Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2002 SPECIAL MEETING I Pm ~CCARTHY CITY CLERK ,JOINT MEETING OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNC'm,- AND KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2002 City Host City Hall Council Chambers 1501 Truxtun Avenue - 5:30 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. INVOCATION by Rev. Sara Haldeman-Scarr, Church of the Brethren 2. FLAG SALUTE by Mahogany Blank, 4th Grade Student, Van Horn Elementary School 3. ROLL CALL 4. OPENING REMARKS BY MAYOR HARVEY L. HALL 5. OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN STEVE PEREZ 6. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Estimated Time 7. BUSINESS ITEMS (30 Min) A. High Speed Rail Station Terminal Location - Joint Agenda Item (Discussion) (20 Min) B. Use of STIP Funds for Roadway Rehabilitation - City Agenda Item (Discussion) (15 Min) C. General Plan Adoption Process/Update - Joint Agenda Item (Discussion) (10Min) D. Kern County Museum - "History for the Future Campaign" -County Agenda Item (Discussion) (10Min) E. Airport Terminal - Status Report - County Agenda Item (Discussion) ¢o~.) F. Coordinating Roadway Improvements - City Agenda Item (Discussion) (5 Min) G. Schedule for 2002 Joint Meetings - Joint Agenda Item (Discussion/Action) 8. CLOSING COMMENTS BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS 9. CLOSING COMMENTS BY CHAIRMAN STEVE PEREZ 10. CLOSING COMMENTS BY MAYOR HARVEY L. HALL 11. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted, Alan Tandy ~/~' ,/~7" City Manager S:\Council~GE NDA~002\JOINTCOB-KC31802.wpd September 1,2000 (10:09AM) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 I AGENDA SECTION: - Business Item I ITEM: 7.A. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council and County Board of Supervisors APPROVED Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD FROM: Raul M. DATE: March 13, 2002 CITY A'R'ORNEY ~~- CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: High Speed Rail Station Location in Bakersfield, California Metropolitan Area RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Joint Bodies determine that the vicinity of Truxtun Avenue at Union Avenue is the most favorable location for the high speed rail terminal in the Bakersfield area. BACKGROUND: Many studies have been performed to determine the best location for a terminal on the future high speed ground transportation system in California. This administrative report summarizes two of those most detailed reports. In 1993, Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) conducted a study of potential locations for a High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Station in the Bakersfield area. That study, conducted by ICF Kaiser Engineers in conjunction with KernCOG's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), considered six locations - the Amtrak Station (west of the original Amtrak Station which was on F Street at the BNSF Railroad); Downtown (east of the Beale Library); East Bakersfield (along Edison Highway west of Mt. Vernon); Fruitvale (along Coffee Road between Brimhall Road and the BNSF Railroad); Olive Drive (along Olive Drive west of SR99); and Westside Freeway (along the McKittrick Branch Railroad two miles west of Buena Vista Road). A copy of the final report from*that study is attached. Evaluation criteria for each of these sites included · vehicle characteristics of the high speed train (steel wheel versus magnetic levitation); · station design characteristics (station functions, platform and trackway requirements, station amenities, handicapped accessibility, vertical circulation, fare collection and site design); ,' right-of-way needs; operational constraints; · alignment design; · technology and service requirements; required on-site facilities and circulation; site support of patronage and revenue; site geology and engineering; · feasibility of site acquisition; · ridership and revenue forecasts; · amount of available undeveloped land and government-held land; · physical constraints to station area development zones · land. use; · leapfrog and in-fill potential; · inter-connectivity; consistency with plans and policies; · job generation potential; and · tax generation potential. ADR - Design Section Public Works High Speed Rail Station in Bakersfield March 13, 2002, 2:20pm S:\PROJECTS\ARNOLD\HIGH SPEED RAIL~.dmin Report 03_08_02.wpd ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2 After analyzing the six different potential station locations, the TAC and ICF Kaiser Engineering concluded "that the Downtown site would be the most preferable location for the Bakersfield HSGT terminal. This site is located near a future path for a light rail system; is close to the government and downtown commercial core which allows for revitalization potential; has expansion potential to the east with about two to three miles of available land.to avoid conflicts with the (Beale) library; and has access to two arterial roadways." After completion of this report in early 1994, several land developments have occurred which all have a positive impact on this Downtown site for the HSGT terminal. In 1999, the Bakersfield Garden Arena was opened next door to the Convention Center. The combined Arena / Convention Center complex provides a major entertainment / meeting complex within easy walking distance of the site for the HSGT terminal. The new Bakersfield Amtrak Station, opened in 2000, was constructed on the western portion of the Downtown HSGT terminal. This project extended the San Joaquin Amtrak Train service to this site, providing easy transfer between these two modes of transportation. It is important to note that the San Joaquin Amtrak Train service will provide a vital passenger rail service link to the portions of the San Joaquin Valley not served by the HSGT. Also in 2000, the Q Street Underpass was opened. Located immediately adjacent to the west side of the Amtrak Station, this major road improved greatly improved vehicular circulation in the immediate area and provides un-impeded access to a third arterial roadway - namely California Avenue. The last major land development has not yet been constructed. The Centennial Corridor, to be located immediately adjacent to the south side of the Downtown HSGT terminal, will provide greatly improved vehicular access to this terminal location. This Downtown HSGT terminal will foster the continued redevelopment in the downtown area that has been on-going since the late 1990's. At their January 2002 meeting, the Board of Directors for the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) approved the "First Screening Report - Part 2" report. That report contained the HSRA's staff's recommendations regarding which mute alignment options and which station location options should be removed from further consideration and which ones should be studied in more detail. A copy of that report's sections pertaining to Bakersfield are attached. The station sites recommended for further study in the Bakersfield area are as follows with descriptive comments from that report: Truxtun Avenue Site: "This potential downtown station site is located just east of the new Amtrak station in downtown Bakersfield near Truxtun Avenue and R Street. This proposed site maximizes the ridership and revenue potential, connectivity and accessibility, and is compatible with existing and planned development while minimizing impacts to natural and cultural resources. The Truxtun site is one of the three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the BNSF or BNSF/UP alignment options from the north and serves the 15 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor." Golden State Avenue Site: "This potential downtown station site is located along the existing UP route that parallels Golden State Avenue in the northern part of downtown Bakersfield. This proposed site maximizes ridership and revenue potential while minimizing the impacts to social and economic resources. The Golden State site is one of the three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the UP alignment from the north, and serves the 15 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor." Bakersfield Airport Site: "This potential station site is located along the existing on the UP route just west of SR 99 and south of 7"~ Standard Road, which is planned for freeway expansion. This proposed site is compatible with existing and planned development while minimizing the impacts on natural, social, economic and cultural resources. The Bakersfield Airport site is one of the three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the UP alignment from the north, and serves the 15 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor." ADR - Design Section Public Works High Speed Rail Station in Bakersfield March 13, 2002, 2:20pm S:\PROJECTS~ARNOLD\HIGH SPEED RAIL~Admin Report 03_08_02.wpd ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 3 The HSRA's screening report makes mention of recommendations by the Kern Transportation Foundation (KTF). A select number of KTF members worked with staff from the KernCOG, County of Kern and City of Bakersfield to evaluate potential sites for the high speed rail terminal. That evaluation consider many sites throughout the metropolitan area. It is interesting to note that, while completed prior to HSRA's screening report, the KTF committee made the same determination as to which sites should be considered for detailed study. Based on the conclusions of KernCOG's 1994 study, the KTF study and HSRA's screening report, staff recommends that the Joint Bodies adopt a position in favor of locating the Bakersfield high speed rail station in the vicinity of Truxtun Avenue at Union Avenue. ADR - Design Section Public Works High Speed Rail Station in Bakersfield March 13, 2002, 2:20pm S:\PROJECTS~ARNOLD\HIGH SPEED RAIL~Admin Report 03_08_02.wpd METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TERMINAL STUDY FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS PREPARED BY ICF KAISER ENGINEERS MARCH 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE .PAGE 1,0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1-1 2.0 SITE SUITABILITY/ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ......... 2-1 2,1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ............................................ 2-1 2,1,1 Vehicle Characteristics ....................................... 2-1 2,1,2 Station Design ............................................. 2,3 2,1,3 Right-of-Way .............................................. 2-5 2,1,4 Operational ............................................... 2-5 2,1,5 Alignment Design ........................................... 2-5 2.2 ANALYSIS ...................................................... 2-5 2,2,1 Technology and Service Requirements ........................... 2-7 2,2,2 Required On-Site Facilities and Circulation ...................... .,, 2-7 2,2.3 Site Support of Patronage and Revenue ......................... 2-10 2,2,4 Site Geology and Engineering ................................ 2-12 2,2,5 Feasibility of Site Acquisition ................... : ............. 2-14 3,0 RIDERSHIP ISSUES .................................................... 3-1 3,1 RIDERSHIP MODEL ............................................... 3-1 3,1,1 - Florida Interc~ Ridership Forecast Model ........................ 3-1 3,1,2 Adaptation of the FDOT Model to this Study ....................... 3-1 3,1,3 Inp~ Assumptions .......................................... ;3-2 3,2 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECASTS ............................... 3-4 4.0 PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS ............... 4-1 4.1 AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE UNDEVELOPED LAND AND GOVERNMENT-HELD LAND 4-1 4,2 PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS TO STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONES ........ 4-1 4.3 LAND USE ...................................................... 4-2 4,4 LEAPFROG AND INFILL POTENTIAL ................................... 4-3 4,5 INTERCONNECTIVITY ............................................. 4-3 4,6 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POIJCIES .......... .', ................. 4-3 4,7 JOB GENERATION POTENTIAL .................................. ' .... 4-5 4,8 TAX GENERATION POTENTIAL ...................................... 4-5 $,0 ENVIRONMENTAL cONSIDERATIONS ..................................... ., 5-1 5,1 APPROACH ..................................................... 5-1 5.2 ANALYSIS ...................................................... 5-2 6,0 SiTE SELECTION ANALYSIS PROCESS ..................................... 6-1 7,0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 7-1 APPENDIX A - WORKING PAPERS AND TECHNICAL MEMORANDA ..................... A-1 APPENDIX B - ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST ......................... B-1 ,.... METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HiGH SPEED GROUND ~'.__" .-...- . TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TERMINAL STUDY----" -.:-- -. ..... - .... ~_:.... .......... · . ... "~ ......... '.' -..:: ............ -- ... : .: .' . ~''...~ --- .. - ....- INTRODUCTION "~ :" ":" .... ' . '_..',:~ "~' ::~:-..'..-:.;-:! (; '.-'i. " · ' 1.0- -" -. _.--'--.-. ":':.-r.."'...-_ ..-.- ..~..:-~._~: ~. . : - ...'T'-. :~; . ---? · · . .__-. . }-- :.'; . ..-.-:- ---. - ..:. : . . .~'. :-.-_.. ..-_ .... ? .~ · . ... ~ ............. 7-..~.". ._ ' ".'- ".~: ' ----- ' 1.0 IntroducEon 1.0 INTRODUCTION For at least a decade there.has been considerable discussion about high speed rail in California. General studies have been conducted by agencies, universities, and others on the:subject. In March 1993, Caltrans issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) which invited consultants to conduct an engineering feasibility study to identify the most appropriate technology/alignment combinations for a high speed ground transportation (HSGT) system between Los Angeles and Bakersfield. Recent planning studies prepared by Kern COG, the City of Bakersfield, and Kern County including the 1990 Regional Transportation Plan and Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Genera/Plan have defined numerous short range and long range programs in economic development, housing, land use, transportation, environmental protection, and other areas. These studies and plans all have identified the need for an HSGT system. Each recognized that a new HSGT terminal station will inevitably become a major center of traffic and business activities, providing a major force for shaping the urban development pattern. Thus, there is the clear recognition that the location of the HSGT terminal station must be selected with great care so that future land use and transportation development patterns influenced by the HSGT investment will be compatible with the development strategies specified in current and future plans. The Caltrans RFP identified the Amtrak Depot in Bakersfield in the vicinity of F Street as the only site to be considered for the northern terminal. However, given the importance of the location for a terminal, it is critical for the decision makers of Kern COG, the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, GET, and other public agencies to carefully study the most promising HSGT terminal station sites in the Bakersfield area. The study is needed now to be able to provide credible input to Caltrans and to reach a consensus on the most promising site during an early stage of the Caitrans project. The ihltial step in this study involved a preliminary analysis by Kern COG which resulted in the selection of six candidate sites to be examined in greater detail. Analyses of the six sites were then undertaken by the project consultant. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which had been previously formed for the Long-Range Public Transportation Systems Study prepared for the Golden Empire Transit District, met several times during the course of this site selection study to review the interim findings. Ultimately, the TAC made their recommendations to Kern COG. This report presents the findings and recommendations of the terminal site selection study. This study was undertaken to satisfy three specific objectives: · To identify the most promising alternative station sites for the HSGT in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. · To perform extensive analyses of and evaluate the alternative sites in a multi-disciplinary manner. · To recommend the most promising or preferred terminal station Site(s) for the HSGT in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. Toward this end, a number of working papers and technical memo¢anda (listed in Appendix A) were prepared during the course of the study and are summarized in this report. The proceedings of the TAC site selection panel and their recommendations are also presented. This report consists of seven chapters. This introduction constitutes Chapter 1. Information regarding the specific station sites being considered and engineering and operational considerations are presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 addresses ridership issues while Chapter 4 discusses the public-private development potential. The environmental analysis for each site is addressed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 describes the process used to analyze and compare each of the sites. Finally, Chapter 7 presents the findings and recommendations of the site selection panel. Metropolitan Bakersfield 1-1 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study ~ .-i":' M'E~rROPO'EITiN 'BAKERSFIELD HIGH 'SPEED.GROUND-'.'_.:.'::?;L,:. ..--'~ :"?':.T~NsPORTATiON SYSTEM .TERMINAL sTUDY.~ ':"~.~?:-:'~'~--t~;~":::':~:'-}~('}'.:~ ~ .~:_'. ":..:~:. .:..: .:;.~; 2~0-'~---~ITE .SU ITABILlW/EN Gl N'EERING"AN D. OPE~TiONAL. .. -. '. ~. :-2. ' '."" '- '. ' ' ''~. ''..-:' .... .~' .... . . . ~ '..~ ...).'. ?-'.' _:~' ¥ 2.0 Site Suitabili~/Engineering and Operational Considerations 2.0 SITE SUITABILITY/ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The criteria developed to assess the suitability of the location for a station site as well as the engineering and operational advantages and disadvantages of each alternative site are discussed in this chapter. An analysis of how well each site satisfies the criteria is also presented. A total of six sites were considered in this study. They included: · Amtrak · Downtown · East Bakersfield · Fruitvale · Olive Drive · Westside Freeway Figure 2-1 provides a location map for all s~x sites. 2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA The criteria developed for this study included the engineering and operational requirements for two high- speed technologies: steel wheel/rail and Maglev, The rapid development of high speed technology and the current lack of specific Federal and State regulations and standards for high speed technology, necessitated that this criteria be considered dynamic in nature, The criteria developed falls into five major categories: vehicle characteristics, station design, right-of-way, operational, and alignment design. 2.1.1 Vehlcle Characteristics Table 2-1 presents typical characteristics for the two tTpes of technologies under consideration. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-1 Final Beport HSGT Terminal Study OLIVE DR mm ....~., ~ E BAKERSFIELD -- FRUITVALE %'~ DOWNTOWN AMTRAK E FWY -~:~... I . )-~!;!? .'. : '~'.-~ ..~.. :.;~.',. .. FiGU~E ALTERNATIVE TERMI STATION sITES "'~;:"~::'~. METROPOLITAN BAKE SFIELD. HSGT sTUDY 2.0 Site Suitabi/ity/Engineering and Operational Considerations TABLE 2-1 STEEL WHEEL/MAGLEV VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS Characterlstlc I Steel Wheel I Maglev Typical Technology Example TGV-Atlantique MAGLEV-TR-07 Design Speed 186 MPH (300 KPH) 250 MPH (400 KPH) Train Capacity (passengers) 500 400 Vehicle Size (Feet) - Length ~ 61.5 - 71.7 88.5 - Width 9.5 12_2 - Height 11.4 13.4 Platform Length Typical (Feet) 800 500 Normal Trainset Two Power Cars Five Cars Size Ten Coaches Vehicle Weight 68 Tons 66 Tons (loaded) (power car) (end car) Electrification Catenary Electromagnetic Control System Operator Operator or Automated Switching System Railroad Switch Movable Guideway Maximum Grade 3.5% 1 "Design speed is restricted by existing track condition and alignment (FRA Standard C[sss 5 Tr~ck) ~urce: Wortdng Pacer, $ubta.sk ~.',, A~/~ncnec'z,'Opec'a~3¢~/C,-,',',',',',',',',~,da; August 6, 19~3. 2.1.2 Station Design Several station design characteristics need to be considered including: station functions, platform and trackway requirements, station amenities, handicapped accessibility, vertical circulation, fare collection, and site design. A. Station Functions -The efficient processing of patrons from station entry to train boarding is important. The station should be able to easiiy orient patrons with respect to use of the station, the system and supporting transportation modes and should also be able to provide a safe, attractive, and comfortable environment. The site should be capable of accommodating fire protection and communications systems as well as the necessary electrical and mechanical equipment for the operation and maintenance of the station and system's functioning. B. Platform and Track"way Requirements - A center platform station configuration is preferred over side- platform configurations. The platform length should accommodate the longest train with provision for expansion to accommodate the longest future train, if necessary. Platforms should be high level, flush with the vehicle floor, in order to accommodate disabled patrons and for the easy and safe loading and unloading of trains. The guideway should extend a minimum of 75 feet beyond the platform on both horizontal and vertical tangents. Security should be provided to prevent access to restricted station areas and to the track or guideway. Metropo/itan Bakersfie/d 2-3 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 2,0 Site Suitability~Engineering and Operational Considerations C. station Amenities - The stations should provide amenities such as public restrooms, lighting, benches, route maps, train schedules, trash receptacles, telephones, public address system, and protection from adverse weather conditions. Additional amenities, including restaurants, shops, etc. could be provided as part of private sector investment in station area joint development. D. Handicapped Accessibility - Stations should be designed to be fully accessible by elderly and handicapped passengers. The Americans with Disabilities Act and all the State of California regulations pertaining to barrier-free design will need to be satisfied. In addition, the needs of patrons with infants in strollers, carrying hand luggage, etc. should also be considered. E. Vertical Circulation - The system should be grade-separated at all proposed station locations. All vertical circulation elements (i.e., escalators, stairways, elevators) should be located to reinforce clear and direct patron movement patterns within each station. F. Fare Collection - Fare collection can be based on the honor system or utilize collection turnstiles. G. Site Design -The station should accommodate access by all movement modes, with special emphasis on access by bus,' private aut, omobiles, and taxis. Kiss-and-Ride and Park-and-Ride facilities should be also be provided. Interface~ with other transportation systems should be as clear and direct as possible. Pedestrian movement should be separated from auto-bus traffic wherever feasible. Station areas should be designed as pleasant and safe pedestrian-oriented environments. The minimum size requirements for a station accommodating any technology are shown in Table 2-2. TABLE 2-2 MINIMUM STATION SIZE1 Lenqth Terminal Platform' 800 feet Ramp Extensions 150 feet each end Total 1100 feet Width2 Terminal Platform and Tracks 100 feet Parkin,q3 220 cars 120 feet X 800 feet = 2.2 acres 300 cars 120 feet X 1100 feet = 3,0 acres Bus Loadino/Unloadinq 3 buses 15 feet X 500 feet ~ Total station template size developed for this study is about 240 feet X 1100 feet. 2 Terminal width is based on a 30-35 foot platform and 20-25 feet of rail area between two platforms. s Parking is based on an assumption of 100 Cars per acre. Actual requirements will be based on further in-depth study. ~our~e: Working Palser, Subt,ssk 8.3, Pe~o,-m Engine~fng a~d C)~Ar~; October, leg~. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-4 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitability/Engineering and Operational Considerations TABLE 2-1 STEEL WHEEL/MAGLEV VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS Characteristic I Steel Wheel I Uaglev TyPical Technology Example TGV-Atlantique MAGLEV-TR-07 Design Speed 186 MPH (300 KPH) 250 MPH (400 KPH) Train Capacity (passengers) 500 400 Vehicle Size (Feet) - Length 61.5 - 71.7 88.5 - Width 9.5 12.2 - Height 11.4 13.4 Platform Length Typical (Feet) 800 500 Normal Trainset Two Power Cars Five Cars S~ze Ten Coaches _ Vehicle Weight 68 Tons 66 Tons (loaded) (power car) (end car) Electrification Catenary Electromagnetic Control System Operator Operator or Automated Switching System Railroad Switch Movable Guideway Maximum Grade 3.5% 10% * Design speed is restricted by existing track condition and alignment (FRA Standard Class 5 Track) Source; Woddng P~oer, Subtask 6.1, A~ignment/Operaffonal Cr~ria; August 6, 1993. B. Platform and Trackway Requirements - A center platform station configuration is preferred over side- platform configurations. The platform length should accommodate the longest train with provision for expansion to accommodate the longest future train, if necessary. Platforms should be high level, flush with the vehicle floor, in order to accommodate disabled patrons and for the easy and safe loading and unloading of trains. The guideway should extend a minimum of 75 feet beyond the platform on both horizontal and vertical tangents. Security should be provided to prevent access to restricted station areas and to the track or guideway. C. Station Amenities - The stations should provide amenities such as public restrOoms, lighting, benches, route maps, train schedules, trash receptacles, telephones, public address system, and protection from adverse weather conditions. Additional amenities, including restaurants, shops, etc. could be provided as part of private sector investment in station area joint development. D. Handicapped Accessibility - Stations should be designed to be fully accessible by elderly and handicapped passengers. The Americans with Disabilities Act and all the State of California regulations pertaining to barrier-free design will need to be satisfied. In addition, the needs of patrons with infants in strollers, carrying hand luggage, etc. should also be considered. E. Vertical Circulation - The system should be grade-separated at all proposed station locations. All vertical circulation elements (i.e., escalators, stainvays, elevators) should be located to reinforce clear and direct patron movement patterns within each station. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-5 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitability/Engineering and Operational CcnsideraEons TABLE 2-3 SUMMARY OF ALIGNMENT DESIGN CRITERIA Characteristics I Steel Wheel I Maglev Typical Technology Example TGV-Atlantique MAGLEV-TR-07 Desirable R/W Width 64' 64' Minimum R/W Width - 44' 50' Horlzontal Clearance - To An Obstruction 6'0' Tangent 8'0' Tangent 7'0' Curve 9'0' Curve 8'0' Preferred 10'0' Preferred - To Adjacent Track 14'0" Side Catenary 18'0' Centerline 16'0' Center Catenary Vertical Clearance - Top of High Rail Typical 20' TypicaJ 12' (Top of Guideway Minimum.17' Minimum 12'(Top of Guideway) · · Railroad 23'6' - Under Structure Railroad 23'6' Highway 16'6' Highway 16'6' Horlzontal Alignment -Tangent 100' min 100' rain - Stations 75' beyond platform 75' beyond pl~----fform -Circular Curves R = 1000' rain R = 1000' rain R = 13000' max speed R = 16000' max speed LS = 100E (100' rain) LS = 140= (100' rain) - Spiral Transition 10' max (E=7', U=3') ,,** = 12" max -Superelevation E+U = 3.84V2/R Tan ,, + .05 = .067V=/R Vertical Alignment - Vertical Tangents 100' rain 100' rain -Stations 75' beyond platform 75' beyond pla~fform - Grades 3.5% limit 10% limit 1.5% max speed 3.5% max sF. eed 1% stations 1% stations 1% yard 1% yard -Vertical Curves R = 46,000' max speed' R = 84,000' max speed R = 1.;34V= R = 1.34V= · " (z = Guideway flit angle Source: Working Paoer, Subtask 8.1, Alig~',~en~/Open~ C~; August 8, 1993. Suburban - Development of a terminal at one of the suburban sites can offer the following advantages: · Expanded technical planning options, design flexibility · Creation of new focus/activity center for westerly growth of urban area · Maximized potential for future rail transit center development · On-site flexibility for short and long-term parking · Relieve auto and bus traffic congestion in the CBD; shorter access times from re,oat residential areas are likely Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-6 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitability/Engineering and Operational Considerations · Development will require significant improvement/extensionof infrastructure and development of routinely required off-site support services The following discussion presents a comparison of the suitability of each site with regard to the following factors: technology and service requirements; required on-site facilities and circulation; site support of patronage and revenue; site geology and engineering; and feasibility of acquisition. 2.2.1 Technology and Service Requirements A. Guideway Gradients, Geometry, Dimensions, and Other Characteristics · Amtrak - No significant concerns except there is a switching yard on the site, and the track curves in a northerly direction west of the Oak Street overpass. · Downtown - No significant concerns except there is a spur curve to the south on the site. · East Bakersfield - No significant concerns except that several spur lines enter from south of Edison Highway. · Fruitvale - No significant~concerns except there appears to be an abandoned spur curve on the north side of the tracks leading-to the power plant. · Olive Ddve - No significant concerns except there is an existing curve to the tracks from the south and north of the site. ~ · Westside Freeway - No significant concerns B. Support for Efficient Operations and Service · Amtrak - Support exists, but not known if adequate. · Downtown - Same as Amtrak. · East Bakersfield - Limited support; area contains older industrial uses and some commercial uses not appropriate for services of a transit center. · Fruitvale - Limited support; many of the services are located at the intersection of Coffee Road and Stockdale Highway and along Rosedale Highway; not,known if adequate. · Olive Drive - Same as Amtrak. · Westside Freeway - No support exists; no improved roadways or development within one mile of site. 2.2.2 Required On-Site Facilities and Circulation A. Facility Access · Amtrak - Accessible from east via F Street, but limited by high school parking and traffic. Access from south via California Avenue. Access from north limited by Mercy Hospital, and the Oak Street pass over the switching yard limits access from the west. · DoWntown - Accessible from Q or S Streets. · East Bakersfield - Accessible from Edison Highway or Kentucky Street; if improved, Haley Street could provide access to Highway 178. · Fruitvale - Accessible from Coffee Road with improvements; future extension of Langley Road will offer access to Calloway Drive and ultimately Rosedale Highway, the future Westside Freeway, and Brimhall Road; El Toroviejo Road could be exteneded south to provide access to Rosedale Highway. · Olive Drive - Easily accessible from O'live Drive. Future extension of Landco Drive will provide access to Rosedale Highway. Operating oil refineries, State Highway 99, agricultural lands, and the North of the River Sanitation District site limit access from the east and west. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-7 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitability/Engineering and Operat~'onal Considerations · WestSide Freeway - Easy access from east; access otherwise limited by Kern River, agricultural lands, City of Bakersfield recharge areas, and railroad. B. Pedestrian On and Off-Site Circulation · Amtrak - No access to bike paths. Fair potential for pedestrian movement on and off-site. Downtown sidewalks exist. · Downtown - Accesses Class II Bike Lanes on Q Street and Truxtun Avenue. Good potential for pedestrian movement on and off the site with pathway improvements along roadways and to the Convention Center. · East Bakersfield - Accesses Class II Bike Lanes on Kentucky Street, Haley Street, and 21st to Edison Highway; good pedestrian movement potential with pathway improvements; area does not lend itseff well to pedestrian movement at night. · Fruitvale - No access to pedestrian circulation systems; bike paths are planned along Coffee Road; a bikeway is located along the Kern River about one mile south. · Olive Drive - No access to pedestrian circulation systems; bike paths are planned south of the AT&SF rail line and Landco Road to Rosedale Highway; a Class I! bike lane exists along Olive Drive to the northwest. · Westside Freeway - No access to pedestrian circulation systems; Kern River Parkway bike path is about two miles north; residential sidewalks and streets are located about one mile east. C. Vehicular On and Off-Site Movement · Amtrak - Poor movement. F Street is a heavily traveled local street. California Avenue passes the site, however, available land for terminal construction is limited. · Downtown - Good movement. · East Bakersfield - Off-site movement good; on-site movement restricted due to site depth. · Fruitvale - Coffee Road can be easily accessed but road has significant congestion; Langley and El Toroviejo Roads would need to be improved to access Calloway Drive and Rosedale Highway, respectively; on-site movement is unlimited. · Olive Drive - Limited movement on- and off-site; Olive Drive and the Highway 99 interchange area are congested; access could be gained with a canal crossing and road improvements of Landco Drive. · Westside Freeway - No improved roadways on or adjacent to the site; Buena Vista Road is closest paved road (one mile east); potential for movement is good-only concern is the railroad crossings to the south. D. Drop-Off, Short and Long Term Parking for Vehicles · Amtrak - Restricted amounts of land available to satisfy requirements. Long-term parking limited due t6 site size constraints and land availability. · Downtown - Restricted amounts of land available due to a split in the site.by S Street. Site is not long enough to accommodate the terminal and parking on the Western parcels. Eastern parcels can only accommodate a platform on the south side of the track unless structures along Truxtun Avenue are purchased. Area available for parking is significant for a downtown parcel. · East Bakersfield - Restricted amounts of land available due to site depth. · Fruitvale - Sufficient land available. · Olive Drive - Same as Fruitvale. · Westside Freeway - Same as Fruitvale. · Me~ropo/itan Bakersfield 2-8 Final Report ~ HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitabili~//E/~gineering and Operational Considerab'ons · Downtown - Concern limited to library patrons and industrial traffic; may be potential for transient injuries along tracks since the site will provide a public use that will attract a larger population. · East Bakersfield -.High crime rate; pedestrian movement through surrounding areas could pose a public endangerment. · Fruitvale - Limited concern since the area is primarily focused on industrial areas; school- designated areas are within one-half mile; residential areas buffer school from site; areas may create some public safety concerns which could be mitigated. · Olive Drive - Limited concern since the area is focused on industrial uses; no residential or school areas are located nearby. · Westside Freeway - Limited concern due to remoteness of site; a high school and residential areas are within one mile of site. :2.2.3 Site Support of Patronage and Revenue A. Adjacency to Major Access Routes · Amtrak - Direct access available only to California Avenue. · Downtown - PrimarY access routes are Q and S Streets linking Truxtun to California Ave; Union Avenue is a possibility on the ea§tern boundary.' · East Bakersfield - Pdmary access is via Kentucky Street and Edison Highway which link to Beale Avenue (an arterial). · Fruitvale - With future road extensions could access Rosedale Highway, Calloway Drive, and Brimhall Road; Coffee Road realignment will provide closer access. · Olive Drive - Access to Olive Drive and Highway 99; Landco Drive extension will access Rosedale Highway; southern routes limited by railroad and canal crossings. · Westside Freeway - Not located adjacent to a major access route; however, several routes are located within a few miles, and the proposed Westside Freeway alignment would be about one- half mile west of site. B. Location Near Population and Commercial Centers · Amtrak - Downtown Bakersfield; residential areas are nor'Ih and south of site; commercial offices are north of site; retail commercial is located about four blocks east of site. · Downtown - Heart of downtown Bakersfield; centrally located bet¥/een eastern and western Bakersfield residential areas; commercial area located north and west while industrial uses are located south and east. · East Bakersfield - Adjacent to residential area to north; mixture of industrial and residential areas to south; East Hills Mall is about two miles to the northeast. · Fruitvale - Within five miles of downtown Bakersfield; nearest residential is one-half mile west- southwest; commercial areas are along Coffee Road near Brimhall Road; retail commercial facilities focused on residential users are near the intersection of Coffee Road and Stockdale Highway; Rosedale Highway corridor contains a mix of uses. · Olive Drive - Within eight miles of downtown Bakersfield; nearest residential areas are one-half mile east of Highway 99 and one-half mile northwest along Olive Drive; commercial center and .service stations exist along Olive Ddve near the Highway 99 interchange. · Westside Freeway - Within seven miles of'downtown Bakersfield; nearest populated area is one mile east; commercial activities (targeted for residential users) are two miles from site; two commercial centers are planned along Buena Vista Road; Valley Plaza is six miles fr?m site. Metropofitan Bakersfield 2-10 Fina/ Report HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitability/Engineering and Operational Considerations C. Vehicular and Pedestrian Links · Amtrak- Potential for vehicular links with improvements; pedestrian links will need to be improved to the central downtown area and surrounding residential areas. · Downtown - Optimum potential for vehicular links; pedestrian links will need to be improved to central downtown; links to surrounding residential areas limited. · East Bakersfield - Optimum potential for vehicular links; pedestrian links to residential areas need to be improved, Links to industrial areas limited. · Fruitvale - Vehicular links limited by existing land uses and rights-of-way; pedestrian links are limited but could be improved. · Olive Drive - Vehicular links limited by existing land uses and rights-of-way; pedestrian links are limited and it appears that there are no plans to improve the pattern; Landco Drive extension will provide a vehicular link between Rosedale Highway and Olive Drive. · Westside Freeway - Limited potential to link with existing vehicular and pedestrian ways due to distance; circulation will be possible as growth occurs in the area. Table 2-4 shows the approximate travel times and distances to various destinations from each of the station sites. TABLE 2-4 TRAVEL TIME/DISTANCE TO MAJOR DESTINATIONS Site I Downtown I Airport IResidential IC°mmercial I Freeways Amtrak I min./1 mile 10 min./5 miles 1 min./1 mile I min./1 mile 1 min./1 mile to Hwy 99 45 min./35 miles to I-5 Downtown I min./1/= mile 12 min./8 miles 1 min./1 mile 1 min./l/2 mile 4 min./2 miles to Hwy 99 25 min./18 miles to I-5 East 4 min./2 miles 15 min./10 miles 1 min./l/2 mile 4 min./2 miles 4 min./2 miles to Hwy 178 Bakersfield 5 min./8 miles to Hwy 99 30 min./21 miles to I-5 Fruitvale 4 min./5 miles 8 min./5 miles 2 min./1/2 mile 2 min./1 mile 4 min./3 miles to Hwy 99 30 min./15 miles to 1-5 2 min./I/2 mile to Westside Freeway Olive Drive 8 min./4 miles 5 min./2 miles 5 min./3miles 1 min./l/2 mile 1 min./l/2 mile to Hwy 99 40 min./30 miles to I-5 Westside 15 min./'7 miles 20 min./8 miles 2 min./1 mile 5 min./3 miles 10 min./6 miles to I-5 Freeway 10 min./6 miles to Hwy 99 Source: Wo~ldng Pa,ocr, Subtask 6.3, F~Yocrn Enginee~'ng a/x:t Opeca,~/A~; ~, 1g~3 D. Capacity to Reinforce Activity Centers · Amtrak - Great potential to bring activity back to downtown. · Downtown - Same as Amtrak. · East Bakersfield - Great potential to provide redevelopment opportunities. · Fruitvale - With extension and improvement of accessing roadways, the site could support the commercial activity along Coffee Road and Rosedale Highway. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-11 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitability/Engineering and Operational Considerations · Olive Drive - Could support commercial activity at Olive Drive and Highway 99 interchange; extension of Landco Drive could support activity on Rosedale Highway and, with transit service improvements, the downtown area. · Westside Freeway - No capacity to reinforce existing centers; however, once planned development in the area occurs, this potential will increase dramatically. E. Potential for Pedestrianization of Surrounding Areas · Amtrak - Potential exists but requires improvements to pedestrian ways. · Downtown - Good potential to government and commercial uses; industrial uses to the south are limiting; linkages to western areas would require path improvements. · East Bakersfield - Could be accomplished with improvement of adjacent neighborhoods and sidewalks, primary link to East Hills Mall should be investigated. · Fruitvale - Limited potential due to scattering of dissimilar land uses; no commercial or toudst facilities exist that would draw pedestrian traffic. · Olive Drive - Limited potential due to industrial and highway transportation uses; linkages to western areas may be possible. · Westside Freeway -The centers concept goals encourage a land use link with the Kern River and promotes pedestrian' activity within the center; developmen, t of adjacent master planned communities will lend' to developmeht of efficient pedestrian circulation. F. Unusual Site Development Constraints · Amtrak - Accessibility and size. · Downtown - Canal and size. · East Bakersfield - Canal, neighborhood, and size. · Fruitvale ~ Oil production facilities and power plant. · Olive Drive -Oil production facilities and Highway 99 interchange. · Westside Freeway - Distance to existing infrastructure and improved roadways. 2.2.4 Site Geology and Engineering A. Seismicity · Amtrak - Potential problem should a strong earthquake (7.0) occur along faults located in the area. · Downtown - Same as Amtrak, · East Bakersfield - Same as Amtrak. · Fruitvale - Same as Amtrak, · Olive Drive - Same as Amtrak, · Westside Freeway - Same as Amtrak, B, Drainage and Utilities · Amtrak - Drainage: No problems outlined in 2010 General Plan, Storm drainage systems along Truxtun Avenue, Water Resources: Domestic water available on-site, Domestic Water: Kern Co, Water Agency Improvement District No, 4; California Water Service, Sewer: City of Bakersfield. Gas and Electricity: PG&E. Law Enforcement: City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-12 Final .Report HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitability/Engineering and Operat/onal ConsideraEons Fire Protection: City of Bakersfield. Hazards On-site: Switching yard, large numbers of high school students adjacent to site. · Downtown - Drainage: Same as Amtrak. Water Resources: Kern Island Canal. Domestic Water: Same as Amtrak. Sewer: Same as Amtrak. Gas and Electricity: Same as Amtrak. Law Enforcement: Same as Amtrak. Fire Protection: Same as Amtrak, Hazards On-site: Kern Island Canal. · East Bakersfield - Drainage: Adjacent to a problem area. Water Resources: East Kern Canal. Domestic Water: Same as Amtrak. Sewer: Same as Amtrak. Gas and Electricity: Same as Amtrak. Law Enforcement: Same as Amtrak. Fire Protection: Same as Amtrak. Hazards On-site: East Kern Canal. · Fruitvale - Drainage: No problems outlined in the 2010 General Plan, Water Resources: Agricultural water improvements. Domestic Water: Available with improvements; Kern COunty Water Agency Improvement District. No, 4; California Water Service. Sewer: CSA 71. Gas and Electricity: Southern California Edison and PG&E. Law Enforcement: Kern County Sheriff and City of Bakersfield. Fire Protection: Kern County Fire Department and City of Bakersfield. Hazards On-site: Oil wells. · Olive Drive - Drainage: Same as Fruitvate. Water Resources: Irrigation canals scattered throughout site. Domestic Water: North of the River Municipal Water District; no domestic improvements on the site. Sewer: CSA 71 south of railroad; North of the River Sanitation District west of site; no current improvements on site; improvements located at Olive Drive. Gas and Electricity: Same as Fruitvale. Law Enforcement: Kern County Sheriff. Fire Protection: Kern County Fire Department. Hazards On-site: Oil wells, irrigation canals. · Westside Freeway - Drainage: Located at south end'of a problem area. Water Resources: James Canal; various irrigation canals; depth to groundwater is 200-300 feet. Domestic Water: Kern County Water Agency Improvement Distdct No. 4. Sewer: No sewer connection near site; no current wastewater services on-site. Gas and Electricity: PG&E. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-13 Fina~ Report HSGT Terminal Study 2.0 Site Suitabili~/Engineering and Operational Considera§ons Law Enforcement: Same as Olive Drive. Fire Protection: Same as Olive Drive. Hazards On-site: PG&E gas transmission lines; irrigation canals. C. Topography · Amtrak - Fiat and has been leveled by construction of structures and a railroad line. · Downtown - Same as Amtrak. · East Bakersfield - Same as Amtrak. · Fruitvale - Flat or gently sloping and has been leveled through cultivation and power plant improvements. · Olive Drive - Flat or gently sloping and has been leveled through cultivation. · Westside Freeway - Same as Olive Drive. 2.2.5 Feasibility of Site Acquisition A. Site Availability · Amtrak - Currently developed with an Amtrak rail and bus terminal. · Downtown - Currently under several ownerships, and portions are undeveloped, · East Bakersfield - Currently developed as a railroad yard and fruit storage facility. · Fruitvale - Currently contains some buildings, oil producing structures, and a power plant and is also under agricultural production; availability limited to harvest times, termination of agricultural leases, and acquisition of power plant and/or oil refinery, as required. · Olive Drive - Not developed with structures; limited agricultural production and oil production; availability limited to harvest times and termination of agricultural leases, · Westside Freeway - Not developed; currently under agricultural production and availabi',ity is limited to harvest times and termination of agricultural leases. B. Demolition and/or Relocation Requirements · Amtrak - Demolition or relocation of existing structures required, · Downtown - Same as Amtrak. · East Bakersfield - Limited demolition or relocation of existing structures required. · Fruit-vale - Demolition or relocation of oil producing facilities and power plant may be necessary depending on the site chosen. · Olive Drive - Demolition or relocation of oil producing facilities may be required. · Westside Freeway - No demolition or relocation of structures required; oil producing equipment or lines may need to be relocated. C, Potential for Site Expansion · Amtrak - Restricted due to transportation corridors and existing ~evelopment. · Downtown - Restricted due to existing development. · East Bakersfield - Same as Downtown. · Fruitvale - Same as Amtrak. · Olive Drive - Same as Amtrak. · Westside Freeway - Unlimited potential due to lack of existing development. Metropolitan Bak ersfie/d 2-14 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study · ._~.-:.~':"METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HIGH SPEED 'GROUND :.'-. ---z':-~.~'. ,.TRANSPORTATION. SYSTEM TERMINAL STUDY~:.~'-':.i:~:!!~:.-:': .-.,.-....~::. :'.'-. '~;'-..~.~-'.~.'~-~:~i-~..'.::'..i-...~:~:--. . .......... ~_...'.- ............ '.~'- ~.. - :.:.. '.'_ ........ ..' : · .- ..- .....-_.: . '-.~. - ' ". 3. I'P ISSUE ........ . :::~ ...: ..... . .'-".: ~ ~.'.~ ~.}-. . "i..'.'.'~..:: . ..:: ......_. ' : '"- ' ........ ' ...... ~:' ' ""' ' . ~i'"./ ~..2' - ... · ....... " ..--....'.-. i/' ._ -...2'-' /..' - ..... : .... . ............ -~ ...... _ - . . ~ : -_~ .. 3.0 Ridership Issues 3.0 RIDERSHIP ISSUES This chapter discusses the model used to estimate patronage and the results of the patronage analysis. 3,1 RIDERSHIP MODEL The intercity demand model from a recent Florida Depsrtment of Transportation (FDOT) sponsored High Speed Rail Study was transferred to this project for use in preparing ridership projections. This section discusses the model and how 'it was adapted for use in the Metropolitan Bakersfield HSGT Terminal Study. 3.1.1 Florida lnterclty Ridershlp Forecast Model The model has two stages. The first stage estimates the total intercity trip volume for any city pair in Florida. The total intercity trip volume includes the trips of all possible modes serving the city pair. The second stage is a mode choice model. It is used to estimate the market share among all available travel modes in the given pai~ of cities. ~The market share mod~l is in a nested logit structure which contains five modes: · Air Jet · Air Commuter · Ground Automobile · Ground Conventional Rail · Ground High Speed Train The model takes 'into account the trip purpose (i.e., business/commute and recreation/other). Each market share model contains five utility functions, one for each mcde. In each utility function, there are 12 variables and 12 parameters. The 12 variables a:a two alternative specific dummy variables, four traveler characteristic variables, and six level of service variables. When transferring the two Florida intercity travel demand mode!s to California, the parameters for the . mode specific dummy variables were adjusted to refle~ the base year situation in California. Because there are two trip purposes (business/commute v__~s, recreational/other), five travel modes, and two mode specific dummies in each utility function, there are a total of 2 x 5 x 2 = 20 parameters to be adjusted. Four total demand models were estimated for the Florida Study and are distinguished by tdp purpose as discussed previously. The models consider: · Total Trips between Cities · Total Composite Utilities for Composite Air Mcdes · Total Composite Utilities for Composite Ground Transportation Modes · Three Variables - Population in Trip Origin Zone - Employment in Trip Destination Zone - Hotel Rooms in Destination Zone 3.1.2 Adaptation of the FDOT Model to this Study Due to the differences in modal share between the Los Angeles/Bskersfield travel market and the Florida intercity travel market, and due to the availability of socioeconomic and transportation level of service variables to this study, the FDOT models were simplified to suit the Los Angeles/Bakersfield situation. The Metropofitan Bakersfield 3-1 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 3.0 Ridership Issues two air modes (jet and commuter planes) in the Florida model were consolidated into one. As a result, there are only three travel modes (air, auto, and Amtrak/Greyhound buses) specified for the California model when HSGT is not in place. For forecasting purposes, four modes (air, auto, buses, and HSGT) are included. Four variables considered important in the FDOT model (e.g. the number of hotels in the destination city, the mode of arrival to the state, gender of travellers, and whether it is a recreational trip or not) were removed when transferring the model from Florida to California. After simplification the variables remaining in the model are: A. Alternative specific constants - to capture the perceived bias associated with each intercity travel mode B, Average income of travellers C. Population of Kern County D. Employment of Los Angeles County E. Une-haul time of each mode F. Out-of-vehicle time of each mode - including access time, terminal time on the trip odgin end, terminal time on the destination end, and egress time G. Total travel distance of each mode H. Line-haul travel cost of each mode I. Access/egress travel cost of each mode . J. Service frequency of each mode 3.1.3 Input Assumptions This section describes the assumptions on inputs to the model. A. Base Year Trips and Market Shares The statistics of base year (1990) trips are essential to the patronage forecasting process. This information is needed for calibrating the alternative specific constants in the market share model, It is also needed as input to the total travel demand model. Several sources are available for estimating the 1990 person trips: · Kern COG regional transportation plan~ning model1, · Caltrans 1991 Statewide Travel Surveyz, and · Kern County Department of Airports passenger boarding records. Amtrak and Greyhound were also contacted in order to obtain ridership on, bus trips between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. However, ridership information was held confidential by those two companies; only fare structure and operating schedules were obtainable from the two companies. According to the Kern COG model, the total trips in 1990 between Kern County and Los Angeles County were 35,631/day, including trips of automobile, bus (Amtrak and Greyhound), and air modes. From the Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey, the market share for bus mode between the two counties was 4.38%. This market share would translate into 35,631*4.38% = 1,561' trips/day on buses. Kern Council of Governments, EMME2 1990 Base Model Validation Report, Bakersfield, California. 2 Caltrans, 1991 Statewlde Travel Survey - Linked Trip Data Region Files, and Floppy Disk Processing, Transportstion Planning Support Information System (TI=SIS), Office of Traffic Improvement. Metropolitan Bakersfield 3-2 FinaJ Report HSGT Terminal Study 3.0 Ridership Issues The number of trips via air transportation between Bakersfield and Los Angeles International (LA,~ Airport was obtained from Kern County Department of Airports. There are over 63,000 trips/year or, on average, 210 trips/weekday. The 210 trips/day represent 0.59% of the intercity travel market. W'rth the bus riders (4.38%) and airlines passengers (0.59%), the remaining 95.03% of the intercity travellers are all automobile users. B. Socioeconomic Characteristics Socioeconomic inputs to the model include population of Kern County, employment of Los Angeles County, and median income of Kern County. According to the 1990 census, there were 584,100 people livin.g3in Kern County. The population forecasts were published by the California State Department of Finance. The population forecasts are 1,037,700 for 2010, and 1,310,100 for 2020. The number of jobs in Los Angeles County was obtained from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). In 1991, there were 3,982,700 jobs in the County. In 2010, 5,784,100 jobs are predicted by SCAG. The 2020 projection of employments in Los Angeles is not available from SCAG. A linear extrapolation beyond 2010 results in 6,684,800 jobs in Los Angeles County in 2020, According to Kern COG, the 1992 median household income for Kern County was $34,268/year. No forecast of future income for the County is available. C. Transportation Level of Service Characteristics The transportation level of service characteristics were obtained from different sources as follows: Air Mode At present, Delta, American Airlines, United Airlines, USAir, and Air West provide service between Bakersfield and LAX Airport. According to the Official Airline Guide (OAG), there are a total of 26 flights/weekday each way between the two cities. The in-plane travel time was found from the OAG as 45 minutes each way, The estimate of average access/egress time for air mode includes: · Access time from trip origin to Bakersfield Airport (about 15 minutes) · Terminal time for parking, purchasing ticket, and waiting at gate for boarding (35 minutes) · Terminal time at the L.AX Airport (15 minutes) · Egress time from LAX to trip destination via taxi or automobiles (25 minutes) The assumptions on the two terminal times are based on the surveys of other HSGT patronage studies4, The assumptions on access time and egress time are obtained from Kern COG and SCAG transportation planning models. California State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Report 93-P1, Population Projection by Ray- Ethnicity for California. 4 For examples: So~rthern California Association of Governments, Southern California High Speed Rail Feasibility Study, Final Report, July 1991; and KPMG Peat Marwick, Analysis of The Market Demand for High Speed Rail in the Quebec/Ontario Corridor, June, lggO. Metropolitan B~kersfield 3-3 I~nal Report HSGT Terminal Study 3.0 Ridership Issues The regular air fare between Bakersfield and LAX is $160 one way and $318 round trip. Automobile Mode The average linehaul time between Bakersfield and Los Angeles via automobiles was found to be 120 minutes. The average time spent in parking/walking in downtown Los Angeles, according to a SCAG study5, is approximately 5 minutes. The cost of driving an automobile is assumed to be 25 cents per mile. Finally, the parking charges in Los Angeles are on average $1 O/day. Dividing the daily parking charge by two, we assumed $5 each way as the parking cost for the automobile mode. Amtrak and Greyhound Bus Mode At present, Amtrak provides 5 departures/day from Bakersfield to Los Angeles and 8 departures/day from Los Angeles to Bakersfield. Greyhound provides 13 departures/dsy each direction between the two cities. On Amtrak and Greyhound schedules, the linehaul time is 140 minutes each way. Amtrak charges $20 per one way trip, but $29 per round trip. When purchasing an Amtrak ticket, a segment of rail service beyond Union Station in Los Angeles must be included; othenvise, the ticket cannot be sold. Greyhound charges 812 per one way trip, 'and $26 per round trip. The access/egress time for the Amtrak/Greyhound mode includes: · Access time from trip origin tO Bakersfield Bus Terminal (10 minutes) · Terminal time for parking, purchasing ticket, and waiting at gate for boarding (15 minutes) · Terminal time at the Los Angeles Union Station or Downtown Greyhound Terminal (15 minutes) · Egress time from downtown station/terminal to trip destination (15 minutes) The access/egress cost for Amtrak/Greyhound mode is.assumed to include free parking on the Bakersfield side, and a transfer fare of $1.90 per ride to MTA Metrorail or buses on the Los Angeles side. HSGT Mode The four levels of HSGT operational scenarios recommended by the California High Speed Rail Corridor Study Group, under AB7916 in a previous statewide HSGT study were applied to this project. Table 3-1 'displays the four levels considered. 3.2 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECASTS' The model found that the market share for HSGT increases as the speed of HSGT increases under the four operational scenarios analyzed. Generally speaking, when the maximum speed is at the 110 mph level, the mode share for HSGT is in the range of 10-15%. When the speed is increased to 125 mph, the share will increase to 16-20%. When the system is upgraded to a TGV type of technology With maximum speed Of 185 mph, the market share of HSGT will be further increased to 35-43%. If the technology is upgraded to a Maglev type system with maximum speed of 300 mph, the market share will reach 50% for some of the alternatives. Induced trips due to HSGT also increased with speed. The total intercity trips increase from 0.8-1.5%, when the maximum speed is only at the 110-125 mph range, to 3-5%, when high level technology such as TGV or Maglev is introduced. s Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California High Speed Rail Feasibility Study, Final Report, July 1991. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Final Consultants' Report to the Los Angeles-Fresno-Bay AreaJSacramento High Speed Rail Corridor Study Group, June lsd0. Metropolitan Bakersfield 3-4 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 3.0 Ridership Issues TABLE 3-1 FOUR HSGT OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS Operational Maximum Speed Llnehaul Time Cost Per Mile No. Trains Scenario (MPH) (Min.) (¢) Per Day LEVEL 2 110 93 12.5 22 LEVEL 2A .125 70 15 ~ 22 LEVEL 3 185 56 22.5 27 LEVEL 4 300 38 26.25 27 ~ource: Subta~k 2.1, Worl~ng I~ o~ P, ic~e~hip ,4~alysi~ of AffernaZ~ 5'aaEo~s $it~; No~mbe~ Igg3, Figures 3-1 and 3-2 display the base (1991) and future (2020) ridership for the four operational scenarios. Ridership varies with the location of terminal station. The suburban sites such as Westside Freeway and Fruitvale will attract the lowest ridership. The stations in the central city, such as the Downtown or the present Amtrak terminal, will attract the highest ridership. The 2020 ridership is predicted to be more than twice the ridership of the base year. This is mainly attributed to the 120% population increase expected in Kern County and the 67% employment increase anticipated in Los Angeles County in the next 30 years. Revenues vary with the choice of technology and with the location of the terminal station. The faster the train, the higher the ridership. ~ Metropolitan Bakersfield 3-5 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study High.Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Between Los Angeles and Bakersfield (t991 Ridership) 20 ? ~ ..... 18,852 18,888 ~ 15,538 / 15,659 ~~ 16,003 / , /~ 15, 28 , 15 ff ~ 114,219 ' 13,021 // .......... .B:: ~:::. :~:: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::: ~::~ ~ 5,770 3, Westside Fruitvale Olive Dr. Downtown E. Baksfd Amtrak :{E 3-1 High Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Between Los Angeles and Bakersfield (2020 Ridership) 50 43,125 43,044 41,849 41,718 41,358 40,410 40 36,088 36,!67 34,864 34,522 34,981 33,653 ~ 30 O 2O 14,969 15,659 15,,1.72 16,378 15,734 16,4.24 10 11,403 10,931 11,440 10,376 10,876 10,737 0 Westside Fruitvale Olive Dr. Downtown E. Baksfd Amtrak FIGURE 3-2 -...- · ~-~- ~-. -. . : .-- .~. . · · ...~_.,.... .'..' . ... .- · .. -- . ..... ....::c.. · ._ . -.~..?~. · . 4.0 Pub~lc-Private Deve/opment Potential Considerations 4.0 PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS This chapter identifies and assesses the station sites and surrounding areas for joint development potential. The study addressed land uses and quantities within 0.25 miles of urbanized sites (Amtrak, Downtown, East Bakersfield) and 0.5 miles of rural or less developed sites (Fruitvale, Olive Drive, Westside Freeway), Several factors were considered including: amount of available undeveloped land; amount of government-held land; physical constraints to Station Area Development Zones (SADZ); land use; leapfrog and infill potential; interconnectivity; consistency with plans and policies; job generation potential; and tax generation potential. 4,1 AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE UNDEVELOPED LAND AND GOVERNMENT-HELD LAND The amount of available undeveloped land and government-held land in the vicinity of the slx sites are presented in Table 4-1, TABLE 4-1 AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE UNDEVELOPED LAND AND GOVERNMENT-HELD LAND Available Undeveloped Government-Held Land Slte Land (Acres) (Acres/Parcels) Amtrak 23 Federal 1 acre/1 parcel County 6 acres/7 parcels City 7 acres/14 parcels Downtown 2 Federal 1.6 acres/1 parcel County 17.6 acres/19 parcels City 22 acres/18 parcels East Bakersfield 64 City 0.69 acres/1 parcel Fruit'vale 530 Federal 10 acres/2 parcels County 22 acres/2 parcels City 0.53 acres/1 parcel North Bakersfield 10 acres/1 parcel Recreation Department Olive Drive 180 State 4 acres/1 parcel County 26 acres/1 parcel North of the River 349 acres/7 parcels Sanitation District , Westside Freeway 836 None None Source: Wctr~ng Paper Subta~k 5.~, .5'~:x-~,azea E, ev~/c~rne~ Zc~,ea; ~-¢.ernber. lgg:3. 4,2 PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS TO STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONES Physical constraints were also considered in determining the development potential for each station site, This information is discussed in Section 2.2 of this report. Metropolitan Bakersfield 4-1 ~. Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 4.0 Pub#c-Private Deve/opment £otential Considerations 4.3 LAND USE Table 4-2 presents a summary of the land uses in the vicinity of the station sites. TABLE 4-2 LAND USE Site I Land Use J Acres Arntrak Existinq " Commercial 65 Industrial 52 Residential 50 Downtown Existin.q Commercial 60 Industrial 75 Residential 5 East Bakersfield Existing Commercial 37 Industrial 91 Residential 28 Fru~ale Existin,q , Commercial 43 Industrial 226 Residential 54 Agricultural 79 Future Three properties in the area were recently approved for changed land uses as shown: Suburban Residential to Low-DensW Residential 3.5 Low-Density Residential to General Commercial 6.5 Low-Dens~'y, Low-Medium-Density, and High-Dens~ Residential to Low-Medium Dens~ Residential 70 Olive Drive Existinq Commercial 17 Industrial 664 Residential 5 Agricultural 118 Westside Freeway Existinq Agricultural 837 Future McAIlister Ranch (9,000 dwelling units max.) 2,071 Castle & Cooke Planned Community (26,884 dwelling 4,387 units max.) S~ume: We~d~g Pa,ocr Subts.~J( 5.8, ,5~a6o~ A/~a Deve/c~"~nt Zo~e~; December, 199,3. Metropolitan Bakersfield 4-2 ~ Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 4.0 Public-Private Development PotentiaJ Considerations LEAPFROG AND INFILL POTENTIAL ' All ef the sites, with the exception of Westside Freeway, have significant infill potential because of other existing and/or planned uses in nearby areas. The Westside Freeway site has a potential for leapfrog development without the two master planned communities. The approval of McAIlister Ranch stabilizes and extends the land use patterns in the area. For further information on land uses existing near each of the sites, refer to Section 2.2 of this report. 4.5 INTERCONNECTIVITY ' The potential for interconnectivity with highways and other transportation modes is presented in Section 2.2 of this report. 4.6 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES Two major plans exist which could affect station development: Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Second Draft Technical Memorandum for the G.E.T. District Long Range Transportation Systems Plan. The plan goals for the 2010 General Plan are listed below: Land Use Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the market place and establishes Bakersfield's role as the capital of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Land Use Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with provision of infrastructure and public improvements. Land Use Policy 10: Accommodate high and high-medium density residential adjacent to planned principal transportation corridors. Land Use Policy 37: Enhance existing and establish new centers as the principal focus of development activity in the planning area, around which other land uses are grouped. Land Use Policy 38: Provide for enhancement and intensification of existing activity centers. Land Use Policy 39: Provide for intensification of downtown Bakersfield for governmental, financial, professional office, retail, residential, cultural, specialty, and supporting uses. Land Use Policy 40: Provide for revitalization of downtown Bakersfield by use of redevelopment authorities, including provision of incentives for new private development projects, joint public-private partnerships, and public improvements. Land Use Policies 42, 43, 44: Provide for establishment of new major.centers in the Southwest and Northwest planning subareas as the focus for development in the planning area. Land Use Policies 50, 51: Locate new development where infrastructure is available or can be expanded; ensure land use and infrastructure development are coordinated.' Land Use Policies 72, 73: Accommodate new projects which are infill or expansion of existing urban development; provide for an orderly outward expansion of new urban development. Land Use Policy 79: 'Encourage infill of vacant parcels. Metropolitan Bakersfield 4-3 t, Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 4.0 Public-Private Development Potential Considerations Land Use Policy 80: Encourage recycling of dilapidated end economically-depressed areas where preservation is not achievable or desirable. Transit Goal 5: Enhance rail service capacities and usage in the planning area, Table 4-3 presents a matrix showing the consistency of the six sites to the 2010 General Plan and the GET Plan. TABLE 4-3 A COMPARISON OF POLICY CONSISTENCY FOR THE ALTERNATIVE TERMINAL SITES Site Number Principle, Goal, Policy, or Alternative ,1 2 3 4 5 6 2010 GENERAL PLAN Centers Principle .. + + Resources Principle + + Infi[I Principle + + + + + .I Rehabilitation Principle + + + Land Use Goal 1 + + + + + + Land Use Goal 4 + + + - Land Use Polic~/ 10 + '+ Land Use Policy 37 + + + + + Land Use Policy 38 + + + Land Use Policy 39,40 + + Lend Use Policies 42, 43, 44 + + + Land Use Policies 50, 51 + + + + + Land Use Policies 72, 73 + + + + + Land Use Policy 79 + + + + + Land Use Policy 80 + Transit Goal 5 + + + + + + GET LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN LEGEND: SCORING: SITES: '+' = Strongly consistent (supports) '+' = 1 I = Amtrak 4 = Fruitvale '-' = Strongly inconsistent (conflicts) '-' = -1 2 = Downtown 5 = Olive Drive · ' = Neutral. or does not apply '' = 0 3 = E. Bkrfld. 6 = Westside Fwy. Source: Wc,~4dng Ps,ocr Sub~'~-k 5.8. ~ A~e De~/~orne,"Z Z,a~e~; December. 19&3. Metropofitan Bal<er$field 4-4 Final Report HSGT Terminal Study ...... '- -': .---- ~.'.' ....:.' ........ ---: .~- ."....-~. ' ..... -;..- ....:2' ':: ....-';.~_:'.'.:..~; '.-..; :. :2":": ', '_'." . ." ~';- -'" . --:r-z~ . '- · 5' .' ' ..... ' . . . 2- . ~ . .._._-.. ............ _ ....· ...... ;..' ..... :: . --:.. - .. . . . ..... .-- .:_"' -. '-:.. ........ - .= .... - . _ ....... :~ . . . -..- . ...: .... . .... ~.. . ........ .::-::.:.." ...:.. .~ .........: -..:.-:. ~ ........ . - . ..._:-: -. - ...... . _ . . ::. - .... '. . ---_ """: '"'"-::: "-': .....--?:.:.:" :"-:':5.-.'~..~: ~:.. '::."..."':'.:~-.'.":....: :_:' ..: !"'.'.-:'-. :':'~"'....'- ":::" - -'- - ........... .- _..:. -... .. ..... .......:;:- '.-:::.:~ .:':.'..:.:_.. -.:: -_ ;.:..::"...,:--.-'. .: · .; . ......... :- . , : .... --. ......... . .: ..... · . .... ---....: '::- .- .~.......:.....- _.. .... ~ - ::- ~ :-:- .. : ..... '.:"':;':.':-:::. :.._..:':..:.. : :~-.'":-.' "::: ':._. :.': . '.'.' ?:. :7:" .-. _.~:i.:':~--.'..' :;.f'.'?.:-:~'.... :. -.:: ......... : .... ' ..... · · :' '"' '-" - - ': · - . -_.. . .:. :~... :.:.: .. - .. - . '... · ~.:,:.-_-. : :..' '- _..-- - ... -.. '. .:- .. '. . - -.. - . ..: ~-- . 5.0 Environmental Considera~ons 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This chapter discusses the approach used to prepare the environmental analysis of the six station sites and presents the results of the environmental analysis. 5.1 APPROACH The approach followed is consistent with NEPA/CEQA guidelines and is designed to address important environmental categories pertinent to this type of project and setting. The environmental analysis process included a description of the existing environment or setting in sufficient detail to allow Kern COG staff and the TAC to understand fully the environment of the alternative station sites and the potential adverse impacts. The assessment was conducted using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist format, focusing on various environmental factors. Environmental categories analyzed concentrated on the following 8 factors: · Hazardous waste sites '~ · Archaeological sites · Major transportation impacts/disruptions · Endangered species · Section 4(0 lands · Historic structures · Social/economic · Land use To complete the CEQA checklist, the following work tasks were accomplished: · Walked the alternative stations sites and area of potential effect to determine baseline conditions · Coordinated with project team during the development of alternative site plans · Met with agency staff to scope out any local environmental concerns · Coordinated with appropriate personnel/agencies/departments where necessary The following was contained in the Initial Study analysis: · A description of the project including the location of the terminal site · An identification of the environmental setting · An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method · A discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any · An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls Environmental impacts were assessed employing a standard environmental initial study checklist for each alternative utilizing field observations, aerial photography, and existing local documentation. This information was then condensed and transferred into a matrix format comparing alternative sites. The checklist shown in Appendix B was used to ident~ physical, biological, social, and economic factors which might be.affected by the proposed alternatives being studied for the Kern COG High Speed Ground Transportation System Terminal study. The checklist was prepared for each site as the result of field and plan review, and the review of existing data. Background technical studies of the standard environmental categories were not performed for this level of environmental anatysis. Metropolitan Bakersfield 5-1 ~ Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 5.0 Environmental Considerations 5.2 ANALYSIS An environmental significance checklist was prepared for each of the slx candidate sites. Of the 56 factors that were assessed, one or more sites would have potential adverse effects on 18 of those factors. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the sites for those areas where adverse impacts are possible. It was determined that in none of the cases would the adverse effects definitely be significant. For two factors, further study would be necessary to determine the effects. For the Fruitvale and Westside Freeway sites, additional study is needed to determine if there would be a risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances, or other safety concerns. Further study would also be necessary to ascertain if impacts to archaeological or historic sites would occur with development of a terminal at the Downtown, Fruitvale, Olive Drive, and Westside Freeway sites. Metropolitan Bakersfield 5-2 t~ Final Report HSGT Terminal Study TABLE 5-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Terminal Site Will the station site (directly or Indirectly) affect or cause: Amtrak Downtown East Frultvale Olive Westslde Bakersfield Drive Freeway Increases In air pollution Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Increases In noise levels or vibration Maybe No No No No Maybe Noise criteria to be exceeded Maybe No No No No Maybe LIcjht cjlare or shadow Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Yes Maybe Reduction In farmland or timber acres or affect Impo, rlant farmland No No No No No Yes Disruption of planned development No No No No No Maybe Population location, distribution, density or growth rate No No No No No Maybe Employment, Industry or commerce or require displacement of No Maybe No Maybe Yes No businesses or farms Community facilities Maybe No No No No No Public utilities, police, fire or other public services Maybe No No No No No Affect transportation systems or alter clrculatlon patterns No Maybe No No No No Generation of additional traffic · Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Existing parking facilities or result In demand for new parking Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances, or other No No Maybe Maybe* No Maybe* safety concerns Chancres to waterborne, rail or alr traffic Yes Maybe Yes Yes Yes Yes Support larcje commercial or residential development No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Archaeological or historic resources No Maybe* No Maybe* Maybe* Maybe* Aesthetic concerns No No No No No Maybe Summary: No 9 10 11 9 10 4 Maybe 6 6 3 5 2 9 Yes 3 2 4 4 6 5 · Fudhor study required to determine effects. Source: Working Paper 8ubb~sk 4.2, Terminal S~ Envf~me~al Analysis; November 8, 1093. · -i~'.i. METROPOLITAN .BAKERSFIELD HIGH SPEED GROUND .~-' -'~ i:£. ~i._'.--..:TRANSPORTATION. SYSTEM_TERMINAL. ~T~D¥:~!..:~i!...i:::~..:i:.~.:.!~:~:~...::::~:..~5~?:...~?...:.~!~.~.i.~::~:. '. -'-- -'- ::':' :,.!: "--' ".':'(',.:' .-!.z..'z~:'_ --:-:?' '-: ...... :-" ' :.'~"~' · .......... '. :2-;,.'}.75.~':.1~..~_.'~.'.- · " .... .' ~- ~-'- 7."-'- ?'"":' :'~'~ ". ~-""- -' ...... :": .............. '=- ..... ? ....... .~ '= ."- ": ..... ':'' '".'.'?~:;~-~".--~--:.' ":'~' :'~" .... ' ..... .... ':' 6.0 -SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS PROCESS. ':: --" ~:': ... i'.":-~i:~ .i:.:!~;i -'.-~':?. ---'~'.'r-':~:?'.:.: ~-.- ' ~ !~' -:"'" ~-i" .:''''~ :'C'" ....... "":"---:~-' ;~_ .."T' ..'.': : . ' ' ' ' : . "'-'. .... · , .......:: ':'" '"'""'- ' ~-...'iT"./ !- . ..... . . ' ~"....:. -" . . :' · .: ..~...-..'.' .'. . ~.. .... - -_. .... "' . :~:'-."~. ..... ........... -" ":-' ': ';' ::.'.::-: -'-"'~-" "5.'il-''- :" "L ".:i ". '"'~ ' ~'' i~-.' -" '" '. ~:2 .... . . '.'. ..... ----'-.-.. . .::....-..: ..'~-:-':~: ,. .... - ...... . .::. -. ,: ........... - . - -.~:-..~_. - . .. : - :: ·. - . . . - -.. ~: . . . ..... - ., ;_....... ...... ~' ~..~.''. .....- .- '..: .......... ' _. - ..... ¢-.'. -.C "Y..'~'.- ..'~ --=. '": " '-:'~ '" '~'r-.'--':~:;.. ~' '- - .. ~.'~' . ~' ~ ..-" .:J..:z.'~._~' .':~'~'_:. :~_::~-.:.'.:- ..... ~......-...... . ..~ .. ~' '.' .. '-:.'' ": : 5_ :::.r...i:.:~'_'>.':..'' ..... '".... '. !.'.- ~J._' ·" ' '.' : '-':'" ::~:':' :-.-" ''~2-~ ~ .._"-'-.~ : . .'"":' · ~ ''.~'.. ..": · · --:'i ':':: ..... '~' -''"-' : · · '" --'~...:--_..... :.~ ...~ ....- ..... . . .:. ?- :.. :: '..:: . ~- . -. : ::'. .;.:".:7 ..'' · .... '7. '. '.~- ...."'- .' i' " ' '''"'':: "'~"' "' ...... "' " ............ ' :~.' ..'-: ~ . -' .' .'. il ...... 2'-. ...-.: .~_ -.-.~ .-' ..-_ ..... __--- : .-.: ... ...... ~.- . _ 6.0 Site Selection Analysis Process 6.0 SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS PROCESS The data developed for tl'ie site selection analysis includes information presented in the previous chapters and includes site suitability, operational requirements, ddership, environmental impacts, development potential, etc. Each' of these categories of information are different in character and, therefore, it can be complicated to compare the six site alternatives under consideration across a diverse set of evaluation criteria in an evaluation process. To provide a meaningful method for determining the best site for the. HSGT terminal which considers the whole variety of site selection factors, a systematic ranking and rating approach was used. The ranking and rating evaluation process is a valuable technique for comparing alternatives and for consolidating professional judgments on a wide range of issues. A technical panel, composed of all the members of the Technical Advisory Committee, completed the evaluation process. The process resulted in the selection of a preferred alternative which will be referred to the Kern Council of Governments for final approval. To initiate the evaluation process, the consultant prepared an evaluation notebook which provides a summary of the information produced in the technical analysis. That information was grouped by each of the major evaluation criteria. The notebook served as the primary reference source for the evaluation process. A two-tier evaluation process was used. The first tier required each member of the evaluation panel to individually evaluate the alternative sites. The first step involved a ranking of each of the sites for each of the evaluation categories (i.e., site suitability, operations and engineering, ridership, environmental issues, and development potential). Each panel member ranked the six sites from one to six for each of the evaluation criteria. For example, site 1 could have been given a rank of 1 for the environmental category. This would mean that site was the best performing (would have the least negative impacts or the most positive impacts of the six sites) in that category in the view of the evaluator. The second best site was ranked number 2 and so on to the last site. Each site was assigned a unique ranking. The sacond step involved rating each of the sites for each of the evaluation criteria using a scale of 0 to 100. A rating of 1 O0 indicated that a given site perfectly satisfied the objectives of that evaluation category (i.e., no adverse environmental impacts); a rating of 0 reflected that the site satisfied none of the objectives of the evaluation criteria (i.e., it would have adverse environmental impacts that are totally unacceptable). Any value on the scale could be assigned to any site. The same score could be assigned to two different sites for the same evaluation category. After each individual panel member completed the ranking and rating process, the second tier of the process was undertaken. A meeting was held where the consultant compiled the results of the individual rankings and ratings, and the results were discussed by the panel members. At the meeting, the consultant team was present to assist in providing any additional information and to respond to questions or issues raised by the panel members. Panel members shared 'their individual rankings and ratings with the rest of the panel and discussed their reasoning involved in the individual evaluations of each terminal site. Once the discussion was completed, the chair of the panel then asked if the panel was satisfied with the results or wanted to rank and rate each of the alternative sites again. A consensus on the preferred alternative station site was then obtained. The findings of the evaluation process are discussed in the next chapter. . Metropolitan Bakersfield 6-1 ~' Final Report HSGT Terminal Study :.: TRANSPORTATION .SYSTEM-TERMINAL-STUDY '.. :.:-..- - _' . ._~': ;-.: ';_" - --- --, - - _-.' ..........._ . . _~,... ................ . ..... . .... _..:..~ ...~_ ' : -~'.'.~'-.'2-:;.'.; 7"~.~.'_':-'_..~'2_-:';.--~.,':'.'.~:;5.-'~;': ;7'.'i: :.::<";.'-.. ' ,-.'."'2..";,-'.-.2,: '.:7:-'-':..-.'--'.'--"- .. ':'; . ........... :--';", ........ : .... "- FINDINGS AND'RECOMMENDATiONS .. '.-.'":-'.::.~;'~:~;~!~"..~:;:::;i',-.,~';:.!'2;:~.~.',.,'?.';:?:',;'::'~ '.:' .;~: ?'.:: :":': ': ...... ';..-.'.-.:;' ;:-.-~::'. "-' :.3. ~ .--~;::z-'., :.'.. :"- 7..-'..:T- .... ;'-; '.":;~",'. ;;:;.-"';'..; ...... . :: :'- ~.;'~P;.*; 5;-~;;'~-';'~ ;':.;'.:---:--.' ')-7-',;: ;: '...;;'.::.:'7 '.'. ";';.... :..2,:'.~."(~':"'"%. '-;';'~-:-~7.z.'.:21}2. '.'-_'. '=.. ~. ~' "~.'__';'5..."'.?:;.-~.':.. - ;;.; .:'_- '.' _ '~..~.~-:..'._':_-.'_";.- ;.'..~x":' ~' ~:'--'-.. ';;-!'.. ..... ':-... '-."~:'.'7'.'.r-':'.....' ':-~=rr".:-~'.q:..'...,.::r .... -- :.::- :~-.'~ ....... .,.:-.-.-.:.-r-...:..~ '-~: ......... '-:::=:'¢ ........ '.,~ '::' ' :~--~:?-_:'--- 'r-'~..::~--.--.:-. 2:1~-'.-.: .... '""- "":-"':"i~".' .: "'5' '- ' ....... : :'"': .... :' '"' ' - ........ '" .......... .," ' -'7 ..... .',';"','-. r:" .... ':7-: .-'j :' - · . _ .:.. ' ; - -. . "~ ..-. __;_.' .: . . ': .. .~ .. .. .;. ..... : : .... ...... : ..... ~ ............. · ...... ;....". . . .......... .- :... . · .... - ;__ ...'- -,.. ::- _ ..:.: .-._ .;.'.-.'_-._-- .: .. ._- --- _.. ,- ..;..:. . . . .. . : .. .... ; . .' .... . ,~..: : ........ .'.' =.: -- : - - :: ' " - . .-. .'i';~.....z_~ x.'. ;'{ -'. ; -. '-' ' ' .: . ~ . .......... - ......:..':-. .... --.' ...... -.~:' ' ." "- _ 5... ..... '~.' ' ~. . .'i.... '2 ~._~..}_ ;.:.. . . ..... : . ..-~.,~ .. ._"_7 .- .. .... . ...... - ...... ..'_..:'. .... .._....'_ "~....-:': :'.....'"-'-.'.'-- :: :. .. · ' ":'~' - '~'~' ....... .-'" "-: 'i:X.. ': .~J-, ~,~:~ "~.:r-~.''' . ~ ~ '7 .....r .' ~ :" r ~r..-~ '..; ·_ · '~'"" .... -"- ..... '.- · . .... : i-.~.. -' ~ . ..- . . .-. ~ .......... · .~._ . . . . ..._'.._- . ._-:..: .-. -.._ .: . . ..:: ~:. ~...~;.': .:... _-..: ~.-..-... .... . - .-_ - . . -.~'. '.: ..ii .' - ...... '" .5-n:' -. -.. ~- - .- .... ' ......... .: ......... .. :._:w.:.-.-' i-~ 2,-- . - -~.'-.': .... ';' "' '";" :'~':': '~°; ' '"~ '.~..' .".2- ' - ' . '"' *. : ..['x :. ' .... C .... · ..-..- '~-..'....-.~ .2z._' . ....... ~..... ....... '- ......... :.- .' . . . . - 7.0 Findings and Recommen. dations 7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Technical Advisory Committee O'AC) completed the evaluation process as described in the preceding chapter. Each of the members completed the ranking and rating forms for each of the categories of criteria. Table 7-1 presents the combined results for all of the TAO members. In terms of ranking, the Downtown site received the best score. This site was considered to be the best candidate for the location of a HSGT terminal. For each of.the four criteria categories, this site received the highest ranking. The East'Bakersfield site was assigned the second highest ranking score. The Amtrak and Fruitvale sites tied for third place ranking. The Olive Drive and Westside Freeway sites were ranked in fifth and sixth place, respectively. The Downtown sfte also received the highest rating of any of the sites, it received a rating of over ten points higher than the next highest rated site (East Bakersfield). The FruitYale site (third highest rating) scored slightly higher than the Amtrak site which scored in fourth place. Again, the fifth and sixth place rated sites were Olive Drive and Westside Freeway, respectively. The Westside Freeway site received a rating of about ten points less than the Olive Drive site. Based on both the results of the scoring process and further discussion, the TAC decided that the Downtown site would be the most preferable location for the Bakersfield HSGT terminal. This site is located near a future path for a light rail system; is close to the government and downtown commercial core which allows for revitalization potential; has expansion potential to the east with about two to three miles of available land to avoid conflicts with the library; and has access to two arterial roadways. The TAC further determined that, since the Downtown and Amtrak sites are close to each other, development could occur at the existing Amtrak terminal as a second choice should it not prove feasible to build at the Downtown site. The Amtrak site would also provide revitalization potential and is located on a proposed light rail line and near a possible future freeway. Expansion to the west and north to Truxtun Avenue will increase possibilities for development of a transit center and will provide access to Truxtun Avenue. The TAC also selected one of the suburban sites as a third choice in the event that Caltrans decides that the Los Angeles to Bakersfield high speed rail line should bypass the downtown area of the City of Bakersfield. In that case, the TAC determined that the Fruitvale site would be the most suitable location for a suburban station. This site is near-the Westside Freeway Corridor; has adequate vacant land available for expansion and accessibility; and is located closer to a larger residential population than the downtown areas. These recommendations will be referred to the Kern Council of Governments for final approval. Metropofitan Bakersfield 7-1 t' Final Report HSGT Terminal Study 7.0 Findings and Recommendations TABLE 7-1 COMPOSITE RANKING AND RATING FORM AVERAGE CRITERIA CATEGORY SCORE CRITERIA TERMINAL SITE CATEGORY RANK/ AMTRAK DOWN- EAST FRUIT- OLIVE WESTSIDE RATE TOWN BAKERSFIELD VALE DRIVE FREEWAY ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS AND SITE SUITABILITY Rank 3,7 1,7 3,1 2,9 4,7 4,9 Rate 67,1 85,0 70,7 73,6 65,0 59,3 RIDERSHIP Rank 1,7 1,3 3,6 3.9 4,6 6,0 Rate 90,7 93,4. 78.6 76,4 73,6 60,0 ENVIRONMENTAL Rank 2.7 1,9 2.7 4,4 3,4 5.7 Rate 66,1 72.9 70.7 57,1 60,7 47,1 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Rank 5.3 1,9 3.0 2.3 3,9 4,7 Rate 51.4 82.9 70.7 70.7 65.7 57.9 AVERAGE TOTAL SCORE Rank 3 1 2 3 5 6 Rate 68.9 83,5 72.7 69,5 66.3 56.1 Metropofitan Bakersfield 7-2 ~' Final Report HSGT Terminal Study ; .;-:~--.:~'.~-'.METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HIGH SPEED GROU'ND-~:~;i--':.i~!~.~:.i::'-: -i'i-~:!-TRANS PORTATIO N SYSTEM :TERMINAL: STUDy .51~:~::~:~i~ii-?.i~}?.i!:~:.!~.':' !~::'-i~ ~:~'2~:'.~-. -':-~_'_.~..~ -~.._~....~.:-;:~=._ ..:.:...:.~_..-..-.'?_ ::-...~-... :. -.;:~:-: ~ · _.~ .... . ..... .......... ..:.-.-...... ,--.; ~_. '...~ ... .... :"~:~..'~.' . . ,.... . .~._ ..... .:.~ ;.~.-...~ .... ~... ..... -:..;~..: .--:.-:..: _.~: ~._~:'_'::_; ~.~....__._ · ' .... :""~':':'; t:: ;':~,-i'r~ "'--"-'-'" il-'":'3:'" ' · ........ '- ' .. -'.-.-'{~ '-. ': ': 2. "._: ' _ ...... .. . ..... ..... : '~ ..... . .._':'" " ' .:. . .- . ---:-.-.'-- : ~z_'--:;~-'- '' ~.:.~ .-.--'- .~.....: .... ' ._-' .-. .- ' ' . ' ~ .--- .:._.. --. · -'. - ~i ' _ ....... -.-....-'.} :.~ . Appendix A - Working Papers and Technical Memoranda APPENDIX A - WORKING PAPERS' AND TECHNICAL MEMORANDA For more information about a particular technical issue that is not covered in this report, please refer to the listed working papers and technical memoranda that were prepared for this study: Subtask Name 2.1 Description of Florida Interci~/ Ridership Forecast 2.1 Working Paper on Rider'ship Analysis of Alternative Station Sites 3.1 Site Selection Analysis: Develop Evaluation Criteria 3.2 Site Evaluation · 4.1 Environmental Analysis Approach 4.2 Terminal Site Environmental Analysis 5,1 Development Po/icy Identification and Analysis 5.6 Station Area Development Zones 6.1 Alignment/Operational Criteria 6.3 Perform Engineering and Operational Analysis 7.1 Site Selection Analysis ~Process & 1 Decision Notebook Metropofitan Bakersfield A-1 ~ Final Report HSGT Terminal Study Appendb~ B - Environmental Significance Checklist APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST If yes, is it Yes or significant? No Yes or No PHYSICAL Will the station site (directly or indirectly): 1, Appreciably change the topography or ground/surface relief features? 2. Destroy, cover, or modify any unique geological or physical features? 3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic or seismic hazards? 4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)? 5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? 6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? 7. Result in substantial depletion of any non-renewable resource? 8. Violate any published Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to hazardous waste, solid waste, or litter control? 9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? 10. Encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be affected by floodwaters? 11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water supply? 12. Result in the use of water on large amounts or in a wasteful manner?. 13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? 14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, state, or local water quality standards? 15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic condition? 16. Result in an increase in air pollution emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration of ambient air quality? Metropolitan Bakersfie/d B. 1 t, Final Report HSGT Terminal Study Appendix B - Environmental Significance Checklist If yes, is it Yes or significant? No Yes or No 17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors? 18. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, of local air standards or control plans? 19. Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? 20. Result in any Federal, State, or local noise criteria being equalled or exceeded? 21. Produce new light glare or shadow? NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. Will the station site result in (either " directly or indirectly): 22. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants)? 23. Reduction in the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, threatened, or endangered species of plant? 24. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, of result in a barrier to the normal replenishment or existing species? 25. Reduction in 'acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber stand or affect prime, or unique or other farmland of State or local importance? 26. Removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 27. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? 28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, threatened, or endangered species of animals? 29. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Metropolitan Bakersfield B-2 t' Final Report HSGT Terminal Study Appendix B - Environmental Significance Checklist If yes, is it' Yes or significant? No Yes or No SOCIOECONOMIC, Will the proposal (directly or indirectly): 30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development? 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies, or goals, the California Urban Strategy? 32. Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management. 33. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 34. Affect lEe-styles, or neighborhood character or stability? 35. Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit-dependent, or other specific interest groups? 36. Divide or disrupt an established community? 37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the displacement of people or create a demand for additional housing? 38. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displace- ment of businesses or farms? 39. Affect property values or the local tax base? 40. Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines? 41. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency, or other public services? If so, underground public utilities? 42. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation? 43. Generate additional traffic? 44. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking? , Metropolitan Bakersfield B-3 t, Final Report HSGT Terminal Study Appendix B - Environmental Significance Check#st If yes, is it _ Yes or significant? ~ Yes or No 45. Involve a substantial risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or otherwise adversely affect overall public safety? 46. Result in alternations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? 47. Support large commercial or residential development? 48. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building? 49. Affect wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks? 50. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 51. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., noise, dust, temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)? 52. Result in the use of any publicl~/-owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 53. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildtife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or'restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? 54. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ..disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term Impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, . definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Metropolitan Bakersfield HSGT Terminal Study B-4 t' ~ Final Report STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONES for the Kern Council of Governments High Speed Ground Transpodation Station Study submitted to Mr. Stephen Beard, Vice President ICF Kaiser Engineers prepared by Martin-Mclntosh 2001. Wheelan Court Bakersfield, California 93309 December 1, 1993 Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................... : .............................. 4 2.0 Information Sources ................................................................... 4 3.0 Consistency with 2010 Plan - "Centers" and "Resources" 3.1 Amtrak ............................................................................. 4 3.2 Downtown ....................................................................... 4 3.3 East Bakersfield ............................................................... 5 3.4 Fruitvale ........................................................................... 5 3.5 Olive Drive ....................................................................... 5 3.6 Westside Freeway ............................................................ 6 4.0 Amount of Available Undeveloped Land ................................... 6 5.0 Amount of City or County Held Land ....................................... 7 6.0 Physical Constrains to Station Area Development Zones 6.1 Amtrak ........... 6.2 Downtown ....................................................................... 8 6.3 East Bakersfield ............................................................... 8 6.4 Fruitvale ........................................................................... 9 6.5 Olive Drive ....................................................................... 9 6.6 Westside Freeway ............................................................ 9 7.0 Land Use 7.1 Amtrak ............................................................................. 10 7.2 Downtown ....................................................................... 10 7.3 East Bakersfield ............................................................... 10 7.4 Fruitvale ........................................................................... 7.5 Olive Drive ....................................................................... 11 7.6 Westside Freeway ............................................................ 11 ~., 2 ]:\L,'~'~xD E F~Tr~'m~ADZ~ do~ Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones 8.0 Leapfrog and Infill Potential 8.1 Amtrak ............................................................................. 12 8.2 Downtown ....................................................................... 12 8.3 East Bakersfield ............................................................... '12 8.4 Fruitvale ........................................................................... 12 8.5 Olive Drive ....................................................................... 12 $.6 Westside Freeway ............................................................ 13 9.0 Interconnectivity 9.1 Amtrak ............................................................................. 13 9.2 Downtown ....................................................................... 13 9.3 East Bakersfield .................................................... ........... 14 9.4 Fruitvale..' ......................................................................... 14 9.5 Olive Drive ....................................................................... 15 9.6 Westside Freeway ............................................................ 15 10.0 Consistency with Plans and Policies 10.1 Amtrak ............................................................................. 16 10.2 Downtown ....................................................................... 16 10.3 East Bakersfield ............................................................... 16 10.4 Fruitvale ...... : .................................................................... 16 10.5 Olive Drive ....................................................................... 16 10.6 Westslde Freeway ............................................................ 17 10.7 Specific 2010 General Plan Goals and Policies .................. 17 Consistency Matrix .............................................................. : .... 19 11.0 Job Generation Potential ........................................................... 20 12.0 Tax Generation Potential ............. : ............................................. 20 Appendix"A". ...................................................................................... 22 Appendix"B". ............ , ......................................................................... 23 I:\u~DEF~Tf~n~SADZ-do~ Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study $tation Area Development Zones 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report serves to identify and assess the station sites and surrounding areas for joint development potential. The station area includes a platform and parking area approximately four (4) acres is size. The criterion used for this station size was estabished in the Working Paper and does not directly include Other related facilities. However, this paper will identify these other facilities and the potential for expansion to include other facilities. The Station Area Development Zone (SADZ) for each site encompasses land within a specified radius of the identified assessor parcels. The study addresses land uses and quantities within 0.25 miles of urbanized sites and 0.5 miles of rural or less developed sites. The criteria developed was then applied to each SADZ with the results being weighted by the project team in conjunction with other data available for each site. 2.0 INFORMATION SOURCES Information used in this assessment was obtained from April 12, 1993 aerial photography, assessor parcel maps and ownership roles, land use and zoning maps and existing reports and documents. 3.0 CONSISTENCY WITH 2010 PLAN - "CENTERS" AND "RESOURCES" 3.1 Amtrak The Amtrak Station site is located west of downtown Bakersfield. The site does not meet the criteria developed for a "mixed use center" due to site size limitations and location. This site has a great potential to bring life back to the downtown. There are several plans to rehabilitate areas of the central downtown area. Plans to link this core with the site will be required to pull the two areas together. The site does not provide direct access to or contain any unique natural resources. The Kern River can be accessed through a series of roadway paths through residential and commercial neighborhoods. There are limited visual resources associated with or adjacent to this site. 3.2 Downtown The Downtown Station site is located immediately east of downtown Bakersfield. The site does not meet the criteria developed for a "mixed use center" due to site size limitations. However, the area is identified as an intensified activity center in the 2010 Plan. This site has a great Potential to bring life back to the downtown. There are %. 4 j:\U~DEF~Tram~ADT. 4o~ Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones several plans to rehabilitate areas of the central downtown area and a transit center in this location will link the government .center with the downtown in a fairly efficient magh'ler. The site does not provide direct access to or contain any unique natural resources. The Kern River can be accessed through a series of roadway paths through residential and commercial neighborhoods. There are limited visual resources associated with or adjacent to this site. 3.3 East Bakersfield The East Bakersfield Station site is located east of downtown Bakersfield. The site does not meet the criteria developed for a "mixed use center" due to site size and location limitations. This site has a great potential to provide redevelopment potential to the area. A link to the East Hills Mall area could reinforce the redevelopment potential north of the site. The site does not provide direct access to or contain any unique natural resources. The Kern River can be accessed through a series of roadway paths through residential and commercial neighborhoods. There are limited visual resources associated with or adjacent to this site. The views to the east of the site of the hillsides is better than other urban sites. Thoughtful placement of structures may enhance these views. 3.4 Fruitvale The Fruitvale Station site is located in western Bakersfield. The site supports the criteria developed for a "mixed use center". The planned center is located north of Rosedale Highway and the site. This site is located to support the commercial activity along Coffee Road and Rosedale Highway with the extension and improvement accessing roadways. The site does not provide direct access to or contain any unique natural resources. The Kern River can be accessed through a series of linkages planned for a mixed use center. The distant visual resources from the site include various hillsides. Visual appearance adjacent to the site is poor due to existing industrial and powerplant operations. 3.5 Olive Driv~ The Olive Drive Station site is located in northwest Bakersfield. The site does not meet the criteria developed for, a "mixed use center" due to site location. This site is located to support the commercial activity at the Olive Drive and Highway 99 interchange. With the extension and improvement o£Landco Drive this support could filter to Rosedale Highway a~d into the downtown area. However, this will only take place with improvements to transit services into the downtown area from this location. 5 J:\Us~s~D E F~Tr~ADZ, d~c Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones The site does not provide direct access to or contain any unique natural resources. The Kern River can be accessed through a series of roadway paths through improved linkages. There are limited visual resources associated with or adjacent to this site due to existing land uses and a transportation cooridor. 3.6 Westside Freeway The Westside Freeway Station site is located west in southwest Bakersfield. The site does not directly meet the criteria developed for a "mixed use center" due to remote site location. However, a mixed use center is planned approximately one-mile north of the site. With the construction of these planned activities and the completion of the Westside Freeway beltway, the potential to enhance the center will be increased dramatically. The site does not provide direct access to or contain any unique natural resources. The Kern River can be accessed through a series of roadways and paths in a proposed Master Planned Community north of the site. The' visual resources associated with or adjacent to this site. 4.0 Amount of Available Undeveloped Land Amtrak Station 0.25-mile radius 004-360-01 23 Downtown Station 0.25-mile radius 006-540-01 2 East Bakersfield Station 0.25-mile radius 017-100-02 64 017-010-02 015-450-01 Fruitvale Station 0.5-mile radius 368-010-12,13,21 530 368-020-07,08,09, 10,12 369-010-02,03 451-020-04 451-050-01,02 Olive Drive Station' 0.5-mile radius I 16-010- 180 10,18,31,32,33 365-010- 19,20,22,21 Westside Freeway Station 0.5-mile radius 161-120-01,02,03 836 161-007-05,09,16, 17,19,20 6 $:~/s,ea~D £ ~Tmin~SA,D Z.~lo~ Kern COG HSGT Termlnal Location Study Station Area Development Zones 5.0 Amount of City or County Held Land ~trak Station 1 acr~ 1 ~1 Federal ~4412~ 6 acreg 7 p~ls County ~6-19247 00640141 ~402~1 006412~1, 02 004~63~5, 06 ? acrc~ 14 p~ls City ~6~11~5, 06 006-182~4, ~6-300~1, 04 006-311~1, 05, 10 006-312~1, 02, 006-531~4, 006~63~5, 06 Do~to~ Station 1.6 acre~ 1 p~ccl Federal 006-230~1 17.6 acrc~ 19 parcels County 006-250~1 ~ 08 ~6-262~ 1~ 05 006-290~1 ~ 02 006-381~1 0~12~1 ~ 02 ~6-580~1 22 acre~ 18 p~cels Ci~ ~6~92~6, 09 006-141~1 ~ 02 ~6-271~1 006-272~3 006-3~1, 04 ~6-311~1, 05, 10 006-312~1, 02, 05, 07 006-332~8 006-570~3 ~ 04 East Bakersfield Station .69 acre~ 1 p~cel Ci~ 014-280-12 Fmiwale Station 10 acre~ 2 p~cels Federal 368~10~8 368~60~2 22 acre~ 2 p~cels County 451~20~I 369~10~1 .53 acre~ 1 p~cel City. 368~40-34 10 acre~ 1 p~cel N B Rec 368~10-12 Olive Drive Station 4acre~ 1 parcel State 365~20-30 26 acre~ 1 p~cel County 365~20-14 349 acre~ 7 parcels N.O.R. 365~10- 13,14,19,20,21.22,37 Westside Freeway Station 7 /:XlJs~DEF~Tram~SADZ-d~¢ Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones 6.0 Physical Constraints to Station Area Development Zones 6.1 Amtrak The Amtrak Station site area is surrounded by existing commercial and residential development. The site is long and narrow along the Santa Fe Railroad switching yard and accessibility is limited. Hospitals, schools, and residential development in the area will limit the intrusion of terminal supporting facilities. The development potential adjacent to the site is limited by Office commercial and Mercy Hospital to the north, Bakersfield High School and residential to the south, Office commercial and industrial to the east, Railroad switching yard to the west. The development potential near the site is limited. Mercy Hospital is expanding, but other uses are limited due to parcel size. Many land uses in the area have been established for over 25 years. There are no significant environmental constraints of the site area. 6.2 Downtown The Downtown Station site area is surrounded by existing industrial and commercial activities. The development potential is limited on the site due to site size. However, the site configuration provides significant room for a creative transit center that will blend with and enhance the adjacent land uses. Development of the site may require significant land acquisition in order to provide the land available for expansions and provision of support facilities. The development potential adjacent to the site is limited to the acquisition of adjacent parcels. The potential for commercial activities is superior due to the government center and proposed Convention Hotel to the west. The Kern Island Canal is located on the western portion of the site. There are no other significant physical constraints of the site area. There are no significant environmental constraints of the site area. 6.3 East Bakersfield The East Bakersfield site area is surrounded by industrial and residential land uses. The site potential for expansion is limited due to existing transportation cooridors and parcel size. The site is long and narrow and will accommodate the terminal, but will limit the amount of supporting facilities. However, the site configuration provides significant room for a creative transit center. The development potential adjacent to and near the site is limited to existing residential land uses. The potential for redevelopment of the area is significant with the improvement of this site. Development and redevelopment to the south is significant with the development of a new transit center and with enticing economic incentives. 8 J:\Usga. s~D E F~Train~ADZ. doc Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones The existing rail yard is the primary physical constraint to this site. There are no significant environmental constraints of the site area. The most significant site development constraints for this site are size, canal and neighborhood. 6.4 Fruitvale The Fruitvale site area is surrounded by a mix of industrial, agricultural and residential land uses. The potential for site expansion is good due to the amount of available land. The development potential is unlimited on the site. The determining factors include the amount of land purchased and the anticipated patronage to the terminal location. The development potential adjacent to the site is limited by operating oil refineries, PG&E power plant, and residential users. Industrial activities are permitted by general plan and zoning along the south side of the tracks. Residential uses are permitted south along Brimhall Road and Public Facilities/Industrial uses are permitted north of the tracks. The physical site constraints on the property are the power plant and oil production and storage facilties. The agricultural land is an environmental constraint, as well as, the possiblity of any hazardous materials used or stored in the area from the oil and power plant facilities. 6.5 Olive Drive The Olive Drive site area is surrounded by industrial, agricultural, and transportation coofidor facilties and uses. The potential to provide terminal supporting facilities on the site is good, due to the availability of land. However, the linkage to other uses in the area is limited by access routes from. the site. Future land use growth in this site zone will occur to the west and south due to existing land use constraints north and east. The development potential is unlimited on the site. The determining factors include the amount of land purchased and the anticipated patronage to the terminal location. The development potential adjacent to the site is limited by operating oil refineries, Highway 99 and the sewage treatment plant. Industrial activities are permitted by general plan and zoning along the southwestern portion of the site. Areas near the site are currently expanding. Residential areas along Olive Drive and west are expanding. The operating oil producing facilities and agricultrual cultivation on the site provide physical and environmental site development constraints. There may also be the possibility of hazardous materials used or stored in the area. 6.6 Westside Freeway The Westside Freeway site area is surrounded by agricultural land. The potential site .location is within two Master Planned Communties. McAllister Ranch (south of the tracks) has been approved by the County of Kern. This Plan identifies a high speed 9 ] :XUa~.s~D E ~Tram'G AD 7-*- ~-- Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones train cooridor and a potential rail terminal facility. A master planned community north of the rail line is being proposed in the City of Bakersfield. This proposed plan also identifies a rail coofidor and terminal facility. Existing distance from infrastructure and improved roadways may limite development. Concurrent development of site support services is required. The agricultural operations on the site provide the environmental site development constraints. The site is located at the south end of a Drainage problem area identified in the 2010 Metro Plan. There are no other significant environmental constraints identified. 7.0 Land Use 7.1 Amtrak Existing Land Uses: Commercial 65 acres Industrial 52 acres Residential 50 acres 7.2 Downtown Existing Land Uses: Industrial 75 acres Commercial 60 acres Residential 5 acres 7.3 East Bakersfield Existing Land Uses: Industrial 91 acres Commercial 37 acres Residential 28 acres 7.4 Fruitvale Existing Land Uses: Industrial 226 acres Agricultural 79 acres Residential 54 acres Commercial 43 acres Recently approved land uses in the zone include the.following. See Appendix B for locations: GPA 2-93, Segment III Approved June 1993 3.5 acres SR to LR GPA 2-93, Segment VI Approved June 1993 6.5 acres LR to GC GPA 3-93, Segment I Approved Sept. 1993' 70 acres I-ItL, LR, LMR TO LMR 10 I:\Us~-~'~D E F~Tr~m~SADZ. doc Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones 7.5 Olive Drive Existing Land Uses: Industrial 664 acres Agricultural 118 acres Commercial 17 acres Residential 5 acres 7.6 Westside Freeway E~:isting Land Uses: Agricultural 837 acres Planned Land Uses McAllister Ranch 2,071 acres 9,000dwelling units max. The land use plan for McAllister Ranch is included in Appendix A. This project was recently approved at a November 1993 Board of Supervisor's hearing. The land uses include the following: Suburban Residential 135 acres Low Density Residential 603 acres Low-Medium Residential 38 acres High-Medium Residential 238 acres High Density Residential 157 acres Parks/Open Space 94 acres Schools 40 acres Golf Course 187 acres Public Facilities 22 acres General Commercial 355 acres Transportation Cooridors '200 acres Proposed Master Plan 4,387 acres 26,884dwelling units max. The land' use plan for the Master Planned Community proposed by Castle & Cooke Homes, Inc. is included in Appendix A. The proposed land uses include the following: Low Density Residential 1,313 acres Low-Medium Residential 1,540 acres High-Medium Residential 334 acres General Commercial 283 acres Office Commercial 61. acres Mixed Use Commercial 130 acres Light Industrial 158 acres Public Facilities 14 acres Schools 57 acres Parks/Open Space 498 acres I I I:\U sensed E F~Tt~in',SADZ. do¢ Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones 8.0 Leapfrog and Infill Potential 8.1 Amtrak This site is within one mile of intense retail and office uses in downtown Bakersfield. There is signficant infill potential for this site due to this proximity. The nearest residentially populated areas are north and south of the site. Commercial offices are locate north of the site and retail commercial is located approximately four (4) blocks east of the site on Chester Avenue. 8.2 Downtown This site is within ½ mile of intense retail and office uses in downtown Bakersfield. There is signficant infill potential for this site due to this proximity. The site is centrally located between eastern and ~western Bakersfield residential areas. Commercial centers are located north and west while industrial uses are located south and east. 8.3 East Bakersfield This site is within two miles of intense retail and office uses in downtown Bakersfield. While this site is on the urban edge, there is signficant infill potential for this site due to proximity to a major transportation cooridor (Edison Highway). The site is located adjacent to a highly populated residential area to the north. There is a mixture of industrial and residential areas to the south. There are no commercial centers near the site. East Hills Mall is located approximately two (2) miles northeast of the site. 8.4 Fruitvale This site is within five miles of intense retail and office uses in downtown Bakersfield. While this site is on the urban edge, there is signficant infill potential for this site due to proximity to a major transportation cooridor (Rosedale Highway - 58) and the future Westside Freeway alignment. The nearest residentially populated areas are ½- mile west - southwest of site. There are commercial centers and service stations along Coffee Road near Brimhall Road. Extensive retail commercial facilities focused on residential users are located at the intersection of Coffee Road and Stockdale Highway. The Rosedale Highway corridor contains a mix of commercial, industrial and residential users north of the site. 8.5 Olive Drive This site is within four miles of intense retail and office uses in downtown Bakersfield. While this' site is on the urban edge, there is signficant infill potential for this site due to proximity to a major transportation cooridor (Highway 99). The nearest residentially populated areas are ½-mile east of Hwy 99 and ½-mile northwest of the site along Olive Drive. There is a commercial center and service stations along Olive Drive near the Hwy 99 interchange. 12 ~:~DEFWmn~SaZ~aoc Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones 8.6 Westside Freeway This site is within seven miles of intense retail and office Uses in downtown Bakersfield. While this site is on the urban edge, there is a potential for leapfrog development without the two master planned communities. The approval of McAllister Ranch stabilizes and extends the land use patterns in the area. The nearest populated area is one (1) mile east of Section 14. There isa small comer mini-mart on the southwest comer of Stockdale Highway and Allen Road. Access to this comer is limited due to the location of the Kern River. Commercial activities are located two (2) miles from the site at White Lane and Gosford Road. These activities are targeted for residential users and do not function, as a regional center. There are two commercial centers planned along Buena Vista Road within one (1) mile from the site that will also focus on residential users. The nearest regional center to the site is Valley Plaza, six (6) miles from the site. 9.0 Interconnectlvlty 9.1 Amtrak The only major access route this site can access directly is California Avenue. The site does not other direct access routes. The site is situated to provide a potential for vehicular links with improvements. Pedestrian links will need to be improved to the central downtown area and surrounding residential areas. This site is proposed in the Golden Empire Transit District Long Range Public Transportation Systems Plan: Second Draft Technical Memorandum prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff on July 7, 1993, as a potential light rail transit station site. Railroad Santa Fe Railroad Bus Service Golden Empire Transit Time Distance Downtown: 1 min./1 miles Airport: 10 min./5 miles Residential Areas: 1 min./1 mile Commercial Areas: 1 min./1 mile Freeways: 1 min./1 mile to Hwy 99 45 min./35 miles to I-5 9.2 Downtown The primary access routes are "Q" and "S" Streets linking Truxtun to California Avenues. Union Avenue is a possibility on the eastern boundary. The site is situated to provide optimum potential for vehicular links. Pedestrian links will need to be improved to the central downtown area. Links to surrounding residential areas will be limited. This site is proposed in the Golden Empire Transit District Long Range Public Transportation Systems Plan: Second Draft Technical Memorandum prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff on July 7, 1993, as a potential light rail transit station site. 13 - 1 :\U~-~\D E F',Tmin~ADZ. doc Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones This station' site was identified by Parsons Brinkerhoff as an Intermodal Transit Facility in the Bakersfield Intermodal Transit Facility Plan prepared in June 1988. Railroad Santa Fe Railroad Bus Service Golden Empire Transit Time Distance Downtown: 1 min./~ mile Airport: 12 min./8 miles Residential Areas: 1 min./1 mile Commercial Areas: 1 min.~IA mile Freeways: 4 min./2 miles to Hwy 99 25 min./18 miles to I-5 9.3 East Bakersfield The primary access routes are Kentucky Street and Edison Highway (Sumner Street). These streets link to Beale Avenue which serves as an arterial through the area. The site is situated to provide optimum potential for vehicular links. Pedestrian links will need to be improved to the residential areas. Links to surrounding industrial areas will be limited. This site is proposed in the Golden Empire Transit District Long Range Public Transportation Systems Plan: Second Draft Technical Memorandum prepared by Parsons Bfinkerhoff on July 7, 1993, as a potential light rail transit station site. Railroad Southern Pacific Railroad Bus Service Golden Empire Transit Time Distance Downtown: 4 min./2 miles Airport: 15 min./10 miles Residential Areas: 1 min.~IA mile Commercial Areas: 4 min./2 miles Freeways: 4 min./2 miles to Hwy 178 5 min./8 miles to Hwy 99 30 min./21 miles to I-5 9.4 Fruitvale Vehicular links are limited by existing land uses and right-of-ways in' the area. This site can gain access to Rosedale Highway to the north, Calloway Drive to the west, and Brimhall Road to the south with future road extensions. The Coffee Road realignment will provide closer access to the site when .completed. Depending upon site size and acquisition. This realignment could pass the eastern boundary of the site or through the site with the acquisition of the refinery. The existing pedestrian links in the area are limited but could be improved with road improvements and extensions. This site is proposed in the Golden Empire Transit District Long Range Public Transportation Systems Plan: Second Draft Technical Memorandum prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoffon July 7, 1993, as a potential light rail transit station site. Railroad AT&SF Railroad Bus Service Within ,range of Golden Empire Transit 14 J:\U~XD £~Tmm~ADZ. d~:n: Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station A~ea Development Zones Time Distance Downtown: 15 min./7 miles Airport: 20 min./8 miles · Residential Areas: 2 rnin./1 mile Commercial Areas: 5 min./3 miles Freeways: 10 min./6 miles to 1-5 10 min./6 miles to Hwy 99 10.0 Consistency with Plans and Policies 10.1 Amtrak This site supports the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakresfield 2010 General Plan, as outlined in Table-1. The site is currently general planned as a Public Transportation Corridor in the City of Bakersfield. Zoning is for Light and Medium Industrial. This site supports proposals for transit facilities prepared since 1988. 10.2 Downtown This site supports the goals and policies of the Metropolitan BakreSfield 2010 General Plan, as outlined in Table-1. The site is currently general planned as Office Commercial and Public (Government) in the City of Bakersfield. Zoning is for Light and Medium Industrial. This site supports proposals for transit facilities prepared since 1988. 10.3 East Bakersfield This site supports the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakresfield 2010 General Plan, as outlined in Table-1. The site is currently general planned as Service Industrial and Public Transportation Corridor in the City of Bakersfield. Zoning is for Medium Industrial. This site supports proposals for transit facilities prepared since 1988. 10.4 Fruitvale This site substantially supports the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakresfield 2010 General Plan, as outlined in Table-1. The site is currently general planned for Light Industrial, Estate Residential, Low Density Residential, Public Facilities and Open Space. Zoning is for Light and Medium. Industrial, Residential and Open Space in the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. This site supports proposals for transit facilities prepared since 1988. 10.5 Olive Drive This site supports the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakresfield 2010 General Plan, as outlined in Table-1. A Zone Change in the County of Kern has been approved and is in suspense pending Annexation to'the City of Bakersfield. The site is currently general planned for Heavy and Service Industrial. Zoning is for Limited Agriculture (A-l). 16 $:\Usets~DEF~TramLSADLd~ Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study ~ Station Area Development Zones 10.6 Westside Freeway This site supports the land use goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakresfield 2010 General Plan, as outlined in Table-1. The site is in conflict with the long range transportation system plans for the Golden Empire Transit. Any development of this site will require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change north of the rail. McAllister Ranch provided the location for the terminal site in environmental documents prepared for the approval of the Plan. Proposals and environmental documents are currently being prepared for the master planned community north of the rail. 10.7 Specific 2010 General Plan Goals and Policies Land Use Goal 1: Accommodate new development which' captures the economic demands generated by the market place and establishes Bakersfield role as the capital of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Land Use Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with provision of infrastructure and public improvements. Land Use Policy 10: Accommodate high 'and high-medium, density residential adjacent to...planned...principal transportation cooridors. Land Use Policy 37: Enhance existing and establish new centers as the principal focus of development activity in the planning area, around which other land uses are grouped. Land Use Policy 38: Provide for enhancement and intensification of existing activity centers. Land Use Poficy 39: Provide for intensification of downtown Bakersfield for governmental, financial, professional office, retail, residential, cultural, specialty, and supporting uses. Land Use Policy 40: Provide for revitalization of downtown Bakersfield by use of redevelopment authorities, including provision of incentives for new private development projects, joint public-private partnerships, and public improvements. Land Use Policies 42, 43, 44: Provide for establishment of new major centers in the Southwest and Northwest planning subareas as the focus for development in the planning area. 1 '7 J:~U~mr~D E ~Tr~in~SADZ. eloe Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones I_,and Use Policies 50, 51: Locate new development where infrastructure is available or can be expanded; ensure land use and infrastructure development are coordinated. Z, and use Policies 72, 73: Accommodate new projects which are infill or expansion of existing urban development; provide for an orderly outward expansion of new "urban" development. I. and Use Policy 79: Encourage infill ofvacant parcels. l_and Use Policy 80: Encourage recycling of dilapidated end economically- depressed...[areas]...where preservation is not achievable or desirable. Transit Goal 5: Enhance rail service capacities and usage in the planning area. 18 $:\Us~s~DE~T~m~SADLdoc Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !!F: '~! iiii i~ii~Ei~ !ilii ": i!iii :1010 GENERAL PLAN Centers Principle + Resources Principle + Infill Principle + + + + Rehabilitation Principle + + + Land Use Goal 1 + + + + Land Use Goal 4 + + + + Land Use Policy 10 - - + Land Use Policy 37 + + - + Land Use Policy 38 + + Land Use Policy 39, 40 + + Land Use Policy 42, 43, 44 - - - + Land Use Policy 50, 51 + + + + Land Use Policy 72, 73 + + + + Land Use Policy 79 + + + + Land Use Policy 80 + Transit Goal 5 + + + + G.E.T. LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN LRT/Enhanced Bus Service + + + + Alternative LEGEND: SCORING: "+"= Strongly consistent (supports) "+" = 1 "-" = Strongly inconsistent (conflicts) "-" = -1 .... = Neutral, or does not apply .... = 0 AM Amtrak Station DT Downtown Station EB East Bakersfield Station, FV Fruitvale/Coffee Road Station OD Olive Drive Station WF Westside Freeway Station Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones 1 1.0 Job Generation Potential According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Fixed Guideway Passenger System, Phase I Feasibility Study prepared for the Kern Coutny Rail Advisory Committee on October 14, 1991, heavy rail requires employment levels of 12,800 to 19,200 employees per square mile within one-half mile of the transit corridor. Light rail employment levels are slightly lower from 9,600 to 12,000 persons per square mile within one-half mile of the transit corridor. It is estimated that a nine acre site developed with a terminal center and supporting office structures and parking facilites will employ approximately 500 to 600 persons. 12.0 Tax Generation Potential According to the Bakersfield Intermodal Transit Facility Plan prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff and Economic Research Associates, Inc., the revenue generating potential of a transit center is as follows: Transit Providers Lease\ Rent Payments Amtrak (including buses) - Say $ 750/month Greyhound Say 950/month Airport Bus Say 300/month Other Carriers Say 300/month $2,600/month or $31,200/year Concessionaires Vending Machines Say $ 300/month Newstand/Sundries Say 500/month + % of gross Telephones Say 250/month Cafeteria/Coffee Shop/Snack Shop Say 2,000/month + % of gross Sub-Total Transit Center Activites $ 3,050/month or $ 36,600/year Package Delivery and Courier Services l $ 2,500/month or $ 30,000/year Sub-Total: Transit Leases and Concession Rents $ 97,800/year Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones Auto Parking Lot Meters 300 Spaces, principally daytime use (8 hrs) Say $ 2,400/month or $28,800/year at $0.25/2 hours Say $ 120/day These funds are likely to be pledged to the Bakersfield Parking 'Authority to reduce the capital costs and to clean the parking lot. Assume one-half of meter receipts are for parking lot maintenance. $ 7,200/year Total On-Site Revenue $133,800/year 1 There may be additional lease opportunities, depending on the scale of package delivery and courier traffic which may be generated in the central city. It is believed that courier dispatch functions, the bus-carded small package services, and possible Federal Express and LIPS vehicle parking may represent additional possible revenues. A target of an additional $2,500 per month from such users would be realisting, yielding roughly $30,000 more per year. The addition of auto rental agencies and additional food services will increase the above numbers by approximately $ 2,000+ per added use. 21 I:\~D E F"T~m~SADL d°" Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones APPENDIX "A" IYMIOL ~ND USE I'REFERRED PLAN ~~,., MMUNITY MASTER P ,, ,~,~=~o~ LAND USE SUMMARY MMR HMR Fig~e 3-4 B~KERS;tEL~ CALIFORHIA McA~LISTER RAHCH SPECIFIC PLAN- E~RONM~AL IMPACT R~PO~ .- Kern COG HSGT Terminal Location Study Station Area Development Zones APPENDIX "B" 23 j:~*~D £ ATr~m~ADZ. d~c ~' CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I '" ''' ''''~'" '" "*'0 ZONING MAP iT_._..__~,,,,.,L[ L.~.~_._,:~ ~.._.~~ SEC. 31 T. 295. R. 27E. : : : 'Il / s~ v/ ~ ...,.  fl-~ Ft~A~ ~ma~ ., : , ~ ..,.,, .,,o,.,,. ~..,., ~., ..,~ ~, ,,,,, ,~ ~ ............... ~-- / ~ ~ 6~a ~'~ "-"'"'~"" ..... ' ~ 3.- ~ s~ /l ~> ~:,~ ~[:~,~) '" '""'""-*'"" (zu~ ~/) .,....,..,....,,.,.,..., ....... .o,.,,,,., ~ ./ I ¢ .,o.,,,,. ..... , ,~, .- fp-p g~ ~E~::"~I~~'' ...... CITYOF BAKERSFIELD '""" "'"' ZONING MAP IO2 - 30 I SEC. ~0 T. Z9S R. 27r · O~DIL( II,SE .11~E _~1- ¢,iy · Jl'J*l& M IIO~MII&L I C'J C~(~CEAL SIN[IT C'C C~vlC CENII~ IOfll H ~ SPICE CH C~CH kl I w O*L WELL q-Sq 5& -- '":Uh~,'" ~' ~ ( o, + ;o~ )' ' '"' """'~"*' ....... "- ,., , (2 u~ ,.,~ · .... , .......... ,__ · . METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TERMINAL STUDY SUBTASK ;2,1 WORKING PAPER'ON RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE STATION SITES PREPARED FOR KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS PREPARED BY ICF KAISER ENGINEERS NOVEMBER, 1993 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HSGT TERMINAL STUDY 1.0 THE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL The patronage forecasting model applied for this project is based on a two-stage intercity travel demand model developed from a recent High Speed Rail (HSR) Study conducted by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Detailed description on the developments and applications of the FDOT model is contained in Florida High Speed And Interci~ Rail Market and Ridership Study, Final Report, 19931. An overview on the mathematical structure and variables specifications of the FDOT model were presented in a working paper2 previously submitted under Subtask 2.1 of this project. Due to the differences in modal share between the Los Angeles/Bakersfield travel market and the Florida intercity travel market, and due to the availability of socioeconomic and transportation level of service variables to this study, the FDOT model were simplified to suit the Los Angeles/Bakersfield situation. The two air modes (jet and commuter planes) in the Florida model were consolidated into one. As a result, there are only three travel modes (air, auto, and Amtrak/Greyhound buses) specified for the California model when HSR is not in place. For forecasting purpose, four modes (air, auto, buses, and HSR) are included. Four variables considered important in the FDOT model (e.g. the number of hotels in the destination city, the mode of arrival to the state, gender of travellers, and whether it's a recreational trip or not) were removed when transferring the model from Florida to California. After simplification the variables remained in the model are a) alternative specific constants -- :to capture the perceived bias associated with each intercity travel mode, b) average income of travellers, c) population of the Kern County, d) employments of the Los Angeles County, e) line-haul time of each mode, f) out-of-vehicle time of each mode -- including access time, terminal time on the trip origin end, terminal time on the destination end, and egress time, g) total travel distance of each mode, h) line-haul travel cost of each mode, i) access/egress travel cost of each mode, and j) service frequency of each mode. 1 Flodda Department of Transportation, Florida Hic~ Sceed and Intercity Rail Market and Ridership -Study, Final Report, submitted by KPMG Peat Marwick in association with ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc., July 1993. 2 ICF Kaiser Engineers, Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation System Terminal Study, Subtask 2.1 Description of Florida Intercity Ridership Forecast, preparecl for Kern Council of Governments, August 25, 1993. % Metropolitan Bakersfield 1.1 Ridership A~alysis of HSGT Terrnina/ Study Alternative Station Sites 1.0 The Travel Demand Forecasting Model The patronage forecasting model operates in two stages through two nonlinear submodels. The first stage of the model predicts the market share of each mode using a nested logit module. The nest logit module can be represented by a sequence of eleven formulae as follows: (1) O 0.48881m. ~ 0.48~61~.+ ~) 0.80351m~, (2) ~ o.6o351~ Pgrd ~ 0.48661~.4.~ 0.60G51 (3) P,,uto= P~ e V'~ ] 8 V~+~) V~.4.8 V~ (4) v~ (5) ! ~ v~,.+e v,..+e V~.~ (6) V~r = -12,5571 ,,0.0071 (Income) +0.,1881 (Frequency) -0.0208 [ ( UneHaulOost) +(Access/ £gressCosO ] -0.0208 [ ( UneHaulTime) .(Access/ Egress Tirne) ] -2.0780 [(Access/ Egress Tirne)/( TotalDistance) ] (7) Va,.,,o = -0.0208 [(UneHaulCosl)+(Access/EgressCosO]" -0.0208 [ ( UneHaulTirne) . (Access/ Egress 7?me) ] -2.078 [ (Access/ Egress Time)/ ( TotalDistance) ] (8) V~x,, = -4.8421 +0.1881 (Frequency) -0.0208[(IJ'neHaulCost) + (Access/EgressCost)] -0.0208[(LineHaulTime) ~-(Accessf Egress Time) ] -2.078 [(Access/ Egress Time)/(TotalDistance) ] Metropofitan Bakersfield 1-2 I~idership Analysis of HSGT Terminal Study AJternative Station Sites 1.0 The Travel Demand Forecasting Model (9) V~.~ = -4.8421 +0.1881 (Frequency) -O.0208[(UneHau/CosO ~ (Access/ EgressCost) ] -O.0208[ ( UneHaul'lTme) +(Access/Egress'rime)] -2.078[ (Access/ Egress'l'ime)/( TotalDistance) ] (10) (11) /gtE = In[e v~'.e v~'.e v,~] The second stage of the travel forecasting model applies population, employments, and average impedance measures (Iair and Igrd) computed in the first stage to calculate the total trips of all modes. The travel demand of each mode then can be obtained by multiplying the market share produced in the first stage with the total demand from the second stage. The following formula represents the total travel submodeh (12) /' t \/ E\O.2~ts/ / \-0.1058! / \-0.2117 I '-] air grd In above formula, T, T = Total intercity trips of all modes between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, P, P = Population of trip origins, Kern County in this case, E, E = Employments at trip destination, Los Angeles County in this case, all italic notations in above represent the base year condition before HSR. is available. All the ordinary notations represent the variables when HSR were available now or will be available in the future. The total travel demand model includes transportation impedanc, e measures Igrd and IRrd which are calculated from the market share model. When we introduce HSR to the three-mode travel market, the future impedance Igrd for all ground transportation modes will be less than the present impedance I ..,, and the impedance ratio on the right hand side of the equation will be less than one. Negative exponential of the decimal impedance ratio will result in an increase of total travel demand. The increase of total travel due to improvements in transportation is called 'induced demand' in travel demand theo'ry. From the parameters in above formula it can be found that reducing the average impedance of Igrd by 20% will result in an increase of total travel by 5%. Metropolitan Bakersfield 1.3 Ridership Analysis of HSGT Terminal Study AJternative Station Sites 2.0 INPUT ASSUMPTIONS The patronage forecast model has been coded in a Lotus 123 spreadsheet using the two:stage concept described in the previous section. This section describes the assumptions on inputs to the model. 2.1 Base Year Trips and Market Shares The statistics of base year (1990) trips are essential to the patronage forecasting process. These information are needed for calibrating the alternative specific constants in the market share model. These are also needed as input to the total travel demand model. Several sources are available for estimating the person trips of 1990: a) Kern COG regional transportation planning model3, b) Caltrans 1991 Statewide Travel Survey4, and c) Kern County Department of Airports passenger boarding records. Amtrak and Greyhound were also contacted in order to obtain ridership on bus trips between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. However, ridership information was held confidential by those two companies; only fare structure and operating schedules were obtainable from the two companies. According to Kern COG model, the total trips in 1990 between Kern County and Los Angeles County were 35,631/day, including trips of automobile, bus (Amtrak and Greyhound), and air modes. From the Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey, the market share for bus mode between the two counties was 4.38%. This market share would translate into 35,631 *4.38% = 1,561 trips/day on buses. The number of trips via air transportation between Bakersfield and LAX airport has been obtained from Kern County Department of Airports. There are over 63,000 trips/year or, on average, 210 trips/weekday. The 210 trips/day represent 0.59% of the intercity travel market. Besides the bus riders (4.38%) and airlines passengers (0.59%), the remaining 95.03% of the intercity travellers are all automobile users. 2.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics Socioeconomic inputs to the model include population of Kern County, employments of Los Angeles County, and median income of Kern County. 3 Kern Council of Governments, EMME2 1990 Base Model Validation Report, Bakersfield, California. 4 Cattrans, 1991 Storewide Travel Survey - Linked Trip Data Region Files, and Floppy Disk Processing, Transportation Planning Support Information System (T'PSIS), Office of Traffic Improvement. Metropolitan Bakersfie/d 2-1 Ridership Analysis. of HSGT Terminal Study Alternative Station Sites 2.0 Input Assumptions According to 1990 census, there were 584,100 people living in Kern County. The population forecasts were published by the California State Department of Finance5. The population forecasts are 1,037,700 for Year 2010, and 1,310,100 for Year 2020. The number of jobs in Los Angeles County was obtained from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). In 1991, there were 3,982,700 jobs in the County. In 2010, 5,784,100 jobs are predicted by SCAG. The 2020 projection of employments in Los Angeles is not available from SCAG. A linear extrapolation beyond 2010 results in 6,684,800 jobs in Los Angeles County in Year 2020. According to Kern COG, the 1992 median household income for Kern County was $34,268/year. No forecast of future income for the County is available. 2.3 Transportation Level of Service Characteristics The transportation level of service characteristics were obtained from different sources as follows: Air Mode At present, Delta, American Airlines, United Airlines, US Air, and Air West provide services between Bakersfield and LAX Airport. According to OAG there are in total of 26 flights/weekday each way between the two cities. The in-plane travel time was found from OAG as 45 minutes each trip. The estimate of average access/egress time for air mode includes: a) access time from trip origin to Bakersfield Airport (about 15 minutes), b) terminal time for parking, purchasing ticket, and waiting at gate for boarding (35 minutes), c) terminal time at the LAX Airport (15 minutes), and d) egress time from LAX to trip destination via taxi or automobiles (25 minutes). The assumptions on the two terminal times are based on the surveys of other HSR patronage studies6. The assumptions on access time and egress time are obtained from Kern COG and SCAG transportation planning models. The regular air fare between Bakersfield and LAX is $1 60 one way and $318 round trip. 5 California State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Report 93-P1, Population Projection by Ray-Ethnicity for California. 6 For examples: Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California High Speed Rail Feasibility Study, Final Report, July 1991; and KPMG Peat Marwick, Analysis of The Market Demand for High Speed Rail in the Quebec/Ontario Corridor, June, 1990, Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-2 Ridership Analysis of HSGT Terminal Study Alternative Station Sites 2.0 Input Assumptions Automobile Mode The average linehaul time between Bakersfield and Los Angeles via automobiles was found to be 120 minutes. The' average time spent in parking/walking in Los Angeles downtown, according to a SCAG study?, is approximately 5 minutes. The cost of driving an automobile is assumed to be 25 cents per mile. Finally, the parking charges in Los Angeles are on average $1 O/day. Dividing the daily parking charge by two, we assume $5 each way as the parking cost for automobile mode. Amtrak and Greyhound Bus Mode At present, Amtrak provides 5 departures/day from Bakersfield to Los Angeles and 8 departures/day from Los Angeles to Bakersfield. Greyhound provides 13 departures/day each direction between the two cities. On Amtrak and Greyhound schedules, the linehaul time is 140 minutes each way. Amtrak charges $20 per one way trip, but $29 per round trip. When purchasing Amtrak ticket, a segment Of rail service beyond Union Station in Los Angeles must be included; otherwise, the ticket can not be sold. Greyhound charges $12 per one way trip, and $26 per round trip. The access/egress time for Amtrak/Greyhound mode include: a) access time from trip origin to Bakersfield Bus Terminal (I 0 minutes), b) terminal time for parking, purchasing ticket, and waiting at gate for boarding (15 minutes), c) terminal time at the Los Angeles Union Station or Downtown Greyhound Terminal (15 minutes), and d) egress time from downtown station/terminal to trip destin~-tion (15 minutes).' The access/egress cost for Amtrak/Greyhound mode is assumed to include free parking on Bakersfield side, and a transfer fare of S1.90 per ride to MTA Metrorail or buses on Los Angeles side. Hi.qh Speed Rail Mode The four levels of HSR operational scenarios recommended by the California HSR Corridor Study Group, under AB791s in a pervious statewide HSR study are applied to this project. 7 Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California High Speed Rail Feasibility Study, Final Report, July 1991. 8 Parsons Bdnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Final Consultants' Report to the Los Angeles-Fresno-Bay Area/Sacramento Higi~ Speed Rail Corridor Study Group, June 1990. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2-3 I~idership Analysis of HSGT Terminal Study 'Alternative Station Sites 2.0 Input Assumptions The four levels of HSR are: a) Level 2- · Maximum speed 110 mph, 93 minutes linehaul time between Bakersfield and Los Angeles Union Station, charging 12.5 cents per mile, and 22 trains/day, b) Level 2a-- Maximum speed 125 mph, 70 minutes linehaul time, charging 15.0 Cents per mile, and 22 trains/day, c) Level 3- Maximum speed 185 mph, 56 minutes linehaul time, charging 22.5 cents per mile, and 27 trains/day, d) Level 4- Maximum speed 300 mph, 38 minutes linehaul time, charging 26.25 cents per mile, and 27 trains/day. The unit fare for Level 2 is equivalent to the current Amtrak fare policy. The'unit fare for Level 3 is equivalent to the current TGV fare policy in France. The unit fare for Level 4 is based on the fare assumed for Maglev technology in the AB791 study, and also in the SCAG study. The access/egress time of HSR mode include: a) access time from trip origin to Bakersfield HSR Terminal (varies with the location of 6 possible terminal sites as provided by the modeling staff of Kern COG), b) terminal time for parking, purchasing ticket, and waiting at gate for boarding (15 minutes), c) terminal time at the Los Angeles Union Station (15 minutes), and d) egress time from Los Angeles Union Station to trip destination (15 minutes). The access/egress cost is assumed to include a free parking on the Bakersfield end, and $1.90 boarding fare to transfer from HSR to MTA Metrorail of buses at Union Station. Metropolitan Ba~,ersfield 2-4 Ridership Analysis 'of HSGT Terminal Study AJternative Station Sites 3.0 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECASTS Because there are four levels of HSR scenarios, and each scenario is associated with six possible HSR station locations in Bakersfield, there are a combination of (4*6=) 24 model runs. These 24 models runs were conducted for 1990 base year situation, and also for Year 2020. The purpose of model runs for 1990 is to explore the potential HSR ridership and revenues should an HSR system 'be available today. The purpose of model runs for Year 2020 is to explore the potential HSR ridership in the future. An alPhabetic-numeric index system in the following table is used tc~ represent the combination' of the 24 model runs: LEVEL Westside Fruitvale Olive Drive Downtown East Amtrak Bakersfield Terminal 2 W2 F2 02 D2 E2 A2 a W2a F2a O2a D2a E2a A2a 3 W3 F3 03 D3 E3 A3 4 W4 F4 04 D4 E4 A4 Appendix A contains the printouts of the 48 model runs, 24 for Year 1990 and 24 for Year 2020. The alphabetic-numeric index is shown at the upper right corner on each printout in Appendix. A. 3.1 Base Year Estimates The base year forecast of HSR ridership is summarized in Table 3.1-1 and sketched in Figure 3.1 - 1. The HSR revenues are summarized in Table 3.1-1 and Figure 3.1-2. From Table 3.1-1, we can see that the market share for HSR increases as the speed of HSR increases. Generally speaking, when maximum speed is at the 110 mph level, the mode share for HSR is in the range of 10-15%. When the speed is increased to 125 mph, the share will be increase to 16-20%. When the system is upgraded to a TGV type of technology with maximum speed of 185 mph, the market share of HSR will be further increased .to 35-43%. If the technology is even upgraded to a Maglev type system with maximum speed of 300 mph, the market share will reach 50% for some of the alternatives. In the SCAG study, HSR were assumed to operate in the range of 125-200 mph, and the market shares between Kern County and Southern California counties (including Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego) were predicted in the range of 20-44%. Comparing the market share predicted by our model with the share predicted by SCAG, we believe our forecasts reasonable. Metropolitan Bakersfield 3-1 Ridership Analysis of HSGT Terminal Study AJternative Station Sites TABLE 3.1-1 SUMMARY OF IISR DALLY RIDERSIlIP AND REVENUES FOR 1990 SCENARIOS c:~cma~l^~ers~.'xm.'.sv~ lligh Speed R:dl l~:~ll'On.'lge Forec;~sl llclwee. Los Angeles and Bakersfiehl ..... II1(;il 51q'.'l'.'l) IIAII. MAIII{ET 511AI11':5 ...... Kla~Speed AvgSpecd IISR'rime Fares Frequency I.EVI':I. Wcslsltle I:rullv.lc ()live I)r. I).l~.lmx[! E. Ihd. GI ).lsilrtdt midi ,,,ph mhiulcs cents/mile Traln~/l)ay 2 0.1112 0.1252 0.1351 0.1475 0.1415 0.1-179 <<<< 110 85 93 12.50 22 2:1 0.1601 0.1789 0.1921 0.2085 0.200(~ 0.2091 <<<< 125 102 70 15.00 22 3 0.3547 0.3859 0.4068 0.4.118 0.-1199 0..1326 <<<< 185 125 56 22.50 27 4 O.iZ30 (l.45~0 0..1777 (I.50JJ, 0.4912 0.50 I! <<<< 300 199 38 26.25 27 ..... 'l'l(ll'5 II~l)lJ(;l';l) II~' II1(;11 SI)lt:l'-'l) IIAII. - ..... I.I':VI.:I, Wt.~,l,.hl~ J:l'llJlvill~ ()linc J)r. J)ov¥111o,~Vl! J.:. Ilal~..~GI .~lilll.~ll{ 2 27.1 -tl I 3.iX 37~ 35~ 37-1 2d' .t118 .16] 5(I ! 551 529 556 ] I,(180 1,215 I,.il I I,.I.I I 1,37.1 I,.IA6 · I I,IX~ I ,.~56 1,6'15 I,Xt5 I ,'1.5.~ I,I110 ..... II1(;11 51'1'.'1.~1) I(All. I)AII.~' II()AI{I)IN(;S ............ II1(;11 SI'I':I,:I) ItAII. I)AII.V III,:VI,:NIII..'S ...... I.I,:VI.:I. Wc~i~id4: I:r.il~dc ()livt' I)r. I)ov~.14n~. I'~. II;,k~GI A.ilr;d~ 1.1'),'1':1. Wc~,l,..Jdc I;r. ilvale ()live I)r. I)o,~v.hJwll E. IJ;de4'd Allllrak 2 J ,')').1 -I,500 -I,859 5,] I¢! 5,0') ! 5,.125 2 $5-1,8')7 $61,874 -. $6(~,817 $7.1,019 $70,017 S73,22 I 2n 5,770 6,-157 6,9.11 7,515 7,251 ?,$67 2a $95,202 $106,544 $114,532 SI24,485 $119,686 SI24)151 3 13,021 I.I,219 15,028 16,00.l 15,5.18 16,0i5 :1 S.i22,279 S351,917 $371,9.13 sJg(~,OX3 S384,565 S39~,1t7 I 4 15,659 16,957 17,821 18,852 18,363 18,888 4 S.152,155 $-189,&11 $514,581 $54.1,3.10 5530,2 I~1 S5.15,386 High Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Between Los Angeles and Bakersfield (1991 RidershiP) 18,852 } I 18,888 [ 18,363 20 : ........................ 17,821 16,957 15,659 i i 16,003 I 16,035 ~ 15,028. Il, ! 5,538 15 14,219 I i 3,021 i I 0 H !0 7,5,15 7,567 6,94 '1 7,254 6,4.57 5,770 5 5,3 I0 5,325 4,859 5,092 4,500 3,993 Wcslsidc I,'rt~ilvalc( )live I)r. I)°wtdown Ii. llaksfd Amt,'ak High Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Between Los Angeles and Bakersfield (1991 Daily Revenues) 600 , .. .:: ...................... t;5 I,I,58q $489,641 500 ._ $452,15 I 400 1,943 ~ 1,91 ~ 279 . .' 300 200 100 $95,202 $54,897 $61,874 $66,817 $73,019 $70,017 $73,22 0 Westside Fruitvale Olive Dr. Downtown !.3. Baksfd Amtrak 3.0 Ridership and Revenue Fcrecasts The induced trips due to HSR are also summarized in Table 3.1-1. The total intercity trips increases from 0.8-1.5%, when the maximum speed is only at 110-125 mph range, to 3-5%, when high level technology such as TGV or Maglev is introduced. The HSR ridership of the 24 model runs is depicted in Figure 3;1-1. From the figure, we can see that HSR ridership varies with the location of terminal station. The suburban station sites such as Westside Freeway and Fruitvale will attract lowest ridership. The intermediate station sites such as Olive Drive and East Bakersfield will attract somewhat higher ridership. The stations in central city, such as Downtown Library area or the present Amtrak Terminal, will attract the highest ridership. The difference in ridership between Downtown location and Amtrak Terminal is very small.. The HSR revenue of the 24 model runs is depicted in Figure 3.1-2. From the figure, we can see that the HSR revenues vary with the choice of technology and with the location of the terminal station. The faster is the train, the higher is the ridership, and also the revenue. When the' maximum speed is in the range of 110-125 mph, the revenue is in the range of $50,000-125,000 per day. When the maximum speed is increased to 185 mph (about 50% increase from 110-125 mph) the revenue will increase to the range of S325,000-400,000 per day (about 200% increase). When the maximum speed is further increased to 300 mph, over $500,000 per day can be achieved. 3.2 Future Year Estimates The 2020 forecast of HSR ridership is summarized in Table 3.2-1 and Figure 3.2-1. The 2020 HSR revenues are summarized in Table 3.2-1 and Figure 3.2-2. From Table 3.2-1, we can see that the market share for HSR varies with the technology and with the terminal location. The variations in market share follow the similar trend found in Table 3.1-1. The ridership forecast for Year 2020 is depicted in Figure 3.2-1. The 2020 ridership of the 24 model runs is more than twice the ridership of base year. This is mainly attributed to the 120% population increase in Kern County and the 67% employment increase in Los Angeles County anticipated in the next 30 years. The pattern of variation in ridership level found in base year forecast is also found in here. Generally speaking, the Downtown Library area and the Amtrak Terminal site will attract more HSR riders than the other locations in the county. The HSR revenues in Year 2020 from the 24 model runs are depicted in Figure 3.2-2. From the figure, we can see that the HSR revenues vary with the choice of technology and with the location of the terminal station. The faster is the train, the higher is the ridership, and also the revenue. When the maximum speed is in the range of 110-125 mph, the revenues are in the range of $145,000-270,000 per day in 1990 dollar. When the maximum speed is increased to 185 mph (about 50% increase in speed from 110-125 mph), the revenue will increase to the range of $830,000-900,000 per day (about 200% increase). When the maximum speed is further increased to 300 mph, over $1,200,000 per day can be achieved. Me~ropofitan Bakersfield 3-5 Ridership AnaJysis of HSGT Terminal Study Alternative Station Sites TABLE 3.2-1 SUMMARY OF liSR DA! LY R! DERSi I1P AND REVENUES FOR 2020 SCENARIOS c:~c~t~..~ers~.~r~..'s~o~o lligh Speed Rail Patronage li'o,'ccasl Between Los Angeles and Bakersfield ..... IIl(;ll SI'EEl) RAil. MARKET SIIAI(ES ...... I~la~ Speed Avg Sliced Ii$11Time Fare Freq.ency I,EVl,:l. Wealahle Fl'ullv-'qe OIh'e I}r. I}ou'nlown E. Ihdcsl'd Amh'alt mph mph nlhnlle$ cenldmlle Tralnall)ay 2 0.1132 0.1186 0.1171 0.1243 0.1192 (l. 12,17 <<<< II0 85 93 12.50 21 la 0.1627 0.1701 0.1681 0.1778 0.1709 0.178] <<<< 125 102 70 15.00 22 3 0.3592 0.3716 0.3681 0.3811 0.3?28 0.3~19 <<<< 185 125 56 22.50 27 4 0.4278 0.4.109 0.437J 0.45.11 U.4.1~2 0.-ISi9 <<<< 300 199 38 26.25 27 ..... TRIPS IlSll)tlCl,~l} IiX' IIl(;ll SI'I:.EII RAIl. - ..... I.EVI':I. Wc.q~hle Fl'f, iilvale ()live |)s'. I)ownlown E. Ij~d~sl'd Atoll'alt 2 102 138 128 177 1.12 179 2 a 4-13 .196 481 SS! S(J I SSS ~ J 2il2fl 2,258 2,221 2,:19.1 2,271 2,.10~ · I 2,a97 .L()59 .I,(ll.l 3,218 3,076 ..... lll(;il .SI'I':I'.'I) RAIl, IJAII,Y III).~.III)IN(; ('VEAIJ 2020) ........... II1¢;11 SI'I.:I..'I} IIAII, I)AII,¥ RI','VI':NIJE (YE,Il, l(2020) ...... I.I';VEI. YVe.~l:,hlc I:l'uilvalc (Hive IJr. I)~,)vvnllcwn E. Ihib,~fd ,S~llllr;lll I.I'.'VEI, XVcalahle Fi'ullv#le Olive I)r. i)o,wnlown E. Il;distil · .~lllll';ll~: 2 10,376 10,876 10,73'/ I I,.1O] 10,9~ I I I,.I 10 2 $1-12,675 $ ! 49,5.10 $147,632 $156,79~ $ I SO,3O] S 157,301 2a 1.1,969 I 5,659 I 5,.172 16,378 I S,?J.I 16,-12.1 2a S246,992 S2S8,375 $255,295 $270,23S S259,604 $271,00.1 3 33,653 3.1,86-I 3-1,522 36,088 31,981 36,16'/ 3 $832,923 S862,872 S854,-1118 S893,18l 5865,778 $895,127 -I 4(1,-I10 -I1,718 .11,.~58 43,0.14 .11,819 .13,125 .I $1,166,826 $1,204,619 S1,194,215 $1,242,900 Sl,208,388 $1,245,23.1 High Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Between Los Angeles and Bakersfield (2020 Ridership) ,"'"'":'"":'.: " 43,044 - 43,125 40,4 I0 41,718 41,358 41,849 40 36,088 36,167 33,653 34,864. 34-,522 34,981 ~ 30 2O 15,659 15,,172 16,378 15,734 16,424 10 10,876 10,737 !1,403 10,931 11,440 0 Wcstsidc Fruitvale' ()live i)r. l)owntown E. BakslH Amtrak High Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Between Los Angeles and Bakersfield (2020 Revenue) 1500 1,242,90, 1,245,23 1,2(N,61 I, 194,21 1,208,38 I, 166,82, ~ 1000 ~ 18 127 5OO 55,295 5 1,004 142,675 149,540 147,632 1 150,303 I /~' / 0 ' Westside Fruitvale Olive l)r. E. Baksl~t Amtrak 4.0 SUMMARY AND CoNcLusIONS The potential patronage for a HSR service between Bakersfield and Los Angeles was analyzed in this paper. This analysis consists of two steps. In the first step, an intercity travel demand .. model developed by Florida DOT for an HSR study was transferred to California context. Simplifications and recalibrations to the FDOT model were undertaken to suit California situation. In the second step, a Lotus 123 spreadsheet model was developed. This model was used to estimate market shares, induced trips, HSR ridership, and HSR revenues for four possible HSR systems specified in June 1990 by the California High Speed Rail Corridor Study Group under AB971. The four systems encompass a full spectrum of possible HSR technologies, with maximum speed ranging from 110 mph, 125 mph, 185 mph (French TGV), to 300 mph (Maglev). For each of the four technologies, six possible terminal station sites in Kern County are assumed. The HSR ridership and revenues were computed by the model for each technology/terminal site combination. The computations were performed for both Year 1990 (assuming HSR operational today) and Year 2020. The results show that locating the terminal station at Bakersfield central city area such as near Downtown Ubrary or. at Amtrak Terminal will attract the highest ridership and generate the highest revenues. Locating the HSR terminal in the suburban area such as at the Westside Freeway or the Fruitvale will generate the lowest ridership and revenues. Metropolitan Bakersfield 4-I Ridership Analysis of HSGT Terminal Study Atternative Station Sites APPENDIX A COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF THE 48 MODEL RUNS C:~CIItr~II,XKERS~:,IlUSI991 Iligh SI)ccd R:lil Palronage I,'oreca 'een l~()s Angeles an(! Bakersfield ' ..... MARKET SllARES M()I)EI. WITII()LrI' Ill(HI SI'EEl) RAIl.- ..... MoDE CONS'I' INCOME FllEQ I.II COST AlE CoST I.II TIME AlE TIME I)IR'I'NCI~ AI.:I'/DIN']' IJTII.ITY EXP(V) I(mode) Ihela * I ENl'(lhe * I) SIIARE .All{ -I 2.~ ~71 (3.1.26R0 26.(}(100 1600000 10.0000 -15.0000 90.0000 1200000 0.7500 - 13.31RR 0.0000 -I ~.31 gR -~. :X[ t'l'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 50000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9~0.1 ..kNI'I'RAK* -4.R421 0.0000 20.00(}0 13.0000 2.0000 - 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 (}.-17-11 .6.4707 0.001 ~ -3.34R5 -2.020R O. 1325 0.043R C( )l.:l:l:. 1.0000 0.0071 O. IRRI -0.0208 -0 020R -0.020R .0.020R 0.0000 -2.07R0 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... KI;\RI-:I.71' SII:\RI~S kl()l)l!l; \VITII Ill(ill SI'I'I:I)R.\II.- ..... M()I)I~ C()NST IN(..'()MI~ Fl,Il':(.) IAI COST A/E COST IAI'I'IMI~ A.'E TIKII'.' I)IS'I'NCI~ :\I~T,'I)I.";T lq'Il.IT\' I:.XP(\:) I(,nod,0 Ih¢la * I ENP(th¢ * I) SII..\RI'.' ..\1R - 12.55'71 3.1.26R0 26.00(}0 ] 60.0000 ] 0.00(}0 -I $ olio0 90.0000 120.0000 0.7~00 · 15.31 R§ 0.0000 - 1.5.31 ~8 -7.1477 0.000~ 0.005.1 ..~ i']'( ) 0.0ii(J0 (J.{J0ll(} 0.01)J)0 29.0000 .~.00ilil 1211 iH}I)O .~.0000 116.0000 0.0.13 ] -3.3936 0.0336 0.R09.1 :\MTR ,\K --I. R.I 21 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0(100 1.10.000(} 55.0(}0(J I 16.0000 0..17.11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.1875 - 1.9237 0.1461 0.0373 IISI{ -.1.8.121 (I.0000 22 000(! 13.7500 2 0000 9.1.0000 55.0300 I 160000 0..17.1.1 .5.0930 0.0061 0.1479 C()I.:FF. 1.0000 00071 0. IRE I .0.020R -0.020R .0.0208 .0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0413 0.1469 1.0000 ..... C,\I.CUI.ATIONS I:OR C()IXliXlIYlT: TRII'S ...... -----CAI.CUI.ATIONS FOR C()MMU:I'I~ 'I'RII~S ...... ..... 'l'olal Tl'il)s hlcludin§ '11~os¢ hldtlcCd h), IISI{ ...... -----Tlys alld Rc'e¢lllles I)5' klod,:s ...... W/O IISI{ \V/O IISR \V/O IISR W/O IISI{ W/IISI{ \VI IISI{ W/IISI{ \V/IISI{ yE:~,I{ I'Ol' EKII' IMl'(aiO IMP(§rd) 'I'RII'S/I)Y TRII'S/YI{ MODE MKTSIII{ TRII'S/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR MKT Sill{ TRIPS/DY TRII~S/YR REV $/YR 1991 58-1,100 39,R27,000 -15.31RR -3.3485 35,631 10,6R9,300 All{ 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,51R 0.0054 193 57,R57 9,257,096 Psojcc! 584,100 39,R27,01}0 -I3..~IRR -3.1875 36,00.5 IO,ROI,.II7 ,\I. FI'O 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.8094 29,142 g,742,602 ,\KI'I'I{,kK 0.0.13R 1,561 -168,198 7,022,967 0.0373 1,3.13 402,95g 6,0.1.1,31/ L'()I:FI:. I OliO0 (J.26.15 -O.105g -O 2117 IISI{ 0.1479 5,327 1,597,999 21.972,.190 T()T:\I. 1.0(}00 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 36,005 10,80m,417 37,2721,96.1 ..\IxlTR.\K mod,: c,,.I.d~s :\m~k h~sc~ a~d (;I ¢~ I~,,md I,u~es ~/ .\cccss Time m D;~kclslilcd /'l'olal Travel Time via IISI{ = 6.78% C:,(.'lILr, ll..\Ki{R.~l",llO.',]1991 l ligh SI)ced lC:ill l)atronage l,'ol'ecast Bctwccn Los Angeles and Balcersl]el(l ;x~:.: ~ ..... MA, I~ Kl~'l' SI l:\R ES M()l)l'.'l. WITl IOUT I lIOl I ~l:l.'A~l) R..\ll. - ..... M()I)I': C()N.NT INC()MI! I:lll.:() I,II ¢.'(LNT :YE C().NT I,II 'l'l[~lll'..VI:TIMI.'. I)I.~'I'NCI{ :\I.:'I'/I)IST tFI'II.ITY EXI:(V) I(mod¢) Ih,:la ' I I{Xl'(ihe * I) SII;\IH.: ..\IR ' 12.5571 3.1.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 .15.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -I 5.3188 0.0000 -I 5.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 ;\1 ri'( ) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.00011 I 16.0000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTR..\K: -41J~421 010000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 1-100000 LS.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.020R 0.1325 0.0438 C()I.].'F. I.OO00 0.0071 0.18RI -0 0208 -0.O20E -{}1020J~ -(}1021}~{ 0.(}(J011 -2.07R0 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... M..\RKI!T NIIARI'.'N M()I)EI. \VITll IlK;Il SI'I{I{I) RAIl. - ..... MODE CONNT INC()MI[ I:RI.:Q I.II COST A:I:. CO.WI' I.II 'I'IMI-~ ;\ I.] 'lll,~ll~ I)I.~'I'NCE AET/I)INT UTII.I'I'Y EXI'(¥) I(mod¢) Ih¢la * I EXl'(Ih¢ * I) SIIARI~ All{ .12.357l 3,1.26R0 260000 160.0000 101()0{J() .IS O01) ) 9(l 0l}00 121).0000 0.7500 -15.31R8 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.005.1 .' ~ { I ' [ ' ( ) (} l( } {} {} (} (} . (} () { } 0 0 , 0(} (} 0 29.0000 3.000(1 12{1l(}{}{10 .~.(}(}00 116.(1000 0043 I '3.3936 0.0336 0.8 155 AMTRAK -4.~421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0~.100 1.10.0000 Ls.O000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.1951 -I.9282 0.1454 0.0376 H ."; R -.I.R421 0.0(}00 22.(}{}00 13.7500 2.0000 93.0000 .~6.38110 116.0000 0.4860 -5.1453 0.0058 0.1415 C( )EFF. 1.0000 0.{}{}71 0.1881 -0.020R -00208 -(1.020,~ -0.OZ}R 0.0000 -2.07R0 0.0410 0.1462 1.0000 ..... CAI.Ct q...VI'I¢)N.R I:( )1,~ C()MI~IU'I'E '1'1,~11'.'¢ ........... CAI.Ct II...VrlONS I:OR C()NINILrI'I~ TRII"S ...... ..... Tolal 'l't il~S h'i,..ludi,'lB 'l'hos,: Induced by 1 I."; R ........... '1', iJ)S ;lll{J J{¢'V¢IIII¢.N J)¥ J\ I,ml,:s ...... WI() IISR \V.'() I I.";R \VI() IISR \V/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR \VI IISR W/I I.";R YI.:AR I'()P I'.'MP IMl'(air) IMl'(g,d) 'I'RII~S/I)Y 'I'ItlI'NIYI{ kl¢)l)l'~ JklK'lISIIR TRII'R/I)Y TRIi:S/YIt ItEV $/YR klK'I'SIIR 'I'RII~S/I)Y TRII'S/YIt RI:.V $/YR 1991 584,100 39,827,000 -1513188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0054 194 58,092 9,294,73l I'rojccl 58-I,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.1951 35,987 10,795,973 AlYI'(} 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.8155 29,349 8,804,634 AMTII:XK 0.0,138 1,561 ,16R, 198 7,022,967 0.0376 1,353 ,1(15,81R 6,087,26-I C()I.:FF. I.O000 0.26.15 -0.1058 -0.2117 IINR 0.1415 5,091 1,527,429 ' 21,002,153 T(¥I'AI, 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113 485 I 0000 35 987 10,795 973 36 3R4 148 'l¥;cecl 'l'hn¢ via IISR = '/.62% ')' [~'9 - }1 'Il ' '~ ~'l :,,. , , i i:-, i ~;,l~lldll alii ....... -__S__ ..., ................/.,.J.__., ..I.. .... X I .... II I,.. P .... I], · ..l~ 3 II.l,l~ 9S~'L ~0'9 ~ I'EO~ ~E'l ELEO'O L96'~0'~ 861'~9~ 19~'1 8 El'O'O ~V II.I.I~V 018'9~L'8 9~1'6~ 8608'0 9~0'8~1'01 (}9~'[~ [0~6'0 (}.I.IIX' 91'0'10~'01 ~00'9~ OgRl'[' ~19'6~'6 ~LS'L¢ ~61 I'~00'0 81~'060'01 990'[9 01~ 6~00'0 }IIV 00~'609'01 Ifg'~ ~l.k/$.\~l/I '~I.L/$dlII.L .N(.I/$,II'IH. '~III.~.I.."IPl ~1.~,/$ A.(I/I UX/S,IIH.I..NiI/N,II~I.I. ~IIIN.I.~I~ ~1(101~ ~l.~/Ndl~l.I..~(I/~dl~l.I. (P~),ll~l (~)~11~1 ~11~.1 ,1{~,1 ~1¥':.1.~ 11SII iA~ 11SII/AX 11SII/AX IISII/AX IISII O/AX 11SII O/,~X IINII { I,',~X llSll Il/,~x ...... s~pOl~ ,{q saniia,xa}[ pue sdp.l.- .......... HNI [ .(q I)aanpul ~s°q.I. ~l[~l)tllali[ stlp,I, lel°.l.' .... ...... S,II}I.I. ;I.IJ I1~1~()~) }10:1SN{)I.I.V'IIID'IV,I ........... S,IIII.I. ~1.1:;11~1~02 ~10:1 ~N()I.I.V'It I,TIV;') ..... 0{J{}0' [ XgI' 1l(} [ I1'0'0 iIXLi) [- OliilO i) ROi:ii'if X 0l:0'0- RO[i)'O- ~{i)[ 0'0- I x\ I'i) I LOOI} iii)IlO I JAil( ~LI'I'O 1900'0 ~960'~- [~/_1' Ii ooilo',)l I OI)~ I'~g O000't'6 0000'~ O0~L't'l {}li{}o'~ (llii}{! 0 I[l'X I'- }INII [£[0'0 091'1 0 ()~6'1- ORRI'[' {100'0 LOLl"9- I I.LI"I) 0000'91 I 0000'~ 0000'01'1 0000'/' 0000'~ I 0(}00 0[ 01)1)0 0 I [I',~'I'- ,R60R'O 9[[0'0 916~'[- [ I'l.o'l) (}l}00'91 { (}(}00'~ (}000'(}[ I 0000'~' 00(}0'6[ {}{l(}(}'l) Oo(}¢}'{J IlOO{} {} ( kl.i IX' ! r~;00'0 X000'O //.I,I'L- XXI ['~; I' 0000'0 iix I ['~; I' O0~;L'O ()l)(}O'O[ I {)()()l)'l[)(J 00(}0'{ l, 001}0'01 01)()0'091 0(}l)1)'9[ ORg[ I't' IL~;¢'[ I' )Il\" ~l}l\:llS (I ~, ,"ql),.IX~l I, i:l,"ql (,"pom)l (:\)dX'..I .Li.rll.l.(i .i. Sl(i .I.~.1\.' 71,')N.I.SI(I ~.11~1.1. '..I:V .'.11',11.1. I1'1 .I. SO,') '~1/¥ .L,',;o3 I1'1 tS.:l}l:l ~II~I().')NI .I..~NO,') 'JlJ oooo'1 [~[1'0 J~[O'O ()gLO'Z- 0000'0 NOlO'O- 80[0'0- 80~0'0- 80~0'0' 1881'0 IL00'O 0000'1 ,R[rO'O ~[1'0 80lO'Z- CXI'['[- ~:100'0 LOLl"9' I I'LI"O 0000'91 I 0000'~ 000iYOI-I O000'l: 0000'~ I OOl}O'O[ 01}{1l}'0 I [I'X'I,- , ~1\" }1.1.1 ~1\-' [(}~6'0 95[0'0 9[6['[' I [1'0'0 0000'911 0000'¢ 0000'0[ J 0000'~' 0000'6[ 0000'0 0(}{}0'(} O0(}(J'O (}.J.l I\: 6~00'0 8000'0 LLI, I'L- 88l£'~l' 0000'0 88l['~l- OOgL'O '0000'011 0000'06 0000'~ O000'OI 0000'09l 0000'9[. '-JH\:I I~ (I, ,'ql),lX)l I · Ul.~ql (,~potu)l (:\)dX:J .LI.I'II.IJ'I .I.Sl(lt.I..:l\" :.I,')N.I.SI(I ':11~1.1. ~.1/¥ ':11~1.1. Irl .l. S09 .'.l/V .I.SOD Irl {')~1}1:1 }IItODNI .I.SN()D .'.1(1¢)1~1 ...... '11","}1 CJ'.T..ldS 119111 J.I IOI LI.h\\ 'l:.l(IOl'q ~;~lll\:llS .L"..l.~ll\"lXl ..... C~C~11r114 Iligh Speed Rail Patronage Forcca~ :ch I,os Angclcs and Bakc,'sficld 02 .....M;\R Ki'71' SIIARE$ MODEl, WFFI lOUT IIIGII SI'EEl) RAIL ..... MOl)IL CONST INCOMI:, I:RICQ IAI COST :LiE COST IAI TIME ;~tE TIME I)ISTNCI..' ..\I-?I'/I)IS'I' UTII,I'I'Y EXP(V) I(mod¢) Ih¢la * I EXP(Ihe* I) SlIARI':J AIR - 12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I 0.0000 45.000(} 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 - 15.3188 0.0000 - 15.3188 -7.1477 0.000g 0.0059 ;\IJTO 0.0000 0.01100 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0-131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 ..\M'I'I~..\K* -I.I1.121 0.00011 20.000(1 15.0000 2.0000 1,10.0000 55.0000 11601100 0..17.11 -6..1707 0.0015 -3.3.185 -2.020g 0.1325 0.0.138 ('()I:FF. I00O0 0.0071 OIX81 -0 020~ -0.020X .0.020~ -() (12111~ 0.0001i -2 I)'/~o 0,0351 0.13~3 I .O()t)() All{ -I,2.5571 3,1.261<O 26,O(}00 160.11000 IO.O000 .15.00(10 90.OOOO 120 00110 075O0 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1-177 O.000g 0.0054 ;\1 ri'( ) O.0000 (} 0000 0.(}O00 29.(ff)OO 5.()(}110 120.oo00 5.ol100 I 16 0000 O.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.8216 .-\MTR.\K ..1.~.121 11.01100 20.0000 15,0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 55.0(100 116.(1000 O.17.11 .6..1707 0,0015 -3.2026 -1.9327 0.1447 0.0379 IISR -.I 8421 0.011011 22.00(10 13.7500 2.0000 93.0000 57.7700 116.0000 0..1980 . -5.1991 0,0055 0.1351 ('(H.~FI:. 1.0000 0.0071 11.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0(100 .2.0780 0.0.107 0.1455 1.0000 ..... C..\I,CUI,:VFIONS FOR COMMUTE TI,tlI'S ........... C:\I,CI ;I,:VI'I¢)NS I:O11 C()MMUTE TRIPS ...... ..... Tolal 'l'*ips Includit;§ Those huhtccd by I ISR ...... -----'1'~ ips and Rex'critics hy Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR 1991 58.1,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 Alit 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0054 194 58,324 9,331,919 I"n)jccl 584,100 39,827,(}00 -15.3188 -3.2026 35,969 10,790,633 ..\l.rl'O 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.8216 29,554 8,866,104 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0379 1,362 408,651 6,129,763 COEFF. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.1351 4,859 1,457,553 20,041,355 .............. ____i TO'I'AI~ 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 35,969 10,790,633 35.503,036 ;\M'I'I~..XK mode contains Ami,ak I)uscs and Gi'cyhomld I)uscs. Access Time its Iliikoslilcd / 'l'olal Travel Time via I ISR = 8.47% :\112` -12.5571 34.2680 260000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3181¢ 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 :\U'I'() 0.0000 0.0000 00000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 ¢).¢1431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.95¢)3 ,\MTR..\K* --I.g.121 00000 2(}0000 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 - 55.0000 116.000(~ 0.1%11 -6..1707 O.0015 -3.34R5 -2.020g 0.1325 O.O.13,R :' C()I.:FF. 1.0000 0.0071 0. IRS I .0.0208 -0.0208 -O.020g .0.0208 0(}000 -2.0780 0.0351 O. 1333 10000; ..... M..XRKliT SII.\RI'~S MOl)l-il. WITII IIIIHI .~PEED R..\II.- ..... M~)I)I-: (;()NST INC()MI: IRI~Q IJI C()ST A;E COST I.II 'I'IMIS ..VIS TIMI.: I)I.'¢'INCI.: .\I.:T I)l,gT trl'll.ITY I£XI)(V) I(mode) d~e[a ' I ENI'0h¢* I) .gll..\Rl': AIR -12.5571 34.2680 260000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.311¢8 0.0000 -15.3188 ,7. i477 0.000g 0.00,~4 ..\1,.~ ri'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.00(}0 116.0000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.831 I., :\kI'I'IL.\K -.I.R.12 J 0 0(101} 200000 150000 2.0000 1.10.0000 5s,1 (100 116.(IO00 O .J?.ll -6..1707 0.0015 -3.2140 .1.9397 O.l.13R ¢J.03.'<3 IISI{ -.I.8,121 00000 22.0001l 13.7500 2.0000 93.f)000 {~0.()31}0 116.0000 0..~ 1'/5 -.~. 286.~ 0,00.~ I 0.1252 C'( )I':I"F. I.O000 0.0071 0. I RR I -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.020R 0.0000 -2.071,:0 0.0402 0.1445 1.0000 ..... ('Al CI q..VI'I'I)NS F()R C()MMI rl'E '1'12`11'."; ........... ('AI.CIJI,:\TI()N.g F()R ('()MMI tie 'I'I{IPS ...... ..... 'l'olal 'l'61~s Inclmling Those Imhlced by IISI{ ........... Trips and Rcvcnlles by Modes ...... W/O IISR W,'O IISR W/O IISR \V/O IISI{ \VI IISR W/IISI{ WI iISR \VI IISR YE.-\R I'Ol' I':kll' lMl'(;dr) IMP(grd) TRII'S/I)Y 'rRIPS/YI~ kIOI)l.~ MKTSIIR TRIPSq)'( '['IHI'S/YR REV StYR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $'YR 1991 5R.l,100 39,827,000 .-15.318~ -3.34R5 35,631 10,689,300 ,\IR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0054 196 58,682 9,389,112 Pfojecl 584,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.2140 35,942 10,782,492 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.8311 29,g70 $,960,987 AM'I'R,XK 0.(}.138 1,561 ,168,198 7,022,967 0.0383 1,377 413,024 6,195,362 .\kI'IR.\K [ ~ldains ..\mh';~k hu?;¢s and ( ;['cvhound buses. It ,\ccc~;s '['im¢ ~l~clslilc(I / 'l'ol:d 'l'[avcl '['im¢ via I1.<;I2, := 9.R2% C:\CilI~BAKERSi'~BUSI991 lligh Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Between Los Angeles a.d Bakersfield · ^~t.: w2 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITIIOUT IIIGII SPEED R^iL ...... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LII COST A/ECOST LIITIME METIME DISTNCE AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) l(,node) theta* I EXP(the * I) SII^RE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 ALri'O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 '0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEl. WITII IIIGII SI'EED RAIl. - ..... MODE CONST INCOME I:REQ IAICOST MECOST I.IITIME MI';TIME DISTNCE AI.;'I'/I)IS'I' U'I'ILITY EXP(V) I(mode) thela* I EXP(Ihe* I) SII^RE AIR -12.5571 34.261{0 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0055 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.8444 AM'I'RAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0..1741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.2299 -I.9493 0.1424 0.0389 IISR -4.8421 0.0000 22.0000 13.7500 2.0000 93.0000 63.5000 116.0000 0.5474 -5.4208 0.0044 0.1112 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0396 0.1432 1.0000 ..... CAI.CUI.ATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ........... CAI.CUI.ATIONS FOR COMMUTi'; TRIPS ...... ..... 'Folal Trips Including Those Induced by I ISR ........... Trips and Revenues by Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O ilSR W/O IISR W/O IISR WI ilSR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR YEAR POI' EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YP, MODE MKTSIIR TP, IPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR IvlKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR .. · :. 1991 584,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210' 63,066 10,090,518 0.0055 197 59,184 9,469,453 P{njecl 58,1,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.2299 35,904 10,771,205 ALIT() (I.9503 33,860 10,158,03~3 0.8,144 30,317 9,094,969 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.03E9 1,397 419,200 6,287,993 COEFF. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.1112 3,993 !,197,852 16,4'/0,458 AMTRAK mode contains Amlrak buses and Greyhound buses. Access Time in Bakcrsfiled /Total Travel Time via iISR = I 1.82% c: cl.f;~.X~;l:;{S~:~.l;s19,;i iligh Speed Rail P:tlro.age Forecast Belwccn Los Angeles and Bakersfield M¢)I)E C¢)NST INC¢)ME FI{EQ I.II COST ..\ E COST I.II TIME A/I'~TIME I)ISTNCE ,\1-717111ST UTILITY EXI'(V) I(mode) thcta * ! i~Xl'(lhe * I) $1L\RE :\IR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.31R8 .7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 ..\1 l'l'( ) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.00(10 I 16.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 ~ 0.9503 ..\KI'YI~AK* -48421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.,17.11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3495 -2.020~ 0.1325 0.043g C()I-3:F. 1.0000 0.0071 O. Iggl -0,0208 -0,020g - -0.020~ -0.0208 0.(1000 -2.0790 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... M..\I{ KI?I' .XII..\RI;S MOI)I','I. WITII II1(';11 SI'I~I!I) RAIl.- ..... MODE C¢)NS'I' INC¢)ME I:REQ I.II COST .-\ E CO,ST I.II TIME ..\;I-~'I'IMI~ I)IS'I'NCI.~ :\1.71';I)1,~T U'YII.ITY EXI'(V) I(mode) fl~e~a * I ENP0h¢* I) SII;\RE Alit - 12.55'/I 3.1.26N0 26.o(100 160.0000 10,0000 ,I .~.o000 900000 1200000 0.7500 - 15 31Xg 0.0000 - I k31 ~X -7.1-177 O.000g 0.005 I At ri'() 0.OOO~ 0,O00~ 0.0000 2~.00~ k~0()0 I Z0.O000 k00()~ I 16()()~0 0.O,1~ I -].]~ ().O13~ ~.751 I .XN ITR AK ..I.X-I ~ I 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.OOOO 1.10.0000 55.0000 I 16.0000 0..17.11 -6.,1707 0.0015 -3. I 126 - I .XTX4 O. 152~ 0.0346 IISI{ -.I X-121 0.0000 22.0000 16.5000 20000 70.0000 55.0300 116.0000 0.47.1-1 -4.6722 0.0094 0.2091 { '( )I]:F I .oO0o (I.O071 0. I ~X I .0.020~ -O.020~ -().020X .O.020~ 0,0000 .2.O'1~(I 0.0.1,15 0.1536 1.0000 ..... C..\I.CIrI...VI]()NS I:()R C()MMt rl'E 'I'RII'S ........... C..\I.CLII.,VI'IONS F()R C()MMt rl'E TRIPS ...... ..... 'l'olal 'l'iips I,chidh~g Those Imhic~d hy I ISR ........... Trips ami Revert.cs I)y Modes ...... W/() IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR YILAR Pill' EMI: IMl:(ai,) JMJ:([rd) 'I'IIII:S/I)Y 'I'IIlI'~/YII M()I)E MKT NIIR 'IRII'N/I)Y 'I'RII'S/YII REV $/YR MKT SIIR 'I'IUI'~/I)Y 'I'RII:S/YIJ REV $/YR 1991 5144,100 39,g27,000 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,51R 0.0051 185 55,591 g,894,553 I'~ojo:t 58.1,100 39,R27,000 -15.318X -3.1126 36,1X7 1(1,1455,955 Alrl'() 0.950.I 33,~60 10,1514,0;16 0.7511 27,1RI R,15,1,287 AM'IRAK 0.O,1.18 1,561 ,1614,198 7,022,967 0.03.16 1,2.53 375,g42 5,637,633 C()EFF. I.OOO0 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.2091 7,567 2,270,235 37,458,877 T¢)TAI, OO(10 ..\lxlll:l{:\KI o,ltai.s ,\lidla[ Imscs mid (ireyhouml htlseS. Il Access Til., [elslilcd / Total 'l'~avcl Time via II.";R = 8.02% ~us~991 lligh Speed Rail P:m'onage Los Angeles and B:lkersfield E2,~ . .....MARKET $11ARE$ MODEl, WITIIOUT 1111311 SPEED RAIl, - ..... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ I.II CC)ST ..VE COST I.II TIME :VE TIME I)ISTNCE ..\ETil)IST I)'I'II.I'I'Y EXP(V) I(mod¢) tl~ela * I l';XP(fl~e * I) SIIARE Alit -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 1600000 10.0000 .15.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.31g8 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 At rl'O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 290000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116,000f! 0.0.131 -3,3936 0.0336 0,9503 .\M'I'R..\K* -4.8.121 0.0000 20,0000 1500110 2.0000 1-10.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0..17.11 -6-1707 0.001~ -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 ('()EI:F. 1.0o00 00071 0 18141 .0 0208 .¢) 02014 .0.0208 -¢).0208 0.0000 .2 0780 0 0351 0.1333 10000 ..... M..\RKET .',;ILAR ES MOI)I.:I, WI'I'll Ill(HI .";I'EI-.'I) IL\Il. - ..... hl()l)l~ C()NST INCOME FRICQ I.II CO.ST ..\ I£ C().',;T I.II'I'IME ..V'E TIME I)ISTNCE ..\ET I)IST UTII,I'I'Y ENI'(V) I(mode) Iheta * I I~Xl'(Ihe * I)- SII.-\RE .All4 -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 1600000 10.0000 -15.0000 00.0000 120.0000 07500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 (1.0()0~ 0.0052 ..\1 r{'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.043 } -3.3936 0.0336 0.7592 ..\ M'I'I{..\ K -.I.8.121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 55.0000 116.000(} O,-lT-I I -6.-1707 0.O0l 5 -3.1233 - 1.8849 O. 1518 0.0350 I { .',2 R -4.14.121 0.O000 22.0000 16.5000 2.0000 70.0000 56.3800 { 16.0000 0.4860 -4.7245 0.0089 0.2006, ('()1(I.'1:. I OliO0 0.0071 (1.1~81 .0 02(18 -0.02014 .0.O 2(}~ .0.020~ (I.OllO(} -2 078(! 0.0.1.10 0.1526 1.0(}00 ..... C.\I.CI q...Vl'l¢ )NS F()R C¢)MMI rl'l..' 'I'RII'S ........... CAI.Ct II.A'I'ION,',; F()R C()MMI. rI'IC TRILL',; ...... ..... 'J'olaJ 'l';il}S I'ndu¢lJn§ 'l'hos~ Induced by I ISR ........... Trips alld R¢v¢1111~$ b)' Mod,:s ...... WI() IISR \V/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR \V; IISR W/IISR W/IISR \VI IISR / YI'~,\I{ I'¢)1' 1'3xlP IklP(air) IMP(p'd) 'I'IJlI'S/I)Y TRII'$/YR MOI)I'~ MKT $11R 'I'RII'$tl)Y TI~II~$/YP, ' REV StYR MKT $11R TRIPS/DY TI~,I?$/YI~ REV $/YR 1991 584,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0052 186 55,910 8,945,643 I'roj¢ct 584,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.1233 36,160 10,848,030 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.7592 27,454 8,236,175 AMI'RAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0350 1,265 379,617 5,694,248 C¢ ~EFI:. I.O000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.2006 7,254 2,176,328 35,909,409 . ..- ......... ......................................................................... 'I_'(_¥!'_A__I: ..... I:0_!_)_0_(_) ........ 3__5.,6_~1! 10,6149,300 17,113,4145 1.0000 36,160 10,84~,030 50.549.300 ..\ k ITl{ ,.\ K mode conlaim~s :\mlrak Imses and Grcyhoumld Imses. # ,-\ccess Tittle in I~akersfilcd / Total T{avcl Tirrie via I ISR = 9.00% c:',¢'.lr, n:X~;l~s~.',~,~s19~l Iligh Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Between I,os Angclcs and Bakersfield .....MARKET SlIARE~ MODEl. WITIIOUT IllGII SPEI~D RAIl ....... . MOI)E CON~T INCOME I:REQ I.II COST A'E COST I.II TIME Aq~ TIME I)IS'I'NCE AE'I'/I)I~T UTII.ITY ENI'(V) I(mode) II~e~a * ! EXP0he * I) SIIARE Al I'1'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 160000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* --1.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.47.11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 C( )EFF. 1.0000 O.OO71 0 11~X I .O 0208 -O.(1208 -0 O2OX .0.0201~ OflO00 . ? 078¢! 003 .~ I O. 1333 I.OOO0 ,\IR -I 2.~.~71 34.26~0 26.(1000 160.0000 I0.0000 4 .~.flO00 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.318~ 0.0000 -1.~.3188 -7.1,177 O.O00g ' 0.00.~ I ..\DT(') l) (lO(lO O.Ot)OO O.O000 29.O(}(IO 5.0000 1200000 5.OO(IO I I(,.O000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.7517 .\~, I'l'l~.r\ K -'1.X'12 I O.O0(IO 20.OO00 I 5000fl 2.OOOO I '10.OOOO 55.(1(}OO I I i;.OOOO O.'17'11 '6.'1707 O.OOI 5 '3. I 133 ' 1.8789 0. 15214 0.O.'LI6 I I;';R -.I X,121 00000 22.0000 16..~000 2.00o0 70,II(lO0 _%~. 1200 116.00(}0 0..1752 -.16757 0.0093 0.20X5 ..... 'l'otM 'l';ips Iht:Iud(n§ 'l'itos¢ In,.h,ccd ILV J lSR ........... Trips and Rev(hueS by [Xh..Ics ...... YI:.,\I~ I'O1' I.;MP IMP(air) IMl'(gtd) TRII'S/I)Y 'I'I{IP.'41YI{ MOI)I'~ MKTSlIF', TI~.IPS/I)Y TI~,II~S/YR REV $/YR MKT SlIR I'I{IPS/DY TRiI'S/YR REV StYR 1991 584,100 39,827,000 -I.~.3188 -3.348.~ 3.$,631 10,689,300 :\IR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,.518 0.0081 18J ~5,613 8,~98,015 I'~ojo..I $84,100 39,827,000 -IJ.3188 -3.113~ 36,18~ 10,8J.5,41~ ALl'lO 0.9.503 33,860 10,15S,036 0.1.517 21,199 ~,1J9,826 :\MTRAK 0.0,138 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0346 1,254 376,098 5,641,463 C()I.'.FF. ilO000 0.26,15 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.2085 7,.546 2,263,879. 37,354,01 I ..\klTl~ ..\K ontains :\mtrak Imscs ami (h(yh,~.,md Ims(s. A,..ccss Timc'~crslilcd/'l',.aal Trav,:l Time via I ISR = '809% ' c:~c~n~n..~l ~Sl,~9~ Ili~h Speed Rail Patronage li'oreca l~os Angeles and ik~l~el'sfiehl '-----MARKET ,',;IIAR I~,R t,l¢)l}l.~l, WITIIO{ ri' IIIGII SPI.~ED I{AII.- ..... kl()l)l:. C()NS'I' INCOME I"RI~Q I.II COST :\,'1~ COST I.II'I'IME AIR -12.5571 34.261¢0 26.(}000 160.0000 10.0000 ,I-5.0000 90.0000 120.00110 (I.7.',00 -I-5.3188 0.0000 -I-5.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 :\l IT() 0.0000 0.O000 0.O000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0-131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 ..\kI'I'I{:XK* -4.R-121 0.0(}00 20.0000 15.OOOO 2.0000 I,IO.0000 55.0000 116.0000 O.,17.11 .6.4707 0.0015 -3.34R-5 -2.0208 0.1325 0.O.13,R C( )I':FF. 1.ooo0 O.OO?l O. IRRI .O (1208 .O.02OR -0.020R -O.O2OR 0.0000 -2.(17~¢0 () 0351 0.1333 I.O000 ..... I~l..\lt K ET .',;Il.ii.ti.:.',; M()I)EI. WI'I'll Ill{HI Sl'l.:l:l) I{..\11.. ..... I',1()111.~ C()NS'I' INCOME FI{I£Q I.II COST :\..I.; COST I.II TIME ..\'1£ TIME I)IS'I'NCI~ ..\ITI',I)IST IrI'II.ITY - I£NP(V) I(mod¢) th¢la * I ENP(Ihe * I) SII..\RI.~ :\1}{ - 12.5571 34.26)¢0 260000 160.0000 10.0000 .I-5.OO00 90.0000 120.O00(! 11.7500 - 15.31R8 0.0OO0 - 15.3188 -7.1.177 0.0008 0.0052 ..\1 ri'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.00110 29.01100 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 1160000 O.0.131 0.3936 0.0336 0 7673 ..\~,ITI4..XK -.I R-121 0.OOO0 20.0000 1-5.0000 2.0000 I.l(}.O000 5.'~.(}001) 116.O000 0.,17.11 -6.-1707 O.0OI5 -3.1339 -I.8913 0.1509 O.O35.1 IISI{ -.I g.121 0.(1000 22.11000 16..~O00 2.0000 70.OO0(} 57.7700 116.0(100 0.,19~(! -I.77R~ 0.OOR.I 0.1921 C()I'~I:F. I (l(IO(} (J.11071 (I. IRRI -(L11208 -0.O20R -0.O20R -O.O2OR 0.(IO00 -2.117RO 0.0.13-5 0.1-517 1.0000 ..... C:\I.CI II...VI'IONS FOR C()MMI,?I'E 'l'RIl'$ ........... CAI,CIJI,:VI'IONS FOR COM,klU'I'E TRIPS ...... ..... '['olal 'l'~ips h~clmlint,; 'l'hos¢ Induced by IISI{ ........... 'l'~ips ami Rcvcm~cs bv Modes ...... W/O IISI{ W/O IISI{ \\'!( ) IISI{ \VIO IISI{ \V/IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISI{ \VI IISI{ YF.:XR I'()P EMP IMl'(ai,) IMl'(g,'d) 'I'RIPS.'I)Y TRII'S/YI{ MOI)E MKT Sill{ 'I'RII'S/I)Y TRIP,";/YI{ REV $/YR MKTSIII{ 'I'RII'S/I)Y TRIPS/YR RE\t $/YR 1991 58.1,100 39,R27,O00 -15.31Xg -3.3.185 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,.518 0.0052 187 56,227 R,996,37-5 I',~ject 58.1,11}O 39,827,O00 -15.3188 -3.1339 36,134 10,8.I0,240 AU'F() 0.9503 33,860 IO, 158,O36 0.7673 27,726 8,317,821 AI\ITRAK 11.0.1.18 1,561 ,16R,198 7,022,967 0.1135.1 1,278 383,38¢} 5,7511,696 c( )I.:I.'F. 1.11OOO 11.2645 -O. IO58 -O2117 IISI{ 0.1921 6,943 2,082,812 34,366,397 _ '!'?'l'~I' !.9!}0P.. .~:6.~!.. !P,('_~?,-)0_0_._~7_:!3-a_.4__~_S ........... ]:PP.0. q ....... .a_(,d~._! !p,S~0,.:.!0 .... :?:1!:~._4_6~ ..\M'I'R.\K mode c,.slams ..\mhak Imscs ami (;~cx hot,nd Imscs. :\cccss Time in II;ikcfslilcd /'l'olal Travel Time via IISI{ = 9.99% c:~cmr. 1~..xl<~.:~s~:.m,s~99~ iligh Si)ced Rail Patronage Forecast Between I.os Angeles and Bakersfiehl ,m: ~::,, ..... MAR KET SI IA ~ ES M()I }El. WITI I()lrl' I IIGI I SPEI~I) RAIL ...... M()I)I,: ('()NST INCI)ME I:RI~Q I.II COST AtE COST I.II TIME A,'I~ TIME I)ISTNCI~ AI~'I'/I)IST UTII.FI'Y EXP(V) I(mmle) d~cta * I EXI'(Ihc * I) SIIARI'; AIR -125571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 .At rl'( } (l.(l(l(}(} 0.0000 0,0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 160000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0,9503 AMIRAK* -.t.8,121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.,17.11 -6.,1707 0.0015 -3,3J~5 .2.020~ 0.1325 0.0438 ('()I]:F. I.OO0O 11.0071 O. I RI{ I -0.021}8 -0.0208 -0 o208 .0.02olq 0.0000 -2.o?80 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... M:\I~:I~II:T .qll.~l~tE.'q M()I)I']. '~VI'Illl II1{;11 SI'I.].:I) R,.\II.- ..... M()I)I-~ C()NST INC()MI-~ I:I,IEQ I.II COST ..YE COST I.II TIME A E 'I'IME DIS'I'NCI'~ AET DIST LrI'II.ITY EXI)(V) I(mode) thcta" I EXP0he * I) SII.-\RI! ..\IR - 12.5571 3 4 2680 26.0000 160.O001~ I 0.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 - 15.3188 0.0000 ~15.3188 -7.1.177 0.0008 0.0052 ..\! ri'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.01}00 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 00.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.7799 :\1~ ITl{.\K --I 8,121 0.0oo0 211.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 I 16.0000 0.47-11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3,1502 - 1.9012 O. 149-I 0.0359 I IS R -.I ~.121 00000 22.0000 16. 5000 2.0000 70.001)0 60.0301! I 160000 0 5175 -.I. 8657 0,0077 0. I 7~9 (.'()1']:1:. I0000 O0(}?1 It. IX81 -0.o208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 O.0000 -2 0780 0.0428 O.1502 1.0000 ..... C.\[.('I q,A'I'I()NS F()R C()MMT rl'l~ 'i'IHPS ........... C'..\I.CIH,..\TI()NS FI)l{ C()MMt r['l~ TRII'S ...... ..... 'l'.lal 'l'rips Inclmling 'l'hosc huluccd by IISI{ ........... 'l'ril)s and Rcvcm*cs by [',lodes ...... W/O IISI*, W/O I ISR W/O IISI*` W/O IlSR W/IISR W/IISR W/iisi*` %'/IISI*,' YI!AI{ POi' EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) 'I'RII'S/I)Y 'I'I{II'S,YI{ MOI)E MKT SIIR 'I'IUI'S.'I)Y TRII}S/YI*` REVStYR MKT Sill*` 'I]*`IPS/I)Y TI~,II'S/YI*` REV 1991 584.100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0052 189 56,718 9,074,S93 I'rojcc! 584,100 39,g27,000 -15.3188 -3.1502 36,094 10,828,339 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.7799 28,149 8,444,834 AM'I'I{AK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0359 1,297 389,23,1 5,838,509 C( )l';l:l:. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.1789 6,459 1,937,552 31,969,613 - · ::.--::' '. -:.::-..':. '..:-.-' '. ..... '~::-:- ...................-:.: ~-~-- . :-~--...'I.'~.!T'-'~I: iff! .: 35,6.11 !0,689,30~. !~_,!!.3:.48_5- ........ !.!!9!!.0_ ........ 3~ .. 9 _9 4_ __ !9_._8.~2__8,:T.'}_? ...... 4~ .\M I'I{.\K :\lilt!;ll, I)uscs and (;rc.XllotUld Isuscs. Il ..\cccss Time il~lllslilcd /'l'-tal T, avel Time via I I,$;R =- I I. 56% c:Clll,lt, ua]~si*,i~,si991 iligh Speed Rail P:llron:l~c I:orcc:lsl Between I~os Angelc~ an(I ilakcrsfiehl ~uL: w~. ..... MARKET SI lARES M( H}EI. WITI IO~ IT I I IGI I SPEED RAIl, - M()I)I'i C()NST INCOME FREQ I.II COST A'E COKI' I.II 'l'lkll{ :VE TIME DISTNCE AET/I)IST UTIIJTY EXP(V) I(mode) lhcla * I EXP(Ihe* I) SlbkRE All{ -12.~71 3.1.2680 260000 160.0000 10.0(J00 .1~.0000 9{}.(1000 1211.0000 0.7~(ff} -1~.31XX 0.0000 -1~.31g~ -7.1,177 0.000X 0.00~9 At ri'{) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 ~.000(} 120.0000 ~.0000 116.0000 0.O.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9~03 .~MI'RAK* -4.~-121 0.0000 20.0000 I ~.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 ~.0000 116.0000 0..17.11 -6..1707 0.001 ~ -3.34X~ -2.020~ 0.132~ 0.0.13~ , C( )EI:F 1.0000 0.0071 0.18R I -0.020R -0 020X .0 020X -0 020~ 09000 -2 07XO 00351 O. 1333 1.0000 ..\1R - 12.5571 3-1.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 .I 5.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.?500 - 15.3188 0.0000 - 15..t 188 -7. 1,177 0.0008 0.0053 ..\{ ri'l) O.OOO0 O.0l)00 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.7979 .\M'I'R:XK -.1 R.12I 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.000(! I.l(I (}000 55.0000 1160000 0..17.11 -6..1707 0.0015 -3.1731 -J.9150 0.1473 0.1)368 IINR *.18-121 0.0000 22.0000 16.5000 2.0000 70.0000 63.50(10 1160000 0.5.174 -5.(}000 0.0067 0.1601 ('()I]:F I IJllO{I (HI071 0. 188 J -0.0208 -0.02(1g -0 02(}8 -0.02(h~ 0.0000 -2.078(! 0.0-I 19 0.14~ I 1.0000 ..... '['ltlal 'l'dl,S Inch.lmB 'llmsc Imluccd hy JISR ........... 'l'rips and Revcm~¢s by \lodes ...... YI".:\I{ P()I' EMI' IMP(air) IMl'(§rd) 'I'RII'SiI)Y TRII'S!YR M()DI~ MKT Sill{ 'I'RII'S/I)Y 'fRII'S/YR REV $/YR MKT Sill{ TI{II'S/DY 'I'RII'S/YR REV 1991 ~R.1,100 39,R27,000 -15.31Rg -3.3485 35,631 10,6R9,300 All{ 0.0039 210 63,066 10,090,318 0.0053 191 ~7,414 9,1g6,213 I'~oj¢cl 3R.l, lO0 39,827,000 -15.31gg -3.17.11 36,039 lO,RI 1,777 :\I.IT() 0.9303 33,R60 10,15R,036 0.7979 2R,754 g,626,260 ,\klTR;\K 0.0.138 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0368 1,325 397,596 5,963,9.12 C¢ )I..'FF. IO000 0.2645 -0.1058 -O.2117 IISI{ 0.1601 5,768 1,73(),507 28,S53,358 TOTAl. 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,1J3,~185 1.0000 36,039 10,811,777 43,703,515 ,\NI'I'R:XK mode c,.lams :\ulhak InlsCS ami (he.xh,mnd huxes. It ,\cccss 'l'imc iu IJake~slilcd /'l',hd 'l'nwel Time via IISI{ = 13.86°.;, ..... KI,\RKI~T SII,~RES klOI)EI. WITIIOUT IlIGII SI'EED RAIL ...... KI()I)I{ {'()N.";'I' IN('¢}MI': I:RI!Q I.II C(IST ,VECI)ST I,II'I'IMI': ..VI': TIMIL I)I.";TNCI': AI.YI'/I)IST IrI'II.ITY I.;XI'(V) I(modc) Ih,.'hl * I EXI'(Ih¢" I) SII:\RI': :\1R - 12' 5571 3,12680 26.0000 J 60.0000 J 0~0000 45.0000 9(I.(ll)(l{} J 20.(1000 0.7500 -I 5.31 gg 0.0000 - 15.318g -7. I.I77 0.0008 0.0059 :\1 ITt ) (I {){10(! (l.(1000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5 .I { ( 0 I 16.0000 1} (}.111 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 ;\KI'I'R:\K* -.18.1.21 0.0000 20.(10II0 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.00110 5511111111 116 01100 0,17.11 -6..1707 0.11015 -3.].1R5 -2 II20R 01325 0.0.1.1R I.oo00 0.0071 0.1881 -0.02¢I1¢ . -0.020R -0.020R - .111121}8 00000 .2.{17811 0.0351 0.1333 I ~0000 ..... M.\R I(I T .gl I.\R I.~.g .XI{ ~1 )111. WITII II1( ;11 .',;PI.~I.] ) R:\II. - ..... ,'xl{)l)l.i {.'{}NS'I' INCOMI': I:RI~Q I.II COST A'E CI)S'l' I.II 'I'IMI~ ..\ I{'I'I:XlI': I)IS'I'NCI.~ ..\ET I)IS'I' I.rI'II.ITY I.~XI'(V) I(mod¢) 0~¢m * I I!Xl'(d~¢ * I) SII..\RI! ..\IR - 12 5571 3.1 26R0 26.0000 16(L(10(10 10.000{} 45.00(10 90.01){10 120.(R)¢}0 0.75110 -I 5.31 g8 0.0000 -I 5.3188 -7.1477 0.000R 0.00.12 :\1 ri'{ } II 00110 0 00IllI 0.11000 29.0000 5.000(} 121}.01100 5.00111! I 16.¢1000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.(}336 0.53R,1 .\MI'R..\K -.I R.12I 0.00¢10 20.01100 15.0000 2.11111111 1.10.0000 54 0 }! 116 0000 0..17.11 .6..1707 0.0015 -2."/786 -I.6769 II. IR70 ll.02.hR IINR 21.8-121 . 0.0000 27.01}00 24.7500 2.0000 56.0000 55.11.11111 116.01100 0.-17-14 -3.6123 0.0270 0.4326 C( )I!]:F. 1.0000 0.0071 O. I gR I -0.020R -0.020R -0.020R -0~¢I20R 0.11000 -2.07R0 0.0621 0. I R?7 1.0000 ..... C..\I .C1 q ...VH( )NS I:( )R C( )MMt tH:' TRIPS ........... C.-\l .CT q ...\'I'IONS I.'()R COM Mtq'l:. 'IRII'S ...... ..... 'l'ot.d 'l'~ iI~q hk:hMim, '/h,~s¢ Imhiccd Irc I INR ........... T! {ps ami Revere,cs \V/O [ISR \\?() I[SR \V,'O IISR W/I) IISR W/IISR \VI I[SR \V,' IISR \V/I[SR YI{,\R POi' EMI' IMP(air) IMl'(§rd) TRII'$/I)Y TRII'$/YP, MOI)I'~ MKT SlllL 'I'RII'S/I)Y 'rI{II'S/YP, P, EV $/YR kiWI'Sill}, TRII~$/I)Y TRIPS/YIn, RI-;V StYR 1991 5R.l.100 .19,827,000 -15..llgg -3.YlR5 35,63l 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0042 155' 46,592 7,454,740 Ih'ojec! 51¢.1,111(I .19,1¢27,000 -15.31111t .2.77R6 37,067 11,119,968 :\tJ'l'O 0.9503 '33,g00 10,158,036 0.5384 19,956 5,9R6,664 ,'U',I'I'R :\ K 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,96"/ 0.0248 920 2"/5,934 4,139,003 ('()l'il:l". { {III{l{! O.26.15 -0.105R -0.2117 IISR 0.,1326 16,036 4,810,778 119,066,767 T(}T:\I. . D0 35631 10689300 17 113 485 1:0000 37 067 11,119,968 131~.5{19 "':' .... ,,' \M'I I,'.\K .\mh;ik I}uscs ;ind (h'¢yhountl buses. ~,~91 lli§h SI}ced Rail Patronage Forecas{ Los Angeles and Bakersfield I~3 .....M:XRKET SIIAI~ES MOl)El, WI'I'II()tIT IIIGII SI'EI'~I) RAIL- ..... M()I)I~ C()NST INCOME FI{EQ I.II COST Aq~COST IAI'I'iME :VETIME I)IS'I'NCI~ AI~'I'/I)IST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mode) the}a* I EXP(th¢* I) SIIARE Alit -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 At vi'{ ) 00000 '0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 160000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 ..XM'I'I{ AK* -.I.g-121 0O000 200000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116 0000 0.,17,11 .6.4707 0.0015 -3.34~5 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0-138 C'( )I!FI.'. 1.0o0(} 00071 0. I g81 -0.020g -0.0208 -0.020g -0.020g 00000 -2.07g0 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 Alit -12 ." 571 3.1.2(',,~(} 26.(}000 1600000 10.0000 -15.0000 90.0000 120 O0i)O 0.7500 - 15.31 Wit 0.0000 -15.31XX -7.1.177 0.000X 0.00.12 ..\t rl't ) 0.o()00 00000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.00(}0 5.0000 I 160000 0.04?, I -3.3936 0.0336 0.5505 AM'I'R.XK --I ~.121 IINR --I.~-121 o.oooo 27.oo0o 2-1.7500 2.0000 56.0000 56.3N0(} I 16.0{}00 0.,1~60 -3.6645 0.0256 0.4199 ( '( )I'TI:. I oo0o ..... CAI.C~ q....YI'I()~S F()R C()MMt rrE TRIPS ........... CAI.CT q.A'I'I()~S F()R C()MMtJ'I'E TRIPS ...... ..... I',~tal 'l'dps hwh,dmg '[hose Induced by IINR ........... 'l',ips and I~cvc,utcs by ~l(~tlcs ...... AMTRAK 0.0.13~ I,~61 ,I~S,I~S 7,022,%~ 0.0254 939 ZSI,67S 4,225,175 AMI'I{AK mode c,n~lams c:\Clltr..l~:X~l.:rm:~nt.,sl9~l lligh SI)ccd Rail l)atro,lagc Forccast Bctwccn Los Angeles an(! Bakersfield :\lt.: D3 ..... I\IARKI.?I' Sll..\RES MODEl. WITIIOI ri' IlIGll SIq:.ED RAIl. MI}I}I~ C{}NS'I' IN{.'OMI! I:IIEO I.II COST ,sdE COST I,IITIMI:. ,VE TIME I)Is'I'NCI.: :\ETd)I.',;T UTII.ITY EXP(V) I(mode) II~¢~a * I Exl'0he * I) SII..\RE :\lit .12.3571 3,1.2680 26.0000 160.0000 lO.0000 45.0000 90.(3000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 :\l ri'() 0.0000 0.000{} 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0-131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 ..\M'I'IL.\ K* -4.R.121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 53.0000 116.11000 0:17-11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0-138 C( )EI"F. 1.0(1011 00071 0 18R I -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 00000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 1.000( }. ,,. ..... M.\RKI~T .'.;II..\RI.:S M()DEI. WITII Ill(HI SPI.:I.:I) R:\II.- ..... kl()l)l: ('()N.'.;T INC().MI.: I:I{I.:L,) I.II COST ..\,E COST I.II 'l'lkll.: .4 I.: TIME DIS'I'NCI.: ..\ET I)IST I'rl'll.l'l'Y I~Xl'(\:) I(mod,:) Ih,:la * ] I'~Nl'(Ih,: * I) SIIARE ..kIR -125571 34.2(',R0 260000 160.0000 10.0000 -15.0000 90.0000 120 0()00 0.7.$00 -13.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1.177 0.0008 0.0042 ..\l rl'¢ ) l! O00(! O.olrl0¢} 0.000{} 29.0000 5.0000 120.00(}0 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0.131 .3.3936 0.0.136 0.5.t92 ,? .\IxI'I'R.\K -.I ~.121 O.Oll00 ]l} 0000 13 0f}00 2.0000 1.10.00011 55.0000 116 00¢10 O..17.11 -6..1707 0.0(115 .2.7801 -I.677R 0.1R6R 002.19 I I .";R ..I R.121 o.o[ff)(} 27.0000 2.l. 75ll0 2.0000 56.0000 ',5 1230 116.0000 0..1752 -3.6137 0.0269 0..I.] I ~ C()I'~I'F I oo(}o o.o(171 (! IXxl -0.(}20R -O.021)g -0.(I20R d} 0~()R 0 0il(}O -207~0 0.0620 0.1876 I.O0(l(} ..... Tolal 'h ips h,ch,dhs~; 'l'hosc Itoh,ccd hv IISI{ .... : ...... 'l'~ips and I{cvcni,cs hv Mod,.'s ...... YEAR I'()1' EMI' IMl'(ais') IMl'(t3s'd) TI{II'S/DY TRII'S/YR IxlOI)l~ MKTSIIR 'I'RII'S/I)Y. 'I'RII'S/YR REV$/YR MKTSIIR 'I'IHI'S/DY TRII'S/YR RI~X:$/YJ~ 1991 38.1,111(! 39,827,000 -13.31~)'l -3.3,183 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0039 210 63,066 10,09(},518 0.00,12 155 46,629 7,460,655 I',~jo:l 58,1,100 .19,827,O0(! -13.3188 -2.7801 37,062 11,118,688 :\IITO 0.9303 33,860 10,138,036 0.5392 19,983 5,995,006 :\MTR:\K 0.0.138 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0249 921 276,318 4,144,770 C'( )I'~FI:. i.0000 0.26.15 -0.105R -0.2117 IISI{ 0.4318 16,002 4,1~00,735 I W,,R I 8,11'I3 ..\mt~ak buses and (;rcyhouml huscs. ;1 ;\cccss Ti,nc ( [fslilcd /Total 'l'~avcl Time via I ISR = 9. I I% c:',Cllm~..x~l ~USl991 lligh Speed Rail l'atronage Fo,.eca hveeq Los Angeles and Bakersfield o3 ..... M,XRKI'3' SIIARES MOl)El, WITIIOUT 11lGII SI'I~I~I) RAIl. - ..... M()I)E C()NST INCOME I:RI-:Q i,II COST .-VE COST IJI,'I'IMI~ ,VI~TIMI£ I)ISTNCE ,~I.71'/I)IST LrI'II,ITY ENI'(V) I(mode) {hera * I ENl'(the * I) ,SlI.,~RE :\IR .12.5571 3.1.26811 26.0000 J (~0.00(10 J O.OOJJO .15.00110 90.00(J0 120.0000 {J."] .¢,(JJ} -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 ..\1 ri'( ) 0.11000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 3.01100 120.(10(10 5,0(11}0 1160000 0.0.1J I -3,3936 0.0336 0.9303 .\M'I'IL.XK~ -.I 8.121 00000 20.110110 I .~.1}01}{1 2.1J001} 1.10.0000 55.00(}0 116.00110 0.17.11 -6.,1707 0.0f)1 .~ -3.3.185 -2.0208 0.132.~ 0.0438 ('¢)I':I:F, 1.0000 0,0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0,0208 -0.0208 0,0000 -2 0780 0,0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... M.\I~IK ET ,";II,\RILS M()I)EI. \VITII IIItill SI)I~ILI) RAIl. - ..... .\lit -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0(100 .15.(}0(10 90.(1000 120.0000 0.'/50(} -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -?.1477 0.0008 0.00-13 .\{ rj'( ) O.O(}(}(} O.OI)OO OAI0(IO 29.OOOO .~.OOitO 120 OO(}(} .~.0000 I 16.0OO0 0,0,1.1 I -3.3936 (},0336 0.5629 ..\ M'IR :\ K '..1.X.121 0.0000 20.0000 I .~.0f)00 2.0000 1-10.0000 55.fl(RI0 I 16.0(}00 0..17.11 -6.,1707 0.0015 -2.8233 -I ]038 0.1820 IISR '-.I R.I2I (L(}0(}(} 2 ?.(}(}(10 2.1.?.S(}0 2.00011 .~6.(1¢l(10 57.7700 J 16.0000 0..J981} -3.?183 0.02.13 0.4068 {. '¢ Il il I: I .{l{IO(I 0.0071 II. 1881 -I}.02OR .11.0]{}8 -II.O 2{18 -0 (12l}8 Il. Oil00 -2.{}780 0.0.~9.1 0.1828 1.0000 ..... 'folal 'l'rq~s hlch;tling 'l]los¢ Jnth,ccd by IISI{ ........... Trips and Revenues by Modes ...... YI;:\R I'¢}l' EMP IMl'(air) IMP(grd) TItII'SiI)Y 'I'IUI'S,YIt M()I)E MKT Sill{ 'I'RII'S/I)Y '['ItII'S/YR REV $!YR MKTSIIR TItII~S/I)Y TRII~S/YIt REV $/Ylt 1991 58.1,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3..i.I85 33,6.11 10,689,300 ,\IR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,318 0.00,13 159 47,699 7,631,RI9 I'lojcd 5R.1,100 .19,827,000 -15.3188 -2.8233 36,942 I 1,082,473 :XU'I'() 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5629 20,795 6,23R,431 ;\I~I'fR:XK 0.0,138 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.02.59 9.58 287,.538 4,313,067 C( )I!I:F. 1.001}0 0.26,13 -0.1038 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.4068 15,(}29 4,50g,R05 I I 1,592,936 T()T:\I, 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 36 %12 I 1,082,,173 123,537,822 ..\MI'It.-XK mmic conlains .-\mlrak buses and (;reyholmd buses. ;t ..\c¢¢ss 'l'hnc iii liakerslilcd / 'J'olaJ 'frav¢l 'l'im¢ via I ISR = I 1.22°,; C:\Cllt~,l~;Xl<l':,SIi,l,'Si991 Ili§h Spccd Rail P.'itrou.'l§c Foi'cc;ist Bclwcc. l,os An~clcs ami llakcrsfichi .....M..XR KI.:T NI I~XREN M()I)EI, WITI I(H IT I lIGll NI'I.:EI) RAIl,. ..... MOl)l:. {.'()~T IMC()ME FI{I",O 1,11C()~'I' A'E C(}~'I' I]1 TIME A/ETIME I)I~'INCI.~ ..XE'I'/I)I~T Irl'll,l'l'Y E~I'{V) I(mo&) lh~lJ* I E~I'01]~' I) ~IIARE AIR -12.5571 3.1.2680 26.0000 '160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000' 0.7500 -15.31X8 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.000g 0.0059 ..XI ri'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0431 ~3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 .-X MI'R..XK* -,IX,121 0.0000 20.0000 I 5.0000 20000 1.10,0000 550000 1160000 0..17.11 .6..1707 0.0016 -3.3.1~5 -2.0208 0,1`125 0,0,13~ ('()1'11:1:. 1.0000 0.0071 0. 1881 -0.0201] -0.0201] -0.0201] -0.0201] 0.0000 -207,~0 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 All{ - 12.5571 ].126XO 2(;.(}(Jo(,I ] 6(J.000(J I (}.(}00(} .I 5 (HJi}(J ~)0.000(J 120.o(J(}(} O.7 ~,(Jo - 15.31Xg 0.0000 - 15.31 :<g -7.1,177 0.0008 (l.0o,14 .\t ri'( ) 0.i)000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5,0000 120.0O00 5,00(i0 I 16.0O00 0.O.131 -3.39.16 0.0336 0.5828 \\1114.'xl~ .,I XI)l 00000 20 00(JO 15 OIH)O 2 0000 1,10.00i)(I ' 5~.o00i) 116 (}O(i(! ii .J'/.I J -6 .IJOJ l) OOl ~, .) }C~,~I -1.?],19 0, I'/R2 (} (12h9 (. '( )lilT'. I 0000 0,0071 0.11181 -0.02i)X -0.02(}8 -ILO20K -0.0208 0.0000 -2.O7HO 0.05%1 O. 1790 1.0000 ..... <.XI.O'i.XI']()~S 1:();4 <OM~it rrl< TRI]'S ........... C'..\I.Ct q.:\T]ONS I:()R C¢)~,IM{.rI'E TR{I'S ...... 1991 58.1,100 `19,827,O00 -15.`11X1] -3.348~ 35,6.tl 10,6139,300 ..\IR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,511] 0.00,14 162 41],581 7,772,950 I)~ojcc! .~-1,100 39,827,000 -15.31SS -2.85131 36,S46 11,05.1,75~ AUTO 0.950] ]],860 10,15S,036 0.5S2S 21,474 6,442,105 ,\MTRAK 0.043~ 1,561 468.198 7.022,967 0.0269 990 296.925 4.453.8RT C()I:I:F. J (}0(!o 0.2645 -0.1051] -0.2117 IISR 0.38.59 14,220 4,266,146 105,587,124 T()TAI, 00 35,631 1o.689,`100 17,113,,185 1.0000 36.8.16 I 1,053,758 117~1m~955 C:~ClI~r,I~:NKEI~SF,lU~S1991 lligh Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Behveen Los-Angeles and BalCersfiehl ..m: w3 .....M..\RKI~T SI lARES MODEl. WITI lOUT I IIGI I SPEEI) RAIl. - ..... M¢)I)E CONST INCOME FREQ IJI COST Aq': COST I.II 'I'IMI~ A/I£TIME DIS'I'NCE AI.71'/DIST UTILITY ENI'(V) I(mode) thela * ! EXP(Ihe* 1) SIIARE :\IR - I 2.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.00110 .15.0000 901)000 120.0000 0.7500 -I 5.3188 0.0000 -I 5.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 :\1 !'1'1 ) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 :\MTR:\K* -.I.R.121 0 01)00 20.011011 15.(10110 2.0000 1-10.00110 55.0000 I 16.00011 O-17.11 -6..17117 0.0015 -3.3,1,~ 5 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0.138 C( )I-:Fl". 1.00011 0.0071 0. INN I -00208 -0.020R -().¢121)14 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.07R11 0.0351 0.1333 1.01)00 :\IR - I 2.53'/I 34.2680 26.0000 160.1)01)0 10.0000 4.q.0000 90.0000 ] 20.0000 0.7500 -I .5.3188 0.00110 - 1.5.3188 -7.1,177 O.000R 0.0045 ..\1 ri'( ) (}.011011 0.(}000 0.00{}0 29.0000 3.0000 120.00011 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0-131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.6126 .\M I'R~\K -.I.R-121 0.18)00 20.00110 15.1101111 2.000(} 1.10.011110 5-'i.00011 116.f1000 0.-17-11 -6..1707 0.0015 -2.90R0 -1.7530 0.1729 0.02~¢2 I[NR -4.R.121 0.11000 27.00011 2-1.'1501! 2.000¢} 56.(}000 63.S000 I 16.00(}0 0.5.17.1 -3.9400 0.019.1 0.3347 ..... ('.-\l.('l q.:VH(INS FIIR COMKII rl'l.~ TRII'S ........... C:\I.CI q,A'I'IONS F()R C()MMI rl'l.: TRIPS ...... ..... Tolal '11 ips Including Those Induced Iix' IISI{ ........... 'l'6ps and Rcvcm~¢s by Modes ...... 1991 58.1,1011 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.3.185 35,631 10,689,300 :\JR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.00.15 166 49,877 7,980,352 Ih~qc~l 584,11111 .1q.827,000 -15.1188 -2.9080 .16,711 11.013,30.1 .All'\() 0950.1 31.860 10,158,016 I16126 22,,187 6,7,16,2.16 :\MTIL.\K 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0282 1,036 310,94,1 4,664,155 COI:.FF. l.O000 0.26.15 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.3547 13,021 3,906,236 96,679,346 "()",\I I0000 356'11 10689300 7 3485 10000 36711 11013303 093238'~3 .\M'rlL\K nmdc ,:onh,ins ;\mlrak Imscs and ( ;rcy'hound Imscs. # ..\cccss Time in Ilakc~slilcd/.Total Travel Time via IISI,[ = 15.48% C:~CIIU'II..\KI':RS~::IIIISI991 i ligh Speed Rail Patronage Forecas! llelxveen l,os Angeles and Balie,'sfiehl :\..: ..\4 .....MARKI'71' SI I..\Rl:.S MOl)El. WITI lOUT I IIGI I SPEI'iD RAIL - ..... r, llll)l~ C()NST INC{)MI~ I:1{1".(,) I.II COST ,VE C()ST I.II TIMI:. ..VI'."I'IMI.: DIS'INCl.: ..\I.71'/I)IST U'I'II.IT\' EXI'(V) l(nlode) fl,,:~a" I I'.'Xl'(d~e" I) .";IIAI{I'.' AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.01100 120.0000 0.7500 -15.311~R 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 :\l ri'{) 0.1101111 0.{}000 0.0000 29.111100 5.110011 120.0000 5.0000 i 16.0000 ~rJ.o.l.11 -3.3936 0.0336 0.950.1 .-\MTI{AK* -.1.8.121 010000 20.0000 15.0000 2.11000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.-I?.11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 Ceil.iFF. I.I1000 0.0071 0.1811 .0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0201 .0.0208 0.0000 -2.07~0 0.0351 0.1333 1.0o00 ..... M.\I{KITI' SI I..\RES M()I)EI. \\'1'1'11 Ill(ill SI'I~I.iI) R-\II.. ..... ' M()I)I¢ C()NST INC()MI.: I:RI~O I.II COST A;E COST I.II TIME A,I-i'I'IKII'.' I)ISTNCI.: ..\I~'I'I)IST IrI'II.ITY 'I.:XP(V) I(mod,:) thela ' I EXl'(;he* I) SIIARI': :\IR - 12. 5571 34.2680 260000 16110000 I 0.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.2'1188 0.0000 -15.3 { gg -7.1477 0.0008 0.0039 .-\UT() 0 0000 010000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.39.'16 0.0336 0.4703 ..\M TR..\K .4.1{421 0.0(}00 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 55.(}000 116.0000 0.-17.11 .6..1707 0.0015 -2.6430 -I.5951 0.2029 0.(1217 I ISR -.1.g.121 0.00011 27.01')00 28.8750 2.011011 .'t 8.0(1110 55.0]0(} 116.00110 0..17,1.1 -3.3239 0.0360 0.5042 ('()l-:l:l.'. I 011111! 0.01171 ¢1.181q I .Il 0208 .0.020,'.I .0.021}8 -0.0208 0.00011 .2 0780 0.071 I 0.211.17 1.000(1 ..... CAI .Cf q...VI'I()NS F()R COMMI rl'E TI{IPS ........... CAI.CI ~I.ATIONS F()R COMM[ ri'Ii TRIPS ...... ..... '['olal 'l'~ips I,tdmling Those Induced by I ISR ........... Trips and Revenues by Modes ...... W/I) IISI{ \V/I) IISI{ WI() IISR W,'() IISI{ Wi II.Sit \W IISI{ W/IISI}, W/IISI{ YI"...\R I'()P I'.'MI' IMP(aiO IMl'(grd) TRII'S/I)Y 'I'I{II'S,'YI,[ M()I)I'.' JsIKT Sill{ 'l'llll'Stl)\' TI{II'S,'\'R REV Styr MKT Sill{ TR[I'S/I)\' TI{II'S/YR RI£V 1991 58.1,11111 39,827,O00 -15.3188 -3.3.1115 35,631 11}.689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090.518 0.0039 1,15 43,403 6,9.14,526 I'mje*.'t 58.1,11111 39,8273100 -15.3118 -2.6430 37,461 11,2311,3-17 Alrl'¢) 0.95{}3 3.1,81,11 10,158,036 11.,1703 17,617 5,285,069 . AMTR :\K 0.0,138 I, 561 ,168,19g 7,022,967 0.0217 g 12 2.13,596 3,653,941 II II }.: :.-._-::.:z::~.-:::. ======================================================================================== ..._.: ...... : {. t.' ........~:.:~-~:.::~-~-:~::.~---~:.~:~~.~--:::~--::~:-`-~5.:~:~-~..~--:~-:-~:D~.:~5~:~:~ __:_::..} \M'I'II m~l,mls ..\tull ak I}us*.'s and (he,dmund Im,~c,i. Access Time ',slih'd .' 'l',,t.il 'l'tavcl 'l'i,ll¢ via II,Sit I0 78°o ' c::iCllt ,s;9,~1 I iigh Si}ccd Rail Patronage Los Angeles and Bakersfield MOl)l! C¢)NST INC()NII~ I:ltl.:Q I.II {.'l)~'l' :\/E COST I.II'I'II~IE ;VI':'I'IMI~ I)INTNCI-.' ,\I':T/I)IST I.rI'II.ITY EXI'(\:) l(mod¢) Ihela * I I~Xl'(the * I) $11..\RI': ..\lit -12.5571 3-1.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I0.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0¢)00 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -13.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.00.~9 ,41 ri'( ) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 3.0000 120.0000 .~.0000 I 16.0000 (}.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9.~03 ..\M'I'R:\ K* -.I.8.121 0.0000 20.0000 I .~.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 55.0000 1160000 ()..17,11 -6.4707 0.0013 -3.34R5 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0.13,~ ('()l.;I.'l.'. I .¢)(100 IL00? I 0.1881 .0.0708 .0.020R -0.020R -O{}20R 0 0000 -2 0780 0.03.51 O. 1333 ..... M..\RKI.71' NII..\RI!S MOl)Iii. \VITll Illiill Sl'l.:l!l) R:\II.- ..... IxlOl)l.: C()N.";T IN('(),XlE 1:1{I.;(.) I.II COST ;¥'I.:C(),R'I' I.II'I'IMI~ ..VI.:'I'IMI.: I)ISTNCI..' ..\1.:'1' I)I.',;TIrl'll.rl'Y EXIt(V) l(modc) thcta * I EXP(th¢ * I) SII..\RI:. .\IR -12.5571 3-1.2681} 26.00(1(} 1(,0.0000 10.(}000 -15.0000 90.l)000 120 I)000 O.7~lll} -I.~.3188 0.00(}0 -1~.3188 -7.1477 0.00(18 0.0039 ..\l. ri'( ) O0000 O.l)000 0.00(}O 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.l)000 0 0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.4827 .\JxI'I'R.xK -,I R.12l O.¢1000 20.OliO0 I ~.0000 2.0000 1,10.000¢l .~.~.00{)0 116.(}O¢}0 O..l'/q I -6.4707 0.0015 -2.6691 -I.6108 0.1997 0.0222 II.Nil -.I.X-121 Il OOllll 2 ?.(lll{lO '~ X. 87.~0 ' 2.0000 3R.OOI)O .~6..T RO0 116.{}OOO O .I860 -3.3762 0.03-12 O..1912 C( )1':1"1:. I .OO0(l (l.0071 O. 1881 . -0 O208 -0.02(}8 -0.02(}8 -(LO'~O8 ().(){}(ll) -~.(l?RO 0.11693 (I.2(lO.~ \V/O I I,',;R \V/O I I.',;ll W/O IISR \V/O IISR \VI IlSR \VI IISR W/IISR \V/IISR. 1991 584,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 ,\IR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0039 147 43,998 7,039,679 I';ojec! 584,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -2.6691 37,383 I 1,214,99.1 ,\lJ'l'O 0.9503 33.860 10,15R,036 0.4827 18,04,1 5/113,211 ,\J~ITR;XK 0.0.1.18 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0222 832 2,19,502 3,7.12,53,1 C( )I';FF. I .O000 O.26-15 -0.1058 -0.2117 I ISlt 0.,1912 I 8,361 5,508,283 159,051,660 'I'()T:\I. 1.0000 35.631 10,689 300 17 113 48~ I.OOf)O 37,383 11,214,994 |69,R33.873 ..\IxI'I'II.\K ;u,)de contains :\lntf;~k I~us,..'s t (il'e3 h )t ;;ii I)l;scs # :\¢Ccss Time iii I;akc;sfiled /'l'olal 'l';av¢l 'l'ime via I INR :~ 12.06% (':'.C~llr,[~..xKt.:[tx!.',[u,si99] lligh Si)ccd Rail I'atron:lge I~(ll'CCaSl I?elwcen I,os Angcle~ and llaltcrsfichl ~xh.: ~)4 ..... MARKI'71' SlIARI.:S M()I)I':L WITII(IUT Ill(ill SI'I~EI) RAIl. - ..... MODE CONST INCOME I:RI~Q I.ilCOST ACECOST LIITIKIE AiE'I'IKII~ I)ISTNCE AETtDIST t.rFII.I'FY EXP(V) l(modc) theta * I EXP0he* I) SIIARE; .\IR · 12. ~ ~'l I .14 21,80 2 (~.00011 160.0000 10.0000 .I .~.001)0 90 01101! 120.0000 (i 7~00 - I .~.31 ~ 0.0000 - I ~.31 x~ -7.1,177 0.000~ 0.00~9 Al ri'() O.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0-131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTR..~K* -4.g,121 0.0000 20,0000 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 5b,0000 116,0000 0,,17.11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 ( '( )1':1:1:. 1.0oo0 1).0071 0.1881 -0.020R -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.020g 0.0000 -2.07X0 0.0351 0.1333 1,01100 ..... .~,I..\RI'~I.:T SII..\RI~N MOl)El. WITII Ill(ill ,',;I'EI-:I) R..\II. - ..... kl()l)l.:. ('()NST INC().~IIL I:RI-~Q I.II COST A'E C()ST I.II TIME A I.: 'l'l.,',ll.: I)IS'I'NCE AET I)lS'l' I.rI'II.ITY I:..~I'(V) I(mndc) Ihela * I I':Nl'(th¢ * l) SlIARI'.' ,,\1R - 12,55 ? I 3.1.26~O 2(?,O000 160.00(}0 10.0000 -I 5.0000 90.00(}0 120.0000 0.7500 ' -I .%318R 0.0000 - 15.31 R8 -7.1477 O.OOOR 0.00.19 :\! ri'( ) :O.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 3.0000 120.0000 5.0000 1160000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.471 I .\,IkI'|'R.\K :-I R.12l (}.(l(}oo 2(l.oo(IO J 5.00(H! 2.0000 I.IO.(l(}OO 5 .s.O01')o 116,oo00 0.,17,1 ] -6..1707 O.00J 5 -2.6.1.18 -1,3961 0,2¢}27 O.0217 IISI{ :.I ~,121 (!.(}O1)0 27,1)000 28.8750 2.0000 38.0000 55.1200 116,0(J(!o ' ().,t732 -3,3274 0.0359 (),.~033 ('¢)l]l.l:. I O(lllll (I O(lTI Il IRRI -il (I2(IR -O.O2(IR -(I.(12lh~ -¢l.(l~ll,~ (IOlIOO -2 (lTRO (I.(17l(I (I.2().l.~ J.OO(lll 1991 58.I,100 39.827,000 -15..'1188 -3.3.185 35,631 10,689,300 ,\IR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0039 145 43,443 6,950,902 J'rojccl 58-1,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -2.6448 37,456 ll,236,763 ALIT(} 09503 33,860 10,158,036 0.4711 17,645 5,293,616 AM'I'I{:\K 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0217 813 243_,990 3,659,850 . COl.~l:l:. ;I .0000 0.26,15 -0.1(}58 -0.2l 17 IISR 0.5033 18,852 5,655,713 163,308,719 TOTAI.=,dlJj~__O..(}¢} 35,631 IO,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 37,456 I 1,236,763 I iligh Speed Rail Patronage Los Angeles and Bakersfichl .....M:~I{KI.:T ~1 IARI-:S MODEl. WITIIOUT IIIGII $1'EED RAIl, - ..... MOl)l! C¢)NST INCOME FRI:.Q I.II C¢)$T A/I~ COST I,II'I'IMIL ..k'l~'l'lMli I)ISTNCIL ,\I~T/I)IST U'HI.ITY EXP(V) I(mode) Iheta * I I.:Xl'(the * I) SII:\RI'~ ,kilt -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I0.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7,1477 0.0008 0,0059 At rl'O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0,9503 AklTRAK* -4 ~,121 0.0000 20.0000 I 5.0000 2.0000 140.000('1 55.0000 116,000(I 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2,020R 0.1325 0.0438 COI':FI:. I~.0000 O.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.O208 -O.020g -0.0208 0.0000 -2.07g0 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MHIKI'.'T .'¢IIARI.iS I~I()I)EI. WH'II II1()11 Sl'l'.'lil) R:\II.- ..... M()I)E ('()N,',;'I' INC().XlE I:I~E(,) I.II COST :',,,1:. COST I.II TIME ,\'I~'I'IMI( I)IS'I'NCI.~ AI.71"I)IST I. rl'll.l'l'Y EXI)(V) I(mod¢) Ihcta * I EXI)(Ih¢ * l) SII.-\I~I'; Al Il - 12.5 b71 3.1.2()~(! 26.0000 160.OO(10 I0.OO0(! .15.(J()(IO 90 I)O00 120,(}l)O(I 0.75(t0 -1'5.31 ~ 0,0000 - 15.31XR -7.1.177 O.O00X IL(lO-lO .-\t ri'( ) 0.O000 0.0()¢)() 0.0000 29.0000 3.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 (}.4954 AMTIJAK -.I.X.l:? I 0 OliO0 20.00¢)0 I 5.(i0(lO 2.0000 140.001)0 55.0000 116.01100 0.17.11 -6..1707 0.0013 -2.6953 -1.6266 0.1966 0.022R IISR -.I.R.121 (IJlililO 27.000(l 2R.R750 2.0000 3 R.00(}O 57.77(1(! I 16.0{)00 0.,19~0 -3..1300 0.032.1 (}..1777 ('()I']:F. 1.0001) 0.0071 0. lXRI -0.020R -0.020R -0.020R -0.020R 0.0000 -2.07R0 0.0675 0.1974 1.0000 ..... ,:,',,{ ...... sT.:.: ..... Total 'l'f ips hlclmllng 'l'hos¢ Imluccd by IISI{ ........... 'l'lips an(I Revenues by Modes ...... WI() IISI{ WI() IISI{ WI() IISI{ WtO IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISI{ YI{:\I{ I'Ol' I';KII' IMl'(air) IMl'(grd) 'I'I{IPS/I)Y 'I'RII'S/YI{ M()J)J~ MKT SIIR 'I'RII'S'I)Y 'J'RJI'S/YR REV $?J'R lkJK'J' SIIR TI~,II'S/I)Y 'I'J?,JI'S/'~'R REV 1991 5R.1,100 39,R27.000 -15.31R1¢ -3.34g5 33,631 10,689,300 All{ 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0040 149 44,603 7,136,500 Proj¢cl 5R.1,100 39,827,000 -15..1188 -2.6953 37,306 J 1,191,R62 AI. rl'O 0.9503 33,860 10,15g,036 0.,1954 Ig,483 5,.544,877 AKI'I'R:XK 0.0.13R 1,561 ,16R,1914 7,022,967 0.0221¢ 8.52 255,5'/I 3,R33,56.i C( JEFF. I.OOOO 0.26.15 -O. 105R -0.2117 IISI{ 0.4777 17,823 5,346,812 154,389,185 .\l',l'l'l,l.\ K triode conla ms ..\mtrak I~t~scs and (';rcyhmmd huses, ti ,\ccess Time in Ilakcrslilcd / Tolal 'l'~av¢l Tinle via IISI{ = 13.33% c:,cl.,.;i..xtcf.:..',;v,.i,.'.;i,..,,.,; , Iligh Si)ccd Rail I'atron.'igc i;o,'ccasl Ilclwcc,i l.os Angeles all(I ilaltcrsl'icl(I .....M:\RKI.71' SI I..\R ES MOl)El. WITIIOUT I lIGii SI'I*~I:;I) RAIl. - ..... M()I)E C¢)NS'I' INCOME FREQ IAI COST A/E COST I,II TIMI',' :VE'I'IME I)ISTNCE AET/I)IST UTII,ITY EXP(V) I(mod¢) th¢la * I EXP0he* I) SIIARE :\lit -12..5.571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 4.5.0000 900000 120.0000 0.7.500 -I.5.3188 0.0000 -I,5.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 At ri'( ) 00000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0(}00 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0:9.503 :\MTR..hK* -I.8,121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.020R 0.1325 0.0438 C¢ }1'~1:1:. I.O000 0.0071 0.114141 -0.02014 -O.020R -0.020g -0.02OR 0.0000 -2.07R0 0.03.51 0.1333 1.0000 .\l R - 12.5571 34 26811 26.0000 160.000(1 [ 0.0000 ,I.~.0{JIJ{} 90.1[)01J0 120.0000 0.7500 - 15.31RR O.0000 - 1.5.31 ER -7.1477 O.O00g 0.O0.11 ..\l Vl'( ) O O(11}0 0.0001! O.OOO0 29.0000 5.0000 ] 20.(}{J{}O .~ I')O00 I 16.0001'1 0.O-131 -3.3936 0.0336 O. ..\M'I It:\K -.I.E.121 0.0000 20.O000 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.00¢10 55.0000 116.0000 0.,17,11 -6.4707 0.0015 -2.7363 -I.6513 0.191R 0.023R IINR --I.R-121 00000 2?.0000 2R.E730 2.OOO() 3R.OOO0 60.0300 116.0000 0.5175 . -3.317,1 0.0297 0..1560 ('()I(I:F. I .OO00 0.0071 0 1 RE I -0 1120R -O.020R -0.O2OR -0 02OR 0.0000 -2.07R0 0.06,1R 0.1926 I ..... C:\I.CI q.:VI'I()NS F()R C¢)MMI I'l'E TRIPS ........... C..\I.CUL:VI'IONS FOR COMklLITI.~ TRIPS ...... ..... Tolal 'l'~il:'S h:'clmlin§ Those Induced by I IS R ...... -----Trips and Rcvcm~¢s I:,3' k lodes ...... YE..\R I'()l' EMI) IMP(air) ]Ml'(grd) '['RIPS/I)Y TRIPS/YR MfII)E MKT SIIR TI{II'S/DY TRIPS!YR REV $/YR MKTSIIR TRII)S/DY TRII'S/YR REV $"YR 1991 51R.I. IO0 39.R27,000 -15.31RR -3.34R5 3.5,631 10,6R9,300 ,\lit 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,51g 0.0041 152 45,.570 ?,291,11¢2 I',~j¢cl 5R.l,lO0 .~9,R27,001! -15.3lgg '-2.7363 37,1117 11,156,1.56 ..hilT() 0.9503 33,1160 10,15R,036 0..5161 19,193 .5,7.57,RR9 AMTR/XK 0.0,13R 1,561 4614,198 7,022,967 0.023g 1185 26.5,3149 3,gg0,g34 C¢ )1';1:1:. 11.o000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.4560 16,958 .5,087,309 1,16,896,037 itt ,\cccss 'l'imd~JF¢~,;lilcd / Tolal Travel Time via ilSR ~ 1.5.33% * ..\[',I'I'R:XK mains ,\mlrak buses and Grey\omni buses. ~':,~:l:lr..l~.~ 199i Ili§h Spccd Rail Patron:,gc en I,os An~clcs and ll:,kcrsfichl w.i ..... M..\R KI':T SIIARE~ M()I)EI. WITII()( ri' III(ill SPEEI) RAIl. - ....... M()I)I~ CONST INCOME FI{EQ I.II C()ST .-\/1~ COST LII 'l'll',ll~ A/E TIME I)IS'INCI~ AET/I)IST UTII,YI'Y EXI'(\:) I(mod¢) th{ta * i EXP(th¢ * l) SIIARI! All{ - 12..5,571 34.26R0 26.0000 160.0000 I 0,0000 ,I.5.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7.500 - 15.318R 0.0000 - 1.5,3188 -7,1,177 0.000R 0.0059 I'['( ) (J.(J0(}(} (! 0000 0.00(}(I 29.0000 .~.0000 [ 20,0000 .~.0000 J 16.00(fi) 0.0.131 -3.3936 0 0.I36 0.950] ,~./xI'IRAK* -.118.121 0.00110 20.0000 ] 5.0000 20000 1.10.0000 5.'i.0000 116.000¢) 0.17,il -6.,17(J7 (l.001,5 -313.183 -2.020g 0.132,5 0.0.138 £'( 11'3:1:. 1.0000 0,0071 0.1881 :0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2,0780 0.03,51 0.1333 1.0000 ..... M..\RKI!T SII:\RI;N M()I]EI, WITII IIIGII SI)I~I.~I) RAIl,. ..... Ikl()l)l.~ ('()NS'I' INCOME I:RI~Q I,II COST .-\ I.,' COST I,II TIME .-'~Zl£ TIME I)IS'I'NCE ..\I~T/I)IST Irfll,ITY EXI'(V) I(mod¢) Ih{la * I EXI'(fl~¢ * I) SII.-\RI'~ ..\IR -I 2~.s,571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 4.5.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0,7500 -I,5.3188 0.0000 -I,5.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0042 ..\1 ri'( ) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0,0-131 -33936 0.0336 0.5.175 AM I'R..\K -.I.8-i21 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 20000 140.0000 5.5.0000 116.0000 0..17.11 -6.4707 0.001,5 -2.79,5,5 -l.6871 0.1R,51 0.02.52 IISI{ -4.8.121 0.0000 27.0000 2g.8750 2.0000 3R,0000 63..5000 I [6.0000 0 ~.174 -3.6.517 0.02.59 0.4230 ('IH'TI:. I 01100 0.0071 0.1RRI -0.020R -0 0208 -0 0208 -0.020R 00000 -2 0780 00611 0.1g58 1.0000 ..... CAI .CI q,ATI( )NS F()R C()MMU'I'I~ 'rRIl'S ...... -----CAI,CLII,ATIONS I:OR COklM{ rl'E 'IRII'S ...... ..... 'folal 'r. ips hiclmlhlg Th~s¢ hlduc{d by IINR ...... , ..... Trips ami Rev{hues by fs[odc,s ...... \\'/¢) IISR W,¢) IISI{ W/O IISI{ \V/O II$R W/IISR W/II$R W/IISR W/IISI{ YI.:..\R I'()P EMI' IMl'(air) IMl'(g,d) 'rRII'S/I)Y TRII'$/YR M()I)E MKTSIIR TRII'S/I)Y TRII'$/YR IH.:V$/YI{ MKTSIIR 'I'IHI'S/I)Y 'I'RII'SIYI~ IH.'.V$'YR 1991 '58.1,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0042 157 47,008 7,521,305 lbo{ed ,58.1,100 39,827,000 -15.3188 -2.7955 37,019 I 1,10'5,675 Al. IT() 0.9503 33.860 10,158,036 0.5475 20.269 6,080,810 :\KITRAK 0.0438 I,,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0252 934 280,273 4,20-1,092 C( )El:J:. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.105g -0.2117 IISI{ 0.4230 15,659 4,697,585 13,5,642,755 .... ......:.~:.:::.-_::- ...._-:-~: ......... 'I'()T;~I. 1.0000 3'5,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 37,019 11,105,675 147,368.1,53 :\KI'I'I{:\K in~,,le contains Amtrak buses and (}rcyhoL,ml buses. Access Time in [iakcrslilcd /Total T,'avcl Time via IISR = 18.23% c:,cl~1~,~.~x~l~l~l:',)~u~202o . lli§h Si)ccd Rail Ihllronagc Forecast Bctwccn i~os Angeles and R:lkcrsfichl ~xh.: ~x: .....MARKE'I' SI I~RES I~1¢ }DI.;E Wl'l'lIOtrl' IlIGIi Si'EEl) RAIl. - ..... hl()lJl.', {'()NST INC()MI.: I:RI.:U I,II COST AlE COST I,II TIME A'I,:'I'IME I)INTNCI.; AI':T/I)IN'I' IrHI,H'Y I.',XI)(V) I(mo(Ic) Ihcla * I EXI)(th~ * I) ~llAlild AIR -12.5571 . 3,I.26~0 26.0000 160.0000 IO.O0O0 ,1~.0000 90,0000 120.0000 0.?~00 -15.31SS 0.0000, -1~31NN -7.1477 0.0008 0.00~9 Al ri'( ) 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 29.0000 ~.0000 120.0000 50000 I 16.0000 ' 0.0.131. -3.:1936 0.0136 0.9~03 AM'IRAK* -.1 N.121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.,17.11 -6..1707 0.0015 -33,185 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 (,'()I'~I:F. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208- 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 O. 1333 1.0000 ..... hl..\l~KITl' SIIARI':S MOl)El, WITII IlIGII SPEED RAIl, - ..... M(~I)I.: (.'(}N.";T INC()ME FI{I';Q I,II COST A/E COST I.II TIME .-VE'HMI': I)ISTNCI~ ,\I.:'I'il)IST tfl'll.lTY EXP(V) I(mo&) thcta * I EXl'(the * I) SIIARI", Alit -12.5571 3.1.2680 26.0000 160.0000 '~ 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0054 Al ri'( } 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.(1000 116.0000 0.O.131 ~3.4975 0.0303 0.8310 AMTI{AK ..I.8.121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 59.2500 116.01100 0.,17.11 -6.5590 0.001,1 -3.3178 -2.0023 0.1350 0.0389 I l,',; R -.I.8.121 0.0000 22.0000 13.7500 2.0000 93.(}000 62.8100 116.0000 (1.5415 -3.39,1l O00.15 0.12.17 ('()I~FF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.020R 0.0000 -20780 0.0362 0.1358 1.0000 % ..... ('.H.CI q...VI'I{)N$ I:011COMMI ri'l: TRII'S ......- ....... -----CAI.CUI.ATIONS I:()1~ C()KIMI.rH': 'I'RII~S ...... ..... T,,i;Jl '1'~ ips Im-ludin§ 'l'hos~ Induced by I I$R ...... -----Trips ami R,'vcnucs by Mo&s ...... W/O IISI{ W/O IISR W/O IISR WIO iISI{ \VI IISI{ \VI IISR W/IISR WI II$R YI.:,\R I'()l' EMI' IMP(air) IKll'(grd) TI{II'S/DY TI~,I'I'S/YR M{)I)E MKT SIIR TRII'S/I)Y 'I'RII'S/YI{ RI£V $/YR KIKT Sill{ TRIPS/I)Y TRII'S/'(I{ REV 1991 58,1,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 :\lit 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0054 498 149,365 23,898,352 I'~ojcc~ 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.3178 91,741 27,522,340 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.8310 76,233 22,870,001 AMTRAK 0.0,138 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0389 3,569 1,070,667 16,059,998 c( )1.]:1:. I.°000 0.26,15 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.1247 11,441 3,432,308 47,194,232 TOTAl, 1.0000. 35,631 10,689,300 17,113485 1.0000 91,7.11 27.522,340 87,152,582 ains Amtrak buses and (ircvhound 1,uses. # Access Time in ilcdl Total Travel Time x~a~iS-~ ('.('ll~,l~ to Iligh Si)ccd Rail Patrollagc Iwccn I.os Aqgclcs and Ilakcrsl]chl ~.:2 M()I)I", C()NS'I' INCOME I:I~,EQ I,II COST ,VE COST I.II 'I'IMI-~ A/IL'I'II~IE I)IS'I'NCI.,' :~E'ITI)IST trl'll,ITY EXI'(V) I(modc) Ih¢la * I EXP0hc * 1) SIIARE :\1R - 125571 3.1.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I 0.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -I 5..1188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 00059 :\J. I'J'( ) o.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.01100 5.0000 116.0000 0.0,131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 · \ikI'I'R,.XK* -.I.R.121 0.0000 20.0000 15.00011 2.0000 J.lO.O000 55.000{1 116.00011 0..17,11 .6.,1707 0.0013 -3.3-185 -2.020J¢ 0.1325 ().O.J3R ('()1':1:1". 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.133~] 1.0000 ..... M..H~ KI'3' SIIAIIES MODEL WITII HIGI! SPEEI) RA. II~- ..... r,l()l)ll C()NNT INC()ME I:I(EQ I,II COST ..¥EC¢)ST I.II '1'11~11.~ ..VI-~ 'I'II%IE I)IS'I'NCI.~ /\ET/I)INT IrI'II,ITY EXI'(V) l(mode) Ihcta * I EXl'([h¢ * l) SII,\RI~ :\lit -I.25571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0(}00 0.751111 -15..1590 0.0000 -I 5.,1590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0054 ,\{ ri'( ) O.o{l(J0 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0.131 -3.4975 0.0303 0.8362 :\J~ ['J'J{ :\ J~-,I g.15J 0 00(10 20.000¢1 15.0000 2.000() 1,10 000(i 59.2500 J J 6.0(lOl'i 0.,17,11 -6.55')i) 0.001,1 -.L3:LII -2.006l 0.13.15 0.039l JJ,~R -.J E.12J 0.0000 22.0000 13.7500 2.001i{} 9.I.(i000 {).1. I.lOO 116.0000 0.5529 -5..1.155 0.00.13 0.1192 ('()l.].'l.'. I 11000 00071 0. I RE I -0 0208 -0.0208 -0.02(JR .0.0208 0.(t000 -2.0780 0.0360 0. [ 353 ' I .(i000 ..... ('.\l .('l ~1 ...VI'l{ iNS I.'{ )R ('()MMI ['l'l.~ 'I'R I I',',; ........... CAI .C1 Il ,:\TI( )N,',; FOR C( )1~11~11 ITl.: 'l'l~ I1',',; ...... · .'1 ,,I;d I', q,s Im Italini,, 'l'h,,s¢ h~duccd by I INR ........... 'l'l il~:, and Rcvcnncs I~y Ix h,,I,:x ...... W/C) IiSi{ \VtO IISI( W/O IISR \\'/¢ ) IISR \V/IISR \V/IISI{ \VI liSP, Wi IISR Yt;..\I{ I'()1' EMI' IMl'(air) IMI'(Dd) TRII'S/I)Y TRII'S/YI{ M()I)E I~IK'I'S]IR TI{II'N/DY 'I'IJII',~/YR REV$/YR NIKTSIIR 'I'RII'$/I)Y 'I'RII'.R/YI{ RI~V$IYR 1991 58,1,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 3~,631 10,689,300 :\IR .0.0059 210 63,,066 10,090,518' 0.0054 500 149,871 23,979,383 I'~oj¢cl I,.llO, lO0 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.3241 91,70-1 27,.511,272 /\11'1'() 0.9503 · 3.1,860 10,158,036 0.8362 76,683 23,005,025 AMTR.,XK 0.0,138 .I,561 ,168,198 7,022,967 0.0391 3,590 1,076,988 16,154,816 ('¢)l.].'l:. 10000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.1192 10,931 3,279,388 45,091,5g2 TOTAl. 1.0000 .15,631 10.6R9,300 17,1134R5 1.0000 91 70.1 27511 772 85225 ..\k I'l l{ ..\ I,~ nlod¢ contains/\nltritk I)uscs arid ( }rcyJlound I~llSCS. ti ,\cccss'l'inle. inliak¢lslilcdl'l'olal'l'ravclTintcviaJJSR= 10.75% c:.c~1,.n.xu~.:~sl.)~l,s2,2o I iigh Speed Il:ill I':m'onage Foa'ccast Between I~os Angt!les and Ilakcrslichl ..u~.: D2 .....M..\RKI.71' SIIJiRES MOl)El, WITIIOUT IilGIi SIq:;EI) RAIl, - ..... MI)I)E CONST INCOME I:IiEQ I.II COST ..Vii COST I.II TIME ..VE TIME I)IS'INCI'~ :iET/I'~IST U'I'II.ITY EXI'(V) l(modc) theta * I EXl'0hc* I) SIIARI'~ .-ill{ -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 00059 AIrl'() 00000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 .5.0000 116.0000 0.0-131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 ..\F, ITli..iK* -,I.8,121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.000{} 1.10.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.47,11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 C( )I'~I:F. 1.0000 0.0071 O. i 881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 O. 1333 1.0000 ..... M..iRKI'71' SII:iI{ES MODI';I, WII'Ii IIIGII SPInEl) RAIl, - ..... MOl)I.~ CONS'I' INCOME I:I{EQ I,II COST A/I-; COST I.II TIMF, :i/E'I'IMF, I)IS'I'NCI.; AET/I)IST UTII,ITY EXI'(V) I(mode) {hera * I EXl'(th¢ * I) $11:iRF, AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.00110 96.7500 120.00110 11.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0054 ,\1 ri'(1 0.0000 00000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.001111 I 16.0000 0.11431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.8313 AMTRAK -4.8.121 0.0000 20.0000 15.¢1000 2.00011 1,10.0000 59.2500 116.011110 0.,17.11 -6.5590 0.0014 -3.3182 -2.0025 0.1350 0.0389 IISR -4.8-121 0.0000 22.0000 13.7500 2.0000 93.000(} 62.9000 116.0000 0.5-122 -5.3976 0.00.15 0.1243 C( )I.'.FF. 1.0000 0.0071 O. [ 881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.11208 00000 -2.0780 0.0362 0.135'/ 1.0{100 ..... CAI Ct Il ..i'l'l( )NS F( )R C( )MMI rl'l.: 'I'I~,II,S ........... CAI ,Ct q ,:/TI{ )NS FOR C( )MMU'I'I:~ 'I'I{II'S ...... ..... 'l'olal 'l'~ips Indmling 'l'hos¢ Induced by I ISR ........... Trips and Revenues by Mmlcs ...... W/O IISI{ \W() IISI{ \W() IISI{ W/O IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISI{ YI.i:iR I'1)1' I!MI' 'IMP(air) IMl'(gt'd) 'I'RII'Sq)Y 'IRII'S/YI{ M¢)I)I': MKI'SIII{ TRII'S:I)Y TRII'S/YR I{EV StYR MKT Sill{ 'I'RII'S/I)Y TRII'S/YR REV $1YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 :ill{ 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0054 498 149,400 23,903,942 Ihoj¢c~ 1,3i0,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.3182 91,739 27,521,574 AUTO 0.9503 .33,860 10,158,036 0.8313 76,264 22,879,305 AMTR;iK ' 0.0438 ' 1,561 .168,198 7,022,967 . 0.0389 3,570 1,071,102 16,066,532 C()EI:F. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.1243 11,406 3,421,767 47,049,300 ~. . ............... TOT..il. 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 91,739 27,521,574 87,019,774 .iMl'l{..iK nI dains :infll'ak buses and Greyhound buses. Access Time 'l'~;~,,'el Time via IISI{ :: 10.0.1% C:,CIItr,nAK~! US2020 lligh Si)ced Rail Patron:.~ge l,os Angeles and Bakersfield t02 .....MARKET SIIAP, ES MOl)F.L WITIIOUT IIIGII SPEEI) RAIl, - ...... MI)III:, ('()NSF IN('()MI.i Fill:&) I,II ('()ST .,VE COST I,II TIMI:, .,\/I':'I'IMI,; I)IS'I'N('I.: :'q,.'l/Itl.',;I Irlll II 'f I XI'(V) I(...I,:)' Ihcla ' I I';Xl'(Ih,,.. * J) SII,,~RI ,\IR -12.5571 3,l.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -153188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 ,\l ri'() 0.01}00 0.0000 0.0(}00 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 o 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.,1741 -6..1707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.04.18 C()EFF. 1.0000 0.0071 O. 1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 O. 1333 1.0000 ..... M..\RKI£T SIIARI..'S KIOI)EI. \VITII IIIGII S1'1:;1£11 R..\II, - ..... M()I.}I.: C()NST INCOME I:RI.~Q I.II COST A'E COST I.II TIMI'.' ,VI-;'I'IMI.; I)ISTN('I~ ,\I~'I'/I)IST IrI'II.ITY EXI'(V) I(mode) ti,eta * I I'.'Xl'(the* I) SII:\.RI~ AIR -12.5571 3.1.2680 26.0000 160.(J001} 10.0000 ,15.00110 96.75(}0 1211.0000 0.7500 -I 5.,1590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0055 ,\1 ri'( ) 0.(}(}01} (L0(10(} 0.0000 29.(1000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 [ 16.0000 0.0.131 ~3.4975 0.0303 0.8382 AM'I'R;XK -4.8,121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.47.11 -6.5590 0.0014 -3,3265 -2.007.5 0.1343 0.0392 IISR -.I.8.121 0.0000 22.0000 13.7500 2.0000 93.0000 64.6600 116.0000 0.5574 -5.4657 0.0042 0.1171 ('r)l'l,'l' I (Jo(iii II o1171 0. I RXI -11 O2118 -(},0208 -0.021}8 il o2(IR O,1101i(I · ,~ (I ?Eli (I II 1 '~') 0. I 151 I .(iOI)O ..... C..\I.CI q.:\TI¢)NS I:()R COMMU'I'I.; TRII'S ...... -----CAI.CUI.ATIONS FOR C(}MMU'IT; 'I'RII'S ...... ..... Total 'l¥il,S Inc],,dmg 'l'hos¢ hlduced by IISI{ ...... -----'Dips and Rcvemles ILv Mo,Jes ...... W/O IISI{ \V/O IISI{ W,'O IISI{ \WO IISI{ W/IISI{, W/lISP, W/IISI{ W/IISI{ YI~:XR I'()P EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) 'I'RII~S/DY TRII'S/YR MODE MKT Sill{ 'I'RII'S/I)Y 'I'RII'S/YI{ RI';V StYR MKT Sill{ 'I'RIi'S/DY 'I'RII'S/YI{ REV 1991 58.1,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 All{ 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0055 500 150,063 2,1,010,156 Project 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.3265 91,690 27,507,086 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.8382 76,855 23,056,390 AM'I'RAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0392 3,598 1,079,392 16,190,886 L'()iWI:. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.1171 10,737 3,221,240 44,292,11,15 : ..... ....... -~ TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10.689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 91,690 27,507,086 84,493,087 ..\MI'IG\K inotl,2 contains Anllrak bllses and (he)hound Imses. Access Time in Ilakcrsfilcd /Tohd 'l'tavcl Time via IISI{ = . I 1.04% ¢-::\('IILr~IL\KI':R.'q:,I~LIS20Z0 'lligh Speed Rail Patronage F'o,'ccast Bctwce,~ I,os Angeles :l,,d lbd~crsl'iehl .xh.:: ~.'2 .-.=MARKET SIIARI.;S MOl)El. \VH'IIOUT l iiGII SPI£15D RAIL - ..... KII)I)E C()NST IN('()KII.:. I'111~(.) I'.11 ('()ST ,VEC()ST I.II 'I'IMI': :\/I.: TIKII.: I)ISTNCI.: :\l.:'lVl)l.',;l' IrHIITY I.:XI'(V) I(,,io(I,:) Ih¢la * I I':Nl~(Ih,: * I) SII.\RI ,\lit -12.-5~71 34.2680 260000 160.0000 10.0000 4-5.0000 90.0000 120.0000 ¢t.'7 f;O0 -15.3188 0.0000 -I-5.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.00.~9 :\! ~'1'( ) 0~0000 0.0000 0.000cl 29.0000 -5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0-131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AI',|'I'R,.\ K* -.18-121 0.0000 20.0000 13.0000 2.0000 140.0000 5.~.0000 116.00l)0 o.17.11 -6.,1707 0.001-5 -3.3483 -2.0208 0.132.5 0.0438 C{ )I.:FI:. 1.0000 0.0071 0. 1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 ' -0.0208 0.0000 -2.07R(1 0.03.51 0.1333 1.0000 ..... M:\RKI':T SII..',,RI~S MOl)El, WITII IIIGII SI'I':EI) RAIl, - ..... M()I)I': ('()NST INI.'()MI': I:RI':() I.II ('()ST ,VE COST I.II 'I'IKII': ,VI':'I'II~II.: I)ISTN{'I.: ..\1':'1'/I)1.',;'1' Irl'll.l'lY E×I'(V) I(mod,:) Ih¢la * I I':Xl'(th¢ * I) SII..\RI': ,\1R - I 2. $.', 71 .I.I. 261¢11 26.00011 160.00011 I 0.000(} ' .1.5.000(J 96.7.~(10 12(1.(J001) ' 0.7'5(}0 - 1.5.,I 590 0.0000 - I .'i. ,I 590 -7.2132 0.0007 (LII(I.~.I :\1 IT() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 .5.0000 125.0000 .5.0000 116.0000 0.0-131 -3.497.5 0.0303 0.8367 ,.\ KITi{,\K -,1.8,121 0.0000 20,0000 13.0000 2.0000 140.0000 .59.2.500 116.11000 0.,1=/.I I -6..5590 0.0014 -3.3247 -2.0063 0.134.5 0.0392 IIN]I -.18.121 I).1)1)1)1) 220000 ] 3.731)0 2.0000 93.001)(} 6.1.21¢(}0 116.00(}(I 1).~,5.11 . -~.,I.510 (l.00.13 (I.I I86 COl.:H:. I .l)(100 0.0(171 (LIXXI -0.020R -(L0208 -0.0208 -0.020R 0.0000 -2 o7X0 0.0360 11.13_~2 1.0000 ..... 'l (,I.i] 'l'lil)S htchldiflg 'l Jm.,,¢ In(hlc¢(I hy JlSlt ........... '['lil)s and I(¢vcnucs I)y YI':,XR POi' I'.'MP IMP(air) lMl'(grd) 'HIll'S/DY TRII'S/YR K[()I)I~ MKT Sill{ 'I'RII'S,'I)Y TRII'S:'YI{ RI~X;$/YR MK'I'$IIR TI{II'S/DY TRII'S/YIt REV $~YR 1991 58-1.100 3,982,700 -15.31R8 L3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 Alit 0.00-59 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0054 500 1,19,923 23,987,717 Ihojccl 1,.110,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.3247 91,700 27,510,137 AUTO 09503 33,860 10,158,036 0.8367 76,730 23,018,932 AKiTR.,\K 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0392 3,.592 1,077,639 16,164,582 C( )l':l:l:. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.1186 10,879 3,263,6,13 44,875,087 llains :\mlrak I~l.scs and (;revhound busos. // Access 'l'im¢ i~filcd / Tolal Tlav¢l Time via IISI{ = 10.83% c~,ClllUl Iligh Speed Rail Patronage 2n IJos Angeles and Bakersfield' kl(')f)l£ CONS'I' INC()NII~ I:RI~Q LII COST A/E COST LII 'l'lkll[ ,L'E TIMI£ I)ISTNCI£ :\ITI'/I)IST [.FI'II.ITY EXI'(V) II,node) th¢ta *i EXl'(tl}e * I) SII.-\RI:. AIR -12.5571 ]1.1 2681l 260000 160.0000 10.0000 ' ,15.00110 90.0000 1211 (1000 11 7s¢10 -I 5..1188 0.0000 -15..1188 -7.1.177 0.01108 00059 ri'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0001! 116.0000 0.11431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 ..\M'I'[{ :\K* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 I 16.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 C()I.~I.'F. i.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 .0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.035 ! 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SII.-\RES M(}I)I.]~ \VITII IlIGil SI'I';ED RAIL ...... IklOI}l~ CONST INCOME I;I{EQ I.I1 COST A/ECOST I.II TIMI~ A/IL'I'IMI.'. I)IS'I'NCE ..\I.71'/I)IST IrI'II.ITY F.×P(V) I(modc) fl'~ela * i E×l'(Ih,: * I) SII..\RI'~ ,\IR -12.5571 .I.I 2680 2{i.0000 I ¢,0.0(1(}0 10.0000 .I 5.O0011 90.7500 I ]0.0(100 I).75l}0 .15.,15'10 0.0000 -I 5.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0i)55 :k(IT() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.8419 AI~ITRAK -4.8421 0.0000 2(}.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.47.11 -6.5590 0.0014 -3.3309 -2.0102 0.1340 0.0394 IISI{ -.I.8.1Z I 0.0000 22.0000 13.7500 2.0000 93.0000 65.6600 116.0000 0.5660 -5.50.14 0.0041 0.1132 C{ )I.:I:F. 1.000ll 00071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 .0.0208 .0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0358 0.13.17 1.0000 ..... C;\I .CI q,:VI'I¢)NS FOR COMMI I'1'1~ 'I'RII'S ...... ..... C:\I.CIII.ATIONS FOI{ COMMI rl'l.'. 'I'RII'$ ...... ..... 'l',,I;d 'l'lil,, hwlu,lmg 'l I,,sc hJduccd by IISR .... ,. ---.-'1'611.,i ami I,~cv¢,mcs Iw Iklc,lc~; .... \VI() IISI{ \V/() IISI{ WIO IISI{ W/O IISI{ W/IISI{ \V/IISI{ W/IISI{ \V/IISI{ YI~:\I{ I'O1' I~MP IMl'(ah) IMP(grd) 'I'RII'S/D'~' TRII'S/YR MODI£ klK'l'Slll{ TI{II'S/I)Y TRIPS/YR REV $/YR klK'l'Sill( TRIPS/DY TRII'S/YR REV $/YR 1991 58.1,1o0 .I,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3,185 3.S,631 10,689,300 All( 0.0059 210 6.1,066 J 0,090,~ J 8 0.0055 '501 150,425 24,067,93.1 lbo{cci 1,310.100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.3309 91,664 27,499,251 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,J58,036 0.8419 77;,177 23,152,956 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0394 3,613 1,083,913' 16,258,697 ('l)I.:I:F. 1.0000 0.26,15 -0.1058 -O2117 IISI{ 0.1i32 10,373 3,111,958 42,789,,116l ......... ..: .................... -=.-.: .... ___=::_ ....: ..... _ ...................... ]i!'{._)_i!'{\_l_.. ....... ]:1_}!}(_~1{). ..... ~_1~_,~:.1!._.10,689,.100 17,113,485 1.0000 91,664 27,499,25l 83,1!6_,0__4_8__ .'\ M'I'R.'\ K m-dc conlaills ..\ml~';~k Imses and ( }rcvhouml Imscs. # :\cccss Time in Ilak,:*slilcd / Tulal 'l'[avcl Time via I ISR = il.60% c:,c~tr~..x[r:l~s~:',nt,s2o20 Iligh Si)ced il:iii l)ai.'ouage Forecast Belween Los Angeles and Bakersfield ..... 'MARIq:r si I,\RI.:S MOl)El. wrrnou'r i11611 si,Er:D-- ----RAIL ...... ' . MCH)E C(INS'I' INCOME I:1{1'~ I.II COST :VE COS[ I.II TIMI( ,VE'I'IMI~ I)IS'I'NCE ,-\ET/I)IST UTII.ITY E×I'(V) I(mode) Ihela *1 EXP(Ihe * I) SIIAI{I'~ ..\IR -12.5571 3,1.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 911.0000 120.0000 0.75110 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1.I77 0.0008 0.0059! :\1 IT() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.00011 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 - 0.9503 ,\l\l I'I{,\K* -,l.g.I/I 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 1.10.0000 55.11000 116.0000 0.47,11 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3,1R5 -2.020g 0.1325 0.0438 i t'( }I'3:F. 1.0000 0.0071 0. I g81 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 41.0208 0.0000 -2.07g0 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... M..\R K 1'71' SI IAI{ ES MOI)i..'I. WITI I I IIGI I SPEI';I) RAil. - ..... MI)III': C¢}NST INCOME FRI£Q I.II COST :VI'; COST I,II TIME ,VI~'I'IMI.: I)IS'I'NCI-; ,\I-71'/I)IST Irl'll.IT'~' EXi'(V) I(mod¢) Iheta * I l£XP(the * I) SIIARE :\lit -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.O000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.'7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -I 5.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0052 IT( 1 0.11000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.01100 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0,131 -3.4975 0.0303 0.7800 ,\MTR..\K -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -3.2542 -I.9639 0.1403 0.0365 I I.";R -,I.~.121 0.0000 22.00110 16.50011 2.0011(I 70.0000 62.8100 116.0000 0.5.115 --I.9733 0.0069 '0.17g.l . ('()I.H:. 1.0000 0.0071 I).1881 .0.0208 -0.0208 -0.020R -00201¢ 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0386 0.1410 1.0000 ..... CAI .C'1 ;I .A'II( )NS F()R COMM{ ri'E TRII'S ........... CAI .Ct I[.A'I'IONS FOR COMMI ITl.; 'I'RII'S ...... ..... 'l'ol:d 'l'~ips h~t-hMmg Those Induced by I ISR ........... Trips and Revenues by Modes ...... W/O IISI{ . W/I) IISI{ \V/O IISI{ W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISR YIt:XR ,1'1}1' I':MI' IMl'(ai~) IMl'(§rd) TRII'S/I)Y 'I'RII'S/YI{ MODE MKT SIIR 'I'RII'S/I)Y TRII'S/YR REV $/YI{ MKT SIIR TRII'S/I)Y TRII'$!YR RI~V $/YR 1991 584,11111 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 ,\IR 0.0(}59 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0052 481 144,365 23,098,362 Ih'oj¢cl 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.2542 92,117 27,635,236 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.7800 71,84g 21,554,511 ,\M'I'i{AK 0.0,13g 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0365 3,364 1,009,081 15,136,222 ( '(}l.H:. I 111100 0.26,15 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.1781 16,424 4,927,2'79 141,300,1116 TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 92,117 27,635,236 buses and Greyhound I)uses. Total 'l'~avcl Time via IISI{ = 11.72% M()I)E ('()NST INC()I~II': I:I~IE(,) I.II COS'I' ,\q~ COST I.II 'I'IMI'~ ,,\/I':'I'IJ\IIL I)I,S;'I'NCI.~ :\E'I/I)IST I ri I1.1'1Y I.~XI'(V) Ii,iii)ii,.:) Ih¢la ' I I'.'Xl'(thc ' I} SII;\RI.: ,\IR -12.5571 3,1.26~0 26.0000 160.0000 JO.O000 45.0000 90.0()00 120.0000 0.7.~0(} -15..1198 0.0000 -IL318g -7.1477 O.O00g 0.0059 ,\1 rr() .0.00(}0 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9.503 .\I\ITR,XK* ~-4.842I 0.0000 20.0{}00 I 3.0000 2.0000 140.0000 3.$.0000 116.0000 0.,1741 -6.4'/01 0.001.~ -3.34g3 -2.020g 0.1325 0.043g Cf)I~FF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0201~ -0.0208 -0.020R 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0.151 0.133.1 1.0000 ..... M..XRKET SII,\RF.S IXlODEI. \VITII liIGll SPEED RAIl. - ..... I~I()I)E C¢)NST INC¢)ME I:RI~(,) I.II C()ST :Vii COST I.II TIME ,k/ETIME I)IS'I'NCI.~ :\ET/I)IST IH'II.ITY EXI'(V) I(mod¢) thcta * I I'~Xl'(the * I) SIIARE :Ill{ -I 2.5_~71 3-1.261¢{} 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 .t.s.O000 96.'7~00 120.0000 ¢).7b00 -I 3.4.590 0.000(} -J .~.4~90 -7.2132 0.000-/ 0.00.~3 ,\II'FI) (}.l)OlJi} (}.00(}0 0.0000 29.0000 3.0000 123.0000 .5.0000 116.0000 0.0.131 -3.4975 0.0303 O.?R?O :\lkl'J'l{,\K -.I.R.I] 1 0.000i) 20.0000 J .5.0000 2.0000 1.10.(}O(}0 IISI{ ,I ~C.121 0.0000 22.0000 16.3000 2.0000 7(LOIII}0 (,.I. I,lO0 I 16.(lil(lil (I C( )I':FI". 1.0000 0.007 i 0. I R81 -0.020R -0.020R -0.02()R -0.0201~ 0.(}000 - 2.071¢(') 0.03R3 0.140.1 1.0000 ..... CAI .cI q.:\TIONS FOR COMMUTF '1'1{11'~'-~7--~ ............................ -----C:X.I.CUI.ATION$ F()I{ COMMI. rlT~ TRII'S ...... ..... '['ol;iJ 'l'lq)s Inch,(ling 'lliose In(hi{ed I[y J ISR ...... -----'l¥il)S and J{ex'entles I)y Modes ...... W/() liS1{ \V/() IISI{ \\90 IISI{ \V/O IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISI{ W/IISR W/IISR YE.AR I)()p EMI) IMl'(aiO IMl'(grd) TRII'S/I)Y TRII'S/YR M()I)E MKT Sill{ 'I'RII'S/I)Y TRII)S/YR REV $/YR MKT SIIR 'I'RII'S/I)Y TRII)S/YR REV $/YR 1991 384,100 3,982,700 -13.3188 -3.348~ 33,631 10,689,300 tXlR 0.0039 210 63,066 10,090,~18 0.00~3 qg4 14~,064 23,210,314 P~'(~jccl 1,310,100 6,684,800 -13.4~90 -3.2633 92,063 27,619,028 tkUTO 0.9303 33,860 10,1~8,036 0.7870 72,436 21,736,678 tk~I'I'R/XK 0.0438 1,361 468,198 7,022,967 0.0368 3,392 1,01?,610 I ~,264,145 C( )l']:F. 1.0000 0.2643 -0.1038 -0.2117 iISR 0.1709 13,73~ 4,719,676 77,874,631 . .- ..... .: .: ...... ...... .=:: ......................................................... '!'(._)'!'!\J_. ..... ];_0(_)(_}g ....~.O~l._ ](_).~._R~_~!_O__ 17, l l.'1,4~5 J.0000 92,063 27,619,028 ll6,349, l I0 ..XlkI'I'I{:\K n[ml¢ COld:tins ,\mt['ak buses and (;reyl[oimd bt[scs. .&ccess Time iii Ilakei'sfiled /Total Travel 'l'inte via IISI{ -'- 12.39% C:'CII~r, aI:X~I.:RSI:q~I~S2020 lligh Speed Rail P;Itroli;igc I~orccast I~clwee~ I,os A,igch. s ami Ilakcrsfield .....MARKET SilARES MOi)i~L WITIIO[ri' IIIGII SPEED RAIl. - ..... Kll)I)E CIiNS'I' INCIJKIE I:IIEQ I.II COST ,VE COST I.II TIME A/E'I'IKII~ I)IS'I'NCI': AI':T/I)IST IrI'II.H'Y EXI'(V) I(modc) Ihcla * I EXl'(Ihe * i) SIIARI,: Alii -IZ5571 3.1.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.00011 0.75011 -15.31gg 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1,177 0.0008 0.0059 Al ri'l) 0.000O 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 50000 i 20.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTI{AK* -,1.8.121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.qT,I I -6A707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 ('1)I:.FI:. 1,0000 0.0071 0,1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -11.0208 0.0000 .2.1171111 0.0351 0,1333 1.0000 ..... M.-\R KI.71' .'.;IIAR ES M()I)EI. \\'ITII III(ill $1'I.:EI) R.-\II.- ..... M()I)I.: C()NST INCOME 1"141.:~ I.II Cc)ST All". COST I.II TIKII.: A/E'I'IKIIC I)I.~'I'NCE AI.71'/I)IST IrHI.ITY EXI'(V) I(mode) II,cia ' I I~Xl'({he * I) SII..\RE ,\Ill -12 ~571 3.1.26110 26.0O00 I (,11.011110 10.0000 ,l),00l)0 96.7500 120,0000 (L?S(}O -I 5.,15911 0.0000 -I).,1~90 -7.2132 11.1111117 0.00~2 ,\l ITl ) O,(lOllO 11,011110 0.00011 29,01100 5.11111111 I 2 ).(lllll0 S 110110 I 16,011011 00.111 -3.,1971 0.0303 (I.Tl{(I,I ,\KITIIAI~ -.I.8,12{ 11.01100 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 1,10,0000 59.25110 116,00011 IL,IV.II -6 51t)0 0.001,1 -3.25,18 -1.96,13 O. Iq03 0.0365 {I~R -,111,121 0.111111(1 12.001111 16.5111111 2,0000 70.1111011 62.9000 116.00011 O5,122 -.1.976~ 11.111t69 (}.1778 ('l)1<1:1~. 1.0111111 0.0071 O. 1881 -0.0208 -00208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.00110 -2.071111 0.03~16 0, I ~110 1.01100 ..... ('..\I.CI II...VI'II)NS I;()R (-'¢)MMIJ'I'I~ TRII'S ........... CAI.CIJI.ATI()NS FOI( C()MMI tH.: 'I'RII'S ...... ..... 'l'olal '1'~ ips InclmlhJg 'l'h~se Imluccd by I ISR ...... -----'l'rips ,'md Rcvcmlcs by Modes ...... \V/() IISI( \V/I) II,";R W/Il IISR \V/C) IISR \V/I I,',;R \\'/IISI( W/IISR W/IISR YI,:;\I( !'¢11' EMI' IMP(air) IKIl'(Brd) 'I'RII'S/I)Y 'I'I{II'S/YI( Mill)lC l~lK'l'Slll( 'I'RII'S,'I)Y 'I'IZlI'S/YR I(EV $/YR MKTSIII4 'I'RII'S/I)Y 'I'RII'S/YI( REV 1991 5t1.1,100 3,982,7(10 -15.3188 -3.3-185 35,631 10,689,300 Alit 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 ' 0.0052 481 144,413 23,106,069 I'rojec~ 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.2548 92,114 27,634,116 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.7804 71,890 21,567,033 ..\M'I'R:XK 0.0-1311 1,561 ,1611,198 7,022,967 0.0365 3,366 1,009,668 15,145,015 COEH:. 1.0ooo 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.1778 16,377 4,913,003 81,064,.~42 AKITII.,\K ams ,\mlrak buses a,~d (hcyhound I,uscs. Il Access Time h~llilcd/'l'olal 'l'~avcl Time via I I.";R = I 1.78'!0 ' I C:XCiit~BA: lligh Speed Rail Palron:tge Forecas, l,os Angeles and B:ll~e,'sfiehl ..... MAI{KET SIIARES MODEL WITIIOUT IIIGII SPEED RAIl.- ..... MOI)E CONST INCOME FREQ LIICOST A/ECOST IAITIME A/ETIME I)ISTNCE AET/DIST U'I'ILITY EXP(V) I(mod¢) Ihela*! EXP(~e* I) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I0.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0.131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 Il6.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SilARES MODEL WITll lIIOll SPEED RAIL ...... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LI! COST A/ECOST LIi TIME A/E TIME DISTNCE AET/I)IST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mode) th¢ta* I EXP(the* I) SilARE All{ -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I0.0000 45.0000 96.7500. 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0053 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0,131 -3.4975 0.0303 0.7897 AMTRAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -3.2667 -I.9714 0.1393 0.0370 IISR -4.8,121 0.0000 22.0000 16.5000 2.0000 70.0000 6,1.6600 Il6.0000 0.557,1 -5.0449 0.0064 0.1681 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0381 0.1400 1.0000 ..... CAI.CULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ........... CALCULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS .... ..... Total Trips luch,ding Those I.duced by iiSR ........... Trips a,M Revenues by Modes ...... W/O lISP. W/O IISI{ W/O iiSR W/O IISR W/IISR W/IlSR W/IISR W/IISR YEAR POP EMi' IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MODE MKTSIIR TRII'S/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR MKT SIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPSfYR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 21{) 63,066 10,090,518 0.0053 484 145,331 23,252,957 Project 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.2667 92,043 27,612,890 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.7897 72,687 21,806,230 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0370 3,403 1,020,866 15,312,987 COEFE. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 ilSR 0.1681 15,468 4,640,462 76,567,631 TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113 485 1.0000 92,043 27,612,890 !1_~5 133___~,5.._7,1 ,\MTR AK mode c(mlai,~s Anmak hoses and Greyhound buses. /1 Access Time in Ilakcrslilcd / Tolal 'l'ravcl Time via IISI{ = 12.93% C~C~t~r~A}~I':RSI:,t~LJS:020 lligh Speed Rail Patro.age Forecast Between Los Angeles and Bakersfield ^u.: l:2a .....M:\RKET SliP'RES MOl)EL WITliOUT IilGli SPEED RAIL ..... MOl)I£ CONST INCOME FREQ I.il COS'i' A/E COST I.II TIMI.; A/E TIME I)ISTNCF, AI.;T/I)IST U'I'II.I'I'Y I.;XP(V) I(modc) ll~ela Alit -125571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 900000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 A(I'I'() 00000 0.0000 0.0000 29,0000 5,0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AM'I'I~AK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 il6.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0,1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 O. 1881 .0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 O. 1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITII IilGIi SPEED RAIL .... MOI)E CONST INCOME FREQ LIi COST A/ECOST I.II TIME tVE TIME DISTNCF. AET/I)IST LrI'ILITY EXP(V) I(mode) Iheta * I EXP(the, . * 1) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0053 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.7877 AMTRAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 Il6.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -3.2642 -!.9699 0.1395 0.0369 IISR -4.8421 0.0000 22.0000 16.5000 2.0000 70.0000 64.2800 116.0000 0.5541 -5.0302 0.0065 0.1701 COI~FF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0382 0.1402 1.0000 i ..... C:\i.CUI.A'FIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ........... CALCUI.ATIONS FOR COMMU'FE TRIPS ..... ..... Tolal Trips h~ch,di,g Those Induced by IISR ........... Trips a,~d Reve,ues b)' Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/lISR W/IISR YF~AI~, I'OI~ EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRII'S/YR MODE MKT SIIR TEII'S/i)Y TI~,IPS/YR REV $/YR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 ' 63,066 10,090,518 0.0053 484 145,137 23,221,857 I'~oject 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.2642 92,058 27,617,364 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.7877 72,518 21,755,495 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967. 0.0369 3,395 1,018,491 15,277,359 COEI'~F. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.1701 15,661 4,698,241 77,520,988 ' ' TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17 H3,485 1.0000 92,058~ 27,617,36_____~4 116,020,203 AMTRAK ~ ~tains Amlrak buses and Greyhound buses. Access Time 'oral Travel Time via ! ISR ~ 12.68% c:~c lligh Speed Rail Patronage Los Angeles aqd Bakersfield .....MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITiiOUT iIIOll SPEED RAIL , ' MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LIICOST Afl, COST LiiTIME A/ETIME DISTNCE AET/DIST LrI'ILITY EXP(V) I(mod¢) thcta *1EXP(Ihe*I) SllARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AIF['O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AM'Fi{AK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 i.0000 ..... MARKE'F SIIARES MODEL WITli IIIGIi SPEED RAIL MODE CONST INCOME FREQ Lll COST A/ECOST Lli TIME METIME DISTNCE AET/DIST LrrlLITY EXP(V) l(mode) thela* I EXP(the* I) . SIIARE All{ -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120,0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0053 tllITO 0.001}0 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 .$.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0.131 -3.4975 0.0303 0.7948 AMTRAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -3.2731 -I.9753 0.1387 0.0372 iISI{ -4.8,121 0.0000 22.0000 16.5000 2.0000 70.0000 65.66110 116.0000 0.5660 -.5.0836 0.0062 0.1627 C()I:.FF. 1.0000 0.01171 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0379 0.1395 1.0000 ..... CAI .CUI.ATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ........... CAI .CULATIONS FOR COMMIJTE 'FRII'S ...... 5' ..... Total Trips Including 'lllose Induced by I ISR ........... Trips and Revenues by Modes ...... WI() IISi{ W/O IISI{ W/O iISI{ W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR WI IISR YEAR I'()P EMP IMP(air) IMl'(grd) TRIPS/DY Ti{IPS/YR MODE MKTSIIIS TRIPS/I)Y TRiI'S/YR REV $/YR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPSPfR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 All{ 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0053 486 145,833 23,333,208 I'rojcc! 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.2731 92,005 27,601,392 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.7948 73,125 21,937,371 AM'I'RAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0372 3,423 1,027,005 15,405,078 C()EFF. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.1627 14,971 4,491,183 74,104,519 TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 92,005 27,601,392 112,842,805 AMTRAK mode conlains Amlrak buses aqd Greyhound buses. # Access Time in Ihkersfiled / Tolal Travel Time via IISi{ = 13.57% C:xcin~n^KEI{Si.~US2020 lligh Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Bctsvccn Los Angeles aqd Bakersfield Al,.: ,~ ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITIIOUT illGil SPEED RAIL ...... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LIiCOST A/ECOST LIITIME A/ETIME I)ISTNCE AET/DIST UTIIXI'Y EXP(V) l(mode) theta*i EXP(the* I) SIIARE All{ -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000' 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.O01~ -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF: I .OO00 0.0071 0.188 i -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITII IIIGIi SPEED RAIL ..... MODE - CONST INCOME FREQ LIi COST A/E COST LII TIME A/ETIME DISTNCE' AE*iVDIST U'FILITY EXP(V) l(mod¢) theta* 1 EXP(Ihe* !) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I0.0000 45.0000 ' 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0044 ' AU'FO 0.OO00 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5834 AMTRAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 .-2.9630 -I.7882 · 0.1673 0.0273 lISP, -4.$421 0.0000 27.0000 24.7500 2.0000 56.0000 62.8100 116.0000 0.5415 -3.9133 0.0200 0.3849 COEFF. lO000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0517 0.1680 1.0000 ..... CAI,CULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ........... CAI.CULATIONS FOR COMMU'I'E TP, IPS ...... ..... Total Trips Including lliose I,~duced by IISR ........... Trips and Rcv¢,mcs by Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISI{ W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/lISP, W/IISR YEAR POi' EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MODE MKTSIIR TRIPS/I)Y TRII'SffR REV $/YR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV SP~'R 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 'AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0044 412 123,627 19,780,296 Project 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -2.9630 93,964 28,189,241 AU*FO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5834 54,817 16,445,157 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,1~)8 7,022,967 0.0273 2,566 769,885 I 1,548,28~ C(}I'~I:I:. IOOO0 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.3849 36,169 10,850,572 268,5~1,666 ; TOTAi_____c~ ~ 35,63._1 IO,689,_ _300 17__,!1_13,485 1.0000 93,964 28,189,241 299,8 AMTR AK ~ains ~sai~trak buses a,M Greyhound buses. Access Time i,~filcd /Total Travel Ti,ne via I1,~ ~ 13.10% c:~cn lligh Speed Rail Patronage Los Angeles and Bakersfield ......MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITIIOUT i11011 SPEED RAIL ---- MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LI! COST A/ECOST LIlTIME A/ETIMI£ I)IS'I'NCE AET/DIST UTII.ITY EXP(V) I(mode) Ihela *1EXl'(the *1) SIIARE All{ -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AIJTO 0.0000 0.0000 .0,0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTi{AK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. I.O000 0.0071 0.1881 -0,0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.07g0 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKF. T SIIARES MOl)EL WITI! IilGii SPEED RAIl. - .... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LII COST A/E COST Li[ TIklE A/E TIEIE DISTNCE AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mode) Ihela * I EXP0he * i) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.O000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0044 AUTO '0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5949 AMTIIAK -4.8'121 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -2.9826 -I.8000 0.1653 0.0278 ilSR -4.8421 0.0000 27.0000 24.7300 2.0000 56.0000 64.1400 116.0000 0.5529 -3.9648 0.0190 0.3728 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.188 i -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 O0000 -2.0780 0.0507 0.1660 1.0000 ..... CAI.CLII.ATI()NS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ......... CAI.CULATIONS I:OR COMMUTE TI[IPS ..... ..... Total Trips Including Those Induced by i[SR ........... Trips and Reve,mes by Modes ...... YEAR POI' EMI' IMP(air) IklP(g~d) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YI{ MOI)E MKTSIII{ TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV$/YR MKTSIII{ TRII'S/i)Y TRII'S/YR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0044 416 124~916 19,986,523 Project 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -2.9826 93,833 28,149,956 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5949 55,820 16,746,139 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0278 2,613 783,976 11,759,639 COEFF. I.O000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.3728 34,983 10,494,925 259,749,394 AEI'I'I(,\ K mc)dc conlaiJ)s Aml~ak Imscs and (irc),hound I)uses. I1 Access Tinle in Ilakcrslilcd / T.Ial T~avcl 'l'ime via IISI{ = 14.06% C:~Cm~11,XKI.:RS1'~!~tJS2020 High Speed Rail Patrolmge Forecast Bctsvcen I,os Angeles and Bakersfiehl A,.: 03 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITIIOUT IIIO11 SPEED RAIL .... MOl)E C¢)NS'I' INCOME FREQ LII COST A/E COST LII TIME A/ETIMI£ DISTNCF, AET/I)IST. UTIt, ITY EXP(V) I(mod¢) Ihcta * 1 EXP(Ihe * I) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 .10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 .5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936. 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.001.5 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.04~8 COF. Fi~. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITII IlIGil SPEED RAIL ..... , MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LIi COST A/ECOST Lil TIME A/E TIME DISTNCE AET/DIST UTILITY . EXP(V) I(mode) Iheta* i EXP(the* I) SttARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0044 Al rl'o 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5842 AMTRAK -4 8421 0.0000 20.0000 I 5.0000 2.0000 140.0000 .59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -2.9643 -i.7890 011671 0.0273 IISR .4.8421 0.0000 27.0000 24.7500 2.0000 56.0000 62.9000 116.0000 0.5422 -3.9168 0.0199 0.3841 COl!FF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0516 0.1679 '1.0000 ..... CAI,CUI,ATIONS FOR COMMLFFE TRIPS .......... CALCULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRII'S ..... ..... Tolal Trips I,ch,ding 'llsose Induced by IISR ----~ ...... Trips a,d Revenues by Modes ...... W/O ilSR W/O IISR W/O liSR W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/HSR YEAR POP EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MOI)E MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TR1PSfYR REV $/YR MKTSilR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR 1991 584, I O0 3,982,700 - 15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0044 412 123,715 19,794,386 i'rojecl 1,3 lO, ID0 6,684,800 -I 5.4590 -2.9643 93,955 28,186,533 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 lO, 158,036 0.5842 54,885 16,465,649 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0273 2,569 770,845 il,562,670 COEFF. I:0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.3841 36,088 10,826,325 267,951,547 TOTAL 35,631 10,689,300 17,113~485 !.0000 93,955 28,186,533 299,3 AMTRAK itains :xanlrak buses and Greyhound buses. Access Time sfiled / Total Travel Time via I ISR = i 3.16% c:xc lligh Speed Rail Patronage Los Angeles and Bakersfield ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITIIOLYI' IIIOl! SPEED RAIL .... -' MOI)E CONST INCOME FREQ 'Lll COST A/ECOST Lll TIME 2dETIME DISTNCE AI£T/I)IST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mode) the{a* I EXP(Ihe* i) SIIARI~ AIR - 12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.75110 -15.3188 0.0000 - 153188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 ALII'() 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 O. 1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.035 i 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITli IIIGI! SPEED RAIL ..... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LII COST AtECOST LIt TIME 3dE TIME I)ISI'NCE AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mode) thela* 1 EXP(the* I) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4.590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0045 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5993 AMTRAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.3590 0.0014 -2.9900 -1.8045 0.1646 0.0281 liSR -4.8421 0.0000 27,0000 24.7300 2.0000 36.0000 6,1.6600 116.0000 0.357,1 -3.9849 0.0186 0.3681 C()I';FF. I.(1000 0.0071 0. lggl -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -(I.0208 0.0000 -2.{}78{} 0.0503 0.1653 1.0000 ..... CALCUI,ATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ........... CALCULATIONS FOR COMMlYI'E TRIPS ..... ..... '1'o1~1 Trips Inchldhlg Those Induced by I ISR ........... Trips and Revenues by Modes ...... W/O iISR W/(} IISI{ W/O IISI( W/O IISI{ W/IISi( W/IISI{ WI IISI{ W/IISI{ YEAR I'Of EMI' IMl'(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MODE MKT SIIR TRIPS/I)Y TRIPS/YR REV $/YR MKTSIlR TRIPS/DY TRII'S/YR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 All{ 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0045 418 125,412 20,065,984 Projccl 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -2.9900 93,783 28,135,018 AIITO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5993 56,209 16,862,705 AMTRAK 0.0,1.18 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0281 2,631 789,433 11,841,496 COi';FF. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.3681 34,525 10,357,467 256,347,308 TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17_t] 13,485 1.0000 93,783 28~135,018 288,254,788 AMTRAK mode contains Amlrak buses and (lreyhound buses. Access Time in Ilake~'slilcd /'l'olal 'lYavcl Time via IISI{ = 14.43% C:XCnt~.,XKI~,S~:,I~US2020 ltigh Speed Rail Patroqage Forecast Bet~veen Los Angeles and Bakersfield ,x,.: F3 SilARES MODEL WITIIOUT IiIGH SPEED RAIL ..... MOI)I.: CONST INCOME FREQ Lll COST AtE COST LiiTIME A/I.:TIME I)ISTNCE AET/I)iST LFi'ILITY EXP(V) I(mode) Ihela * I EXP0he* I) SllARE AIR .IL5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 O0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.043 i -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AM'FI{AK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 ' 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 - 0.4741 .6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 .-0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780. 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET sIIARES MODEL WITII II1GII SPEED RAIL MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LilCOST A/ECOST LItTIME A/ETIME DIS'I'NCF, AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mode) theta* 1 EXl'(the* I) SilARE All{ -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0044 AtYI'O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5961 AMTRAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 il6.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -2.9846 -I.8012 0.1651 0.0279 IISR -4.8421 0.0000 27.0000 24.7500 2.0000 56.0000 64.2800 116.0000 0.5541 -3.9702 0.0189 0.3716 COI'~I:F. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0506 0.1658 i.0000 ..... CAI.CULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ...... -----CAI.CULATIONS FOR COMMI. fFE TRIPS ..... ..... Tolal Trips Including Those lqduced by IISR ...... -----Trips aqd Revenues by Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O lISR W/O iISR W/O IISR W/IISR W/iiSR W/IISR W/IISR YEAR I'O1' EMP IMl'(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MOI)i'~ MKTSIIR TRIPS/I)Y TRIPS/YR REV SfYR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPSIYR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0044 417 125,050 20,007,982 Projec~ 1,310,1B0 6,684,800 -15.4590 -2.9846 93,820 28,145,911 ALFI'O 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5961 55,925 16,777,585 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0279 2,618 795,448 11,781,722 COI~I:I:. 1.0000 0.2645 .0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.3716 34,859 10,457,828' 258,831,231 TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,48J 1.0000 93,820 28,145,911 * AMTRAK ~ ~ntaiqs Amt~ak buses and Greyhound buses. Access Time ,'sfiled / Tohd 'l'ravcl Time via IISR = 14.16% lligh Speed Rail Patronage Forccasl~fsvccn l,os Angclcs and l~akersfichi M()I)I£ CONST INCOIXlE FREQ LII COST NECOST I.II 'I*IME zVE TIME I)IS'I'NCE Ag'I'll)IS'I* 11TII.i'I'Y EXI'(V) I(m~l¢) thcla ' ! EXI'(Ih¢ ' l) SIIARE ,\IR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I0.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059' At I'i'O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.043 i -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AIXITRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 i.0000 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITll IlIGii SPEED RAIL ..... MOI)E CONST INCOME FREQ LII COST A/ECOST Lii TIME A/E TIME DISTNCE AET/DIST iYFILIT¥ EXP(V) l(mode) Ihela* I EXP(f~e* I) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 [0.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 ' -7.2132 0.0007 0.0045 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 Il6.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.6079 AMTRAK -4.8421 O.0000 203000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 Il6.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -3.0042 -I.8130 0.!632 0.0285 IISR -4.8421 0.0000 27.0000 24.7500 2.0000 56.0000 65.6600 116.0000 0.5660 -4.0236 0.0179 0.3592 COI~I:F. 1:.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0496 0.1639 1.0000 ..... CAI.CUI.ATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ........ CALCULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS .... ..... Tolal Trips l,~cluding Those Induced by IISR .......... Trips and Revenues by Modes ...... W/O lISP, W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/ilSR YI';AP, , POI' EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MODE IXlKTSIIR TRII'S/DY TRIPS/YR REV$/YR MKTSilR TRIPS/DY TRII'S/YR REV$/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0045 421 126,356 20,216,915 Project 1,31'0,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -3.0042 93,690 28,106,942 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.6079 56,950 17,085,024 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0285 2,666 799,841 11,997,614 COEFF. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.3592 33,652 10,095,722 249,869,122 TOTAL 1.0000 3~5,6~31_ 10,689,300 17~113,485 1.0000 93,690 28,106,942 282,083,651 AMTRAK mode co,~lains Amlrak buses and Greyhoond buses. # Access Time in Bakc~slilcd / Total Travel Ti,ne via I ISR = 15.13% c:\c111m,x~:t-:1}`s1.'~ptmo20 lligh Speed Rail Patromtgc Forecast 'llchvccn l,os Angeles and Bakcrsfichl ,~t.: ,a ..... MARKET Sllt~RES MOl)EL WITiIO~ IilGli SPEED RAIL ...... 1 MOI)E CONST INCOME I:RI~Q LIICOST ~E COST [.IITIME /~E TIME I)IS'I'NCi~ AET/IIlST U'I'II.ITY EXP(V) I(m~e) thela* I EXP(Ihe ~ I) SIIARE AIR -12'.55TI 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1'477 0.0008 0.0059 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* ~4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 C¢ )I';FI:. 1.0000 0.0071 O. 1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 - -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0781~ 0.0351 O. 1333 1.0000 ..... klAI~,KET SIIARES MODEL WITII IlIGIi SPEED RAIL ..... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ I,IICOST A/ECOST I,IITIME A/Ir.TIME DISTNCE AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mode) Iheta* I EXP(Ihe* I) SIIARE All}` -12.55'11 21.1.2680 26.0000 160.000(l 10.0000 ,15.0000 96.75111} 120.011oo 0.'15(~o -15.,1590 0.0000 -15.,1590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.00.11 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5168 AMTRAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 ii6.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 , -2.8415 -i.7148 0.1800 0.0241 IISi}, -4.84ll 0.0000 2"/.0000 2~.8750 2.0000 38.0000 62.8100 116.0000 0.5415 -3.6250 0.0266 0.4549 C( }EFF. ' 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0108 -0.0208 -0.0108 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0583 0.1807 1.0000 ..... CAI,ClII,ATIONS FOIl COMMUTE TRIPS ........... CAI,CULATIONS I:OR COMMUTE TRIPS ...... ..... Tolal Trips Inchtdi~g 'll~os¢ Induced by 11SR ........... Trips a~d Revenues by Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/liSR YEAR POI' EMi' IMP(air) IMP(rg'd) TRIPs/i)Y TI}.IPS/YR MODE MKT SIIR TRIPS/I)Y TI}`II'S/YR REV $/YR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0041 386 115,944 18,551,106 Project 1,3 lO, 100 6,684,800 -I 5.4590 -2.8415 94,801 28,440,244 AWi'O 0.9503 33,860 I0,158,036 0.5168 48,993 14,697,759 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0242 2,294 688,080 10,321,206 C(}EI:F. I.O000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.4549 43,128 12,938,461 373,598,058 TOTAl. 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000~ 94,801 28,440,244 402,470,370 AM'I'RAK ,' Amtrak buses and Greyhound buses. # Access Time / Total 'Fravel Time via IISR = 15.43% lligh Speed Rail Patro.age Los Angeles and Bakersfield .....MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITilOUT IIIGII SPEED RAIl. - .... MOI)E CONST INCOME FREQ Lil COST A/ECOST LIITIME AYE TIME DISTNCE AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) l(mod¢) theta *1EXP(the*l) SIIARE AIR -125571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.043 i -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 C()EFF. 1.0000 0.0071 O. 1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0. i 333 1.0000 ..... MARKI'Yf SIIARES MODEL WITll IlIGII SPEED RAJL- MOI)E CONST INCOME FREQ LIi COST A/E COST LIi TIME AYE TIME DISTNCE AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) l(mode) lhela * I EXP(Ihe* I) SllARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0041 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.043 ! -3.4975 0.0303 0.5~89 AM'I'I{AK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.47,11 -6.5590 0.0014 -2.8646 -I.7288 0.1775 0.0248 IISR -4.8421 0.0000 27.0000 28.8750 2.0000 38.0000 64.1400 116.0000 0.5529 -3.6764 0.0253 0.4422 COI.WF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0570 0.1782 1.0000 I ..... CAI.CIII.ATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS .......... CALCULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ...... ..... Tolal Trips Including Those Induced by i ISR ........... Trips and Rcvcuucs by Modes ...... W/O IISR WA) IISR WI() ilSR W/O IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR YI£AI~ I'O1' EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MOI)E MK'FSIIR 'I'RII~S/I)¥ TRIPS/YR REV $/YR MKT SIlR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 ' 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0041 391 117,369 18,779,035 I'rojccl 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -2.8646 94,638 28,391,370 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5289 50,052 15,015,719 AMTRAK 0.0,1.18 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0248 2,343 702,966 10,544,487 COEFF. i.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.4422 41,85! 12,555,316 362,534,747 TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10,689 300 17,113,485 1.0000 94,638 28,391,370 391,858,269 AMTRAK mode conlains Amlrak buses and Greyhound buses. Access Time in Ilakcrsfilcd / Tolal Travel Time via I ISR = 16.54% C:xcln.~IS,XKERS~!SUS2020 lligh Speed Rail Patronage Forecast Belwecn l,os Angeles and Bakersfield Alt.: D4 ..... MARKF. T SllARES MODEL WITIIOUT liIOIt SPEED RAIl. ---- Mt)I)I£ CONST INCOME FREQ Lil COST A/ECOST LIITIME ,L/E'I'IME DIS'I'NCE AET/I)IST UTII.ITY EXP(V) l(mode) Ih¢la * I EXP(Ih¢* I) SIIARE AIR - 12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0."/500 - 15.3188 0.0000 - - i 5.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 Al rl'O 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 ! 20.0000 5.0000 I 16.0000 0.043 i -3.393'6 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 4.0780 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITil ilIGII SPEED RAIL ...... MOI)E CONST INCOME FREQ LII COST A/ECOST Lil TIME A/E TIME DISTNCE AEI'/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mode) Iheta * I EXP(the* I) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0041 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000_. 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 ~.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5176 AMTRAK -4~8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -2.8431 -l.?158 0.1798 0.0242 IISR -4.8421 0.0000 2~.0000 28.8750 2.0000 38.0000 62.9000 116.0000 0.5422 -3.6285 0.0266 0.454! COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0582 0.1806 '1.0000 ..... CAI.CUI.ATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ........... CALCULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS .... ..... 'l'oIal Trips Inc!udi,g 'll~ose Induced by I ISR ........... Trips and I{eve,mes by Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISI{ W/O ilSR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISI{ W/IISR YEAI~, I'OP EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MOI)E MKT Sill{ TRIPS/I)Y TRIPS/YR REV $/YR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV$/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -i.$.3188 -3.34825 33,631 10,689,300 All{ 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0041 387 116,041 18,566,637 Project 1,310,100 6,684,800 - 15.4590 -2.8431 94,790 28,436,878 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,1 .$8,036 0.5176 49,064 14,?19,336 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 ?,022,967 0.0242 2,29'/ 689,091 10,336,358 COEFF. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISI{ 0.4541 43,041 12,912,410 3'/2,845,844 TOTAl. 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 I'/,113,485 i.0000 94,?90 28,436,878 401,% ilains buses and Greyhound nI buses. # / Total Travel Time via IISR = ' 15d5 I% Js2o2o l ligh Si}ccd Rail Patron:tge I,os Angeles and Bal{crsficld .....MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITiIOtrl' iilGll SPEED RAIL - .... klOl)E CONST INCOME FREQ i.II COST ~E cos'r I,II'I'IME ~E TIME I)ISTNCI{ AI?I'/I)IST lYI'II.I'I'Y EXi'(V) i(mod¢) Ihela * I EXI'(Ihc* I) SIIARI'; AIR -12.5571 34.2680 260000 160.0000 10.0000 4~.0000 90.0000 120.0(}O0 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1,177 0.00(}8 0.0059 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0,131 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 Il6.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. ~1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SllARES MODEl, WITIi iilGIi SPEED RAIL ...... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ 1.11 COST A/ECOST 1.11 TIME A/ETIME DISTNCE AET/DIST UTIi,ITY EXP(V) l(mode) Ihela * I EXP(Ihe * I) SiiARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 I0.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0042 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5336 AIXITRAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 0.0014 -2.873.5 -I.7342 0.1765 0.0250 ilSR -4.842I 0.0000 ~27.0000 28.8750 2.0000 38.0000 64.6600 i 16.0000 0.5574 -3.6966 0.0248 0.4373 COEFF. I.O000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0565 0.1773 1.0000 ..... CAI.CtILATIONS FOR COMMI.rI'E TRIPS .......... CALCULATIONS FOR COMMU'I'E TRIPS ...... ..... Tolal Trips Including 'lltose Ioduced by IISR ...... . ..... Trips and Revc,uscs by Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O lISP, W/O ilSR W/O IlSR W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR WI I ISR YEAR I'OP EMP IMP(air) IMl'(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS,~'R MODE MKTSIIR TRII'S/I)Y TRII'S/YR REV $/YR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $1YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0042 393 117,920 18,867,207 Project 1,310,100 6,684,800 -15.4590 -2.8735 94,576 28,372,763 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5336 50,465 15,139,461 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0250 2,363 708,759 10,631,382 COEFF. I.O000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 I1SR 0.4373 41,355 12,406,623 358,241,239 TOTAl, I.O000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 94,576 28,372,763 387,739,827 AM'i'RAK mode contains Amtrak boscs aud Greyhound buses. Access Time in Bakersfilcd / Total Travel Time via IISR = 16.96% c:~cIItal~,X~l';asl.~l~US2o2o iligh Speed Rail Patronage Forecasl Between I,os Angeles and Bakersfichl ,ut.: ~:4 .. .....MARKET SIi^RES MOl)EL WITIIOtYF IIIGII SPEED RAIL ...... M()I)E CONST INCOMI£ I:l{l::q I.II COST AJECOST I.II TIMI£ A/E'I'IMI~ I)ISTNCE AE'I'/I)IST UI'II.I'I'Y EXI'(V) 'l(mod¢) Ihela "' I EXI'0h¢ * I) $11.,X. lll~ AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.01100 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AUTO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 ~.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 0.1333 1.0000 ..... MARKET SilARES MOl)EL WITIi iiiGII SPEED RAIl. - ..... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ IAI COST AJE COST Lil TIME A/ETIME DISTNCE AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) l(mode) th¢ta* I EXP(th¢* l) SIIARI All{ -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 16(I.0000 10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0041 A11'1'( ) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.00011 0.0.131 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5302 AMTRAK .4.X421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.,17,11 -6.5590 0.0014 -2.8670 -I.7303 0.1772 0.0248 iISR -4.8421 0.0000 27.0000 28.8730 2.0000 38.0000 64.2800 ! 16.0000 0.5541 -3.6819 0.0252 0.4409 C( )I':FF. 1.0000 0.0071 O. 1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0569 O. I'/X0 1.0000 ..... CAI.CUI.ATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRiI'S ........... CALCULATIONS FOR COMMU'FE TRIPS ...... ..... 'J'olaJ Trips Including Those induced by I ISR ........... Trips and Revenues by Modes ...... W/O IISI{ W/O IISR W/O IISR W/O IISR W/IISI{ W/IISR W/IISR W/IISR YEAR i'O1' EMI' . IMl'(air) IMP(grd) TRIi'S/i)Y TRII'S/YR MODE MKTSIIR TP, IPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV$/YR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV$/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 , 0.0041 392 117,518 18,802,827 I'rojccl 1,3'lO, IO0 6,684,800 -15.4590 -2.8670 94,621 28,386,333 AUTO 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5302 50,164 15,049,068 AM'I'RAK 0.0-138 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0248 2,348 704,527 10,567,90~ C()I£FF. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117 IISR 0.4409 41,717 12,5.151220 361,376,9'/7 TOTAL 1.0000 35,631 10,689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 AKITRAK ~nlains/bntrak buses aqd Grcyhou,ld huscs. I Ti,ne via IISR = 16.65% C:\CilL~BAKEi lligh Speed Rail Patronage Forecas ween Los Angeles and Bakersfield · Alt.: w4 .. .....MARKET SIIARES MODEL WITilOlYr iilOll SPEED RAIL ...... MOi)E CONST INCOME FREQ LII COST A/E COST LIITIME A/ETIME DISTNCE AET/DIST t~'ILI'I'Y EXP(V) I(mode) fl~eta *i EXP(fl~¢*i) SIIARE AIR -12.5571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 10.0000 45.0000 90.0000 120.0000 0.7500 -15.3188 0.0000 -15.3188 -7.1477 0.0008 0.0059 AtfFO .0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 120.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.3936 0.0336 0.9503 AMTRAK* -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.0000 2.0000 140.0000 55.0000 116.0000 0.4741 -6.4707 0.0015 -3.3485 -2.0208 0.1325 0.0438 COEFF. I..0000 0.0071 O. 1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0351 O. 1333 1.0000 ..... IdARKET SIIARES MODEL WITil IIlGI! SPEED RAIL ...... MODE CONST INCOME FREQ LII COST A/E COST LilTIME A/ETIME DISTNCE AET/DIST UTILITY EXP(V) I(mod¢) Ihcta* 1 EXP(Ihe* I) SIIARE AIR -12.5.571 34.2680 26.0000 160.0000 .10.0000 45.0000 96.7500 120.0000 0.7500 -15.4590 0.0000 -15.4.590 -7.2132 0.0007 0.0042 AUTO 0.OOO0 O.0000 0.0000 29.0000 5.0000 125.0000 5.0000 116.0000 0.0431 -3.4975 0.0303 0.5426 AMI'RAK -4.8421 0.0000 20.0000 15.OO00 2.0000 140.0000 59.2500 116.0000 0.4741 -6.5590 O.0014 -2.8903 -I.7443 0.1748 0.0254 IISR -4.8421 0.0000 27.0000 28.8750 2.0000 38.0000 65.6600 116.0000 0.5660 -3.7353 0.0239 0.4278 COEFF. 1.0000 0.0071 0.1881 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.0000 -2.0780 0.0556 0.1755 ' I.O000 ..... CAI.CULATIONS FOR COMMtYFE TRIPS ........... CAI.CULATIONS FOR COMMUTE TRIPS ..... ..... Tolal Trips Including 'l]los¢ Induced by I ISR ........... Trips a,sd Revere,es by Modes ...... W/O IISR W/O ilSR W/O IISR W/O iiSR W/IISR WI IISR WI IISR W/IISR YEAR POP EMP IMP(air) IMP(grd) TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR MODE MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPSP;R REV $/YR MKTSIIR TRIPS/DY TRIPS/YR REV $/YR 1991 584,100 3,982,700 -15.3188 -3.3485 35,631 10,689,300 AIR 0.0059 210 63,066 10,090,518 0.0042 397 118,970 19,035,221 I'~ojecl 1,310,100 6,684,800 .15.4590 -2.8903 94,459 28,337,757 Al. fl'O 0.9503 33,860 10,158,036 0.5426 51,255 15,376,402 AMTRAK 0.0438 1,561 468,198 7,022,967 0.0254 2,400 719,851 10,797,769 COF. FF. 1.0000 0.2645 -0.1058 -0.2117' liSR 0.4278 40,408 12,122,533 350,038,155 TOTAl, 1.0000 35~63_1.___1_0:689,300 17,113,485 1.0000 94~459 28,337t757 379,87!tl44 * AM'I'I~AK mode conlains Amlr~k b,ses and Greyhou,~d buses. Access Time in Ilakersfiled / Tolal 'travel Time via IISR = 17.76% ~'~..· DRAFT · .q. FIRST SCREENING REPORT PART 2 January 17, 2002 ransPortation U.S. Department of Transportation' Federal Railroad .:~::~.~:.:; :' ;tration Adminiatratlon :::.: .:..~:~.. ..... i! ^i::' Cafifomia High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS. DRAFT First Screening Report Part 2 Prepared by: California Hiqh-Speed Rail Authority January 17, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Z.0 I'NTRODUCTZON ............................................................................... ... I 1.0 SACRAMENTO-TO-BAKERSFIELD ......................................................... 3 1.1 SACRAMENTO-TO-STOCKTON .................................................. : ......................................4 1.1.1 Alignment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation ...................... 4 1.1.2 Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated .............................. 4 1.2 STOCKTON-lO- MODESTO .............................................................................................. 8 1.2.1 Alignment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation ...................... 8 1.2.2 Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated .............................. 1(~ 1.3 MODESTO-TO- MERCED ................................................................................................. 12 1.3.1 Alignment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation ..................... 12 1.3.2 Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated .............................. 12 1.4 MERCED-TO- FRESNO ................................................................................................... 15 1.4.1 Alignment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation ..................... 15 1.4.2 Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated .............................. 17 1.5 FRESNO-TO-TULARE .................................................................................................... 19 1.5.1 Alignment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation ..................... 19 1:5.2 Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated .............................. 21 1.6 TULARE-TO- BAKERSFIELD ............................................................................................. 23 1.6.1 Alignment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation ..................... 23 1.6.2 Alignment and station Location Options to be Eliminated .............................. 25 1.7 BAKERSFIELD-TO-LOS ANGELES CONNECTIONS ................................................................... 25 1.7.1 Alignment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation ..................... 25 1.7.2 Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated .............................. 28 1.8 SACRAMENTO-TO-BAKERSFIELD CORRIDOR OVERVIEW ......................................................... 30 U.S. Department Table of Contents of Transpor~t~on Fedex! Railroad Administration California High-Speed Train Program EIR/FTS Draft First So'eening Report INTRODUCTION In its Business Plan~ adopted in .lune 2000, t~e California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) recommended that the state proceed with implementation of a statewide high-speed train system by initiating the formal state and federal environmental review process through preparation of a state program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a federal Tier ! Environmental !mpact Statement (EIS) or Program E!R/E!S. The Authority is the state lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the federal lead agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the Program E!R/E!S, a number of project alternatives will be evaluated including a High-Speed Train Alternative. Within the High-Speed Train Alternative, there is a range of high-speed train alignments and station locations to be considered. To carry out the engineering and environmental work needed for the program environmental process, the state network has been divided into five regions: Bay Area-Herced, Sacramento-Bakersfield, Bakersfield-Los Angeles, Los Angeles-San Diego via the !nland Empire, and Los Angeles-Orange County-San Diego (see Figure 1). The purpose of the Higl~Speed Train Alignments/Stations Screening Evalualion is to consider all reasonable and practical options within all corridors being investigated by the Authority at a consistent level of analysis. This initial alignment and station evaluation has been accomplished through the following key activities: · Review of past alignment and station options identified in previous studies. · Throughout the environmental scoping process, identify alignment and station options not previously evaluated. · ,, Evaluation of alignment and station options using standardized engineering, environmental, and financial criteria and evaluation methodologies. · Identification of the alignment and station options ability to attain defined objectives. Preliminary results from the High-Speed Train AJignments/Stations Screening Evaluation for the Sacramento-Bakersfield region were presented to the Authority at the September 19, 2001 board meeting in Los Angeles. The technical data from these reports, combined with public and agency input has provided the Authority the necessary information to direct further studies for the Program EIR/EIS on those alignments, and station locations, and high-speed train systems which represent a reasonable range of alternatives which could attain the following objectives established by the Authority: · Na~Jmize Ridership/Revenue Potential · Maximize Connectivity and Accessibility · Minimize Operating and Capital Costs · Maximize Compatibility with Existing and Planned Development · Minimize Impacts to Natural Resources · Minimize Impacts to Social and Economic Resources · Minimize !mpacts to Cultural Resources · Maximize Avoidance of Areas with Geological and Soils Constraints · Maximize Avoidance of Areas with Potential Hazardous Materials The ETR/E!S must review a range of reasonable alternatives which could feasibly respond to the purpose and need for the project, or stated another way, could feasibly accomplish most of the project objectives while reducing expected environmental impacts. z C. alifomia High-Speed Rail Authority. Building a High-Speed Train System for California, Rnal Business Plan..June 2000. U.S. Department Page of Transportation Federal Railroad Admin;~, --~on California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS Draft First Screening Report Public scoping meetings and consultation with other public agencies have helped the Authority to identify the potential environmental impacts to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS and to identify a broad range of potential alternatives to the proposed system. Following the scoping process, screening is the process by which the Authority and the FRA will determine which alternatives should be removed from further consideration and which alternatives will receive detailed review in the EIR/EIS. This process involves reviewing the broad range of alternatives which was identified and reducing the alternatives to those that represent a range of the most reasonable and feasible means of responding to the objectives, purpose and need for the project. These are the alternatives which will received detailed consideration in the EIR/E[S. This process also involves removing from further consideration those alternatives which, due to significant technical, environmental, and/or economic factors, would not serve to reasonably and feasibly meet the objectives, purpose and need for the proposed high speed rail system. The screening report serves to document the significant reasons for removing certain alternatives from further consideration. U.S. Department Page 2 of Transl3ortation F~eral Railroad Administration California High-Speed Train Program EIR/E~S Draft First Screening Report 1.0 SACRAMENTO- BAKERSFIELD CORR/DOR Sacramento-to-Bakersfield Overview The alignments investigated during b~e initial screening are comprised of existing rail corridors, the Union Pacific (UP) and. the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) for the entire corridor and the Central California Traction (cc-r) from Sacramento-to-Stockton, and two new rail alignments one to the west of State Highway 99 (W99) and one to the east of State Highway 99 (E99). For the existing rail corridor alignments, it is assumed that, between Sacramento and Bakersfield, the high-speed train system would operate on additional right-of-way adjacent or very near to the existing rail corridor, would not share use of track, and would only in rare instances share right-of-way with the existing freight railroads. Being adjacent to an existing rail corridor would facilitate serving Central Valley downtown station locations while minimizing impacts on agricultural lands and limiting the segmentation of land parcels. Although the alignment generally follows existing rail corridors, in some instances the alignment may need to diverge from the rail corridor. Such a divergence may be proposed for several reasons, including to avoid impacting a community along the route, to connect to a proposed station site, or to switch between the individual rail alignments in order to connect the segments of the system. An additional variation to be considered for some downtown station alternatives, where there would be speed restrictions and/or considerable impacts to a community by running high-speed through trains in the urban area, is the "Express Loop" option. The "Express Loop" would allow for service to an urban station location on a two-track stopping track, on an existing rail alignment, and two through express tracks - permitting maximum speed operations - will be routed on a new rail alignment around constrained urban areas. Creating a new transportation corridor for the W99 or the E99 would require cutting through mostly agricultural lands roughly two to five miles from State Highway 99. In most instances these alignments would best serve outlying "greenfield" suburban station locations at a distance from population concentrations and would likely lead to increased development in the immediate station area. Additionally, these alignments would result in potentially severe impacts to agricultural lands a nd segmentation of existing, parcels. The scoping comments received from federal, state, regional and local agencies as well as the general public strongly support the concept of locating a proposed high-speed train system along an existing rail corddor to the greatest extent possible. Conversely these same entities oppose the creation of a new transportation corridor and new "greenfield" station sites in undeveloped areas through the Central Valley. Coupling the benefits of being adjacent to an existing rail corridor with the scoping comments the Authority will continue further evaluation of existing rail corridors and eliminate the new rail alignment options and the outlying stations associated with those alignments as alternatives for the Sacramento-to- Bakersfield corridor. Further analyses and detailed comparisons are provided on a segment-by-segment basis in the remainder of this report. The initial analyses for the Sacramento-to-Bakersfield corridor was conducted for the following seven segments: · Sacramento-to-Stockton · Stockton-to-Modesto · Modesto-to-Merced · Merced-to-Fresno U.S. Department of TransportaUon Page 3 Fede~l Railroad Admini$1ration California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS Draft First Screening Report Figure 1-1 Sacramento-to- Bakersfie Id Segments LEGEND 60 0 60 120 Miles ....... N ~,',:r.; 100 0 100 200 Kilometers ". ~..T~ , ~. I · .... U.S. Department : Page o! TranspoMation Federal Railroad California High-Speed Train Program L~R/EIS Draft First Screening Report :1.6 Tulare-to-Bakersfield :1.6.:1 A!iqnment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation Based on information obtained through the initial evaluation, the following alignment and station location options are recommended for further evaluation (see Figure 1-12): Alionments: · Ui~. This potential alignment extends south from the proposed VJsalJa Airport station location to Bakersfield. The UP alignment has the most direct link to Bakersfield with the highest ridership and revenue potential and maximizes connectivity and accessibility. It also maximizes compatibly with existing and planned deVelopment and best serves the preferred Visalia station site and the preferred station locations in Bakersfield depending on the connection to Los Angeles. However it does impact the communities along the alignment therefore a divergence from the UP line to bypass these communities maybe an option to mitigate these impacts. · BNSF; This potential alignment extends south from the proposed downtown Hartford station site to Bakersfield. The BNSF alignment would serve a downtown Hanford station site with a connection to the proposed Bakersfield Truxton Station site. This potential alignment traverses a fairly unpopulated agricultural area with minimal impacts to social and economic resources as well as natural and cultural resources. · UP/BNSF: This potential alignment extends south from the proposed Visalia Airport station location to just north of Bakersfield where the UP veers the southeast the alignment will continue south on a new rail alignment where it will converge with the BNSF into Bakersfield. The UP/BNSF alignment also has the highest ridership and revenue potential and maximizes connectivity and accessibility. It also maximizes compatibly with existing and planned development and best serves the Visalia station site however this variation of the UP alignment provides the best connection to the proposed Truxton station site with a SR-58 connection into the Antelope Valley. However the UP portion of this alignment may impact the communities along the route therefore a divergence from the UP line to bypass these communities maybe an option to mitigate these impacts. Stations: · Visalia Airport: This potential station site is located along the UP route near the junction of SR 99 and SR 198 at the Visalia Airport thus maximizing connectivity as well as the maximizing the ridership and revenue potential while minimizing environmental impacts. This centralized site best serves the population of Tulare and Kings counties. Additionally this site is the preferred site of the City of Visalia and supported by the County of Tulare. · Hartford: This potential station site is located along the BNSF alignment in the vicinity of the existing Amtrak station in Hanford. The Hanford station site has minimal impacts on social and economic resources as well as natural and cultural resources. U.S. Department Page ;23 of TransportalJon Federal Railroad Administration ~:California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS Draft First screening Report Ahgnments tn be Evak~ated 0 StaL~q Local~or6 to be Evaluate~ Alignment and Station Lo~Uonl to be Evaluated Tulare Stationt Draff First Scleemng Repot1 us. Depaftmenl Page 24 of Transportation Federal Railroad California High-Speed Train Program L~R/EIS Draft First Screening Report 1.6.2 Aliqnment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated (No Further Evaluation) Based on information obtained through the initial evaluation, the following alignment and station location options are recommended to be eliminated from further evaluation (see Figure 1-13): Aliqnments: · W99: This potential new alignment is west of SR 99 and extends south from Tulare toward Bakersfield. The new rail corridor through farmlands would have a considerable impact on agricultural lands and natural resources. · E99: This potential alignment is considerably east of downtown Visalia and extends south from a station site east of Visalia toward Bakersfield. The E99 alignment would have considerable agricultural and environmental impacts, serves U~e fewest riders and has poor connectivity and accessibility. Stations: · Tulare West: This potential station site is located along the W99 alignment at a point where SR crosses the alignment. This site would only serve the W99 alignment that staff recommends be eliminated from further evaluation. This site would not have as good connectivity and accessibility as the Visalia Airport site, and as a "greenfield" site it would have more environmental impacts, particularly to agricultural lands. · Tulare Airport: This potential station site is located on the UP however it does not provide the ridership and revenue potential that the Visalia Airport option does nor does it offer the same level of connectivity and accessibility. · Tulare East County: This potential station site is located on the E99 alignment which staff is recommending to be eliminated from further evaluation. This station is far from the center of the region's population and would have the least connectivity and accessibility and ridership and revenue potential. This "Greenfield" site would have the greatest impacts on natural resources in particular on agricultural lands. 1.7 Bakersfield-to-LA Connectors 1.7.1 Aliqnment and Station Location Options for Further Evaluation' Based on information obtained through the initial evaluation, the following alignment and station location options are recommended for further evaluation (see Figure 1-14): Alianments: · Bakersfield Station to :~5 Connector: This alignment extends east along UP from a Bakersfield station location, south along State Route 184 (SR184)/Wheeler Ridge Road, and generally follows the [-5 to the base of the Tehachapi Mountains were it connects with the Bakersfield-to-Los Angeles corridor. U.S. Department Page 25 of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration California High-Speed Train Program E[R/E1~S Draft First Screening Report · Bakersfield Station to ]:5 via Comanche Point Connector: This alignment diverges from the SR-18,~/Wheeler Ridge Road heading south-southeast to Comanche Point to the base of the Tehachapi Mountains were it connects with the Bakersfield-to-Los Angeles corridor. · Bakersfield Station to ]:5 or Comanche Point Connector via Union Avenue: This alignment extends south along Union Avenue from a Bakersfield station location, to point south of the urban area where, depending on the alignment crossing the Tehachapi Mountains, would either continue south generally following the [-5 or heading southeast to Comanche Point. · Bakersfield Station to SR-58 Connector: This alignment extends from a Bakersfield station location along SR-58 east from Bakersfield were it connects with the Bakersfield-to-Los Angeles corridor. All of the alignments from a Bakersfield station to the connection to the Tehachapi crossings are all viable options. Further investigation of these alignments is contingent on the decisions made for the Bakersfield to Los Angeles corridor. Stations: · Truxton: This potential downtown station site is located just east of the new Amtrak station in downtown Bakersfield near Truxton Avenue and R Street. This proposed site maximizes the ridership and revenue potential, connectivity and accessibility, and is compatible with existing and planned development while minimizing impacts to natural and cultural resources. The Truxton site is one of three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the BNSF or BNSF/UP alignment options from the north, and serves the [5 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor. · Golden State: This potential downtown station site is located along the existing UP route that parallels Golden State Avenue in the northern part of downtown Bakersfield. This proposed site maximizes ridership and revenue potential while minimizing the impacts to social and economic resources. This Golden State site is one of three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the UP alignment from the north, and serves the [5 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor. · Bakersfield Airport: This potential station site is located along the existing on the UP route just west of SR 99 and south of 7th Standard Road, which is planned for freeway expansion. This proposed site is compatible with existing and planned development while minimizing the impacts on natural, social, economic and cultural resources. The Bakersfield Airport site is one of three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the UP alignment from the north, and serves the [5 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor. 1.7.2 Station Location Options to be Eliminated (No Further Evaluation) Based on information obtained through the initial evaluation, the following station location options are recommended to be eliminated from further evaluation (see Figure Stations: · Bakersfield West: This potential station site is located on the W99 alignment in the general vicinity of Stockdale Highway and Nord Avenue. This site would only serve the W99 alignment that staff recommends be eliminated from further investigation. This "greenfield" site would have the greatest U.S: Department ; Page 27 of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration California High-Speed Train Program FTR/EIS Draft First Screening Report · impacts on natural resources in particular on agricultural lands and would have the least connectivity and accessibility and ridership and revenue potential. · Bakersfield East: This potential station site is located along the UP Tehachapi route toward Mojave and would serve only the SR-58 alignment option into the Antelope Valley. This site is a considerable distance from downtown Bakersfield resulting in reduced ridership, poor connectivity and incompatibility with existing or planned development. · Bakersfield South: This potential station site is located along the W99 alignment at a location west of the SR 99 Freeway and south of Taft Highway. This site would only serve the W99 alignment that staff recommends be eliminated from further investigation. This proposed site is located away from the planned growth resulting in poor connectivity and accessibility with reduced ridership and revenue potential. · Old Amtrak Station: This alignment is located along the BNSF route near freight yards just south of Truxton Avenue near K Street and Chester Avenue. This potential site is not compatible with existing and planned development and is subject to more freight rail interaction than the Truxton and Golden State station sites. 1.8 Sacramento-to-Bakersfield Corridor Overview 1.8.1 Sacramento-to- Bakersfie~a Figure 1-16 illustrates the alignment and station locations recommended for elimination for the entire corridor. Figure 1-17 illustrates the alignment and station locations recommended for further evaluation for the entire corridor. California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS Draft First Screening Report U.S. Department Page 29 of Transportation Federal Railroad Adminis~'aUon California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS Draft First Screening Report U.S. Depa~'tmelll of Transporlalion Page Federal Railroad AdministraUon California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS ~P ~c~n~ ~ Bak~fieM ~aff Fi~t Sc~mg R~ Cati~mia High-Speed Tram P~r~ EIdErS Figu~ 1-16 u.s. Depar[ment Page of Transportation Fedm-al Railroad Administration California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS u.s. oepartment Page32 of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration CIIAIRMAN Frederick Prince March 14. 200 I PRESIDENT Cathy Butler I lonorable Members TREASURER Couuty of Kern Board of Supervisors and Uichael Russo City of Bakersfield Council Members SECRETARY ilerman Ruddell The Downtown Business Association is pleased lo express ils support fi'ir a PAST PRESIDENT I)owntown High-Speed Rail Station for Bakersfield. The DBA has long J PhllipBenlley supporled a Downtown station location; a site included in Colonel Baker's BOARD OF OIRECTORS Field, the next 100 years, the DBA's study of recommendations for &rryaarono~ski infilstructure and plan for Downtown growth and 'development completed 0' Philip Bemley some six years ago. Brian Collins lngeSterMoland ~ Moorhouse The DBA urges tile County to join with the City and together endorse Robert Mowis Downtown as the preferred location for a Bakersfield High-Speed Rail Frederick Prince Stat it) n. Ken Reed Larry Raider The DBA urges the City to join with tile County and Iogelher support the Herman Ruddell Michael Russa Coun. ty's desire for a Pahndale alignment with service to eastern Kern Dee Slade Cotllily. LIAISONS Sue a,nlmm The DBA further nrges both tile City and Cotinty lo jointly work t0gelber to COUNC,-Wo.^. secure a High-Speed Rail maintenance facility near tile greater metropolitan ~-o w^.o llakersfield area. Such a facility would provide a significant number of very Shlr~. O~enpo,-t good .jobs lo our local economy. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Siucerely, ~ess and l'roperty Owners k./ Fred Prince, Chairman Calhy Butler, President 2000 "K" SOeet #120 - Bakerefield, CA 93301 Phone (661) 325-~862 Fax# (661) 326-7319 dba.cllcktoJam.com eqnall address: !hedbal.~.lUU9 corn ADMINIST TIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 I AGENDA SECTION: Business Item I ITEM: 7.B. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council and Board of Supervisors APPROVED FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD C//~.~. DATE: March 11, 2002 CITY ATTORNEY ~...~ CITY MANAGER ~..~ SUBJECT: Use of Portion of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds for major roadway rehabilitation projects. RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: The Problem The City of Bakersfield, like many other cities throughout the United States, has a large backlog of deferred maintenance on its roadways. Simply put, rehabilitation needs far outpace revenues each and every year. Currently, the City receives approximately $6 million per year that can be used for roadway maintenance. Of this amount, $4 million comes from State gas tax and the remaining $2 million from Federal gas tax. The amount of revenue necessary to merely keep up with routine maintenance totals more than $15 million per year. As a result, the backlog of roadway rehabilitation has grown to more than $80 million and continues to grow each year. Much of this backlog occurs on our major streets (arterials and collectors) where the majority of traffic travels. Initial proposed use of 10% funds Last June, the City requested that 10% of our STIP funds be reprogrammed for rehabilitation projects within Metropolitan Bakersfield. Based upon an initial budget of $145 million, 10% would have generated approximately $14 million within Metropolitan Bakersfield. Of that amount, about $8 million would have gone towards major roadways within Bakersfield city limits with the remaining funds going to Kern County. In addition to the odginal request, the City also requested that 10% of any future STIP dollars within the Metro- Bakersfield share also be programmed for rehabilitation projects. This initial proposal was never acted upon by KernCOG. Conversion of Kern River Freeway into Westside Parkway Subsequent to the City's initial request of 10% STIP funding for roadway rehabilitation, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern jointly approved Bakersfield System Study Alternative 15 which converted State Route 58 (Kern River Freeway) into a local facility we now call the Westside Parkway. This action bw March 11,2002, 2:32pm G:\GR OU P DATV~,DMIN R PT~.002Wlarchl 1,2002.wpd resulted in a $25 million savings from the right of way portion of the project. Since the right of way portion is budgeted in the current fiscal year, these savings could be applied to projects immediately. Proposal First, the City is requesting that some funding dedicated to the urban share be moved from savings realized on the Westside Parkway to badly needed rehabilitation projects. Since it is from the urban share and the County agrees on a formula, the proposal does not impact any other iudsdiction financially. Since the money is savings resulting from the Kern River Freeway becoming a Parkway that required less right-of-way, the funds are already in the account. Because the newly defined project is less costly than the old, the request does not ever slow down the capital building project. Because the right-of-way monies are already available to us, the funds should be immediately available to us on KemCOG and CTC approval. The City is making this request to deal with the very real and difficult problems on our artedal streets. The VVestside Parkway can remain the number one pdodty and stay on schedule since this is from savings in the project cost. Simply put, we request a one time allocation of $20 million from project savings to be used for major roadway rehabilitation within Metropolitan Bakersfield. This will provide approximately $12 million for Bakersfield and $8 million for Kern County based upon a proportionate share of population. Additionally, this proposal was presented at a meeting of City Managers within Kern County on Friday, March 8, 2002. By unanimous vote, the proposal to re-allocate the above savings were approved by the City Manage¢s group. Recommendation: We, therefore recommend the City and County approve the one time diversion of project savings from the Westside Parkway into Rehabilitation projects within Metro-Bakersfield. bw March 11,2002, 2:32pm G:\G ROU PDAT~ADMI N R P'152002~vlarch 11,2002.wpd ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 J AGENDA SECTION: -.Business It;em I I ITEM: 7.C. TO: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Board of Supervisors FROM: Development Services - Planning DEPARTMENT HEAD~___~ DATE: March 5, 2002 CITY A'I'rORNE/Y~~ CITY MANAGER! SUBJECT: 2010 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: Accept the draft update and endorse the process for adoption. BACKGROUND: The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern are jointly updating the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopted in 1990. Substantial changes in population, state and local laws and development patterns necessitated the need to "freshen up" the text and land use map to accurately reflect the current development environment. An environmental consultant, RBF, was retained to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. City and County staff completed a review of the Administrative Draft EIR on March 4, 2002. The start of the 45-day public review period is expected to begin in April 2002. Changes to the general plan text were made in two primary categories: 1) Changes to make the text accurate, reflect actual conditions, and 2) To include relevant Vision 2020 polic!es, as endorsed by City Council and Board of Supervisors. Changes to the land use map are focused on the inclusion of those large county land use approvals made in the 1990's (McAIlister Ranch, Western Rosedale Specific Plan, Coberly-Etcheverry Ranch Specific Plan). All of these changes are necessary to achieve the goal of having a common Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Jointly adopting this provides for cooperative, integrated decision-making on planning goals for a project area of more than 400 square miles with a population of 400,000 people. The draft text and land use map are now complete and will be the subject of a public workshop on March 21,2002. City and County staff will conduct this workshop to introduce the overall project and public hearing process to those interested. March 6, 2002, 2:25pm ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page2 Public meetings after this workshop will be "joint" city/county meetings with both jurisdictions' Planning Commissions presiding. This spring, there will be the first such meeting on the Draft EIR and later this summer there will be the second meeting, a hearing on the "project" (general plan text and land use map). Once the Planning Commissions have completed their work, there are a variety of options to process the "update." Staff recommends the following, depending on whether there are outstanding issues from Planning Commissioner deliberations. If there are outstanding issues which could not be resolved by the Planning Commissions, then joint hearings by the Board of Supervisors and City Council would be scheduled. If there are no outstanding issues, the general plan update will be brought to the City Council and Board of Supervisors as routine hearings for adoption at their regularly scheduled meetings. The 2010 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update is available in the City Clerk's office for review. MG:pjt (admin~mar~3-20-2010) March 7, 2002, 8:20am ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING'DATE: March18'2002 IAGENDA sEcTION: Business I1;emITEM: 7.D. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: March11,.2002 CITY A'R'ORNEY CITY MANAGER ,/~ SUBJECT: Report on Kern County Museum-"History for the Future" RECOMMENDATION: Council and Board of Supervisor's determination BACKGROUND: The Kern County Museum is beginning a fundraising effort called "History for the Future" campaign. Representatives from the museum will report to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors on the status of the fundraising effort and the projects they hope to complete with the funds. Attached is material from the museum website related to the fundraising effort. kcMuseum · History for the Future Page 1 of 2 .~m. History for the Future Information Tour The Park EducationExhibits Programs ~ planphase o complete for of long-term the the Museum initial Campaign Funding Objectives Calendar Of Events development, the Foundation Board Oil Exhibition & Building $4,000,000 Capital Campaign has organized a $9 million History Museum Store for the Future Campaign. The Membership campaign seeks $7.5 million for · New 9,900-sq.-ft., state-of-the art interactive · Oil Exhibition to be housed in a new buildin~c Search capital projects and $1.5 million for endowment. Main Museum Building Remodeling $1,935,000 · Conversion of the building into a Visitor Cen · Installation of a Kern County Orientation Ext · New Entrance Plaza · Collection storage upgrades · New HVAC and exterior stucco restoration · Upgraded lighting, landscaping, and securit3 Grounds Infrastructure Improvements $625,000 · Historic lighting throughout the grounds · Upgraded irrigation system and utilities Thanks t°Proposition 12 funds and · Uniform signage and additional landscaping in-kind support for the Oil Exhibition, · Enhanced visitor services the Museum has already received · Upgraded Bandstand and Standard School ~ $4 million in capital support. This leaves $5 million to be raised: $3.5 million in capital funds and $1.5 Historic Buildings Restoration & Relocation$23~ million for the endowment. · Restoration of Howell House and yard · Relocation and restoration of Metcalf House The $1.5 million for endowment will · Stabilization of Pinkney House, Weill House help to provide a long-term source General Store and their relocation to of revenue to fund Museum programming and ensure financial appropriate thematic areas stability. Interest from the endowment, which the Museum will · Creation of furnishing plans for five houses seek to increase in future years, will help to support a variety of Mining Exhibition $120,000 initiatives such as enhanced programming for schoolchildren, · New exhibition including a restored Ten Stal expanded public education programs, improved collection care, Water & Agriculture Exhibition Design $100,000 http ://www.kcmuseum. org/capitalCampaign/history 3 / 13/2002 kcMuseum · History for the Future Page 2 of 2 continued collection acquisition, Lori Brock Children's Discovery Center Improve ongoing upgrading of the $85,000 Museum's historic structures and grounds, and the hiring of Administration & Professional Fees '$400,000 .. additional staff needed to accomplish the initiatives. Endowment $1,500,000 Total Campaign Goal $9,000,000 Less Funds Committed for Oil Exhibition -$4,000,0(~ Funds Remaining to Be Raised $5,000,000 Engineering for this site, provided by The Office of Larry E. Relder. Technical questions should be directed to Team. Copyright ©2002, Kern County Superintendent of Schools 1300 17th Street - CITY CENTRE, Bakersfie (661) 636-4000 http ://www;kcmuseum.org/capitalCampaign/history 3/13/2002 kcMuseum · Today's Challenge Page 1 of 2 .om. Today's Challenge Information Tour The Park. he Kern County Museum provides a .... ~ ................................................................................................................. Exhibits stimulating destination for generations Education Programs to share experiences in an engaging, Calendar Of Events educational, and historically dch setting. In doing Capitsl Campaign so, the Museum has amassed a distinguished Museum Store record of service. Memberahlp Search The Museum is accredited by the American Association of Museums --a distinction achieved by about only 750 museums nationwide. In addition, it is the most visited museum in the county, serving approximately 74,000 visitors annually, including 19,000 schoolchildren. :::.~~ ........ Calhoun Collins, a champion of Kern County h The Museum is consistently recognized for folkpalnting of Kern County Land Company providing some of the most outstanding educational programs in the state of California, such as What a Cowboy Knows, Native American Ufo, and the Museum High School program that has helped changed the lives of students needing a nontraditional academic environment. Colonel Baker's revolver Yet, the Museum has not yet reached its full potential. Much more could be done. More children could share in the exciting, educational history of Kem County. More people could experience the respected collection. Improved care could be given to the fragile artifacts entrusted to the Museum. The Museum must also address its pressing facility concems. A threshold has been reached in the Museum's ability to continue presenting the quality programming and exhibits the region has come to expect. Without new and enhanced Built in 1923 as the Bakersfield Chamber of Cor exhibits, facility upgrades, and additional human was later converted to house the Kern County I resources, the Museum will be severely restricted facility houses traveling exhibitions, which a in its ability to provide history for the future, increasing visitaion by 25%. Engineering for this site, provided by The Office of Larry E. Relder. Technical questions should be directed to http ://www.kcmuseum.org/capitalCampaign/today 3/13/2002 kcMuseum" Calendar Of Events Page 1 of 4 .omo Calendar Of Events Information Tour The Park Produce for Victory Exhibits Exhibit Dates: January 27, 2002 - March 31, 2002 Education Programs This Smithsonian exhibit traces the evolution of the poster dudng Calendar Of Events World War II and its function mobilizing and maintaining stateside Capital Campaign support for the war effort. Museum Store Membership Home Front Kern Search Exhibit Dates: January 27, 2002 - December, 2002 A companion to Produce for Victory, this exhibition will look at World War II from a Kern County perspective. Military uniforms, a wedding dress, medals and magazines ars just a few of the artifacts that will compose this exhibit. Native American Arts Association Meeting Date: Thursdays, 9:00AM - 12:00PM The Native American Arts Association meets every Thursday at the Kern County Museum from 9:00AM - 12:00PM PST. This is your opportunity to learn basketry, beadwork or other crafts. For more information please contact Jackie at (661) 852-5050. Endangered Species of Califomia's Central Valley Exhibit Dates: April 6, 2002 - January 6, 2003 There are many plants and animals that are disappearing rapidly here in Califomia. This award -winning educational exhibit is filled with sights, sounds, and interactive experiences designed for visitors of all ages and abilities. This exhibit provides information on how we can help endangered species in our state through a fun, hands-on experience. What A Cowboy Knows - "A Celebration of Western History" Event Date: Saturday, April 13, 2002 Hours: 10:00am - 4:00pm All you hOmbres will want to be on hand for a day fight out of the old wild west with reenactments of western style shootouts, riding and roping demonstrations, entertainment, cowboy poetry, crafts and trade demonstrations and wagon rides for the whole family to enjoy. A parade around the museum grounds of horse drawn vehicles and mounted riders will be held at 11:00am. Old fashioned vittles will be available. Admission prices $10.00 for Adults, $5.00 for children 3 to 12, children under 3 are free. For more http://www.kcmuseum.org/calendar 3/13/2002 kcMuseum · Calendar Of Events page 2 of 4 information contact La Wana Whitley at (661) 852-5012. Wine Fest 2002 Event Date: Friday, April 19, 2002 Wine tasting featuring a vadety of premium wines along with hor d'oeuvers and a unique silent auction. Advance reservations required. Tickets for this event are $35.00 per person. Table sponsorships are available. Muscle Car Show Event Date: Saturday, May 11, 2002 Annual All American powered car show. Sponsored by Mopar Muscle Club International of Bakersfield. The day includes entertainment, contests and show & shine. Hours 10:00am -4:00pm, regular admission rates, members free. Proceeds benefit The Kern County Museum and other local charities. For entry information contact Lloyd at (805) 399-8784 Old Time Peddlers' Fairs Event Date: Saturday and Sunday, June I and 2, 2002 Hours: Saturday 10:00am -5:00pm, Sunday 9:00 am - 3:00pm Admission: $5.00 per person, museum members free A weekend of shopping for antiques and collectibles. Sponsored by Central Park Antique Mall. For vendor information contact Mark Bianchi (661) 324 - 8018 Shout It Out School Is Out Event Date: Saturday, June 15, 2002 Hours: 12:00 noon - 3:00pm. Admission is free. A party for kids finishing the school year, with games, food, and prizes presented by Radio Disney. Fun Day Event Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 Hours: 9:00am - 1:00pm Family Fun Days are held over the summer as an affordable event for large families and child-care providers. Crafts, educational booths, and tons of fun for kids. The cost of admission is $5 for groups of ten or fraction thereof. Pioneer*Day Event Date: Saturday, July 20, 2002 Hours: 10:00am - 3:00pm Admission is free. A day of old fashioned fun, games, entertainment and food geared for the whole family. Sponsored by the Church of Jesus Chdst of Latter Day Saints. Fun Day Event Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2002 Hours: 9:00am - 1:00pm Family Fun Days are held over the summer as an affordable event for large families and child-care providers. Crafts, educational booths, and http://www.kcmuseum.org/calendar 3/13/2002 kcMuseum · Calendar Of Events Page 3 of 4 ' tons of fun for kids. The cost of admission is $5 for groups of ten or fraction thereof. Book Blast 2002 Event Date: Saturday, August 10, 2002 Hours: 10:00am - 12:00pm Kem County kids are invited to celebrate summer reading. There will be celebrity readers, arts and crafts writing workshops, clowns, magicians and plenty of fun. There will be a drawing for great prizes. Sponsored by the Kern Reading Association and CBS Channel 29. Please call 589 - 0750 for more information. Annual Summer Social Event Date: Friday, August 23, 2002 Hours: 6:00pm - 11:00pm Sponsored by the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. Barbecue, entertainment and dancing under the stars. For ticket information contact the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce at (661) 327-4421. Disney Back To School Event Date: Saturday, August 24, 2002 Hours: 10:00am - 1:00pm Join us to kick off the new school year at the historic Pioneer Village! Businesses will be on display handing out promotional items and educating parents and children on safety issues in an outdoor carnival- like setting. There will be tons of entertainment, safety demonstrations, a bounce house, a clown, dancers, games, and back to school prizes! Admission is free. For more info call 852 - 5000. Brews In The Village Event Date: Saturday, September 7, 2002 Hours: 6:00pm -.11:00pm Bakersfield's Original Microbrew experience. Taste over 100 different brews from an estimated 50 breweries. Plus - unlimited food tasting from some of Bakersfield's best restaurants. Tickets are available at all Vallitix locations, or charge by phone at 1-888-VALLITIX. Proceeds from this fundraising event go to benefit Childrens' Advocates Resource Endowment (CARE) and the Kern County Museum. For more information check out the Brews web site at www.bakersfieldbrews.com Fun In The Sun Event Date: Sunday, September 15, 2002 Hours: 10:00am - 4:00pm The Vintage LTD Car Club of Bakersfield will be holding their 22nd annual Fun In The Sun car show on the grounds of the museum. Over 150 Cars, dating pre-1959, will be on hand to show you what nostalgia is all about. There will be a Tri-Tip BBQ for the participants, commemorative t-shirts, prizes, drawings, and fun for the whole family. Contact Dick Howells at (661) 834-1100 or Doug Higgins at (661).832- 6975 for more information. http://www.kcmuseum.org/calendar 3/13/2002 kcMuseum · Calendar Of Events Page 4 of 4 Safe Halloween Event Date: Wednesday, October 30th and Thursday, October 31st Hours 5:30pm - 9:00pm Dozens of local businesses and organizations sponsor trick or treat stops on the grounds of the museum. Other activities include art and costume contests and a childrens carnival. Tickets should be purchased in advance; this event always sells out. Ticket prices are $5.00 per person. Hanging of the Greens Event Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Hours: 5:00pm - 8:00pm 4th Annual 'Hanging of the Greens' Join Museum staff, local businesses, groups and organizations as they get in the spirit of the season with an evening of old fashioned fun and holiday decorating. We will hang wreaths and garlands, pine cones and bows to decorate the museumgrounds for our upcoming Holiday Lamplight Tours. Enjoy the lighting of the clocktower, as enormous wreaths are hung from its railings and lit to signal the beginning of our holiday season. This lighting ceremony carries on a tradition from the 1930's, when the clocktower was on 17th and Chester in downtown Bakersfield. If you would like more information about participation in this event, please contact Elizabeth Gilson, Weekend & Events Assistant at 852-5000 Lamplight Tours Event Date: Saturday, December 7, 2002 Hours: 3:00pm - 8:00pm Festive decorations on'the museum grounds and buildings will set the mood for you to celebrate the season in old-fashioned style. Costumed interpreters share local history with visitors, to the sounds of strolling minstrels, carolers, bell choirs and more. Nearly 100 old-fashioned lanterns will light the museum grounds making it a beautiful place to start your holiday celebration. Food & Drink will be available for purchase. Regular admission rates apply. Activities will include: · Crafts & Trades of the Past · Handbell Choirs · Strolling Carolers · Carriage Rides · Tour of the Museum's Historic Vehicle Collection Engineering for this site, provided by The Office of Larry E. Reider. Technical questions should be directed to the KCSOS Web Team. Copyright 02002, Kern County Superintendent of Schools 1300 17th Street. CITY CENTRE, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 (661) 636-4000 tittp://www.kcmuseum.org/calendar ' 3/13/2002 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 I AGENDA SECTION: Bus'iness Item I ITEM: 7.E. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD ~,_ DATE: March 11,2002 CITY A'I'rORNEY ~ CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: Airport Terminal at Meadows Field RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: In September 2000, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County' of Kern for a $2.5 million contribution to the new airport terminal. The MOU called for a reduction in the City's contribution if other state or federal grant funds were obtained in the future. Additional federal funding has been obtained for the terminal. It was anticipated that under the original agreement, the City contribution would be reduced from somewhere between $0 and $880,000. However, costs of the project have increased and the County would like the City to specify a minimum contribution. Discussions between the Airport Director and City Manager led to a joint recommendation that the amount not go below $1.5 million. At that level, the quality of the building should still be good. In October 2001, the City Council approve an amendment to the agreement which provided the City's contribution to be made only if the County awards a contract for construction within one year of the Amendment. The one-year term was provided as an incentive for the project to move forward. The amended agreement states that if no contract is awarded by the deadline, the City would have no financial obligation to the County for the terminal. To this point, for whatever reason, we have not received a signed copy of the amended agreement from the County. The source of the City's contribution will continue to be jail booking fee rebates from the State of California. The City's contribution is to be used for construction of the lobby, concessions, hold rooms, lobby traffic areas, and ticket areas in the terminal. AT/al March 13, 2002, 12:03pm S:~Admin Rpts~002\joint meeting airport terminal update.wpd · ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: October 24, 2001 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar. ITEM: 8. u. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD ./~7~ DATE: October 11,2001 CITY A'I'rORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement No. 00-240 with County of Kern for a Contribution to the New Airport Terminal at Meadows Field RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Amendment. BACKGROUND: In September 2000, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County of Kern for a $2.5 million contribution to the new airport terminal. The MOU called for a reduction in the City's contribution if other state or federal grant funds were obtained in the future. Additional federal funding has been obtained for the terminal. It is anticipated that under the original agreement, the City contribution would be reduced from somewhere between $0 and $880,000. However, costs of the project have increased and the County would like the City to specify a minimum contribution. Discussions between the Airport Director and City Manager led to a joint recommendation that the amount not go below $1.5 million. At that level, the quality of the building should still be good. Therefore, the City and County have agreed to reduce the City's commitment to $1.5 million for terminal construction. The amended agreement also provides for the City's contribution to be made only if the County awards a contract for construction within one year of this Amendment. The one-year term is provided as an incentive for the project to move forward. If no contract is awarded by the deadline, the City would have no financial obligation to the County for the terminal. The source of the City's contribution will continue to be jail booking fee rebates from the State of California. The City's contribution is to be used for construction of the lobby, concessions, hold rooms, lobby traffic areas, and ticket areas in the terminal. AT/al O~'t'ober 16, 2001, 4'.27prn S:~,dmin Rpts~001\Terminal 102401.wpd -.~ AGREEMENT NO... 00-240(1) AMENDMENT NO. I TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND COUNTY OF KERN RELATING TO CITY FUNDING OF A NEW AJRPORT TERMINAL AT MEADOWS FIELD THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 00-240 is made and entered into on , by and between the CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD, a charter city and municipal corporation, ("CITY' herein) and the COUNTY OF KERN, a political subdivision of the State of California ("COUNTY' herein). RECITALS WHEREAS, on September 11,2000, CITY and COUNTY entered into Agreement No. 00-240' ('the Agreement" herein), whereby CITY agreed' to help fund a new Kern County Airport Terminal at Meadows Field ('terminal" herein) in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; and WHEREAS, the Agreementprovided that in the eventCOUNTY received additional federal funding above that amount specified in the Agreement, the amount of CiTY funding would be reduced or eliminated; and WHEREAS, COUNTY has been granted, and .expects to receive, discretionary grants of federal funding in an amount greater than the amount specified in the Agreement, triggering the reduction in CITY agreed funding; and WHEREAS, CITY and COUNTY desire to amend the Agreement to establish a specific amount of CITY funding without the associated uncertainty of additional federal funding reduction of such funding and upon satisfaction of a specific condition; and NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and COUNTY agree to amend Agreement No. 00-240 as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 of Agreement No. 00-240, dated September 11,2000, is hereby amended in its entirety to read. as follows: 1. PAYMENT AND I, ISF. CITY agrees to pay COUNTY, subject to terms N~IDMENT NO. 1 TO MOU RELATING TO CiTY ~ OF ~..ADOW$ FIELD AIRPORT TERMINAL Page 1 of 3 and conditions set forth herein, the sum of One Million Five Hundred --~ Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) to assist with the construction of a new terminal for Meadows Field .Airport. 1.1 The primary source for this payment is jail booking fee rebates from the State of California. 1.2 CITY shall pay to COUNTY One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), with exceptions as set forth herein, on or about December 15, 2003, after the contract to construct the terminal has been awarded. 1.2.1 Should COUNTY fail to award the contract for construction of the terminal within twelve (12) months of the date of execution of this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 00-240, no payment of any kind shall be due from CITY, and CITY shall have no obligations whatsoever under this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 00-240. 1.3 CITY funds are to be used for construction of the lobby, concessions,.hold rooms, lobby traffic areas, and ticket areas of the terminal. 1.4 CITY shall deposit funds to be paid to COUNTY for terminal construction into a set aside account until the date for payment in 2003 after award of the contract for terminal construction. CITY may collect and keep all interest, income or proceeds of every type which may be earned on said funds while in CITY's possession. 2. Paragraph 2 is hereby deleted in its entirety. Page 2 of 3 3. Except as amended above, all terms and conditions of Agreement No. 00- 240, dated September 11,2000, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 00-240 to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ("CITY") COUNTY OF KERN ("COUNTY") By: By:, HARVEY L. HALL Chairman, Board of Supervisors Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS By:. By:. PAUL ROJAS RAYMOND C, BISHOP Public Works Director Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE Ci'TY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL By:. By:. BART J, THILTGEN 'BERNARD C, BARMANN City Attomey County Counsel COUNTERSIGNED: By: GREGORY J. KLIMKO Finance Director BJT:las M~43MENT NO. 1TOMOU RELAllNG TO ¢rrY FUNCXNG O~ I~UX3W$ FIELD NRPORT'I~RI~NAL ' Page 3 of 3 Kern County NO. 0 0 - 0 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND COUNTY OF KERN RELATING TO CITY FUNDING 'OF A NEW AIRPORT TERMINAL AT MEADOWS FIELD THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("Agreement" herein) is made and entered into on the SEP 11 ~'0~0 ,2000, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a charter city and municipal corporation, ("CITY" herein) and the COUNTY OF KERN, a political subdivision of the State of California ("COUNTY" herein). RECITALS WHEREAS, COUNTY plans a major renovation and expansion of the Kern County Airport at Meadows Field, a facility which serves residents of. both the CITY and COUNTY; and WHEREAS, COUNTY has requested and CITY has agreed'to help fund a new Kern County Airport terminal at Meadows Field ("terminal" herein)-on the' terms set forth herein; and WHEREAS, from time to time, CITY receives rebates from the State of California of approximately Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000) per year for jail booking fees originally paid by CITY to COUNTY, which funds are to be the source of the CITY's payments described herein; and WHEREAS, COUNTY has requested and expects to receive discretionary grants of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000) in Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") funding for airport apron construction and security systems; and · WHEREAS, COUNTY may receive add/tional federal funding which would reduce or eliminate the need for CITY funding; and WHEREAS, CITY owns and operates the Bakersfield Airpark ("Airpark" herein) located on South UniOn Avenue in the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, CITY has requested COUNTY accept a transfer of Airpark to COUNTY; and WHEREAS, CITY is willing to add Five Hundred Thousand Dollars. ($500,000) to · the payment set forth in paragraph 1 below for the new terminal should COUNTY accept said Airpark transfer on terms to be decided at a future date; and NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and COUNTY mutually agree as follows: .. ,~_... Page 1 of 6 Pages ~_.. 1. PAYMENT AND USE. CITY agrees to pay COUNTY, subject to terms and conditions set forth herein, the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) to assist with the construction of a new terminal for Meadows Field Airport. 1.1 The primary source for this payment is jail booking fee rebates' from the State of California. 1.1.1 CITY shall-pay to COUNTY Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), with exceptions as set forth herein, at the 'rate of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per year over five (5) years. 1.1.2 If the CITY's jail booking fee' rebates fall below the Seven Hundred Thousand Dollar ($700,000) per year threshold, then the payment to COUNTY shall be reduced by the same amount as the jail booking fee rebate was reduced. 1.1.3 in the event of a reduction or elimination of booking fee rebates, the CITY pay pedod for the Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) will be extended to a maximum of seven (7) years. 1.2 CiTY's first payment to COUNTY shall, be on or about June 15, 2003, after the contract to construct the terminal has been awarded and construction has commenced. 1.2.1 CITY shall hold the funds in its own accounts until said contract award. The first payment shall consist of the allocation from the jail booking fee rebates for Fiscal Year 2001 and Fiscal' Year 2002. 1.2.2 Should COUNTY fail to construct'the terminal, no payment of any kind shall be due from CITY, and CITY shall have no obligations whatsoever under this Agreement. 1.3 CITY funds are to be used for construction of the lobby, concessions, hold rooms, lobby traffic areas, and ticket areas of the terminal. 1.4 CITY shall deposit funds to be paid to COUNTY for terminal construction into a set aside account until the date for payment in 2003 after award of the contract for terminal construction. CI'T'Y may collect and keep all interest, income or proceeds of every type which may be earned on said funds while in CITY's possession. 1.5 COUNTY has requested and expects to receive federal discretionary grants of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000) consisting of Four Million Fifty Thousand Dollars ($4,050·,000)grant monies from the FAA for the aircraft parking apron and Four Hundred Fifty Thousand. Dollars ($450,000) from the FAA for terminal secudty measures and equipment. Any and ali additional federal funding over said amount of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000) shall result in a dollar for dollar reduction in CiTY's contribution to COUNTY. Page 2 of 6 Pages 1.6 Should COUNTY receive any additional federal discretionary funding for Meadows Field airport terminal construction, including, but not limited to, associated aprons, jet bridges, Flight Information Display Systems (FIDS), road construction on airport property, automobile parking lots, traffic signals, turn lanes, and tapers, then the CITY's contribution shall be reduced by that same amount. 1.6.1 Should COUNTY receive said additional federal funding before CITY has made any payments to COUNTY, COUNTY shall notify CITY of said funding, and CITY's payment in the amount of said funding shall be cancelled. 1.6.2 If CITY has made one or more (but not all) payments and COUNTY receives said additional federal funding, COUNTY shall notify CITY of said funding, and CITY's remaining payment(s) shall be reduced by that amount and, where necessary to achieve the dollar for dollar reduction, COUNTY shall also reimburse CITY the appropriate amount within sixty (60) days of COUNTY receipt of said federal funding. 1.6.3 if COUNTY receives said additional federal funding after CITY has made payments totaling Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), COUNTY shall reimburse CiTY the appropriate amount (that results in a dollar for dollar reduction in CITY's contribution) within sixty (60) days of COUNTY receipt of said federal funding. 2. BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK AND. ADDITIONAL FUN DIN~. Subject to a future written agreement between CITY and COUNTY, CITY grants to COUNTY an option through November 30, 2000, to accept the transfer of the Airpark to COUNTY. COUNTY must agree to operate the Airpark as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. ShOuld COUNTY and CITY agree to said transfer, CITY will pay to COUNTY an additional Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for terminal construction as set forth herein. Should CITY and COUNTY fail to reach agreement on the transfer of the Airpark, CITY shall not be obligated to paythe additional Five HUndred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for terminal construction. 3. RECOGNmON. COUN'FY shall allow to be placed, at CiTY's sole expense, a plaque which will recognize the contribution of CiTY to the terminal-construction. CITY shall choose the location, wording, and material of said-plaque. Plaque will not exceed thirty-six inches (36") by forty inches (40") and will conform to the overall architectural style and colors of terminal location. Said' plaque shalt be in place prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for the terminal. 4. ACCEPTANCE OF PAYMENT, The acceptance or payment under this Agreement of any sums by CITY shall not constitute a waiver of any prOvisions of this Agreement. Page 3 of 6 Pages 5. ACCOUNTING RECORD,~. COUNTY shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all sums received or paid under this Agreement· Such records and documentation shall be kept at COUNTY's office during the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three (3) years from the date of the final payment hereunder, and said records shall be made available to CITY representatives upon request at any time during regular business hours. 6. ASSIGNMENT. Neither this Agreement, nor any interest in it, may be assigned or transferred by any party without the prior written consent of all the parties. Any such assignment will be subject to such terms and conditions as CITY may choose to impose. 7. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and their heirs, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 8. .CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of entities represents and warrants that he/she is, respectively, duly authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement. 9. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement. 10. FORU. M. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or growing out of, this Agreement shall' be instituted in Kern County, California. 11. FURTHER ASSURAN.CESJ Each party shall execute and deliver such papers, documents, and instruments, and perform such acts as are necessary or appropriate, to implement the terms of this Agreement and the intentof the parties to this Agreement. 12. MERGER AND. MODIFICATION. All prior agreements between the parties are incorporated in this Agreement wh'ich constitutes the entire agreement. Its terms are intended by.the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included herein and may not be contradicted by evidence of any pdor agreement or contemporaneous oral-agreement. The parties further intend this Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive sta.tement of its terms and no extrinsic evidence whatsoever may. be introduced in any judicial or arbitration proceeding involving this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only in a wdting approved by the CITY's Council and COUNTY's Board of Supervisors. Page 4 of 6 Pages '~' :- 13. NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP. CITY and COUNTY shall not become.or be deemed partners or joint venturers with one another or associate in any such relationship with one another by reason of the provisions of this Agreement. COUNTY shall not for any purpose be considered an agent, officer or employee of CITY, and CITY shall not for any purpose be considered an agent, officer or employee of cOUNTY. 14. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce. such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement. 15. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The Parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice: CITY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 COUNTY: COUNTY OF KERN 1115. Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 // // H // // # # # Page 5 of 6 Pages -:"5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first-above written. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ("CITY") COUNTY OF KERN ("COUNTY") BOB PRICE, Mayor Chairman, Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS RAUL RO~,~AS, Director RAYMOI~ C. BISHOP, Director\ APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: B~N~D C.. Ci~ ~omey ~ Coun~ Counsel COUNTERSI N D: /' ~Oa~ce O l.rect, or G:~WORDU..EGAL~IOU-flnal.doc Page 6 of 6 Pages ~-..~. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council and County Board of Supervisors APPROVED FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD/'~//'~'//'~w-~/~/--'~ ~---'" "" "~ DATE: March 8, 2002 CITY ATT ORN 'E. Y//.~ CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Coordination of Roadway Improvements RECOMMENDATION: City Council and Board of Supervisors determination. BACKGROUND: There are several differences in the development standards between the City and the County. This is problematic at the interfaces between the jurisdictional boundaries, but it becomes a serious reason for concern in areas that the City annexes. Some of the differences between the agencies and examples are as follows: · Landscape requirements along collectors and arterials - the new developments that Centex is developing between Jewetta and Allen is an example of the obvious difference in appearance between City/County requirements. City staff has been informed that County standards are now the same as City standards with respect to width of landscaping, but that change was made faidy recently and many of the tracts now being developed were approved prior to that change. · Landscaped medians - the County does not require medians to be built or designed, nor do they collect fees for their construction or maintenance · Adherence to adopted trails plans- City requires construction of trails per the County adopted trails plan and the County does not in a development right next door. An example is the Western Rosedale Trails Plan. The County requires only the payment of fees on the understanding that at an unspecified later date the County will install the trail. · Access points on arterials - there is not enough communication between City and County staff on projects on the jurisdictional boundary. An example would be Delbert on Rosedale Highwaywhere the signal was placed at the entrance to the NW Premenade instead of at Delbert Street, about 200 feet to the west. PE: urs G :\G RO U PDA'T~AD MIN R P'l'~.002'&lar 18~::)evelopme nt_Standards .w pd March 13, 2002, 11:05am ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 I AGENDA SECTION: Business Item I ITEM: 7.G. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD ~ DATE: March 8, 2002 CITY A'I'I'ORNEY ~//J~" CITY MANAGER /P?~-' SUBJECT: Schedule for 2002 Joint City-County Meetings RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Joint City-County meeting on September 9, 2002. BACKGROUND: Finding dates in which all members of the Board of Supervisors and the Bakersfield City Council can meet is sometimes difficult. The members of both bodies are busy and have high demands on their time. It is prudent to identify future meeting dates far in advance to ensure all members are able to reserve the time. Three dates for the remainder of 2002 are being proposed. The joint first meeting was held on September 13, 1999. Four other joint meetings have been held since that time, as follows: March 20, 2000 and September 11,2000 March 19, 2001 and July 23, 2001 At past joint meetings, the Board and Council have expressed interest in meeting on a quarterly basis. However, logistical complications have restricted joint meetings to only two per year. The established pattern of having two meetings per year appears to be sufficient in resolving issues and ensuring the two jurisdictions work together in providing exemplary services to the public. Therefore, it is recommended that one additional meeting date for 2002 be established and confirmed - September 9, 2002. Two additional dates are being recommended for reservation in the event issues arise that need immediate attention in a joint meeting setting - June 17, 2002 and December 2, 2002. It is envisioned that the only other meeting in 2002 will be on September 9. But, reserving two additional dates now will accommodate additional meetings if they become necessary. All proposed dates are free of conflicts with any known official duties of all members.