
Airline reliability data for 2000 and 2005, as well as forecasts for 2025 were
compiled from the FAA data. Table 2.27 presents airport- to- airport reliability
statistics for airports with the largest numbers of flights in 2000 and 2005. Airline
travel shows reliability improvements since 2000, probably due to the airline
practice of increasing scheduled air times to allow for better on- time
performance.
Conventional Rail
To gather conventional rail data, e- mails were sent to Henning Eichler
( Metrolink), Brian Schmidt ( ACE), and Steve Roberts ( Amtrak). There was no
available on- time performance data for rail services arriving within 60 minutes of
the scheduled time. The proposed measurement takes into account the same
relationship that air performance has between 5 and 60 minutes, and assesses
individual performance for each service. The following reliability measures were
obtained and estimated:
· ACE – Reliability for ACE was measured within 5 minutes in the “ Low 90s”
through 1995. Since last year, ACE has had a number of reliability issues due
to sharing track with freight rail. On- time performance within 60 minutes
was estimated at 97 percent.
· Metrolink – Metrolink reliability is tracked monthly route. Year 2000
reliability averaged 95 percent in 2000 and 94 percent in 2005. Metrolink
reliability is measured as the percentage of trains arriving within 5 minutes of
scheduled time. On- time performance within 60 minutes was estimated at
98 percent.
· San Joaquins – The 5- year on- time performance within 5 minutes is
70 percent. On- time performance within 60 minutes was estimated at
89 percent.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 42 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 2.27 Airline Reliability
Percent More than 60 Minutes
late ( Including Canceled
and Diverted) Flights
Origin Dest 2000 2005 2025 2000 2005
Los Angeles San Francisco 12.1% 6.1% 7.7% 16,021 8,427
San Francisco Los Angeles 11.9% 5.0% 6.3% 15,967 8,503
Oakland Los Angeles 9.2% 5.8% 7.4% 11,944 9,646
Los Angeles Oakland 7.7% 4.7% 6.1% 11,861 9,665
Los Angeles San Jose 7.9% 5.3% 6.3% 10,911 10,234
San Jose Los Angeles 10.3% 4.2% 5.5% 10,861 10,237
San Diego San Francisco 11.1% 5.0% 6.3% 7,320 3,332
San Francisco San Diego 10.0% 4.2% 5.3% 7,288 3,090
San Jose Santa Ana 6.3% 3.4% 4.2% 5,450 5,290
Santa Ana San Jose 6.1% 4.0% 4.7% 5,435 5,457
San Jose San Diego 7.7% 4.7% 5.8% 5,253 6,588
San Diego San Jose 9.0% 4.2% 5.0% 5,231 6,603
Sacramento Los Angeles 10.0% 5.0% 6.1% 5,229 5,608
Los Angeles Sacramento 8.4% 5.5% 6.9% 5,181 5,627
Burbank Oakland 6.1% 4.7% 5.8% 5,152 4,894
Oakland Burbank 7.7% 5.5% 6.6% 5,124 4,906
Oakland Ontario 5.5% 5.3% 6.6% 4,512 4,471
Burbank San Francisco 10.8% 6.9% 8.4% 4,356 2,778
San Francisco Burbank 10.6% 5.8% 7.4% 4,356 2,416
Ontario Oakland 7.4% 5.0% 6.3% 4,151 4,468
Santa Ana Oakland 5.5% 4.7% 5.8% 4,135 4,545
Oakland Santa Ana 5.5% 4.5% 5.5% 4,133 4,538
San Diego Sacramento 7.7% 5.8% 6.9% 3,852 4,853
San Diego Oakland 6.9% 5.8% 7.1% 3,847 6,198
Sacramento San Diego 7.1% 5.3% 6.1% 3,847 4,852
Santa Ana San Francisco 10.3% 5.8% 7.1% 3,840 3,832
San Francisco Santa Ana 7.9% 4.5% 5.5% 3,826 3,753
Oakland San Diego 6.1% 5.0% 5.8% 3,795 6,208
Sacramento Ontario 6.1% 4.5% 5.3% 3,713 4,087
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2- 43
Table 2.27 Airline Reliability ( continued)
Percent More than 60 Minutes
late ( Including Canceled
and Diverted) Flights
Origin Dest 2000 2005 2025 2000 2005
Ontario Sacramento 5.8% 4.7% 5.8% 3,686 4,072
Sacramento Burbank 5.8% 4.5% 5.3% 3,410 3,404
Burbank Sacramento 6.9% 4.7% 5.8% 3,389 3,406
Burbank Santa Ana 6.3% 3.7% 4.5% 2,761 3,089
Santa Ana Burbank 7.7% 4.5% 5.5% 2,760 3,070
Santa Ana San Diego 8.2% 3.4% 4.5% 2,575 15,223
San Diego Santa Ana 7.4% 3.2% 4.0% 2,573 15,237
Ontario San Jose 7.4% 4.5% 5.5% 2,454 3,095
San Jose Ontario 6.6% 4.5% 5.5% 2,452 3,070
Ontario San Francisco 10.0% 7.1% 8.7% 2,163 215
San Francisco Ontario 10.6% 5.0% 6.1% 2,161 215
San Francisco Santa
Barbara
9.2% 5.5% 6.6% 1,666 2,983
Santa Barbara San Francisco 9.0% 6.3% 7.7% 1,620 2,869
Santa Ana Sacramento 6.1% 5.3% 6.3% 1,560 2,461
Sacramento Santa Ana 5.3% 4.2% 5.0% 1,560 2,459
Santa Barbara Los Angeles 6.6% 2.6% 3.2% 981 5,911
San Francisco Palm Springs 8.4% 8.4% 10.8% 936 965
Palm Springs San Francisco 7.1% 6.3% 7.9% 935 947
Los Angeles Santa
Barbara
10.0% 2.6% 3.4% 932 5,692
Palm Springs Los Angeles 7.1% 4.7% 5.8% 918 3,342
Los Angeles Palm Springs 7.9% 4.0% 5.0% 918 3,321
San Francisco Monterey 10.3% 5.5% 6.6% 341 2,633
Average 8.6% 4.7% 5.8%
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
2- 44 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
· Capitol Corridor – The 5- year on- time performance within 5 minutes is
82 percent. On- time performance within 60 minutes was estimated at
94 percent.
· Surfliners – The 5- year on- time performance within 5 minutes is 83 percent.
On- time performance within 60 minutes was estimated at 94 percent.
High- Speed Rail
Typical high- speed rail reliability for European and Japanese systems was
analyzed by Systra staff. On dedicated high- speed rail track, even with express
and local trains, both the French and Japanese have reported average delays of 29
to 40 seconds per train ( including weather and earthquake delays), which is more
than 99 percent on time ( within 10 minutes of schedule in European practice).
This is possible since the dispatching and signal/ control environment are
managed as a consistent centralized unit with very few opportunities for delay.
The ensemble of TGVs have been running at around 90 percent on time, because
they also operate on conventional lines with different types of equipment, grade
crossings, and other opportunities for slow down. About one- half of the
operating mileage is on conventional lines. In Japan, almost all the mileage is on
dedicated right- of- way ( ROW).
In California, there will be origin- destination pairs that will have 100 percent
dedicated ROWs, where a very high on- time performance ( OTP) could be
expected. This would include any origin- destination for San Diego- Los Angeles-
Central Valley- Sacramento. Trains running into the Bay Area and Orange
County would have more interaction with other operators, although there would
be no grade crossings. An assumed 95 percent OTP within 5 minutes would
represent a reasonable high- speed rail service assumption. OTP depends a lot on
the schedule padding and assumes the standard 5 percent padding in the times.
This translates to 99 percent reliability for the defined criteria of OTP within
60 minutes.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 1
3.0 Future Baseline Network
3.1 PROJECT LIST
The future baseline networks were developed for each horizon year, including
2020, 2030, and 2050. For each of these years, assumptions about transportation
infrastructure improvements must be made. The 2030 horizon year presents the
best source of information, since this year is close to the horizon year for regional
and metropolitan transportation plans ( RTPs and MTPs, respectively).
RTPs/ MTPs for the four major urban areas have been identified and coded into
the baseline transit and highway networks. The consultant team consulted the
statewide travel model ( STM) for other areas of the State – particularly the
Central Valley. Assumptions about network improvements are identified by
comparing the base and future networks.
MTC staff has identified planned transit and highway improvements included in
MTC’s current RTP. MTC has split out improvements that have been
implemented since 2000, thus provided a ready list of projects that differentiate
the 2000 model year from 2005 existing conditions. Transit improvements have
been summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.2 summarizes changes in the Bay Area highway networks. Projects are
summarized for 2000 to 2006 and for 2006 through 2030 ( financially- constrained
alternative).
Projects for other metropolitan areas were summarized more broadly. Current
RTP/ MTP project lists were scanned for major initiatives exceeding $ 100 million
for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG), SCAG, and San
Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG) regions. These are summarized
in Tables 3.3 through 3.5. It was not readily distinguishable which projects have
already been implemented since 2000, and which are planned post- 2006.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
3- 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 3.1 San Francisco Bay Area Transit Improvements
2000 Through 2005
Year Improvements
AC Transit 2003 New Line M on San Mateo Bridge
2003 San Pablo Ave Rapid Bus
2003 Significant service cuts
2004 Dumbarton Bridge Bus: Fremont- Stanford Univ.
2005 Significant increase in service
ACE 2001 Santa Clara station opens
BART 2003 SFO extension; 4 new stations to SFO & Millbrae
Caltrain 2002 Elimination of four trains
2004 Baby Bullet service kicks off; trains Increased to 86
2005 Two more Baby Bullets runs: 88 total 88 trains
2005 Expanded Baby Bullet – new stops at San Mateo, Redwood City,
Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, and Tamien; total 96 trains
GGT 2003 14 bus routes eliminated
2003 25% service reduction
MUNI 2005 Service reduced by 4.2%
SamTrans 2003 6 routes eliminated and 20 routes modified
2004 Service reduced in nearly a quarter of its routes
2004 Express bus to Millbrae from East Palo Alto, bus. Parks, hotels
VTA 2005 Vasona LRT line with 8 stations: San Fernando- Winchester
Financially- Constrained RTP Transit Projects ( Post- 2005)
BART 5.4 mile Extension from Fremont to Warm Springs
Oakland airport connector: 3.2 miles to Coliseum BART
“ E BART” commuter rail: Bay Point BART to Byron ( 6 stations)
AC Transit BRT from Berkeley through Oakland to San Leandro
MUNI 2006 MUNI 3rd Street Light Rail
Chinatown Central Subway: 3rd St LRT extension
Caltrain Electrification to Gilroy; times reduced by 3% on Baby Bullets and
by12% on all other trains
Dumbarton Rail: Union City to Millbrae & San Jose
Amtrak Capitol Corridor headways reduced to 60 peak and 90 minutes
midday in the Oakland- San Jose Line
Ferries Richmond to San Francisco Ferry Building added
Redwood City to San Francisco Ferry Building added
Redwood City to Harbor Bay added
Berkeley to San Francisco Ferry Building added
Oyster Point to San Francisco Ferry Building added
Oyster Point to Harbor Bay added
Hercules/ Rodeo to San Francisco Ferry Building
CCTA I- 680 Express bus from Walnut Creek to Fremont added
Napa New express buses to Santa Rosa, Fairfield & Vallejo ferry
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 3
Table 3.2 San Francisco Bay Area Highway Improvements
Differences Between Year 2000 and 2006
County Route Limits
Mixed
Flow
Lanes
( Miles)
HOV*
Lanes
( Miles)
San Mateo 92 Dumbarton Bridge 5.6
92 101 to 280 3.75
280 Edgewood to 92 3.43
101 University to Embarcadero 1.28
Subtotal 14.06
Santa Clara 101 85 to Cochrane 16.79 16.81
87 101 to 85 18.27
880/ 17 Coleman to 85 5.37
880 Trimble to 101 4.66
880 Dixon to 237 2.01 5.2
680 Scott Creek to 237 2.6
85 El Camino Real to Fremont 1.51
85 101 to Middlefield 1.4
101 University to Embarcadero 1.28
Subtotal 31.62 44.28
Alameda 680 Vallecitos to Scott Creek 9.93
880 Stevenson to Mission 3.88
92 880 to San Mateo County line 9.78
Subtotal 13.66 9.93
Contra Costa 580 Central to Marin County Line 11.22
4 Cummings to 80 10.56
680 Rudgear to 680/ 24 7.73
680 Main Street to Solano County Line 16.3
4 Loveridge to Bailey 7.76
4 Loveridge to Port Chicago 12.26
Subtotal 37.27 28.56
Solano 80 680 to 12 5.75
Marin - -
Sonoma 12 to Rohnert Park 13.18
Redwood to Oakwood 3.2
Subtotal 3.2 13.18
Total 105.56 109.13
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
3- 4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 3.2 San Francisco Bay Area Highway Improvements
Differences Between Year 2000 and 2006
( continued)
County Route Limits
Mixed
Flow
Lanes
( Miles)
HOV*
Lanes
( Miles)
Differences Between Year 2006 and Year 2030 ( Sales Tax Conformity)
San Mateo 280 Hickey to Fleetwood 2.62
101 Millbrae to University 21.94
92 101 to 280 4.13
Subtotal 28.69
Santa Clara 101 Ellis to Steyner 7.64
237 Mathilda to Highway 85 6.48
237 Mathilda to Zanker 1.61
17 Hamilton to San Thomas 2.7
880 Dixon Landing to 237 4.06
680 Scott Creek to Jacklin 2.12
680 Scott Creek to Jacklin 1.82
Subtotal 18.13 8.3
Alameda 680 Scott Creek to Stoneridge 18.13
680 Scott Creek to Mission 9.45
880 Dixon Landing to Warren 3.55
880 Dixon Landing to Warren 4.78
580 680 to Greenville 21.51
580 1st to Vasco 1.8
238 880 to 580 2.5
Subtotal 17.3 44.42
24 Broadway Contra Costa to Moraga 2.4
680 Diablo to Bollinger Canyon 6.83
680 Rudgear to Willow Pass 6.93
4 Loveridge to 18th 13.79 13.79
80 John Muir to Carquinez Bridge 10.45
Subtotal 23.02 31.17
Solano 80 680 to Air Base 12.67
Marin 101 Tamalpais to Sonoma County Line 4.26 27.91
Sonoma 101 Rohnert Park to Marin County Line 28.72
Total 91.4 153.19
* HOV = High- occupancy vehicle.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 5
Table 3.3 Sacramento Region Highway and Transit Improvements, 2000 to
2030
Highway Projects Description
Cost
( Millions)
Route 65 Lincoln Bypass Near Lincoln – Industrial Blvd to south Yuba Countyline –
construct new 4- lane expressway/ freeway on new alignment
$ 263
I- 80 In Placer County, I- 80 from east of SR 65 to west of the
Sacramento Countyline: construct HOV lanes
$ 160
Placer Parkway In Placer County, construct new 2- lane roadway between SR 65
and SR 99, with an extension to Sacramento International Airport
$ 400
Placer Parkway Phase 2 Placer Parkway from SR 65 to SR 99: widen from 2 to 4 lanes $ 118
Route 99 Add a lane in each direction from I- 5 to 70/ 99 split $ 100
U. S. 50 New U. S. 50 HOV lanes from Downtown Sacramento to Sunrise
Blvd
$ 195
I- 5 Add HOV lanes from I- 80 to Sacramento International Airport $ 113
I- 80/ I- 5 Revise existing interchange between I- 80 and I- 5 $ 150
American River Bridge New American River crossing below Folsom Dam with approach $ 110
Bridging I- 5 Construct connection over I- 5 between river esplanade and
Crocker District, Capitol Ave to “ O” street
$ 250
Feather River Bridge on
Route 65
Construct 2- lane Third Feather River Bridge, with ROW for
ultimate 4 lanes from Route 70 in Yuba County to Route 99 in
Sutter County
$ 233
Wheatland Bypass New 4- lane expressway from the future north end of Route 65
Lincoln Bypass to the existing Route 65
$ 184
I- 80/ U. S. 50 Carpool lane from Richards Blvd in Davis to Sacramento
Countyline on I- 80/ U. S. 50
$ 110
Marysville Bypass ( Ph. 2) Construct a new 2- or 4- lane expressway ( Marysville Bypass
Ph. 2) from Route 65/ 70 split to Route 20, with access control
$ 158
Amtrak/ Folsom Corridor
Light- Rail Project
Folsom Corridor – Downtown Sacramento Folsom – light- rail
extension ( including vehicle purchase) – completed in 2005
$ 256
South Sacramento LRT –
Ph. 2 Extension
Construct a light- rail extension from Meadowview Rd to
Consumes River College
$ 203
South Sacramento LRT –
Ph. 3 Extension
Construct a light- rail extension from Cosumnes River College to
Elk Grove
$ 182
Antelope Light- Rail Extension Construct an extension of light- rail line from I- 80/ Watt Ave to
Antelope Rd
$ 290
Downtown- Natomas- Airport
LRT
Light- rail extension from Downtown Sacramento to Sacramento
International Airport
$ 624
Regional Commuter Rail
Operations
Sacramento Metropolitan Area: operating and maintenance
costs for commuter rail between Davis and Auburn
$ 171
Sacramento Intermodal
Terminal
In Sacramento, develop intermodal transportation terminal for
heavy- rail, light- rail and bus service
$ 225
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
3- 6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 3.4 SCAG Highway and Transit Improvements
2000 to 2030
Route Description
Imperial County
78 Brawley Bypass Corridor – 4- lane expwy on SR 86 to 0.3 mile of Mead Rd on SR 111
Los Angeles County
2 From Sepulveda to Moreno construct divided pkwy
5 Rte 5 from Rte 170 to Rte 118 HOV lanes ( 10 to 12 lanes)
5 Rte 5 from Rte 118 to Rte 14 from 10 to 12 lanes HOV lanes
5 Rte 5 from Rte 134 to Rte 170 HOV lanes ( 8 to 10 lanes)
10 Rte 10 from Rte 605 to Puente Ave HOV lanes ( 8+ 0 to 8+ 2)
10 In El Monte and Baldwin Park from Baldwin Ave to Rte 605 HOV lanes ( 8+ 0 to 8+ 2)
10 From Puente to Citrus HOV lanes from 8 to 10 lanes
10 I- 10 from Citrus to Rte 57/ 210 one HOV lane in each direction
14 Near Santa Clarita, from Rte 5 to 126/ s. f. Rd HOV project – add 1 HOV lane in each
direction
14 Rte 14 from Vincent Ramp UC to Ave P- 8 HOV lanes
71 Rte 10 to Rte 60 – expwy to freeway conversion – + 1 HOV lane and 1 mixed- flow lane
138 Rte 138 widening from 2 lanes to 4 lanes – widening at Twin Bridges
138 In Palmdale at Avenue P- 8 from Rte 14 to 50th St – acquire ROW for future Rte 138
138 Near Palmdale – widen freeway for one HOV in each direction
210 Foothill Blvd to San Bernardino county line – construct 8- lane freeway including 2 HOV lanes
405 Rte 405 – Waterford Ave to Rte 10, construct SB aux lane & SB HOV lane
405 In Los Angeles and Culver City from Rte 90 to Rte 10 – HOV lanes
405 Near Hawthorne and Culver City from Rte 105 to Rte 90 – 6 lane frwy plus 2 HOV lanes
Transit Mid- City Transit Corridor BRT – Wilshire Blvd from Vermont to Santa Monica
Transit Metro Rail Gold Line Extension – Pasadena to Montclair 24- mile, 12- station LRT
Transit Metro Red Line Mos- 3 – N. Hollywood 5.9- mile w/ 3 stations, Highland to N. Hollywood
Transit Mid- City/ exposition Corridor LRT Project Phase I to Venice- Robertson Station
Transit San Fernando Valley E/ W BRT ( N. Hollywood to Warner Ctr)
Transit Eastside Transit Corridor LRT – Union Station to Atlantic
Orange County
5 I- 5 from SR 91 to LA county line – 1 mixed- flow lane and 1 HOV lane in each direction
22 HOV lanes ( 1 each direction) btwn SR 55 & Valley View St
73 SJHC, 15- mile toll road between I- 5 In San Juan Capistrano and Rte 73 In Irvine, existing 3
mixed flow each direction
90 Imperial Hwy Smart St ( lac to Harbor) – restripe 4 to 6 lanes ( lac Line to Idaho St
90 Imperial Hwy Smart St ( Harbor to SR 57) – restripe 4 to 6 lanes ( Harbor Blvd & Berry St)
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 7
Table 3.4 SCAG Highway and Transit Improvements
2000 to 2030 ( continued)
Route Description
90 Imperial Hwy Smart St ( SR 57 to Rose) – widen EB By 1 lane from east of Valencia to city limits
133 Laguna Canyon Rd ( SR 73 to SR 405) in Irvine and Laguna Beach – widen 2 to 4 lanes
405 Costa Mesa ( Bristol St to Euclid) I – 405 widening and ramp improvements
405 Costa Mesa ( Bristol St to Euclid) I- 405 widening
Transit Buena Park Commuter Rail Station – 308 parking spaces
Transit Fullerton Train Station – parking structure for 500 spaces
Transit Irvine Transportation Center – 900 space parking structure
Riverside County
60 Jct Rte 15 to Valley Way UC – add 1 HOV and 1 mixed- flow lane in each direction
60 In Riverside and Moreno Valley on SR 60 from Rte 215 to Redlands Blvd – add 2 HOV lanes
71 Near Corona/ Chino Hills – widen to 4- lane divided expwy
74 In Perris and Lake Elsinore – widen and realign from 2 to 4 lanes – Jct Rte 15 to 7th St in Perris
215 RIV I215 Cor Improv Proj – widen 6 to 8 lanes, add HOV, Aux, & Sb truck climb lane
San Bernardino County
10 In Redlands from Orange St to Ford St – add one mixed- flow lane in each direction
15 In Victorville from N/ O Mojave Dr I/ C to Stoddard Wells Rd – + 1 N/ B mixed- flow lane with
aux. Lane
15 Cajon Pass, N/ B from 0.1 KM S/ o Rte 138 to 0.1 Km S/ o Oak Hill Rd O/ C – add N/ B lane
15 Near Barstow from Mojave Dr I/ C to Wildwash Bridge – add S/ B mixed flow
30 Near Fontana construct 6- lane frwy & 2 HOV lanes
66 In Fontana from East Ave to Hemlock Ave – widen from 4 to 6 lanes
138 Near Cajon – 4- lane controlled access highway
138 Bear Valley Rd to Yucca Loma Rd – widen 2- lane road to 4- lane road ( 2 lanes in each
direction)
220 High Desert Corridor from 1 mi w/ o SR 395 to 1 mi S/ o 18 – construct 4- to 6- lane freeway
Ventura County
23 Thousand Oaks & Moorpark – widen Rte 23 from Hwy 118 to Hwy 101 ( widen from 4 to
6 lanes)
118 In Simi Valley Widen Rte 118 from Tapo Cyn to LA county line
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
3- 8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 3.5 San Diego Region Transportation Improvements
2000 to 2030
Project From To Existing Improvements Cost
I- 5 SR 56 Vandegrift 8F 8F + 4ML $ 750
I- 15 SR 94 SR 163 6F/ 8F 8F + 2HOV $ 200
I- 15 SR 163 SR 56 8F + 2ML 8F + 4ML/ MB $ 200
I- 15 SR 56 Centre City Pkwy 8F 8F + 4ML/ MB $ 340
I- 15 Centre City Pkwy SR 78 8F 8F + 4ML $ 120
SR 52 I- 15 SR 125 4F 6F + 2ML ( R) $ 170
SR 241 Orange
County
Orange County I- 5 4T + 2HOV $ 420
I- 805 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2 HOV $ 150
I- 805 SR 54 I- 8 8F 8F + 4ML $ 450
I- 805 Mssn Vly Viaduct 8F 8F + 4ML $ 250
I- 805 I- 8 I- 5 8F 8F + 4ML $ 380
I- 5 I- 805 N to N & S to S HOV $ 180
I- 15 SR 94 S to W & E to N HOV $ 150
SR 11 SR 905 Mexico 4F $ 190
SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 4F $ 290
SR 56 Camino Ruiz Carmel Country 4F $ 130
SR 125** SR 905 San Miguel Rd 4T $ 400
SR 125 San Miguel Rd SR 54 4F $ 140
SR 125 Jamacha Rd SR 94 6F $ 170
SR 905 I- 805 Mexico 6F $ 290
I- 5 Sea World Dr SR 54 Sea World Dr 8F Access Improvements $ 170
I- 5 I- 805 SR 56 10F 14F $ 190
SR 76 Melrose Dr Mission Rd 2C 4C $ 100
I- 5 SR 56 W to N & S to E Fwy
connectors
$ 140
I- 5 SR 78 W to N & S to E Fwy
connectors
$ 150
SR 94 SR 125 W to N & S to E Fwy
connectors
$ 110
Transit Projects
Mission Valley East Trolley Extension $ 450
Oceanside to Escondido Rail $ 350
Mid- Coast Light Rail $ 590
Oceanside- Escondido Rail Double Tracking and North
County Fair Extension
$ 170
Regional Light Rail Grade Separations $ 100
Improved/ New Major Transit Stations and Centers
$ 470
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3- 9
Projects outside the four metropolitan areas have been defined by comparing
highway networks from the statewide travel model. The main projects that have
been identified are the following:
· Stockton – I- 5 widened 1 lane in each direction;
· Tracy – I- 205 widened 1 lane in each direction to I- 580;
· Monterey County – U. S. 101 Prunedale Bypass, plus SR 152 between
Monterey and Salinas;
· Central Valley – Lane additions on SR 99 between Modesto and Bakersfield
at various locations;
· Central Valley – A number of other facilities, primarily in east- west
directions on both sides of SR 99, are widened throughout metropolitan areas
from Stockton to Bakersfield;
· SR 46 – Widened between Paso Robles and I- 5 ( just north of Bakersfield); and
· U. S. 395 – Widening throughout Kern County, plus widenings at various
locations in Inyo and Mono Counties.
There are no significant transit projects under consideration outside the four
major metropolitan areas. The background highway and transit networks do not
contain projects included or under consideration as part of the statewide
infrastructure bond initiative ( up for statewide voter approval in November
2006). Forecasting analysis will have been well underway before the election is
decided. In addition, there will be project- level competition for bond funds, so
the project list is not complete.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 1
4.0 Forecast Alternatives
There will be up to 72 alternatives developed and analyzed for the high- speed
rail ridership and revenue study by the consultant and additional alternatives or
tests conducted by MTC. These will be defined based on station locations, high-speed
rail train service patterns, and specific project alternatives. These will also
include a series of sensitivity tests to ensure that the model is producing reliable
and consistent ridership forecasts.
4.1 STATION LOCATIONS
Initial baseline high- speed rail system forecasts include 25 stations on the
Southern Alignment and 26 stations on the Northern Alignment. Gilroy is
included for the Southern Alignment baseline alternative, while Tracy and
Pleasanton are included in the North Alignment baseline alternative. All
discussion in this section is limited to the initial high- speed rail definitions;
subsequent forecasts may be done on other alignment options. Figures 4.1 and
4.2 present locations of proposed high- speed rail stations. Final alternatives for
high- speed rail will be determined through the environmental review process.
Ridership is one component of this process.
Five lines are proposed for service based on CHSRA’s current business plan
system as of June 2000:
1. San Diego – Los Angeles – Sacramento;
2. Orange County – Los Angeles – Sacramento;
3. San Diego – Los Angeles – Bay Area;
4. Orange County – Los Angeles – Bay Area; and
5. Sacramento – Bay Area.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
4- 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Figure 4.1 Proposed Northern California High- Speed Rail Stations and
Alignments
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 3
Figure 4.2 Proposed Southern California High- Speed Rail Stations and
Alignments
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
4- 4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
The following station locations are divided by geographic area and line:
· Northern Central Valley – Sacramento, Stockton and Modesto.
· Bay Area – San Francisco, Millbrae, Palo Alto/ Redwood City, San Jose,
Oakland, Oakland Airport, and Union City.
– Southern Alignment – Gilroy/ Morgan Hill; and
– Northern Alignment – Pleasanton/ Livermore, Tracy ( San Joaquin County).
· Southern Central Valley – Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia ( optional).
· Los Angeles – Palmdale, Sylmar, Burbank, LAUS.
· Orange County Line – Norwalk ( Los Angeles County), Anaheim, Irvine.
· Inland Empire – East San Gabriel Valley, Ontario, Riverside, Temecula.
· San Diego – Escondido, University City, San Diego.
4.2 HIGH- SPEED RAIL TRAIN SERVICE PATTERNS
Train service patterns describe the array of service options across each of the
service lines. ( Service lines are described in Section 4.1, above). The CHSRA
envisions five service options.
1. Local stop trains stop at all stations from beginning to the end of the line.
Local stop trains take 50 minutes longer to travel from Los Angeles to San
Francisco ( 3 hours and 20 minutes vs. 2 hours and 30 minutes).
2. Express trains travel non- stop between LAUS and San Francisco or
Sacramento. South of LAUS, trains either travel non- stop to San Diego, or
travel all- stop ( 3 stations) through Orange County. Some express trains may
also stop at San Jose.
3. Regional trains operate only from the Central Valley to either San Francisco
or LAUS/ San Diego. Most of the regional service is confined to the early
hours to provide service that arrives in the large metropolitan areas during
the morning peak period.
4. Semi- express trains stop at approximately one- third of the stations between
San Francisco and Los Angeles. These trains tend to stop at San Jose, Fresno,
and Bakersfield.
5. Suburban trains make all stops in the Bay Area and in Southern California,
but bypass most or all of the Central Valley stations.
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4- 5
4.3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Development of the project alternatives is underway. There is a need to
coordinate the alternatives development activities of this project with two other
ongoing projects:
1. The Regional Rail Study, and
2. The environmental report on Bay Area- Central Valley high- speed rail
alignment options.
The initial forecasts include 10 alternatives defined for the third high- speed rail
revenue and ridership study peer review meeting ( tentatively scheduled to be
complete in July 2006). Additional alternatives will include baseline forecasts for
the study years supporting the high- speed rail environmental report ( 2000, 2005,
and 2030), as presented in Table 4.1. Other alternatives supporting the Regional
Rail study ( 2020 and 2050) will be completed at a later date. Many additional
alternatives are yet to be defined, but will be developed as the Regional Rail
study unfolds. In addition, the project team and the peer review panel will
evaluate the baseline forecasts.
Table 4.1 Draft High Speed Rail Alternatives Definitions
Year Description
HSR
Alignment
Bay Area
Terminal Notes
1 2000 Base Year Draft No HSR For Peer Review
2 2005 Draft Existing
Conditions
No HSR For Peer Review
3 2005 Existing w/ HSR
Southern Alignment
Southern SF via SJ For Peer Review
4 2005 Existing w/ HSR
Northern Alignment
Northern SF + SJ For Peer Review
5 2030 2030 Baseline Draft No HSR For Peer Review
6 2030 2030 w/ HSR –
Pacheco
Southern SF via SJ For Peer Review
7 2030 2030 w/ HSR –
Altamont
Northern SF + SJ For Peer Review
8 2030 2030 w/ HSR –
Pacheco
Southern SF via SJ Peer Review – Sensitivity test
9 2030 2030 w/ HSR –
Altamont
Northern SF + SJ Peer Review – Sensitivity test
10 2030 2030 w/ HSR –
Pacheco
TBD Peer Review – Sensitivity test
11 2000 Base Year Final No HSR Final Base Year
12 2005 Existing Conditions No HSR Final 2005 Existing Conditions
13 2030 2030 Baseline Final No HSR Final 2030 Baseline ( No HSR
service)
Bay Area/ California High- Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study
4- 6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
In order to support the high- speed rail forecasting schedule ( running from
August through December), an initial set of coordinated alternatives definitions
will be defined in August. This will allow for coding and preparation of
alternatives in advance of ridership forecasting.
4.4 SENSITIVITY TESTS
A number of sensitivity tests are proposed to help ensure the model performs as
expected. A variety of sensitivity tests will be needed to demonstrate reliable
model performance. It is likely that conventional rail fares will track high- speed
rail fares, so it is recommended that these fares vary the same way as high- speed
rail in most scenarios. Fuel price scenarios should also be tested, but it makes
sense to vary rail and air to some extent with auto costs as they are closely
related. It will also be informative to examine how airlines may compete with
high- speed rail. Table 4.2 summarizes the potential sensitivity tests the project
team will be considering.
Table 4.2 Potential Sensitivity Tests
Scenario Name/ Description HSR Cost
Conv. Rail
Cost Air Cost Auto Cost
Base Base Base Base Base
Less Expensive Rail Fare Decrease Decrease Base Base
More Expensive Rail Fare Increase Increase Base Base
Less Expensive Fuel Low
Decrease
Med
Decrease
Med
Decrease
High
Decrease
More Expensive Fuel Low
Increase
Med
Increase
Med
Increase
High
Increase
Less Expensive Air Travel Base Base Decrease Base
More Expensive Air Travel Base Base Increase Base
As shown above in Table 4.1, the project team will evaluate initial sensitivity
tests based on their impacts on mode choice only. Transit and traffic assignment
impacts will not be examined. Mode choice evaluation will allow the project
team to quickly evaluate sensitivity impacts, and will allow for testing of a
greater number of sensitivity tests than would otherwise be possible.